Talk:Nineteen Eighty-Four/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Parody of the 1941 "Four Freedoms"

This section appears to be pure Original research. So far as I am aware, there is no support for a connection between Roosevelt's speech and the four ministries in either Orwell's writings or critical writings about Orwell. I plan to move the section out of the main article to the talk page unless someone can come up with some attribution for this theory. -Ben 17:34, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what the intent is here, but Ben is waging the same argument on two other articles. His agenda in every instance seems to be based upon some dislike of anything to do with Roosevelt's 1941 "Four Freedoms". I have no idea why but launching a POV blitz to delete references seems a little weird. I would suggest that before jumping in just to delete, that you engage in discussion. As for the issue itself, you have already admitted on another article that Blair/Orwell got part of his inspiration from the BBC under the British wartime Ministry of Information ... without I may add, providing any sources of your own that would support your own conclusion! However, to make a blanket statement that because you are unaware of the support for a connection between Roosevelt's speech and the Orwell's four ministries that you will remove the text seems to reveal a very strange but highly motivated POV on the part of Ben. By using that same lack of logic the same could be said about the BBC connection, unless Ben happens to have read that elsewhere? But the key in all three related comments by Ben is that he seems to have a dislike of Roosevelt's 1941 "Four Freedoms" speech and wants to make it disappear from Wikipedia in a strange act of historical revisionism. MPLX/MH 18:52, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To clarify, I apoligize for my wording and essentially negative/unconstructive comment on Freedom of Worship. I stumbled across the assertion that the Four Freedoms inspired Orwell's four ministries on the Four Freedoms article last night, and it is that particular assertion that I think is baseless. Following up, I found the same assertion made on Nineteen Eighty-Four, where I think it's equally baseless. The biggest stretch on both of these articles was the use of "God is Love" to make MINILUV fit into Roosevelt's Freedom of Worship. Persuing that article, I found what looks like someone's personal theory of a difference between freedom of worship and freedom of religion, which I don't have any problem with, other than it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia entry. If my comments on all three articles look like a witch hunt, I'm sorry: I assure you that it was just coincidence that I spotted what appear to be two errors in three articles in a row.

I would suggest that before jumping in just to delete, that you engage in discussion. That's precisely what I'm doing by posting my objections to assertions I consider to be Original research here on the talk pages, rather than just going ahead and editing the article to remove the OR. I'm expecting that either

1. the author of the 4 freedoms=4 ministries section will respond with a quote by Orwell or one of his literary biographers backing up the claim. Something like "In a letter to Malcolm Muggeridge on April 3, 1947, Orwell wrote 'It occurs to me that the four freedoms touted by Roosevelt are being exactly reversed by totalitarian regimes, and I'm thinking of incorporating that in the novel.'" or even "Raymond Chandler speculated that Orwell's four ministries paralleled Roosevelt's famous 'Four Freedoms' in his 1973 Orwell". At that point, I'll shut my yap and add this episode to the long list of wikipedia discussions in which I've been wrong. Otherwise,
2. the author of the section will not be able to quote or point to a single non-fringe instance of anyone else advancing the theory that the four ministries is a deliberate reference to the Four Freedoms, and we'll remove that hypothesis from the article, leaving the uncontroversial other influences (like the wartime BBC on MINITRU).

By using that same lack of logic the same could be said about the BBC connection, unless Ben happens to have read that elsewhere? Actually, I have read that elsewhere.

For example, Jeffrey Meyers review of W.J.West's Orwell: the Lost Writings mentions that West usefully confirms that Basic English influenced the creation of Newspeak in 1984; that wartime censorship inspired the portrayal of Winston Smith's work; that Senate House, the headquarters of the Ministry of Information (which controlled censorship), was the physical model for the Ministry of Truth; and that its chief, Brendan Bracken, known as "BB," was the forerunner of Big Brother. [1]

In a later review of W.J.West's Orwell: The War Commentaries, Meyers notes that Orwell's job was quite similar to Winston Smith's job at the Ministry of Truth in 1984, and (as West points out) his experiences and observations at the wartime BBC had a significant influence on that novel. [2]. If you like, I can look at my copies of both books in a few hours to get quotes from West to add to the article.

