Talk:The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Books Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

"since the present is supposed to be 1984, the implication is that the war began at the end of the fifties -- and to make room for the "decade of confused fighting", Oceania and Eurasia must have come into being virtually immediately after Orwell published his novel in 1949"

But it's also mentioned that the date may or may not actually be 1984. It's 1984 according to the Party story, but that's all we know.

Since Winston has memories of a revolution during the the late fifties, and is apparently middle-aged, the date seems within the realm of credibility. -Peter

Contents

[edit] O'Brian, maybe a sociopath?

I added this section in here but I think the style might contrast a bit with the main article. I think the points are valid, especially the comparison with Igantius. I welcome anyone else here adding to or clarifying my edit.

Another theory is that O'Brian is sociopathic in nature. The average moral person holds great store in the idea of the truth and the idea that there is an objective reality. O'Brian, if he is a sociopath, has no special affection for "truth" since what is important to him is his place and position within the Party. The idea of an objective reality would be no more important to him than the preservation of works of art from the prior society. This makes the character all the more horrific to the reader since one assumes there is an intrinsic value in truth and O'Brian, as an intellectual, should appreciate it. No doublethink occurs with O'Brian since there is never the internal conflict between those opposing ideas in the first place. [Ignatius_of_Loyola], founder of the [Jesuits], was a Catholic proponent of doublethink. In his own words: "I will believe that the white that I see is black if the hierarchical Church so defines it."

--72.144.27.94 21:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Present = 1984?

It should be noted that the year is repeatedly stated to be 1984 in the Newspeak Appendix as well, and this appendix clearly reflects the omniscience of the author rather than the limited perspective of his protagonist.

[edit] Is the content section a copyright violation?

This book is copyrighted, and a direct reproduction of the text of the book—10% of the novel—seems a little illegal to me. Just a little.--

    • This is NOT a "direct reproduction of the text of the book", except for a relatively few direct quotes. It is a synopsis or summary of a portion of _1984_, which is quite legitimate in terms of copyright. Countless books and movies have their plots summarized in various Wikipedia articles.

HereToHelp (talk) 22:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


What a weird comment to make on the topic.
I doubt there is any violation... http://www.ipo.gov.uk/copy/c-manage/c-useenforce/c-useenforce-use/c-useenforce-use-exception.htm are some UK copyright exceptions. Wikipedia probably falls under "Criticism or review, reporting current events".

[edit] War & Peace: an interesting sidenote

Although a valid and interesting section, this appears to be original research, along with other bits and pieces throughout the article. Can anybody come up with some reputable sources? Failing that I may do some pruning...Tellkel 17:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Book's name...

Is indeed The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism, stated with the story. The page should be moved and name adjusted so as to denotate that title. --Chr.K. 20:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. If we have a title, the article should be located there. -Elmer Clark 02:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Referencing

We really need sources for any analysis of the text or inferences drawn from it; otherwise, we are carrying out original research. Johnleemk | Talk 09:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

    • The bulk of the article is simply a synopsis of the relevant portion of the novel. A few reflections and comments on this material are appended, but calling this "original research" seems to stretch the definition. The "source" is obviously the novel _1984_ itself.

[edit] Alternative Theory on the Origin of the book

Could it be that O'brien was merely lying and that Goldstein, the Brotherhood, and the Book are both real (within the story, of course). The Inner Party might have set up a psuedo-Brotherhood to ensnare potential recruits for the actual Brotherhood. When he told Winston Smith that he was part of a commitee that wrote the book, he could just be taking credit for the book to break Smith's hope.70.172.198.145 06:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Mike Reason

[edit] Fantastic article

This article was a pleasure to read. Thanks all for the great work. wilymage 22:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Later Chapters

It is interesting to note that the external link at the end of the page leads to a site which expands on some of the missing chapters originally cited by Orwell's [i]Nineteen Eighty-Four[/i] to have been written by Goldstein in his book. This expansion is however not the work of Orwell himself, but the creative construct of another author in much the same style. These expansions include the written analysis of the party slogan "Freedom is Slavery" as well as the addition of 2 other chapters not originally in [i]Nineteen Eighty-Four[/i]. It is a very interesting read and a fruitful effort on the analysis and expansion of The Party's theories and Orwell's ideas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.41.152 (talk) 03:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] this article is a masterpiece of OR

No citations, tons of speculation, much better than most wikipedia articles because of it.P4k (talk) 04:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Russell

I've removed speculation to the effect that the title of this fictional book might be based on the similar title of a book on bolshevism by Bertrand Russell. While that isn't implausible, the speculation is unsourced and as such, has the appearance of original research. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 08:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)