1984 reference?

[AyuVince]

Tarquin wants to create peace and order by keeping three huge empires in a state of constant warfare, with shifting alliances. Is this an intentional reference to Orwell's "1984" by The Giant?

[Sylthia]

By fighting a constant Fireball war, we prevent a Meteor Swarm war.

[BRC]

Tarquin wants to create peace and order by keeping three huge empires in a state of constant warfare, with shifting alliances. Is this an intentional reference to Orwell's "1984" by The Giant?
We are Allied with the Empire of Sweat and at War with the Empire of Tears.
We have Always been Allied with the Empire of Sweat and at War with the Empire of Tears.

The Empress of Blood is Scrying on You.

[AyuVince]

You know what's in Malack's study, Winston Roy. The worst thing in the world.

[EternalMelon]

You know what's in Malack's study, Winston Roy. The worst thing in the world.

Would Elan or Belkar be in room 101?

[Evil DM Mark3]

It would hardly surprise me. The Giant seems very well read indeed.

Would Elan or Belkar be in room 101?
Belkan. He stabs you in the kidneys to a jaunty tune and upbeat rhythm!

[BRC]

Did you know that an Empowered Scorching Ray spell takes up a 5th level spell slot?

[Nilan8888]

I think there's some wiggle-room here, but if the 1984 refernces are there, they're much less overt than the Dune references.

My guess -- and it's only a guess -- is that the Giant originally came up with this scheme without really thinking of 1984. However if he missed the parallels then, he probably sees it now. When reading this I didn't have 1984 at all in mind becuase what Tarquin lays out is not QUITE 1984, and it's missing some of the verbitage and et cetera. Yes the political situation is reminiscient in some aspects, but we haven't seen anything like "ministries" or "Big Tarquin is watching", or that sort of thing. There's been no point of dialogue or visual cue that hints at 1984 that I've seen.

However when you look at the politics in the light many posters have noticed, I have to hand it to them: the setup IS remarkably similar to 1984, so they've made a good catch, there. Maybe we might see more 1984 allusions as we move forward that are similar to what we saw for Dune. That can only be good stuff.

[Felhammer]

So instead of Big Brother we have Fat Dragon? :P

[Darth Hunterix]

"Big Father is watching"
Fixed that for you.

And I don't think so Belkar would be good choice for room 101. He kills too quicly, so he would miss the most important goal of tortures: to keep the subject alive. Dead people aren't very useful. And wasting several 5000gp worth diamonds per person looks a little silly to me.

Elan on the other hand... (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0101.html) Well he did the job, right?

[martianmister]

Tarquin wants to create peace and order by keeping three huge empires in a state of constant warfare, with shifting alliances. Is this an intentional reference to Orwell's "1984" by The Giant?

Isn't this opposite to what Tarquin doing? There isn't really any big scale war between empires and only fighting is for smaller countries. I can't see any real similary.

[137beth]

And all those other countries we use to control never existed. If you think you remember that your father was captured by some other country in this region, such as this "Tyrinaria", you are insane and will be taken to the ministry of love.

There's also the similarity of Tarquin trying to convince Elan that what he is doing is good, even when it is clearly evil.

[Jimorian]

There's also the similarity of Tarquin trying to convince Elan that what he is doing is good, even when it is clearly doubleplus ungood.

Fixed your post. :smallwink:

[Blue Ghost]

Tarquin doubleplus Lawful Evilful.

I first started seeing the parallels in Strip 755, when Cathy replaced Judy mid-speech and (presumably) no one noticing. I love them.

[BladeofOblivion]

Isn't this opposite to what Tarquin doing? There isn't really any big scale war between empires and only fighting is for smaller countries. I can't see any real similary.

That's the thing. No one can be really sure, but Goldstein's book implies that there isn't even much of a war. Each battle is actually a small engagement between experts with minimal loss of life. All they are fighting over is a small territory that changes bits of control constantly, and this territory has no net production value. Heck, most of the rocket bombs that hit Airstrip One are implied to be fired FROM Airstrip One.

