Os primeiros textos do escritor inglês George Orwell consideram o apelo do ideário comunista, ao passo que seus dois últimos romances, A Revolução dos Bichos (publicado em 1946) e 1984 (publicado em 1949) se contrapõem radicalmente a esse regime. Ao longo da segunda metade do século XX, foi-se estabelecendo a mística de uma forte ligação entre a obra de Orwell e o histórico do regime comunista, de modo que, com a queda do Comunismo, o desinteresse pelo assunto parece haver provocado uma diminuição no conceito dos méritos do escritor. O argumento da presente dissertação é que estamos frente a um momento nevrálgico no desenrolar da fortuna crítica de George Orwell, no qual a leitura alegórica feita até aqui deve ser substituída pela leitura simbólica, para que os textos do autor possam transcender à derrocada do movimento Comunista, sustentando-se na estética de sua literariedade e na atemporalidade de seu apelo ético. Em outras palavras, não é o texto de Orwell que precisa ser mudado, e sim, o ângulo de abordagem daqueles que constroem a fortuna crítica do autor, pois as referências temporais desgastadas diminuem a potencialidade interpretativa das obras. Um ponto comum que permanece, e que transpassa a obra literária de Orwell, é a opressão exercida por quaisquer sistemas políticos que possam ter atitudes consideradas totalitárias. Esta observação não remete apenas ao sistema comunista, mas também ao imperialista, ao autocrático, e até mesmo ao democrático. Orwell demonstra que um sistema não é totalitário por si só, mas através de suas atitudes em relação ao povo. Se, na época de seus lançamentos, a temática totalitária foi relacionada ao comunismo, tomando-se os textos como alegorias irreversíveis do discurso anti-comunista, a queda daquele regime, ou sua gradual abertura a práticas capitalistas, não basta para condenar as obras de Orwell ao anacronismo, descartando maiores possibilidades interpretativas. Ao propor uma releitura de A Revolução dos Bichos e 1984 substituindo as referências ao comunismo por qualquer tipo de prática totalitária — e concentrar o foco das observações no que é simbólico, ao invés de alegórico — acredito estar cumprindo minha parte neste processo de resgate da fortuna crítica de um escritor que considero ser um dos mais honestos e competentes de seu tempo. / The first texts of the English writer George Orwell approach the appeal of Communist views; however, his two last novels, Animal Farm (published in 1946) and Nineteen Eighty-Four (published in 1949) radically oppose this regime. Along the second half of the 20th century , strong bonds were established between Orwell’s works and the history of the Communist regime, however, with the fall of Communism, the lack of interest for the subject seems to have generated a diminution in the merits and recognition of the writer. The argumentation of this thesis is that we have been facing a central moment in the unfolding of George Orwell’s critical heritage, in which the allegorical reading done so far must be replaced by the symbolical reading, so that the texts of the author can transcend the fall of the Communist movement, supported by the esthetic of the literariety and atemporality of their ethic appeal. In other words, it is not the text of Orwell which must be changed, but the angle of the approach of those who build the author’s critical heritage, because outdated temporal references impair the interpretative possibility of the works. A remaining point that seems to cross all Orwell’s literary works is the oppression exerted by any political systems that can have attitudes considered totalitarian ones. This remark does not address only the Communist system, but also the Imperialist, the autocratic and even the Democratic ones. Orwell demonstrates that a system is not totalitarian on its own, but through its manifestations towards people. If, at the age of their launchings, the totalitarian theme was connected to Communism, taking the texts as irreversible allegories of the anti-Communist discourse, the fall of that regime, or its gradual opening to Capitalist practices, is not enough to condemn Orwell’s works to anachronism, discharging more comprehensive interpretative possibilities. I believe that, by proposing a new reading of Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four, replacing the references to Communism for references to any kind of totalitarian practice--, and concentrating the focus of the observation on what is symbolical – I will be doing my part in this process of rescuing the critical heritage of a writer who I consider one of the most honest and competent authors of his time.

The aim of this essay is to provide an answer to the question "What is the Meaning of Meaningless sex in Dystopia?". It will show that meaningful concepts such as sexual satisfaction, pleassure, passion, love, bonding, procreation and family are handled as threats in dystopian societies described in well-known novels as We, Brave New World and Nineteen Eighty-Four . It will explain how the conflict between the collective and the individual influences peoples' sexuality. It will also show how leading powers in the three dystopian societies use different methods to remove the significanse and functions of sex. It will suggest meaningless sex is a means to control the masses in a collective and that meaningful sex is an act of rebelion against the state. / .

