In the book revew “An Indignant and Prophetic Novel” published in the June 12 1949 edition of The New York Times Book Review Mark Schorer writes about how the novel 1989 by George Orwell makes the American society desire freedom and loath Tyranny. In the article Schorer talks about the correlations between modern society and the society from 1984 and how it is not just satirical vision of society in the future but is really a glum prediction of what could be. This is best demonstrated when Schorer say “Nineteen Eighty-Four appears at first glance to fall into that long-established tradition of satirical fiction…..Yet before one has finished reading the nearly bemused first page, it is evident that this is fiction of another order, and presently one makes the distinctly unpleasant discovery that it is not to be satire at all.”Good. He talks about the horrors of totalitarianism, an extreme form of communism in which the government has total control over everything in society and in life, when he says “it was an expression of Mr. Orwell's moral and intellectual indignation before the concept of totalitarianism as localized in Russia”. He does this using sensory images to show the parallels between communism and totalitarianism because in actuality totalitarianism is an extreme form of communism and could have possibly become part of the Soviet government at the time.It already was.The author further describes the evil of society by using thought crimes as an example of the evils of this government by showing how through all of the corrupt power that the government still must destroy anyone who is different. Both however authors talk about how the book itself is a work of linguistic masterpiece in the way Orwell gets his messages out.Huh? Since this is a review, you needed to establish the opinions inherant in his review. Did he recommend the novel? How did he do this?
In the second essay titled “Winston Smith: The Last Humanist” W. H. Freeman discusses how Winston Smith's sensibility can be seen as representing a constellation of special intellectual, aesthetic, and literary values. Isn't this a quote? In regards to 1984 Freeman talks about Winston’s rationalism and objectivity. Winston is loyal to values of earlier generations, thereby preserving the culture unintentionally by holding his memories. Specifically Freeman discusses how this came about when he says “Winston is loyal to the values of an earlier generation—like his mother, who had assumed that "what mattered were individual relationships, and a completely helpless gesture, an embrace, a tear, a word spoken to a dying man, could have value in itself”. In the book the fact that Winston seeks freedom and shows his human side, thereby demonstrating exactly what Freedman means when he talks about Winston seeking to access his human side through emotions and memories of a forgotten society.SS Winston’s resistance to the government is shown in his use of old speak and how he chooses to usually not use new words created by the government to brainwash culture and is demonstrated as such in the quote “Winston Smith holds fast both to the value of Oldspeak and to the ultimate rationale of the early humanist position—the achievement of individual freedom” Freeman argues that Orwell had humanist intentions because of the fact that Winston’s unique deepness of soul gives him a third dimension that no other character in the novel has. Ultimately Freedman shows that Winston is a humanist because of the fact that in the novel he symbolizes the guardian of the human spirit and soul. Good job! Watch the run-ons.
In the two essays previously discussed the authors have different opinions about the symbolism in and about the novel. While Schorer talks more about the symbolism of the society as compared to modern day communism with Winston symbolizing the average man, Freedman shows Winston’s uniqueness in that he is separate from society because of the values and emotions he holds of a lost generation. Schorer also prefers to focus more on the overall plot of the novel and the different roles of people in the novel, where as Freeman discusses the detailed characteristics that make Winston human. These two essays also do however share similarities in the way they refer to Winston. Both authors heavily praise Winston character and talk about the truths of the novel such as the evils of government and the evil potential of to much power.
In the second essay titled “Winston Smith: The Last Humanist” W. H. Freeman discusses how Winston Smith's sensibility can be seen as representing a constellation of special intellectual, aesthetic, and literary values. Isn't this a quote? In regards to 1984 Freeman talks about Winston’s rationalism and objectivity. Winston is loyal to values of earlier generations, thereby preserving the culture unintentionally by holding his memories. Specifically Freeman discusses how this came about when he says “Winston is loyal to the values of an earlier generation—like his mother, who had assumed that "what mattered were individual relationships, and a completely helpless gesture, an embrace, a tear, a word spoken to a dying man, could have value in itself”. In the book the fact that Winston seeks freedom and shows his human side, thereby demonstrating exactly what Freedman means when he talks about Winston seeking to access his human side through emotions and memories of a forgotten society.SS Winston’s resistance to the government is shown in his use of old speak and how he chooses to usually not use new words created by the government to brainwash culture and is demonstrated as such in the quote “Winston Smith holds fast both to the value of Oldspeak and to the ultimate rationale of the early humanist position—the achievement of individual freedom” Freeman argues that Orwell had humanist intentions because of the fact that Winston’s unique deepness of soul gives him a third dimension that no other character in the novel has. Ultimately Freedman shows that Winston is a humanist because of the fact that in the novel he symbolizes the guardian of the human spirit and soul. Good job! Watch the run-ons.
In the two essays previously discussed the authors have different opinions about the symbolism in and about the novel. While Schorer talks more about the symbolism of the society as compared to modern day communism with Winston symbolizing the average man, Freedman shows Winston’s uniqueness in that he is separate from society because of the values and emotions he holds of a lost generation. Schorer also prefers to focus more on the overall plot of the novel and the different roles of people in the novel, where as Freeman discusses the detailed characteristics that make Winston human. These two essays also do however share similarities in the way they refer to Winston. Both authors heavily praise Winston character and talk about the truths of the novel such as the evils of government and the evil potential of to much power.