1984: The Essence of Dystopia

A dystopian novel is a writing in which the author creates an imagined future for our world.  In this future view the authors portray strong governments striving to create paradise; but, in the struggle, end up being oppressive regimes in which the people are stripped of their individuality.  While the dystopian novel is a widely expansive genre, there are several qualities that are shared among the best of them.  George Orwell’s 1984 is a wonderful example of a dystopian novel based on the criteria set by many scholars.
         One important theme in dystopian novels is a strict totalitarian government or dictatorship.  These oppressive governments are the key in explaining why the society functions as it does.  Without these governments, there would be no dystopia.  In seeking to create the perfect environment, the state deprives its people of the very essence of humanity: individuality.  These societies can be seen in a variety of novels such as Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, Lois Lowery’s The Giver, and Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451.  While these novels make wonderful reading, I feel that 1984 more vividly portrays a society in which the government’s attempt reach perfection ends up turning the masses into drones than these other literary works.  In Orwell shows the extent of this idea throughout his entire novel.  It would be an impossible task to list all the ways he does this, but one is extremely important to note.  He says several times that the people of Oceania do not even believe that two plus two equals four without the government’s approval.  I believe that this is the clearest depiction of this theme in all of literature. 
In Lois Lowery’s The Giver, it is obvious that the society functions very differently from our modern America, but it is unclear for much of the novel exactly how much the people in her society have given up.  1984 makes this immediately apparent by showing readers what his protagonist, Winston does in his daily life.  Orwell shows that the people are monitored constantly, forced to do the same exercises in the morning, eat only what they receive in rations.  Winston’s very job is an intrinsic part of this government’s power over the lives of individuals.  He daily “corrects” publications from the past of the society to make them line up with the government’s current political policies.  The government has even gone so far as to change the common language so that people cannot express mistrust of their government in any form.  The idea is that if people cannot put a feeling into words they will not understand it, or even if they themselves understand, they cannot express the idea to others.  Even though the propaganda the government creates seems contradictory, no one questions it.  The three slogans of the party read, “War is peace.  Freedom is slavery.  Ignorance is Strength.”  While the reader sees the obvious flaws in these statements, the populous of Oceania is so brainwashed that they merely accept these ideas as fact.
Some critics may say that George Orwell takes this notion too far in his creation of Oceania.  It is true that the typical American may not see this as a realistic world.  I, however, would like to ask these critics how much Orwell’s society really differs from Stalin’s Russia or Nazi Germany.  People have lived in such fear of their government that they were afraid to voice contradictory opinions in any form.  Russia’s secret police kept the citizens in line for years.  Is Orwell’s example really so farfetched?  World history proves that governments can become so powerful that there is no contradiction without blood payment.  George Orwell vividly portrays this in 1984 when he describes the insides of the Ministry of Love.  In this building, all those who oppose the government are tortured.  The oppressors starve the delinquents, beat them, attach them to torture devices, and expose them to their worst fears in an attempt to reeducate them.  This is the perfect example of the brutality these regimes use to control the masses.
Another common thread shared by many dystopian novels lies in the protagonists thoughts.  In several of these literary works, the hero puts his faith in a small number of people outside the control of the government.  These groups take several different forms including Aldous Huxley’s band living on the reservation and Ray Bradbury’s “book people” living outside the city.  Orwell gives these people a name of their own, “the proles”.  His, like other examples from this literary genre, are a group that the government is not worried about for some reason or another.  They live in areas that the government does not try to influence, and these people are looked down upon by those adhering to society’s norms.  These other novels do not expressly state that hope lies in these disenfranchised children of an uncaring government.  Orwell, however, takes the time to this, and the result is one of the most powerful statements in the book.  In book one, chapter seven of 1984 Winston states, "If there was hope, it must lie in the proles, because only there, in those swarming disregarded masses, eighty-five percent of the population of Oceania, could the force to destroy the Party ever be generated."  He expresses a clear desire for these untamed people to take the government by force.  He, like other dystopian protagonists, also states that the chances of this ever happening are very slim.  These “proles” are left without the notion that they have the power to subdue the government.
Again, some critics may argue that the chance of a people not realizing their power to overthrow oppressors is small.  And, again, history disproves them.  There is even an American example of this notion.  During the height of slavery, African Americans were kept uneducated in hopes that they would not realize that in many areas this slave “minority” outnumbered their white masters.  Had this been realized they could have revolted successfully and ended their servitude.  Leaving them uneducated made this task much less plausible.  It was a tactic of subversion, and it worked well.  Orwell’s point is then not just feasible, but proven by history.
A third likeness shared by all the best dystopian novels, and probably the most important, is the way the tale reminds the readers of their own societies.  It is often thought that no dystopian novel can be successful without this attribute.  In Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradbury shows that television has taken over humans and their ability to think through the protagonist’s wife.  Aldous Huxley chooses to remind readers of their own society by using a real historical figure, Henry Ford, as their religious leader and economic influence. 
In my opinion, George Orwell exemplifies this quality better than any dystopian author.  1984 reminds readers of the freedoms that have been given up for “the greater good” in their own societies as well as others.  These connections to the real world draw readers into a deeper level of understanding and emotion.  This is important because the point Orwell and these other authors try to make is so abstract.  In order to fully understand, the reader must have base knowledge to draw on.  Orwell chooses to make his society much like Stalinist Russia and reminiscent of Nazi Germany.  Both of these societies are known throughout the world for their brutality and readers of most nationalities can understand the point he is trying to make.  The way items are rationed and books are banned reminds readers of Communist regimes around the world.  The government even refers to itself as “the Party” and its leader is called “Big Brother.”  This simple phrasing is like attempts of Communist governments to show themselves in support of the common man.  They have been shown in light of looking out for the little guy like a brother would.  These, and other examples, are simple yet they make the idea much more tangible for readers.  This story is successful in this as well as reminding readers of the free world that even our societies are not safe.  Orwell makes points that resonate in the minds of readers even in “free countries”.  Without this facet, Orwell’s novel would merely be a science fiction novel that has no relevance in the world except to entertain.  Because of this truth, Orwell successfully conveys his point and makes a clear warning to lovers of freedom worldwide.
George Orwell’s novel, 1984, serves as the perfect example of a dystopian novel.  No other authors so clearly convey their ideas and give such concrete examples of the negative impact of perfect societies.  His warning to society is vivid.  While he does not explicitly state his idea, he makes it obvious to the readers what his point is.  It is as if he says, “We must change our ways before our own societies take the very thing we love most from us: our freedom.”  Orwell’s message is so well expressed in this classic tale that it continues to resonate in the mind of the reader not just through the duration of the novel, but for a lifetime.