1984 Discussion – Part II, Chapters 1-5

Navigation   » List of Schools, Subjects, and Courses  »  English 104 – Argumentation and Critical Thinking  »  Discussions  »  1984 Discussion – Part II, Chapters 1-5

With Answers  Good news! We are showing you only an excerpt of our suggested answer to this question.  Should you need our help in customizing an answer to this question, feel free to send us an email at or chat with our customer service representative.

1984 Discussion – Part II, Chapters 1-5

Question

1984 Discussion – Part II, Chapters 1-5

Choose one out of the five questions to answer. Please make sure to identify which question you are answering and analyze thoroughly. Make sure to bring evidence from the novel and produce a 1-paragraph analysis.

 

Here are the discussion questions:

 

  1. After having sex with Julia, Winston declares that “[t]heir embrace had been a battle, the climax a victory. It was a blow struck against the Party. It was a political act” (105). Explain the analogy, especially how having sex is a political act in Winston’s perspective.
  2. What is Julia’s view of the Party and how does it differ from Winston’s? (109). You may want to assess whether or not you find her to be a critical thinker (make sure to give an example of one critical thinking concept in your analysis).
  3. What is the significance of the rhyme that Mr. Charrington recited to Winston?:

    Oranges and lemons, say the bells of St. Clement’s!

    You owe me three farthings, say the bells of St. Martin’s

    When will you pay me? Say the bells of Old Bailey – (121)

  1. What does Winston discover about Julia’s memory that shocks him and why is this important? Give an example to demonstrate.
  2. First, explain what the quote below means. Second, can we defend the claim that “ignorance is bliss?” Third, identify the analogy in this quote and analyze what you think it means.

In a way, the world-view of the Party imposed itself most successfully on people incapable of understanding it. They could be made to accept the most flagrant violations of reality, because they never fully grasped the enormity of what was demanded of them, and were not sufficiently interested in public events to notice what was happening. By lack of understanding they remained sane. They simply swallowed everything, and what they swallowed did them no harm, because it left no residue behind, just as a grain of corn will pass undigested through the body of a bird (129).

Need help with your discussion preparation?

This question is taken from English 104 – Argumentation and Critical Thinking » Fall 2021 » Discussions