A criticism of West's perspective can be found in in D.J. Taylor's review of West's The Larger Evils: His view, expressed in a series of tendentious and self-congratulatory chapters, is that the social and intellectual conditions of the early 1940s under which Orwell laboured had a decisive effect on the genesis of Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four, and that this life-into-art progression has been ignored by purblind critics. No aspect of Orwell's nightmare creation lacked a parallel in wartime Britain, from the Ministry of Truth (a projection of Orwell's time at the BBC) to the state tribunals (based on the treatment of conscientious objectors). West concludes that the novel is "a savage satire of a world which actually existed ..." [3].

A non-West source for the BBC-as-inspiration-for-MINITRU is Malcolm Muggeridge, who writes He told me once with great relish that his model for the Ministry of Truth in Ninteen Eighty-Four had been the BBC, where he worked without much satisfaction during some of the war years. From "A Knight of the Woeful Countenance" in The World of George Orwell.[4]

All these sources can be found in a few minutes googling, all of them are from published works, and the general theory is familiar to any student of the literature on Orwell. I have read no such attribution on the Four Freedoms == Four Ministries theory, and was unable to find any references to it online.

he seems to have a dislike of Roosevelt's 1941 "Four Freedoms" speech and wants to make it disappear from Wikipedia For the record, I have no particular dislike of Roosevelt's speech, or the Four Freedoms themselves, nor do I wish them to disappear from Wikipedia. What I would like is to challege a particular assertion about Orwell's intent in writing NEF, until it is either removed from the article as Original research or buttressed by attribution. It is my belief that this would improve the quality of both Nineteen_Eighty-Four and Four Freedoms. -Ben 21:48, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just read your response, I will reply tomorrow. MPLX/MH 22:16, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A couple of contributors have now asked me for the source material on my connections between the four ministries of Big Brother and the four freedoms as outlined by President Roosevelt. Ben gave several examples of how he had searched for references. I do have a single source which came from broadcasts and literature published by the Four Freedoms Federation at some time around 1984 and it will take me awhile to find the exact references because I do not have them to hand at this very moment. But I will find them and post the references and I may be able to pinpoint their own sources. In 1984 at the peak of interest in Orwell's work Nineteen Eighty Four, a number of books and broadcasts were circulated about his novel and its meaning. I have a collection of some of them - including Michael Shelden's book which he called An Authorized Biography. In that book which was published in 1991, Shelden acknowledged that a lot of hitherto unknown documents about Orwell had begun to surface. That process has continued. There is much in the present article that needs to be rewritten - even with the removal of media text that should never have been inserted in the first place. One element that is not in the article but which is key to the whole subject is that Nineteen Eighty Four as a story was in itself autobiographical and that the title originally proposed and reproposed for the American market was "The Last Man in Europe" which referred both to the final brainwashing of Winston and the experiences of Blair/Orwell at the end of his own life. Much of what has been published about Blair/Orwell has seeped into the public domain of knowledge because much of remained (and may still remain) hidden from general view. The Four Freedoms Federation material is in that same context.

In terms of my own contribution to the existing article it has been to basically tidy it up, add the reference to the legal theory of nunc pro tunc and of course the comparison to the Four Freedoms speech by Roosevelt in 1941. Nothing that I have added has been "original" in the Wikipedia meaning of that word because everything has previously appeared elsewhere. The fact that it may take me time to find the exact reference is only akin to the fact that I have recently been looking at some other rather obscure documents concerning Orwell that also should be contained in the article. These include his interest to the FBI and other security institutions and criticism of him for his use of INGOC which seemed to some to mean that he was attacking English Socialism (the British Labour Party government which had just swept out Winston Churchill's Conservatives.) However, Orwell was himself a Socialist with a jaundiced eye on religion. Some have wondered if the Ministry of Love is a stretch for Freedom of Worship. However, this view changes when we recall the slogan that "God is Love" and God and Big Brother seemed to have similar qualities in the mind of Orwell (one might now ask how a God of love can in 2005 sweep 200,000 people to their deaths with a tidal wave having previously allowed the Nazis in Orwell's time to murder 6 million Jews?) Orwell's Big Brother ("God" washes Winston's mind before he is killed.) The Ministry of Love fits in very nicely with the reveral of Freedom of Worship, just as the other 3 freedoms when reversed, do spell out Orwell's four ministies and all of this took place at a time when Orwell was in the news business and had American contacts. I will look for the specific reference material and I will also dig through this other stuff concerning Orwell and the FBI, INGSOC and other related matters. MPLX/MH 19:29, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I will look for the specific reference material Cool. I'm looking forward to it! -Ben 21:46, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Moved from article pending attribution (Ben 17:33, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)):

Parody of the 1941 'Four Freedoms'

The four ministries in the novel are in part a parody of the famous 1941 US State of the Union speech by Franklin Delano Roosevelt and in part inspired by Orwell's experiences at the BBC. In his speech before the assembled Congress, President Roosevelt outlined "Four Freedoms":

The first is freedom of speech and expression — everywhere in the world. The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way — everywhere in the world. The third is freedom from want, which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants — everywhere in the world. The fourth is freedom from fear, which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor — anywhere in the world.

