Narrative Theory & Subversion

Do it to Julia

All photos by Boston Public Library on Unsplash

“Society must be made to operate in such a way that it eradicates once and for all the desire of a man to become richer, or wiser, or more powerful than others.” - François-Noël Babeuf

“The first hints of a philosophy of the ultimate revolution — the revolution which lies beyond politics and economics, and which aims at total subversion of the individual’s psychology and physiology — are to be found in the Marquis de Sade, who regarded himself as the continuator, the consummator, of Robespierre and Babeuf. The philosophy of the ruling minority in Nineteen Eighty-Four is a sadism which has been carried to its logical conclusion by going beyond sex and denying it. Whether in actual fact the policy of the boot-on-the-face can go on indefinitely seems doubtful. My own belief is that the ruling oligarchy will find less arduous and wasteful ways of governing and of satisfying its lust for power, and these ways will resemble those which I described in Brave New World.” – Aldous Huxley (his famous letter to Orwell after reading 1984, 21 October 1949)

I thought I would do another one of my weird crossover doodahs. This is, I confess, in part because I had been struggling to come up with a Fairytale thing for Sunday (at least one that was polished enough to be publishable). I have several ideas, but you’ll have to hold on for that.

But for those of you who are more into my offbeat speculative fiction please don’t be put off just yet. I can assure you this is going to be entertaining and I shall not be descending into the conspiracy theory Underworld. Although in my defence I should note that a significant part of the reason why I’m interested in such things is simply as a writer who concocts devious plots. This kind of thing is a matter of ‘character’ and ‘continuity’, after all. And both of these are psychological in nature (as opposed to structuralist). It’s one reason why I could be considered an excellent intelligence analyst – the best way to approach and get to the bottom of a ‘conspiracy theory’ is precisely that – think in terms of character and continuity and see if the official narrative makes sense. A lot of the time it doesn’t! Which is one reason for the subversive infiltration of conspiracy theory groups/forums (online, I mean) – they can spread tidbits of information and misinformation and get people endlessly debating what happened (or didn’t happen) and misdirect them from thinking why it happened. Because all of these things are about ‘motivation’ and ‘objective’. And those are fundamentally questions of character. Characters, that’s to say the decisions they make, are what drive plots. And they need to be psychologically realistic (even if the speculative fiction has fantastic elements to it). This is how to avoid continuity errors. Continuity, then, is a matter of psychology, not structure.

What I suddenly decided to do – and this did just suddenly occur to me (although it must’ve been fermenting inside my poor brain for a while) – is write speculatively about the association between narrative theory (or storytelling) and subversion.

From an initial perspective, this is kind of obvious, since what we call ‘propaganda’ is simply ‘storytelling’. Whether the story that is told is true or false is, actually, incidental. Whatever serves the purpose is the overriding rule. But what is more interesting is the psychology behind it, and that’s where we get into narrative theory.

It is interesting partly because it shows that the propagandists (i.e. State-affiliated subversives) clearly understand the psychology behind narrative theory, and thus the psychology behind human nature itself. Again, you might think this is obvious as soon as you hear it, given that you can’t do effective propaganda without telling a good story and the whole thing is demonstrable psychology. But there is more to it than that and it’s worthy of examination.

Likewise – I would suggest to all my writerly readers that understanding all of this will seriously help you to concoct a great narrative and the intriguing characters to match, replete with psychologically realistic personalities and decisions and motivations and such like. Especially your villains. If, then, as a writer, you turn yourself into a propagandist then you shall become a better writer. Hell, you may even find yourself being tapped on the shoulder at some point and presented with an ‘offer you can’t refuse’. If so, I’d suggest you take it. I would.

