War is Peace, Ignorance is Strength, Freedom is Slavery

 War is Peace

Born and Raised in a North Korean Gulag by Choe Sang-Hun was a shocking story. I hadn't known what happened in North Korea, and Shin Dong Hyok's story brought a lot of emotions along. As I was reading, the first thing I noticed was how the authorities, the cause of Shin's miseries, was merely "a part of life" to him. They had always been there, and always would be. Instead, Shin blames the ones closest to him- the ones that love him the most: his mother. Even now, knowing what he does, still he blames his mother. When he is told that he was paying for his ancestor's crime, he also blames them, and hates them for this. I guess, from the view of the North Koreans, turning the hate onto friends is a useful tactic. This same tactic is used in 1984. Instead of party members joining together against Big Brother, the Party turns any hatred anyone might have onto Goldstein and their fellow members. People, especially children, are encouraged to denounce any disloyal follower. This denouncing of friends also accomplishes something else that both the Party and the North Korean gulag try and accomplish. In the Korean prison, much is done to destroy any semblance of unification or relationships. An arranged "marriage" is given to exemplary workers, and the couple see each other a few times a year. Even a child like Shin after growing up (age 11) fails to see his entire family at one time. This broken relationship leaves little chance of any rebellion or even talking of a better time. In Orwell's novel, people are expected to first love Big Brother before their spouse, and along with creating a shameful image of sex, makes marriage dull and relationships lacking any real love whatsoever, seen when Winston talks about his past marriage. By both preventing marriages/relationships and turning hatred onto friends, along with all the work piled up on the workers, rebellion, and more importantly thought is a rare occurrence.

Ignorance is Strength

Shin lives in his own fishbowl world: a world that consists only of his own work camp. I was unaware of how little he knew of the world, let alone his own country. This ignorance prevents him from knowing about the outside world, and how life could be. Although ignorance gives another person control over oneself, one thing that Yoon Yeo Sang of the North Korean Human Rights in Seoul said brought more thoughts upon my head. When he commented on the North Korean work camps, "'He comes from a place where people are deprived of their ability to have the most basic human feelings, such as love, hatred and even a sense of being sad or mistreated'", it seems like a bad thing: who wouldn't want to love? However, along with the life of knowledge of the world comes hatred, sorrow, and mistreatment.  At first Shin can't stand being in a camp when there was a whole world to explore. Afterward, though, Shin begins to regret- something that is very hard to understand. "Shin said he sometimes wished he could return to the time before he learned about the greater world, 'without knowing that we were in a prison camp, without knowing that there was a place called South Korea'". This statement, while seeming very sad and mad to us, makes sense to Shin. In the gulag, he didn't have all these emotions, which complicate life so much. He wanted instead security, and to forget about the world, along with all of its problems. In his ignorance, he was happy, and that is where he was strong. In the world, he can't even obtain a driving license. I think what he doesn't understand, is that without problems and sorrow, we couldn't enjoy life as much as we do. The happiest moments are when you overcome your problems, and if there was no evil in the world, how would we know what was good?

Freedom is Slavery

So Shin would prefer to be told what to do, and to be back in that prison camp, in his slavery. He felt he was happier there. Or perhaps, he didn't know what happiness was, and so he could not be unhappy either. Freedom is not just doing what one wants to do, but surviving and being happy. To Shin, the prison camp was happy, because life was always the same, and the problems that he had (for instance torture and all that stuff) was not a problem to him: just a part of life. Shin was free of worry and of problems. In that way, freedom is slavery. As in 1984, the workers in the prison camp did not worry about jobs or transportation or any of the usual things that most worry about. Winston is kept so busy so he has a limited amount of time to think those rebellious thoughts. And although all of the Outer Party members live in relative poverty, none of them think much of it because it has always been like that. They are free of worry of almost everything (apart from fear of being taken to the Ministry of Love).


