Bernard vs. Winston
I personally think that Bernard and Winston were two of the most intriguing characters that we’ve studied this semester, primarily because they didn’t fall into the typical hero archetypes that most protagonists exhibit. Both characters seemed genuine, displaying a balance of strengths and flaws that granted them a degree of humanity, even if they weren’t always the most likable. However, the two individuals were still very distinct, with separate personalities that I think were reflective of the differences between the World State and Oceania.
When we were first introduced to Bernard, his criticisms of the World State (the dehumanizing effect of soma and the environment of sexual promiscuity) aligned fairly well with our own grievances. He also displayed realistic jealousy and desire, which had been supposedly eradicated in society. While these attributes weren’t necessarily appealing to the reader, they made Bernard much more relatable and three-dimensional, distinguishing him from the other mindless drones that populated the World State. His thoughts diverged from the monotony of society, and although he didn’t seem inclined to take any actual action, he appeared to be the only person who was even capable of disagreeing with the World State. However, Bernard’s true nature was revealed after his brief rise to popularity, when he indulged in all the vices that he had once opposed. We learned that his prior nonconformity was simply the result of a deep-rooted insecurity, rather than any real desire to rebel. This insecurity still made Bernard unique, but it also displayed the power of the World State’s conditioning, and the extent to which it could control people’s beliefs. Even though Bernard served as an irregularity in what was otherwise a society of complete conformity, he was never truly capable of rebellion. He ultimately accepted his hypnopaedic conditioning, abandoning his unorthodoxy without a second thought.
Winston differed dramatically from Bernard in that he actually had a strong desire to oppose the Party, constantly obsessing over ways to defy the system. As we saw in his thought diary, his repetition of the phrase “DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER” had become almost a compulsory habit. He was also very eager to initiate an illegal relationship with Julia, and was delighted at any reference of rebellion or revolution (like when Julia mentioned her numerous other affairs). However, his excitement over small details was also a major flaw. While Winston had the motivation that would be required to instigate large-scale reform, he focused exclusively on minor victories, never accomplishing anything of true value (at least so far). Constantly fearful of the Party’s surveillance, he was always nervous and apprehensive, limiting his potential for impactful change. He may have had the right idea in his heart, and his caution was a very realistic quality, but it showed how effectively the Party could instill fear in its subjects, restricting the ability to carry out a real revolution.
Neither Bernard or Winston appeared to have the capacity for extensive rebellion, but their primary difference came in the form of their motivation. While the World State was essentially able to engineer Bernard to be a (relatively) cooperative citizen, the Party was only able to limit the scope of Winston’s rebellious tendencies. Since it didn't literally control the minds of its subjects, the Party was unable to completely prevent insurrection. Its propaganda appeared to be much less effective than the hypnopaedic messages and genetic engineering of the World State. I believe that this weakness could be the source of Oceania’s downfall – without completely suppressing the freedom of thought, there will eventually be someone that is braver than Winston, someone who would be able to spur a widespread revolution. In this sense, I think that the World State came much closer to its utopian goal of complete stability, and was ultimately a more successful society than Oceania (though things could change since we haven’t finished 1984 yet).
-Brandon
When we were first introduced to Bernard, his criticisms of the World State (the dehumanizing effect of soma and the environment of sexual promiscuity) aligned fairly well with our own grievances. He also displayed realistic jealousy and desire, which had been supposedly eradicated in society. While these attributes weren’t necessarily appealing to the reader, they made Bernard much more relatable and three-dimensional, distinguishing him from the other mindless drones that populated the World State. His thoughts diverged from the monotony of society, and although he didn’t seem inclined to take any actual action, he appeared to be the only person who was even capable of disagreeing with the World State. However, Bernard’s true nature was revealed after his brief rise to popularity, when he indulged in all the vices that he had once opposed. We learned that his prior nonconformity was simply the result of a deep-rooted insecurity, rather than any real desire to rebel. This insecurity still made Bernard unique, but it also displayed the power of the World State’s conditioning, and the extent to which it could control people’s beliefs. Even though Bernard served as an irregularity in what was otherwise a society of complete conformity, he was never truly capable of rebellion. He ultimately accepted his hypnopaedic conditioning, abandoning his unorthodoxy without a second thought.
Winston differed dramatically from Bernard in that he actually had a strong desire to oppose the Party, constantly obsessing over ways to defy the system. As we saw in his thought diary, his repetition of the phrase “DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER” had become almost a compulsory habit. He was also very eager to initiate an illegal relationship with Julia, and was delighted at any reference of rebellion or revolution (like when Julia mentioned her numerous other affairs). However, his excitement over small details was also a major flaw. While Winston had the motivation that would be required to instigate large-scale reform, he focused exclusively on minor victories, never accomplishing anything of true value (at least so far). Constantly fearful of the Party’s surveillance, he was always nervous and apprehensive, limiting his potential for impactful change. He may have had the right idea in his heart, and his caution was a very realistic quality, but it showed how effectively the Party could instill fear in its subjects, restricting the ability to carry out a real revolution.