I should maybe define what I mean by subversion, shouldn’t I? It might be helpful. It is, after all, not just propaganda. It’s more about how propaganda is disseminated. It is deception, intrigue, espionage, infiltration and so on. Its ultimate objective is to achieve subjugation. This is where ‘opinion’ enters. Human beings, being social animals with language and conceptual processing abilities, see the world through stories and narratives. It is how they interpret the world. It is how they form opinions about that world (and each other) and those opinions, in turn, inform their decisions and actions. Control the narrative, therefore, and you control opinion, and thus you control people’s decision-making. Start at the beginning with the imposition of the narrative and the cognitive process does the rest for you. In the same way, I should add, that it’s the reader, not the writer, who creates the subtext (that which is unspoken). And it happens to such an extent that the subject (being subjugated) doesn’t even know they have been controlled, because they possess that opinion. It’s psychologically personal. They believe it is theirs by virtue of the information they have acquired (or been given) and then internalised and which they have used to formulate their opinion. If we’re talking ideologies, of course, then we simply see an ideology as a collection of opinions.

Tell them everything they read on Wikipedia is the truth, get them to believe it, and then re-write it to your heart’s content. And there’s your Ministry of Truth. The guy who ‘invented’ Wikipedia, after all, had previously made a load of money in the porn industry, so would’ve been ripe for the ‘offer you can’t refuse’ – to wit: ‘we can send you down for a long time or you can help us create our new Minitrue.” Then again, he seems to have always been of a certain political persuasion, so maybe no undue offer was ever necessary.

What we can say, however, is that had Wikipedia not existed, it would’ve been necessary for the Establishment to have created it.

And yes, of course I am aware of the irony of my using some Wikipedia references. When you do irony with awareness, that’s called postmodernism.

As I suggested elsewhere, one of the earliest examples of subversion, in the form of deception, is contained in the Garden of Eden story (or fairytale), in which a demon successfully pretends to be God and thus commands authority and imposes beliefs and therefore actions on the two victims (who represent humanity, in the traditional narrative, or children in the fairytale analysis). This victimhood occurs despite their ‘eating of the apple’ and the advice from the God of Wisdom (in the guise of a snake). In the final instance, the subjugation is achieved through downright terrorism – making the victims fear.

Fear, after all, is a very powerful emotion. It is, indeed, a primal emotion and motivation for any animal, humans included. It conjures up primal flight or fight instincts and a sense of helplessness (thus potentially requiring dependence on another). So much of subversion, then, is emotive in nature and specifically fearful. On a crude propaganda level there is the classic ‘that other group over there is a threat’. A belief in that statement will immediate cause a natural self-defensive reaction. Thus, convince your target group of that statement about the other, and their decisions will do the rest for you. Most of the time, you only need to give them a weapon.

So, with that Eden story in mind, we can immediately see how the subversion is achieved, or rather, how the message is delivered. It is done through deception and role-playing. ‘Pretending’ to be God and successfully convincing the victims of that disguise. That demon may as well have just been a spy. Or a cognitive infiltrator. Should one blame the victims, in this case? They were told, after all. They were warned.

Again, it’s a character-based story. It’s a Tragedy. And it’s the same story as 1984.

Do it to Eve.

So it comes down to character, in the end. All stories have some kind of ‘character’ in them. It doesn’t have to be a human character, it could simply be a force of nature, but it has character. It is distinct. This is the second aspect of narrative theory. Along with a progressing or linear narrative, human beings will identify, or at least empathise with, a character. In their right minds, they will choose which character with whom to empathise. In the paws of a skilled writer (or subversive), that choice will be made for them.

There are protagonists, and there are forces of antagonism. Good and evil, one might say. And it is, indeed, noteworthy, that human beings will instinctively identify with the character they perceive as ‘good’ and they will root for that character overcoming the forces of antagonism, or evil. They react instinctively against evil, in other words. And this, naturally, is the reason why evil always pretends to be good. Because evil is acutely aware of this fact about human beings. That they are innately good, they identify with good, and they react against evil. If you want to call that evolutionary common sense, don’t let me stop you.

This, I would say, is the reason why evil always pretends to be good, and thus the reason for subversion itself. It is a form in itself of self-preservation. If a demon or a monster knows it will be rejected and ostracised and thus less likely to survive, then it will need to deceive. This is the truth that will make you free, ironically enough.

