A One-Sided Conversation
In Brave New World, John and Mond’s encounter serves as an ideological battle between two opposing forces. In 1984, the chapters we just read feel the most analogous to this (both protagonists being captured by one of the leaders of the authoritarian state), except they’re dark and twisted in a way that would only be found in 1984.
O’Brien seems to know whatever Winston is thinking. It’s kind of a cliché, to be honest. Nonetheless, I would argue that the extreme restriction on thought—more so than in Brave New World—limits the scope that Winston is able to express himself. The ideological “battle” isn’t really a fair one if Winston hasn’t been exposed to the word “solipsism,” for example.
There’s also the element of torture and psychological abuse that is much more present in 1984 than in Brave New World. It makes Winston vs. O’Brien feel very one-sided and almost superficial.
What do you think? As a spectator, would it be more interesting to watch a debate between John vs. Mond or Winston vs. O’Brien? Do you agree that Winston is at a disadvantage against O’Brien?
Comments
Post a Comment