Literary Criticism (Relationship to George Orwell)

The presence of politics and ideologies in the author’s works, including acts of domination, oppression, exclusion, and appropriation, as well as acts of subversion and resistance

            Stephen Ingle’s literary criticism, “Lies, Damned Lies and Literature: George Orwell and ‘The Truth,’” demonstrates the value of 1984 as a tool of political analysis. Ingle specifically intends to investigate the nature of truth, which is infinitely altered by the Party for its own purposes. Through the control of language, Ingle claims, the state is merely able to subvert ordinary language, thereby destroying the trust between Oceania and its citizens. He discusses the importance of truth, the fabrication of reality, common sense, language and the limits of autonomy in terms of its political significance. Ingle argues that “Orwell’s harrowingly imaginative novel forces us [. . .] to confront a range of dimensions concerning the nature of public truth and lying” (Ingle 743). By utilizing a multitude of external sources, Ingle effectively and successfully illustrates his own message. Through the modification of everyday language, amalgamated with the overwhelming power of the Party, the totalitarian regime purges every aspect of representation from society.

            James A. Tyner’s literary criticism, “Self and space, resistance and discipline: a Foucauldian reading of George Orwell’s 1984,” illustrates how through the act of writing, resistance may arise in controlled spaces. Tyner particularly explores the theoretical implications of space, resistance and discipline, explaining that by the act of writing, people can fabricate pockets of resistance in a totalitarian society. Tyner asserts that George Orwell successfully fabricated his own “imaginary world into a reality” (Tyner 144). He investigates the “broader concepts of self and space, resistance and discipline” because he believes that Orwell was more concerned with the loss of individuality than the political element of the novel (Tyner 145). Through the Party’s manipulation of individual thoughts, it is able to retain control over even the most defiant people. Although a varied perspective is presented in this certain literary criticism, Tyner continuously ties space, resistance and discipline back into Oceania’s political structure. Oceania is a totalitarian government; Tyner uncovers the mystery behind space and how it can contribute to rebellion or further disciplinary actions.

            Gordon B. Beadle’s literary criticism, “George Orwell’s Literary Studies of Poverty in England,” elucidates the effect of poverty in 1984 and Animal Farm. Beadle especially focuses on George Orwell’s “social and psychological origins” to portray the role that poverty has in his novels. He discusses Orwell’s hope for enlisting “broad public support for social change by appealing through literature to the moral conscience of the nation” (Beadle 199). Because the subject of poverty became such a major influence on George Orwell, he crafted his own opinion on it in both novels. Through the employment of a struggling lower class in his works of literature, Orwell unveils the underlying resistance that exists in the Proletariat, as well as the conflict between social classes. Once the social classes are established, Beadle argues, the government is able to assert its dominance over every component of society. Thus, totalitarian command can be reinstituted as the normal structure of government for society.

Matthew Schneider’s literary criticism, “A Paean to Power: Resistance to GA and Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four,” studies the “accretion of power through linguistic diminishment” in 1984 (Schneider 4). Schneider predominantly focuses on Newspeak, and the infinite amount of power that the Party holds over its citizens because of it. The simplicity of the language, he explains, permits the Party to control even the thoughts and actions of the people in Oceania. Newspeak is known for its simplicity and lack of thought, while Winston Smith is known for his complexity and creativity. Through the differences in language, Orwell conveys the entirety of the power that the Party and Big Brother has over its citizens. Repression of individuals furthers the success of the state through a mutual feeling of trust and blind loyalty.

Douglass Kellner’s literary criticism, “From 1984 to One-Dimensional Man:
Critical Reflections on Orwell and Marcuse,” explores the complex relationship between Orwell’s and Marcuse’s commentary on totalitarian systems of government in their respective works of literature. The Party’s perpetually manipulates its citizens with propaganda to establish loyalty, technology for surveillance, torture for submission and power for control of the lives of citizens. Kellner explores the degradation of thought, language and politics in Winston Smith as he no longer retains his hatred towards the Party. He argues that Orwell was attempting to get people on the same level as himself; people would resist the totalitarian governments in favor of a democratic social system instead. Through the utilization of Newspeak, Kellner states, Orwell portrays the increasing amount of influence that government will have on our lives.