And that, really, says a great deal about the people with the social power who carry out subversion. And that on a continuous basis. It is an ongoing history. For history, too, is just a narrative. They have made an art of it and have even created entire organisations and institutions dedicated to the practice. Let’s call such organisations ‘intelligence agencies’ perhaps. Or ‘the mainstream media’ (or Wikipedia). Likewise, the education system. By those organisations, however, remember I am referring to the people who work in them. An institution in itself is not a conscious entity. In a functioning liberal democracy, or any benevolent society for that matter, after all, those entities, intelligence agencies and the media, would be counter-subversive. They would be truly educational.

And that is something of an insight.

The intelligence agencies do not exist to protect the people. They exist to protect the State from the people. It’s a minority group survival strategy. And it’s called subversion.

For what does it say about them, really, these subversives and subjugators? Why do they fear the common people and possess such a pathological need to deceive and control? Normal people, I would venture, are not a threat to them, after all. Leave normal people to their own devices and they just get on with their lives. The great irony here is that the need for social control and the manner of its practicing is what makes the public a threat. Because if they discover what you are up to, they will react. Leave them alone, and they will not. This is what Huxley understood, of course.

It's a sign of emotional and psychological immaturity from these bad guys. Spiritual immaturity too, for that matter. So let us turn around and examine that pathology. What does it mean, really, to be a bad guy? Why are they bad? What is wrong with them? Why can’t they mature? What is the subversive ideology itself which has infiltrated them and determined their opinions and actions? They, I would say, are the ones with the paranoia. They, the conspirators, are the real conspiracy theorists.

And I very much doubt they are self-aware of this. Because to realise this about themselves would be annihilating. And so they also deceive themselves. They make themselves victims of their own subversion.

So here's another thought – all those types who wrote those classic exposés of dystopia – they were writers, after all, weren’t they? Subversive ones at that. Huxley, Orwell and so on. And what is 1984 really? In terms of classic narrative theory it’s just a standard story about some character in a particular setting. He has motivations, he has forces of antagonism, and there is a resolution at the end. You might think it’s an unhappy ending, but is it, really? I mean, does he not become ‘well-adjusted’ by the end of it?

This leads me to another intriguing aside. And I use that word intriguing in a knowing way. To suddenly find yourself belonging to a social group is a wonderful and powerful emotion for a human being. To be a valued member of something greater than yourself. It makes you feel safe. Like being part of a loving family.

That’s one of the essences of the appeal of communism, of course.

Spies feel like this when they’re first recruited. Especially to some organisation like the old KGB. It generates a genuine exhilaration, a rising warmth comparable to falling in love. And it makes for the most vulnerable phase of your new career. Because just as you would when you are in love, you want to tell the whole world about it. To avoid giving yourself away with your ebullient behaviour requires a serious act of will and self-control. Without a wise handler (or support officer) who understands this, then you will be in real danger. Especially if, as would be the case if you are a lone spy, there are no more than a handful of people who know about you in this way, and your handler is probably the only one of them you’ll ever engage with. But the level of trust required, well, that’s love again for you.

Winston Smith’s individual love replaced by the love of the State. Another great irony being he, like Orwell himself, was a propagandist.

Or is 1984 a fairytale? Well, not traditionally, no. It may be a cautionary tale, but I mean it doesn’t have any fairies in it. Unless you count O’Brien perhaps. Personally, I think he’s a far more interesting character. Winston Smith, well, he’s just anyone, isn’t he? Who becomes a ‘no one’ by the end. But O’Brien, well, I would seriously love to read the prequel where we see how he turned out like that. What school did he go to? Eton College most likely. Huxley and Orwell went there, after all (I wonder where they got their ideas from, eh?).

Now here’s an ironic thing for you. O’Brien is really the only character in that story who retains his sense of autonomous agency. His own decision-making capacity. His capacity for independent and creative thought. And yet, he’s employing those attributes to remove that capacity from everyone else. How does he live with himself? Is he self-aware in this respect? Does he realise this irony?