Os primeiros textos do escritor inglês George Orwell consideram o apelo do ideário comunista, ao passo que seus dois últimos romances, A Revolução dos Bichos (publicado em 1946) e 1984 (publicado em 1949) se contrapõem radicalmente a esse regime. Ao longo da segunda metade do século XX, foi-se estabelecendo a mística de uma forte ligação entre a obra de Orwell e o histórico do regime comunista, de modo que, com a queda do Comunismo, o desinteresse pelo assunto parece haver provocado uma diminuição no conceito dos méritos do escritor. O argumento da presente dissertação é que estamos frente a um momento nevrálgico no desenrolar da fortuna crítica de George Orwell, no qual a leitura alegórica feita até aqui deve ser substituída pela leitura simbólica, para que os textos do autor possam transcender à derrocada do movimento Comunista, sustentando-se na estética de sua literariedade e na atemporalidade de seu apelo ético. Em outras palavras, não é o texto de Orwell que precisa ser mudado, e sim, o ângulo de abordagem daqueles que constroem a fortuna crítica do autor, pois as referências temporais desgastadas diminuem a potencialidade interpretativa das obras. Um ponto comum que permanece, e que transpassa a obra literária de Orwell, é a opressão exercida por quaisquer sistemas políticos que possam ter atitudes consideradas totalitárias. Esta observação não remete apenas ao sistema comunista, mas também ao imperialista, ao autocrático, e até mesmo ao democrático. Orwell demonstra que um sistema não é totalitário por si só, mas através de suas atitudes em relação ao povo. Se, na época de seus lançamentos, a temática totalitária foi relacionada ao comunismo, tomando-se os textos como alegorias irreversíveis do discurso anti-comunista, a queda daquele regime, ou sua gradual abertura a práticas capitalistas, não basta para condenar as obras de Orwell ao anacronismo, descartando maiores possibilidades interpretativas. Ao propor uma releitura de A Revolução dos Bichos e 1984 substituindo as referências ao comunismo por qualquer tipo de prática totalitária — e concentrar o foco das observações no que é simbólico, ao invés de alegórico — acredito estar cumprindo minha parte neste processo de resgate da fortuna crítica de um escritor que considero ser um dos mais honestos e competentes de seu tempo. / The first texts of the English writer George Orwell approach the appeal of Communist views; however, his two last novels, Animal Farm (published in 1946) and Nineteen Eighty-Four (published in 1949) radically oppose this regime. Along the second half of the 20th century , strong bonds were established between Orwell’s works and the history of the Communist regime, however, with the fall of Communism, the lack of interest for the subject seems to have generated a diminution in the merits and recognition of the writer. The argumentation of this thesis is that we have been facing a central moment in the unfolding of George Orwell’s critical heritage, in which the allegorical reading done so far must be replaced by the symbolical reading, so that the texts of the author can transcend the fall of the Communist movement, supported by the esthetic of the literariety and atemporality of their ethic appeal. In other words, it is not the text of Orwell which must be changed, but the angle of the approach of those who build the author’s critical heritage, because outdated temporal references impair the interpretative possibility of the works. A remaining point that seems to cross all Orwell’s literary works is the oppression exerted by any political systems that can have attitudes considered totalitarian ones. This remark does not address only the Communist system, but also the Imperialist, the autocratic and even the Democratic ones. Orwell demonstrates that a system is not totalitarian on its own, but through its manifestations towards people. If, at the age of their launchings, the totalitarian theme was connected to Communism, taking the texts as irreversible allegories of the anti-Communist discourse, the fall of that regime, or its gradual opening to Capitalist practices, is not enough to condemn Orwell’s works to anachronism, discharging more comprehensive interpretative possibilities. I believe that, by proposing a new reading of Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four, replacing the references to Communism for references to any kind of totalitarian practice--, and concentrating the focus of the observation on what is symbolical – I will be doing my part in this process of rescuing the critical heritage of a writer who I consider one of the most honest and competent authors of his time.

