1984: We Get It – Winston Has a Varicose Ulcer!

First published in 1949, with the Second World War still fresh and the Cold War underway, George Orwell’s canonical novel writes of a totalitarian Britain that mirrors and criticises Soviet Communism under Stalin. In this fictive surveillance state, propaganda, torture, language, and imprisonment are some of the means used by the Party to oppress its people. Considering this in a political climate where Jimmy Kimmel’s beloved and long-running show recently saw itself suspended from the public eye, Orwell’s observations on censorship and authoritarianism have a startling similitude with today’s reality.

Winston Smith is the protagonist of 1984, providing a sort of ‘everyman’ function. Employed at the Ministry of Truth, Winston fosters a sense of disloyalty and rebellion throughout the novel as he becomes wary of the Party’s manipulation of reality and history: who knows, is the year really even 1984? Winston’s introspective and curious nature makes him a powerful mouthpiece for Orwell’s concerns, but…

Winston’s ulcer is mentioned way too much. Rather than honing in on the protagonist’s medical affliction, Orwell would have been wise to use his words for providing an alternative vision of the totalitarian regime, or even a closer investigation into the economic mechanisms of the State. Of course, as an English Literature student, the symbolism of the ulcer is not lost on me: it acts as a physical manifestation of the State’s psychological repression. Regardless, it is rather gruesome and repetitive. Perhaps even sadistic.

It is no secret that Orwell himself suffered from a plethora of ailments throughout his life, including tuberculosis. Although, as literature students, we are often dissuaded from considering the world outside of the narrative, a Doylist explanation would dare to step into the author’s shoes. Considering this, is it possible that Orwell wanted to plague his protagonist with physical and emotional suffering much akin to his own?

But enough about that dreadful varicose ulcer. 1984 is also riddled with another malady: misogyny. In contemporary US politics, steps have been taken to actively reduce women to their reproductive capacity with the reversal of Roe v. Wade and a lack of paid maternity leave. Orwell’s female characters receive similar treatment and can be categorised into promiscuous, lusted-after objects and vapid half-wits. Though the main female protagonist, Julia, is educated and has just enough critical thinking to reject the Party’s values, she is “confused” by and apathetic towards politics and reading. As with many literary works, it is rather difficult to decide whether the sexist attitudes belong to Orwell or his character.

That is not to say that there is no value at all to Orwell’s magnum opus. We have all heard of Shakespeare’s influence on the English language, but what about Orwell’s? Adapting the English language in his novel, Orwell creates the language of newspeak, as enforced by the totalitarian state of Oceania. With a complete removal of synonyms, antonyms, superlatives and the majority of adverbs and adjectives, newspeak demonstrates the extent to which freedom of speech can be curtailed in an attempt to control thoughts and expression. As such, terms like Big Brother, newspeak, unperson, thoughtcrime, thought police and doublethink have all entered the English language as a direct influence of 1984 and are now entrenched in our vocabularies.

So, what am I trying to say? I understand why 1984 remains a valuable piece of fiction, providing us with a cautionary and sobering insight into a civilisation corrupted by power. I also advocate for its readership and its place on school syllabuses. However, the novel is not untouchable because of its canonical status, and its discourse on women requires some serious discussion: why is Julia’s rebellion corporeal and not ideological? Is she a symbol of a natural and instinctive resistance to oppression, or is she simply reduced to her sexual function? 

Clearly, there are still a lot of problems to address. So, instead of pushing Orwell’s novel further into the limelight, I would like to speak up for a lesser-known but powerful adversary to the dystopian throne: We by Yevgeny Zamyatin. Though substantially shorter than Orwell’s, Zamyatin’s novel does not lack depth. We has influenced many of its dystopian successors, including 1984, and packs a real punch.

Words by Raechel Duddle