Review of 1984 by Isaac Asimov (1980)
Isaac Asimov's 1980 review of George Orwell's '1984' sparks a lively debate on HN, where Asimov asserts Orwell's work was a flawed, anti-Stalinist polemic rather than prescient science fiction. Commenters, however, frequently argue that Asimov himself was myopic, with many of Orwell's 'inaccurate' predictions proving eerily relevant in the digital age. The discussion dissects the nature of dystopian literature and how well both authors' foresight held up decades later.
The Lowdown
In 1980, with the titular year fast approaching, Isaac Asimov penned a critical review of George Orwell's '1984,' prompted by his newspaper syndicate. Asimov confesses to having largely forgotten the book and, upon re-reading, was astonished, primarily by what he perceived as its didactic, repetitious, and ultimately flawed nature. His central thesis is that '1984' is not a prescient work of science fiction, but rather a bitter, personal attack on Stalinism, lacking genuine foresight into future technological and social developments.
Asimov outlines several key criticisms:
- Orwell's Intent: He argues that '1984' was an extension of Orwell's personal "literary war" against Stalinist communism, born from his disillusionment with left-wing sectarianism during the Spanish Civil War. Asimov believes this singular focus made Orwell blind to other forms of totalitarianism.
- Failing as Science Fiction: Asimov contends that Orwell had "no feel for the future," merely transposing 1940s Soviet realities onto a thinly veiled 1984 London. He points out the technological naiveté of Orwell's surveillance system (requiring vast numbers of human watchers) and his failure to imagine computers or robots, which Asimov suggests would be far more efficient for totalitarian control.
- Social & Economic Myopia: Orwell is criticized for not foreseeing new vices or significant social changes, presenting an "old-fashioned" future dominated by 1940s-era concerns (e.g., poor quality gin, no new drugs, traditional gender roles). Economically, Asimov highlights Orwell's focus on war as a resource-consuming mechanism, arguing that population growth and energy use serve similar functions in the real 1980s.
- Flawed Totalitarian Mechanisms: Asimov questions the efficacy of perpetual hate campaigns (Emmanuel Goldstein), historical rewriting (claiming real-world publics are too indifferent to history for such efforts to be necessary), and Newspeak. He argues that political obfuscation often uses more words, not fewer, and that language compression doesn't necessarily weaken expression.
- Prescience in Tripartite World: While generally dismissive of Orwell's foresight, Asimov concedes that Orwell was remarkably prescient in anticipating a world divided into three superpowers (Oceania, Eurasia, Eastasia), and even the non-monolithic, often hostile relationship between Russia and China.
Asimov concludes that '1984' ultimately fails as a forecast, being too mired in Orwell's specific anti-Stalinist biases. He warns that treating it as an accurate blueprint for the future risks misdirecting efforts to counter real, evolving threats.
The Gossip
Asimov's Analogous Assumptions
Many commenters point out the irony that Asimov, in critiquing Orwell's perceived myopia, often falls into similar traps of his own time. They argue Asimov's dismissal of Orwell's surveillance systems, volunteer spies, and historical revisionism overlooks real-world examples like the Stasi or modern data collection. Some also critique Asimov's economic and population predictions, noting they were products of 1980s concerns (like the oil crisis) that didn't fully materialize or have evolved differently.
Orwell's Ongoing Observance
Despite Asimov's criticisms, a significant portion of the discussion asserts that '1984' has become *more* relevant in the decades since Asimov's review. Commenters highlight modern technologies (smart TVs, Palantir's reach, mobile phone tracking) that fulfill or exceed Orwell's 'two-way telescreen' concept. The ease with which political narratives rewrite history or dismiss facts, as well as the 'post-truth' environment, are seen as direct echoes of Orwell's warnings, often making Asimov's 1980 dismissals seem short-sighted.
Dystopian Diagnostics
The comments delve into the purpose and interpretation of dystopian literature. While Asimov judges '1984' as a failed scientific prediction, many users argue that such works are not meant as literal forecasts but as cautionary tales or thought experiments exploring the logical extremes of societal trends. The discussion often draws comparisons to Aldous Huxley's 'Brave New World,' contrasting its methods of control (pleasure) with Orwell's (pain) and considering which vision proved more prescient.