Asimov's Scathing 1980 Review of Orwell's '1984': Why the Dystopian Classic Falls Short as Science Fiction

In 1980, as the year 1984 approached, Field Newspaper Syndicate asked Isaac Asimov to write a critique of George Orwell's dystopian novel. Asimov, initially reluctant since he remembered little of the book, reread it and found himself "absolutely astonished" at what he discovered. His resulting review offers a fascinating perspective from one of science fiction's greatest minds on why Orwell's masterpiece, while politically powerful, fails as science fiction.

The Political Context Behind '1984'

Asimov begins by explaining Orwell's background. Born Eric Arthur Blair in 1903 to a British colonial family, Orwell lived the life of an imperial official before rejecting his privileged status. He became a "hippie" of his time, living in London and Paris slums, identifying with the poor, and eventually turning to socialism. His experiences fighting with the Spanish loyalists in the 1930s, where he witnessed bitter factional fighting among left-wing groups, shaped his lifelong opposition to Stalinism.

This personal vendetta against Stalinism, Asimov argues, is what drove Orwell to write '1984'. Published in 1949, the novel depicts a world-wide extension of Stalinist Russia in the 1930s, written with the venom of a rival left-wing sectarian. Orwell's target was clear: the book shows no variations on the Stalinist theme, with only brief mentions of Nazis or the Inquisition. The villains are unmistakably Stalinist, even down to Goldstein's "lean Jewish face" with "a great fuzzy aureole of white hair and a small goatee beard" - a clear reference to Trotsky.

Why '1984' Fails as Science Fiction

Asimov's central argument is that '1984' is not really science fiction at all. The London of the novel isn't so much moved thirty-five years forward in time as it is moved a thousand miles east in space to Moscow. Orwell imagines Britain going through a revolution similar to the Russian Revolution and following all the same stages of Soviet development, with no ability to make even minor changes.

Technologically, the novel is remarkably backward-looking. Orwell's vision of the future includes two-way television that allows constant surveillance - what he calls the origin of "Big Brother is watching you." But Asimov points out this system is extraordinarily inefficient. With five watchers needed for every person watched, and those watchers themselves needing supervision, the system simply wouldn't work. Orwell himself recognized this by limiting the surveillance to Party members while leaving the "proles" (proletariat) largely to themselves as subhuman.

The technological predictions are equally flawed. Orwell imagines a world where people struggle to get shoelaces and razor blades, failing to foresee that slip-on shoes and electric razors would become common. His technophobic fixation that every technological advance is a slide downhill leads to absurd passages where Winston prefers writing with a "real nib" pen over a ball-point, which Orwell describes as being "scratched" - precisely the reverse of reality.

Socially, the world of 1984 is incredibly old-fashioned compared to the real 1980s. Orwell foresees no new vices, no marijuana or synthetic hallucinogens. His female characters are either brainless prole women endlessly singing 1930s-style pop songs or sexually promiscuous but otherwise brainless Julia. The novel lacks any sense that human beings have virtues that persist even under tyranny - no brave men and women who withstand tyrants to the death.

The Government of '1984' vs. Reality

Orwell's depiction of all-powerful government has contributed to making "big government" a frightening concept. But Asimov argues that the real world of the late 1940s, when Orwell was writing, already had big governments with true tyrants - individuals whose every wish was law and who seemed irremovable except by outside force. Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin all appeared permanent fixtures.

However, history proved otherwise. Stalin died just three years after '1984' was published, and his regime was soon denounced by the Soviet leadership itself. Mao Tse-tung died in China, and while he hasn't been openly denounced, his close associates were promptly demoted. Franco of Spain died in his bed, and immediately after his death, Fascism dwindled in Spain.

Big Brothers do die, Asimov concludes, and when they die, the government always changes for the milder. The advance of technology has actually put powerful weapons in the hands of urban terrorists, making governments of the 1980s seem dangerously weak rather than all-powerful.

The International Situation: Prescience and Failure

Where Orwell showed remarkable prescience was in foreseeing the tripartite split of the world. The international world of 1984 features three superpowers: Oceania (the US and British Empire), Eurasia (the Soviet Union), and Eastasia (China). This roughly matches the three actual superpowers of the 1980s: the United States, the Soviet Union, and China.

Orwell correctly predicted that Russia and China would not form a monolithic communist bloc but would be deadly enemies. His experience as a Leftist sectarian helped him understand that Leftists would fight each other fiercely over doctrinal points, just as religious groups do.

However, Orwell made the mistake of thinking there had to be actual war to maintain the balance of power. In reality, the decades since 1945 have been remarkably war-free, with local wars but no general war. The "cold war" has served to keep employment high and solve some short-term economic problems, though at the cost of creating long-term greater ones.

The Legacy of '1984'

Asimov concludes that Orwell was engaging in a private feud with Stalinism rather than attempting to forecast the future. The world of 1984 bears no relation to the real world of the 1980s. While the world may go communist or see civilization destroyed, it will happen in a fashion quite different from that depicted in '1984'.

If we try to prevent either eventuality by imagining that '1984' is accurate, we will be defending ourselves against assaults from the wrong direction and we will lose. The enduring power of '1984' lies not in its predictive accuracy but in its powerful warning about the nature of tyranny and the importance of preserving individual freedom - even if the specific form that tyranny takes in the novel doesn't match reality.

The novel's influence on our language and consciousness has been profound. The year 1984 became associated with dread, and phrases like "Big Brother is watching you" and "Newspeak" entered common usage. But as Asimov's critique shows, we must be careful not to mistake a powerful political allegory for accurate prophecy, or we risk preparing for the wrong battles in our ongoing struggle to preserve freedom and human dignity.