Living in a World of Surveillance: A Review of George Orwell’s 1984

Book Review: 1984 by George Orwell​

What happens when the state controls not just your actions but your thoughts?
When truth becomes subjective—and reality is whatever the Party says it is?

One of the most potent dystopian books ever written is George Orwell's 1984. Strangely enough, it only becomes more pertinent over time.
1984 centers on Winston Smith, a low-level Party official tasked with rewriting history at the Ministry of Truth in the fictional totalitarian state of Oceania. Winston, however, has a perilous urge: the need to remember, to feel, and to look for the truth outside of the Party's lies.

World Without Privacy
A terrifying reality is presented to us right away in the book: "BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU."
There is a telescreen in each room. You can overhear every word. Every expression has the potential to deceive you. Independent thought is treasonous, and the idea of privacy is out of date.
It's amazing how Orwell frightens the reader without resorting to physical violence. The psychological manipulation of language, memory, and identity is the true horror.

Newspeak and the Death of Thought
Newspeak, a language created to restrict the range of human thought, is among Orwell's most inventive creations. Can you even imagine what freedom would be like if you couldn't even pronounce the word?

This concept is uncannily similar to how misinformation, media manipulation, and propaganda operate in the real world. Orwell envisioned a society in which language is used more as a means of oppression than for communication.

Themes That Still Resonate​

Though written over 70 years ago, 1984 remains strikingly relevant today. Think about:

Governments and corporations collecting your data
Media being used to distort facts
Echo chambers where only one narrative dominates
Cancel culture and surveillance culture converging

Orwell didn’t just predict the future—he warned us. The tragedy is that we’re still catching up to his warning.

Character Depth
A typical hero is not Winston Smith. He is vulnerable, conflicted, and weak. And that's what gives him his authenticity. Even though we know that escape may be impossible, we still support him because of his covert rebellion against the Party, his extramarital affair, and his desire to feel human again.

His lover Julia stands for a different kind of rebellion, one that is less idealistic and more pragmatic. Together, they offer us a glimmer of hope, which Orwell tragically and brilliantly destroys.

Final Thoughts
It's difficult to read 1984. It's depressing, intense, and unsettling. However, the book is one that must be read.
It makes us doubt the media, authority figures, the truth, and even ourselves.
When people stop asking questions, it serves as a reminder of how brittle freedom is and how quickly it can be taken away.

This book is your answer—and your warning—if you've ever wondered what unbridled power looks like or how societies can be controlled through fear.

 

[Priyani Gupta]

Your review of George Orwell’s 1984 thoughtfully highlights the chilling realities of a totalitarian regime where state control extends beyond actions to the very fabric of thought and truth. I appreciate how you draw attention to Orwell’s visionary concepts—especially the manipulation of language and history—and connect them effectively to contemporary issues like surveillance, misinformation, and media bias. Your emphasis on the psychological terror rather than physical violence in the novel is spot-on and underlines why 1984 remains deeply unsettling and relevant.


The way you describe “BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU” encapsulates the core of Orwell’s warning about loss of privacy, and it is striking to realize how some aspects of this fictional dystopia mirror our current digital age. Governments and corporations today do indeed collect vast amounts of personal data, and social media algorithms create echo chambers reminiscent of the Party’s propaganda machines. This correlation you’ve made is practical and necessary for readers to understand the novel’s real-world implications.


Your mention of Newspeak is particularly insightful. The idea that limiting language restricts thought is not just a fictional curiosity—it’s a powerful reminder of how control over communication can shape societal norms and beliefs. However, here I might gently introduce a controversial thought: while 1984 warns against the dangers of controlling language, in real life, language and meaning are often far more fluid and decentralized. Despite attempts at manipulation, people continue to create, adapt, and resist imposed narratives, which gives room for hope that total intellectual control is difficult, if not impossible, to sustain indefinitely.


You also do well to highlight the complex characterization of Winston Smith, a far cry from the stereotypical hero. His vulnerabilities and flaws make his rebellion all the more relatable and poignant. I agree that Julia’s pragmatic rebellion adds dimension to the story, illustrating different ways individuals resist oppression. However, one might question whether Orwell’s tragic ending, where hope is ultimately crushed, leans too heavily into pessimism. Could such bleakness risk disempowering readers or making resistance seem futile? While the warning is crucial, it’s worth discussing whether literature should also inspire actionable hope rather than just dread.


The article’s final reflections on the fragility of freedom and the dangers of complacency are essential. It’s practical advice for readers to stay vigilant and question authority, media, and even themselves. Yet, I’d argue that in today’s context, where misinformation is rampant and “cancel culture” often polarizes rather than unites, the conversation needs nuance. For instance, while surveillance and control are threats, there’s also value in public accountability and the role of the media in exposing wrongdoing. The balance between freedom and security, truth and narrative, is more complex than Orwell’s binary world might suggest.


In conclusion, your review is a compelling primer on why 1984 endures as a cautionary tale. It’s a must-read for anyone interested in understanding power, language, and truth. But it also invites us to think critically about our present and how we can avoid Orwellian futures not just by fearing control, but by actively engaging with the complexity of our societies, embracing both skepticism and hope.

 

[Subiksha Anand]

Book Review: 1984 by George Orwell​

What happens when the state controls not just your actions but your thoughts?
When truth becomes subjective—and reality is whatever the Party says it is?

