Talk:George Orwell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified George Orwell as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Ukrainian language Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] Orwell's legacy

RE- 'Political views' Orwell was right, years in advance about what Britain was going to be like after WW2. The article in question states -

"He

[edit] pooped all over

the war effort but detected (wrongly as it turned out) a mood that would lead to a revolutionary socialist movement among the British people poop in the toilet. "We are in a strange period of history in which a revolutionary has to be a patriot and a patriot has to be a revolutionary," he wrote in Tribune, the Labour left's weekly, in December 1940."

The previous edit is a clear mistake that gives no room for understanding the social context of Britain at the end of the war, and the enourmous changes it underwent. While Britain did not witness the typical conception of a revolution as Russia did in 1917, the changes made by Labour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_%28UK%29#Post-War_victory_under_Attlee) in adopting and advancing Keynessian economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynes), and the welfare state does constitute a social revolution. Also, this was the type of socialist revolution that Orwell wanted to witness as he never was a communist, but a democratic socialist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revolver soul2000 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


Archive
Archives
Archive 1


[edit] The greatest mistake made about Orwell

The greatest mistake about Animal Farm, 1984, The Road to Wigan Pier is that they are simply anti-socialist or about Stalin. In fact they are anti-establishment, anti-corruption, anti-authoritarian, anti-police state. Orwell writes about the dynamic free human spirit which is often let down and abused by those we entrust to positions of power over us. So in this day and age Orwell would be anti-Patriot act, anti-National ID card, anti-warrant less wire tapping, anti-Guantanamo Bay, they are anti-war on terror, anti-extraordinary rendition, anti water-boarding, anti Abu-Gharib, anti-Homeland security etc. etc. etc.

The greatest fallacy is to take the works of Orwell in particular Animal Farm and 1984, and immediately think it is about 'communism', 'socialism'. This is the false interpretation of the works of Orwell, but is a ubiquitous interpretation in English Private Schools and obviously in the United States of America. This is simply a myth and reflects an extreme shallowness of thinking. If you have read George Orwell and your opinion of the work stops with the works being an indictment Socialism then you have not learned anything and it would appear you need to readdress your opinions, thought processing and perceptions of reality. The great satire, the great irony and the great depth of knowledge has passed you by.

Orwell is really attempting to talk about corrupt authority, abuse of power, totalitarianism, manipulation of good people, loss of liberty, propaganda, deception, inveiglement, political ponerology, pathocracy. If you haven’t learned this from reading Animal Farm or 1984, then you have learned nothing and don't posses the depth of understanding required to appreciate literature.

I'm sure when I say that I hardly know how to express my gratitude for the unique insight and wisdom which you have given to us. Many thanks. --Stephen Burnett 19:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Have you read Animal Farm? It's a direct parody of Soviet Government. The pigs have identifiable counterparts in the Bolshevik party. Orwell was a socialist no doubt but Animal farm was a critique of state of the USSR also no doubt.Domminico (talk) 23:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Vastly overrated poop

SmokeyTheFatCat is undeniably wrong. Smokey is a socialist, the same group Orwell was speaking out against in road to Wegan Pier. Animal Farm, and 1984 are some of the greatest books in the English language simply because they reveal a truth. Smokey, socialism will only work at the expense of the individual, and it's shameful you would even come out and say something that dimwitted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.189.179.137 (talk) 03:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

You obviously have not read anything Orwell wrote. 'The Road To Wigan Pier' speaking out against Socialism? Have you actually read Orwell's passionate defense of Socialism in Part II of that book? A defense against the ivory tower socialist intellectuals as well as against the anti-socialists, to be true, but it was Orwell himself who stated in the 1946 essay 'Why I Write' that everything he has written was in defense of democratic Socialism. Mvdwege 21:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] He was not against...

I am shocked that I had to correct such huge factual mistakes such as that he was against "not-representative government" and that he was against communism.He was very critical to the Soviet Union under Stalin rule and Anti-Stalinist,and against totalitarianism but he was Socialist himself.He was against Representative Government and a follower of Anarcho-syndicalism.

