Jump to content

Talk:George Orwell/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

He wasn't anti communist

It says he is under . He was not an anti-communist, he was a communist himself. He was simply anti-stalinist, and opposed to the totalitarian communist governments. His message was against fascism and totalitarianism, but not pure communism itself, which he was an advocate of.

Could you prove it ? I'm sure you can't...--Loudon dodd 16:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

-What do you mean by that? Apparently you don't understand or haven't read Orwell if you deny the fact he was for socialism. You don't have to doubt me you know, it's not required you have to question me by being a jerk.

I am working on the french article about Orwell, and I repeat : you said that Orwell was an "advocate of pure communism" (this is why you have changed the category "english anti-communist" by "english communist", I suppose) : could you prove it by a clear reference to Orwell's writings ? --Loudon dodd 15:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
You cannot seriously refer to Orwell as anti-communist and put him in a list alongside with names like Churchill. Unfortunately, this is a common misconception about Orwell and absolutely ludicrous in my eyes. What you can call him is anti-stalinist or marxist. One cannot promote socialism as Orwell did and be against Communism (as in Marxist theory) - this would be a fundamental contradiction. Stating him under the category Anti-Communist is very misleading. There is no single evidence in the work of Orwell, which suggest that he was an anti-communist. Again, this is a very common misconception of Orwell. Unfortunately, this awkward interpretation is also taught at schools and falsely printed by large and influential publishing houses (guess why :D). I will delete the category. Before someone changes it back, I suggest he or she gives us comprehensible evidence that Orwell was an anti-communist (and please think twice before you claim that 1984 was anti-communist). --CheSudaka
Orwell was not marxist and it is enough to say that he wasn't communist. You can also read in the first volume of the collected Essays the recension of the book Russia under soviet rule (New english weekly, 12/01/1939) where he writes (I only have a french translation) : "Il est probablement heureux pour le renom de Lénine qu'il soit mort si tôt. Trotsky, en exil, dénonce la dictature russe, mais il en porte sans doute autant la responsabilité que tous les hommes actuellement au pouvoir en russie, et rien ne nous dit qu'il se serait mieux comporté que Staline s'il s'était trouvé à sa place."
Owell doesn't use the word "stalinism" in his essays : he uses the word "communist", although he knew the existence of the word "stalinist (see in Hommage to Catalonia, appendice I).
Do what you want with the "anti-communist" category, but arguing that Orwell was communist is pure propaganda.--Loudon dodd 14:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • One cannot promote socialism as Orwell did and be against Communism Nonsense. I'm a socialist and am absolutely opposed to communism, not just Stalinism and Maoism. One can be a democratic socialist without subscribing at all to creaky Marxism. Childe Roland of Gilead 17:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • There is the usual a problem with words here. 'Communist' in Orwell's time probably meant closer to what 'socialist' does now, without the authoritarian, Stalinist connotations. As far as I know, Orwell only ever identified himself as a democratic socialist (or occasionally a "hedonist", which has now come to mean something else entirely). I don't think he should be in either the communist or anti-communist categories, since he didn't identify himself as either (unless he did and I missed it, in which case he should be in whichever category he wants.) Robin Johnson (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Plagarism?

A lot of this page is exactly the same as this page: [1]

The answer is at the bottom of the page : "This Wikipedia article is reprinted here under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License." --Loudon dodd 20:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Short Life?

"He is best known for two novels written towards the end of his short life." I think calling his life "short" is inaccurate; he did reach his 40s.

There is a good flick "Orwell would roll in his grave" about how a few powerful people are attempting to control the public by media. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1925114769515892401

Essays

Wouldn't it be an idea to either list all the essays in this article and drop Essays of George Orwell, or don't list any essays in this article at all? Having two seperate lists seems kind of weird to me... --Neckelmann

I agree, they should be merged. Padraic 16:19, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, but how are they supposed to find about something as crucial to his personality as his esseys on something as natural as the page of himself? Do you propose we LINK to a single article, making all information harder to access simoltanously, just for something as microcosmos-like as a meta-article about one man's essays? I really do disagree with it. Let's keep it within one and same article. Simpler to access.--OleMurder 17:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

All his major essays are in the Penguin Books George Orwell: Essays so I have added this in. Ivankinsman 00:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

List of communists

Is there an online version of Orwell's list of crypto-communists? A google search just brings up reviews of it, not the actual list itself.

