Asked • 8d

Why does Emmanuel Goldstein's book in 1984 have a title page?

I was rereading 1984 when I noticed something amiss in this passage: >A heavy black volume, amateurishly bound, with no name or title on the cover. The print also looked slightly irregular. The pages were worn at the edges, and fell apart easily, as though the book had passed through many hands. The inscription on the title-page ran:>THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF OLIGARCHICAL COLLECTIVISM by Emmanuel GoldsteinDistracted by the wear-and-tear of the book, by the afterglow of his initiation into the brotherhood, Winston fails to ask:Why does a copy of the most-hated book by the most-hated author still have its title-page? In full capital letters?A title which arouses instant suspicion and would damn the holder if anyone even glimpses at it? My personal belief is that George Orwelle's' intends to foreshadow that, the Brotherhood as described by O'Brien, is a fabrication.>You have imagined, probably, a huge underworld of conspirators, meeting secretly in cellars, scribbling messages on walls, recognizing one another by codewords or by special movements of the hand. Nothing of the kind exists. The members of the Brotherhood have no way of recognizing one another, and it is impossible for any one member to be aware of the identity of more than a few others. Goldstein himself, if he fell into the hands of the Thought Police, could not give them a complete list of members, or any information that would lead them to a complete list. No such list exists. The Brotherhood cannot be wiped out because it is not an organization in the ordinary sense. If the organization as described by O'Brien actually existed, one member in the brotherhood would have expurgated the title-page, or replaced the inscription with something far less obvious and offensive. They don't have the luxury of religious reverence towards their book, they can't treat it like a bible; they would have taken a basic-- and safe-- precaution. Regardless of the Inner Party's motives, whether it was as an oversight or their way of strengthening Winston's entrapment-- leaving the title in the book seems like a masterful way to quietly foreshadow O'Brien's planned betrayal.Or am I wrong in assuming that level of caution is needed? Would the real-or-imagined Brotherhood actually be fine with leaving that title-page in their book? Why?

1 Expert Answer

6f1dbbac d670 4e5f b613 cbd2e6ad4838

Max M. answered • 8d

Improve your skills and scores with a Harvard grad.

Still looking for help? Get the right answer, fast.

Ask a question for free

Get a free answer to a quick problem.
Most questions answered within 4 hours.


Find an Online Tutor Now

Choose an expert and meet online. No packages or subscriptions, pay only for the time you need.