PHI 3882 Spring 2011: Comments on Paper 1

High-school style writing:

In this essay I will compare on how the inner party created a convenient reality in order to gain absolute power versus how nowadays governments and corporations create a reality through the media in order to gain money and therefore power...
Governments overwhelm their people with promises and future brilliant projects that are supposed to benefit the whole country leading it one step away from a third-world system.

The theme of this essay is obvious: I tried to warn you against this kind of comparison. So many students will have tried it before - can you say something better than them? In this case, the way the comparison is carried out is hopelessly vague. All governments are here criticised for doing the same thing and presumably, every country is now exactly one step away from being a third-world system. Because no particular government is singled out, nor a particular type of government, the impression is given that this crititicism applies across the board: but how could it? The term 'third-world' originally described nations that were non-aligned (in the Cold War), but today the term is usually applied to the poorest nations. If every nation is a step away from being a third-world nation, who are these third-world nations being contrasted with? The charges only make sense if they are aimed at a particular government, and a particular country would have to be mentioned. I won't go on. This essay would probably be considered satisfactory in many high schools, and I'm sure the writer was trying hard. It's just an example of how, at university level, you have to raise your game.

Students Being Interesting:

To write a better paper, you need to say something a little more daring and original, like this:

He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother

Through the interpretation of this quote we can see how the meaning of Big Brother's image of an immortal power figure switches to that of an acceptance figure. It is as if he was letting go, accepting all that happened. This could portray Orwell's final political thoughts. Orwell, like Winston, criticized the system, but in the end he accepted that which was at the beginning hard to accept.
      To most readers, the end of the book represents defeat. This ending does not represent defeat, it represents victory through acceptance, and it represents reality as it is. Surely Winston could have created turmoil and revolt. But it would have had no meaning, it would just mean suffering, it would be a waste of time to swim against the current. In a sense, this is how Orwell's final thoughts felt about totalitarianism.


I have to comment on the phrasing of the final sentence. The ending could represent Orwell's thoughts or his feelings about totalitarianism, or both. It cannot represent how his thoughts felt: I have feelings and thoughts, but my thoughts don't have feelings of their own.

Anyway, the thought is a striking one: Orwell's feelings when writing the final paragraph were the opposite of most of his readers. He thought it was a happy ending! But how could one possibly prove such a thing?

Of course, the narrator of the novel tells us Winston had won a victory over himself. But throughout the novel, the narrative voice stays very close to Winston - it echoes his words and his feelings. The end feels like a victory to Winston, so the narrative voice describes it as a victory. But most readers agree that the ending is depressing. A good author anticipates the readers' response: they know what will make us laugh and what will make us cry. Orwell would have to have been completely insensitive not to realize that most readers would see the ending as a defeat to Winston. If he intended it as a victory, are there any hints? Did he perhaps write a letter in which he revealed his true feelings? That can happen: we know that Kafka used to laugh as he read his stories, even though they are usually perceived as dark. (I find 'The Hunger Artist' hilarious). There was a story of a playwright in England - I forget his name - who wrote what he thought was a serious play, but audiences found it very amusing. People used to go not only to watch the play but to watch the playwright himself, jumping up and down and shouting at the audience when they laughed, telling that that it was all very serious. But, we need some evidence: did Orwell write a letter in which he complained that people misunderstood the ending? Did he confide to his friends that he had chosen to give in to totalitarianism (rather hard, since he wasn't living in a totalitarian society)? The interpretation given here is interesting and striking, but although evidence is quoted, it is entirely unconvincing - at least to me. But, I did give the author credit for chutzpah.

Back to PHI 3882