It would be very useful for this article to see his views on his peers. I have only been able to see a review of his list at http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16550, not the list itself.

--Naelphin

Not the full list but some pages to help you re-construct it

[2] [3] http://groups.google.com/groups?q=list+dismissed+group:alt.books.george-orwell&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=alt.books.george-orwell&safe=off&selm=bdcf29%243huj%241%40netnews.upenn.edu&rnum=4

The only place I where I know it has been published is in the Guardian 21 July, 2003. The value of including it here is questionable as it is full of people no one has heard of except for a few Chaplin etc. II perhaps should be said that this list was people Orwell thought could not be trusted to produce anti-communist propaganda. Also the fact that Peter Smollett was probably the civil servant that advised Jonathan Cape not to publish Animal Farm is interesting --MeltBanana

I posted the full list here ages ago [4]

Not a socialist

Re: the pertinent point made by Nicholas about Orwell not in fact being anti-socialist when many argue he was. This is plainly not true. Orwell was indeed a socialist the difference being he was a democratic socialist opposed to the totalitarianism/authoritarianism that was apparent in the Eastern European Socialist systems.

It is definitely untrue to say that Orwell wasn't a socialist though as he was a member of the Independent Labour Party, something I have included on the page about him.
--JDH

Changing history

It seems to me that this very site is reminiscient of one aspect of the book 1984. See, the content of this page in particular can always be changed so that I could write here; "We have always been at war with the Klingons", but at a later time someone could come back and change the word "Klingons" to "Romulans." Thus, the truth of who we always have been at war with can easily be erased and changed to suite the needs of the site. However, it is different in that anyone can make the change, not just the Ministry of Truth, and there are not consoles in our walls with cameras watching us... or are there...
--Shaun

How about the Recent Changes list?

That is a good point. Although things can be changed, we are able to look at what has been changed, when, and by whom. Still, I think that this site is a great experiment. --Shaun

ps: I learn how to edit web pages while having fun... isn't the internet great?

The Recent Changes list is not as good a way to track changes as you might think.

In wikipedia, history of the article's edition can be easily buried by renaming the article with a different case e.g. From 'Muslim Language' to 'Muslim language' or simply do a redirect, all the history just disappears. The history of the articles also periodically get truncated, so if one floods the history with enough editions, one's tracks of altering the 'truth' can be erased. Another trick is to justify the paragraphs differently from time to time so that the diff will show overwhelming differences that are actually not changes. Others will not be able to spot one word change amongst hundred of lines of fake changes.

I guess the only safeguard is that sooner or later an expert would review the article from scratch. However, not all the experts have the time to review the article over and over again.

Then again, Wikipedia does not have a monopoly on information. The Party of Nineteen Eighty-Four does; that's the point. --Sam

"You have nothing to lose but your aitches"

What is this 'aitches' thing ? --Taw

Guessing here. The england of George Orwell was, and no doubt is, a very class conscious place. Enunciation can be a dead giveaway to anyone who would like to obscure their less than than stellar (class-wise) orgins. It's the kind of thing that you'll want to change to get that upward mobility thing happening. Or so the general perception goes. 'aitches' is referring to the h given the right pronunciation, cockney for example. Preoccupation with this enunciation/class thing is referred to in many english comedy shows ie monty python or fawlty towers, so check em out.

It's called "dropping your aitches".

Lower class (And by extension, ill-educated) people in the UK are often characterized (with some justification) as dropping their aitches, i.e. leaving the letter 'h' off the beginning of words. So they would say 'urricane instead of hurricane, or 'appen instead of happen. This was further extended (with less justification) to cover these people trying to sound upper class by over compensating and adding more aitches, for example referring to 'a haccident' Verloren -

Books critical of socialism

Both of these books are often represented as being critical of Socialism per se, which is only credible whilst in ignorance of Orwell's own opinions.

Would anyone care to substantiate this statement? My own reading of Animal Farm and 1984 convinces me that "socialism" (the Marxist type) is inevitably and inherently corrupt and unworkable. Please add evidence to the contrary into the article, or give a citation for who says Orwell's alleged criticism of socialism is "only credible whilst in ignorance of Orwell's own opinions." Ed Poor

Notice the "he or she" below: a classic example of real-life Newspeak.

Well, once an author publishes a book he or shee looses control over it, and people are right to read it isa they wish. Personally, I don't read these two books the way Ed Poor did -- I think that they are both cynical, and especially cynical about the concentration of power in the hands of the State in general, and about the emerging "Welfare States" in England and the US after WWII and Stalinism. But I don't see them as knocking "socialism" in general, or all possible forms of socialism. Indeed, I think as an allegory 1984 is pretty harsh towards capitalism. Also, as I recall (it's been a while) I thought Snowball was the hero, and perhaps metaphorically Orwell was supporting Trotsky's version of communism against Stalin (Napoleon).
In any event, there are many ways to read a particular book. The danger lies in infering the intent of the author. And I think that is the point of this passage -- that it is a mistake to infer from the books that Orwell himself was against socialism. SR
It is hard to image why Orwell, who was a socialist, would write a book that was a polemic against socialism. "Animal Farm" was a critique of the totalitarian nature of the Russian Revolution, and how the revolution betrayed its socialist ideals. The fact that he considered those ideals to have been betrayed sort of presupposes that he held those ideals in the first place. I suppose it is possible that Orwell changed his views after the Spanish Civil War, but in his book "Homage to Catalonia" he makes clear both his socialist views and his opposition to the ideology of the Soviet Union.--Egern
How's this for substantiating the statement: Anyone reading any of Orwell's published essays (which make up the majority of words he published during his lifetime) can't help but notice Orwell stating such suggestive things as "I am a Socialist". His political views were very well and clearly articulated, and it requires denying or ignoring his own statements about what those views are to deny that he was a Socialist. That said, he never shied away from pointing out the problems within certain parts of the broad socialist movement, most especially including Stalinism. The two books he is best known for are either criticisms of Soviet Communism as a betrayal of socialist ideals and common decency, or a simple reductio ad adsurdam of totalitarian society of any form. Both of these can be interpreted as condemnations of certain political movements that non-socialists associate with socialism (i.e. Russian or Maoist Communism), but they are certainly not condemnations of socialism per se. There's plenty of evidence that 1984 was mostly inspired by Orwell's experience as a WW2 propagandist for the BBC, which certainly wasn't Socialist in any recognizable sense of the word at the time. Certainly his criticism of totalitarianism can be applied to non-socialist ideologies (such as fascism), as his preface suggests by mentioning that for American audiences, "Ingsoc" could be replaced by "100% Americanism" or some such phrase. -Ben Brumfield

Regarding Orwell's works being against Socialism:

"The Spanish war and other events in 1936-37 turned the scale and thereafter I knew where I stood. Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it." [Excerpt taken from the essay "Why I Write" written by Orwell in 1936.]

I have added this citation to the article as there exists an endless polemic about Orwell being anti-socialist, when the man plainly speaks of his politics as being Socialist. You can read the essay I cited for yourselves at http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/897/ -Nicholas

Essays, location of

Should the essays be at George Orwell/essay name, essay name or essay name (essay)? -- Tzartzam

Simply essay name if there is nothing else with that name. If there is something else, then it would be essay name (essay), but I can't think of any examples where that would be required. --Camembert

Wife and son

Shouldent this article mention that Orwell had a wife who died young, and the fact that he had a son, it seems rather odd to leave these things out G-Man 22:12 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I'll do that now if it hasn't been included already--Acebrock 20:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I have added a section 'Personal Life' as I found the article very dry i.e. just about his works. Having read Bernard Crick's excellent biography, I wanted to include some interesting personal information about Orwell as a man, and his personal ambitions. I hope that what I have written tries to achieve this. Ivankinsman 23:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Orwell and Burnham

Both this page at the James Burnham page contain the claim that Burnham's 1941 book The Managerial Revolution 'was a major influence on the development of' or 'which heavily influenced' Orwell's 1984. Certainly Orwell paid close attention to this book at the time of its release, and the book was mentioned several times subsequently in his later journalism, but I seriously doubt it was more than one influence among many; Darkness at Noon is surely a much more important influence. It is very much to the point that Orwell largely disagreed with Burnham's belief in the inevitability of totalitarianism.