These phrases may apply, but not to the common man. They work only when one looks at the overall Party's ideal: to stay in power. In order for the Party to keep their reign, they use these three phrases: War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength. To keep peace within their realm, they make war with Eastasia and Eurasia. Turning anger upon others instead of themselves is a handy way to keep "peace".  Freedom, and more specifically, happiness, exists only when people do not have to worry too much about problems, and gain security: thus, slavery. And in ignorance, people are united and cannot question their leader, and thus together, they have strength. It is interesting to see that these quite contradictory sayings are, in fact, true. A subjective truth, however, because these truths are only an illusion. Although it may seem like war is peace, it is not. And while freedom is slavery, it is not. It just isn't. War may cause a little peace, but not all of it. And slavery is not freedom. Freedom is more than that. These three phrases serve only as an excuse for Oceania to keep on living the way it is.

Truth... Does it exist?

Talking and presenting in class was helpful to clear out what truth is. Not that truth is any clearer, but it is easier to say what isn't truth. The objects and concepts that the class had were placed relatively where I would put them, give or take a few inches. I think the ones I most disagree with are the scientific concepts that are counted as objective truths. The one problem I see with this is that theories are based upon no other forces interacting- but in the real world, there are always these other factors. So technically, we can't actually test a concept, since there will always be other factors to affect the result. So how can we really know? However, I do consider science to be objective (I'm just not sure it can be proven to be so). Sure, it will change, but science as a whole works. This considering that objective truth is our world and the things we see and touch, it not being a hallucination and brain-washing and living in a false world. For that would just get chaotic and confusing, and probably make us all go insane.

The truth that we told in class was more of a truth to ourselves, if not to others. For some reason, you believe in something, even if there is no proof: your own personal truth. In the articles that we read (and changed) before, there is a manipulation of truth. Not that what they say might not be true, but they try very hard to make it your truth too, not by stating facts, but by giving you emotions. We never seem to be able to think straight when we are angry, loving, or sad. Each article uses vague words, for example "weapons of mass destruction", which give images and terror to our minds, more so than just "bombs" or any one specific thing. Some also create metaphors and imagery in our mind, making us feel righteous, or using words that show how the victims are feeling. Writing is more than just stating facts: it's about allowing the reader to feel what you are feeling. And in some cases, manipulate the reader into feeling what you want them to feel.

In 1984, by George Orwell, this sort of happens. In the Ministry of Love, the "torturers" turn your world upside down until what you imagine and believe is true: 2 + 2 = 5. O'Brien doesn't allow Winston to think, to rationalize, and so Winston can't defend his world and truth. So, Winston's truth is torn away from him and replaced with not truth at all. Newspeak also helps with this destruction of truth. Language itself is subjective, with several meanings to one word and different words for the same meaning. Orwell considers language to be vague and broad, and in Newspeak, it becomes even more so. As words are taken away from the dictionary again and again, words and meanings become vaguer and vaguer until all truth is lost. How can one prove something if what you are saying does not even mean anything? This also helps take away control and power from someone over themselves, and disables a person from defending what they feel is right. I guess, seeing that the Outer Party members are left with nothing to hang on to sanity, they are forced to love Big Brother. Not because they actually love him in the full sense of the word, but because they need a constant to keep their world straight. If not, then they would be insane. Up would be down and left would be right. So destroying someone's reality gives control and power to another.

This is the whole reason we have science: to understand the world and put it in terms we can understand. Our curiosity to understand the world is what has created science. We must have facts and knowledge to keep our sanity, and feel like we have an understanding of ourselves and what we perceive as our world and life.

So perhaps whether truth exists or not should not be answered. Even if we never did get an answer, just the debate would make us crazy. If we did eventually find an answer, it could destroy all our perceptions.

Orwell vs. Modern Times

I found changing those two articles quite hard. For one thing, not being the author, I didn't know exactly what the article meant all the time, so in changing the sentences I might have changed the meaning. Also, I don't think Orwell or modern times are perfect in English.