Of course, this should be taken with a grain of salt, as it is entirely possible that Goldstein never lived at all, and is simply a Scapegoat.

[Lord Raziere]

That's the thing. No one can be really sure, but Goldstein's book implies that there isn't even much of a war. Each battle is actually a small engagement between experts with minimal loss of life. All they are fighting over is a small territory that changes bits of control constantly, and this territory has no net production value. Heck, most of the rocket bombs that hit Airstrip One are implied to be fired FROM Airstrip One.

Of course, this should be taken with a grain of salt, as it is entirely possible that Goldstein never lived at all, and is simply a Scapegoat.

and how do we know the Tarquin isn't lying through his teeth as well?

[ericgrau]

I think it parallels several cynical political works/etc., not just 1984. I can't tell which if any is his inspiration.

[DaveMcW]

3 nations is the minimum required for a permanent stalemate war. The leading nation will always be dragged down by the other two, until a new leader emerges and the alliances shift.

The lawful evil leaders in 1984 and the western continent figured this out for themselves, they don't need a book to tell them.

[CrimsonAngel]

God I hated that book. Atleast I know what y'all are talking about.

[Katana_Geldar]

An important difference is that the Inner Party in 1984 had absolutely no illusions about what they were doing. They aimed for power purely because they wanted it.

[BridgeCity]

An important difference is that the Inner Party in 1984 had absolutely no illusions about what they were doing. They aimed for power purely because they wanted it.

This is only a big difference if you believe Tarquin when he talks about wanting to cease war, instead of believeing he is just after power and riches and a cushy life, like he tells his adventuring party.

Personally, I don't buy Tarquin having the good of the nation at heart at all, thats just him putting a spin on his motives, like the name of the comic implies.

I don't believe Tarquin has illusions about what he is doing either, he wants power and the life that comes with it. He's just not stupid enough to state that to his son who is clearly showing signs of not agreeing with his father's point of view.

[zql]

3 nations is the minimum required for a permanent stalemate war. The leading nation will always be dragged down by the other two, until a new leader emerges and the alliances shift.

The lawful evil leaders in 1984 and the western continent figured this out for themselves, they don't need a book to tell them.

Pretty much this.
IMO, this is not a reference, just two clever and similar thoughts about how politics works.

[Lord Thurlvin]

God I hated that book. Atleast I know what y'all are talking about.

I'm curious. Why do you hate it?

[industrious]

3 nations is the minimum required for a permanent stalemate war. The leading nation will always be dragged down by the other two, until a new leader emerges and the alliances shift.

The lawful evil leaders in 1984 and the western continent figured this out for themselves, they don't need a book to tell them.

One thing I never understood then was how in 1984, it was always 2 countries united against 1, but that 1 was never Oceania. Never made sense to me.

[Conuly]

One thing I never understood then was how in 1984, it was always 2 countries united against 1, but that 1 was never Oceania. Never made sense to me.

That's because you only read a story from one side. In Eurasia, it was two against one - but that one was never Eurasia. Same in Eastasia.

[Blue Ghost]

Hmm... Is it possible that the same Party was controlling all three states in 1984, just as Tarquin's party is controlling all three empires?

[JoseB]

Hmm... Is it possible that the same Party was controlling all three states in 1984, just as Tarquin's party is controlling all three empires?

It would not surprise me at all.

[WalkingTarget]

Heck, I've seen people claim that there isn't even a war in the first place - that it's entirely possible that Airstrip One is its own little isolated police state and the rest of the world bears no resemblance to the one described.

I'm not sure I buy that argument myself, but I thought it was at least something to consider.

[AyuVince]

and how do we know the Tarquin isn't lying through his teeth as well?

Ian and Geoff confirm his story. Although *their* knowledge might also be influenced by Tarquin's propaganda. We still don't know how they found out Tarquin's secret.

Also, more epileptic trees/nightmare fuel:

:elan:: "No! Do it to Haley instead!!"

[Eloel]

and how do we know the Tarquin isn't lying through his teeth as well?

If he's Lawful, he'd twist his words rather than outright lie. If he's Chaotic, he wouldn't plan the lie out so elaborately. Result? He's not lieing.

