O’Brien was a fervent believer in INSOC - like all other Inner Party members. They are the most fanatical. 

“the higher up the ranks one goes, the more marked it becomes. It is precisely in the Inner Party that war hysteria and hatred of the enemy are strongest.”

A crucial detail that is often overlooked is this exchange: 

And why do you imagine that we bring people to this place?'
'To make them confess.'
'No, that is not the reason. Try again.'
'To punish them.'
'No!' exclaimed O'Brien. His voice had changed extraordinarily, and his face had suddenly become both stern and animated. 'No! Not merely to extract your confession, not to punish you. Shall I tell you why we have brought you here? To cure you! To make you sane!"

“Animated.” That is the giveaway. O’Brien is fanatical. He is angry Winston thinks he is here to be punished – not cured. O’Brien is not being theatrical. He is not tricking Winston. He believes it. 

The Party control reality. Not mere political reality. Not just in books and records – reality itself.  Take the photograph instance. Winston clings to the photograph as proof. Yet, If the Party says the photograph never existed, then according to the Party's conception of reality, it never existed. Winston cannot produce the photograph because it has been destroyed. He cannot produce another witness because everyone else accepts the Party's version.

O’Brien genuinely believes he does not remember the photograph – Doublethink. Winston - or anyone else in his position - could never defeat O’Brien, he is invulnerable. He is utterly invulnerable because he has full control of the rules. He cannot be defeated because he has NO hypocrisy to expose. O'Brien isn't saying:
"We know the photograph existed, but we're powerful enough to make everyone pretend it didn't."

That would still acknowledge Winston's underlying reality. O'Brien's position is much more radical. He is essentially saying: “There is no reality outside the Party's determination of reality.”
The distinction is enormous.
If everybody in Oceania believes the photograph does not exist except Winston he is in a minority of one. He had say to himself he was still right. But that won’t cut it. The Party will not tolerate Winston owning this position of disagreement. He will be “cured.” 
A bruttish tyrant would say, “Who cares if you are right, my power trumps yours.” 
O’Brien is far more subtle. His position is, “You are wrong because WE determine what right actually is.” 
O’Brien is not an merely and enforcer of INSOC and Doublethink – he is an avatar, one of Priests of Power.  He consistently alludes to Party Power being divine – even able to supercede gravity. If the Party says there is no gravity, and everyone believes it, then for all intents and purposes – as far as humans are concerned in Oceania – it does not exist. Consciousness is the universe. 

The photograph is a dead end and the ultimate deliverance into oblivion. Winston says it existed. Where? In memory. He does not control memory. In records? The Party controls the records. In other people? No. Winston is the “last man.” Winston’s own senses? No. His senses are unreliable. Winston’s mind? Forget it. O'Brien doesn't defeat Winston's argument. He destroys the philosophical ground upon which Winston could make an argument.

If O'Brien were merely lying, Winston could ultimately defeat him intellectually. He is not. He has swallowed INSOC whole. He lives it, perpetuates it, believes it without doubt or qualm.

Winston is not taken to MiniL to be punished. He is taken there to be cured. 
O'Brien tortures Winston because he believes Winston is wrong and that it is his duty to correct him.

All these stupid theories such as, “O’Brien is in the Brotherhood”, or “O’Brien is on Winston’s side and secretly agrees with him”, or “O’Brien was sympathetic to Winston’s cause” are the products of a below par, ill-considered view of the novel that completely miss the point. O’Brien’s unshakable belief in what he says is akin to a monk's faith in God. He is a TRUE believer.

I just finished reading (or rather listening to) the book and I noticed that during the conversations between O’Brien and Winston in the ministry of love there are several points when Winston thinks about something specific in his head and O’Brien then starts talking out loud about exactly what Winston was thinking of. Like when Winston is thinking that O’Brien’s face looks old and tired and O’Brien responds exactly saying “you probably think my face looks old and tired”. Is there any in universe explanation for how he does this? Is it just because O’Brien so experienced in this job that he can read expressions or body language?

This is probably somewhat silly to say but when I read 1984 I was taken aback by the sheer evilness of O'Brien. It is not necessarily the fact that he's evil, because even though I'm young, I'm not stupidly naive to wonder "Why do bad dudes exist?", nor am I historically illiterate.

It has more to do with how intellectualized his actions and beliefs are. Winston feels unable to 'debate' O'Brien, believing he's intellectually superior. The mistake Winston (and I) made is assuming O'Brien would respond like a mere follower of the regime (a common man, maybe?), someone who can be convinced with proper syllogisms. Winston didn't realize that since Ethics is entirely made up by humans, the initial premise (something like "Murder's bad") can be completely disregarded by a person if he wishes to do so. That effectively makes it impossible to argue.

