[notavalleyman]

I read, in past days, that the man who ordered the construction of the nearly infinite Wall of China was that First Emperor, Shih Huang Ti, who likewise ordered the burning of all the books before him. That the two gigantic operations - the five or six hundred leagues of stone to oppose the barbarians, the rigorous abolition of history, that is of the past - issued from one person and were in a certain sense his attributes, inexplicably satisfied me and, at the same time, disturbed me.

- Borges

[o11c]

For reference (since it both uses a non-Pinyin transcription and adds/drops characters), this refers to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qin_Shi_Huang

[quuxplusone]

Yes; and for further reference, the non-Pinyin transliteration is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wade%E2%80%93Giles and the "add/drop" is that instead of the title 秦始皇 Qín Shǐ Huáng (lit. "first Qin emperor") Borges is using the title 始皇帝 Shǐ Huángdì (lit. "first emperor").

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shi%20Huangdi (redirects to Qin Shi Huang)

[numpad0]

It's astonishing how little information that phonetic representations of Chinese allow to be retained.

Qin Shi Huang/Shih Huang Ti both means [Qin]Founding Emperor[-King]. In layperson's approximation, He's so ancient that his canonical name and title is debatable, and he's almost always referred to as "the first emperor" or variants thereof.

[belter]

“Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.”

― George Orwell, 1984

[numpad0]

Tangential: this seem to be an extremely minor opinion of mine, but does messaging from O'Brien to Winston not boil down to:

  - "for god's sake please play by the rules, get into the power, and only then and only by doing so join us the Miniluv equals IRA; do not try to walk through the front door and topple the building by hand"  
  - "I thought you were smart enough to understand the intricacy of this game, spared precious resources for you, and giving you multiple chances. Your undecided and uncultured reactions to my efforts are irritating"

Or am I absolutely hallucinating? Is O'Brien as a sad, captured, ex-revolutionist government torturer all there is to it?

[rightbyte]

I think quotes like this should be attributed to the character (the secret police commissaire?) not the author?

[matwood]

Including 1984 in the cite makes it clear IMO.

I referenced 1984 in comment this morning related to websites disappearing. We’ve (always|never) been at was with Eurasia…

[rightbyte]

Ye I get that but my main point is that it is not Orwell the real person that is quoted, but a fictional character that is a high level official in a dystopic police agency. If you haven't read the book it might be as Orwell the author is complicit.

But sry might be a nitpick and obvious from context.

[matwood]

I’m old and have read 1984 many times. But to your point, it doesn’t mean everyone has. Your note provides useful clarification. Cheers!

[Terr_]

Alternately, if there were two layers of quoting (here, adding a >) then the outer layer would more-clearly refer to the book, rather than the lines of the character.

[gopher_space]

It’d be a point against in a formal debate, but in casual conversation it’s safe to assume your audience passed junior high and is familiar with the work.

[itronitron]

can't be "First Emperor" if it's known that someone else was in charge before you

[o11c]

Eh, the history doesn't support that meme; only the details and not the existence was allegedly burned (if it even happened at all). It's pretty well established that there were 7 major states (Qin, Qi, Chu, Yan, and the 3 Jin (Han, Wei, Zhao); notably, not including the official Zhou king) at the end of the Warring States period, and the Qin conquered the other 6 within a decade.

(Fun fact: the lesser-known state of Wey actually lasted longer than Wei due to not being worth conquering. In modern Chinese they are pronounced the same, but at the time they weren't.)

[zamadatix]

Sure, they just used a different title.