[The Pilgrim]

Tarquin wants to create peace and order by keeping three huge empires in a state of constant warfare, with shifting alliances. Is this an intentional reference to Orwell's "1984" by The Giant?

The whole scheme reminds me more to the First Triunvirate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Triumvirate), with Caesar, Pompey and Crassus pretending to oppose each other in order to control al the factions and ruling Rome toghether.

Of course, it ended quite badly. Like Tarquin's scheme is likely to. And, ironically, when Augustus put order and created the Empire, he justified it in the necessity to keep peace and order.

[Scion_of_Darkness]

I doubt its a deliberate reference. A three way power triangle is a very stable power system and its pretty easy to create. Nice idea though, I like the comparison.

[pendell]

I doubt its a deliberate reference. A three way power triangle is a very stable power system and its pretty easy to create. Nice idea though, I like the comparison.

Actually, I've heard the opposite --a three-way power triangle is the least stable form of civic structure, and collapses in a hurry as soon as any one 'leg' of the three-legged stool becomes weaker than the others. Certainly neither the first nor the second triumvirates in Roman history endured for any length of time.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Barstro]

Actually, I've heard the opposite --a three-way power triangle is the least stable form of civic structure, and collapses in a hurry as soon as any one 'leg' of the three-legged stool becomes weaker than the others. Certainly neither the first nor the second triumvirates in Roman history endured for any length of time.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

It all depends on the motives. If all three (or the single party ruling all three) want constant stalemate, then it will be stable. If all three are too scared to allow one of the others to win, then it will be stable. If the two stronger ones think that they can beat the other strong one once the weakest is gone, then it will be unstable.

If rock can just convince scissors to cut out "weak little paper" then it's over pretty fast.

[Barstro]

He's just not stupid enough to state that to his son who is clearly showing signs of not agreeing with his father's point of view.

I think Tarquin is too narcissistic to realize that Elan is Chaotic Good. Tarquin loves Elan, therefore Elan must agree with everything that Tarquin does.



I don't believe Tarquin has illusions about what he is doing either, he wants power and the life that comes with it.

I maintain that most people we call evil truly, but irrationally, believe that they are doing good. I think Tarquin believes that he is making the land better.

Were he completely evil, he would use his power to light slaves on fire all the time. But he only lights them on fire when the "rebellious little pricks" try to oppose the orderly government by running away. Perfectly in line with standard operating procedures. :smallamused:

[megabyter5]

Were he chaotic evil, he would use his power to light slaves on fire all the time.

Fixed it for ya.

[BridgeCity]

I maintain that most people we call evil truly, but irrationally, believe that they are doing good. I think Tarquin believes that he is making the land better.

I feel that if this was actually one of his aims, it would have been mentioned when he was first describing his plan to his team. I am sure he is aware of the side-effect of the world now being slightly better, and uses that to his advantage, like any good propaganda merchant.


Were he completely evil, he would use his power to light slaves on fire all the time. But he only lights them on fire when the "rebellious little pricks" try to oppose the orderly government by running away. Perfectly in line with standard operating procedures. :smallamused:

What would he achieve by lighting slaves on fire all the time? Completely evil doesn't mean you do the most horrible thing all the time, a person/player who does that is just playing Stupid Evil, Lawful Stupids cousin. Tarquin is good at ruling his country, and as you point out, only setting fire to the slaves who escape is a perfectly valid deterant. He has better uses for the other slaves, the example we have seen being the arena. The blood sports endear certain citizens of the Empire to him, and the games serve as both entertainment and a distraction for his subjects. Some Roman Emperors used their games for this exact purpose. Then there is the huge workforce he can exploit for no cost, unpaid labour for tilling crops, salt mines run at very low cost etc.

He loses all of that if he just stupidly sets everyone on fire for no reason other than 'for the evulz!'

[Irbis]

The whole scheme reminds me more to the First Triunvirate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Triumvirate), with Caesar, Pompey and Crassus pretending to oppose each other in order to control al the factions and ruling Rome toghether.

