It is a big deal to Winston when he has the photograph of the three men in New York. Proof of the Party's lies. But is his Ogilvy fable not just as much proof - in a sense - that the Party lies ( assuming it is approved). If the next Winston comes along and discovers Ogilvy is a lie then isn't that just as revelatory? So is it just because he had proof in his hand that's the big deal. Is there not a contradiction here?
Add a comment
|