Anger over sale of George Orwell archive
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
> "Who would want to watch a program twice?"
This isn't even remotely what was said.
The answer makes it clear that it wasn't feasible to air some programs again, due to the fees that must be paid to actors etc., and as such:
> So, if a programme could not be aired again, what was the point in keeping it?
Which is a reasonable line of thinking for the British _Broadcasting_ Corporation.
> "Wow, isn't storage _expensive_?!"
Yes, it was. But the answer makes clear that it wasn't just an issue of storage costs; the _tape_ was extremely expensive, and could be reused. So it was.
> When I worked in the tape library in the late ’60s a one hour reel of tape cost the equivalent of six weeks of my pay. Storage was expensive too.
One final point I would make is that the BBC is publicly funded. It doesn't have unlimited funds, and its primary function is to create content. As the answer clearly states:
> Some samples of programmes were kept as being of interest, but the BBC saw itself as a maker of programmes not a museum.
We really don't need the minutia of every decision Orwell made while writing his stories, I'd go so far as to say agonizing over such devalues the work.
Also: the originals are mostly only relevant for their collectible value. Researchers can more easily work off digital scans. No need to buy anything or keep anything together physically, just scan it if you are really that interested.
Edit:
It seems there's a lot of digitalized materials in UCL online archives, but I would be surprised if all documents were digitalized:
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/library/digital-collections/collection...
We shouldn't let the value of something be determined by the budgets and personal tastes of researchers from a random period in history.
Look at the kind of historical artifacts that provide untold insight into ancient societies. Many of these artifacts only exist today because they were accidentally buried or boarded up in a wall and forgotten about while all others were wiped from the world for whatever reason, be it simply recycling or a more malevolent and systematic purge by motivated individuals.
We don't know what is valuable so we should assume that it is all valuable.
That is a very messy approach to conservation...
It's very easy to imagine that tomorrow some government somewhere will be describing the dystopia that George Orwell predicted would occur if people were suddenly allowed to speak freely.
In fact, it's easy to imagine that even the original works themselves can barely serve to protect the original message.
The real version is that found in the state’s digital archives.
/s
Honestly, I couldn't care less about keeping original documents, but preserving images of those documents seems reasonable.
Same would go for selling artwork or artefacts, offer true opportunity to national museums to retain a digital copy.
Fwiw, I like old artefacts, papers, books, even rusty old filling cabinets, but I don't see value for the country in preserving those things.
Also fwiw, I think the Listed Building laws go a bit far in some cases: preventing people's reasonable enjoyment of their own properties.
And at the very end of the day, no one will understand why "He loved Big Brother" was not a happy ending.
It's real easy to sit on your ass, while bitterly complaining that a whole legion of Somebody Elses is not working 25-hour days, for free, to make the world conform to your whims.
The article also notes that the company had previously tried to sell the entire Gollancz collection - vastly more material than just the George Orwell part - to institutional buyers for £1m. None of them were interested. And I don't see any criticism of them for that neglect.
But now, when it's easy for the ass-sitters to score points by screaming about Evil Corporations destroying England's sacred history, there is a huge fuss.
But who is it valuable to? Ultimately a great deal of this is purely interesting to the increasing small number of people who are personally or professionally invested in Orwell. The value here is that the archive could generate a couple of conference keynotes for professors, a new foreword in a reprint, or, at a stretch, a new biography.
There is a very small chance that enough new material, or changes to material, could merit a brand new publication, but ultimately the existing published works stand by themselves and the rest amounts to high brow gossip.
Whenever something like this comes up, I'm appalled at how little people seem to give a shit about preserving things for the future. In the end, it's all we have to pass down through the ages.
This is also a nonsensical argument and I don't appreciate these bad faith "gotcha" arguments. While my data might be of some historical interest in the sense of understanding the average male in Western Europe in the early 21st century, it isn't nearly of the same significance as that of Orwell. Nobody is going to buy my data and lock it away in a vault. In addition, much of my presence, my "data" is available publicly online in my posts and comments on HN, Reddit and other social media. Orwell didn't post on Reddit, afaik, so somebody buying up Orwell's archive is a much more significant and impactful loss in multiple ways.
But you just wanted to "win" an argument, so I don't know why I'm wasting my time. Have you given any of this any thought at all? Like, really? This really isn't the place for trolling or just making noise. Reddit's more suited for that.