4 ms·

> the war effort ...which definitely included motorized vehicles to carry troops, cannons, etc. It's the same world as ours with the same technology in existen

by jtode 4y ago

> the war effort ...which definitely included motorized vehicles to carry troops, cannons, etc. It's the same world as ours with the same technology in existence. Winston and Julia did ride a train to the country, if I recall correctly, at one point. Cars were, as you say, both recreational and utilitarian in 1948, and yes, of course they existed, I am aware of the Model T and so forth. What they were not, though, was culturally central. Driving was still (aside from professional use, as I said) a recreational activity practiced by the affluent - look at Mr. Toad in The Wind In The Willows, for instance, a rich dilletante given to manias who has discovered motorcars, to his near financial ruination, at the start of the novel. They were personal thrill rides, more like owning a speedboat, or else a means to some end, like feeding one's family by trading in heavy goods. A middle class family living in London would buy a car so they could drive to the country every weekend, but not to practically get Mr. Londonman to work on time. That's 1908, but I would argue that the place cars occupied in the public imagination forty years later in 1948 would still look a lot more like that, with the car (for those able to access one at all) a central family asset like the radio or the dining table, rather than an individual's personal accoutrement that served to signal their attitude and affluence. Not that that paradigm didn't exist at all - hot rod culture had already started also, as had biker culture. There were already people who had taken on automobilia as their raison d'etre all over the world, without a doubt. But they were outliers: fringe groups, 1%ers, speed-obsessed engineers and dangerous (to themselves, mostly) amateurs. If we were talking about computers, things were at the Homebrew Computer Club stage of things. A poor person working a job classified as "unskilled" in North America today is just as likely to own a car as a computer programmer, by necessity rather than inclination, which is what makes the absence of them in 1984 feel strange to a modern reader like OP. This is a thing that my urbanist friends get very hot under the collar when we start talking about it, and it's a cultural shift/ripoff that took effect long after Orwell wrote 1984. I think his non-mentioning of cars in 1984 merely illuminates the mindset and world from which Orwell was writing, rather than representing a conscious choice to say to the reader, "these poor wretches don't even have their own motorcars!"

throwaway4aday 4y ago
> which definitely included motorized vehicles to carry troops Yes, I'm not saying cars or motor vehicles didn't exist. I'm saying they were not available to anyone except the most elite and so they don't appear on the streets in the book. Orwell was painting a picture of a world so impoverished by useless and anti-human totalitarian bureaucracy that common things of his time were practically non-existent. > I am aware of the Model T I think you're confusing decades here. Model T was 1908 to 1927. By 1948 you already had pretty much all of the big names in car manufacturing established. Just take a look at the 1948 London Motor Show[0] if you want proof that car production and culture were in full swing. > That's 1908, but I would argue that the place cars occupied in the public imagination forty years later in 1948 would still look a lot more like that You're flat out wrong with the above. That's like saying "that was 1983 but I would argue that the place computers occupied in the public imagination forty years later in 2023 would still look a lot more like that". It's just absurd and easily proven wrong by just looking at any media from that decade. It's 40 years for crying out loud! > I think his non-mentioning of cars in 1984 merely illuminates the mindset and world from which Orwell was writing, rather than representing a conscious choice to say to the reader, "these poor wretches don't even have their own motorcars!" This just makes it plainly obvious that you haven't even bothered to skim the book. I'll refer you to Chapter 9 where Winston reads from Goldstein's book. "But it was also clear that an all-round increase in wealth threatened the destruction—indeed, in some sense was the destruction—of a hierarchical society. In a world in which everyone worked short hours, had enough to eat, lived in a house with a bathroom and a refrigerator, and possessed a motorcar or even an airplane, the most obvious and perhaps the most important form of inequality would already have disappeared." [1] It's actually quite worrying how much you seem to be attempting to rewrite history given the context in which we are speaking. [0] https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-european/cc-history-london-motor-show-1948-the-start-of-a-new-era/ https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-european/c... [1] https://gutenberg.ca/ebooks/orwellg-nineteeneightyfour/orwellg-nineteeneightyfour-00-h.html https://gutenberg.ca/ebooks/orwellg-nineteeneightyfour/orwel...

by jtode 4y ago

throwaway4aday 4y ago

> which definitely included motorized vehicles to carry troops Yes, I'm not saying cars or motor vehicles didn't exist. I'm saying they were not available to anyone except the most elite and so they don't appear on the streets in the book. Orwell was painting a picture of a world so impoverished by useless and anti-human totalitarian bureaucracy that common things of his time were practically non-existent. > I am aware of the Model T I think you're confusing decades here. Model T was 1908 to 1927. By 1948 you already had pretty much all of the big names in car manufacturing established. Just take a look at the 1948 London Motor Show[0] if you want proof that car production and culture were in full swing. > That's 1908, but I would argue that the place cars occupied in the public imagination forty years later in 1948 would still look a lot more like that You're flat out wrong with the above. That's like saying "that was 1983 but I would argue that the place computers occupied in the public imagination forty years later in 2023 would still look a lot more like that". It's just absurd and easily proven wrong by just looking at any media from that decade. It's 40 years for crying out loud! > I think his non-mentioning of cars in 1984 merely illuminates the mindset and world from which Orwell was writing, rather than representing a conscious choice to say to the reader, "these poor wretches don't even have their own motorcars!" This just makes it plainly obvious that you haven't even bothered to skim the book. I'll refer you to Chapter 9 where Winston reads from Goldstein's book. "But it was also clear that an all-round increase in wealth threatened the destruction—indeed, in some sense was the destruction—of a hierarchical society. In a world in which everyone worked short hours, had enough to eat, lived in a house with a bathroom and a refrigerator, and possessed a motorcar or even an airplane, the most obvious and perhaps the most important form of inequality would already have disappeared." [1] It's actually quite worrying how much you seem to be attempting to rewrite history given the context in which we are speaking. [0] https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-european/cc-history-london-motor-show-1948-the-start-of-a-new-era/ https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-european/c... [1] https://gutenberg.ca/ebooks/orwellg-nineteeneightyfour/orwellg-nineteeneightyfour-00-h.html https://gutenberg.ca/ebooks/orwellg-nineteeneightyfour/orwel...