Review: 1984
George Orwell
Rating: ⭐ (1/5)
The Review: A Manifesto of Narrated Drivel
I’m not going to beat around the bush: this book sucked. It reminded me of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, though the only “saving grace” here is that Orwell spared us the 1,300-page slog, clocking in at a merciful 387 pages instead.
The basic premise of this 1949 novel is to envision a future where total government control obliterates freedom of thought and self-awareness. It depicts a world of complete subjugation through state-sponsored lies, torture, and the literal rewriting of history to suit a party’s agenda. It attempts to show that corruption and control are antithetical to life and prosperity, all while the state hides behind the thin guise of “making things better.”
Sure, you can find mild parallels in today’s world party groupthink, fabricated news, and the squashing of free thought in certain ideological circles—but this story takes it to a theatrical extreme with absolutely no guardrails.
The characters were so thin they felt like afterthoughts, written merely to take up space. I spent long stretches of the book trying to understand the point, as there is no real story here. In many places, it reads like a manifesto of narrated drivel, long-winded, boring, and seemingly endless. I only finished it because I paid for it, but I won’t be wasting my time on it again. Ironically, I checked the reviews from when it first debuted, and apparently, people liked it a lot more than they did Atlas Shrugged. To each their own.
Here is what I pulled out of Gemini to compare my critique and what was said in 1949
| My Critique | 1949 Critical Reception |
| “Manifesto of narrated drivel” | Many early critics actually agreed that the “book within a book” (Goldstein’s Manifesto) was a dry, difficult read that slowed the plot to a crawl. |
| “Characters were so basic” | While some praised the psychological depth of Winston’s torture, others felt the characters were merely “vessels” for Orwell’s political warnings rather than fully realized people. |
| “Better than Atlas Shrugged” | You hit the nail on the head here. Upon release, 1984 was hailed as a masterpiece of political prophecy. In contrast, Atlas Shrugged (1957) was largely panned by critics for its length and “preachiness”. |
| “Theatrical extreme” | In 1949, readers didn’t see it as “theatrical.” Having just survived WWII and witnessing the rise of the Iron Curtain, many felt Orwell’s “extreme” was a terrifyingly plausible reality. |
Leave a Reply to Nancy ThomasCancel reply