Why orwell matters

The only problem with this study is that it assumes that the reader already knows that Orwell conscientiously overcame his early anti-intellectualism, his dislike of the "dark" people of the English Empire, and his squeamishness about homosexuality-all to become a great humanist.

Thus, it is written for readers who have already done their homework. Sep 26, Eric K. Hitchens at his worst. It combines a smarmy pseudo-intellectualism in which Hitch throws out a lot of names to distract from his lack of original insight, rebuttals of figures unknown and irrelevant outside an incestuous circle of Orwell-followers, and a general failure to advance his thesis "Why Orwell Matters. If you want Orwell, then read Orwell. Not Hitchens. Jul 13, Andrew added it Shelves: literary-studies.

Hitchens is such a better writer when he's investigating personalities than trying to take on generalities. His takedowns of Kissinger and Mother Teresa were wonderful, and when he's examining Orwell, he shies away from hagiography, and points out that Orwell, while a great writer and a great man, is not the secular saint he's so often painted as.

A humane and broad-ranging analysis of a fascinating figure, warts and all. Jan 28, David rated it liked it Shelves: biography. This wasn't quite what I was looking for.

I was hoping for a more systematic analysis of themes in Orwell's work and why these are relevant to contemporary problems. While this is important in establishing and protecting Orwell's literary legacy, I thought it was a missed opportunity for someone who This wasn't quite what I was looking for. While this is important in establishing and protecting Orwell's literary legacy, I thought it was a missed opportunity for someone who has been reading Orwell and wants a more thorough venture into his thinking led by a sharp and mostly delightfully churlish admirer.

My recommendation, to anyone who has read or Animal Farm and wants to get to know Orwell better, is to get ahold of the big Everyman's Library edition of Orwell's essays and just pick around at essay titles that sound interesting to you.

I keep it by my bedside and dive in whenever the mood strikes me and am rarely disappointed. Orwell is a thoughtful companion to have through life for reasons that Hitchens brings out and he consistently challenges me to be both careful in my thinking, skeptical toward feeling pleased with myself, and always aware of the tragedies of life.

View 2 comments. Jul 09, Raghu rated it liked it. He was able to see the monumental crimes of Stalinism and by extension, Leninism, which basically stands for Communism as it is believed and practised. This was in spite of him being a socialist at heart. Also, Orwell did produce strong reactions from both the Right and the Left. This book deals with all the important questions relating to Orwell today. The Right likes to claim him on behalf of his strong critique of Stalinism as if Orwell supported all their deep desires to severely punish left leaning people in their societies.

Hitchens shows how Orwell stood by the rights of the working classes and the poor while castigating Stalinism. In the same way, the 'real Left' likes to demonize him as an agent of the bourgeoisie and portray him as an 'informer'.

Hitchens again shows how Orwell was a genuine socialist at heart but knew that the centralized state like the USSR was not the way to get there. Hitchens paints a balanced picture of the man and the idealist without mopping over issues of relevance today. For example, Orwell was homophobic in some ways and Hitchens tries to investigate its possible causes.

Orwell also did not have much time for feminists and in fact, for women. Hitchens deals at length with 'The List', which has been used to taint Orwell with the charge that he informed on his left-wing friends to the British government and betrayed them. This is something many Leftists believe about Orwell. Hitchens argues strongly that Orwell did not 'inform' and that the argument does not hold water. But it was a fact that a certain 'list' existed in Orwell's handwriting and it was given to an influential friend of his.

Looking at the overall picture that emerges of Orwell from the book, it is hard to accept that Orwell would have been an 'informer'.

The book is passionately argued and is not all that easy reading, though it is fairly concise. One would have to have sufficient interest in George Orwell in order to enjoy the book. Apr 20, Farah Al-Shuhail rated it really liked it. An analysis of Orwell's politics and a close examination of his work of fiction. What sets Orwell apart from other writers from the early 20th century is that everybody thinks he's on their side, he's the single most complicated character and when it came to politics everyone claimed him as an ally or simply wished him dead.