I understand why Orwell thinks what he thinks, but the major thing I do not agree with are the metaphors. I don't think that all the common ones have lost their meaning. "A picture speaks a thousand words" may be overused, but, for me, I still get a feeling from it. While it may be better to make your own metaphors, I don't think it's wrong to use some ones that already exist. That being said, some of the articles were quite exaggerated with their use of metaphors and imagery. I mean, I was sometimes laughing at how "powerful" the speaker was trying to get. Trying being the important word. Writing like that just takes away the point of what you're talking about. Which may be the point in some politicians. But, overall, I think both Orwell and modern English have their own applications, and as the world changes, so should English. Neither one should be used all the time. Perhaps Orwell will cringe at this next phrase, but I have a strange urge to write it anyways: "There's a time and a place for everything".

Sometimes writing is used to make a person think a certain way. And in that case, some authors do everything they can to brainwash and force your to think their way. Communism, propaganda, and politicians all do this. Even nations do this a little bit to create a stronger unity and nationalism. It's part of human nature to want to control a bit of life, and gullible people are like sitting ducks. That's why education is important. It's not the grammar, history lessons, or math equations that I come to school for- it's because at school, there are thoughtful and important lessons to be learned. I learn about life: how people think, how they might manipulate you, or love you, and how we should think, and how to live in the world. In English we are learning to question what people write, and to not just take it all in and believe it. In history we look past all the facts to analyze why leaders act as they do. We look at several books, all of which say the opposite, and get down deeper into the past. In math, we use equations in everyday life so we can apply all that we learn in school to the outside world. In each case, we have to learn grammar, history lessons, and math equations. Now that we've got the basis of that down, it's interesting to really go in depth- even if that's hard, because we've been trained to accept everything a teacher says.

Back to my original point, no matter if Orwell is right or wrong (and I think he is a little of both), I doubt we (as a world) are going to end writing to manipulate. People in power love this all too much. What we can do, however, is, in school, learn to know what people are meaning (not just saying) and choose to agree or disagree, with all the facts in hand.

Language and Thought

George Orwell's Politics and the English Language brings up good points about the English language. What I liked most was the overall idea about how language has begun to limit thought rather than express it. Language nowadays seems to cover and confuse what we are saying- not clarify it. Now that this idea has taken hold in my mind, every time I write I find myself thinking about how vague I am. It's not specific. Writing is hard...

This concept that Orwell says applies to Newspeak in 1984 too. Orwell says "... to think clearly is a necessary first step towards political regeneration". Newspeak limits the ability to think, cutting down thousands of words and adding to the vagueness- no longer are their synonyms (although every synonym is slightly different from each other): a replacement of "good" for superior, beneficial, exceptional, and magnificent. Just good, doublegood, plusgood, ect. In Orwell's novel, he brings up the idea that soon, when Newspeak is all that the people of the Party know, they will not have the ability to rebel because the concepts and words to think of rebellion will simply not exist. On the last page, The vague words have multiple meanings and can be twisted any way.

I also found that Orwell's examples of modern English, while they sound much more knowledgeable, are also a lot more confusing. There are so many multi-syllable words that just fuzz up the mind. They flight right over me. Modern English seems to consist of long sentences and uncommon words. Like Orwell says, people have to think less and less- just using the phrases already created: "prose consists less and less of WORDS chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of PHRASES tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated hen-house". More limiting of the mind. Also, reading the well-known verse (not that I knew it) from ECCLESIASTES, his writing seemed much more meaningful and thoughtful than the impersonal scientific modern English version. It seemed almost like a joke.

When I write, I am going to try and think about what I am thinking about- and see that image in my mind. I want to make sure it makes sense. What Orwell writes sort of freaks me out- "A speaker who uses that kind of phraseology has gone some distance towards turning himself into a machine". It scares me because it is sort of true. I've always thought that thinking is what makes us human (Not the only thing, but pretty much at the top of the list). If we don't think as we write or speak, what are we? Also, Orwell comes up with an even more important "enemy of clear language": insincerity. Not only does language cause us to lose our intelligence, but our emotions as well. If thinking is at the top of the list of what makes us humanity, emotion is in second place. Our thoughts and emotions make us who we are. It seems that we are losing both. We gotta think for ourselves. I don't think that we are losing all thought and independence so far, but we are on our way. Perhaps that is a warning in 1984- our society is losing thought and independence, by language and loss of compassion and humanity! Even Winston, who thinks more than many other Outer Party citizens, kicks away that arm like a piece of garbage. Still gives me shivers. I trust in us humans, though, not to lose what we call humanity.

