There’s obviously a spectrum of sequels: most sequels are just more of the same, which makes them inherently a bit less good than the original. Sometimes, of course, you see a sequel that is better than the original, indeed sometimes much better. Then there are sequels that are bad, and indeed some so bad that we collectively agree they never happened. And then, very very occasionally, you get a sequel that perfectly complements and elevates the original, somehow serving to not only be great in their own right but to actually make the original retroactively better. It's even possible, somehow, to have a sequel that perfectly complements the original and diminishes the whole, retroactively making the original worse.
I'm not entirely sure which of those latter two categories "1984: Julia" falls into.
On the surface, this one is pretty straightforward: it's a retelling of "Nineteen Eighty-Four" from the perspective of Julia, Winston's lover from the original. This includes a depiction of her childhood in the early days of the rule of The Party, then we revisit the doomed love affair from the original (um, spoilers, I guess), and then we follow her life after their arrest and time in the Ministry of Love.
And, as I said, it almost perfectly complements the original - Orwell couldn't have written this book, not being a woman, but a "female Orwell" (if such a thing makes sense) absolutely could. Of course, Julia's perspective on the events shared with Winston is at once similar and yet not the same as his.
And yet...
One of the key things that this novel does is it strips away the ambiguity of Julia's character. In a novel like "Nineteen Eighty-Four", where so much of the narrative is driven by uncertainty and untruth, that ambiguity is, arguably, much needed. And removing that, and replacing it with one set of definitive answers, may be to do a disservice to the original.
I'm sorry to say, also, that the ending really doesn't work for me. It's carefully, and deliberately ambiguous, in a way that would be really good... except that however I look at it it just doesn't fit - taken at face value you're left with too much of a coincidence, but if you shift it into another layer of the deception you're left with loose ends that just won't tie up. Which is a shame, because the first third of the novel is outstanding.
The other thing about the ending is that, like Atwood's "The Testaments", it really undercuts the horror that the dystopia is apparently scheduled to pop up, engage in cartoonish levels of villainy for a couple of decades, and then collapse within a single lifetime. So much for a boot stamping on a human face, forever. (Though "The Handmaid's Tale" is, worryingly, looking ever more prescient - the West really is facing a serious decline in fertility, and it's hard to think of a solution that isn't absolutely horrific. But I digress.)
Still... maybe after so many decades it's fair enough to peel away one level of ambiguity, and replace it with another?
The upshot is that I do recommend this one, but with the caveat that you should know what you're signing up for. Once you've read this, you won't be able to unread it, so the original will be changed in your perception. Which, perhaps, is the highest praise I can give it.
(One parting thought: "Nineteen Eighty-Four" is of course one of those classic novels that schools used to teach, though perhaps unfairly given that it may be best appreciated by those with more life experience. Anyway, for those pupils in their upper years who have those big essays to write (we called them the RPR and a Dissertation, though they're surely called different things now), I think it might be interesting to study these two together... but have the pupil write their character study of Julia after reading the original only, and then reflect on how it changes after reading this.)
#21: "1984: Julia", by Sandra Newman