Hitchens closely thought arguments made me somewhat certain that Orwell stood on the left - politically, and on the right - socially. He opposed fascism, totalitarianism and An analysis of Orwell's politics and a close examination of his work of fiction. He opposed fascism, totalitarianism and Stalinism, despised government and bureaucracy, distrusted intellectuals and academics, and upheld a traditional view on moral matters He was an Englishman, after all.

While Hitchens does an excellent job in defending Orwell and confronting his critics, he cannot stop himself from sounding like a judgmental self-righteous? All in all, this book was interesting, but not an easy read.

One would have to have a decent grasp of Orwell's non-fiction before reading it. Sep 01, Charlie George rated it really liked it Shelves: history , british. I have read and enjoyed a lot of Hitchens' short columns in the pages of Free Inquiry, and picked this up because I'm at least as interested in learning about and hearing more from him, as I am in Orwell.

Hitchens is a generally leftist, atheist intellectual who revels in sending up other intellectuals and public figures especially other leftists.

He also has a few conservative causes e. This book I have read and enjoyed a lot of Hitchens' short columns in the pages of Free Inquiry, and picked this up because I'm at least as interested in learning about and hearing more from him, as I am in Orwell. Nevertheless I did enjoy the book and the sort of crash course in early-twentieth century politics. I need to read Hitchens' better known stuff, e. God Is Not Great.

Feb 25, Regan rated it did not like it. Skip it. Why was this book "widely acclaimed? Orwell matters, Hitchens' opinion of why he matters does not. Sep 11, George Siehl rated it really liked it Shelves: biography , history-european , literature , politics , criticism. Hitchens, the late, liberal journalist provides an engaging biography of George Orwell the leftist British journalist who authored both "Animal Farm" and " Orwell's near poverty at times in his life was, in part, an effort t Hitchens, the late, liberal journalist provides an engaging biography of George Orwell the leftist British journalist who authored both "Animal Farm" and " Orwell's near poverty at times in his life was, in part, an effort to learn directly of the life of the workers.

His earlier background allowed him to attend Eton for his education, but he declined further support from his family and lived as a nomad in London and Paris. His career as a writer is most often praised for his essays, while his early novels were generally criticized or ignored. This "fairy tale," as Orwell labeled it, was a scathing depiction of the Stalin regime. Hitchens explains how communist agents in the British government were able to hinder the original publication of the book.

Once published however it grew to be an import and widely read political book. His second famous novel, "" was completed as he way dying of tuberculosis in It shows how large, centralized governments can drift toward totalitarianism.

The novel is situated in Britain in a world divided into three political systems, Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia, which are depicted as constantly at war with one another. The war may not actually exist, but serves as a pretext for the government to assume complete control over the lives of its citizens. This book also became a world classic, one which introduced many concepts that became part of the language of global politics: "Big Brother," "Doublethink," and even Cold War," language for a generation, and more.

Communist and other of the far left were enrages at the se dangerous portraits of the collectivist state, so continually attacked Orwell's positions while continuing to limit his ability to have his material published. Hitchens here describes this anti-Orwell campaign and becomes a fierce defender of the man and his work.

He refutes these many attacks, in some cases in a telling, point-by-point rebuttal of arguments by some prominent writers. Ricks cited Hitchens as a prominent voice from the left who also championed Orwell. Hitchens book highlights Orwell's principles and his philosophy on writing, contrasting it with the recent post-modernist movement to deconstruction and the diminishment of any text as impediments to communication. The book provides a strong intellectual argument in defense of Orwell and his work.

Sep 25, Andrew Carr rated it really liked it. This is a short book of essays by one of the master essayists of our time, on one of the master essayists of the 20th century.

There is a definate sense of admiration, envy, and perhaps even pathos in Hitchens take on Orwell. What struck me in this my second reading was the argument that Orwells 'power of facing' as George put it was grounded in an 'ambivalence' about different groups.

