「1984年」の版間の差分

: It was almost normal for people over thirty to be frightened of their own children. And with good reason, for hardly a week passed in which The Times did not carry a paragraph describing how some eavesdropping little sneak — 'child‘child hero'hero’ was the phrase generally used — had overheard some compromising remark and denounced its parents to the Thought Police.

: And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed -if all records told the same tale — then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who‘Who controls the past,'’ ran the Party slogan, 'controls‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.'’ And yet the past, though of its nature alterable, never had been altered. Whatever was true now was true from everlasting to everlasting. It was quite simple. All that was needed was an unending series of victories over your own memory. 'Reality‘Reality control',’ they called it: in Newspeak, 'doublethink'‘doublethink.’

: But actually, he thought as he re-adjusted the Ministry of Plenty'sPlenty’s figures, it was not even forgery. It was merely the substitution of one piece of nonsense for another. Most of the material that you were dealing with had no connexion with anything in the real world, not even the kind of connexion that is contained in a direct lie. Statistics were just as much a fantasy in their original version as in their rectified version.

: It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words. Of course the great wastage is in the verbs and adjectives, but there are hundreds of nouns that can be got rid of as well. It isn'tisn’t only the synonyms; there are also the antonyms. After all, what justification is there for a word which is simply the opposite of some other word? A word contains its opposite in itself. Take "good"“good,” for instance. If you have a word like "good"“good,” what need is there for a word like "bad"“bad?” "Ungood"“Ungood” will do just as well — better, because it'sit’s an exact opposite, which the other is not. Or again, if you want a stronger version of "good"“good,” what sense is there in having a whole string of vague useless words like "excellent"“excellent” and "splendid"“splendid” and all the rest of them? "Plusgood"“Plusgood” covers the meaning, or "doubleplusgood"“doubleplusgood” if you want something stronger still. Of course we use those forms already. but in the final version of Newspeak there'llthere’ll be nothing else. In the end the whole notion of goodness and badness will be covered by only six words — in reality, only one word. Don'tDon’t you see the beauty of that, Winston?

: Don'tDon’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten.

*もし希望があるとするなら,…それはプロレの中にある

: Within twenty years at the most, he reflected, the huge and simple question, 'Was‘Was life better before the Revolution than it is now?'’ would have ceased once and for all to be answerable. But in effect it was unanswerable even now, since the few scattered survivors from the ancient world were incapable of comparing one age with another. They remembered a million useless things, a quarrel with a workmate, a hunt for a lost bicycle pump, the expression on a long-dead sister'ssister’s face, the swirls of dust on a windy morning seventy years ago: but all the relevant facts were outside the range of their vision. They were like the ant, which can see small objects but not large ones. And when memory failed and written records were falsified — when that happened, the claim of the Party to have improved the conditions of human life had got to be accepted, because there did not exist, and never again could exist, any standard against which it could be tested.