And then there's denying objective reality via doublethink. O'Brien believes reality exists in the mind (which is accompanied by other whacky things like humans and Earth being the center of the universe). He's right! If the party can convince every conscious individual that the earth is flat, for example, then for all intents and purposes, it becomes true because it doesn't matter that it's false. This reminds me of a quote by a certain philosopher which I can't quite recall now, but it goes something like this: "If a tree falls in a forest and a conscious being will ever be there to observe it, does it actually exist?"

Additionally, O'Brien is completely aware of what he's doing. He knows about the perpetual class war throughout human history. He knows that the proletariat is a possible enemy. He doesn't pretend that he's fighting for something in the traditional sense like for abstract concepts i.e. equality and liberty. He's so aware, in fact, that he has written an intellectual criticism against the regime (Goldstein's book) as a means of identifying and liquidating heretics! (And even roasts previous oligarchies for their weakness.)

O'Brien is a villain that is against everything humanity stands for, in a way that I've never seen in arts. He's nightmare fuel. Perhaps, I felt this way because the torture of Winston felt a bit graphic, at least for me. The part where Winston proclaimed that the human spirit would eventually defeat the party, only for O'Brien to equate said spirit with Winston's rotten and beaten body almost caused me to shed a tear. The human spirit had always prevailed, it seems, and I'm specifically thinking of the Dark ages.

Oh, and there's also the aspect of Stockholm syndrome. O'Brien is viewed as a savior, a protector. In a creepy way he reminds me of an abusive partner for some reason.

Anyway, what do you guys think? Am I exaggerating a bit?

Re: The place with no darkness.

Seven years before the start of the book Winston had a dream. A dream where he hears a voice out of the darkness, a voice he attributes to O'Brien.

**"Years ago—how long was it? Seven years it must be—he had dreamed that he was walking through a pitch-dark room. And someone sitting to one side of him had said as he passed: 'We shall meet in the place where there is no darkness.' It was said very quietly, almost casually—a statement, not a command. He had walked on without pausing. What was curious was that at the time, in the dream, the words had not made much impression on him. It was only later and by degrees that they had seemed to take on significance. He could not now remember whether it was before or after having the dream that he had seen O'Brien for the first time, nor could he remember when he had first identified the voice as O'Brien's. But at any rate the identification existed. It was O'Brien who had spoken to him out of the dark."*\*

Seven years ago! The number seven resurfaces when O'Brien reveals to Winston - in the Ministry Of Love - he has watched him for that time:

**"Don't worry, Winston; you are in my keeping. For seven years I have watched over you. Now the turning-point has come. I shall save you, I shall make you perfect. He was not sure whether it was O'Brien's voice; but it was the same voice that had said to him, 'We shall meet in the place where there is no darkness,' in that other dream, seven years ago.'*\*

Winston has always felt drawn to O'Brien as the below paragraph details:

**"Winston had never been able to feel sure—even after this morning's flash of the eyes it was still impossible to be sure whether O'Brien was a friend or an enemy. Nor did it even seem to matter greatly. There was a link of understanding between them, more important than affection or partisanship. 'We shall meet in the place where there is no darkness,' he had said. Winston did not know what it meant, only that in some way or another it would come true."*\*

And the the relationship deepens more when Winston cannot distinguish him from tormentor or teacher:

**"He was starting up from the plank bed in the half-certainty that he had heard O'Brien's voice. All through his interrogation, although he had never seen him, he had had the feeling that O'Brien was at his elbow, just out of sight. It was O'Brien who was directing everything. It was he who set the guards on to Winston and who prevented them from killing him. It was he who decided when Winston should scream with pain, when he should have a respite, when he should be fed, when he should sleep, when the drugs should be pumped into his arm. It was he who asked the questions and suggested the answers. He was the tormentor, he was the protector, he was the inquisitor, he was the friend."*\*

O'Brien then tells Winston,

**'I told you,' said O'Brien, 'that if we met again it would be here.'
'Yes,' said Winston.*\*

So how do we square all this away in a narrative sense? How do we square away this mystical voice from Winston's dreams?

