Orwell, George. 1984. www.george-orwell.org/1984/index.html
'How is the Dictionary getting on?' said Winston, raising his voice to overcome the noise.
'Slowly,' said Syme. 'I'm on the adjectives. It's fascinating.'
He had brightened up immediately at the mention of Newspeak. He pushed his pannikin aside, took up his hunk of bread in one delicate hand and his cheese in the other, and leaned across the table so as to be able to speak without shouting.
'The Eleventh Edition is the definitive edition,' he said. 'We're getting the language into its final shape -- the shape it's going to have when nobody speaks anything else. When we've finished with it, people like you will have to learn it all over again. You think, I dare say, that our chief job is inventing new words. But not a bit of it! We're destroying words -- scores of them, hundreds of them, every day. We're cutting the language down to the bone. The Eleventh Edition won't contain a single word that will become obsolete before the year 2050.'
He bit hungrily into his bread and swallowed a couple of mouthfuls, then continued speaking, with a sort of pedant's passion. His thin dark face had become animated, his eyes had lost their mocking expression and grown almost dreamy.
'It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words. Of course the great wastage is in the verbs and adjectives, but there are hundreds of nouns that can be got rid of as well. It isn't only the synonyms; there are also the antonyms. After all, what justification is there for a word which is simply the opposite of some other word? A word contains its opposite in itself. Take "good", for instance. If you have a word like "good", what need is there for a word like "bad"? "Ungood" will do just as well -- better, because it's an exact opposite, which the other is not. Or again, if you want a stronger version of "good", what sense is there in having a whole string of vague useless words like "excellent" and "splendid" and all the rest of them? "Plusgood" covers the meaning, or "doubleplusgood" if you want something stronger still. Of course we use those forms already. but in the final version of Newspeak there'll be nothing else. In the end the whole notion of goodness and badness will be covered by only six words -- in reality, only one word. Don't you see the beauty of that, Winston? It was B.B.'s idea originally, of course,' he added as an afterthought.
A sort of vapid eagerness flitted across Winston's face at the mention of Big Brother. Nevertheless Syme immediately detected a certain lack of enthusiasm.
'You haven't a real appreciation of Newspeak, Winston,' he said almost sadly. 'Even when you write it you're still thinking in Oldspeak. I've read some of those pieces that you write in The Times occasionally. They're good enough, but they're translations. In your heart you'd prefer to stick to Oldspeak, with all its vagueness and its useless shades of meaning. You don't grasp the beauty of the destruction of words. Do you know that Newspeak is the only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year?'
Winston did know that, of course. He smiled, sympathetically he hoped, not trusting himself to speak. Syme bit off another fragment of the dark-coloured bread, chewed it briefly, and went on:
'Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten. Already, in the Eleventh Edition, we're not far from that point. But the process will still be continuing long after you and I are dead. Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller. Even now, of course, there's no reason or excuse for committing thoughtcrime. It's merely a question of self-discipline, reality-control. But in the end there won't be any need even for that. The Revolution will be complete when the language is perfect. Newspeak is Ingsoc and Ingsoc is Newspeak,' he added with a sort of mystical satisfaction. 'Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?'
'Except-' began Winston doubtfully, and he stopped.
It had been on the tip of his tongue to say 'Except the proles,' but he checked himself, not feeling fully certain that this remark was not in some way unorthodox. Syme, however, had divined what he was about to say.
'The proles are not human beings,' he said carelessly. 'By 2050 earlier, probably -- all real knowledge of Oldspeak will have disappeared. The whole literature of the past will have been destroyed. Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Byron -- they'll exist only in Newspeak versions, not merely changed into something different, but actually changed into something contradictory of what they used to be. Even the literature of the Party will change. Even the slogans will change. How could you have a slogan like "freedom is slavery" when the concept of freedom has been abolished? The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking -- not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.'
One of these days, thought Winston with sudden deep conviction, Syme will be vaporized. He is too intelligent. He sees too clearly and speaks too plainly. The Party does not like such people. One day he will disappear. It is written in his face.
