“Orwell did it better” may be one of my favorite quotes from our class discussion; the similarities between The Circle and George Orwell’s 1984 are uncanny, yet they are different in composition, and many seem to favor the earlier novel. But why is Orwell’s work favored over Eggers? When reading 1984 for the first time three years ago, the idea of the dystopian protagonist was stressed: the person who never conformed, always questioned, and rebelled against the monopolized government or systematic society. Winston Smith, the main character in 1984, embodies these elements of inquiry and perseverance against a powerful societal order. while Mae, the central character of The Circle, is merely a member of this strict institution and is blind to any sense of rebellion or wrongdoing within the corporation. Nevertheless, the characters who do supply the “contradiction” or “contrast,” per se, to the suppressed society in Egger’s novel are side characters and subsequently Mae’s love interests, Kalden and Mercer. Although the main character in The Circle, Mae cannot be considered an archetypal dystopian protagonist due to her conformity and dedication to the system readers know is solely corrupting her fictional world.
In several instances, Mae, often frustratingly, ignores basic instincts of curiosity in order to follow the regulations of the Circle. Although a loyal employee, Mae cannot surpass the barrier that the institution has built to conceal the crippling realities of the company, making the central character no different than any other victim of the Circle’s deceit. She is our sole perspective into this dystopia, and yet she merely mirrors what everyday people are subject to and lacks the capability to uproot the Circle’s tyranny. Utilizing, or rather, mimicking quotes such as “Everyone on Earth has a Circle account!” and “the Circle solves world hunger,” Mae is promoting the initial propaganda that engulfed her into the corrupted virtual society [Eggers 313]. Mae’s reactions to the octopus in the tank, describing, “‘He’s almost endearing…’ Something about his curiosity gave a sentient presence, full of doubt and wanting,” exhibits her lack of sensibility to inquisitiveness and suspicion [Eggers 312]. Perhaps this is why Mae is often so disliked; she, as our main character, is almost expected to provide some deviation from the conformist population, especially given the novel’s 1984 parallels, yet she irritatingly stays blind to the Circle’s malpractice.
Conversely, Kalden and Mercer, while not the novel’s protagonist, evoke the traits of a typical literary dystopian protagonist with the ways in which they rebel and acknowledge the Circle’s iniquity. When Kalden calls Mae, he states, “‘Your watchers cannot hear me. They only hear you. Right now your engineers are wondering why the incoming audio isn’t working'” [Eggers 323]. In an act of revolt, Kalden meddles with the intricate technology of the Circle in order to allot a small timeframe of privacy. Not only does this action demonstrate Kalden’s refusal to accept the Circle’s perpetual lack of individualism and privacy, but it also provides the readers with the sense of rebellious action that we crave, especially since Mae is not providing anything of the sort. Mercer’s lengthy note to Mae detailing the corruption behind the Circle has less of this “action” component but nevertheless exerts a counter force against the Circle’s successful propaganda. Mae’s ignorance to both Kalden’s call and Mercer’s note only further deems her as a committed employee of the Circle, leaving readers waiting, hopefully, for the time when Mae is able to see beyond the case fronts placed up by the corporation.
Being a dystopian protagonist goes beyond just being the central character or narrator for the dystopian novel; this literary archetype involves acts of revolt and forbidden curiosity, both of which Mae has failed to demonstrate thus far. The Circle is so manufactured in its intelligence and legitimacy that readers desire to witness its downfall, yet Mae is not facilitating this as one would expect from the main character in a novel of this genre. Perhaps this is why some believe “Orwell did it better:” it was Winston, a true dystopian protagonist, who made the novel as enjoyable, action-packed, and intricate as possible in ways that Mae cannot perform as a follower.