“It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words….Take ‘good,’ for instance. If you have a word like ‘good,’ what need is there for a word like ‘bad’? ‘Ungood’ will do just as well—better, because it’s an exact opposite, which the other is not. Or again, if you want a stronger version of ‘good,’ what sense is there in having a whole string of vague useless words like ‘excellent’ and ‘splendid’ and all the rest of them? ‘Plusgood’ covers the meaning, or ‘doubleplusgood’ if you want something stronger still…In the end the whole notion of goodness and badness will be covered by only six words—in reality, only one word. Don’t you see the beauty of that, Winston?”
--p 51
This rather frustrating passage summarizes the entire concept behind Ingsoc’s vernacular, known as Newspeak. The interesting aspect of Orwell’s usage of a vernacular is that not only does he use it, but he explains it. If Orwell had simply written in the vernacular, including words such as “ungood” and “doubleplusgood”, the reader would infer that Big Brother has dumbed down society, creating a stupid—and almost illiterate of sorts—mass of citizens to obey them. By explaining why citizens speak in Newspeak, however, Orwell sends an even more frightening message. Big Brother has created Newspeak not to make it easier to express ideas, but actually to make it harder. By limiting people’s power of expression, Big Brother limits their power to think independently. The whole point of an expanding language is to accommodate for new ideas, opinions, and beliefs. By shrinking the language, Big Brother slowly but surely inhibits these ideas and opinions, getting a firmer grip on the minds of its subjects over time. Orwell explains his vernacular to emphasize the implications of “benevolent control.”
No comments:
Post a Comment