Winston had finished his bread and cheese. He turned a little sideways in his chair to drink his mug of coffee. At the table on his left the man with the strident voice was still talking remorselessly away. A young woman who was perhaps his secretary, and who was sitting with her back to Winston, was listening to him and seemed to be eagerly agreeing with everything that he said. From time to time Winston caught some such remark as 'I think you're so right, I do so agree with you', uttered in a youthful and rather silly feminine voice. But the other voice never stopped for an instant, even when the girl was speaking. Winston knew the man by sight, though he knew no more about him than that he held some important post in the Fiction Department. He was a man of about thirty, with a muscular throat and a large, mobile mouth. His head was thrown back a little, and because of the angle at which he was sitting, his spectacles caught the light and presented to Winston two blank discs instead of eyes. What was slightly horrible, was that from the stream of sound that poured out of his mouth it was almost impossible to distinguish a single word. Just once Winston caught a phrase -'complete and final elimination of Goldsteinism'- jerked out very rapidly and, as it seemed, all in one piece, like a line of type cast solid. For the rest it was just a noise, a quack-quack-quacking. And yet, though you could not actually hear what the man was saying, you could not be in any doubt about its general nature. He might be denouncing Goldstein and demanding sterner measures against thought-criminals and saboteurs, he might be fulminating against the atrocities of the Eurasian army, he might be praising Big Brother or the heroes on the Malabar front -- it made no difference. Whatever it was, you could be certain that every word of it was pure orthodoxy, pure Ingsoc. As he watched the eyeless face with the jaw moving rapidly up and down, Winston had a curious feeling that this was not a real human being but some kind of dummy. It was not the man's brain that was speaking, it was his larynx. The stuff that was coming out of him consisted of words, but it was not speech in the true sense: it was a noise uttered in unconsciousness, like the quacking of a duck.
Syme had fallen silent for a moment, and with the handle of his spoon was tracing patterns in the puddle of stew. The voice from the other table quacked rapidly on, easily audible in spite of the surrounding din.
'There is a word in Newspeak,' said Syme, 'I don't know whether you know it: duckspeak, to quack like a duck. It is one of those interesting words that have two contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it is abuse, applied to someone you agree with, it is praise.'
Unquestionably Syme will be vaporized, Winston thought again. He thought it with a kind of sadness, although well knowing that Syme despised him and slightly disliked him, and was fully capable of denouncing him as a thought-criminal if he saw any reason for doing so. There was something subtly wrong with Syme. There was something that he lacked: discretion, aloofness, a sort of saving stupidity. You could not say that he was unorthodox. He believed in the principles of Ingsoc, he venerated Big Brother, he rejoiced over victories, he hated heretics, not merely with sincerity but with a sort of restless zeal, an up-to-dateness of information, which the ordinary Party member did not approach. Yet a faint air of disreputability always clung to him. He said things that would have been better unsaid, he had read too many books, he frequented the Chestnut Tree Cafe, haunt of painters and musicians. There was no law, not even an unwritten law, against frequenting the Chestnut Tree Cafe, yet the place was somehow ill-omened. The old, discredited leaders of the Party had been used to gather there before they were finally purged. Goldstein himself, it was said, had sometimes been seen there, years and decades ago. Syme's fate was not difficult to foresee. And yet it was a fact that if Syme grasped, even for three seconds, the nature of his, Winston's, secret opinions, he would betray him instantly to the Thought Police. So would anybody else, for that matter: but Syme more than most. Zeal was not enough. Orthodoxy was unconsciousness.
Logging in, please wait...
0 General Document comments
0 Sentence and Paragraph comments
0 Image and Video comments
New Conversation
New Conversation
Destroying words and cutting the language down is a great example of the authoritarian power that destroys individualism in the book. Taking away the individual freedom of the beauty of language is absolute authoritarianism.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
New Conversation
Hide Thread Detail
New Conversation
This control will make any “thoughtcrime” or “doublethink” impossible, and the Party will have complete control over the people, by eliminating the ability to dissent.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
Controlling the vocabulary that people have access to controls the way they think, because of this thoughtcrime will be impossible because you wouldn’t have the vocabulary to even think against them.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
New Conversation
New Conversation
New Conversation
In order to control the way people think, the words that exist have to be chosen too. Orwell warns us about a government taking away more and more of our rights. It starts with small, unnoticeable things, so that as there are larger things being taken away, we now see that as the norm. This is a form of desensitization.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
New Conversation
Orwell is explaining here how regimes/parties/states may get rid of words so that people will not know how to express their feelings. They replace words that mean bad things with words that mean good things which makes it easier for the regime/party/state to control its people. If no one knows how to say the words to spark a rebellion, how will they rebel at all?