I will be told he’s just a fucking psychopath. Yeah, maybe, but could we also suggest that he, too, was once just an innocent young boy? Why does he, as a character capable of autonomy, ruthlessly serve a State which itself ruthlessly crushes that sense of autonomy in all its ordinary citizens? Maybe it’s just a survival strategy on his behalf? Like, if I want to retain my humanity, I have to serve the system. Was there a time when he, too, received the proverbial offer you can’t refuse? Was he a victim-dissident? I don’t think so. Because he retains his sense of agency, as I said.

So yeah, I want to see his backstory.

Whilst we’re on the subject of the English Private School network (with which I have some unhappy experience, I should add – so I know what I’m talking about here), if you want to understand the Dystopia’s recruitment system, you have to understand trauma-based mind control. Another form of subversion. Because that’s where the Establishment’s members come from. Which, naturally, tells you one solution – remove that recruiting ground from the education system.

First, though – here’s a simple difference between utopia and dystopia. In order for a dystopia to function you need to have some kind of psychopath vetting system, don’t you? You need a veritable army of O’Briens to do your ruthless subversion and suppression. This presupposes a mechanism to do just that. In fact, you’d need precisely the same vetting to maintain a utopia. In the case of utopia, of course, you are doing this in order to detect and then ostracise the psychopaths before they can do any damage, and you would never let them anywhere near positions of money, power and influence. Dystopia is the opposite – you are actively searching for these types and giving them money, power and influence. You are including them in your minority controlling social group. Their need for belonging, combined with a sense of importance and purpose, will ensure their loyalty. Well, that and some luxuries thrown in for good measure.

That’s why, either way, you need an ‘Intelligence Service’. Given they have the surveillance and intelligence gathering capabilities to profile every single person in the country, well, which side do you think they are on? Have they ostracised all these monsters and psychopaths, or have they facilitated them?

But back to the private school system. It’s not just an ‘us and them’ thing – a conscious separation of the ruling, parasite class from the common people. It is a ruthless brainwashing system and thus a psychological recruiting tool. The vast majority of those children who are cycled through that system become willing participants in the authoritarian, dystopian system. Because that system, and their valued belonging to it, makes them feel safe. And they need to feel safe, because they are subjected to trauma at a young age. This helplessness and the absence of a fight or flight option creates dissociation and an empty receptacle which is then re-filled with the subversive and self-serving dystopian social group narrative as well as the emotional and psychological pathway to redemption from fear and the threat of violence and ostracism. Power, control, money, and bullying.

These are the created characters which then populate the subversive institutions. These are the O’Briens of the world. If that’s not a frightening thought about the character of all those people in places like Thames House then it should be. The CIA probably have a similar system by which to keep it in the family, so to speak.

Even they, then, are employing narrative theory and subversion to subjugate even themselves. It controls their opinions and thus controls their actions.

That is their character. That is how such characters are formed. Bad guys, I mean.

Oh, and if you want to employ a method of elimination to discover who might be spies, intelligence officers and clandestinely working in secret high-tech research facilities, use your search engine of choice to try and discover any online presence for all those ‘top scholars’ in those private schools and colleges. The ones who leave school brimful of A-levels, who end up at Oxford or Cambridge and should be high-flying professors or scientific researchers by now. Normal people, in this day and age, always have some kind of online presence, after all. So if you can’t find these people, assume they’ve joined the club.

So, is O’Brien well-adjusted? Is he happy? Despite still being able to think for himself? Or is he internally tortured? But repressively so, such that he practices the old art of transference, projecting that torture onto others? Giving them the lesson he profoundly wishes for himself? To forget. To be a child again and let others decide for you. To be a submissive.

To be safe.

Everyone starts somewhere, after all. And so does subversion. It’s just a story, in the end.

And what of Winston Smith himself? Personally, I think he’s a despicable creature. He earns his living by lying to people. He is a State-employed subversive, constantly re-writing the historical narrative. The current equivalent would be one of those professional Wikipedia editors. Every time some ‘dissident’ edits a flagged Wikipedia article to tell the truth, it’s guys like Winston who are immediately notified and instructed to remove that edit. Like, “oh look, another one of those architects or engineers has inserted a link in the 9/11 article to footage of controlled demolitions! We’d best remove that link before unsuspecting members of the public realise their Government is a monster!”. That’s Winston’s job.