Os primeiros textos do escritor inglês George Orwell consideram o apelo do ideário comunista, ao passo que seus dois últimos romances, A Revolução dos Bichos (publicado em 1946) e 1984 (publicado em 1949) se contrapõem radicalmente a esse regime. Ao longo da segunda metade do século XX, foi-se estabelecendo a mística de uma forte ligação entre a obra de Orwell e o histórico do regime comunista, de modo que, com a queda do Comunismo, o desinteresse pelo assunto parece haver provocado uma diminuição no conceito dos méritos do escritor. O argumento da presente dissertação é que estamos frente a um momento nevrálgico no desenrolar da fortuna crítica de George Orwell, no qual a leitura alegórica feita até aqui deve ser substituída pela leitura simbólica, para que os textos do autor possam transcender à derrocada do movimento Comunista, sustentando-se na estética de sua literariedade e na atemporalidade de seu apelo ético. Em outras palavras, não é o texto de Orwell que precisa ser mudado, e sim, o ângulo de abordagem daqueles que constroem a fortuna crítica do autor, pois as referências temporais desgastadas diminuem a potencialidade interpretativa das obras. Um ponto comum que permanece, e que transpassa a obra literária de Orwell, é a opressão exercida por quaisquer sistemas políticos que possam ter atitudes consideradas totalitárias. Esta observação não remete apenas ao sistema comunista, mas também ao imperialista, ao autocrático, e até mesmo ao democrático. Orwell demonstra que um sistema não é totalitário por si só, mas através de suas atitudes em relação ao povo. Se, na época de seus lançamentos, a temática totalitária foi relacionada ao comunismo, tomando-se os textos como alegorias irreversíveis do discurso anti-comunista, a queda daquele regime, ou sua gradual abertura a práticas capitalistas, não basta para condenar as obras de Orwell ao anacronismo, descartando maiores possibilidades interpretativas. Ao propor uma releitura de A Revolução dos Bichos e 1984 substituindo as referências ao comunismo por qualquer tipo de prática totalitária — e concentrar o foco das observações no que é simbólico, ao invés de alegórico — acredito estar cumprindo minha parte neste processo de resgate da fortuna crítica de um escritor que considero ser um dos mais honestos e competentes de seu tempo. / The first texts of the English writer George Orwell approach the appeal of Communist views; however, his two last novels, Animal Farm (published in 1946) and Nineteen Eighty-Four (published in 1949) radically oppose this regime. Along the second half of the 20th century , strong bonds were established between Orwell’s works and the history of the Communist regime, however, with the fall of Communism, the lack of interest for the subject seems to have generated a diminution in the merits and recognition of the writer. The argumentation of this thesis is that we have been facing a central moment in the unfolding of George Orwell’s critical heritage, in which the allegorical reading done so far must be replaced by the symbolical reading, so that the texts of the author can transcend the fall of the Communist movement, supported by the esthetic of the literariety and atemporality of their ethic appeal. In other words, it is not the text of Orwell which must be changed, but the angle of the approach of those who build the author’s critical heritage, because outdated temporal references impair the interpretative possibility of the works. A remaining point that seems to cross all Orwell’s literary works is the oppression exerted by any political systems that can have attitudes considered totalitarian ones. This remark does not address only the Communist system, but also the Imperialist, the autocratic and even the Democratic ones. Orwell demonstrates that a system is not totalitarian on its own, but through its manifestations towards people. If, at the age of their launchings, the totalitarian theme was connected to Communism, taking the texts as irreversible allegories of the anti-Communist discourse, the fall of that regime, or its gradual opening to Capitalist practices, is not enough to condemn Orwell’s works to anachronism, discharging more comprehensive interpretative possibilities. I believe that, by proposing a new reading of Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four, replacing the references to Communism for references to any kind of totalitarian practice--, and concentrating the focus of the observation on what is symbolical – I will be doing my part in this process of rescuing the critical heritage of a writer who I consider one of the most honest and competent authors of his time.

No description available.

