If you read 1984 and realise that IngSoc are the good guys then it means you've finally matured.
>>7698215
If you think the phrase "the good guys" means anything, you definitely haven't matured.
i realized that a long time ago bro, winston is basically like some middle class jackass who becomes an isis sympathizer after seeing videos of jihadi john or whatever on the news every night, but luckily the authorities pinch him before he can kill anyone
>evil dystopian conspiracy secretly running society
>protagonist confronts the leader of the conspiracy
>realises they're right
My favourite twist.
>>7698228
huh... I guess he does consider bashing Julie's head in that one night, doesn't he? I always assumed Winston got brainwashed and had his spirit broken, but maybe he just came to the right conclusion
>mfw people realize Orwell's (and Huxley's and Wells') preferred condition of humanity
>>7698235
This world is so corrupt...
>>7698228
tfw you realize we living in 1984... and ISIS is the resistance
>>7698482
Lord Ilpalazzo!
>>7698215
its impossible for them to be good since they are cartoonish evil. they are umbrella corporation made into a government
>>7698235
nah the girl was stupid and has doomed humanity by implementing group responsibility,its worst part of both worlds.
Replace "good guys" with "force for stability" and you have a mature opinion.
>>7698235
Isn't that what huxley wanted to go for in a more nuanced manner in "Brave New World" ?
He paints a gratuitous and appalling picture of the world seemingly providing a critique of hedonism until the conversation between Mustafa Mond and John. Then you read the final part of the book and you realize that huxley was laughing at all the fags who felt outrage over the world he had depicted.
Sometimes I wonder if huxley honestly meant for it to be a dystopian book (and subsequently a critique of utilitarianism and hedonism) or if it was a defense of the two and therefore a description of how an ideally functioning society that is best for us.
I am more inclined to think that it is the latter.
Yeah you wouldn't be allowed to think if ingsoc were the good guys
>>7699610
I don't think either 1984 or a brave new world deliberately take sides, they just explore what a "perfect" would look like and lets the reader decide if they think it's good or not. Freedom vs security is an incredibly complex question and I think that's what the authors want the reader to think about.
>>7698215
And then when you realize neither IngSoc nor Smith and the people like him are the good guys but that they're all citizens in an human-made system with flaws and benefits and specifically defined social classes and that, like all social structures, can only be truly broken and reformed through a revolution, therefore meaning Smith was right when he said "If there was hope, it MUST lie in the proles". THEN it means you've finally matured.
>>7698215
>everyone has a shit quality of life except for the rulers
>good guys
>>7699660
Yes, but we're talking about the book 1984.
>>7699663
heh
>>7699627
Nah man. 1984 does take sides. Pretty blatantly at that. That's what separates 1984 from BNW and that's why BNW is so much more mature than 1984. There is a lot more nuance, subtlety and maturity in how BNW treats it's world as compared to 1984 which paints a singularly shocking portrait meant to appall the reader. The underlying themes are more complex and ambiguous in BNW unlike 1984.
I do give credit to 1984 for how well it built the world and how it resonated with people as the libertarian's dystopia and am not denying that it is a great book,
BNW on the other hand is just more skeptical and ambiguous about it's themes and makes the reader question and think much more than 1984. It does not pass any obvious judgement that Orwell obviously did in his book. In fact, I will go as far as to say that BNW mocks the reader who feels strongly opinionated about the world that it describes. It mocks the fool who is trapped into believing his world is a dystopia because his feels were hurt on reading the conditioning system. It mocked john. It also mocked the fool who thinks that there is nothing wrong with this world. It mocks the reader who thinks that loss of individual liberty for a superficially hedonistic lifestyle is necessarily the best option for everyone.
I think that in essence BNW provides arguments both for and against and lets you think about a society that deprives humans the choice between individualism/liberty and hedonistic/utilitarian bliss.
Whether to be miserable free human or a blissful happy factory product. This in my opinion is the essential and most important question that BNW poses without completely answering.
PROVE ME WRONG.
>>7698280
>yfw false
>>7698222
stung
>>7699727
>PROVE ME WRONG.
I'm not entirely sure on what.
>a society that deprives humans the choice between individualism/liberty and hedonistic/utilitarian bliss.
>Whether to be miserable free human or a blissful happy factory product. This in my opinion is the essential and most important question that BNW poses without completely answering.
This? If so, there's nothing to disprove, you're correct.
The best moment of the book for me, that I remember at least, is where they get into the huge fight over the soma pills and Helmholtz is just laughing as he's smashing faces in. That was the highest form of rebellion to the system any of them had ever done, obviously John's suicide is the ultimate rebellion but he wasn't part of the modern world and culture, raised in it. Does anyone know what page this is on? I tried to find it in my physical but couldn't.
>>7699610
Its a critique. Read "Island" if you want to see his ideal society.
