Customer Reviews

1985

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Burgess' 1985 is really two works combined. The first is a series of essays and self-interviews that discuss Orwell's 1984. These are a great group of essays that really throw some light on Orwell's novel. Anyone who likes 1984 should read these essays. The second half is a novella of Burgess titled 1985. The dust jacket gives the impression that it is supposed to be a sequel of sorts. It isn't. It is a dystopia that takes place in 1985 (written in 1978) and is supposed to be a (more) possible scenario at the time. It isn't very entertaining, and a lot of ideas, characters, themes, etc aren't fleshed out the way they should be. But I suppose that could do with the shortness of the story. And Burgess should have been more careful with his title. Burgess's 1985 isn't a frightening or as well written as Orwell's 1984, and Burgess drawing the reader to make a comparison only hurts his story. After the novella is a short chapter on Worker's English (WE) which is Burgess' version of Newspeak. The problem is that WE isn't used much in the story, is really nothing more than a little slang, and I understand that Burgess only has the chapter/essay because of Orwell's explanation of Newspeak, but it is dull and unnecessary. Then Burgess finishes out the volume with another self-interview which discusses the possibility of his future. All this in only 270 pages. Still, the discussion of Orwell's 1984 that the first half is comprised of is excellent and the book is worth finding, if only for that.

A stunning book which I stumbled across completely by chance - and one which throws new light on two of the last century's most important novels: Orwell's 1984 and Burgess' own A Clockwork Orange. I have long been an admirer of both books, but this book is fascinating in that it goes some way towards clarifying the moral stances which have long remained open to interpretation in the two previous books. Unusually for a popular work, the book combines a devastating critique of 1984, with it's own fictional riposte (the 1985 of the title). The latter part being particularly interesting as a reminder of just how pertinent the issue of syndicalism was in the days just before the resurgence of rampant lassez faire.

Two books in one, the first an examination of George Orwell's 1984, the second Burgess' own view of the future.

His analysis of 1984 is spot on as he looks at Orwell's world, (1984 was meant to be titled 1948), his background and motives for writing it. Burgess also looks at all of the worst possible futures scenarios, general social trends and thoughts for the future. His look at youth culture is particularly cutting, but incisive.

Burgess sees 1985 as a world dominated by trade unions and hyper-inflation, western liberal society and values, crumbling before a militant and virile Islam. Western culture is sapped by a dumbing down of educational standards and a destruction of art and culture. All that is offered is in return is increasingly shoddy consumer goods and a despicable popular culture.

The main character, Bev is a former history teacher, who after his wife is burned to death, because fireman would not break a sympathy strike to quell a hospital fire, decides to rebel against the system. Like Winston Smith his rebellion is doomed to failure, but the world is changing and the syndicalist future will collapse under its own weight.

In his own afterword Burgess states that like Orwell he did not take into account the basic commonsense and decency of the working man. This commonsense and decency which would not allow either nightmares to come to pass. 20 years have passed since this book first appeared, and the future is quite different. But our educational standards have been dumbed down, and our freedoms do face a threat from increasingly militant and fanatical fringe groups. A new totalitarianism is possible and indeed imminent so Anthony Burgess' final message is that we must not take for granted our physical and intelectual freedoms.

His section on Workers English is very amusing as he renders the Declaration of Independence and Hamlets Soliquy into the argot of the English working class yob.

Half a book thought provoking in the way of P.J O'Rouke at his best, the ! other half offering what all excellent fiction should do an escape into a credible, but different world.

It is always interesting to see one good author's take on another. In this case Anthony Burgess, author of A Clockwork Orange and The Wanting Seed, evaluates and criticizes George Orwell's 1985. After extensive interviews and essays on the nature of Orwell's seminal work, Burgess pens his own short novella, entitled 1985 (to avoid plagiarism, so he says.) Burgess's view of the cacotopian future is much closer to his own vantage point in strike plagued late 70's Britain, than was Orwell's in the immediate post WWII era. Orwell had originally envisioned calling his novel Nineteen Forty Eight such was the perceived similarity between his own environment and that of Winston Smith's, but the publisher persuaded him to set it in the future. Burgess, living through that era as well remembers clearly the chronic shortages of razor blades and soap, the pervasive smell of boiled cabbage, the ubiquitous rubble and the slogans emblazoned on walls and billboards. Burgess even suggests that 1984, rather than a dark forecast of a dystopian future is actually a satirical stab at socialist England in 1948. In his essays, Burgess addresses questions such as these: As a devoted lifelong Socialist, what made Orwell cast INGSOC in such horrific terms? Why does an author and novelist distrust words so much that he would create Newspeak? How does the rise of the Labour Party and the British trade unions foreshadow the real loss of personal freedom that underscored the horror of the totalitarian Big Brother? What is it about revolutions that are inherently progressive? If you loved 1984, read this and find out one man's answers to these and many other questions.

One half philosophical insight and quasi-interviews, one half futuristic horror story. Put them together and you get Anthony Burgess' novel _1985_.
The first half is easily the more interesting of the two, as it clearly expresses Burgesses' views on other novels (specifically _1984_ and his own work, _A Clockwork Orange_), anarchy, good, evil, and society in general. The interviews with himself are wonderful- a brilliant new way to express an opinon while being sure that the only questions asked are the ones that you have a ready answer for.
As for the second part, the continuation of _1984_, the very problem is that it is such a continuation. The first novel was so wonderful that it's hard to have the sequel live up to the legacy, and it necessarily pales in comparison. That's not to say that I haven't read it a couple times, but it still isn't among the celestial greats.

The novel itself is pretty weak, especially for Burgess. He seems scared by the gulf oil money that was flowing into England in the 1970s, perhaps even a bit resentful. However, preceding the novel is an extended essay on imaginary fiction that includes Burgess' take on Orwell. This essay is worth reading. It is as insightful as the novel is disappointing.

while reading the intro! Gives away far too much of the novel itself. Or is this part of the new world order?

An outstanding work that is clearly (read the other reviews, all bar Mr Pen-some's are naive responses) not understood or appreciated. I spent some time trying to track down a copy of this text and it was well worth it. People who have not read it should gush less when offering their critiques of 1984. To define the text would be to insult it but those who have read other Burgess works will recognise his fascination with and utilisation of multiple styles and approaches, the better to deal with the subjects in hand. Another masterpiece from Wilson - and no surprises there!

The thing that strikes me about this book is that it now reads as alternate history. Say Margaret Thatcher never goes into politics, and the Labour ascendency of the '70s is not cut short. Given the grimy, hopeless bitterness of many ostensibly socialist societies, the excesses depicted in this novel become more realistic. The resolution of these excesses (to the extent that they are resolved at all) is, alas, less convincing.

Minor spoiler -

the idea that the elected government would fall under the general mess could be found in almost any book. The idea that

the King (Charles Tertius) would emerge as the _de jure_ head of state to get things moving again was pure brilliance.

Anthony Burgess's novel "1985" is a classic work in the cacotopian (his word) genre. It begins with an excellent historical and philosophical overview of the development of Orwell's "1984," and then goes on a track all its own...detailing the deleterious effects on liberty when trade unions take over. In some aspects it mirrors Orwell's work...for example, instead of "newspeak", "Worker's English," complete with much common British profanity, replaces modern English ...the scenes in secret prison camps are also very similar to Orwell. Yet the unique slant of Burgess's work makes "1985" nearly irresistable, especially after tackling other "cacotopian" works.