It is at the very least half-a-vision at best. And maybe that's the point? Evil can only see in one direction, from one angle, and with limited range. Through his own palantir, Orwell could see 1984, but not 1985.
If copyrights were less strict, novels that capture people's imaginations could be played with before that generation ossified. Authors could write sequels, strive to improve the originals, and so forth. The closest thing we have is for authors to write counter stories that most people will not be aware are a rebuttal.
I hadn't thought about it strictly in terms of rights management. But yes, copyright plays a part. And we see what happens when patent trolls and other dark servants trap great art in their dungeons. The Dread Queen Amazon's "Rings of Power" series springs to mind.
Is it less accessible than Lewis and Tolkien? I am reading "The Silmarillion", and it is a more demanding read than anything by Dostoevsky... but that may change by reader personality, and overall, if you talk of carrying the message to a critical mass of people, Dostoesvky is surely too subtle for that purpose (the best pick out of the 3 would be Lewis, probably).
I have also read much of his work. That's why I chose "Return" as an example. His short form sci-fi horror stories beat King's logomaniacal tomes any day of the week, and His Master's Voice provides some of the richest insights into communication (and miscommunication) of any work of "hard" sci-fi I've ever read. I agree he was superior to those two.
But, with his spiritual eye nailed shut, there was only so much he could see. A hard ceiling, so to speak. Perhaps he sees things differently now.
That's a good point. Although I tend to think of "The Simarillion" as a different artform, something more akin to old epic poetry (which can also be incredibly challenging).
Very important insight about the dystopians vs the Inklings! I've read the passage in 1984, where Winston Smith starts reading Goldstein's "banned" book that purportedly reveals how the world really works, but that is actually written by the wizards who run that world as part of their grand multilayered psyop, and I wondered if the joke wasn't on me, the reader, since 1984 performs the same function in our world that Goldstein's book serves in 1984. Orwell notably omits certain key facts in ways that would definitely serve the interests of the dark magicians. Orwell is not the benevolent prophet he's so often imagined to be (although he is a talented writer, to be sure), but rather a member in good standing of the dark wizards' religion. Great post.
I LOVE it! Wow! This is why so many of us are attracted to epics like 'The Lord of the Rings'. The Soviets tried their version of Orwell's '1984', and were successful for several decades, but the human spirit will not be held down for long. And so it failed. And from what I've heard, Russian society is experiencing a Renaissance. We will too in our time. I have faith in the human spirit to overcome and the drive to transcend toward excellence and beauty. We will construct incredible architecture and works of art once again!
You are right Mark, it is the characters that make me fall in love with a book. One of my favorite book series are the Tom Ripley novels by Patricia Highsmith, you would think novels about a murderous conman would not make anyone's favorite book list but due to the way Highsmith wrote the character of Tom Ripley I could not help falling in love with the novels. It's also how I feel about Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead, absolutely loathe the character of Ellsworth Toohey but also love the way Rand wrote about him in the novel, same with the contrast between Gail Wynand and Howard Rourke, 2 brothers from different mothers who approached life from the opposite direction. One of my all time favorite novels is Lady Joker, a Japanese novel written by Kaoru Takamura, premise of the book is a group of friends, who only know each other from the race track/betting on horses, decide to blackmail a beer conglomerate. This book is over 1,000 pages long but doesn't feel that way, even when she is getting deep into the details of corporate Japan, and that is because of the characters in the novel. Without great characters/character building a novel is nothing more than a sad attempt at creating art, you can often see greatness in these novels but they don't reach the heights they could have.
after the initial adrenaline rush, being long-term constant evil is exhausting and ultimately enervating. you burn out. it's just not sustainable... and thus is illogical.
Orwell's and Huxley's tales do tell the stories of some (and depending on how you interpret the parable of the sower, perhaps the stories of most). Thank God it's not the story of all.
Yes, that's my thoughts as well. They are great tellers of half-stories. But that's kind of like a comedian who is great at setups but has no punchlines.
Not too sure about that. Just ran some inflation-adjusted box office numbers for a couple of films:
1984 (1984) - $26,303,128.56
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001) - $1,603,844.82
But everybody knows the real money on Substack these days is in being a bootlicking, Soros-approved leftwing turd factory/bot plantation (e.g. Heather Cox Richardson). The rest of us are just jiggling empty cups on street corners.
I'm saying that the of the new right Substack writers, the doom peddlers and rationalizers generally do better than those who focus on solutions -- with a few exceptions.
I’ve never heard anyone invoke 1984 without also despairing of the inevitable tyranny.
Works that induce despair are visions from the dark lord in the Palantir.
It is at the very least half-a-vision at best. And maybe that's the point? Evil can only see in one direction, from one angle, and with limited range. Through his own palantir, Orwell could see 1984, but not 1985.
If copyrights were less strict, novels that capture people's imaginations could be played with before that generation ossified. Authors could write sequels, strive to improve the originals, and so forth. The closest thing we have is for authors to write counter stories that most people will not be aware are a rebuttal.
I hadn't thought about it strictly in terms of rights management. But yes, copyright plays a part. And we see what happens when patent trolls and other dark servants trap great art in their dungeons. The Dread Queen Amazon's "Rings of Power" series springs to mind.