Ben: This needs to go back in for the following reasons: 1) This text has previously and repeatedly been pruned and pruned to the point where much of the original has been lost, however, if you READ what the remaining text says it is self-explanatory and you cannot refute that statement: it says that

"The four ministries in the novel are in part a parody of the famous 1941 US State of the Union speech by Franklin Delano Roosevelt and in part inspired by Orwell's experiences at the BBC."

That statement stands on its own as fact. It is a parody of the Four Freedoms and Orwell did get part of his inspiration from the BBC! Come on now, you are going a little overboard here to the point that nothing will be left. Wikipedia allows for an explanation such as this - especially when it is supported by obvious fact.

The original text compared the 4 ministries with the 4 freedoms and when you place them together the fact is obvious to all. Someone said that the Ministry of Love (Minilove) was not a parody for freedom of worship. But the very conclusion of 1984 is the worship of Big Brother by Winston! Big Brother certainly wasn't love, and Orwell was not exactly your every day church going "God is love" fan either. Turning God into unlove fits very nicely with Orwell's conception of the worship of Big Brother by torture - which is what happened to Winston in the end. Since the Ministry of Love represented torture = go figure.

I want this back in because the facts support its inclusion. It was pruned and pruned and I will go along with that, but to totally delete gets to the point of destruction.

I mentioned where I first heard/read this before and I checked it out at the time and it satisfied me. As to the specific reference I have not had time so far to look for it. But, since the quotation now rests on a basic and fundemental observation that results in a conclusion of fact by anyone who has read 1984, it necessitates the reinclusion of the text. If you do not reinsert it I will. I will be happy to entertain further discussion on this matter but I would like you to a) reinsert the text first and b) address all of the points that I have made. (You even removed the BBC bit, and I know that I can find Malcolm M on that quite easily!) MPLX/MH 17:57, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, MPLX, but I'm just not buying it.

That statement stands on its own as fact. It is a parody of the Four Freedoms and Orwell did get part of his inspiration from the BBC!

That statement stands as two assertions, not "fact". The first is the assertion that Orwell was inspired to parody Roosevelt's four freedoms. This is absent from all the documentary evidence I'm familiar with in Orwell's writing or the secondary literature, as well as from searches on Google or Amazon. The second assertion about the BBC is substantiated by Malcolm Muggeridge and prominantly theorized by W. J. West in published literature. Neither assertion is a "fact", but the former is an observation that so far as I can see is made by nobody but you, while the latter is well attributed.

The original text compared the 4 ministries with the 4 freedoms and when you place them together the fact is obvious to all.

It's not obvious to me. You might as well argue that the Four Ministries represented the Four Gospels, the Four Winds, or the four of the fources fighting in the Spanish Civil War. Parallelism does not imply inspiration. But whether I find it obvious or not is not relevant to its inclusion in the article — in fact, I might think the BBC assertion just as unlikely if I were unfamiliar with the literature. What is relevant is whether or not it's Original research. It is easy to prove me wrong: all you have to do is provide an attribution.

I mentioned where I first heard/read this before and I checked it out at the time and it satisfied me.

You mentioned you read this somewhere twenty years ago. As you note, that's different from a specific reference.

As to the specific reference I have not had time so far to look for it.

Then the assertion can remain here in the talk page until you — or someone else — finds it. I'm not going to add OR to an article, so I won't re-insert the text until some attribution is found. At that point, it absolutely, positively should be put back in the article and perhaps featured prominently, and I'll be happy to assist with that. I suspect that you'd agree that it is worse for an article to have incorrect information than to be missing correct information. The rules on OR suggest that an assertion be presumed incorrect. Why not just leave the text here until we can find a source? As an alternative, rephrase the section to merely note the parallels. That's not a factual claim (i.e. Orwell was thinking about X when he wrote NEF), it's an observation, and I suspect it would be less subject to challenge.

