In some ways I felt that this book taught me more about 1949 (the year it was written) than 1984. Constant war, alliances switching from one side to the other and pretending as if it had always been that way, rations due to poverty caused by the war,a fear of the threat of communism, competing ideologies, socialist states which actually maintained the status quo of power/ class relations(replacing the aristocracy with the party as the ‘high’ people), dividing the world up into blocs, the recent memory of Nazi/fascist states, neighbours turning on neighbours, children turning on parents, bombs in the streets of London etc.

I found myself wishing I could go back in time and tells George Orwell about London in the 1980s — Thatcherism, the height of capitalist greed is good, there is no such thing as society, excess consumption of food and other products, and also the future — I wonder what he would think of Facebook!

But then I think that some of this stuff really does apply well — the constant war with no intention of either side winning and not much fighting going on might be a good description of the cold war, and perhaps now the Gulf war. His idea of war as a means of consuming resources without changing the social status quo through the equal proportion of luxury goods was quite interesting, although I would say that really we have managed to find a state of consuming excess resources without upsetting the class structure without needing to pour all our resources into war. I did wonder though, for example when I heard that if the resources that had gone into the Gulf War had been used for another purpose, they could have established the hydrogen fuel economy infrastructure across the entire US. War certainly does suck resources out of the country, even now, although it hardly compares to Europe after the first two world wars.

That part of his book that is scarily true relates more to how governments (although perhaps also other agencies) use surveillance, use euphemistic language to get away with atrocities (‘collateral damage’, ‘un-American’, ‘pre-emptive strike’) etc.I must say that in my work in government policy, it did feel a bit like what Winston Smith was doing, only that mine came in by e-mail instead of a mail chute.

I was sucked in from start to finish, this book has not lost its edge in the slightest.

I’m glad I finally read this book. It was a bit of a depressing read because certain parts reminded me of our current political climate. But the concepts of doublethink, thoughtcrime, and so on are definitely food for thought. In the week or so since I finished reading it, I’ve found myself thinking about those concepts, in particular when I see an ad or something that says exactly the opposite of what it really is (the “Clear Skies Act” comes to mind right now).

A great book. I loved reading this.

A great book. It totally takes you to this world that the writer imagined and makes you and the main character one.