I'd like to know what the basis for these claims are, and if there are none I propose we rewrite these sections.---- Charles Stewart 12:37, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You can read Orwell's review of the Managerial Revolution, which is an outstanding essay in its own right. It's a negative review: he claims that Burnham is "hypnotized" by the sight of Stalin's absolute dictatorship and that he takes perverse pleasure in predicting the final triumph of ruthless power over freedom (I think he also accuses Burnham of "reverse sentimentality" in this regard). It's therefore very interesting that, after attacking the book, Orwell wrote a novel which basically borrows that book's vision of the future: a world divided into three superpowers, constantly at war, each ruled despotically by a small group of technocrats (what Burnham had called the "managerial class"). A number of critics have also pointed out that in 1984, the passages quoted from Emmanuel Goldstein's Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism make it sound very similar to Managerial Revolution. ---- 12:18 Eb.hoop 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It's therefore very interesting that, after attacking the book, Orwell wrote a novel which basically borrows that book's vision of the future
Are you aware of Yevgeny Zamyatin's 1922 novel 'We' (which Orwell acknowledged as an influence on 1984)? Burnham was very far from being the first person to imagine the triumph of totalitarianism. ---- Charles Stewart 20:07, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:::I haven't read We, though I have seen some mention of it in Orwell's letters.  It does seem likely to me, however, that Burnham was a more important literary influence.  Orwell strongly disagreed with Burnham, but he was fascinated and horrified by his dramatic vision of the triumph of totalitarianism.  The three world superstates in 1984, their eternal and pointless war, and the language of Goldstein's book when it declares that the pursuit of power is an end in itself, are highly Burnhamesque.
This quote from Burnham appears in Orwell's 1947 long review of another of Burnham's book, The Struggle for the World: "The Moscow Show Trials revealed what has always been true of the Communist morality: that it is not merely the material possessions or the life of the individual which must be subordinated, but his reputation, his conscience, his honour, his dignity. He must lie and grovel, cheat and inform and betray, for Communism, as well as die. There is no restraint, no limit."
I can clearly see how this nightmarish vision of Burnham's fascinated and horrified Orwell, and how it informed his conception of 1984 (a novel in which, after all, totalitarianism does triumph) even though Orwell argues in his reviews, quite convincingly, that Burnham was not right in his assessments, and that he was prone to wild overstatement. -- Eb.hoop 9:36 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Orwell and the Occult

I removed the following section, labelled "interest in the Occult" because it seemed like a long digressive anecdote, interesting in a book-length bio but not appropriate to a concise encyclopedia entry, where it was nearly as long as the section on "Orwell's work":


"Orwell consistently declared that he was an atheist from adolescence. In his works he rarely mentions the occult, and when he does it is usually to mock the belief in it (see, for instance, the passage in the novel Coming Up for Air in which a professional medium accidentally drops a piece of cheesecloth concealed in his pants; also, Orwell's linking of occult belief with aristocracy and Fascism in the 1943 Horizon review of W. B. Yeats). However, there are indications that the young Eric Blair had a keen concern for the supernatural. Inside George Orwell, a biography written by Gordon Bowker and published in 2003 (ISBN 031223841X), cites a letter written on his deathbed by Sir Steven Runciman, a medieval historian who was Orwell's friend at Eton. The letter indicates that Orwell became interested in voodoo after reading the Ingoldsby Legends by R.H. Barham, which describe killing by black magic.


