Problem
In Part III of 1984, O'Brien lays out the Party's intensely narcissistic perception of itself: that the Party seeks power for its own sake, that the Party has perfected the methods of the oppressive regimes of the past, that the Party controls the past and the present and the future, that the Party cannot be overthrown, that the Party is forever.
We know, however, that the Party does NOT last forever, because the Appendix of the book examines Newspeak as an historical event. In other words, at some point in the future, Oceania and its ruling Party cease to exist but humanity does not.
Over the Thanksgiving break, I would like you to write and submit here to Canvas a two-page refutation of the Party's suppositions. Winston can't see any way through the Party's lies, but you can. How is the Party wrong about itself? What weaknesses do you see in its self-certainty? How is it erroneous in its conclusions? What mistakes is it making?
For example: O'Brien does not answer all of Winston's questions. Ones that he finds uncomfortable, he dismisses as unimportant. But are they? Or, O'Brien also concludes that it is impossible for the common folk (or "proles") to ever rebel. But is it? Or, O'Brien declares that the only reality that exists is inside the human head. Is that true? How might it not be true? etc. etc.
Have your essay submitted here to Canvas before we return to class after Thanksgiving.