You even removed the BBC bit

I moved the inspiration section higher in the article, as it doesn't make sense below "Four Ministries" anymore. I also added the Muggeridge reference. Please let me know which points I haven't addressed here. -Ben 18:36, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

MPLX/MH, would you happen to recall the references of previous works which feature the connection between the Four Freedoms and the ministers ? It would certainly address Ben's concern to cite references. Sorry to put the burden on you, I'm just not qualified as you are :/ Cheers ! Rama 18:16, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rama What "ministers"? MPLX/MH 18:30, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please note that the resolution of this discussion has implications for the Four Freedoms article. -Ben 18:43, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Parody continued

Ben - I overlooked your earlier comment because this page is becoming a mess and it needs to be archived. However, once I read your own comments I was somewhat offended by the tone of sarcasm that you are now using:

"It's not obvious to me. You might as well argue that the Four Ministries represented the Four Gospels, the Four Winds, or the four of the fources fighting in the Spanish Civil War. Parallelism does not imply inspiration."

Ben, I do believe that it is a self-evident fact that the Four Gospels have nothing whatsoever to do with 1984. Same goes for your other references. They are pure sarcasm offering nothing to a discussion. The fact of the matter is that I have now added more information: 1) the BBC was at the time of Orwell's employment under the control of the Ministry of Information - a wartime propaganda agency. Malcolm M only observed the obvious! No one else has contributed this information to date. 2) The Four Gospels and your other examples cannot be overlaid with the four ministries of Orwell, not can they be reversed to show an opposite meaning of the four freedoms outlined by Roosevelt. Only the four freedoms can do that. The second freedom of worship was carried forward into the Atlantic Charter with Churchill - again during the time that Orwell was getting his ideas together for the novel. 3) It is within Wikipedia editing guidelines to offer the kind of revised comments now in the text. 4) I stated that I had heard/read of this comparison via the Four Freedoms Federation but I could not exactly cite a specific reference, but stated that I would find it eventually. Since what I have now revised does not depend upon attribution but falls within the scope of Wikipedia editing guidelines, I suggest that we try to work together instead of working on each other - you don't like it and neither do I. MPLX/MH 19:11, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry you were offended by the tone. I'm really being honest here, not sarcastic -- what seems self evident to you looks like complete fantasy to me. Maybe I'm simply unperceptive, or maybe you've become uncritical of a theory you've tossed around for a couple of decades. That may not be something we can resolve, but I believe that this dicussion can make that difference irrelevant. That's why I'm harping on attribution — strict adherence to the Original research guidelines makes it irrelevant whether I buy the argument or not.

Regarding your point 3 and your revisions, I haven't looked hard at your new section in the article since you rewrote it. I suspect that you're bringing it in line with my suggestion to rephrase it as an observation about parallels, rather than an assertion about influence (whether you read my suggestion or not). I will take a closer look when I get time, and will continue to work with you on this. -Ben 19:36, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Come on Ben, unless you have never, ever read the Four Freedoms speech then you know that you were being sarcastic with your illustrations. So let's have a little honesty here. If you really do mean that you believe that you cannot see any connection ("looks like complete fantasy to me"), then I am wasting my time even bothering. So I am left to fathom sarcasm mixed with an admission of ... what? I will close the door and leave you to do whatever it is that you want to do. MPLX/MH 22:35, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In fact I have read the Four Freedoms speech, and think it wholly unlikely that Orwell based the four ministries on that. I'd very much appreciate it if you'd take me at my word on what my opinions are of the ideas in question. I'm not being disingenuous -- it's your own rhetoric that's casting aspersions on what I think, what with the snide comments about hidden agendas and such. At no point have I responded in kind, by alledging that you never actually read any Four Freedoms speech as you claim, or that you've got some secret direction for this article. I'm trying to address the ideas themselves, rather than bring in ad-hominems against you, or getting on a high horse and declaring that I'm taking my marbles and going home. In that spirit, I'm going to try to address where I think we disagree about the article, focusing on your ideas rather than you. I'm going to assume that you're working from a spirit of intellectual integrity and scholarly honesty, that what you claim to have done and to have observed is true, and that when you claim to think something you really do. I really wish that you would respond in kind.

