Margaret Atwood has recently argued that the Appendix on the Principles of Newspeak at the end of 1984 implies that...

Margaret Atwood has recently argued that the Appendix on the Principles of Newspeak at the end of 1984 implies that this is written by an in-universe historian after the fact and therefore INGSOC society eventually falls and is replaced by a more democratic society. Is this an accurate interpretation? Sort of like the narrative framing of Jack London's the Iron Heel I guess.

Attached: 1984_by_alcook-d4z39dh[1].jpg (500x761, 204K)

>Is this an accurate interpretation?
Kek, no.

It could easily be an upper party historian or a historian associated with the resistance which may or may not actually exist. I like to think the former because it makes the book even more monolithic and depressing and I like to believe that the resistance didn't exist anymore and O'Brien was just fucking with Winston when he talked about them.

Haven’t people suggested this for years?
I seriously doubt hackwood was the first to say it

>Margaret Atwood
The edition of Brave New World that I purchased had an introduction by her and also one by some Oxford professor of literature. Reading her take (which was all about her, and how the story affected her) directly followed by the take of someone who actually knows what they're talking about was a real eye opener to how women are narcissistic LARPers even in literature.

Isn't that just what she did in her book?

she literally stole it from pynchon lol. he mentioned the idea in his foreword to an edition of 1984 published in may 2003 and one month later she wrote an article for the guardian claiming the same thing.

Well I just heard her say it in an interview on NPR and the interviewer’s mind was blown by her hot take lol

The resistance is used as a honey pot to catch those of the party that dissent. He even reveals Goldstein's book was written by O'Brien and a few other high level party members.

It is possible, although I do not know if she is the first to say so, maybe the first you've seen. It's pretty obvious it is being written as a historical document from the introduction of the appendix:
>Newspeak was the official language of Oceania and had been devised to meet the ideological needs of Ingsoc, or English Socialism.

The party sought to arrest the pendulums of society (the middle seeking to overthrow the top, the top seeking to maintain the status quo, with the bottom remaining at the bottom) but I don't think it possible. I would wager that Winston was right, the only hope lay in the proles and eventually they overthrew their shackles in favor of democracy similar to the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

Attached: ph544r7a4ju01.jpg (1125x1366, 258K)

>implying the book isn't a piece of Ivan Denisovich style Eurasian propaganda made to make the great state of Oceania look bad.

Yes but it still may exist. When Winston asks O'Brien if there actually is a resistance O'Brien tells him that he will never know.

Why does lit hate Atwood?

The state of the world seemed more or less permanent to me.

I've never actually read her so I'm not sure if the hate is political in nature or if it's because she's a bad writer. Certainly she is outspoken politically, more so than other authors, so at least some of the hate must be due to that. Is she actually a good writer?

Pynchon is a hack

I think her writing is pretty decent personally, don't really know about her opinions

They don't.

shit writer, shit opinions, what is there to like about her?

I’d argue it’s more like Yea Forums just doesn’t give a fuck about her. We barely know who Emily Bronte is.

It's an interpretation i had arrived to indipendently when I was 13. Then I told my teacher and he explained to me patiently that i was being retarded and that simply, for most of history, people have talked of What happens in a book of fiction to the past as to imply that it only happened in the book which you've allready read Since You're having a conversation on it.
Marghy litteraly was never corrected by an Authority figure in her developing years; That's How you get Marxists and feminists. I propose Castor Oil.

>like to believe that the resistance didn't exist anymore and O'Brien was just fucking with Winston when he talked about them.
That's just What the book says. The resistance is like /pol/; going there to talk about the actual problems of the world is like doing so in Quantico's antechamber.

>The resistance is used as a honey pot to catch those of the party that dissent. He even reveals Goldstein's book was written by O'Brien and a few other high level party members.
You can't trust anything of What O'Brien says, he litteraly believes that since he says something is so, it IS so. The Party is pure Magical thinking, But the kind of magical thinking which will murder You If You dont accept It's flawed conclusions.
It might well be that O'Brian did write that book, or it may be that he found it and decided he had written it. or maybe some inner party fool that fell out of favour had written it and now that he doesn't exist anymore O'Brien "took" it.
We know shit about anything in This book. They called the minilove "a place with no darkness" but It's a fucking lie: nothing is revealed in there except for the fact that nothing can be discovered in Oceania.

Because her "dystopia" litteraly is >WAAAA I CANT USE MY VAGINA AS MUCH AS I WAAAAANT!

Her book is utterly retarded

>You can't trust anything of What O'Brien says, he litteraly believes that since he says something is so, it IS so. The Party is pure Magical thinking, But the kind of magical thinking which will murder You If You dont accept It's flawed conclusions

He doesn't believe in some magical power the party has he employs the art of doublethink: to know that 2+2=5 because the party says it does but when for example, designing an aircraft, obviously 2+2=4. To know the truth but fully believe the truth of the party is doublethink.

And I suppose it is possible he is lying to Winston about the origins of Goldstein's book, that maybe Goldstein did write it or some other member of the resistance, but I think it is heavily implied that after the initial revolution took place that put Ingsoc in control of Oceana, of which Goldstein was a founding member, he was betrayed by one of the other members and tortured like Winston, then allowed to live the rest of his days out like Winston, in a mindless electroshocked daze. Goldstein is a reference to Trotsky and the other Bolsheviks that Stalin (big brother's analog) purged from the party following the revolution to gain full control. So it would make sense to me that the book, if it ever did exist, is not the one that is used to entrap party members.

Attached: 2H8gZq5.jpg (1328x2380, 614K)

This is a beautiful interpretation of the appendix, one that I think Orwell would have approved.

Attached: YM9Zw5P.jpg (1500x1001, 485K)

to me the less believable part is that they'd call English Socialism "Ingsoc" and not "Engsoc" or "Angsoc".

Goddam that’s dark.

I agree with the argument in that pic but the illustration is very "What if phones, but too much?"

>He doesn't believe in some magical power
I'll stop You right here, "Magical thinking" doesn't imply anything supernatural happening or anyone believing in anything supernatural. The definition of magical thinking is litteraly "believing that Since something happens in your mind it has to happen in the physical world" and that fits the Party's phylosophy perfectly. In a very real sense doublethink actually IS believing in the truth of the party without any cognitive dissonance when it conflicts with the physical reality.
In This sense, you can't believe anything O'Brien says. The possibility that Goldstein actually wrote the book is just one of many, all irrelevant to O'Brien Since the truth of the party is that he and others wrote it.
We shall never know If in This case the truth of the party and physical reality correspond with one another or not. This is why It's doubly cruel that minilove is "the place with no darkness". There's nothing But darkness there.

They have imposed 24 hours military time and metric system in england. They can well reform spelling.
These 3 things are about everything Good the party has done tho.

It makes sense and is an interesting hypothesis.

In real life regiemes like this cannot last and sustain themselves. It would fall eventually.

>They have imposed 24 hours military time and metric system in england
Burgers would go insane and probably see this as an evil

based delusion