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
New Conversation
Syme believes that getting rid of the synonyms for “good” will help simplify the entire English language.The reason we have these different meanings for good is that each words is slightly modified to mean something else.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
New Conversation
A way in which the party remains powerful is by controlling the simple things in their society such as language. For example, Winston wishes to speak his mind but he can’t fully because his vocabulary is limited. He saw this as normal until Syme pointed it out. Having control over someone’s language is like having control over their thought process.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
Control of language is key to Oceania’s control of people. You can not think in a language you do not know. If you control the language people think in, you can control their thoughts themselves. It’s like the lyric of a Pixies song, “all my thoughts are all I am” and by controlling language you are able to control the frame through which people think.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
New Conversation
When Newspeak simplifies language to one word, the party is taking humanity out of the way we communicate. Newspeak would turn people into emotionless, dull robots with no complex feelings or emotions. By destroying words, they are destroying the intelligence, to make the Party the superior beings, able to control their citizens effortlessly.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
Orwell warns us of a government that will take away our liberties and freedoms in the future. This is relatively similar to the government today. They never give us freedoms that we don’t have; they only take them away. Orwell warns this issue to show that we need to stand up to the government to maintain our freedoms and our ability to express ourselves truly.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
New Conversation
It is clear in this paragraph that Orwell is warning us of the complete transformation of language as we know it. This new version of English would eradicate all emotion in speech so that the government could limit its people’s range of thought.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
This is how governments are able to keep control by narrowing the range of thought or keeping everyone dumb. This way the people can’t organize enough to rebel, leading to total and constant control of one individual or group.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
New Conversation
Orwell is predicting here that we will start narrowing down our language in order to limit the possibility of insurrection. By not giving people access to words that they can use to rebel, to express emotions and nuance, words that can become their rallying cry, the party is cutting off the flow of free thought. Because if the next generation doesn’t know what those dangerous words are, they can’t effectively communicate and coordinate with each other.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
The whole point of Newspeak is to suppress the people. Dialect among peers can spur ideas and more importantly rebellion. Without communication, people are isolated and have no choice but to obey a higher order.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
New Conversation
New Conversation
New Conversation
New Conversation
In this sentence he tells Winston how taking away words could cancel out an entire generation. This would taking away moments, memorizes, emotions, perspectives and etc. in a persons writing. It would be completely ignored because it would not be understood.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
Syme doesn’t consider the Proles as human beings, which entails the disrespect that is held for the group. Syme goes on to describe the benefits of Newspeak, for people will no longer be able to develop their own thoughts, but dismisses the Proles despite Newspeak and Thoughtcrime not applying to them
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
This is a theme among many dystopian stories. Orwell is worried that censorship could grow to become mass destruction, which would prevent people from reading about others’ experiences, perspectives, and emotions in stories.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
Like you said many dystopian stories have a theme of the destruction of art and literature. I think the sentence you commented on highlights that and sort of foreshadows it. This theme of destruction of art and literature is clearly evident in the book Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury where the plot revolves around a world where books are banished and essential illegal burning any surface of books.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
New Conversation
I think this is really interesting because it is true in our lives today. There are some things that we just don’t think about and we accept as the truth. If a government is able to create orthodoxy in most if not all areas of life, then there is no need for you to think through things yourself.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
The creation of new anti-intellectual thought by new intellectuals allows for those who are replacing this old intelligence to understand its validity and question its replacement.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
New Conversation
New Conversation
Here Orwell says “The Party does not like such people. One day he will disappear.” gives a sense on how much power the party has having the ability to make one disappear just because the views of the party and the person don’t align.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
Ultimately, the real warning Orwell is giving is the corruption of intellectual freedom, and that when a society refutes the power of free thought that’s when humanity becomes less than
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
New Conversation
New Conversation
Orwell has a clear warning here. Totalitarianism, at least early on, is justified by ideology and led by intellectuals. However, as Orwell saw in the USSR at the time with movements such as Lysenkoism, in order to further centralize power, the intelligentsia, including those who were necessary to the Party’s earlier ideology, are viewed as a threat to control and “dealt with.”
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
New Conversation
General Document Comments 0
The Party loves to abuse their power and not have anything against them.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I don’t think that thoughts can ever truly be oppressed. I think that Orwell is calling us to acknowledge basic privileges so as to bring us to understand that under alternative circumstances they could be very different. He is calling us to appreciate our freedom of thought.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment