Talk:George Orwell

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2

Was he patriotic

He seemed very patriotic of England?109.154.25.16 (talk) 22:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

As a socialist I suppose that he was committed to the international solidarity of the working class. Marxist orthodoxy held that patriotism was a distraction from the struggle that really mattered: not the one between states, but the one between classes. Carinae986 (talk) 00:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Marxist orthodoxy would have counted for much with Orwell would it - in a letter written fom French Morocco , December 1938, he wrote : "I am not a Marxist and I don't hold with all this stuff that boils down to saying Anything is right which advances the cause of the Party.. " patriotic, and leftist - they aren't irreconcilable are they? The countryside of your youth remains the countryside of your youth for eg. whatever govt.Sayerslle (talk) 15:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

it's just conjecture. I don't have any specific information on the subject. I think it's pretty plain from his writings that he was influenced by Marx, however. Carinae986 (talk) 11:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Bernard Crick 'there is no evidence ... that his knowledge of marxism was anything but secondary. probably he picked up most of what he knew from the 'oral traditin', by meeting Marxists and listening attentively and seriously as they argued .." p.305. It was Richard Rees said orwell had a great knowledge of marx in 1936 but Crick counters this and in 'The Lost Orwell', 2006 ,there's a New Years Day 1938 letter from eileen to norah myles, which backs Crick's view up, in which she writes; " we also have a poodle puppy. We called him Marx to remind us that we had never read Marx and now we have read a little and taken so strong a personal dislike to the man that we can't look the dog in the face when we speak to him.." Sayerslle (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Eton scholarship

To explain my lest, rather terse, edit summary: the Eton scholarship was obtained at St Cyprian's, not before he joined the school.--Old Moonraker (talk) 13:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Complete works = OR?

I was thinking of expanding the 'early life' section with the help of the first volume of his complete works. What I want to know is, would this be original research? Does an anthology of his complete works count as a primary source? BillMasen (talk) 16:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably - the biographical sections have avoided using Orwell's own works as a source for his life because there is considerable doubt over their historical accuracy. The biography is based on corroborated evidence from independent sources and the discussed assessments of biographers. Motmit (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

His own writings would definitely be a primary source. A secondary source would be something that a qualified expert had written about him. Carinae986 (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking more of using them to point out his early views, not events in his early life. For example, the article 'a farthing newspaper', one of his first, suggests a basically leftwing outlook (which one would not necessarily expect from a former imperial policeman) BillMasen (talk) 18:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

That might be worth introducing in the section on his political views in "part 3" where the development of his views is duscussed. Connolly makes much of the bolshy left wing views of his contemporaries at Eton when there with Orwell (whose nickname was Cynicus). There is a quote - no sure which of them - to the effect that all seventeen year olds are socialists. Motmit (talk) 18:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I added something about his first two professional articles. Unfortunately he didnt seem to write much about politics before going to Spain; in his professional capacity almost everything was book reviews. Pre-road to Wigan Pier diaries there's very little about politics... but I think it's striking that his first two articles were attacks on censorship and capitalism. BillMasen (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

In particular there's barely any mention of the USSR, Germany or Italy and what was happening there, which is a surprise considering that he went to fight against them a few years later. But one interesting tidbit from 1935, in a letter to Brenda Salkeld

[Rees] was at some Socialist meeting and they asked me in and I spent three hours with seven or eight Socialists harrying me, including a South Wales miner who told me-quite good-naturedly, however- that if he were dictator he would have me shot immediately.

Suggests he wasn't a fully developed socialist himself, and an interesting premonition of what would happen in Spain. But I suppose it's not really good enough to go in the article. BillMasen (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

"hospitalized" vs. "in hospital"

Maybe I'm missing something, aren't WP articles supposed to be written in encyclopedic/factual/WP:NPOV tone? (As opposed to a style or manner an editor imagines a dead author would "approve"? Please explain. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

He is a British author, and you introduced American spelling. You replaced a simple statement of physical location by a clumsy derived adjective which has a slightly different nuance. See "Politics and the English Language" which suggests guidelines for clear writing which are as relevant for an encyclopedia as for any form of other writing Motmit (talk) 06:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it makes is seem odd when using American styles here. Nasnema  Chat  06:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for comments. (I'm new and didn't understand. I also found this: MOS:TIES.) My mistake, sorry, no harm intended. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Possible GA

Anyone else game? I brought George Orwell bibliography to FL and I might be interested in collaborating on this page for a GA or FA status. Is anyone else interested? If so, post here or on my talk. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering when your grand Orwell quest would get underway again, Koavf. You can count on my support. Skomorokh 03:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It would be good to see the article get to GA status. It is odd , as you've noted , to have the Personal Life section - that material should be integrated into the main biography surely - though I could see a point for a section looking in greater detail at Orwells politics. Sayerslle (talk) 22:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I would advise caution before trying to intergrate the biography and personal life parts. It is valuable that we have a straightforward and reasonably brief biography that sticks to the important facts of his life. It is uncontentious and it is all that many people want. The personal life part is concerned with his character and philosophies- also of interest to many. It is more discursive giving contrasting views, and the representative minor biographical details are only there to support those views. This may seem an exceptional way of going about it, but good old George was a bit exceptional and doen't fit well into a standard mould. The section on his political views is always going to be problematical and the middle part of the article which is on his work, and which is supposed provide some critique of his writing, needs considerable effort. Some of the review material that you have added to the individual articles will be very useful, but it really needs much more. Regards Motmit (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I see the point you're making. I do feel the political views section is pretty deficient but I also feel to really intervene I would want to have a thorough knowledge of his writing 1930-1950 - 'needs considerable effort' is right - and the secker and warburg editon is 20 volumes. 'the all of orwell' is a lot. Sayerslle (talk) 00:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

River Orwell

Blair's pen-name is currently illustrated with an image of a street-corner named after the river. Does this add much to the article? If an image is thought to be of value, there are many of the river itself—example here—but I suggest a straight deletion.

--Old Moonraker (talk) 05:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It wouldn't bother me exactly if the picture were deleted but I think it is ok. - 'does it add much - if an image is thought to be of value' - is in the eye of the reader/beholder but I'd say keep the photo; I mean he didn't get the name out of the air, it came from the Suffolk where his parents had settled and either of the pictures (street or river photo) serve, in a small way, to illustrate that fact.Sayerslle (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, all done? I'll use the river itself, then. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Now it's done I see that User:Sayerslle is right: the new picture gives a useful sense of place. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Cricks throwaway line away about anti-Catholicism

I added the line from Crick because as I was reading through 'A Kind of Compulsion' 1903-36 I was struck by the frequent negative remarks about Roman Catholicism, and its influence, and Roman Catholics. And that 1903-36 time led on to the Orwell in Spain period when his anti-Catholicism intensified - I then looked up Catholicism in Crick and came across this throwaway line and concluded - someone who knows his development right through observes this didn't change 1940-50 so I added it. Some of the evidence 1903-40 to'argue it properly' - (and maybe you're right and some of this should be added after the throwaway line  :

• In a review of The Civilization of France - May 1932 : - " ..the Catholic Church is steadily gaining power in france, - bad news, but not suprising after what we have seen of the Church's recuperative powers in England."
• letter to brenda salkeld 1932 " it was ever so nice seeing you again & finding that you were pleased to see me, in spite of my hideous prejudice against your sex, my obsession abuot R,.C.s etc.." - - I see Wyndham Lewis (not D. B. Wyndham Lewis, a stinking RC) .. has just brought out a book .."

And this became darkened by Spain when he was disgusted by the Church lining up with Franco, and so with Hitler and Mussolini, and selling the idea that Stalinism was revolutionary, when Orwell knew that it was totalitarian counter-revolution:

• "The chapter on the Church (in Frank Jellinek's 'civil war in Spain') does not leave much doubt as to why practically all the churches in Catalonia and Eastern Aragon were burnt at the outbreak of war .." (1938)
• "the sacking of the churches happened during the early period when the proletariat wer in control - a popular movement and a native spanish movement,its roots not in Marx or Bakunin the Church was part of the sttus quo;its influence was on the side of the wealthyin the eyes of at any rate very many the Church was simply a racket and the priest, the boss and the landlord were all of a piece --Catholics would probably do their church a better service by facing this fact than by tracing everything to mere wickedness, or to Moscow "-(1938)
• [1942 - looking back on the Spanish war] "did they [the russians] , as the Catholics maintained, intervene in order to foster revolution in spain? Then why did they [the Stalinists] do all in their power to crush the spanish revolutionary movements..?"

etc..it seems he was hostile to the Catholic Church for sure and this is why Crick wrote the line - maybe Orwell changed in the last period of his life, but Crick indicates this attitude to the Catholic Church did not change - in that period anyhow I think there were good reasons to be anti-Catholic - too many photos of priests lining up with fascists of all kinds...anyway... Sayerslle (talk) 12:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for opening the discussion and I am sorry that my edit summary once written may have come across as curt.

On a first look, Crick appears to be the only biographer who raises the Catholic issue and his index has 12 pages under the topic "anti-catholicism" (redirected from Catholicism) - pp115, 226-229, 254, 273, 274. 286. 500, 522 and 533. Judging by their indices, Starsky and Hutch dont seem to consider the issue and nor do subsequent biographers. Crick discusses on p227 Orwells anonymous review of Adams "Spirit of Catholicism" which Orwell praises but warns of dogmatic intolerance in Catholicism. On 226 Orwell refers to the high church he had become involved with at Hayes as "Popish", while in 228 he makes a counter observation that a book by Gore was quite good "although he was an Anglican". On 264 Kimche reports arguing with Orwell about the iniquities of the Catholic church while acknowledging Orwell was simply an intellectual anarchist. On 286 Crick quotes Orwell claiming that the industry of coal miners allowed among other things the Pope to denounce bolshevism while on 522-3 Crick quotes Orwell's comments that even if socialism resolves inequality, the Catholic issue of man's place in the universe will remain. 272 simply refers to flat mate Heppenstall considering becoming a Catholic, while 500 refes to a series of congenial dinners with Graham Greene. And yet on three pages 115, 229, 274 makes the confident assertion that Orwell was anti-catholic (in one instance pronounced). Crick makes no observation on Catholicism relating to Orwell's time in Spain.

In 1932 while teaching at Hayes Orwell became involved with the local Anglican church (which was High Church as observed). The Anglican faith was simply a part of Orwell's heritage as part of good old England and his observations on Catholicism were probably not untypical of the time. Before and during the war Orwell would not have been alone in pointing out the uncomfortable co-existence of the Catholic church with Fascism. In Spain the only established Church was Catholic so criticsm of the the role and actions of the church will appear as anti-catholic.

While there are observations to be made, I think it would be misleading to put anti-catholicism on the same level as anti-totalitarianism or to give any impression that he was sectarian. He was probably simply batting for his own Anglican side and being provocative (but he's dead, so we will never know what he really thought). It does seem pretty clear that anti-catholicsm was very much Crick's own bugbear, and so that should justify prefixing the statement as Crick's.

