1984 Vs. The Circle, A Dystopia

The Circle might be a dystopia, but 1984 is a definite dysNOPEia It is commonsense knowledge that utopias could never exist. There is no feasible way of creating society where everyone will be content, for there will always be variances of opinion. As a result, writers often focus on creating worlds of dystopia, their personal worst case scenarios. Two examples of such books, 1984 and The Circle are often compared by readers trying to decide the more grimmer future. Some older readers treat them as equal because both books have lacking protagonists and destruction of privacy; but that is where similarities end. This essay is a compilation of three reasons that substantiate why 1984 is a far more disturbing future than of The Circle. 1984

The Circle is extremely forward of its notions, literally declaring its plans to the world. “The mission of the Circle” is made clear by its newly devised motto “ALL THAT HAPPENS MUST BE KNOWN” (Eggers 51). Anyone smarter than the protagonist, Mae, could figure out where this is going. It should be obvious that privacy would be stripped and consequently individuality for fear of being judged for not following the norm. While Winston is also quite stupid, he has a stubborn mentality to trust himself which Mae does not. Mae is easily caught in others’ judgments and swayed from her ideas. Because of this flaw, despite the thick bluntness of the Circle she is manipulated and trashed. As a stark contrast, everything the Party does is sneaky and manipulative, only revealing its true motives to victims in the face of death. In The Circle, everything is known to everyone, whereas in 1984, everything is known only by a select group. Humans are caged by forgetfulness, so with the power of knowing everything the Party can reduce it to nothing. Winston’s job is changing the past, rewriting “documentary evidence to” solidify the Party’s impression (Orwell 40). If the Party has always gotten everything correct in the past, then they must be trustworthy in the present as well. If one had an opinion, but the perfect denounces it, one will denounce it as well because the perfect cannot be imperfect. They have brainwashed them with propaganda to such extents, that in an intensely patriotic “Hate Week” they could switch the enemy and the crowd immediately concludes that “agents of Goldstein had been at work” and sabotaged the parade to put up “lying propaganda” (Orwell 180, 181). Being exploited to such extremes without knowing is a terrifying notion to think