Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Principles of Newspeak (1949)

berfrois.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 145 posts

Re: The Principles of Newspeak (1949)

#101

Post by edmundsauto »

the_af wrote: post #88
JasonFruit wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean that the essay is not written in the fictional world of 1984, but in the real world. It's outside the work of fiction, a piece of literary criticism by the author of the work being discussed.

When I first read 1984 I also thought like you, that this was just Orwell writing an essay about his invention, but there are some passages in this essay that show it's being written from an "in universe" perspective, i.e. by someone who lives in the same universe that 1984 "happened". Just an example: > "Various writers, such as Shakespeare, Milton, Swift, Byron, Dickens, and some others were therefore in process of…

That is a lot of interpretation based on fairly implicit textual evidence. I am not disagreeing with your interpretation, only pushing back that this is the only possible interpretation.

Alternate interpretations exist. Including:

1. Orwell's writing slipping between his voice and the "narrator in the scene"

2. General stylistic choice to follow scientific writings style guides - 3rd party, impersonal, etc.

3. General de-personalization of the voice of the System, so as to be more fearful

I'm sure there are many others I have missed. Again, my point is just that many valid interpretations exist simultaneously - so "once you accept this" is not the fait accompli that I interpreted from your comment.

Re: The Principles of Newspeak (1949)

#102

Post by the_af »

edmundsauto wrote: post #101
the_af wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I first read 1984 I also thought like you, that this was just Orwell writing an essay about his invention, but there are some passages in this essay that show it's being written from an "in universe" perspective, i.e. by someone who lives in the same universe that 1984 "happened". Just an example: > "Various writers, such as Shakespeare, Milton, Swift, Byron, Dickens, and some others were therefore in process of…

That is a lot of interpretation based on fairly implicit textual evidence. I am not disagreeing with your interpretation, only pushing back that this is the only possible interpretation. Alternate interpretations exist. Including: 1. Orwell's writing slipping between his voice and the "narrator in the scene" 2. General stylistic choice to follow scientific writings style guides - 3rd party, impersonal, etc. 3. Genera…

I agree alternate interpretations are valid -- I mentioned I used to believe the same as the commenter I was replying to -- just unlikely.

Given Orwell's preoccupation with language, his mixing authorial with fictional voice in this way would be too clumsy.

There's also the fact another fictional essay exists in 1984, namely the one supposedly written by Goldstein "explaining" the nature of power and the status quo. Do note this account was written, in the fiction of 1984, before the complete success of Ingsoc, and once Newspeak was fully implemented it would have been neither possible to write nor needed.

I don't deny other interpretations are possible, but I think this essay works much like Lord of the Rings' many appendices: they are describing a piece of past "history" as if it was real, they are not the voice of an author from our world describing a fake world.

Re: The Principles of Newspeak (1949)

#103

Post by somewhereoutth »

One thing I noticed as an English person during my time in the US is that you have less words.

E.g. everything really is awesome! This is pretty much exactly double plus good. In English English we have a dazzling array (sorry, awesome list) of adjectives, often particularly tied to certain nouns. For example 'a splendid view [out the window]', we wouldn't say a person is 'splendid' - except the somewhat archaic 'splendid fellow'.

Given the direction of travel of a large part of US society, perhaps Orwell was on to something.

Re: The Principles of Newspeak (1949)

#104

Post by XorNot »

zepto wrote: post #36
dbattaglia wrote: post #4

This appendix, along with the chapters that are except from "The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism", are actually my favorite parts of 1984. I enjoyed how "Principals of Newspeak" is written in a past tense when describing the language and the events of year 1984, it feels like a glimmer of hope that somehow mankind did indeed escape the horrific dystopian world otherwise presented in the book.

Unfortunately there is no way to know whether the future from which newspeak is in the past, is not even more horrifically dystopian. Imagine arriving on a seemingly dead planet and discovering this article about newspeak on a primitive but still working library computer in a museum. Elsewhere in the museum a slowly decaying advanced compute core still executes the corrupted remains of the last of the human conscious…

Death is too optimistic about dystopias. 1984 wasn't a world which wanted to kill you: it might, but that wasn't the goal. The goal was to keep the system going: achieve absolute dominion over the human condition and thought. Suicide means that's no longer happening, so it can't have that.