1. There are parallels between the Four Ministries in 1984 and Roosevelt's Four Freedoms. I'll grant that Freedom from Want parallels the Ministry of Plenty pretty well. MINITRU = Freedom of Speech is also fairly reasonable. Freedom from Fear doesn't work -- there just isn't much of a parallel between Fear and Peace. This would be different if this was a Minishtry of Courage, or Freedom from War, but they're not, and they're not parallel. Freedom of Worship = MINILUV is absurd on the face of it, and you have to drag in a church service on a boat to give it any stuffing at all. If MINILUV were concerned with snuffing out church services as was done in the USSR, this might be different, and a more powerful parallel would be something like Freedom of Thought or Freedom of Deed or simple individual liberty. But not of that obtains, and the parallel doesn't even get off the ground.
2. Orwell intended the Four Ministries to be a parody of the Four Freedoms. This is a historical claim, the resolution of which would invalidate any objection I might raise about the parallelism. My opinion simply doesn't matter -- if Orwell intended to parody the Four Freedoms, the lack of parallelism I observe only indicates that he didn't succeed or was too subtle for me. The problem with this claim, though, is that there is absolutely no evidence for it. Let me explain -- Orwell wasn't given to following American politics much, and shows no evidence whatsoever of ever engaging with Roosevelt's political thought. There are precisely four entries on Roosevelt in the index to CEJL, and none of them shows Orwell viewing Rooesvelt in any light outside of his dealings with the UK. There is nothing in his writing that mentions the New Deal -- this is how disconnected from the US he is! The "parody" theory would have us believe that someone whose thought concerned England first, Europe second, the British Empire third, and only viewed the US as it impacted the first three concerns -- and who shows no evidence of following American politics -- would for wholly unclear motives make his greatest work a roman à clef for an American speech delivered years earlier! I realize that this is and argument from silence, that would vaporize with any evidence to the contrary, but so far we haven't seen any such evidence.
3. The parody claim should be in the Nineteen Eighty-Four article. Let's assume for the sake of argument that I'm just too dense to see the parallel, and that Orwell did in fact want NEF to contain a cryptic reference to Roosevelt's Four Freedoms. Even though true, the claim is wholly unattested online and in any print media that's come to light. Should it be part of an encyclopedia article? I believe that this is covered by Original research, and that the answer is an unambiguous no.
4. The parody claim should be in the Four Freedoms article. Assume no attribution is provided, and that the editorial consensus overrules my objections and decides that 1) the parallel is obvious, 2) the "parody" theory is obvious, and 3) both are self evident, therefore needing no attribution. Is there a higher standard for including a hypothetical inspiration in the inspirer's article than in the inspiree's article? This is the metric used here when gutting all the "Nineteen Eighty-Four also inspired Comic Book X, etc." stuff.
5. The parallelism claim should be in the Nineteen Eighty Four Article. I don't think so, but wouldn't fight it. There's only so much time in the day, and weeding out all the adolescent "Dude, Bush's speech was just like Orwell, man" stuff is too much like playing whack-a-mole. The parallelism claim isn't directly counterfactual like the inspiration claim, so readers can judge for themselves without having to check sources.
6. The parallelism claim should be in the Four Freedoms article. Again I think that a higher standard should apply to the the source article than to the derivation articles, but wouldn't argue as it's not an unsubstantiated counterfactual historical claim.

Please respond and let me know where you think I'm wrong. I suspect that we disagree on each point (except maybe 4 and 6), but would really like to concentrate on 2. As I've said before, that's where a little research would resolve this quickly. -Ben 00:53, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ben that is a lot of text to go through. Permit me to give an "instant" response with a follow-up later. On your Preamble: fine with me.

"There are parallels between the Four Ministries in 1984 and Roosevelt's Four Freedoms." - So we seem to agree that the third "Ministry" does seem to be a parody (whether intended or unintended I will leave until later) of the third "Freedom". We also seem to be in agreement that the first "Freedom" does seem to be a parody of MINITRUE - especially since the BBC (where Orwell had been employed in writing scripts for the overseas service) was under the control of the British Ministry of Information. Then, this leaves the remaining two ministries and the remaining two "freedoms".

"Freedom from Fear doesn't work -- there just isn't much of a parallel between Fear and Peace. This would be different if this was a Minishtry of Courage, or Freedom from War, but they're not, and they're not parallel." - To the contrary, I believe that it does work because your connection is not correct. Freedom from fear is about world disarmament. That is what Roosevelt claimed in 1941. Roosevelt claimed that world disarmament would result in a state of defacto world peace because no nation would be in a position to wage war on any other nation. Roosevelt said this in January of 1941 while the USA was gearing up to become the military superpower that it eventually became. George Bush very recently made reference to this same freedom from fear and yet GB has now led the USA to wage war as a first response. The contradiction continues. The world of (pardon this:) NEF was constantly at war and its economy was based upon a war footing. The USA is based upon an economy which is heavily slanted towards a "militrary-industrial-complex" of the type that Eisenhower warned against. So I believe that your reference to "courage" is a diversion and straw man issue that does not belong in the context of the discussion.