Then there’s his utter selfishness. Remember that notorious scene where O’Brien quizzes him and Julia about the lengths they will go to as a subversive? Resorting to outright murder and terrorist attacks against innocent people? And they both say yes. But give up each other? That’s where they ‘draw the line’. Maybe they’re suited to each other, for sure. It displays an entire lack of moral principle, after all. O’Brien must’ve been ecstatic at two selfish people like that falling into his little honeypot. He would’ve seen it as a challenge, on the one paw, but on the other, an easy corruption to make. Genuine dissidents against dystopias, after all, have morality and principle on their side and that greater principle is far more powerful than an individual and far harder to disentangle. But Winston, no, he needs to be taught a lesson, because he’s already a corrupted monster.

Do it to Julia.

It doesn’t surprise me to think of seeing Winston Smith as George Orwell’s alter ego in this sense. This is the same Orwell who thought the terror bombing of German cities at the end of the war to be perfectly acceptable (here is an offending article, with zero display of humanity). That was 250,000 innocent people in Dresden alone within the space of 24 hours. And that’s just one city. Go to Wikipedia, however, or any conventional historical account, and you will never find a number greater than 40,000 for Dresden. Why? Because that’s the number they tell us were killed in London during the Blitz. And so in order to preserve their narrative of ‘we’re the good guys and they’re the bad guys’ they simply can’t have ‘us’ carrying out far worse atrocities than ‘them’ now, can they?

But should we forgive Orwell? He was, after all, dispatched to an English private school as an innocent child where, as with every other boy, he would’ve been subjected to horrific and sustained abuse, both from the adults and the older boys. And then again at Eton College. But no, that is not an excuse. I was subjected to an abusive boarding school but I didn’t become a monster. And I’m not the only one.

Similar thing with that other dystopian horrorshow, Lord of the Flies. What our friend Wikipedia doesn’t tell you there is that this is not some allegory about humans reverting to savagery when authority is no longer there to stop them. No, those boys are private school boys. That’s what the story’s really about.

This is equally the same Orwell who discovered the fight for liberty and socialism in the Spanish Civil War but then, in the War against Germany a mere handful of years later, worked for the British Ministry of Information to spew out subversive lies and propaganda for a living.

Maybe he felt guilty about all that? About his cowardice? His lack of moral principle? Who knows? Maybe the torture inflicted on Winston Smith is Orwell’s own projected need for genuine penitence? Or masochism? Or Sadism?

Maybe we’ll just leave those thoughts hanging there.

But the only happy ending I can see in that book is when Julia confesses that she, too, betrayed him. Do it to Winston. In which case, perhaps Winston can console himself with the realisation that it can’t therefore have ever been a true or real love. And thus, nothing to regret.

For he was never a hero, after all, was he?

But I disagree, I think, with Huxley, when he talked of the greater efficiency of a Brave New World for the purposes of social control and power. It is more efficient, that much is true. But that power is a psychopathy, after all. That is its monstrous psychological origin. There is a sadism to it which is unrequited merely by subversive deceptions or falsified narratives. It is not enough for the monsters’ pathology to possess control – they must also practice it.

They enjoy the boot in the face. Subversion cannot satisfy that urge. There’s your character explanation. Therein lies your narrative.

Katrina is a subversive, by the way  In case you hadn’t realised. And she knows it. As the story progresses, you will get to see that for yourself. But you will never really know if she’s a good guy or a bad guy.

Although you will, I hope, come to understand that the way to defeat bad guys is to turn their own weapons against them. To use subversion. To use propaganda. To use a narrative. To even use fear.

And of course there’s a twist.

There’s always a twist.

Anyhow, I hope that’s been an intriguing delve into some of these pointed thoughts I’ve had swishing around my self-indulgent head. I hope you’ve enjoyed my little speculative essay. Let me know in the comments.

And then I shall see you next week with some more amusing offbeat musings.