Of course, it ended quite badly. Like Tarquin's scheme is likely to.

Badly? :smallconfused:

As, in, like, creating the most powerful Empire in history, Empire that basically set up western civilization in such a way that its influence is still huge 1500 years after if fell?


And, ironically, when Augustus put order and created the Empire, he justified it in the necessity to keep peace and order.

Aaaand, he didin't? :smallconfused:

[Zmflavius]

Hmm... Is it possible that the same Party was controlling all three states in 1984, just as Tarquin's party is controlling all three empires?

I think that in 1984, Julia hints at the possibility, but obviously, since both Winston and Julia are outer party members, they can't know for certain.


Badly? :smallconfused:

As, in, like, creating the most powerful Empire in history, Empire that basically set up western civilization in such a way that its influence is still huge 1500 years after if fell?



Aaaand, he didin't? :smallconfused:

Well, Crassus died in battle, and Pompey and Caesar were murdered. Would be as if Tarquin and his party died, but Elan survived. Not ideal for Tarquin, but the result is probably happy mostly.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

Ok, a bit off topic, but wasn't Caesar murdered beneath the statue of Pompey?

That said, it'd make an interesting parallel to Rome, were Tarquin to be killed and the empire (all of it, not just the part Tarquin was controlling at the time) fell to Elan. And wasn't Tarquin the Proud the last King of Rome, before it became a republic? And it was his son who caused the revolt (the rape of Lucretia, I believe) which brought the monarchy to its knees and ushered in the republic...So that begs the question, does Nale do something awful and lead to the fall of this little scheme, or is it Elan (in a twist on the history, no doubt) who gets to herald in the republic on the Western Continent?

The story wouldn't parallel exactly, with the triumvirate's fall immediately preceding the formation of the Empire, but it does have some nice parallels to the fall of the Roman Kings and the beginnings of the Republic of Rome.

[AlexanderRM]

Of course, this should be taken with a grain of salt, as it is entirely possible that Goldstein never lived at all, and is simply a Scapegoat.

Bit of caution here, in case anyone hasn't read 1984 and is planning to...

It is in fact directly stated, amazingly, that Goldstein's book was in fact written by the party... though I'm not sure the reason. It seems to be fairly clear that Goldstein is just there to act as a focus of hatred the way Big Brother acts as a focus for admiration.



Pretty much this.
IMO, this is not a reference, just two clever and similar thoughts about how politics works.

This seems likely to me. The lack of deliberate references (puns, slogans as people have noted, etc.) seems to indicate that the Giant just came up with the same general idea for a system based on 3 empires pretending to oppose each other so that everyone picks one of the 3 sides.

It's quite likely that the Giant was influenced by 1984 or even consciously thought of it, but I still wouldn't call it a "reference".

[Talkkno]

1500 years after if fell?


Eastern Roman Empire doesn't count? :smallconfused: The Fall of Constantinople occurred in 1453 after all...

[JoseB]

Ok, a bit off topic, but wasn't Caesar murdered beneath the statue of Pompey?

That said, it'd make an interesting parallel to Rome, were Tarquin to be killed and the empire (all of it, not just the part Tarquin was controlling at the time) fell to Elan. And wasn't Tarquin the Proud the last King of Rome, before it became a republic? And it was his son who caused the revolt (the rape of Lucretia, I believe) which brought the monarchy to its knees and ushered in the republic...So that begs the question, does Nale do something awful and lead to the fall of this little scheme, or is it Elan (in a twist on the history, no doubt) who gets to herald in the republic on the Western Continent?

The story wouldn't parallel exactly, with the triumvirate's fall immediately preceding the formation of the Empire, but it does have some nice parallels to the fall of the Roman Kings and the beginnings of the Republic of Rome.

Julius Caesar was killed under the statue of Pompey, indeed (little bit of silly trivia: The words in German and Russian for Emperor, "Kaiser" and "Tsar", are directly derived from Caesar. Also, the German word is closest to the original Latin pronunciation). Apparently Julius Caesar really liked Pompey and was genuinely sorry for having had to battle against him, and he was the one to order this precise statue to be set up at the Senate. It is said that every time he passed in front of the statue, he bowed. Whether all this was an elaborate political manoeuvre for public consumption, and in reality he hated the guy's guts, is another question.