"Freedom of Worship = MINILUV is absurd on the face of it." I disagree. Roosevelt did not address freedom of religion (sometimes other Wikipedians overlook this distinction since worship is an act and religion is a theory/belief.) However, the backdrop to "Freedom of Worship" was Christianity. Not Islam, Judaism, or anything else. There is no place for the concept of a "God" in NEF other than by accepting that "Big Brother" is more than Head of State, Big Brother is all-knowing and everywhere. At the very conclusion of the book itself Winston has to admit under extreme torture that he loves Big Brother. So love and Big Brother do go hand in hand, just like the Christian concept of God and love ("God is love"). The "doctrines" of MINILUV are torture. There is a strong comparison to be made between the Inquisition (South America) by the Roman Catholic Church with torture and belief. Winston's esperience (at the end of the story) seems to be very similar to that of some poor soul who is forced to accept the doctrines of the RCC under torture and the result is the same. God is to be loved because "God is love" (forget tidal waves and earthquakes and cancer and birth defects, etc., etc.), and Big Brother is to be loved and he (Christian God is also a "he") is loved by Winston (so he says) at the end of the book. I could go on here with a lot of other comparisons but I wanted to be brief (which I am obviously not.)

"Orwell intended the Four Ministries to be a parody of the Four Freedoms. This is a historical claim ... ". I agree with your statement and to a certain extent with your following remarks. However, this all depends upon how rigid I am with regards to this claim in the way in which I originally stated it and I can report that I am not at all rigid but flexible. However, what has been searched for source material is not necessarily the way in which to discover the link. I agree that the original speech was in a US setting for a US audience (joint Houses of Congress, State of the Union speech.) But a mere portion of this speech (that zeroing in on the "Four Freedoms") was lifted out and given worldwide exposure in a totally different setting all of its own. Its first transformation came when Roosevelt met with Churchill on board ship off Newfoundland where they formed the Atlantic Charter. This was celebrated by a shipboard "Onward Christian Soldiers" church service. The ultimate end of the story is with Roosevelt's wife who succeeded in tranferring the idea of those Four Freedoms to the UN Declaration of Human Rights. What I am getting at is that these ideas took on many forms between 1941 and 1948. They were not a one time issue. References do not necessarily go back to the original, even though the the Four Freedoms had a point of origination (although some scholars trace them back to Wilson's Fourteen Points of WWI.)

"The parody claim should be in the Four Freedoms article." and "The parallelism claim should be in the Nineteen Eighty Four Article." - Sorry you lost me on these points since I am not exactly sure what you want by way of a response.

For a "quick" response I will quit for the moment to give you a chance to respond and to elaborate if necessary. By the way I have NOT edited the article lately, contrary to some other observations (as a quick glance at the History log will reveal.) MPLX/MH 18:10, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

What's your opinion of the version of the passage that I added (with no mention of parody, for example). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:25, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

BBC reference

Ah, I've just noticed that you reinserted mention of the BBC, probably not noticing that I'd done the same slightly lower down; I've merged the two — is that OK? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:39, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, as the History of the article will show, that was not my work. MPLX/MH 16:49, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My comment was in response to Ben (there must have been something of an Edit conflict). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:40, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Parody Rewrites

I've removed the parody section. It needs, at the very least, a rewrite to bring the English up to standard, but the deeper problem is that it's desultory and obscure.

Parody of the Four Freedoms
Orwell's four ministries are utterly antithetical to their names. The Ministry of Truth is concerned with lies,
an idea that Orwell seems to have gained by his work at the [[BBC]] which at the time of his employment was
under the control of the British '''Ministry of Information'''. Roosevelt spoke of "freedom of speech". Orwell
wrote of propaganda. Orwell's "Ministry of Peace" concerned itself with war, while Roosevelt had recently spoken
of the fourth freedom as being "freedom from fear" as a result of world disarmament. The "Ministry of Love" was
about torture, while Roosevelt, who had met with [[Winston Churchill]] to form the [[Atlantic Alliance]], did so
on a ship which celebrated a church service where they sang of God's love following Roosevelt's own recent claim
to freedom of worship. Orwell described his "Ministry of Plenty" as being concerned with starvation. The third
of Roosevelt's four freedoms addressed the issue of freedom from want. A self-evident theme of sarcasm runs
throughout Orwell's four ministeries. In the end his main character named Winston proclaims his love for Big
Brother as a result of extreme torture.

