Censorship is the best example of protection of ideology and rejection of anti-governmental writing and artworks. Because of George Orwell’s uses of symbols in his political writings, his book Nineteen Eighty-four was censored in the Soviet Union. Not only did this censorship demonstrate strong criticism to Orwell, but it also affected Soviet readers’ access to limited propaganda materials.

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, circulating libraries in Britain played a significant role in censorship and readers’ experience. During this period, the “centralised censorship [of] the circulating libraries [exerted] power over the book trade [and influenced] the power of the reading public to censor the material it was offered” (Hiley 132). The power of circulating libraries to regulate and censor books that might undermine readers shifted censorship rules from official state level to marketing. From this background of books restrictions, Orwell’s publication of critical books was due to his wartime witness and experiences in Burma, Spanish War, India, and England. Thompson claims that “The Ministry of Truth is quite evidently based on the wartime BBC” (65) where Orwell worked, and which he adopted in Nineteen Eighty-four. The incorporation of his real encounters into his novel created a seemingly real, but scary unknown ‘future’ of world politics.

In addition, the ban of Nineteen Eighty-four in the Soviet Union largely corresponds to the nation’s censorial traditions. When Orwell spoke about this novel, he attributed his inspiration to Zamyatin’s We, a prototype for his dystopian novels, Nineteen-Eighty-four and Animal Farm, which are “still banned in the U.S.S.R.”  (Jansen 116). These books were censored because they violated the goal of Socialist Realism by using critical symbols and anti-Communist ideas. Ironically, the Father of Communism, Karl Marx, contended that “censorship is always bad and [unnatural for thought control, whereas] free press is always preferable [and natural to realize inner laws]” (Jansen 91-92). Contrarily, Vladimir Lenin supported state censorship and propaganda for revolution. Glavlit, a censorial organization, was introduced by the Bolsheviks in the 1920s as a mechanism for regulation of thought, which was similar to the ‘Ministry of Truth’ in Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-four (Blyum 2). As a liberalist author, Orwell states that totalitarianism demands “the continuous alteration of the past, and in the long run probably demands a disbelief in the very existence of objective truth” (290). This claim is reflected in his banned novels because he criticizes the dictatorship. The “omnipresent and invisible” Big Brother (Tucker 95) is certainly a Stalin with his iconic moustache and smile. Furthermore, Orwell had assumed an era of two plus two equals five as the leaders wish. He got this notion “from Eugene Lyons who [had] noted that when the targets of Five Year Plans were allegedly achieved in four years, adverts were put up in neon in Moscow reading: ‘2+2=5’” (Ingle 99). This reflects the demand for social change and industrial improvement under Stalinism to promote the leaders’ supremacy and indisputability. Under Soviet censorship, “Soviet authors must create positive characters who are successfully engaged in the construction of communism” (Dewhirst 1). Because Nineteen Eighty-four portrays very negative characters in depressing emotions and pressure, the book does not meet Socialist Realism’s purpose.

Because of the aforementioned references and criticisms, Nineteen Eighty-four was banned in the U.S.S.R. to protect some readers and harm others. Instead of admitting that Orwell was talking about their country, Soviet writers published numerous articles to reject this notion and imputed the corrupt nation to be the United States. Consequently, “Soviet readers had to take their word for it; Nineteen Eighty-four is banned in the U.S.S.R.” (Shanor 26). The impact of this censorship is that Soviet liberalist readers who supported free press could not access the remarkable and powerful book. Simultaneously, the ban of Nineteen Eighty-four protected the Socialist readers and politicians who were part of the elite.

Lastly, although Orwell was a socialist, “his ‘positive’ freedom and his ‘negative’ attacks” (Lucas 136) through Nineteen Eighty-four made him a controversial author. Sometimes the literary symbolism he employed in his novel is too extreme, which led to the censorship of Nineteen Eighty-four in the Soviet Union. However, his great devotion to appealing free press made his one of the greatest revolutionary writers.

Works Cited

Blyum, Arlen. A Self-Administered Poison: The System and Functions of Soviet Censorship.Translated by I.P. Foote. Oxford: European Humanities Research Centre of the University of Oxford, 2003. Print.

Dewhirst, Martin and Robert Farrell. “What is the Soviet Censorship?” “The System of Formal

Censorship.” “Evading the Censor.”The Soviet Censorship. Ed. Martin Dewhirst and Robert Farrell. New Jersey: The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 1973. 1-25, 50-75, 130-148. Print.

Hiley, Nicholas. “Can’t you find me something nasty?’: circulating libraries and literary censorship in Britain from the 1890s to the 1910s.” Censorship and The Control of Print in England and France 1600-1910. Ed. Robin Myers and Michael Harris. Winchester: St Paul’s Bibliographies, 1992. 123-147. Print.

Ingle, Stephen. George Orwell: A Political Life. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1993. Print.

Jansen, Sue Curry. Censorship: The Knot That Binds Power and Knowledge. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988. Print.

Lucas, Scott. Orwell. London: Haus Publishing, 2003. Print.

Orwell, George. “The Prevention of Literature.” Versions of Censorship. Ed. John McCormick and Mairi MacInnes. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1962. 285-299. Print.

Shanor, Donald R. Behind the Lines: The Private War against Soviet Censorship.  New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1985. Print.

Thompson, John. Orwell’s London. London: Fourth Estate, 1984. Print.

Tucker, Robert C. and Mark Crispin Miller. “Does Big Brother Really Exist?” “The Fate of 1984.”1984 Revisited: Totalitarianism in Our Century. Ed. Irving Howe. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1983. 19-46; 89-102. Print.