I truly hope that it is not like the fall of the kings of Rome, because then Elan would have to do something horrible to someone for everybody to revolt and cause the fall of....

...AGH! ONE MINUTE! What is this is *PRECISELY* what Tarquin wanted to do with Elan????? What if all this "welcome back beloved son" is but a façade, and Tarquin is actually preparing something that will look as if Elan has done something heinous, so there *will* be a revolt that will "destroy" the Empire of Blood, focused on Elan, with Tarquin "vanishing" into the night, and with a new advisor being brought to work together with Malack (who, of course, had nothing to do with all this :P ) and who will rebuild a new, "better" country from the ruins of the old one? Agh. I overthink things :P


Eastern Roman Empire doesn't count? The Fall of Constantinople occurred in 1453 after all...

Everybody forgets the poor Byzantines.... :)

[Iain]

If he's Chaotic, he wouldn't plan the lie out so elaborately.

Chaotic people don't plan elaborate lies? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0290.html)

Not that Tarquin is Chaotic anyway, of course.

[Irbis]

Eastern Roman Empire doesn't count? :smallconfused:

No, as their influence on the rest of Europe was pretty marginal compared to the original Rome. Though, they had a measure of influence in the Slavic countries, so I guess if you looked at these they would count until 1000-1200, though not until their fall.

Incidentally, FF crashed as I was typing this, and on restoring, restored my post. Yay for good browsers! :P

[JoseB]

No, as their influence on the rest of Europe was pretty marginal compared to the original Rome. Though, they had a measure of influence in the Slavic countries, so I guess if you looked at these they would count until 1000-1200, though not until their fall.

Incidentally, FF crashed as I was typing this, and on restoring, restored my post. Yay for good browsers! :P

I disagree with what you write in a couple of respects: If you talk about direct "cultural" influence, OK, that I can accept. However, for many centuries the strongest currency circulating throughout Europe was the one minted in Byzantium (the word for "gold coin" during the Middle Ages, in Europe, was "Bezant". Byzantine currency was accepted all over); from the point of view of commerce and trade, it was a big power.

Finally, it was from Byzantine libraries that were taken by the Arabs (and through the Arab translations of the works therein) that many, many works of classical antiquity ended up becoming available to Western Civilization (quite an interesting path for a few of those works: Greek or Latin originals, lost in the West, that were taken by the Arabs, translated by them into Arabic, taken further West in conquest, and quite often re-translated into Latin in the "Translator's School" of Toledo during the 13th century).

P.S.: All hail well-written browsers :)

[Nilan8888]

Apparently Julius Caesar really liked Pompey and was genuinely sorry for having had to battle against him, and he was the one to order this precise statue to be set up at the Senate. It is said that every time he passed in front of the statue, he bowed. Whether all this was an elaborate political manoeuvre for public consumption, and in reality he hated the guy's guts, is another question.

I don't think it's true he hated his guts or anyone's in particular, but Caesar was the consummate political mover: bowing to the statue of Pompey was completely in line with his "regret" at hearing of the suicide of Cato.

Caesar made sure not to make enemies unless they were the right ones to make. And he was gracious to his defeated (Roman) foes becuase he could afford to BE gracious, and in no way wanted to appear like Sulla. It is true that many, many Romans would have been more brutal than Caesar if they were in his place, but Caesar wasn't necessarily so empathetic as he crafted his political image ot be.

[Mean_Fighting_Guy]

One thing I never understood then was how in 1984, it was always 2 countries united against 1, but that 1 was never Oceania. Never made sense to me.
Well, it does, from certain points of view.
From a realist point of view, the reason would be that Eurasia and East Asia area adjacent to each other and as such are unlikely to team up on Oceania which is located on the Americas, Great Britain, South Africa and Australia (and therefore lacks immediate contact with both other powers).
From a constructivst pov, however, it may all just be a huge lie and totally arbitrary which power is supposed to be at war with Oceania. Since the party controls reality, all the propaganda and the news may just be instrumental in keeping the Outer Party (and the populace) under control, forcefeeding them the Inner Party's information and keeping them in a constant state of insecurity and ignorance about any "objective reality" whatsoever.


