PHI 3882 Fall 2009 Highlights and Lowlights of Paper 1

I was always told in mathematics you should show your working out, don't just give the final answer. The same applies here. Consider the following:

These contradictory beliefs can be traced to Orwell's upbringing, personality and interactions with others. Being reserved by nature and having grown up in a time and environment where class distinctions were rigidly enforced, those closest to him described his demeanor towards those outside his intellectual circle as awkward. Indeed, he seemed to feel especially out of place amongst the working classes, despite sympathizing strongly with them in writing.

Clearly, this is based on some research about Orwell's life. But no biographies are cited, no friends are named and, most importantly, there are no references to anything else Orwell wrote about the working classes - such references could easily be found by following up some of the links on this web-site. This paragraph has potential, but because it presents a conclusion without the working out - that is, without the detailed evidence, or even the source of evidence behind the judgement - it is not as good as it could be.

Having said that you should give the working out behind your answers, don't forget to give the answers as well. The following is a concluding paragraph:

Another question one must consider when asking if the longing for freedom can be forgotten is: 'Are humans truly free?' This is a difficult question to answer because from the very beginning humans are restricted by laws that the government and society instills in a person. In 1984 people's freedoms were restricted to the point that the government could actually predict the future of the people, by making people wake up, go to work and come home all at the same time. Freedom of speech was completely out of the question because if anyone was even caught muttering anything that was contrary to the ministries or Big Brother they were severely punished or executed.

We have a big question: 'Are humans truly free?' This could have been the opening paragraph, with the rest of the paper attempting to answer it. Instead of being given an answer, we are just told that the question is a very difficult one. Then, instead of an answer, we are reminded of some basic points about the book. You need to show you can at least try to tackle the tough questions.

Compare this:

What is reality? Is there one true reality? As an individual with a history of travel and worldly experiences, one would assume that no, there is not one reality. Reality is completely dependent on the perspective from which it is being viewed. It is not that much different than the concept that beauty is in the eye of the beholder...

As it happens, I completely disagree. I can think of lots of arguments that could be put against this position. (Is our new building beautiful? That is in the eye of the beholder. How many classrooms does it have? That isn't subjective; the classrooms are there.) But at least the writer is taking a stand, and saying something that the reader may agree or disagree with. At least there is an attempt to back up this opinion - and this is only the start - the discussion goes on for several more pages. Once you have asked a question, try to answer it. That means that your questions should appear at the start of the paper, not towards the end.

Don't just repeat things that you've heard me say.

Syme is perhaps the most interesting character since as a member of the party he says what should be left unsaid. For this reason, Winston believes that due to speaking so intelligently and plainly, Syme might be vaporized. By making such believable characters whose complex ideologies and thoughts one begins to question 'could this really happen?'

I said in class that, if you are trying to find something to say, something that goes beyond the obvious, it is worth investigating minor characters, and gave Syme as an example. I wanted to show that, when you think about it, there are interesting things to say about Syme's speech. I didn't say that he was perhaps the most interesting character: I was hoping that you would investigate other minor characters - perhaps there is more to say about Julia, or the prole in the pub, or Winston's wife. In explaining why Syme is interesting, I focussed on the thoughts he expresses that are better left unsaid. I can detect echoes of that class in this paragraph.
This passage states that Syme is interesting, but doesn't really say why he is so incredibly interesting. Instead, we are left with the thought that because Syme is a believable character, we are left wondering whether 1984 could really happen. But is this how fiction works? Fantasy shows like Firefly or Buffy the Vampire Slayer have believable characters and that makes them worth watching. Stan Lee and Allan Moore where both known for introducing credible characters into super-hero stories, and thus reinvigorating the genre. But this doesn't make me believe that the events described could really happen. Why would this be the case in 1984? I can't help but think that the student writing the paper was striving to say something in praise of Orwell and settled on this.

Of course, this is the hardest piece of advice or instruction I can give: 'Be original.' I can't give you original ideas, because if I give them to you, they are not original. An important step is learning to recognise yourself when you have something original to say. Sometimes, a mistake can lead you in an interesting direction. Consider the following:

The society that Orwell presents to us is a society based on individualism. Family values are being destroyed, love and sexual pleasures are eliminated (p.276), workers do their jobs indepedently of what their co-workers are doing (p.43), and even the Brotherhood is created in a spirit of individualism (175). Therefore society has absolutely no social togetherness, which is partly good, considering that the Party wants an ignorant society...

The mistake: Orwell is describing a collectivist society. Everyone depends on the Party for their living, and consequently, the Party dictates their whole life: food, drink, housing, clothing - all are dictated by the Party. 'Ownlife' is frowned upon. And yet it feels like a book about an individualist society because Winston is so obviously lonely - and that loneliness is the inevitable result of the kind of life the party forces him to lead. Collectivism produces a lonely individual. That is a paradox worth discussing. The mistake points in an interesting direction - you need to learn to recognise when you have made this kind of mistake, and to follow up on it. Always be on the look out for the seeds of a good idea.

Back to PHI 3882