Really enjoyed this. Down and out in Paris and London is my all time favourite.
We watched ‘Mr Jones’ the other night. The film poses an alternative theory to the inspiration behind Animal Farm. Think you’d like it.
Am half way through Rickman’s diaries on the way back from Mexico (no kebab so far). Was considering skimming the rest for the reasons cited by the NYT. Will complete it with new eyes now!
Totally agree about Down and Out in Paris and London - it started a whole genre and it's still the best of them. I would have included it but I had to draw the line somewhere...
I enjoyed this - I am a huge fan and reader of Orwell. As well as his garden diaries, he was constantly writing, writing, writing about almost everything - with a particular focus on politics and literature of course. He was so well-read and so well informed and so curious about the world. I recently reread 1984 and have had several discussions with people on this - reading it as an adult, who's seen quite a few totalitarian societies (I work for the UN) I found it extremely disturbing in many ways - but especially the extended interrogation scenes at the end. What adds to the horror for me is the knowledge that similar things are happening in quite a few countries right now. So how could such a disturbing novel be attractive and absorbable by young people? One answer is that it is extremely well-written in Orwell's plain style, where no word is chosen for embellishment, only to communicate accurately. Another is that maybe young people (at least in the West) have more difficulty in relating to the reality of those descriptions - they are gruesome perhaps, but more like a horror film or something like that that is a bit removed from day to day experience. Your point is an interesting one - the manichean nature of the story: I feel this says something almost accurate, but I also recoil a bit from this word. There's an implication, with that word, that Orwell is creating a simplistic vision of a potential society - but I don't think Orwell is ever simplistic. His characters are certainly not bland heroes and heroines devoted to the good - in fact, as I probably don't need to say, one of his main points in 1984 is the malleability of human beings - you can have them believe and do anything, even horrific things, with the correct pressure and environment. So manichean doesn't seem quite the right word to me for Orwell - I think he sets up a situation that has a frightening clarity - using a very characteristic unblinking and limpid observation -but I'm not sure that clarity equals black and white simplicity. Orwell was also ready to admit his own mistakes and foibles, which makes him an even more interesting character. He was a complex person who nevertheless did very bold, straightforward things - such as going to fight in the Spanish Civil War. I guess he is so admirable since he is an intellectual who applied everything he believed in to his practical life. Long live Orwell.
Franis - thank you for such a thoughtful response - you should publish this as a separate blog;) I get you about Manichean - I meant that that's how it's read more than that's how it is, probably because of how the evil characters are more one-dimensional more than the good ones...
Great piece. Since you’re a fan of Orwell’s deep cuts I highly recommend Rebecca Solnit’s “Orwell’s Roses”. She profiles an Orwell (joyful, fatherly) that I wasn’t previously aware of and weaves together portraits of Orwell the gardener with damning looks at authoritarianism.
Another gem.
I think you are a PHD. Send R my best.
Rachel says Hi!
Really enjoyed this. Down and out in Paris and London is my all time favourite.
We watched ‘Mr Jones’ the other night. The film poses an alternative theory to the inspiration behind Animal Farm. Think you’d like it.
Am half way through Rickman’s diaries on the way back from Mexico (no kebab so far). Was considering skimming the rest for the reasons cited by the NYT. Will complete it with new eyes now!
Totally agree about Down and Out in Paris and London - it started a whole genre and it's still the best of them. I would have included it but I had to draw the line somewhere...
I enjoyed this - I am a huge fan and reader of Orwell. As well as his garden diaries, he was constantly writing, writing, writing about almost everything - with a particular focus on politics and literature of course. He was so well-read and so well informed and so curious about the world. I recently reread 1984 and have had several discussions with people on this - reading it as an adult, who's seen quite a few totalitarian societies (I work for the UN) I found it extremely disturbing in many ways - but especially the extended interrogation scenes at the end. What adds to the horror for me is the knowledge that similar things are happening in quite a few countries right now. So how could such a disturbing novel be attractive and absorbable by young people? One answer is that it is extremely well-written in Orwell's plain style, where no word is chosen for embellishment, only to communicate accurately. Another is that maybe young people (at least in the West) have more difficulty in relating to the reality of those descriptions - they are gruesome perhaps, but more like a horror film or something like that that is a bit removed from day to day experience. Your point is an interesting one - the manichean nature of the story: I feel this says something almost accurate, but I also recoil a bit from this word. There's an implication, with that word, that Orwell is creating a simplistic vision of a potential society - but I don't think Orwell is ever simplistic. His characters are certainly not bland heroes and heroines devoted to the good - in fact, as I probably don't need to say, one of his main points in 1984 is the malleability of human beings - you can have them believe and do anything, even horrific things, with the correct pressure and environment. So manichean doesn't seem quite the right word to me for Orwell - I think he sets up a situation that has a frightening clarity - using a very characteristic unblinking and limpid observation -but I'm not sure that clarity equals black and white simplicity. Orwell was also ready to admit his own mistakes and foibles, which makes him an even more interesting character. He was a complex person who nevertheless did very bold, straightforward things - such as going to fight in the Spanish Civil War. I guess he is so admirable since he is an intellectual who applied everything he believed in to his practical life. Long live Orwell.
Franis - thank you for such a thoughtful response - you should publish this as a separate blog;) I get you about Manichean - I meant that that's how it's read more than that's how it is, probably because of how the evil characters are more one-dimensional more than the good ones...
Great piece. Since you’re a fan of Orwell’s deep cuts I highly recommend Rebecca Solnit’s “Orwell’s Roses”. She profiles an Orwell (joyful, fatherly) that I wasn’t previously aware of and weaves together portraits of Orwell the gardener with damning looks at authoritarianism.
Thanks Peter - looking forward to checking that out!