Hmm... Is it possible that the same Party was controlling all three states in 1984, just as Tarquin's party is controlling all three empires?

Heck, I've seen people claim that there isn't even a war in the first place - that it's entirely possible that Airstrip One is its own little isolated police state and the rest of the world bears no resemblance to the one described.

That's the thing. No one can be really sure, but Goldstein's book implies that there isn't even much of a war. Each battle is actually a small engagement between experts with minimal loss of life. All they are fighting over is a small territory that changes bits of control constantly, and this territory has no net production value. Heck, most of the rocket bombs that hit Airstrip One are implied to be fired FROM Airstrip One.
Of course, this should be taken with a grain of salt, as it is entirely possible that Goldstein never lived at all, and is simply a Scapegoat.

It is in fact directly stated, amazingly, that Goldstein's book was in fact written by the party... though I'm not sure the reason. It seems to be fairly clear that Goldstein is just there to act as a focus of hatred the way Big Brother acts as a focus for admiration.

There are several possiblities in the world of 1984.
The spin is that the only information available about the external reality of the world is in The Book, which allegedly was written by the Inner Party (especially its in-novel stand-in, O'Brien). So everything the reader of 1984 knows, or, more precisely, believes to know, may partially or totally be fabricated.
During the last twelve years since I've read the book for the first time, I stumbled over several alternative possible explanations for what is really going on.
- the whole world is controlled through a scheme as Tarquin's - the Inner Party(s) control the whole world and keep it in a constant state of war to prevent an uprising and create the permanent atmosphere of a beleaguered nation. Hinted at in The Book when it's mentioned that an unspoken understanding between the three powers exist which more or less preserves the world order.
- the Brotherhood indeed does exist, though not as a clandestine army of freedom fighters, but as a sort of an "alternate" Ingsoc Party (and part of the control mechanisms). Those that are willing to totally submit to the code of the Brotherhood and commit any and every atrocity and to sever any ties with their loved ones pass the test (unlike Winston and Julia, who weren't willing to let each other go).
In their case, they are not raging fanatics for, but against the system and Big Brother and with the equally nebulous Goldstein as their semi-divine leader. The ones who know of the truth would be, in fact, the cronies from the Inner Party that control both realities (and would be, via doublethink, be totally able to play both roles at the same time: protecting the system and fighting it).
(this may probably seem a little far-fetched, but Orwell himself said once about Sowjet Russia that he wouldn't be too surprised if there was a Pro-Nazi-Faction in Moscow with Stalin as its head that would take over in the case of a German Victory - not unlike the situation described here)
- since the Party controls reality (through official propaganda as well as through clandestine information), anything outside of Oceania (or even just Great Britain) just isn't part of it. Therefore it's completely possible that Airstrip One is an isolated totalitarian dictatorship that supresses its own population, while everywhere else live is pretty much normal.
This scenario gets even more horrific if one considers the idea that the citizens of North Korea are living in a very similar system that equally controls reality (or at least tries to do so); where the starving population is more or less soothed with the justification that live elsewhere is far worse than in NK. And if such a system has a grip on a nation for half a century, it becomes impossible to distinguish reality and projection. Even if one is a staunch opponent of the party and its rule, one is utterly helpless since it's impossible to know what to really believe.

