Book 1 Chapters 2-6: Limiting Thought

"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" (46).

As I read what Syme said, I was appalled by his intentions of hindering a person's range of thoughts by not allowing them to learn any words that are related to thoughtcrime. Syme wants to take away one of the most important things that makes a person unique: a person's distinct way of thinking. If everyone thinks the same way, it is almost as if everyone is an immature child who follows everything his or her parent does because the child does not know how to think for himself or herself. This reminds me of the movie Tangled, because the protagonist, Rapunzel is locked away in her home because her "mother" does not want Rapunzel to find out that she kidnapped her to use her magical powers. In a similar way, Syme wants to kidnap everyone's knowledge of rebellion so that they won't know how to think freely and simply be able to use people for their benefit without any questions asked. The Party will not stop at any extents to be able to control a person. By eliminating all of the words that are related to rebellion, nobody will be able to conceive any new ideas and the Party will have accomplished their mission of controlling every aspect of a person. 

Comments

  1. UnknownOctober 23, 2017 at 6:50 PM

    I actually disagree that Syme's intention is to remove a person's individuality through minimizing language; don't get me wrong, that is absolutely what he is doing, but it isn't really his decision. Remember, Syme is not necessarily the same thing as the Party. He is just another citizen who has to work for them. Much like even Winston himself, he is just told to carry out a set of tasks. Note that Syme says, "Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?" He doesn't say he is planning to narrow the range of thought, he says that that is the goal of Newspeak, which is created by the Party; he is just revealing why Newspeak was created.

    Even then, the intent of the Party extends far past removing thoughts of rebellion. The Party wants to eliminate thought of any kind, making the citizens of Oceania more incapable than an immature child. They would be completely complacent and their minds fully malleable. Rebellion doesn't necessarily come from thoughts of rebellion. I would say it stems more from a person's ability to sense injustice. No thought at all would prevent even that.

    I do like the concept that what makes someone an individual is their particular way of thinking. Would this mean that falling into any sort of crowd/mob mentality has robbed you of something of your own? Meaning, does liking the same piece of art as someone else make you less of an individual? In reality, no, since one instance would not define a person, but how much does it take to make someone disappear instead of being someone with their individuality?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Lynda SolisOctober 25, 2017 at 6:10 PM

    I really enjoyed how you related the post to the movie Tangled. I never thought of the book in this way, but now that you mentioned it, in a sense the movie and the book are very similar. Rapunzel is locked away for many years by her "mother" and doesn't get to know the real world, she only gets to know what her "mother" tells her. This relates to the book because we could say the Party is the mother and the citizens are Rapunzel. The citizens are trapped in this little world and are only exposed to whatever the government wants them to know.

    I see what you mean that Syme is trying to take each individual's thought of thinking, but like Fernanda said, it's not really his choice, he's a worker so he has to do it. Also if most words are taken away, won't the people be stupid since they won't know much? But I do agree with you that if all words of rebellion are taken away there won't really be a way for the people to rebel, and the government get will eventually get what they want. Not that thoughts of rebellion are considered rebelling (well in this novel they are), but if you don't have a wide range of vocabulary, how is one going to articulate their thoughts and express themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Bailey WardOctober 25, 2017 at 8:47 PM

    Your comparison to the cartoon Tangled was very intriguing, I love the parallels you drew between the two. This way of analyzing the quote is very effective, I can definitely see the relation. The controlling of language and lack of words that can promote "rebellion" was interesting to me as well. The concept of not having words that promote such action is really crazy to me.

    ReplyDelete
  4. UnknownNovember 8, 2017 at 1:56 PM

    I love the "Tangled" analogy. It was a very accurate and creative depiction of your feelings about the actions being carried on by Syme. I happen to agree with Fernanda though; Syme seems like more of a puppet figure than a corrupt mastermind trying take away part of what makes humans themselves. Interestingly, I think this may be a parallel to politics in real life as well. The power and decision making ability doesn't usually fall on on person and those appointed to enforce or carry on actions might not always agree.

    ReplyDelete
  5. UnknownNovember 11, 2017 at 10:36 AM

    I found your analogies very interesting. Comparing 1984 to Tangled is not something I would have thought of doing so great job there! I do see how you might think that Syme wants everyone to think, be, and act the same way. I also understand why Fernanda and Nijzel think that there is more to Syme.

    ReplyDelete
  6. danasia1November 12, 2017 at 8:50 PM

    I agree with what you're saying about Syme wanting to take away the most precious thing we have (our thoughts). Not being able to broaden our thoughts keeps us close minded. The comparison you made to Tangled tied in greatly to the quote. It even shows in our government, they only tell us certain things on the news and such to make us believe what they want.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Book 2 Chapters 7-10: Inhumane

"The terrible thing that the Party had done was to persuade you that mere impulses, mere feelings, were of no account. When once you were in the grip of the Party. what you felt or did not feel. What you did or refrained from doing, made literally no difference. Whatever happened you vanished, and neither you nor your actions were ever heard of again...They were governed by private loyalties which they did not question. What mattered were individual relationships, and a completely helpless gesture, an embrace, a tear, a word spoke to a dying man, could have value in itself" (136). This particular quote stood out to me because it highlights one of the main aspects of the Party and the people of Oceania. The Party wants its citizens to live their life without any emotions, while the people of Oceania allow them to do this because they do not know any better. If anyone from Oceania does try to rebel against the Party, eventually the Party will vaporize them. The only people wh...
Read more

Book Three Chapters 4-6: Threats

"...They threaten you with something-something you can't stand up to. And then you say, 'Don't do it to me, do it to somebody else.' And perhaps you might pretend afterwards, what it was only a trick and that you just said it to make them stop and didn't really mean it. But that isn't true. At the time when it happens you do mean it. You think there's no other way of saving yourself...you want it to happen to the other person. You don't give a damn what they suffer. All you care about is yourself." (240) In the scene where O'Brien is torturing Winston and even goes as far as almost letting rats eat Winston's face, O'Brien knows that Winston fears rats and that this ideas of rats eating his face would surely break him. O'Brien is right because Winston tells  O'Brien to do this to Julia and not him. Later on, Julia confesses to Winston that when she was in a similar situation she betrayed Winston as well. Maybe if Winston an...
Read more

Book Three Chapters 1-3: Reality

Image
"Only the disciplined mind can see reality, Winston. You believe that reality is something objective, external, existing in its own right. You also believe that the nature of reality is self-evident. When you delude yourself into thinking that you see something, you assume that everyone else sees the same thing as you. But I tell you, Winston, that reality is not external. Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else" (205). O'Brien's conversation with Winston makes it clear as to why the people of Oceania are blinded by the madness of the Party. The Party has instilled a certain way of thinking that forces the citizens of Oceania to believe every single word that the Party says no matter how crazy it may sound. This is why O'Brien says that reality exists only in the human mind and not externally because the Party ingrains their philosophy in the minds of the people of Oceania and this is why they must only believe what they know in their mind and not wha...
Read more