How does Orwell use the language of hate effectively in the "Two Minutes hate" scene in part I chapter I of 1984

Authors Avatar

Ross Gallacher

How does Orwell use the language of hate effectively in the “Two Minutes hate” scene in part I chapter I of 1984?

This scene begins in quite a calm descriptive way in which it features just descriptions of people entering the room. Orwell does this to set the scene for the 2 Minutes hate also it is calmly described lulling the audience. This gives the point where the language more tenacity to the reader as they are relaxed. Then suddenly everything gets very dramatic. Firstly it says “Uncontrollable exclamations of rage” showing that things are getting very dramatic in this room illustrating the hate. The uncontrolled nature of the rage of the people gives the scene more drama as it shows the hatred of Goldstein as very strong. This effectively shows the reader how much the people of this world are indoctrinated through the language of hate.

Join now!

Orwell then goes on to describe Goldstein as “an object of hatred more constant than either Eurasia or Eastasia”.  This shows that in Oceania Goldstein is a great figure of hate even stronger than their enemies in war. This statement gives the 2 minutes hate more affect because the reader is wondering why so many people can carry such hatred for one man.  At this point the scene is very dramatic with hatred building up through the language of hate. Interestingly Orwell takes this scene in a different direction bringing in irony. Saying the irony is Goldstein is torn ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Here's what a star student thought of this essay

The structure here isn't brilliant. There is no introduction posing a clear argument, and there is no conclusion to weave ideas together and leave with a strong justified judgement. Essays at GCSE level are marked for their ability to form a structured argument, and this would've been penalised as it's just a collection of points. The signposts to each paragraph are clear, but I'm not a big fan of going through a chapter chronologically. Phrases such as "and then" don't come across sophisticated, and it forces you to collect the best techniques and write about them in unison. There are sometimes errors in spelling, punctuation and grammar and this could be fixed with a quick proof-read.

The analysis in this essay is sound, but I would've liked more close textual exploration. For example the essay picks up how Orwell uses "words like 'vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in'" yet there is no exploration of the connotations these words have. I would be looking at the violence and how the word desire makes it seem inherent in society. The word vindictive has undertones of being unreasonable, which increases the terror that the society is full of hatred for no reason. That sort of analysis is what examiners are looking for, especially when the question explicitly asks for language exploration. There is some awareness of the reader response here, but I think this could be a more prominent focus throughout. For example "this irony makes the reader think" just seems like an afterthought, whereas it should be the bulk of discussion to why Orwell creates this hate. I liked how this essay writes about Orwell's constructions, rather than writing as if they are real. For example saying "Orwell builds up the scene intensely" rather than saying "The scene builds up intensely" shows the sharp focus on Orwell manipulating his language for a reason. This is the sort of style which examiners will look favourably on in my experience.

This essay responds averagely to the task. There is some appreciation of the techniques Orwell uses to build a culture of hate in the two minutes silence, but there is no real discussion of the effect this has. It is vital to discuss the effect beyond "this language of hate gives the scene more effect" to gain the top marks, as it shows a thorough understanding of why Orwell has used the techniques.