1984

The argument

You should read 1984 while self-isolating because it provides a much-needed escape from reality. An oppressive, totalitarian government forces citizens to comply with its every whim. Any form of individualism has been stripped away. Following the narrative of Winston, the reader falls into a world of absolute hopelessness. By escaping into the world of dark fiction, readers give themselves a chance to escape their own less than ideal circumstances. In a time of self-isolation, readers can find comfort in remembering that Winston is powerless in his situation, but they can control their circumstances by choosing to stay home. It reminds readers that 1984's dystopian world is far worse than the situation readers currently face. Dystopian novels such as 1984 encourage escapism into an elaborate world of hyper surveillance where citizens are powerless over what they are allowed to say or even think. In dark fiction, readers can glean a better outlook on their own situation. They can rejoice in their ability to think freely, even in self-isolation. While enjoying 1984, readers can have a reprieve from the anxieties of current events.

Premises

Counter-arguments

All readers do not prefer escaping into a dark world. While reading this dystopian novel, readers might find more anxiety and worries about their own world. Although it was published in 1949, readers still find eerie connections to the world, media, and mass surveillance in the 21st century. Therefore, this novel is not a distraction from reality. It rather magnifies negative possibilities in the coming years.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Not disputed, and it sits badly with what the argument goes on to claim. A book characterised as absolute hopelessness is an unlikely candidate for reprieve, and the premise concedes the feature on which the objection turns. [Rejecting P2] Escape works through distance from the reader's own situation, and this novel's material — confinement, surveillance, restricted movement, official messaging and the policing of what may be said — sits closer to the conditions of lockdown than most fiction, not further from them. What readers report, as the counter-argument notes, is eerie recognition rather than release. [Rejecting P3] Comfort by downward comparison assumes a reader who responds that way; others take the parallel as a warning about where their own circumstances could go. The premise's consolation is also self-undermining: the control it offers the reader is the choice to stay indoors, which is the constraint rather than the freedom.