Orwell was a staunch democratic socialist. While he did fight on the side of the Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War, he never claimed to be a follower of the ideology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.90.182.94 (talk) 03:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

Given the length section needs a lot of work. For someone more knowledgable about him I suggest expanding to a few paragraphs. See WP:Lead for more details. I have also archived the talk pages as they were getting quite long.LordHarris 13:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Life

The opening section of this is just a bit biased, 'a very good description in 'authors' excellent biography'! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.21.33.99 (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Actually the whole section is written from a very definite POV, and I think it suffers from being dumped in as a separate section rather than integrated with the rest of the article.--Stephen Burnett 18:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Bernard Crick's biography is the main reference on this subject, in anyway.--Loudon dodd 20:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes it is, but the article is about Orwell; it isn't supposed to be a book review. --Stephen Burnett 20:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok.--Loudon dodd 18:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Having written this section I personally feel that it is very important to have some details about Orwell the man, rather than just seeing him in the light of a political animal. I have used extensive reference to Bernard Crick's biography, as Loudon dodd points out, but this is for people who have not got round to reading this excellent bio. On reading the article initially, I felt that it was far too impersonal and so wanted to include some more personalized detail about a writer who included much of his own personal experiences into his work.Ivankinsman 16:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Orwell had a strong belief that all revolutions would die and utterly fail"

This is not what can be read in Newsinger's essay (Orwell's Politics, chap.VI, 2, "animal farm"), where it is written that Orwell didn't have this "strong belief" at all. Newsinger refers to the compte-rendu that Orwell wrote on Kestler's Darkness at noon (Collected Essays, III,68, "Arthur Koestler")--Loudon dodd 21:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] "According to Chomsky"

The "according to Chomsky" and "again according to Chomsky" tone sounds like the work of a troll. Orwells preface to Animal Farm is available online (1) and if someone has personal issues with Chomsky they can paraphrase Orwells ideas in his own words (though Chomsky is essentially correct).

1) http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/Orwell.html -df

I've removed the following :
"In his writings, MIT linguist and political analyst Noam Chomsky refers to a suppressed introduction[1] Orwell wrote for Animal Farm, an introduction discovered thirty years after Animal Farm's first publication. In it Orwell says[2] that Animal Farm was a satire directed against Stalin and totalitarianism in general, but that it also applied to free England. The concentration of the press and the educational system in England produce something similar to what the Soviet Union's KGB did: suppression of dissent."
Firstly, the reference to what Chomsky wrote on the introduction is an irrelevance; as it is now widely available, dragging in Chomsky to give a second-hand opinion is pointless. Secondly, Orwell absolutely does NOT say that Animal Farm applies to "free England". This is pure invention, presumably on the part of the contributor who put it there. The introduction certainly does state that publication of the book was difficult, due to the atmosphere of Russomania among English intellectuals following the entry of Russia into the war on the Allied side, and their consequent reluctance to criticise the Soviet regime. That is not at all the same as saying that the book itself is a criticism of English society at the time. --Stephen Burnett 10:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Libertarian paragraph

I've removed:

While never a supporter of the free-market libertarian right, he did share occasional criticisms with them. In a review published in the Observer in 1944, he accepted some of the criticisms of collectivism put forward in Friedrich von Hayek's The Road to Serfdom. "In the negative part of Professor Hayek's thesis there is a great deal of truth. It cannot be said too often — at any rate, it is not being said nearly often enough — that collectivism is not inherently democratic, but, on the contrary, gives to a tyrannical minority such powers as the Spanish Inquisitors never dreamt of." Nevertheless, he continued, "a return to 'free' competition means for the great mass of people a tyranny probably worse, because more irresponsible, than that of the state."

At best, this warrants a sentence, no more. I've not found a reliable source for this review either.--Nydas(Talk) 21:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

  • The information presented in the paragraph is correct. Orwell's review of the Road to Serfdom can be found in Peter Davison's Complete Works of George Orwell as well as in Ian Angus' Collected Essays of Geroge Orwell and in John Carey's Selected Essays of George Orwell. Iron Ghost 23:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
It's still a slanty use of an obscure quote to promote a particular POV. It would be just as easy to selectively quote Orwell's review of Mein Kampf to show his 'sharing of occasional criticism' with fascism. --Nydas(Talk) 09:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The review of Hayek can be found: at http://groups.msn.com/EricArthurBlair/review.msnw . The above removed paragraph goes against what Orwell rather clearly means in this essay, and appears to be an abuse of a negative. Orwell says later in the review, to resolve the negative: "There is no way out of this unless a planned economy can somehow be combined with the freedom of the intellect, which can only happen if the concept of right and wrong is restored to politics." In other words, Orwell states that collectivism has problems, not because we need a free market, but because we need to preserve intellectual freedom. BillCosby 03:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orwell's homophobia?

I have been told that certain biographies of Orwell have attached to the man at least a certain degree of homophobia. One article links 'Brandon, Piers. ‘The saint of common decency’' (The Guardian (7 June 2003)), http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,971970,00.html.

