How does Orwell (1984) create a believable setting?

Authors Avatar

How does Orwell create a believable setting?

Written in 1948, George Orwell created an anti-Utopia novel and foresaw that the world will be divided into three great powers; Oceania, Eastasia and Eurasia.   The book is set in 1984 and Winston Smith, who is the main character, plans to overthrow “Big Brother” with his two members of the Brotherhood, Julia and O’Brien. Orwell created a setting that has many similarities with our world, whilst giving warnings to the reader of what may happen if no precautions are made beforehand.  

 One of the main similarities is the details of the landmarks, the way the characters live and the technology mentioned.  In the book, Winston decided to meet Julia, for the first time in “Victory Square, near the monument”.  However, Julia later said that there are many telescreens there.  In other words, that place is very important and therefore requires a lot of security.  In our world, Victory Square is actually Trafalgar Square and that the statue of Nelson there is replaced by a statue of Big Brother.  Also, the place where Winston worked, the Ministry of Truth was described as “an enormous pyramidal structure of glittering white concrete”.  This could possibly be the University of London Senate House.  

Join now!

For the way of living, we can see that Winston life is controlled by Big Brother in many ways.  For example, Winston was not even allowed to think about rebelling, as Winston knows that “even a back can be revealing” and this can lead to being caught by the thought police.  It is this fear of the Government which all of us have.  We may fear that if we think about betraying our nation, our nation would act first and punish us.  We can see this happening from the way Winston chooses to rebel against Big Brother: he joined the ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Here's what a star student thought of this essay

Albeit short, this essay has a strong structure. The introduction ably forms a clear argument, and uses the conclusion to weave ideas together and form a justified judgement. These are important in showing the examiner you are able to form a coherent and focused argument. Paragraphs are concise, meaning there is little repetition. I just feel some ideas could be expanded more! The style here is good, and this essays shows a strong craft in forming a convincing argument. Spelling, punctuation and grammar are fine.

The analysis here is good, but I would've liked to have seen in each paragraph more focus on the question. For example, there is a clear understanding of familiar names of buildings and landmarks. But, I would've liked to have seen a discussion of why this becomes a believable setting, and why Orwell chooses to use settings which resemble Trafalgar Square, etc. I would've liked to have seen more focus on the analysis of language, and how it is used to control society. This could've been linked to some contextual points, possibly exploring the propaganda used in World War Two or otherwise. I just feel that looking at the description of the setting and the tele screen, for example, isn't enough to warrant the top marks. Structure is another avenue which examiners are keen to see analysed, and there is no evidence of that being discussed here.

This essay responds well to the task. There is a clear understanding of the methods Orwell uses to create a believable setting, and what I particularly like is the exploration of why he does it. In the introduction the essay clearly states that the novel acts as a precaution, showing an awareness of the reason he uses the techniques. I would've liked to have seen this discussed more, as there isn't much allocated to this side of the argument in the conclusion. I understand this essay task is quite limiting, but I would've taken it further to discuss how the novel would not be effective if the setting was not believable. I just worry with these sorts of essays that they are too short and don't explore the question's avenues enough, giving a reason for the examiner to penalise decent analysis.