Orwell disapproves of communism Essay
Orwell disapproves of communism
In both cases, the authors reinforce the declaration that intelligence is dropping by demonstrating depreciation in language. The Time Traveller describes the language of the Eloi to be very basic, with sentences and expressions often composed of not more than two words. In fact, he learnt a good amount of the language during his short stay. Wells is suggesting that since human intelligence is decreasing, the need for a diverse language, rich with adjectives and adverbs, is diminished.
Hence humans only speak when they need to, and when they do, they’re speech has a very basic structure, composed mainly of a subject and a verb, for example. In “Nineteen Eighty-Four,” Orwell writes about a new language, called “Newspeak”, which the government is introducing. He explains plans to rid the world of plain English, or “Oldspeak,” and replace it with Newspeak, the idea being that if the government can control people’s speech, then ultimately, they can reduce the thoughts and decisions that people are capable of making.
This way people can have uniform thinking, one of the endeavours of totalitarianism. Orwell has included a detailed analysis and explanation of Newspeak in an appendix, but the two fundamental rules behind the language are: to remove the majority of the words from the English language and replace them with modified versions of other words; and to abbreviate proper nouns and multiple-word phrases and statements, and respell them. The adjective “good,” for example can be modified to express adjectives such as “bad” and “excellent. ” These, respectively, would be “ungood,” and “plusgood.
” An example of the second rule of Newspeak is “Ingoc,” an abbreviation of “English Socialism. ” The general suggestion that Wells and Orwell are making, is that the deterioration of language indicates that past political practices lead to a reduction in general intelligence levels. An interesting similarity is that the main character in both books stumbles across a female to whom they feel attached. Although the relationships between the Time Traveller and his female, “Weena,” in The Time Machine, and Winston and his female, “Julia,” is different, I believe they serve a similar purpose in the stories.
The fact that both couples are eventually tragically parted suggests that in the futures in the books, love is not welcome. In The Time Machine, Wells describes how couples seemed to only exist in order to reproduce, and how nobody expressed any emotional attachment to anybody else. For a very short period, The Time Traveller and Weena show attachment to eachother, but Weena is killed off in a horrific setting, where the Morlocks drag her away while The Time Traveller is asleep. In Nineteen Eighty-Four, although neither Winston nor Julia is killed off, Orwell yet again shocks the reader in ending the two character’s love for each other.
After being brainwashed at the Ministry of Love, both characters automatically lose all attachment to each other. Orwell has demonstrated that even Love, is under the power of the government. I believe that Orwell and Wells are targeting readers who have been or are in love. These readers or Nineteen Eighty-Four may be thinking to themselves, “Ah, but one thing the government cannot control is love! ” And then, to the reader’s astonishment, Winston and Julia are no longer lovers. Why? Because the government did not want them to be.
In many cases changes expressed in both books are much more extreme in “The Time Machine” than in “Nineteen Eighty-Four. ” For example, in “Nineteen Eighty-Four,” although people have generally become less intelligent, they have not become so to the extent of the races of “The Time Machine;” people can still read, write and speak with great expression and effect, but only to the extent that the Party allows. I believe that this is because Wells is dealing with a much later date, and so can make radical changes and claim that over long periods of time, such changes are possible.
Orwell was only writing thirty-five – or so – years into the future, and so modifications cannot be as extreme. Due to their hidden messages, both books seem to be targeting readers who would be capable of decoding the front-text. The Time Machine also discusses scientific and philosophic matters, which would be difficult to comprehend if the reader is not familiar with that area of science. Nineteen Eighty-Four also requires the reader to be psychologically mature, as it includes some pages that portray sex. The major difference between the two books is the political philosophies that they are criticising.
“Nineteen Eighty-Four” suggests that Orwell disapproves of communism – especially Stalin and his reign of terror – and, obviously, totalitarianism. The general message in the book is that theoretical communism is not possible, and real communism always involves a tyrant. “In The Time Machine,” Wells is targeting capitalism. The Time Traveller states, “… social difference between the capitalist and the labourer was the key to the whole position. ” He believed that over time, industrial workers were banished to the underground and evolved to work here.
I think that both books were an excellent read. The authors effectively included powerful messages in an engrossing storyline. The use of satire gave the texts their power. “Nineteen Eighty-Four” is amongst my favourite books, not only because Orwell, being the master satirist that he is, cleverly ridicules Stalin and communism in general, but also because Orwell has a unique style of communicating with the reader. His texts are informal and interesting, allowing him to form tight relationships with the reader.