I say, damn it, where are the beds? New books on Orwell
lrb.co.uk
lrb.co.uk
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v39/n04/david-trotter/i-say-damn-it-wh...
It's a better read anyway.
All: Sorry for the confusion but lots of people were complaining about that other article and I don't see why Orwell should suffer for it.
As someone who is not informed on Orwell, the previously featured article actually helps me understand what it is trying to say. It also gives me crucial basic information (e.g. Blair = Orwell) which is missing from the London Review of Books article.
Reading both would be best of course, but I know which link I'm sending to friends first.
I couldn't reply to dang comment unfortunately to say that.
I read Animal Farm when I was 12 and 1984 a few years later. And I've re-read them a few times since. In college, I read Down and Out. Traveling through Europe I read Homage to Catalonia.
Orwell is my favorite writer and 1984 is my favorite book.
I have a link to the predecessor in opening; so you can open both copies in separate tabs and compare them for yourself.
1984 and Animal Farm are probably his best known works, but his 'Down and out in Paris and London' describes being poor and how it affects both your body and mind like no other account I've ever read (and I read quite a lot!)
I love his writing - and, before anyone suggest I have a rosy view of him because of his politics, I am a (mild) libertarian of the Viennese mold...
I recommend it highly if you are interested in the relationship between people and states of the British colonial diaspora, including the USA.
How on earth do you get that message out of Orwell?
He argued in places that the various relief organisations were often patronising and under-informed, but the "weaken family structures" is a distinctly modern code phrase.
>“The most cruel and evil effect of the Means Test is the way in which it breaks up families. Old people, sometimes bedridden, are driven out of their homes by it. An old age pensioner, for instance, if a widower, would normally live with one or other of his children; his weekly ten shillings goes towards the household expenses, and probably he is not badly cared for. Under the Means Test, however, he counts as a ‘lodger’ and if he stays at home his children’s dole will be docked. So, perhaps at seventy or seventy-five years of age, he has to turn out into lodgings, handing his pension over to the lodging-house keeper and existing on the verge of starvation. I have seen several cases of this myself. It is happening all over England at this moment, thanks to the Means Test.”
https://libcom.org/files/Homage%20to%20Catalonia%20-%20Georg...
"... good prose is like a windowpane." - Why I write, 1946
"Political language — and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists — is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." - Politics and the English Language, 1946
Etc
> To the surprise of absolutely no one, George Orwell is everywhere these days. His seven-decade-old dystopian classic, 1984, recently made waves by topping a bunch of bestseller lists. Orwell’s earlier (and arguably greater) allegory, Animal Farm, is also getting its due. That both novels are suddenly on the radar of people who probably haven’t given Orwell a second thought in years is hardly surprising at a time when war refugees are painted as national security threats, white nationalists hold positions of power in the White House and an American president is openly involved in an abusive relationship with the English language.
It isn't surprising. What is surprising is to see anyone lay this at the feet of Trump.
So here is what actually happened: In the wake of 9/11, Bush started legitimizing a strong surveillance state (that to some degree has been with us since WW II). With few exceptions, primarily from 'crazy libertarians' and some liberals, both liberals and conservatives went along with it. Of course, this didn't stop liberals from using it as justification to try to get Republicans out of office later on.
Obama was elected. Since Obama was "their guy", liberals grew mostly silent on the subject (although with a lot more exceptions than before) and conservatives suddenly changed their tune, at least in public: surveillance is bad (but Snowden is still a traitor).
Those liberals who were cool with whatever Obama was doing believed in the myth of "the right people". Meaning, governance isn't a question of political power, sound policies, principled problem solving or anything along those lines. It's just a question of having "the right people" in charge. So whatever powers "the right people" say they need to do their job, since they are "the right people" it must be true and we should give them those powers to Get Things Done. (Note: there are conservative factions that believe this as well.)
Now, those very same liberals are in a panic because (surprise, surprise) Trump (i.e., the wrong person) is in charge and has all those powers that were previously given to "the right people". Of course, the problem isn't the granting of those powers. It's just that the wrong person was voted in by an ignorant public.
So now, in a panic, largely induced by a media which finds itself incapable of straight truth or depth, they flock to buy 1984 so they can 'legitimately' talk and write about this book they've never previously read in order to make tenuous comparisons to Trump's brand new presidency. And they, like conservatives during the Obama years, will cry out against the very same surveillance state that was no problem at all when their guy was in charge.
I have never seen a piece complaining about the usage in "insurgent" vs. "rebel" when the news speaks of foreign affairs, but that is a perfect example of newspeak.
Instead, we speak of newspeak because the new president doesn't like "politically correct" speech.
What?
> Orwell is great. This article is questionable.
Probably true, but it's an excuse to talk about Orwell and most commenters here are doing a great job of that. How about we keep it up and not take the bait? That would be breaking new ground on the internet.
I don't see anything particularly ground breaking about us all heaping praise on Orwell, it seems like we all love his writing.
> Above all, be skeptical of ... rhetoric ...
Quite self-referential ;)
Two examples:
- Orwell's 1984 Still Matters, Though Not in the Way You Might Think / Charles Paul Freund / http://reason.com/blog/2015/01/15/orwells-1984-still-matters...
- The Importance of Being Orwell / Christopher Hitchens / http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2012/08/christopher-hitche...
I worry that Orwell has become so ubiquitous as to be meaningless. Both sides read Orwell and take from it that they are right and if their opponents would only read some Orwell they would understand how evil they are. It's a shame we can't temporarily resurrect him so he can write: "Orwell on Orwell in the 21st Century" I'm sure he'd see it clearly, and differently than all the rest of us.
It kept coming up because of the rampant censorship by mass media, social media, and especially sites like reddit, not in small part thanks to efforts by Correct The Record and now ShareBlue.
During the election campaign I saw my US friends to compare Trump speeches to Two Minutes of Hate from the 1984 book. It was funny, I remarked, because the Trump-leaning people I occasionally argue with in the Internet had been calling angry Twitter users attacking various Republicans or Brendan Eich of Mozilla or whoever was the target of the latest scandal a social media version of Two Minutes of Hate years earlier. Then I wondered about where the Gamergate lashing out at "immoral journalists" fit in.
Is Orwell popular today because everyone loves to metaphorically hit their enemies with a famous author who described famous dystopia, or is it because both sides are equally guilty, well, I don't know.
My personal favorite dystopian author is Ray Bradbury and Fahrenheit 451. It is a book about an age where it's not the totalitarian government that burns books, but people who don't want to read books because they might be uncomfortable with the old ideas they might find, preferring spending their time in a room covered by flat screens, talking with their 'friends'. Quite remarkable for a book written in 1950s.
Of course, the mere ability of the executive to do that in the first place should have been concern enough, but as you say, all too many people willingly look past this when it comes from their own team.