Quote:
Originally Posted by quido
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Some of the comparisons are actually quite profound regarding 1984. Nobody is saying the world is the same here as it is in the book, but the whole perpetual war thing is pretty damn applicable.
|
Who do you think they're profound? I've always found the comparisons to be lazy. It's not an obscure book and the book is not vague about its allusions (that's not a criticism by the way). I don't see any depth in refering to a dystopian novel. "It's like what happens in that book". That's what the comparisons amount to for me. That doesn't make them untrue of course but I don't understand why you'd think they were profound. Curious to hear why.
I think the perpetual war comparison you're bringing forth is actually a great example of why I think most comparisons are superficial and misapplied.
George Orwell actually explicitly states that the wars that came before "The Party" came into power were a different beast all together. Sure,
1984 was written in the 20th century but I don't think our wars have changed and George Orwell would include the 21th century wars in the pre-The Party era.
It's not about the frequency. Adding more war wouldn't bring us any closer to what George Orwell was referring to.
The 'perpetual war' was a type of war that had never occurred before in history. It had no end in sight by design. This war was never meant to be won. Some ground would be 'won' and 'lost' within a specific area like the tie coming in and going out but no more than that. There was an unspoken 'agreement' between the governments of Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia to ensure that it never ended. The war itself was simply a means to an end. It was a way to have an enemy. It was a way to justify shortages. You've read it, it's very explicitly laid out.
The wars that are fought in our world may not always be honestly represented but they are always intended to be won. They can be a means to an end but they end and are intended to. There are no unspoken 'agreements'.
There might perpetually be wars but that is not even close to being a 'perpetual war' in the sense that Orwell was talking about.