10

In this other question I ask about what happens to Winston Smith at the end of 1984. Without going into spoilers, arguments can be made for two different endings. Much of that is based on a statement made earlier in the book, by O'Brien, who basically states that the Party doesn’t “just” execute people; they break them down and teach them to love Big Brother. Then, when they’re broken and soulless and content to be a member of the party, that’s when they’re executed. (Not an exact quotation, so it's not marked as such, but that's the point O'Brien makes.)

Is there any evidence in the form of interviews, letters from Orwell, essays, or anything else, that tells us that Orwell intended the ending to be ambiguous? Is there any evidence that Orwell did not think it was an ambiguous ending? (Maybe, for example, a record of correspondence with his publisher?)

While I, and, apparently a number of other people on the site, feel the ending was intentionally ambiguous, that is, by no means, authoritative and it's quite possible it wasn't intended as such, at least not originally.

Any evidence of Orwell's intent for the ending would certainly be germain and a possible answer to this question.

Community
  • 1
Tango
  • 107,123
  • 86
  • 479
  • 752
  • 4
    That's not the end of the book...; https://qz.com/95696/you-probably-didnt-read-the-most-telling-part-of-orwells-1984-the-appendix/ – Valorum Mar 13 '17 at 16:53
  • 2
    You may be interested in questions tagged 1984 over at Literature.SE. ;) (AKA me trying to get more traffic to my site :P) – Mithical Mar 13 '17 at 17:17
  • This seems a lot like the other question, though.... – Adamant Mar 13 '17 at 17:49
  • 1
    @Adamant: I thought about that, but the other question (which is also mine) is strictly in-universe. I considered editing it, to add this, but that doesn't seem appropriate, since it has a selected answer and a total of 30 answer that dealt with the specific in-universe aspect of it. – Tango Mar 13 '17 at 18:06
  • @Valorum: It's the end of the narrative. – Tango Mar 13 '17 at 18:06
  • 3
    @Tango - I disagree. It's couched as an appendix but in reality it gives a substantial in-universe description of the fall of the state, turning Winston's petty rebellion into part of a larger (and more successful) revolution. – Valorum Mar 13 '17 at 18:09
  • @Valorum Um...no it doesn't. That Quartz article seems to be a complete misreading of the text, which is available here. The part about untranslatable Oldspeak literature just says that since these works couldn't be translated faithfully, they would be transmuted and the originals destroyed. The use of the subjunctive throughout is indeed somewhat suggestive that perhaps the Party collapsed between 1984 and 2050, but there is nothing else to indicate that this is "canonical," let alone a "substantial in-universe description of the fall". – Kyle Strand May 05 '17 at 17:44
  • Your question only describes one interpretation of the ending. From the other question, it seems that the ambiguity you're discussing is whether or not Winston is killed by the Party, but I don't think that's quite clear from this question, which should be able to stand on its own. – Kyle Strand May 05 '17 at 17:48
  • @KyleStrand - Um... there's really no other (sensible) way to read it. The appendix is written in a way that would be utterly unthinkable within the confines of the state. – Valorum May 05 '17 at 18:38
  • @Valorum Yes, I agree that as a piece of in-universe text, it can't have been written in Oceania. That's not actually a lot of information, though, let alone an indication that Oceania fell because of a revolution. – Kyle Strand May 05 '17 at 18:44
  • @KyleStrand - Sure, it might have collapsed for a variety of reasons, but for it to have disappeared so abruptly (and completely) within a single generation indicates revolution not evolution. – Valorum May 05 '17 at 18:49
  • @Valorum To be entirely explicit, I don't actually think that the in-universe interpretation of the appendix is Orwell's intended reading. Note, for instance, that the date at the bottom is 1949. Even if it is intended to be a text within the universe of the novel, I don't think it's conclusive proof that Oceania disappeared and the Newspeak project was abandoned before 2050. – Kyle Strand May 05 '17 at 19:45
  • 1
    @KyleStrand - 1949 is the date that the real novel 1984 was published. Post-2050 is when the in-universe novel 1984 was published. I can see how that could be confusing. – Valorum May 05 '17 at 19:47
  • Let us continue this discussion in chat. – Kyle Strand May 05 '17 at 19:48

0 Answers0