h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

i think that its a really romantic book with him and Julia then it deliberately goes all horrible and he gets brainwashed and they betray each other

Well, you're wrong.
It's a prophetic book.. .."while so many of his friends were romanticising Joe Stalin as the friend of the common man, Orwell had the insight to recognise the dictator for the blood-soaked thug was, and the courage to tell a gullible world the truth.

In 1984, he sets himself the task of revealing the inner woeking of totalitarian regimes as a warning against accomodating tyranny. In part to emphasise that an urgent battle was raging for the soul of Western Civilisation, he planned to call the book "The Last man in Europe"

Writing the book became a race against time. Orwell feared that some calamity might erupt and cause the Cold War to grow hot - and his disease was catching up with him. At the end of 1948, he was so weak that he could hardly sit up. With his old manual typewriter awkwardly positioned on his lap, he spent hours banging away on the machine, coughing and spitting up blood..."

It's an warning alright. Orwell was a part of the Syndicalistic movent ("free socialism") that belives that there should be no state or other higher force that control pepole. The companies should be owned by the workers so everybody got the chance to control their own lives. A syndicalist dont want to change the sociaty with weapons in his hand, rather inspire pepole to think self and learn by their misstake and understand the world in wich they live in ( i guess thats why he wrote 1984 ). Unions should be used to gain control over companies and make justice for all. Orwell himself faught in the spanish civil war, against both the facist and communist sides - he
knew what would happend if Franco won ..

Well,actually the book was a satire on the state of England
under the post-war "national " government.
Big Brother was the BBC Television service which had just
restarted after the hiatus caused by the European ( later, World)
conflict better remembered as " WW2 ".
The reason for the title of the book is that the original
title was thought to be just " a little too close to home ".
The book originally had " 1948 " as its title......

The original title was, as confered to usby Mr. Orwell himself, his publishers, and the most respectable Guardian Newspaper, 'The Last man in Europe' confering the fact that Winstone was the last human person in Europe, where all the others had been turned into slaves of the party.

Orwell, as has been stated was an incredibly insightful man, and as in his book Animal Farm he is warning against Communism, Totalitarian States, and Stalin, in 1984, he is warning against totalitarian states, brainwashing, and mass-media. The title of 1984 was proposed by the publishers as a means of making it sell better, as the title is simpler: It is simply the year in which the book was finished with the last2 digits reversed: 1948 --> 1984.

The book was incredibly insightful for its' time, and many or all of its' messages are still relevant today: from that of the viewing stations imposed by 'the party' on every house, which can be equated to spy satellites, telephone tapping, and the internet to that of the idealised party leader, Big Brother, to that of covering up.

Even should the paralell that you draw be correct, it is flawed: Big Brother is not the organisation controlling the state: The party is: Big Brother is merely an idealistic figurehead: In fact, hypothetically Big Brother probably had, or would have little or no influence in the party, and would not, and probably did not exist at all.

The idea of Big Brother is one familiar to all world dictators: Hitler himself idealised his and his early followers' 'putch'es - attempts to take over the bavarian Government - later on in his reign, although these were little more than flopping rebellions.

Later on, these were idealised through such mediums as stamps, such as one from 1939 which read “Und ihr habt doch gesiegt” which translates approximately as “And you nevertheless triumphed”, in refeence to a picture of a soldier in front of a swastica which is meant to represent one of Hitler's early followers.

I very much doubt if a book parodying a television company with no political or social relevance, and otherwise, no sort of brilliance being displayed would make it to the top 20 boks of all time.

- Njan

Thank you for writing such an interesting reply.
Please allow me to clarify one or two points.
Firstly, the book is not a parody; it is a satire.
My second clarification concerns the role of the B.B.C.
The B.B.C. was ( and still is ) a state-run broadcasting corporation. It is an instrument of governance.
Its remit covered all broadcast material (radio and television ) emanating from the U.K.
For the duration of WW2, the television service was suspended.
It was re-introduced in 1947. ( I think.)
Eric Blair ( AKA George Orwell ) was employed by the B.B.C.

Thankyou... I didn't realise it was interesting, many thanks for the compliment. (In what way?)

Yes, I know... I apologise for my abuse of the English language, hwever I wrote that at about 11 at night and wasn't at my most coherant...

The BBC is not state run. It is very much a private enterprise, although it does have links with the government..

I think it was suspended, yes. Although the Germans used it as a big propaganda tool: They were the first to broadcast high power television signals that reach outside the earth's atmophere, and it has been postulated that anyone monitering us will have received Hitler and his troops at the 1939 (?) Olympics as their first transmission.

He was, yes, but then so are lots of journalists... I re-iterate myself insomuch as a book with no more political or social significance than a satire on a small country's just-emerging television system would never have been as popular.

The book is a satire on a way of life that Orwell was warning about, and elements of that exist today: In Winstone, and indeed every other party member's flat, there is a surveillance device: This fits in quite nicely with the US spying station at Menwith hill in Yorkshire that bugs ever telecommunication in Europe.

Also, to my knowledge, the BBC do not make people disappear, nor do they change the past...

I hardy think that Orwell's penultimate words of "but I have so much more to say" relate to the BBC... I think that bearing in mind his previous books relate to warnings about communism (Animal Farm) and an eye-opener about poverty (Down and out in Paris and London) we can safely say that he was, in fact, not writing a book about the BBC.

- James.

Thank you once more for a truly interesting article.
Allow me to clarify at least one point.
The B.B.C. was and still is a state-run corporation.
It has been allowed to diversify into other fields of information
delivery. ( As in BBC Enterprises and suchlike )
It remains, however, state-funded for its main income, via
the " Licence Fee "
The use of the television as a means of surviellance was purely
a metaphor for describing the power of the political rhetoric that
was being used at that time.
Of course the B.B.C. doesn't make people disappear. Again, this was
all part of the metaphor. No, it was more likely that some branch
of the " Intelligence Service " was used as the role-model for the
department concerned in that little episode.

Finally let me make it quite clear that I have no dislike of the B.B.C.. ( Just in case you might think that I have some grudge against
the institution)
I would go on but Iam very tired; so tired in fact that I have lost the thread....and so I'm off.