A great Christian wrote that Dostoevsky had been, while not a Christian, the greatest christian literary author.
I went on to read his five "serious" novels (written not just to pay the bills), and can attest to that.
Is it less accessible than Lewis and Tolkien? I am reading "The Silmarillion", and it is a more demanding read than anything by Dostoevsky... but that may change by reader personality, and overall, if you talk of carrying the message to a critical mass of people, Dostoesvky is surely too subtle for that purpose (the best pick out of the 3 would be Lewis, probably).
Lem (I have read many of his works) is a great writer and one of integrity; for me he doesn't belong with Stephen King, or even Orwell.
He was a materialist, and in that sense, a "pessimist", believing that no meaning, and surely no happy endings, were intrinsic or even possible.
I have also read much of his work. That's why I chose "Return" as an example. His short form sci-fi horror stories beat King's logomaniacal tomes any day of the week, and His Master's Voice provides some of the richest insights into communication (and miscommunication) of any work of "hard" sci-fi I've ever read. I agree he was superior to those two.
But, with his spiritual eye nailed shut, there was only so much he could see. A hard ceiling, so to speak. Perhaps he sees things differently now.
That's a good point. Although I tend to think of "The Simarillion" as a different artform, something more akin to old epic poetry (which can also be incredibly challenging).
Very important insight about the dystopians vs the Inklings! I've read the passage in 1984, where Winston Smith starts reading Goldstein's "banned" book that purportedly reveals how the world really works, but that is actually written by the wizards who run that world as part of their grand multilayered psyop, and I wondered if the joke wasn't on me, the reader, since 1984 performs the same function in our world that Goldstein's book serves in 1984. Orwell notably omits certain key facts in ways that would definitely serve the interests of the dark magicians. Orwell is not the benevolent prophet he's so often imagined to be (although he is a talented writer, to be sure), but rather a member in good standing of the dark wizards' religion. Great post.
Thanks, brother.
I LOVE it! Wow! This is why so many of us are attracted to epics like 'The Lord of the Rings'. The Soviets tried their version of Orwell's '1984', and were successful for several decades, but the human spirit will not be held down for long. And so it failed. And from what I've heard, Russian society is experiencing a Renaissance. We will too in our time. I have faith in the human spirit to overcome and the drive to transcend toward excellence and beauty. We will construct incredible architecture and works of art once again!
I have that faith as well. We are still in the thick of the fight, obviously. But The Story wants to tell itself, and its Author wants us to win.
You are right Mark, it is the characters that make me fall in love with a book. One of my favorite book series are the Tom Ripley novels by Patricia Highsmith, you would think novels about a murderous conman would not make anyone's favorite book list but due to the way Highsmith wrote the character of Tom Ripley I could not help falling in love with the novels. It's also how I feel about Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead, absolutely loathe the character of Ellsworth Toohey but also love the way Rand wrote about him in the novel, same with the contrast between Gail Wynand and Howard Rourke, 2 brothers from different mothers who approached life from the opposite direction. One of my all time favorite novels is Lady Joker, a Japanese novel written by Kaoru Takamura, premise of the book is a group of friends, who only know each other from the race track/betting on horses, decide to blackmail a beer conglomerate. This book is over 1,000 pages long but doesn't feel that way, even when she is getting deep into the details of corporate Japan, and that is because of the characters in the novel. Without great characters/character building a novel is nothing more than a sad attempt at creating art, you can often see greatness in these novels but they don't reach the heights they could have.
Thanks for the recommendations, Rev!
You've brought hope to my soul, thank you. We're living this story, and the good guy, the most thoroughly Good Guy, wins. Thank you Jesus.
Amen.
after the initial adrenaline rush, being long-term constant evil is exhausting and ultimately enervating. you burn out. it's just not sustainable... and thus is illogical.
i know. i tried.
Me too. In retrospect, it all looks like a giant waste of time and effort.
Orwell's and Huxley's tales do tell the stories of some (and depending on how you interpret the parable of the sower, perhaps the stories of most). Thank God it's not the story of all.
Yes, that's my thoughts as well. They are great tellers of half-stories. But that's kind of like a comedian who is great at setups but has no punchlines.
Brilliant! I hope this movie gets made!
I'm sure Disney will be banging down my door any day now!
Doom sells better than solutions. Just look at the number of subscribers on Right Wing Substack.
Not too sure about that. Just ran some inflation-adjusted box office numbers for a couple of films:
1984 (1984) - $26,303,128.56
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001) - $1,603,844.82
But everybody knows the real money on Substack these days is in being a bootlicking, Soros-approved leftwing turd factory/bot plantation (e.g. Heather Cox Richardson). The rest of us are just jiggling empty cups on street corners.
I'm saying that the of the new right Substack writers, the doom peddlers and rationalizers generally do better than those who focus on solutions -- with a few exceptions.
I agree with that.
It's often quipped that Orwell's 1984 wasn't meant to be a training manual. 🤔Possibly you are right. It was/is a training manual.
One thing I always like about your posts is your thought-provoking turns and twists on the standard point of view.
Thanks, Deedee. It does seem strange, as Dan say above, how the writings of "Goldstein" could be seen in align with Orwell's own writing.