Need to let loose a primal scream without collecting footnotes first? Have a sneer percolating in your system but not enough time/energy to make a whole post about it? Go forth and be mid: Welcome to the Stubsack, your first port of call for learning fresh Awful you’ll near-instantly regret.
Any awful.systems sub may be subsneered in this subthread, techtakes or no.
If your sneer seems higher quality than you thought, feel free to cut’n’paste it into its own post — there’s no quota for posting and the bar really isn’t that high.
The post Xitter web has spawned soo many “esoteric” right wing freaks, but there’s no appropriate sneer-space for them. I’m talking redscare-ish, reality challenged “culture critics” who write about everything but understand nothing. I’m talking about reply-guys who make the same 6 tweets about the same 3 subjects. They’re inescapable at this point, yet I don’t see them mocked (as much as they should be)
Like, there was one dude a while back who insisted that women couldn’t be surgeons because they didn’t believe in the moon or in stars? I think each and every one of these guys is uniquely fucked up and if I can’t escape them, I would love to sneer at them.
(Semi-obligatory thanks to @dgerard for starting this.)
George was writing his stories in the 40s, so at least has "product of his time" as an excuse.
Paul's just a flat out piece of shit to be writing this nearly 100 years later.
Fair, though in Orwell's case the misogyny is not accidental either, but an essential aspect of the mostly conservative ideology he adopted for 1984 (contempt for the working class, linguistic purism, just really being a little too enamoured with his perfect crystal of unending oppression etc).
That must have been really subtle, all I remember is a concern specifically about how a sufficiently totalitarian regime may try to weaponize language as a further means of subjugation, not that language evolving is bad in principle.
I think the premise of total control through language is in itself silly, though that can be excused by the book being satire. But Orwell, for good or ill, was undeniably a linguistic purist, as one can gather from a close reading of "Politics and the English Language".
Huh.
I guess it stands to reason that the guy who made such a fuss about abusing language as a means to nefarious ends would himself have ideas about how it could be abused ethically.
I've never heard of anyone describing 1984 that way, could you elaborate on your points or link to some analysis?
I read it in high school. Iirc, the main character in 1984 deeply hates a woman he works with and his violent fantasies about her are tied up in his desire to rebel against the regime. He later overcomes his desire to commit violence against her by having sex with her. His contempt for her fairly leapt off the page when I read it. I'm sure it's arguable what Orwell meant or intended.
In another scene, the middle-class protagonists watch a working-class woman hanging out washing and tell themselves that if there was any hope for freedom, it lay in "the proles" (members of the mass underclass, like that woman). But the way they look at her and talk about her is dehumanizing.
It's probably easier to just read 1984 yourself and make up your own mind. it's not a very long book.
Isn't Julia a member of some sort of anti-sex league, meaning there's a lot of bad faith involved in their relationship from the get go?
Also with respect to the attitudes on women and proles, although I don't think it's entirely written in the character's point of view it feels like there's a lot of unreliable narration going on, or at least you get a lot of stuff from the perspective of a person who grew up in one of the most absurdly totalitarian regimes in literature. Which is to say, it didn't feel prescriptive most of the time to me.
See also: "proles", as in the contempt is baked in to the language, which we know the regime is actively trying to hold in a tight leash.
I don't think it's a coincidence that the only viewpoint you get is that of a middle class bureaucrat. It's the assumed audience, and it's where Orwell would place himself as well. The narrative loses a lot of impact if you align yourself with the proles. Winston could live a real life if he really wanted to. I don't think this point is intended by the novel.
That's a problem in itself, don't you think? It's all very "Feminists hate sex and they want to erase the differences between the genders". Julia gets a taste of freedom and her right place in the world by putting on makeup and girly clothes and having a lot of sex.
Also she's a flighty moron.
It's been to long for me to be able to tell if that applies to the general context of Orwell's views (which apparently I'm not sufficiently aware of) or if it's also a significant issue with 1984. In principle having the woman character employ cargo cult femininity in a desperate attempt at self expression shouldn't be unsalvageabl. Being the only woman with a speaking part and also a ditz less so.
Winston being a self-aggrandizing tit who needs things explained to him a lot so the author can soapbox was the sum of my reaction to the character, that he was also supposed to be relatable beyond the basics of his clash with authoritarianship certainly puts a different spin on things.
I have not read it in ages, but did hear somebody has written something (not sure if book or play or etc) of the book from Julias perspective.
Julia, by Sandra Newman
Thanks!
To be clear, I mean to say that in society where it's life or death to be highly guarded and suspicious of everyone any romantic relationship is necessarily poisoned.
Plus I think there's a whole thing in the book about things being so restricted that fucking for fun is in itself an act of rebellion and thus another thing your partner has over you if they happen to need to give something up to the authorities.