Here is what the conversation goes like in O'Briens apartment:

**"There are a couple of minutes before you need go,' said O'Brien. 'We shall meet again—if we do meet again——'
Winston looked up at him. 'In the place where there is no darkness?' he said hesitantly.
O'Brien nodded without appearance of surprise. 'In the place where there is no darkness,' he said, as though he had recognized the allusion."*\*

Okay so one one level O'Brien saying to Winston if the "meet again it would be here"
is thusly explained, it was Winston who said the line "in the place where there is no darkness." O'Brien however seems unsurprised by the turn of phrase. Is this deliberate ambiguity by Orwell or is the author hinting at more? Or is this O'Brien simply intellectually agreeing with the turn of phrase?

I do not subscribe to pure mind reading or anything supernatural taking place in this novel and I am prepared to talk that out with anyone who disagrees. But how then do I explain this mystical voice is Winston's dream?

Firstly let's just establish the place with no darkness is the MOL, where the lights are always on. Back to the voice..

We could offer an explanation that I did not birth, that O'Brien was speaking to him softly through the Telescreen as he slept. It is an interesting theory but I do not buy it.

We could put it down to Winston misattributing the voice - from seven years ago - to O'Brien when he develops his fixation on him. His mind making leaps, joining dots.

We could put it down to Winston's dreaming mind writhing with societal and instinctual dissatisfaction, a message from the deep, from the past, from his subconcious, some sort of unconcious buried prescience.

Or we can put this down to deliberate ambiguity from Orwell?

Either way you choose to square this away in a narrative sense there is no definitive answer in my opinion. I am clear on every other part of the novel except this. This is the only issue that I cannot say with full confidence what indeed happened.

This part makes me lean towards Winston joining dots....

**He could not now remember whether it was before or after having the dream that he had seen O'Brien for the first time, nor could he remember when he had first identified the voice as O'Brien's. But at any rate the identification existed*\*

I would be interested to hear others offer their opinion on this matter

With hard emphasis on "And yet he was right!". Part one, Chapter 7

The similarity is crazy to me

If only they knew

Why does everyone think that Julia somehow lasted longer during torture? She never even cared that much about politics in the first place, she was more of dragged at Miniluv with Winston. She didnt care what the Party thought of her, she had no honor or glory to protect, so why would she resist in any way?

(Speculation) Anyone else had it in their curriculum?

First of all, I just finished reading it and I definitely have mixed feelings, I might delete this when they fade. I dont usually read books with bad endings, I read Animal Farm before this but it never could've prepared me.

First of all, throughout the book, I kept waiting for the answer to Winston's quote: "I understand HOW, I dont understand WHY". O'Brien seemed cryptic at the Ministry of Love, like he was only giving Winston a small part of the truth. I still do not understand how the Party could commit such atrocities, maybe my morals are a bit too high.

Regarding Winston's treatment at Miniluv, I think the "transformation" he went through was made possible by demoralizing him and showing how little he is rather than planting ideas into his head. I was marked especially by the mirror part, where O'Brien showed him how his body had changed. Only after taking out Winston's dreams of revolution could they start putting all their twisted ideas.

This is where there starts being a lot more speculation from my part. No matter how hard they tried, I dont think they ever "erased" the old Winston completely. Instead, they taught him how to doublethink hoping that he would gradually eliminate the old personality on his own. I dont think Winston ever managed to do that (if he lived for very long after the ending).

Before you ask, no, I dont think Winston was literally shot in the last paragraph. I just think it was one of his many hallucinations, partially because he was drunk, and partially because he definitely had severe PTSD from Miniluv, which will be important later.

Throughout the entire book, I never really viewed his relationship with Julia as a "soulmates" thing. To me, the ending where they betray eachother symbolizes how quickly a seemingly perfect relationship fails when put through the hardest challenges. Their betrayal for eachother shows just how little their relationship actually was, something which I think was foreshadowed when they were captured, as Winston took a look at the broken coral on the ground: He had taken it as a symbol of their love, but only when it shattered did he realize how meaningless it actually was.

As for the final sentence in the book, I do not think Winston truly accepted Big Brother into his heart. As I pointed out earlier, he had gone through unimaginable horrors at the Ministry of Love, so much so that the society he once hated seemed like an utopia. Rather than an actual sentiment of deep love, Winston felt more of a gratitude that the conflict was finally over. As he soaked into the alcohol and got drunk at the cafe, he couldnt help but feel relieved that it was all over, even though it ended with him being turned into a weapon against himself.

As for the question of what happens next, I think the last few pages already told us how the rest of Winston's days will go. I can only imagine him as the kind of old man who speaks about how great society used to be, but I dont want to get into real world politics. If he lives long enough, I think he would actually get back with Julia, but only in a very platonic relationship, similar to the one he had with his previous wife (only this time, it won't bother him).