Either it needs to be expanded, with a proper explanation and references, or removed permanently. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:52, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) I give up. Someone posted a comment above your own (unless it is a part of your own) which implies that the revised paragraph is entirely rewritten by one person. It actually incorporates text from others. As for your comment beneath the removed paragraph, it smacks of total hostility to even the idea that this information could be included. Why, I do not know. It is certainly allowed under Wikipedia policy for commenting upon works such as this. As for your own comments about expanding it - why don't you do just that instead of simply removing text? It is easy to create work for others when everyone is invited to contribute. Therefore might I suggest that you arrange the words to suit yourself and then I can have a go at making work for you. You want it expanded while others have constantly nibbled away at it to the point that it made no sense at all. So I then revised it as briefly as possible - but now you are asking for it to be expanded. Please expand it. MPLX/MH 22:27, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't disagree that there may be a place for this section (though I think that it should come later in the article, given that it's comment and speculation rather than description). I'm certainly not convinced that it's just obviously true (no reason is offered, for example, as to why Orwell is supposed to have wanted to parody Roosevelt's speech).

It's difficult to trace exactly how the passage has been whittled away, without trawling through the page hoistory more carefully than I have time for. I've found this older variation, though:

To understand why Orwell wrote ''Nineteen Eighty-Four'', one has only to look at his less famous writings:
most significantly, ''[[Homage to Catalonia]]'' does a lot to explain his distrust of totalitarianism and the
betrayal of revolutions; ''[[Coming Up For Air]]'', at points, celebrates the individual freedom that is lost
in ''Nineteen Eighty-Four''; and his essay ''[[Why I Write]]'' explains clearly that all the "serious
work" he had written since the [[Spanish Civil War]] in 1936 was "written, directly or indirectly,
against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism".
(''[http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/whywrite.html Why I Write]'')

However, the world of ''Nineteen Eighty-Four'' also reflects various aspects of the social and political life of
both the [[United Kingdom]] and the [[United States of America]]. Orwell is reported to have said that the book
described what he saw as the actual situation in the United Kingdom in [[1948]], where [[rationing]] was still
in place, and the [[British Empire]] was dissolving at the same time as newspapers were reporting its triumphs.
At the time Orwell had also been working for the overseas service of the British Broadcasting Corporation
([[BBC|B.B.C.]]) which may help to explain his account of the Ministry of Truth.

The structure of the government in the novel is in part a parody of the famous [[1941]] [[USA|U.S.]] [[State of
the Union]] speech by [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]]. In that speech before the assembled [[Congress]], the
president outlined [[Four Freedoms]]:
:“The first is freedom of speech and expression — everywhere in the world. The second is freedom of
every person to worship God in his own way — everywhere in the world. The third is freedom from want,
which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy
peacetime life for its inhabitants — everywhere in the world. The fourth is freedom from fear, which,
translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough
fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor
— anywhere in the world.”
George Orwell appears to have taken this and used it, along with his own experiences at the B.B.C., to create
his four key ministries.

I'll try to make something out of this, and put it back in. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:15, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've reinserted a version of the above, hedged round with a few more provisos. A search on Google came up with no references to the theory (except via copies of earlier versions of this article). I've removed the term 'parody' (no-one seems to have offered a reason for Orwell to parody Roosevelt), and put it in terms of inspiration instead. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:30, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sources for BBC/MOI influencing NEF's Ministry of Truth

Just thought I'd add a few more references to use for sources for the article. I've got W.J.West's George Orwell: The Lost Writings here, and his introduction draws a number of parallels between Orwell's experience at the BBC and his description of Smith's experience at the MoT. Looking over them, it seems like West is reaching a bit.

p. 21: The BBC was subjected to censorship more thorough than that imposed on any other media. It is important to realise that when Orwell joined the BBC he could not have known how extensive it was, or how authoritarian it could become. The totalitarian atmosphere of Nineteen Eighty-Four — of universal censorship that alters the past as well as the present and even attempts to alter the mind — was the ultimate development of Orwell's experience of censorship at the BBC at the hands of the MOI.