In the sense of being torn, of seeing the two sides of the coin. That Orwell was not simply the man who iden This is a short book of essays by one of the master essayists of our time, on one of the master essayists of the 20th century. That Orwell was not simply the man who identified the cruel heart of communism, but did so as an ardent socialist. That Orwell wrote the great defence of english common sense and common language, while a man who detested its colonial nature and elite dishonesty.

That Orwell could see the flaws of the oppressed as clearly as those of the oppressor and yet knew clearly which side deserved empathy and support. We often think of intellectual honesty as simply the courage to critique.

Indeed, many make such criticism their life's purpose. Hitchens offers an excellent analysis of the writer's women, both real his wives and fictional, to show that the feminist critique of Orwell that he didn't like strong, brainy women may be unfair, though Hitchens also points out what feminists have ignored: Orwell's "revulsion for birth control and abortion. Fans of Orwell will enjoy Hitchens's learned and convincing defense, while those unfamiliar with Orwell may perhaps be induced to return to the source.

Basic is banking on similar success with a 30, first printing. View Full Version of PW. He went to great pains to reject the conservative tendencies and prejudices that he had grown up with in order to become an honest socialist.

He also spent much of his life subjecting himself deliberately to unpleasantness and danger. Do you get the impression that he didn't especially like himself? I think that it's clear beyond all doubt that he didn't like himself much. He always thought, for example, that he was physically unattractive—that he was ungainly and repulsive—though it seems that he wasn't to women.

And he certainly didn't have a very high estimation of his ability as a writer. Nor did he have much material success—he never really made a buck. And he suffered from ill-health of a kind that's sort of embarrassing—you know having a nasty cough the entire time, and always feeling a bit low. None of that can have helped what we would now call self-esteem.

There is no question that he rated himself rather low as a person and as an author. Well, I don't think that a low self-regard is always a good thing, but it doesn't mean that a writer is disabled, either.

I suppose the greatest example of someone who thought he was no good in any way was Marcel Proust. He thought he was abjectly feeble, cowardly, ugly, talentless, and so forth.

That modesty doesn't seem to have been false at all on his part, but it seems to have served him well as a writer. The great point that I try to make is that in fact Orwell isn't a very great writer. He's a very honest and courageous writer and he does a lot of work and he does have a certain gift of phrase, there's no doubt about it. But he's not in the first rank of writers. And that's a good thing, because it shows what average, ordinary people can do if they care to, and it abolishes some of the alibis and excuses for people who aren't brave.

I noticed that you cite in your book what seem to be two conflicting assessments of Orwell's ability. On the one hand there is Trilling's comment, "If we ask what he stands for, what he was a figure of, it's the virtue of not being a genius.

Yes, but I think one can take them out of direct opposition to one another. Some people have a knack, for example, of being able to tell when someone's lying to them. They may not know what the truth is, but they can tell when someone is trying to lead them astray or sell them something shady. I think he had that ability to an amazing degree. For example, when he wrote about the Russian purges he said, Well, on the evidence of what they claim, something terrible must be happening; I don't know what it is, but there's an undercurrent of hysteria here.

I also think he thought, without saying it explicitly, that you can convince a crowd of something that's not true more easily than you can one person at a time. He was very resistant to anything like mass suggestion, or mass hysteria or tribalism. I think that comes from his very early life. He detested the ways in which authority played on the mob.

Do you think that that resistance gave him the strength to swim against the current politically? Oh, yes. I think he was quite resigned to his lot. Orwell is sometimes described as a kind of secular saint—an idea from which you say that you had to rescue him in order to write this book.

Yet it's hard not to notice the ascetic life he led and the sacrifices he made for his moral vision. Do you think he believed in some way that he had a calling? Very few people who write by themselves don't at some point have a feeling that maybe they're doing this for a higher purpose or have a destiny. So I can't say that he never went through anything like that. But there's very little, if any, trace of it in his conversations as reported by friends.