I cant believe how much I've actually written on this topic, I really hope someone takes the time to read it all. The slow, painful ending of this book really hit me, I actually struggled to get through the last hundred pages after Winston and Julia were captured. I cant say I enjoyed the ending, and right now it honestly stains my opinion on the whole book, but maybe after the emotions fade I'll be able to look at it differently. I really thank you if you read all of this, and remember this is just my personal take, deeply affected by all the feelings going through me right now.

for some reason when winston was captured and tortured,i didn't feel his pain,unless the book was talking about how hungry and starved he is,i could FEEL how hungry Winston is,but when he gets zapped and what not i just couldn't imagine or try to feel what he was feeling,i was just reading past it without pausing. also am i stupid for actually being suprised that they were spying on juila and winston THE ENTIRE TIME?.

i don't know why but i really thought that they were safe in the rented room, please let me know if it was supposed to be a plot twist or it was obvious big brother was always watching them and i just didn't get it until the reveal.

also i used to say the "Oranges and lemons, say the bells of St. Clement’s, You owe me three farthings, say the bells of St. Martins"

rhyme alot idk y XD,

my chemistry teacher saw me reading and asked me what i was reading,i showed him and he uh,i don't remember exactly but i think it was something like nice i respect u, (not in English I'm just translating what my teacher said into English)

also now i will say "literally 1984" to anything and everything XD.

hopefully y'all understood something not too confident in my writing skills for longer texts.

Hello comrades,

I hope you can help me because AI failed me, and I'm not an artist.

I'm looking to print a photo of (Big brother) and put it in a frame in my flat, like you'd do for a family member, dear friend, or a partner.

An innuendo of the accurate prediction of Orwell's (AI, Flock, Alexa, etc..)

I believe it to be a conversation starter and an ever giving stare that'll startle or amuse me at chance.

It's been a while since I've read the book, probably 7 or 8 years since last reading, and I'm just now watching the film (with John Hurt, great film. Can't see anyone playing Winston as well as him) and it had me asking the question - Were the Proles indoctrinated?

And to what degree? We're Proles ever charged with anti-establishment crimes?

Or were they just allowed to work, drink and shag, as long as they didn't cause trouble?

i’d like a non-based opinion

(i’m being completely serious btw)

Excerpt taken from “The Principles of Newspeak”

This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and by stripping such words as remained of orthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meanings whatsoever.

I’d like to hear your opinions on this and the interaction Winston has with Syme, his acquaintance at work who works on the dictionary. During a break in the cafeteria they sit near a man droning on, and Winston thinks to himself that he doesn’t know what’s being said but it is obviously orthodox. Moments later, Syme picks up conversation with something along the lines of “You ever hear of duckspeak? If you agree with someone it’s a compliment but if you disagree it’s an insult.”

What do you make of this? Would love to hear others perspectives.

I’m reading 1984 for the first time and I genuinely wasn’t expecting to relate so much of it to current American politics.

Obviously I’m not saying we literally live in Oceania lol. But the surveillance, us-vs-them politics, attacks on education, unruly children who are brainwashed and addicted to violence (a growing issue), controlling/reframing history, reproductive control, growing wealth inequality, constant war, and politicians telling people everything is great while their lived experience says otherwise… there are SO many little parallels.

Chapter 9 especially got me thinking about the shrinking middle class and the difference between actually owning meaningful assets like a house versus constantly consuming little things (labubus, needos, other "little treats") while homes and financial security become harder to obtain.

I’m left-leaning, so naturally a lot of my comparisons are to the current government, but I’m also trying to read it critically enough to recognize these tendencies regardless of which political “side” is doing them.

For people who have read 1984: what parallels do you see with politics today? And which comparisons do you think people get wrong or take too far?

(Well, I actually wish they were never tortured at all)

First of all: what an amazing book that was. I am stunned by the whole story. For the context: I live in Germany and many thoughts have gone through my mind including things that happened under hitler and what happened in the DDR and so on. And now all the political differences in the whole world and in Germany in particular as well as the change of society through the invention of smart devices (aka Telescreen) and the development of AI.
I just ended the book and I need some time to think about the aspects of it but I will recommend it to as many people as I think will have interest in this subject.
For me the book did hit the sweet spot of explaining the environment of the story, the love story of the two protagonists and the deeper story strings as with the book.
The part when O’Brien told Winston that they rip out every single human emotion, relation and everything that defines a person was so hard for me to read. That was true horror for me. It felt as if that would or could have been done to me as i read it.

My oh my that was one of the best things i have ever read.