Winston finally manages to confirm that his idol, O'Brien, is indeed a member of the Brotherhood, an underground organization dedicated to defeating the Party. O'Brien grills Winston and Julia to make sure that they are prepared to do everything necessary for the Brotherhood.
"'You are prepared to cheat, to forge, to blackmail, to corrupt the minds of children, to distribute habit-forming drugs, to encourage prostitution, to disseminate venereal diseases --- to do anything which is likely to cause demoralization and weaken the power of the Party?'
'Yes'
'If, for example, it would somehow serve our interests to throw sulphuric acid in a child's face --- are you prepared to do that?'
'Yes'" (172)

Quote: I chose this passage because it illustrates how easy it is for idealism to turn to terrorism and that it is all a matter of perspective. This is the moment where Winston sacrifices his ideals to get revenge on the Party that made him sacrifice his humanity. 

Analysis: Orwell uses characterization to put his point across here. He uses O'Brien, who he writes as well educated and well-spoken, to speak casually of horrific acts, as if they are unfortunate but necessary minor unpleasantries. Orwell also subtly foreshadows O'Brien's true nature. O'Brien is testing Winston's conformity to his group's ideas, and Winston unthinkingly agrees to all of the atrocities suggested. O'Brien speaks at length while Winston only bleats out "Yes" at the proper intervals like so much cattle. This is much like the distinction between "freedom fighter" and "terrorist" today. French Resistance members are honored as heroes, despite having a hand in the deaths of many innocent French as well as Germans. They are heroes because they won. Al Qaeda are terrorists. They live in caves and they are hunted like rats by drones and soldiers in the mountains. They are terrorists because they haven't beaten us. To label any group or person one or the other, you must value someone's life above another's.
Nick
10/31/2012 06:51:48 am

I agree with you that every piece of history has two sides, and every "good guy" could be considered a "bad guy" to another person. My question is how do we define good vs. evil when we are not involved? The Party members and the brotherhood would serve as the examples in 1984.

Reply
10/31/2012 12:34:24 pm

When we are not involved, we side with who we sympathize with more. We hold classic Western ideology, so we side with Winston. Maybe a Marxist, or a Nazi would side with the Party. "Good and Evil" are just "Me and You."

Reply



Leave a Reply.