p. 22 (on 200 Oxford Street): The canteen on the ground floor was almost certainly the model for the canteen in Nineteen Eighty-Four; no doubt it was not very different from any other canteen acting as a centre for gossip and socail life, but it would have been new to Orwell, who had never worked in an organisation of the kind before.

p. 24: The first two talks were on subjects close to the life of wartime London, 'Money and Guns' and 'British Rations and the Submarine War' (nos. 1 and two below). Both show the development of interests which are clearly reflected in Nineteen Eighty-Four. The first mentions the fallacy of the 'Lebensraum' ('living-room') policy of the Nazi government, a search supposedly for unoccupied lands but actually , as shown, for densely populated areas whose inhabitants could be turned into proles or slaves working with the mininum of sustenance. . . . The second, with its mention of rations that had been raised or reduced coupled with an announcement that this had been expected, echoes almost exactly the tone of Nineteen Eighty-Four, where good news means that rations are to be lowered as expected.

p. 26 (on Orwell's invention of an imminent attack by Japan upon Russia (See also his wartime diary entried for March 1942)): The threat seems to have been purely Orwell's invention, but it was reality for those listening in India, a reality created as easily as Winston Smith's invention of a non-existent hero and battle in Nineteen Eighty-Four.

p. 41: The experiement of creating a fiction factory seemed worth trying, and in the autumn he gathered a group of writers to produce his 'Story by Five Authors'. The first episode he composed himself — almost the only fiction he wrote during the war, and clearly based on his earlier experiences in the Blitz. Elements appear, almost identically, in Nineteen Eighty-Four, and the writing of the story may have germinated the final book as we know it. As we shall see, the first sketch of Nineteen Eighty-Four was done at the end of 1943; in the story we note the woman who appears suddenly in blue overalls, with a face covered with plaster — echoes of Julia and Winston Smith suddenly caught in a bomb blast.

p. 62: It is clear that 'Newspeak' originated in the artificial language 'Basic English' invented before the war by C.K. Ogden, and it has long been known that Orwell was himself an enthusiast for the language.

In addition, pages 64-66 cites a number of other parallels, including the appearance of the MOI building from Orwell's house, the telegraph address for MOI as MINIFORM, and such.

-Ben 04:35, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ben, first of all let me respond to your new comments above. I am not certain what to make of your comments because they seem to be a critique of another book about Orwell and about Nineteen Eighty Four. If we turn this into a page by page analysis of works about works, we will soon wander so far off field as to have forgotten that this is, after all, a mere encyclopedia article about one book and one book alone. That is why I suggested keeping to influences creating the book; reviews of the book itself and productions of the book's story by any media. Any interpretations of the book should be left to the reader.

However, is your point that MiniTrue was or was not based or influenced upon Blair's work (he worked under his real name) at the BBC department that was run by the British Ministry of Information? I am not sure what your conclusion is. From everthing that I have read the answer is the BBC was indeed Blair's source of inspiration.

With regards to other matters I believe that it is best to treat them individually. In that context I will now respond to the issue of the Four Freedoms. MPLX/MH 18:25, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am not certain what to make of your comments because they seem to be a critique of another book You're right -- the minitrue/BBC issue is totally separate from the 4F/4M one. I was just collecting more quotes about the BBC as a partial inspiration for Minitrue, with the expectation that I (or somebody who gets there first) will be able to put together a well-written paragraph on the subject in the article, perhaps quoting from West and Muggeridge, but at least mentioning them as sources for the hypothesis. I agree with that hypothesis, as well as with a reviewer's analysis that West comes off as a bit of a twit. -Ben 19:19, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Removed Text from Article

I've removed the Orwell/Four Freedoms theory from the article, as no attributions were ever provided, and the only advocate for the theory has removed himself from Wikipedia. If he returns, let's reopen debate.

Removed text:

The structure of the government in the novel can be seen in part as taking inspiration from the famous 1941 U.S. State of the Union speech by Franklin Delano Roosevelt. In that speech, the president outlined Four Freedoms:

“The first is freedom of speech and expression — everywhere in the world. The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way — everywhere in the world. The third is freedom from want, which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants — everywhere in the world. The fourth is freedom from fear, which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor — anywhere in the world.”

The twisted relationship between these four freedoms and the nature of Nineteen Eight-Four's four ministries (see below) makes it at least a strong possibility that Roosevelt's speech had an influence on Orwell's novel.

-Ben 19:23, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

hey.. mm z8

hm.. very nice