Last modified on December 12, 2011, at 18:53

Talk:Nineteen Eighty-Four

Return to "Nineteen Eighty-Four" page.


The correct title of the book is "Nineteen Eighty-Four," in words, not "1984" in numerals.

This is how it is presented in the New York Times' review of the book, "An Indignant and Prophetic Novel," Mark Schorer, June 12, 1949, p. BR1.

This is also how it appears in the Library of Congress' online catalog, for both the British Secker and Warburg edition,87&Search%5FArg=Orwell%2C%20George&Search%5FCode=NAME%5F&CNT=25&PID=11284&SEQ=20070323140446&SID=1

and the U. S. Harcourt, Brace edition:,86&Search%5FArg=Orwell%2C%20George&Search%5FCode=NAME%5F&CNT=25&PID=11284&SEQ=20070323140446&SID=1

Dpbsmith 14:07, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Apparently links to these searches don't work... search on Orwell, George and look for items 86 and 87. Dpbsmith 14:16, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Jacques, why did you remove ", or information about"? 1984 and related terms such as "Orwellian" are often used to describe information and surveillance systems which seem (to the speaker) to be excessive. See for example and,+Big+Brother+is+watching+your+house/ .


Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't it stand to reason that Oceania would be... well, the continent of Oceania? IE, Austrailia, NZ, surrounding islands. Kazumaru 21:18, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

No, Oceania is described in the book as being the British Isles and America. It's capital is Airstrip One, formerly known as London. It's a good read. AGrath 18:07, 27 October 2008 (EDT)


Great edits to 1984. We've had debates on this site about whether George Orwell became a conservative as he grew older. Most great novels are written when the author is young; 1984 is the opposite. See Mystery:Did George Orwell Become a Conservative?.--Aschlafly 16:43, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

George Orwell's conservatism is not a "mystery." 1984 practically screamed about the liberal threat that Orwell saw in his country, and he was known to be a social conservative all his life. Liberals just kind of assume that every great writer is a liberal like them, since apparently all great writers need a PhD in english composition and three years on the editorial board of the New Yorker in order to be able to write a good book. GeorgeSor 13:44, 12 December 2011 (EST)

Government Structure I'm adding a section about the Oceanian government

Leftist POV

Cut from intro:

Leftists feel its satire applies more generally to any state where the government has too much control over its citizens; see totalitarianism.

The last time I picked up a copy in a bookstore, there was a lengthy comment by Walter Cronkite, not one of the most astute of journalists when it comes to Communism. He blathered on for several pages accusing the West of being rather like the nightmare vision described in the novel. No mention that I can recall of organizations or practices or slogans within the Stalinist USSR.

We need to write a lot more about the pro-Communist whitewash. The lefties cannot suppress the book, but they seem to have been able to explain it away. How about an article on the Potemkin Village? --Ed Poor Talk 09:29, 6 January 2009 (EST)

I completely agree with you, I added some info on some of the elements in the book that most obviously criticized the liberal culture of the day. Its amazing that a liberal can embrace a book that tears apart the big government illusion that they've been flinging at each other for decades, and then spend every waking moment trying to expand government into a bloated, inefficient mess. GeorgeSor 13:48, 12 December 2011 (EST)

Really liberalism?

Are you sure? I was under the impression that the whole point of Ingsoc and the Party was that it transcended liberalism and conservatism, even if it is called "English Socialism." The point was that it had become the Perfect Government, in that it has no flaws, and can maintain power indefinitely, so long as it remains in a constant state of war, which it will. It has none of the disadvantages associated with either liberalism or conservatism, or even socialism, for that matter. In truth, it is solely fascist totalitarian.

In Jesus's Almighty Name we pray, may His will be done,--Thunderhorse 11:26, 21 May 2009 (EDT)

Obviously not liberalism in the sense of Democrats. Ingsoc is based on fascism but also heavily based on Russian communism (such as the idea of "unperson," reference to "three-year plans, etc). Ingsoc is nationalistic which might put it vaguely on the exrtreme right, but it is closer to extreme leftism. AddisonDM 11:38, 21 May 2009 (EDT)
I think that the idea of big government taken to its most extreme, along with the elimination of religion from public life and the breakdown of the family are all things that have striking parallels to the goals and effects of the liberal agenda of today. This is not surprising, as the liberal agenda has not changed much since Stalin put his finishing touches on it. Orwell may not have been talking specifically about United States Democrats, as he was from England, he knew what a liberal was and how dangerous they could be.