Neither Bernard or Winston appeared to have the capacity for extensive rebellion, but their primary difference came in the form of their motivation. While the World State was essentially able to engineer Bernard to be a (relatively) cooperative citizen, the Party was only able to limit the scope of Winston’s rebellious tendencies. Since it didn't literally control the minds of its subjects, the Party was unable to completely prevent insurrection. Its propaganda appeared to be much less effective than the hypnopaedic messages and genetic engineering of the World State. I believe that this weakness could be the source of Oceania’s downfall – without completely suppressing the freedom of thought, there will eventually be someone that is braver than Winston, someone who would be able to spur a widespread revolution. In this sense, I think that the World State came much closer to its utopian goal of complete stability, and was ultimately a more successful society than Oceania (though things could change since we haven’t finished 1984 yet).
-Brandon
There's definitely a parallel between Bernard and Winston. I think Winston is even more similar to Bernard than you've written--now that he's been caught, I don't think that Winston will be able to hold up to whatever authority he might face. Like Bernard, I think he's been conditioned too much by the society already. While both societies have the potential for rebellion (at least by an outsider), there won't be a rebellion started by Winston or Bernard any time soon.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that Bernard and Winston are really similar. So far, I think the quality that makes them most similar is their unwillingness to do anything crazy rebellious. This is also the quality that makes me dislike the characters so much, because I don't feel like I can root for them. Both lack braveness, which makes them quite dull in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteI think Winston and Bernard are very similar and their main differences are mostly due to the different worlds they live in. While I think you're right about Winston not having the guts to make a real difference, we at least can be comforted in the fact that there are a lot of people who are probably against the regime and are able to do more. Bernard was something of an isolated case in a stable world. Both Bernard and Winston are pretty average people, and I think that the fact that they aren't emotionally strong enough to rebel is helpful in showing us how we (the average readers) may function in a dystopia.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the 2 characters are very similar, in that they are "rebellious" forces in their respective worlds. I liked how you described each characters weaknesses, with Bernard actually conforming once he got popular, and Winston's inability to do anything out of cowardice. I personally don't think Winston's failure to act is because a lack of bravery, he probably just feels helpless since he has no options. Even if he had acted, he would have instantly been caught, and we might be calling him foolish and brash, even if his heart was in the right place.
ReplyDeleteAs everyone else has said in the comments, I agree with the parallels you draw between Winston and Bernard. That said, I'm not sure I'd agree with you that they're intriguing or even particularly "human" and relatable characters. A trend that I've noticed recently is that in pretty much every form of story, a character being somewhat, but not completely unlikeable is seen as "realistic" and "well-rounded." I'm not sure where the idea that a character needs to be deeply conflicted and flawed to be compelling and realistic came from. From my experience, most people are very likable, and do "the right thing" 99% of the time. That doesn't mean they don't have their own struggles or make mistakes. But it also doesn't make them cardboard cutouts that are so goody-goody that they seem fake and boring. In my opinion making a character repeatedly do morally reprehensible things is a lazy way of writing an "interesting" character.
ReplyDeleteFrom the very start of the story, Winston's persona reminded me of Bernard. They both have their flaws but are similar in the sense that, unlike the other people in the book, they alone sense that something is wrong with the government, and have the urge to defy it or start a rebellion. For Winston its different though because he faces serious punishment if he's caught, and there is higher surveillance/monitoring on everyone by the party which makes this endeavor even more difficult for him.
ReplyDeleteI also can definitely see extensive similarities between Winston and Bernard. As you've mentioned, they both have rebellious thoughts/tendencies, however they don't quite have the ability to start a rebellion. Although they might not be the most likeable and heroic characters, I think they're cowardice and flaws make the control of the society they're in much more realistic, and their position as individuals realistic as well.
ReplyDeleteI like this post a lot, I think it does a good job analyzing Winston and Bernard, how they relate to each other, and how that affects the books. Now that we've finished reading 1984 you'd probably change your last paragraph, though. Looks like the Party is pretty effective at suppressing rebellious people?
ReplyDeleteYou do a great job of comparing and contrasting Winston and Bernard in this post. I think its interesting that both characters have an element of rebellion and cowardice or submissiveness at the same time. It makes them both very interesting and less straightforward than some of the other characters in these books.
ReplyDeleteI wonder why orwell chose to break winston into submission at the end as opposed to a death, rebellion, etc. In some ways it's more chilling since you could see this happening to any citizen in 1984. Perhaps orwell purposely did not describe a rebellion to make 1984 more of a warning than dramatic hero story
ReplyDeleteYour pretty harsh on Bernard. I feel that while you make some valid points about his behavior when he rises to prominence, his actions can be viewed thru a more charitable lens. I imagine that he had genuine feelings about some of the parties shortcomings and in different circumstances could have been a genuine rebel. I think that he was just restricted in his rebellion even more than Winston was.
ReplyDeleteI think that you did a great job comparing Winston and Bernard in this post. It is interesting to think about how Orwell decided to end the book now that we have finished reading it.
ReplyDelete