Runciman and Orwell used a wax image to harm an older boy whom they "disliked for being unkind to his juniors". Runciman says that Orwell "wanted to stick a pin into the heart of our image, but that frightened me, so we compromised by breaking off his right leg – and he did break his leg a few days later playing football and he died young." The book however claims that Orwell confided in a few friends that his adoption of a pen name was intended to prevent his enemies from using his real name to work magic against him. Bowker also claims that Orwell was troubled by visions of his death and that he experienced ghost sightings throughout his life, all of which conflict with the rationalism usually associated with Orwell."

(moved from 'Verify' section) There is also evidence in Eric & Us by Jacintha Buddicom, which Bowker uses with insight and clarity, that Eric's great teenage passion Jacintha had, through her Mother's hobby, greatly influenced Eric Blair's youthful interest in spiritualism. As he grew older he became, however, further impressed by the darker aspects, practiced by people like Aleister Crowley et al. J. Buddicom's book is much more enlightening, concerning influences in his youth, than any other publication and is the only root source of information about those early years. It is really surprising that she is not more often read. Gordon Bowker seems to be the only biographer of Orwell who has interpreted the deceptive simplicity of her book and read between the lines. Eric Blair's poems 'Our Minds are Married'.. and 'The Pagan' were written to Jacintha Buddicom.[User. D. Venables 12.September 2006]

Verify

The trivia section of George Orwell needs verification. --Nzo 23:23, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

What's contested? The cold war attribution? ---- Charles Stewart 11:55, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Problem

This article should not be a redirect from "Eric Blair" because this man WAS Eric Blair who took on the pen name of George Orwell. However, for most of his life he was Eric Blair. At the BBC he was Eric Blair, only in books was he George Orwell. This mistake should be corrected so that the article is about Eric Blair who wrote under the name of George Orwell, not about George Orwell who was really Eric Blair! There should be an entry covering the works of George Orwell and an entry for the life (biography) of Eric Blair. MPLX/MH 04:56, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. Orwell went under both names -- throughout his life, his friends who knew him from before the mid-thirties called him Eric. Those who knew him through literature (including letters) knew him as Orwell. As I remember, he would sign his letters "Eric" or "George", depending on who they were addressed to, and how the recipient knew him conversationally. If there's already a standard for Dr. Seuss, Mark Twain, and George Elliot, we should follow it. But if we're naming the article ex nihilo, I think Orwell is more appropriate than Blair, since that name reflects the most common usage. Regardless, it's not the most pressing thing to be worrying about. -Ben 05:48, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Looks like Mary Ann Evans redirects to George Eliot, Samuel Clemens redirects to Mark Twain, and Theodor Geisel redirects to Dr. Seuss. -Ben 05:52, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I concur with Ben. The public figure is known as Orwell, and standard practice in wikipedia (as Ben's examples make clear) is to list people by the names which they are best known. This is also standard practice in most printed reference books. When there is a "dual" identity, as in the case of Orwell/Blair, it is easy enough to make that clear in the article. I don't think this is a problem at all. --BTfromLA 07:14, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Also, his widow went by the name "Sonia Orwell". Fumblebruschi 19:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Similarily his membership of the NUJ was under his pen name.

Regarding one of his works.

The article states "Orwell denies that Animal Farm is a reference to Stalinism".

Why, then, does the rest of the article repeatedly refer to Animal Farm as "his anti-Stalinist work"?

It's fine to state, as the article does in one place, that many consider it to be anti-Stalinist, but it's stupid to repeatedly state it as a fact, as though Orwell positively confirmed this theory. On the contrary, he denied it. What could he possibly have gained by lying about it?

172.215.26.98 02:15, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea how that sentence got into this article. Orwell in his writings clearly says that he wrote Animal Farm based on the Russian revolution, and it's hard to think that anyone who has read the story would not take it as being anti-Stalin, since it should be fairly obvious that the character Napoleon is based on Stalin. --DannyWilde 14:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
I certainly recall reading that Orwell somewhere denied that the fable os solely an allegory of the Russian revolution. That's very far from saying that it can't properly be read (non-exclusively) as being just that. The character Napoleon, as you say, was in a sense Stalin. But the character Napoleon (the pig) was also, as legitimately ... Napoleon (Bonaparte). --Christofurio 22:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Is it a joke or are you serious? --DannyWilde 08:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

"And yes he was gay?"