Can this be verified? And is it worthy of inclusion? All comments welcome. Bosola 10:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Essays

It might make more sense simply to remove the current arbitrary list of Orwell's essays and simply leave the link to the full set.Nwe 17:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blair or Orwell?

The article switches between the two names, i think that there should be a consistent name used but do not know which would be more accurate, his pen-name or birth name? --Weirdloopyloo 14:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend using "Orwell," since it seems most people don't know it was a pen name, so "Blair" would be jarring. On the other hand, for Mark Twain's entry, both "Twain" and "Clemens" are used throughout the description.QuizzicalBee 14:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The article switches names at the point in his life when he switched names. The section on his early life refers to him as Blair as he was then known, except when referring to his later work as Orwell. In 1932 with the publication of Down and Out in Paris and London, he chose the name Orwell, and from then on he is referred to as Orwell. The article title is George Orwell because that is his name on the books, but the two names are clearly stated in the introduction. I think this treatment is logical and should not be changed.

As for the article on Mark Twain, it follows the same pattern: birth name Samuel Clemens for his early life, and Mark Twain when referring to his works using that pen-name. The only difference is that that article contains a separate section on pen names, but for Orwell there is probably not enough material on his choice of names for a separate section. Dirac66 15:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I've changed 'He' to 'Eric Arthur Blair' in the early life section, making it easier to follow.--Nydas(Talk) 17:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

A minor note I've added to the selection of "Orwell" may not have been Blair's doing, but either Leonard Moore's (his agent) or Victor Gollancz's (his publisher). Orwell was one of four names -- and not the first -- that Blair suggested in a letter to Moore, having said four days earlier that Moore or Gollancz could decide, since if the book was a flop, the pseudonym had no reputation to lose, whereas if the book succeeded, Blair could always write another book under that name. This from letters in the first of the four volume collection edited by Sonia Orwell and Angus Ian Ian Angus. -- OtherDave 19:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speculation about when Orwell contracted TB

I have tagged two conflicting and quite speculative statements on the page about when Orwell contracted TB. One says he could have gotten it during his down and out years; the other during the Spanish war. Both are hypothetically possible (though not certainly not both together---unless TB plays some kind of tagteam relay thing) but seeing as though they are also both unprovable, should this not be removed altogether? I am new to wiki-editing so don't want to presume. Mangobait 03:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the both cliam altogether. KTC 04:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hard to know, but he writes somewhere about the conditions in the "spikes" about how (pointless, as he saw it) legislation was introduced to make for greater space between beds, and he also wrote about how difficult it was to sleep due to constant coughing at night. Presumably the legislation was partly aimed at curbing TB, and continual coughing is a symptom of TB. Less likely to have got it in Spain as he was continually out of doors. Don't have the references handy.Jmsunlinenet (talk) 03:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moved

I Only find talk of it here in WIkipedia


[edit] "Hotel X"

"his lack of success reduced Blair to taking menial jobs as a dishwasher for a few weeks, principally in a fashionable hotel (the Hotel X) on the rue de Rivoli" -- "Hotel X" is a pseudonym, right? If so we should put this name in quotes or just omit it altogether. -- Writtenonsand 04:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

In "Hotel Kitchens" - the essay in which he describes working as a dishwasher Orwell actually refers to his place of employment as "Hotel X". This was a detail Orwell choose to include, giving it the potential to be any pretentious hotel in Paris. 216.165.14.201 00:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "One seems to see Orwell himself"

Legacy: Literary criticism: "In the celebrated conclusion to his 1940 essay on Charles Dickens one seems to see Orwell himself." It so happens that I agree with this, but IMHO it is POV / opinion and should be removed from the article. -- Writtenonsand 04:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can't edit this article

Why can't I edit this article? -- David Sher —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Sher (talk • contribs) 23:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Good, faithful stick"

I don't think he called his wife a "good faithful stick", but a "good old stick". My father used to use this expression and in the English of that time it was an expression of affection. My grandmother was a good old stick when she did something generous. I don't think it meant that Orwell's wife was some kind of crutch for him. Sorry I don't have the reference handy, but will add it when I come across it.Jmsunlinenet (talk) 03:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Primary Reason for Travelling to Spain

The article currently says

"In December 1936, Orwell travelled to Spain primarily to fight, not to write..."

which is contrary to what appears in the fifth paragraph of the first chapter of Homage to Catalonia, the book this article is about.