I think that in 1984, Julia hints at the possibility, but obviously, since both Winston and Julia are outer party members, they can't know for certain.
The Inner Party members aren't that much wiser. They know and choose to not know it at the same time ;)

[pendell]

...AGH! ONE MINUTE! What is this is *PRECISELY* what Tarquin wanted to do with Elan????? What if all this "welcome back beloved son" is but a façade, and Tarquin is actually preparing something that will look as if Elan has done something heinous, so there *will* be a revolt that will "destroy" the Empire of Blood, focused on Elan, with Tarquin "vanishing" into the night, and with a new advisor being brought to work together with Malack (who, of course, had nothing to do with all this :P ) and who will rebuild a new, "better" country from the ruins of the old one? Agh. I overthink things :P


I think the more likely answer is that Elan is intended to be the sovereign of the latest country-of-the-month, replacing the Empress. If Elan refuses, he can be the despicable rebel killed to ensure the enlightened reign of the Empress. So Elan can be either Big Brother or Gladstone, his choice.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

I think the more likely answer is that Elan is intended to be the sovereign of the latest country-of-the-month, replacing the Empress. If Elan refuses, he can be the despicable rebel killed to ensure the enlightened reign of the Empress. So Elan can be either Big Brother or Gladstone, his choice.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

The trouble that I have with that would be Tarquin's ominous foreshadowing (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0751.html), which suggests to me that Elan's influence is supposed to be far greater than that of the next patsy in this scheme of his.

I suspect it will be something along the lines of "Elan, you can either end this cycle and bring true peace and unity to the Western Continent, or you can ensure the status quo shall remain indefinitely. [Insert Evil Laughter/Stunned Silence here]" That said, it could be read that Elan's involvement is more limited, as in the situation you propose.

[calar]

I thought that myself, but I'm going to go with no and here is why. Tarquin is using the three country policy as a means to gain territory without becoming a target for other countries primarily, and secondarily as a means to keep the population under control. This is not the case in 1984, int which the countries are in perpetual war for not only nationalistic fervor, but for economical reasons as well. Also, it has been awhile since I read the book, but aren't the three countries in 1984 controlled by different groups merely working together for their mutual benefit? If that's the case, this also goes against Tarquin's plan since the three countries are controlled by one man using his party members as a means to keep the other countries in check. Also, 1984 the direct heads of each country were in on the charade, while here it is merely the advisers.

[Zmflavius]

I thought that myself, but I'm going to go with no and here is why. Tarquin is using the three country policy as a means to gain territory without becoming a target for other countries primarily, and secondarily as a means to keep the population under control. This is not the case in 1984, int which the countries are in perpetual war for not only nationalistic fervor, but for economical reasons as well. Also, it has been awhile since I read the book, but aren't the three countries in 1984 controlled by different groups merely working together for their mutual benefit? If that's the case, this also goes against Tarquin's plan since the three countries are controlled by one man using his party members as a means to keep the other countries in check. Also, 1984 the direct heads of each country were in on the charade, while here it is merely the advisers.

To be fair, the difference between rulers and advisors and the nationalistic fervor are minor details, since the nationalistic fervor was most convenient in the 1984 world, whereas other methods suffice in OOTS world, and the ruler/advisors difference is rather unclear anyhow in 1984 world (because Winston really is an unreliable narrator, since in 1984, nobody can be sure of the truth).

But yes, the fact that the 1984 world has the charade carried on by mutual understanding, and not active cooperation is a significant difference.

[JoseB]

To be fair, the difference between rulers and advisors and the nationalistic fervor are minor details, since the nationalistic fervor was most convenient in the 1984 world, whereas other methods suffice in OOTS world, and the ruler/advisors difference is rather unclear anyhow in 1984 world (because Winston really is an unreliable narrator, since in 1984, nobody can be sure of the truth).

But yes, the fact that the 1984 world has the charade carried on by mutual understanding, and not active cooperation is a significant difference.

In "1984", not just Winston is an unreliable narrator --everybody is an unreliable narrator when it comes to the situation of the world. I would say that it is not possible to know whether, in "1984", the charade is carred on by mutual understanding or active cooperation between the three superstates. Both are plausible, in my opinion.

[Zmflavius]

In "1984", not just Winston is an unreliable narrator --everybody is an unreliable narrator when it comes to the situation of the world. I would say that it is not possible to know whether, in "1984", the charade is carred on by mutual understanding or active cooperation between the three superstates. Both are plausible, in my opinion.

Yeah, I guess you're right.

