...I try and be thorough...

Did someone tell Dostoyevsky "Hey, 'The Brother's Karamazov was about 200 pages longer than it needed to be?"

No.

...Then again, that probably would have made it an even better book. ;)

Indeed. It's too long and that would have been good advice.

Dragging on & on has nothing to do with length, or rather not much to do with it if the writing is actually worthwhile and goes somewhere. 20 pages of Winston reading a book is like Joyce's graphic descriptions of urination. Worthless. Comparing the genius of TBK with anything Orwell wrote is a crime against taste.

"And that's just WINSTON."

The only character Orwell bothered with at all. So yeah, "just Winston" indeed. Julia is nothing but a hedonist (reflecting Orwell's contempt for women), and likes rebelling for pleasure, doesn't actually critically analyze anything. Orwell is not even a romantic rebel, he's entirely a gloom and doom pessimist. He doesn't think he has any chance at winning. He makes stupid decisions based on this pessimism. And ultimately he sells Julia out so even love fails. It's insufferable to read. The contempt for humanity oozes throughout the book.

O'Brien, the Inner Party member, is given no development at all. No answers as to his motivations are given. No real background as to his story is given. He is portrayed as a lunatic while the Party just exists without rhyme or reason. And people just go along with it just because. They believe crap like Ignorance is Strength because Orwell thinks people are unthinking drones with no interests, independent ideas, or motivations. It's ridiculous.

Well, I wasn't linking page-length to book length, the page-length bit was in response to how long my post was...

But I disagree on both accounts:

Not only was Winston's reading that book a vital aspect of "1984" and provided important philosophic undertones as well as character development (AND a view into the world of the book) I'd say Joyce urination seen with Leopold Bloom in "Ulysses" is important as well, in a sort of D.H. Lawrence, "Lady Chatterly's Lover," masturbation/sex-as-insight-into-being way...

In addition, I'll take all three of those authors and works over Dostoyevsky and his work any day, though Joyce is on the borderline there...even so, Lawrence and Orwell easily best Dostoyevsky's work, which DOES have a plodding plot...

Which is OK, in a sense, given the fact that it's really a character piece and characters are, in large part, TERRIFIC (Ivan and Zossima in particular are two of the finest literary creations of their time)...

But the unnecessary amount of time plodding through Dmitri's story and ESPECIALLY how long and drawn out the investigation and trial is?

ESPECIALLY coming on the heels of two of the best chapters EVER WRITTEN with Ivan giving his argument against God and Christianity, and the responses there, and Zossima's death, and how this could affect the young, impressionable, idealistic Aloysha...

INSTEAD, we have to spend 150+ pages slogging through hearing the same tired evidence over...and over...and over...

I'll take Winston reading the book in a comparatively-short period of time, making his choice, becoming a rebel, being tortured, and having O'Brien spilling the most evil and base driving desires of mankind to crush and kill and conquer everything, even death and existence itself.

I'll take Lady Chatterly defining herself and freeing herself via sexuality.

I'll take Leopold's whacking off and exploration of human debasement, shame, sexuality, freedom, and the tangled web all of these weave.

WHY must we focus on when the damn porch door was open for chapter after chapter?!?!

^
See?

That was a long, drawn-out, repetitive post...

Just like the last third of TBK. ;)

"In addition, I'll take all three of those authors and works over Dostoyevsky and his work any day"

I think I'm going to be ill.