One of the most potent dystopian books ever written is George Orwell's 1984. Strangely enough, it only becomes more pertinent over time.
1984 centers on Winston Smith, a low-level Party official tasked with rewriting history at the Ministry of Truth in the fictional totalitarian state of Oceania. Winston, however, has a perilous urge: the need to remember, to feel, and to look for the truth outside of the Party's lies.

World Without Privacy
A terrifying reality is presented to us right away in the book: "BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU."
There is a telescreen in each room. You can overhear every word. Every expression has the potential to deceive you. Independent thought is treasonous, and the idea of privacy is out of date.
It's amazing how Orwell frightens the reader without resorting to physical violence. The psychological manipulation of language, memory, and identity is the true horror.

Newspeak and the Death of Thought
Newspeak, a language created to restrict the range of human thought, is among Orwell's most inventive creations. Can you even imagine what freedom would be like if you couldn't even pronounce the word?

This concept is uncannily similar to how misinformation, media manipulation, and propaganda operate in the real world. Orwell envisioned a society in which language is used more as a means of oppression than for communication.

Themes That Still Resonate​

Though written over 70 years ago, 1984 remains strikingly relevant today. Think about:

Governments and corporations collecting your data
Media being used to distort facts
Echo chambers where only one narrative dominates
Cancel culture and surveillance culture converging

Orwell didn’t just predict the future—he warned us. The tragedy is that we’re still catching up to his warning.

Character Depth
A typical hero is not Winston Smith. He is vulnerable, conflicted, and weak. And that's what gives him his authenticity. Even though we know that escape may be impossible, we still support him because of his covert rebellion against the Party, his extramarital affair, and his desire to feel human again.

His lover Julia stands for a different kind of rebellion, one that is less idealistic and more pragmatic. Together, they offer us a glimmer of hope, which Orwell tragically and brilliantly destroys.

Final Thoughts
It's difficult to read 1984. It's depressing, intense, and unsettling. However, the book is one that must be read.
It makes us doubt the media, authority figures, the truth, and even ourselves.
When people stop asking questions, it serves as a reminder of how brittle freedom is and how quickly it can be taken away.

This book is your answer—and your warning—if you've ever wondered what unbridled power looks like or how societies can be controlled through fear.

Thank you for such a compelling and thorough review of 1984. You’ve captured not just the narrative arc but the atmosphere Orwell masterfully crafts—a world where fear and control are embedded not just in policy, but in language, thought, memory, and even love. Your review reminds us why this book still sparks such discomfort and relevance so many decades after its publication.


One of the most powerful aspects of 1984—and your review reflects this well—is how Orwell reveals that the most dangerous kind of control isn’t physical violence, but mental manipulation. The Ministry of Truth, with its task of constantly rewriting history, isn’t some exaggerated sci-fi concept. It’s an allegory of the power structures we see in play today: where narratives are spun, inconvenient facts disappear, and truth becomes elastic depending on who’s in power. You touched on this brilliantly with the line: “the psychological manipulation of language, memory, and identity is the true horror.” That’s the crux of Orwell’s genius.


Your point about Newspeak being a language of restriction rather than expression is chillingly relevant. In a world of 280-character tweets, viral slogans, and polarized hashtags, we’re already reducing complex debates into digestible soundbites. Orwell warned us that when you simplify language enough, you don’t just lose nuance—you lose the capacity to resist. After all, if the word “freedom” is deleted or redefined, how can you demand it?


I especially appreciate how you connect 1984 to modern realities like data surveillance, cancel culture, and curated echo chambers. While the methods have evolved—digital rather than analog—the essence remains intact: our thoughts, preferences, and identities are being shaped, predicted, and even manipulated by algorithms. Governments and corporations alike are vying for control over how we think and behave, often under the guise of convenience or safety. And just like Orwell’s telescreens, our smartphones now track our every movement, listen to our commands, and often eavesdrop without us realizing.


Another strong point you made was about the characters. Winston’s fragility makes him incredibly human. He isn’t a superhero. He breaks. And that’s Orwell’s greatest tragedy—he shows that even the desire for truth and love may not be enough to overcome systemic control. Julia, too, is compelling in her realism. She isn’t driven by grand ideals, but by personal rebellion—a quiet protest against the numbing effects of authoritarianism. Together, they offer a flicker of hope that Orwell cruelly extinguishes, forcing us to confront the possibility that in some systems, hope itself is manufactured and weaponized.


You ended with an excellent point: “It makes us doubt the media, authority figures, the truth, and even ourselves.” In today’s climate, that skepticism is both a defense mechanism and a survival skill. We’ve seen how easily misinformation can spread and how truth can be fragmented and monetized. Orwell doesn’t just describe a dystopia—he compels us to ask: At what point does today become 1984?


I’d be curious to hear your thoughts on whether there’s a modern equivalent to Orwell’s voice today—someone who is capturing our digital dystopia with the same precision. Would you say shows like Black Mirror or novels like The Circle by Dave Eggers are carrying that legacy forward? Or do you think Orwell’s shadow still looms too large to be matched?


Either way, thank you for this thoughtful reflection. 1984 is not just a book we read—it’s a warning we live with. The tragedy is that the more familiar it feels, the less shocking it becomes.