yes it’s that book by George Orwell…
My rather plush copy came with a forward by Robert Harris although that had nothing to with my purchase – I simply mention it here because he claims in the forward that George originally thought that he had produced a gem of a book but by the time he had typed it up he despised it, not that Harris offers any explanation of that change himself…
I think it is simple – originally he wanted to call it 1948 and in changing the title to 1984 it was robbed of the intended impact Orwell intended it to have.
Awhile ago I read George’s book of Essays and found them such a profound read I blogged about them [please note that there are more essays in this collection than the recently released Shooting an Elephant with an introduction by Jeremy Paxman who does have a grand mind so if you want a smaller slice of Orwell and a word from Paxman this volume might be more to your liking – as a note just to be clear, every story in ‘Shooting…’ is in the collection of Essays…] and to make my case that 1984 is 1948 I’ll have to go back to those essays…
Part of the book has comments that Orwell made as observations in his essays. The prolonged rationing of the post war years gives credence to the idea of perpetual war and the ‘why’ of it. There were still identity cards…
Alright the extensive camera and listening devices were not around in 1948 – but all else in the book would have been possible then. Indeed the ideas of doublethink and thoughtcrime were lifted from his pointed criticism of the intellectual left. The idea of having a political class always in power subject to various tests – ability and hunger for power could well be the critique of someone who has seen anarchy and collectivism work – this is what has become quite clear in the british model of democracy, indeed this has grown and become even clearer since Thatcher and Blair… And when was the last president of the USA to be elected with a smaller campaigning budget than the other guy?
The most mentioned departments are called [and no spoilers here, thank you] Ministry of Peace, Love, and Truth – at one point the War Department became the Ministry of Defense… The judicial arm of the government is called the ‘Home Office’ where we can all feel a warm glow of being looked after… Ministry of Truth is harder but if you read Orwell’s Essays you find that he thought that the owners of the press, part of what was [and is] called ‘The Establishment’ and because they wish to continue the status quo ie staying in an influential place where there situation is protected – it is in the media’s interest to sell the story that they think will create the right reaction from within us… Either things don’t get reported and therefore never ‘happen’ in any way we would know or they are told in ways that will provoke the right reaction – note how folk accept each paper has an ‘editorial view’…
The other piece in this jigsaw is the civil service who can be vetted and made sure that their views and work comply to their orders and of course the higher up the ladder they climb and the fewer they become the more closely they can be watched.
And this is were the Thought Police come in… with the job of maintaining the work so ordered by the political class in the Post War Consensus… And the rest of us are left to sink in a way that blurred the lines between the middle and lower classes – partly by raising some up and making it possible only for so many to rise higher… Leaving the grand rump of society to a different set of rules that seek to govern their behaviour and to hide the insidious truth of the thoughtpolice and the hopeless plight they were in under the political rulers .
The question to some extent runs about why Orwell wrote this book. I think he wanted to have a much wider audience for his political observations than his essays received and in so changing the dates to coincide with the publishers demand that it not be ‘1948’ he felt it was robbed of it’s power and force – which would answer the question of why he thought it a terrible copy once he had typed it up…
Ironically one can see the sense that in the publisher being part of the establishment makes the case, in a small way, for the de facto Ministry of Truth…
The Third Province 
[…] I wrote about how the novel 1984 was Orwell’s view of how the UK was functioning in 1948 here and argued that he may have been […]
According to Burgess he was forced to change the title/date from 1948 as the publishers ( all of them he sent it to) rejected it on these grounds
I got here following up the ‘1984 was to have been 1948’ after hearing John Judge say it.
Incidentally since you wrote – I think it may be said that a president has been elected on a lesser campaign budget – but that could be argued as his usage of provocations aligned with denied popular feelings to manipulate the media to a negative campaign he didn’t have to pay for. However I still feel these things are selections and not elections.
I heard that quote from Orwell from the end of the book – of the boot stepping on a face forever – and it evoked a recognition for me that is not other than the crucifixion in its meaning.
The willingness or readiness to uncover what is hidden not just by Them – but by our own recoil and evasion in seeking diversion and covering over – is an individual timing – and yet I see a collective exposure now for many.
Many who are ‘before their time’ are suppressed and denied in their time. It goes with the territory. Uncovering the true must illuminate the false to release it.
Incidentally I watched Hitchens on Orwell and realized he was a hatchet job – whether intentionally or not – who knows. Unconscious fear interprets all things awry that are given in the clear.
Thanks for the summary here