Is this really necessary this far up?

Probably not, but what if he was gay? Then it's an important piece of his persona.--OleMurder 17:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like vandalism. Please revert such edits ASAP. Drutt 12:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely no evidence that he was gay ... what idiot wrote this? Please refrain from writing such rubbish.Ivankinsman 13:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Influences

I have heard George Gissing cited as an influence on Orwell and I myself see some influence from Zola. Any comments?


On the subject of whether or not George Orwell was gay; when he was Eric Blair he went along the path that most children at boarding school travel. Your hormones are on the move and you don't at first know how to cope with them and so you get crushes on other pupils until you learn to understand yourself and your feelings better. Eric Blair was clearly no different to anyone else while he was at Eton. I have yet to unearth any clear evidence that he was gay, beyond him admitting to Cyril Connelly that he fancied a friend of his. It would not have been out of character if that is the road down which he chose to go because he went his own way from earliest childhood. However, if his inclination had been developing along those lines, I do not understand why he did not fall in love with his blond and charming friend Prosper Buddicom, his closest male friend during the school holidays from the age of eleven until he went to Burma at nineteen. Instead, from that early age he became completely attached to Prosper's diminutive but highly intelligent sister Jacintha, for whom he later wrote the two poems 'Our Minds are Married...' and 'The Pagan'. Jacintha and Eric were inseparable companions, two very young but brilliant minds growing and maturing together. It was a blow to Eric when he declared his feelings to Jacintha - and she gently rebuffed him, saying that she had no physical feelings for his person, but absolute unity with his mind. He went off to Burma and lost his virginity at the earliest opportunity to various small and delicate Burmese girls, whose bodies were very similar to Jacintha's. Later in life, he may well have had partners from both sexes but I cannot so far find the evidence for this. Maybe someone else is better informed? Dione 12 September 2006

In his collected essays, Orwell takes digs at the Catholic writers : Greene, Chesterton and Waugh included. It's not clear to me what his case is against this group (I think he calls it a "mafia" at one point) as it goes beyond the natural antagonism of a socialist to the Church. In particular, his reviews of Greene's novels are less than kind. It's funny they're listed here as influences. Does anyone have an insight on this?

Recording?

Where is the proof that a recording of Orwell speaking was found in 2002 (as mentioned in the Trivia section)? It is important, as this is the only place that I've managed to find it cited. And, if there is such a recording, I hope we can get a link to it on here. Snap Davies 13:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

D.J. Taylor in his biography of Orwell (2003) states: "there is no extant recording of Orwell's voice" (page 235). In the same section, Taylor analyses the (so far) non-existence of moving film of Orwell. Sjeraj 21:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Image

User:Husky kindly provided the fairuse Image:Orwell cover.jpg to replace the deleted Image:George-orwell.jpg. I wonder, though, is this the best we can do? It's rather jarring to have a large promotional image as the main image for this page: surely there is something better we can find? --- Charles Stewart 00:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

his book animal farm is good

the book animal farm is the best and the preface was also informative.

okay, first of all, sign your post. More importantly, though, this is irrelevant. We are not reviewing his books, we are trying to improve the article. If you want to review books, go to amazon.com or something. (Wikifan999 05:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC))

pics of orwell

We really need an image of george orwell!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adjam (talk • contribs) 16:08, 27 January 2006.

There's an image here on a page licensed under the Creative Commons ShareAlike 2.1 liscense. I doubt that the liscense includes the photograph, though. --TantalumTelluride 20:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
We've already tried many things, but it seems very difficult to get a proper picture of Orwell. Book covers are not allowed because the article is not about the book, and virtually all the pictures never went out as a 'press kit', thus making it impossible to use an image under fair use. Ideally, we would have a portrait of Orwell photographed by someone who died before 1936 (which would be in the public domain), but well, who could have such (rather detailed) information about Orwell portraits? Husky (talk page) 00:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I have added an image of Orwell found on a site that attributes it as 'copyleft', however if there is any subsequent doubt over its copyright status then I can always upload a smaller lower quality version under 'fair use' Ian Dunster 13:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

the name "George Orwell"