And he's very well-reported by contemporaries. He's remembered in the writing of a lot of people, and it's very odd how consistently he comes out. I think he may have thought there was a moral value to being on the losing side. He may have felt that there was something confirming about always being among the defeated—that that was more likely to be proof that he was right, which is a temptation that a lot of people have.

There's a very good book about him by his friend Richard Rees, which I could probably have made more use of than I did, which is called Fugitive from the Camp of Victory. The reference there is to a remark made by Simone Weil, that justice is always the refugee from the camp of the victors.

So there may have been a slight feeling of superiority that he had of being always with the tattered remnant of the losers, and he may have found something exulting in that. I think it would have been pardonable, because the losing sides he took were rather honorable ones. That's only a speculation, though. I mean, his affinity for the losing side could also be explained simply by the fact that he was very pessimistic about himself and his prospects, and the prospects for humanity, and he seemed only to be cheered up by the things that are beyond the power of humans to fuck up, like nature.

I don't know about uplifted, but he took consolation. He wrote a good short piece about what it was like to see spring come round again after a particularly bloody season of winter in London. There's nothing that the authorities can do to stop it—the birds and the flowers.

Much as they might like to, they're powerless to prevent the spring. It reminds me of the remark that Gordon Comstock makes in Orwell's novel Coming up for Air , that "often it is harder to sink than to rise. There is always something that drags one upwards.

Yes, exactly. He realized that you could set out to head for rock bottom and you'd find it strangely hard to do. That's a realization that a lot of Stoics, or stoic individuals, have made. When the worst—what you most dreaded—has occurred, then you can gain strength from the realization that maybe it's not so bad.

Maybe you can survive and endure. With was he trying to face people with the worst he could imagine in the hope that they would come out the other side? Yes, he did think that if you face people with how terrible things could be, as he did with , it might not necessarily mean plunging them into gloom.

It might be a cause of fortitude. Some people might cower at what the future might hold, but some might not—it might make them stick out their chins, push their shoulders back a bit. I was intrigued by your idea of being a summation of all his personal traumas, from boarding school to Burma to the Spanish war. How do you think he made the connection between those experiences and the dystopian vision in his novel? It was not published in the United States until the 50's, but now is one of the most celebrated books of war reportage, and truth telling.

I have never been in a war zone. I have been in places like Bosnia, Afghanistan and Pakistan last year. Where I noticed not the older but the younger workers responders are interested in finding what really is going on. It is not that book what motivated them in to be there in the first place, it is extraordinarily impressive. Paulson: The one thing that has always puzzled me about Orwell's career as a writer is, he was a great journalist, a brilliant essayist, but he kind of struggled as a fiction writer for a while.

Hitchens: There was a need to be able to discuss things in the third person, which he was not able to do in his non-fiction, in other words. He would not have written about himself, as he writes about Flory. He would have not said he himself felt this sexual and racial frenzy when he was in Burma that he was divided in mind, between whether he loathed a non-white or loved her.

He was divided in mind as to whether or not he could take advantage of the availability of slave women. He could not have written that in his own voice. Hitchens: Not so much with Animal farm, which I am not a great fan of. But with he managed to throw into the action of a novel everything he ever learned from his own life, and travels, and struggles and reading.

And produce something that now of course is thought to school children, and sells texts and we are not scared of Stalin anymore or Hitler and these kind of things. When the first readers of that book that the publisher has, and opened it.

They feared the word sensation of physical fear. Paulson: I want to back up for a moment to the novel that you said you are not that big a fan of Animal farm. Which Orwell said that this book is the first book in which I tried with full consciousness of what I was doing defuse political purpose and artistic purpose into one haul. You obviously think he did not succeed. Hitchens: It is a very touching and skillful and admirable attainment in the swifting style of doing fable or allegory.

And it charms people who don't really know what the history behind it is. Who don't know of what is an allegory, it is an artistic success in some ways. I am a big thought minded about this kind of things. If you are going to do an allegory using animals or other creatures, humans perhaps, of the history of the revolution. You have to have three figures in it.

You have to have Stalin, you have to have Lenin, and you have to have Trotsky.