Then began the long and tortured process of turning Eric Blair into the author George Orwell. Unfortunately, this is not a realistic expectation for the forseeable future. Obviously taste plays a role here, but to me Orwell's prose was dull, he lacked any form of subtlety, he used a surprising number of cliches, and he favored abstract descriptions over sensory details.
Winston's core struggle centers around the "Big Brother" supporters telling him that two plus two equals five. Orwell was witness to the violent splits of the Marxist left: the willingness of the communists to put the crushing of their Trotskyite rivals above a unified front to defeat the fascists.
I've read essays from Orwell that I felt were insightful, and I've heard good things about some of his creative nonfiction work, but bordered on nauseating. Even in the free world, many maintain, inroads have been made: commercial interests try to doctor the news and sometimes succeed, elected officials are tempted to misrepresent the truth, Government agencies attempt to and sometimes do invade the privacy of the individuals, and military leaders feel compelled to hide some of their activities.
Nineteen Eighty-Four is a mirror: it is impossible for the reader not to find their own politics reflected, challenged or distorted in its fiercely polished plain prose.
Is it an anti-communist rant of a comrade who betrayed the cause?
Oceania looks very much like an extended version of NATO, at least in its geography. The totalitarian Essay on A Prophesy for the Future? Why, indeed, would European countries agree to have nuclear missiles placed on their soil, knowing very well that the Soviet Union would retaliate; why did Japan agree to ''voluntary'' reductions in exports and liberalization of its import regulations, knowing that these measures would hurt their own economy?