Why do we read novels?

The Psychology of the Novel has a fascinating way of looking at how authors write their novels, how readers read, and what really makes a good book. Although I have thought about many of the author's ideas, there are quite a few new ones that hadn't occurred to me. According to the author, there are many different elements that make a story interesting. The narration of a novel creates a relationship with the reader. I find it interesting that the author creates an analogy by comparing a novel to a friend. It often seems that way to me. Not that I actually talk to it, or anything, but a good novel is one that you feel understands who you are and what you believe. It's comforting. The author says that a "novel is the only imaginative form that must have both action and point of view, suspense and reflection. In this it seems to mimic the way life feels". I guess that's why I like novels too. It is like life, but not.


One thing I didn't understand was when the author said "the world is full of people who are rather proud they don't read novels". What the author says afterwards, about"enlarging a reader's willingness to suspend disbelief" is very true. Reading is about your imagination, about walking (or more accurately, reading) down a path of thought that you have not taken before. About learning something new. About living a different life and learning from others' mistakes. About expanding your imagination, understanding others, and more importantly, understanding yourself! How can people be proud to not read about other opinions, stories, about failing to learn?! It is incomprehensible! Anyone who does not love reading is either in denial or has just not read the right book yet. Books... are books. There is no other word to describe them.


There was one concept that I found intriguing about the first line of a book and what it does to the reader. The author says that it creates the atmosphere and prepares you for the story, so you know where it will lead and accept the rules of imagination. I read the first line of a few books I had lying around the house, and the author's concept applies. Although the first line also tries and hooks you with a weird sort of thing that makes you want to find out what on earth the author is talking about, it also tells the reader about the style of the author, and what to look forward to further down the novel. For instance, comparing the introductions to Great Expectations by Charles Dickens and The Star of Kazan by Eva Ibbotson, one can tell the books are for different audiences and with different styles. The former novel begins with "My father's name being Pirrip, and my Christian name Philip, my infant tongue could make of both names nothing longer or more explicit than Pip" (Dickens, 6). From this sentence we can deduce it is from the first person point of view about a child, and the style of the author is rather a more educated way of writing than the novel by Eva Ibbotson. A children's writer, this is obvious from her first sentence, "Ellie had gone into the church because of her feet" (Ibbotson, 6). One should really pay attention more to the first sentence of a book.


As I was reading about suspense and how at times it is better to slow down reading then scouring through it, a thought occurred to me. The speed of reading, for me, changes. A book may be read better and more understandable if read slower or faster, but I think the speed can be determined by the author. I have read many books, and the speed that I read at changes with each book and at different times. My reading changes because the writing from the author changes. As suspense increases, the author writes in a style that makes me read faster and quicker- but if I need to pay attention to details, the author writes more details, and the words make me read slower and pay more attention. A good author should be able to control what the reader looks at and what the reader notices.

One thing the author also says about novels is that they incorporate different aspects that people read. Some read for intellectual reasons, some for adventure, some just for a simple story- the list goes on. However, I think that the books that one rereads are the ones that contain multiple of these aspects. The author late says that good books "work perfectly at lower levels of play... even though there is more to be discovered as the reader grows more sophisticated". This is why some books are better to read than others. For instance, I have read Ender's Game I don't know how many times. I like this book because it has a good plot but also makes someone think about bigger things too. I understand Ender, as well as many other characters, and a very interesting and absorbing storyline. However, there are different parts of the book that contain different intellectual, suspenseful, and thoughtful elements, and so sometimes I can just open to a certain part of the book depending on what mood I am in.

There are so many things in a book that determine whether it is a good fit for a reader. Lots of things. The Psychology of a Novel points out many of these components. However, I think that the most important thing that the author has mentioned about a good book is that a novel is your friend. Reading a novel is a relationship: if you don't like the book, you don't "hang out" with it anymore. And if you love it, because it understands your thoughts and emotions, then it's your friend. You read it more than once. You feel what the author writes, and you live the author's story. And it remains a memory.

Books are books.