"I had come to Spain with some notion of writing newspaper articles, but I had joined the militia almost immediately, because at that time and in that atmosphere it seemed the only conceivable thing to do."

So I think that the claim needs a reliable citation. The same sentence was on Homage to Catalonia and another editor removed it after I pointed out the contradiction. The statement relies on a citation that cannot be read unfortunatly.--Aimaz (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Animal Farm, 1984, 'totalitarianism' and 'Stalinism'

In the introduction we have: two novels critical of totalitarianism in general (Animal Farm), and Stalinism in particular (Nineteen Eighty-Four).

Shouldn't this be the other way round? Animal Farm maps directly to Stalinism, with characters and events corresponding to real-life people and events. Nineteen Eighty-Four is the general one. Or perhaps this is all speculation and we should rearrange it: two novels critical of Stalinism and totalitarianism: Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four. Thoughts? Robin Johnson (talk) 16:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism or typo? Can someone familiar with the article check?

In the Personal Life section, this line appears (about 5th paragraph):

"The business relationship between Orwell and Victor Gollancz, his first publisher aws stiff, for example, in letters, Orwell always addressed him by surname, as "Gollancz"." (bold added)

I am not familiar with the phrase "aws stiff" and suspect vandalism, but not sure what is supposed to replace it. Can someone correct? Feel free to delete this section of the talk page once it's corrected -- this isn't about the content of the article, which I otherwise think is very good. - StrangeAttractor (talk) 07:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a typo for "was stiff", with some confusingly bad punctuation around it. Corrected. Robin Johnson (talk) 15:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Info box Name

90% of the vandalism I revert seems to be silly changes to the name in the infobox. I suspect alot of first time IPs don't realise that it is his real name and take it as an opportunity to change it to something else of their choice. Is there a case for using his pseudonym or does that contravene some policy? Motmit (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unnamed case in Decline of the English Murder

I created an entry on the essay Decline of the English Murder - does anybody know what the case in question was? Autarch (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brought to England

The {{cn}} tag is for "took her son Eric to England when he was one year old": the ODNB has this at age three. Any editor know the definitive answer for this far-from-important point? --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Crick explains in a footnote. Several earlier biographers - Stansky Abrahams and Fyvel had given the year 1907 based on information given by Avril Blair reminiscing confidently of a time before she was born. Probably ODNB took this as well. The evidence to the contrary is a diary of Ida Blair for 1905 and a photograph of Eric aged 3 in an English suburban garden. The earlier date also coincides with a difficult posting for Blair senior, and Marjorie (6) needing an English education. Shelden and Taylor agree with Crick. Take your pick Motmit (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
That was quick—thanks. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] plagarism

I know that at least the politics section is just copy/pasted from http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/George_Orwell_-_Political_views/id/1424919 . I don't know wikipedia's policy on this, but I just wanted to point it out. It's not in quotes or anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.165.134 (talk) 04:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

No plagiarism, either way: "Adapted from the Wikipedia article "Political views", under the G.N U Free Docmentation License. " at the bottom of their page. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison between 1984 and Brave New World

The idea that Brave New World is "more optimistic" than 1984 is based on a faulty understanding of Brave New World. It is kind of ridiculous in the first place to talk about dystopian novels being optimistic in the first place. More importantly, though, Huxley predicted a more insidious kind of totalitarian dictatorship than Orwell. Brave New World shows a people controlled by pleasure and inhumanity. Whereas Orwell saw a single party eliminating the freedom of the people through control of tangible freedoms and pleasure, Huxley saw a single party eliminating the freedom of the people through an excess of tangible freedoms and pleasure. They both destroy everything that makes a man or woman free and human: family, virtue, intellectual freedom, art, community, political responsibility, truth, goodness, and beauty (Huxley's "Feelies" are not art). Neither is optimistic. If anything, Orwell is more optimistic: Winston at least says that "there is hope in the proles." Airstrip One at least can be freed by a proletariat revolt (though it will never happen). Huxley's London locked in a orgiastic cycle that has no hope of freedom.

I can't figure out how to edit the Orwell article. If someone can, and you think I'm making sense, please change it to:

Nineteen Eighty-Four is often compared to Brave New World by Aldous Huxley; both are powerful dystopian novels warning of a future world filled with state control, the former was written later and considers perpetual war preparation in a nuclear age; the latter considers perpetual stimulation in a consumer age. Both novels envision the destruction of human freedoms by oppressive governments that use technology to destroy personal liberty. Both envision a populace that mostly neither cares, nor knows how to end their oppression.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff Greenwood (talk • contribs) 14:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)