The 1984 cycle continues forever: it is it's own purpose.

Re: The Principles of Newspeak (1949)

#105

Post by matthewmorgan »

somewhereoutth wrote: post #103

One thing I noticed as an English person during my time in the US is that you have less words . E.g. everything really is awesome! This is pretty much exactly double plus good. In English English we have a dazzling array (sorry, awesome list) of adjectives, often particularly tied to certain nouns. For example 'a splendid view [out the window]', we wouldn't say a person is 'splendid' - except the somewhat archaic 'sp…

Fewer words :p

Re: The Principles of Newspeak (1949)

#106

Post by jollybean »

somewhereoutth wrote: post #103

One thing I noticed as an English person during my time in the US is that you have less words . E.g. everything really is awesome! This is pretty much exactly double plus good. In English English we have a dazzling array (sorry, awesome list) of adjectives, often particularly tied to certain nouns. For example 'a splendid view [out the window]', we wouldn't say a person is 'splendid' - except the somewhat archaic 'sp…

I don't think this has to do with Orwell's ideas really, and frankly I don't think related to the issue of Newspeak either.

Quebec French vs. France French and Mexican Spanish vs. Spain Spanish exhibit the same issue, it's a 'New World' thing, and it doesn't really have roots in politics so much as basic cultural evolution where there were fewer formal institutions led by even fewer and less educated elites. Headmasters and Teachers in the New World will have had considerably less formal training and at least for several generations, everywhere in the New World will have been somewhat 'cut off' from the rest of civilization.

So not just matter of 'formal education' but the proclivity of the settlers to, on an individual basis, be concerned about literacy etc.. Even if they were, resources, cultural centres etc. were further few between.

From 1492 to 1900 the 'Westward Moving Wave' of civility took at least a few generations to settle in, during which time a lot of things were 'lost' and/or replaced.

Finally - America is not formally an 'English' country. It's a mix of people for whom English is commonly a 'second generational language'.

The rust belt was settled by Germans, North Midwest was settled by Swedes, Norwegians, much of NY/NJ by Italians. Their families are not going to imbue their children with exposure to, or aptitude for more advanced English.

So 'American English', broadly, is a little bit of a common denominator language, kind of a simplified English.

Notably, Quebec is a little bit different, as they are culturally homogeneous and originally French, but they were 'cut off' after 1777 collapse of French colonies to the UK. Their common language and vocabulary did evolve, but they also maintained some degree of intact elite / higher education and formalized institutions. This is evident even now as they produce considerably more literary and other 'cultural' artifacts per-capita than most places in the Americas, even if the local accent has a crude twang.

Re: The Principles of Newspeak (1949)

#107

Post by femto »

Animats wrote: post #62
dalbasal wrote: post #28

Esperanto probably inspired Orwell on this, at least to an extent. He knew several Esperantists. Most of the "A vocabulary" rules are similar, like valuing regularities. I wonder if he hated esperanto, or just conveniently borrowed the feel of an artificial language from it. To me, the euphemisation aspects of newspeak are the most "orwellian." IE, they're most likely to trigger that reference. Orwell himself complai…

Esperanto probably inspired Orwell on this Nope. Simple English did. During WWII, Orwell had a job with the British Ministry of Information. Part of his job was translating news broadcasts into Basic English, an 850-word vocabulary, for broadcast to the British colonies. (India, Hong Kong, etc.) He discovered that translating speeches into Basic English was a political act. All the ambiguity had to be hammered out. B…

> All the ambiguity had to be hammered out.

Which meant there was no place for a deeper level of meaning to hide, making a censor's job easier?

Re: The Principles of Newspeak (1949)

#110

Post by woopwoop »

int_19h wrote: post #98
woopwoop wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When did he speak out against Trotskyism? He fought with a Trotskyist militia in Spain.

He spoke out against all forms of authoritarian socialism in general.

In "The Lion and the Unicorn," he advocates for a militaristic socialism with nationalization of all major industries and severe wage and price controls.
Post reply on HN