"A bit depressing and bleak" is, I think, how I initially described 1984 at the beginning of the month, suggesting it as a book of the month. I don't think that anyone can really argue with that, can you?
I found 1984 to be an utterly fascinating book. More than the plot, the idea of controlling the past and, from that, controlling the future took my imagination:
"...and if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed ... then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past,' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.' " (Ch. 3)
All of us are far more reliant than maybe we realise on received wisdom. We're all educated to believe certain things about science, history, religion and the arts. The Normans invaded England in 1066, Leonardo Da Vinci was Italian, the first powered flight was in 1903, the pilgrims crossed the Atlantic in the Mayflower, the plural of "sheep" is "sheep" and not "sheeps". None of us knows these for a fact. They're all things that we've been told that we choose to believe. Does it really matter if these things are true or not? Probably not in any meaningful sense. And what are the alternatives? You can hardly start each child off from first principles - some things have to be presented as true, as accepted facts. Not believing in any received wisdom would lead to everyone being like the Ruler of the Universe in the Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy. The idea as presented in this book that history could be changed by changing the evidence associated with it is an interesting one. Not a new one when 1984 was written in 1948, though. Both Hitler and Stalin had their equivalent of the Ministry of Truth, making "unpersons" of those fallen from favour.
The culture of Oceana stuck me as being more like Mao's China more than Stalin's Russia. In particular the repression of the proles, the suppression of learning, and the gross decadence of the ruling elite struck more of a chord with Mao, at least in my view, although the world's known enough tyrants over the centuries to each have a facet of The Party.
Any thoughts?