The first big difference between 1984 j Juliathe sequel to the novel by George Orwell what the American wrote Sandra Newman (already published in Spain by Destino), it is 1984 It’s a claustrophobic story with very few characters and very few locations Julia It includes a thousand details and a very extensive list. There are scenes that are like journeys, interiors that seem like journeys de Tarkovski thing and infinite textures of fabric, rubble and concrete… Newman explains everything in his novel: he explains how the IngSoc Party works, what its members eat, what’s on the black market, what they show on TV… And even How the rats that torment Winston Smith bite.
when we read 1984 We are aware that all these elements continue to have potential, it is as if Orwell had suppressed them. The Anti-Sex League, the black market and so on.…, explains Newman. If they seem undeveloped, it is because Orwell wanted to write a political allegory, a repulsive one. On the other hand, today we no longer write political allegories, but rather strive to retell things from one feminist perspective. And more than feminist, from the perspective of those who have remained hidden in history. This very contemporary approach invites detail. That’s what they call it on TV World building?Exactly.
The other key difference between the two novels is focus: Winston, this man who was determined to immerse himself in reality, was Orwell’s central character. Newman, on the other hand, chooses Julia, his lover and student, the most conflicted character of 1984. In Orwell’s novel, Julia always seemed ready to negotiate with the system, to conquer spaces of freedom in exchange for more or less her loyalty. less wrong. Contact with the idealist Winston will make Julia question her pragmatism.
There is a misunderstanding about it 1984: People, not everyone, but many people, believe that Winston is a hero. It is not. Rather, it is an ironic figure and Orwell makes fun of him in many places, Newman explains. As for Julia, I’m not sure the right word is “ambiguous.” She is another woman, one of those people who is able to preserve an inner part that is not easily accessible. For me the key 1984 the thing is Winston believes that Julia is showing him her true colors.. He believes that Julia is lying to everyone but him, even though he has just met her. It’s a somewhat ridiculous claim. Julia doesn’t have a real face, but I wouldn’t say she’s a conflicted person. In reality, he is an extrovert with simple motivations. And she is sociable because she knows what she wants.
Julia Set in the same year, 1984, that Orwell imagined, it takes its characters to the same moment they meet. It’s not a prequel or a spin off, but it is an expansion of the original novel. Smith appears as an enlightened man who insists on surrendering to his archenemy O’Brien. However, we find out from Julia She is a declassed woman trying to regain the status her parents lost.. She is a careerist but also has noble and compassionate gestures and is able to realize that love is not hate, contrary to what Big Brother propaganda says.
And O’Brien? O’Brien gives a chilling speech midway through the novel, a scene in which he defends his system in rational and moral terms. He explains that hate is love because hate promises justice and cleansing fire. Any reader who reads it will think that O’Brien sounds very contemporary, but that is not the case In this sense, Orban and Bolsonaro speak what would be easy and convenient. No: O’Brien leaves the readers of Julia because it pushes the discourse of politicians elected by Europe’s educated and progressive middle classes to extremes. The politicians who represent them.
I have always thought that this paradox is very 1984: The temptation is always to say that it is other people who are spreading hate.. That’s why they deserve to be hated, and that’s how the wheel starts turning. The interesting thing would be to ask ourselves how much of a villain we ourselves are, because that is the attitude that leads to real progress. Of course, this also puts us in a position of weakness. And when we start to admit the possibility that we are wrong, we have already lost all arguments. That is the problem of politics and morals.
- Members of the Big Brother Party describe themselves as socialists and anti-capitalists three or four times. Did the possibility of forgoing these categories appeal to you? Make them more ideologically abstract…
- No, I specifically wanted them to do it that way. The world of 1984 It’s already abstract enough and I set out to work within what Orwell created, not change it. I think the opposite wouldn’t have worked, it would have sounded anachronistic or wrong.
In Juliathe Big Brother system is more fragile than in 1984It is full of cracks and doesn’t shine the perfect oppression that Orwell invented. His subjects secretly mock Newspeak euphemisms and blame each other for their frustrations.
Especially his sexual frustration. There is an official policy in Big Brother Oceania Pronatalism and chastity this creates an obsessive black market for love and sex. In the background, Julia tells the story of a woman, Julia herself, beautiful and popular with both men and women, who is manipulated by O’Brien to search the underworld of desire for a way to survive and perhaps thrive. Then, of course, Julia’s advantage becomes her tragedy.
- There are many literary dystopias that go in the opposite direction, that tell of totalitarian worlds that are very lax in their sexuality, separating love from eroticism and thus entertaining their victims. Why Julia Is it sexually restrictive?
- Because that’s how it was with Orwell and in his time. In the 20th century, sexual repression was believed to be linked to totalitarianism. Today I don’t see this as a deterministic relationship; In fact, I don’t think sexual repression in the USSR was very different from that in the UK in Orwell’s time. But it’s true: sexuality represents an attitude of anarchy that is directed against power and its desire to create structures. I think those in power are always a little uncomfortable with sexual freedom and prefer ritualized forms of sexuality.
And almost the same can be said about beauty in the most conventional sense of the word: in the pages of JuliaOrwell’s characters live in a gray and neglected world, but look for a glimpse of beauty in every crack: excerpts from 19th century poems, phrases from old aristocratic sayings, ruins waiting for someone to look at them with romantic eyes.. .In the final pages of the novel, Julia discovers a group of women who… They wear colorful dresses, pink hair and paint their toenails.. And that moves her.
“There are many meanings of the word beauty and some of them may seem completely amoral to us. And yet they represent a necessary beauty. These days I was in Madrid in the Prado Museum and I was aware, as never before, how unpleasant that these were some images, these kings on horseback, dressed in the most splendid way… How many people had to suffer to to achieve this image? There I was in the museum, enjoying an art that I never wanted to give up.“.
One last detail: At the end of the book, Sandra Newson gives Big Brother a real name: Humphrey Pease. That must sound a bit old-fashioned in English, right? “Very old-fashioned. If there is a Humphrey Pease in the world today, I’m sure he uses a pseudonym. And that is the meaning of this name: in totalitarianism there is always an element of paranoia, of Big Brother terror.” of being discovered as poor Humphrey Pease, ashamed of himself.