Nineteen Eighty-Four de George Orwell, A Clockwork Orange d'Anthony Burgess et Meccania: The Superstate d'Owen Gregory révèlent trois régimes oppressifs qui manipulent la science dans le but de contrôler leurs populations. Les auteurs dénoncent la déshumanisation et l'esclavage générés par cette collaboration politico-scientifique. Ainsi, cette étude va explorer les dystopies susmentionnées en analysant leur critique du mariage politico-scientifique. Je vais montrer que la coopération entre les politiciens et les scientifiques est destinée à contrôler les individus et à pénaliser les éléments dissidents. Je vais examiner les mécanismes politico-scientifiques de surveillance et de punition, tout en montrant que les politiciens usent de la science pour assurer la continuité et la stabilité des régimes tyranniques. Finalement, je vais souligner la capacité de l'écriture à dévoiler les abus politico-scientifiques, et à prévenir une coalition entre la connaissance scientifique et le pouvoir despotique.

This study seeks to describe the public communication practices of the authorities in the Dutch Golden Age. It is a study of 'state communication': the manner in which the authorities sought to inform their citizens, publicise their laws, and engage publicly in quarrels with their political opponents. These communication strategies underpinned the political stability of the seventeenth-century Dutch Republic. Concerned about their decorous appearance, the regents who ruled the country always understated the extent to which they relied on the consent of their citizens. The regents shared a republican ideal which dismissed the agency of popular consent; but this was an ideal, like so many ideals in the Dutch Republic, which existed in art and literature, but was not practised in daily life. The practicalities of governance demanded that the regents of the Dutch Republic adopt a sophisticated system of communication. The authorities employed town criers and bailiffs to speed through town and country to repeat proclamations; they instructed ministers to proclaim official prayer days at church; and they ensured that everywhere, on walls, doors, pillars and public boards, one could find the texts of ordinances, notices and announcements issued by the authorities. In the seventeenth-century Dutch Republic, politics was not the prerogative of the few. That this was due to the determined efforts of the authorities has never been appreciated. Far from withholding political information, the regents were finely attuned to the benefit of involving their citizens in the affairs of state. The Dutch public was exposed to a wealth of political literature, much of it published by the state. The widespread availability of government publications also exposed the law to prying, critical eyes; and it paved the way to make the state, and the bewildering wealth of legislation it communicated, more accountable.

The three dystopian novels Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, Kallocain by Karin Boye and Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell have been highly discussed amongst literary critics and scholars. Although these works are well-known, some themes have had very little or no recognition. Biological reproduction is a recurring subject in dystopian literature. Although it is not the main theme in the novels, it is a very important part in dystopian culture and dystopian society. By focusing on reproduction and the structure of gender roles in these three dystopias, I hope to bring to light something that's been in the shadows for a long time i.e. the women of dystopian society. I will address the role of nature and technology in terms of reproduction by using Pia Maria Ahlbäck's theory of the heterotopia. Later, I will discuss the problems and possibilities of the role of women in biological reproduction.

An international maritime labour market study, the thesis focuses on the Dutch naval labour market, analysing wartime Zeeland admiralty crews. The research is based primarily on unique naval pay sources. Analysis of crew compositions has not been made on this scale in the period before. The 1667 Dutch Medway Raid is the starting point, where a few British played a leading role – amongst many others reported on the Dutch side. Pepys and Marvell primarily blamed their joining the enemy on the lure of superior Dutch payment. The thesis asks how many British there were really, how they came to be in Dutch service, and whether this involvement occurred, as indicated, at other times too. Part One is thematic and explores the background mechanisms of the maritime environment in detail, determining causation. First, the two naval recruitment systems are compared and completely reassessed in the light of state intervention in the trade sphere. Two new sets of ‘control’ data – naval wages and foreign shipping – are amongst the incentives and routes determined. British expatriate communities are examined as conduits for the supply of naval labour and civilian support. British personnel are compared and contrasted with other foreigners, against the background of Anglo-Dutch interlinkage and political transition from neutrality through conflict to alliance. Part Two is chronological, covering four major wars in three chapters. Micro-case studies assembled from the scattered record streams enable analysis of the crews of particular officers and ships. Seamen were an occupation that made them a very little known group: the thesis examines the different career types of British personnel of many different ranks, shedding light on their everyday lives. The thesis shows that British personnel were an integral part of Dutch crews throughout the period, even when the two nations were fighting each other. The basic need of subsistence labour for employment took precedence over allegiance to nation/ideology, demonstrating limitations in state power and the continual interdependence forced on the maritime powers through the realities of the labour market.