[Nilan8888]

In "1984", not just Winston is an unreliable narrator --everybody is an unreliable narrator when it comes to the situation of the world. I would say that it is not possible to know whether, in "1984", the charade is carred on by mutual understanding or active cooperation between the three superstates. Both are plausible, in my opinion.

True, but here the presumption is in OOTS we DO know it, so there's a difference there in any event.

And as someone said here, the goal of this scheme is to gradually incorporate more territory among the 3 nations. In 1984 territory seems to not be real concern, merely an excuse for propoganda: the real reason was for those in power to stay in power by subverting the internal threat to power whether by freedom of expression, proper democracy, armed insurrection or whathaveyou. Here, merely keeping the iron-fisted rule going within one given nation like the EoB is enough to do that: Tarquin's 3-nation balancing act is more for disguising everything from outside observers rather than making sure the local populace under thier heel stays that way. In fact with the governments being constantly overthrown, even if it's only for show, there's probably more room for something to go wrong from an internal threat than there was in 1984.

[Lord Thurlvin]

Eastern Roman Empire doesn't count? :smallconfused: The Fall of Constantinople occurred in 1453 after all...

Eastern Roman Empire? What's that? :smallwink:

[JSSheridan]

The biggest part of 1984 is that individuals are forced to abandon their own individuality, their values, memories, feelings, and instincts, so they could get by and work for the continuation of an institution.

[veti]

Actually, I've heard the opposite --a three-way power triangle is the least stable form of civic structure, and collapses in a hurry as soon as any one 'leg' of the three-legged stool becomes weaker than the others. Certainly neither the first nor the second triumvirates in Roman history endured for any length of time.

And that's just one more reason why Tarquin's noble self-justifications come straight out of the rear end of a bull. His "stable" power structure will remain stable as long as he and his friends are (a) in position, (b) willing to work together, and (c) strong enough to impose their will on their respective countries. If any of those conditions fails - as it must, sooner or later - the whole thing will fall apart.

[Gnoman]

No, as their influence on the rest of Europe was pretty marginal compared to the original Rome. Though, they had a measure of influence in the Slavic countries, so I guess if you looked at these they would count until 1000-1200, though not until their fall.

Incidentally, FF crashed as I was typing this, and on restoring, restored my post. Yay for good browsers! :P

Completely irrelevant to the topic, so sorry, but you're rather wrong. For most of the time the East-roman Empire stood, Western Europe had squandered most of it's military might in bloody infighting (Several of the Crusades were set up by the Church in order to unify Christendom against a common enemy, but that failed.) At the same time, the great Islamic conquering powers, many nomadic raiders, and other powers were at the zenith of their power, and most at least tried to conquer Western Europe, but were stopped by Constantinople.

[Zmflavius]

Completely irrelevant to the topic, so sorry, but you're rather wrong. For most of the time the East-roman Empire stood, Western Europe had squandered most of it's military might in bloody infighting (Several of the Crusades were set up by the Church in order to unify Christendom against a common enemy, but that failed.) At the same time, the great Islamic conquering powers, many nomadic raiders, and other powers were at the zenith of their power, and most at least tried to conquer Western Europe, but were stopped by Constantinople.

While you are completely right, Irbis is not completely wrong when he says
their influence on the rest of Europe was pretty marginal compared to the original Rome not only because they were frankly, a weaker empire, but because the period after the dark ages resulted in their steady decline, despite their status as "Defender of Europe" by stopping the Muslims. In fact, the attempts by the Eastern Empire to reassert their authority over Europe tended to be bloody failures, and after their "Golden Age" during the Dark Age, and as the High Middle ages approached, and the European kingdoms became more powerful, they only became weaker and weaker.

[Talkkno]

No, as their influence on the rest of Europe was pretty marginal compared to the original Rome. Though, they had a measure of influence in the Slavic countries, so I guess if you looked at these they would count until 1000-1200, though not until their fall.

Sure if you only count Western Europe, but there influence on Eastern Europe(which seems count less in your appraisal of influence? :smallconfused:) The trading relationships with Kevian Rus is gave rise the established with the first Russian state.