Glad to see you reverted that sister-inventor again. Regards Motmit (talk) 19:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I think theres a real animus in some of his 1930s remarks about Roman Catholicism - 'stinking', 'priest ridden' etc , imo a bit more than just 'batting for his side' - but whatever, -I'm hoping to get through the CW in the secker & warburg edition, and I might add to the evidence in this section if I come across striking egs - Starsky & Hutch, that made me smile anyhow Sayerslle (talk) 20:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC) " bad as the pro-Government books on the Spanish war have been -the pro-Franco ones have been worse. All or almost all that I have seen-have been written by Roman catholics.." (1938) "what seems certain, however, is that no regression to a semi-feudal, priest ridden régime of the kind that existed up to 1931 or, indeed up to 1936, is now possible. such regimes depend upon a general apathy and ignorance.." (1939) "the Church Times annoys me more and more. it is a poor satisfaction even to see them walloping the Romans, because they do it chiefly by descending to their level" (1933-letter to brenda salkeld) - "This book is almost entirely lacking in the humbug which we have come to expect as a matter of course from English Roman Catholics - the braying of Hilaire Belloc..the tittering of Ronald Knox.." (1934) Sayerslle (talk) 10:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of this becoming a blog rather than a talk page, lets not forget that this is the bloke who wrote "One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words 'Socialism' and 'Communism' draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, ‘Nature Cure’ quack, pacifist, and feminist in England." and "If only the sandals and the pistachio-coloured shirts could be put in a pile and burnt, and every vegetarian, teetotaler, and creeping Jesus sent home to Welwyn Garden City to do his yoga exercises quietly!" Motmit (talk) 22:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I won't keep adding quotes, I just added the last ones as I am reading A Kind of Compulsion and came across the derogatory remarks about Belloc and Knox - I think there is an accumulation of remarks that back up Crick's throwaway line - and there is a difference in tone I think between the remarks you've quoted above and his observations about the politics of the Catholic Church in the 1930s - if you say, oh , he didn't mean it all that seriously , I'd say - he was a leftist - he meant it - but perhaps this is a bit blog-ish. I think the Crick sentence should stay in the section on Orwell on religion . Sayerslle (talk) 22:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem keeping the Crick sentence as it stands, but I suggest giving the page ref as 229 as at least it follows a bit of discussion there. Motmit (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thats a better ref. I'll do it. Sayerslle (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I carried on reading 'A Kind of Compulsion' after I changed the ref from Crick and read this in the 'road to wigan pier diary' for 27 Feb 1936 "I was very greatly impressed by Garrett, a biggish hefty chap of about 36, Liverpool Irish, brought up a Catholic - I was impressed by the fact that Liverpool is doing much more in the way of slum-clearance than most towns - great quantities of Corporation houses and flats at low rents - in the centre of town there are huge blocks of workers flats imitated from those in Vienna .. Another point is this. Liverpool is practically governed by Roman Catholics .." Those are positive remarks about Catholics - not Catholicism though. Reminds me that I should read the all of Orwell though before I seek to add material to the general sections on Orwell's attitudes.Sayerslle (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Footnotes

There's something wrong with the footnotes around 125-130. Volume 1 of Orwell's complete works is called an age like this and covers the years 1920-1940. Volume 4 is called in front of your nose and covers the years 1945-1950. The footnotes are given as "Volume 1, As I Please, 1945-1950." I don't know the original intent of the editor so I didn't change it, but it seems to me that this ought to be cleared up, or else the footnotes ought to be removed. As it stands these footnotes are nonsense. Carinae986 (talk) 08:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I edited the footnotes several times, and then undid the edits, because removing the first footnote seems to have invalidated the others. If I understand it right, Taylor's book is footntoed about a dozen times, with no specific page reference given? I'm posting this to see if the original contributor can be more specific. Otherwise all of those footnotes really ought to be taken down. Carinae986 (talk) 08:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

There are two major compilations of Orwell: Complete Works (a 20-something volume set published in the last 10 years), and Collected Essays Journalism and Letters (4-volume set published several decades ago). Perhaps that explains the discrepancy? Ben (talk) 15:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I looked into this. It seems that volume 4 of the 20 volume set is "Keep the Apidastra Flying." I don't own the 20 vol. set so I'm going from worldcat. Carinae986 (talk) 21:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

While it is desirable for citations to be as specific as possible, it would be extremely unhelpful for an editor to remove a citation because he/she does not find it specific enough. Wikipedia is a process of constant improvement, something is better than nothing and all editors seek to build on what is already there. It is a good idea for new editors to spend some time getting to undertand Wikipedia and making modest constructive edits before seeking to impose their personal style. Wikipedia is tolerant and there is a Wikipedia guideline Wikipedia:Citing sources which includes reference to "Short Citations". Hope that helps. Motmit (talk) 19:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I reviewed that guideline. I saw the parts that said short cites give "information about the source together with a page number", and also the part that says "Inline citations should additionally give the relevant page number or range of page numbers." Maybe you can guide me to the part you had in mind? I've noticed that it's common for editors to talk about each other's "personal style" when disagreeing with each other, as if it were all a matter of individual preferences. While I realize that most of the contributors are not scholars and don't have any scholarly background, I am, I do, and there are in fact standards. This project can only be helped by adhering to them. Carinae986 (talk) 21:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)