Don't know if other fans have read "Dr. Orwell and Mr. Blair" by David Caute. Caute writes about Blair as a fictional character as a way of exploring him biographically without having to have the estate authorize a biography. I've got the book packed away somewhere so I'm writing this from memory, but I seem to recall that Caute's fictional Blair says that he chose the nom de plume "George" because he preferred the regency of King George VI (or maybe George V?) to King Edward VIII. It's an interesting book, although I can't judge how tight Caute's scholarship is. Any thoughts? KWH 03:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't say for sure if this is true or not, but it would seem unlikely since Orwell - at least in his published writings - said almost nothing about the British royalty and instead focused his attention on parlaiment. Tyler 14:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Six greatest books

The article says, ... Gulliver's Travels, which he rated as one of the six greatest books ever written. What were the other five? How about a reference to the book/article where the list appeared, too. It's interesting to know what Orwell considered great literature, since he himself has been so influential. 207.174.201.18 03:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't specifically know his other 5, but in his short essay, "Bookshop Memories" (1936) he talks about his work in a second-hand bookshop, and mentions a number of authors when describing "great" literature, Priestley, Hemingway, Walpole and Wodehouse, among many. He doesn't specifically mention whether or not these were his favorites or if these were simply popular authors of the time, but it's a start, I suppose. [5]

No such list exists. Orwell said, in "Politics vs. Literature: An Examination of Gulliver's Travels (1946) that "If I had to make a list of six books which were to be preserved when all others were destroyed, I would certainly put Gulliver's Travels among them." But he never did actually make such a list. Fumblebruschi 18:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a reference

"In his last years, Orwell was, unlike several of his comrades around Tribune, a fierce opponent of the creation of the state of Israel. He was also an early proponent of a federal Europe."

Is there a reference for this?

I have inserted two requests for citations. In future, you can do this by using the code [citation needed], which generates the relevant superscript. I hope this is of assistance. BrainyBabe 14:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


I've given references for both and link for one.Paulanderson 17:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


Missing section?

In the article it says: "Orwell died in London at the age of 46 from tuberculosis, which he had probably contracted during the period described in Down and Out in Paris and London." That section doesn't exist (but it did, maybe). Maybe the sentence could be rewritten. --Joanberenguer 14:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

That's not a section, it's one of Orwell's books. Robin Johnson 14:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Napoleon and Stalin

I think it wrong to describe Animal Farm as specifically anti-Stalinist in intent. It is an allegory, obviously based on events in Russia, which describes the steady corruption of an ideal, proceeding little by little virtually from the outset. Napoleon/Stalin merely accelerates the whole depressing process. I do not believe that Orwell would have accepted that things would have been any different if Snowball/Trotsky had been in control. Rcpaterson 03:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree - and certainly "anti-Stalinist allegory" is better than "political allegory". Animal Farm is definitely anti-Stalinist whatever else it might be. And there's plenty of evidence in his other writings that Orwell didn't think the Russian revolution foredoomed. My best guess is that he saw the suppression of the Kronstadt revolt in 1921 as the point the rot set in, but he was not unsympathetic towards Trotskyism (and indeed was strongly influenced by it). Which is not to say that he thought Trotsky rather than Stalin running the Soviet Union would have been a panacea. But to claim Animal Farm is "anti-Leninist" or "anti-revolutionary" is to go too far. "Anti-Stalinist" is as good a short description as there can be. Paulanderson 08:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It is anti-communist. As I have said elsewhere, turning it into an argument solely against Stalinism risks turning it into an argument in favour of Trotskyism. In truth, the one is as repellant as the other; and both are as repellant as the Leninist home from which they emerged. The policies which brought so much misery to the Russian people in the 1930s were the very policies Trotsky and his crew were arguing for in the 1920s. I have to say your knowledge of Orwell's writing is clearly deeper than my own. I thought I had read most of his political essays and journalism, but I have never come across any direct sympathy for Trotsky or Trotskyism. I do know that he used The Revolution Betrayed as the basis for Goldstein's The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism, which I though was the full extent of Trotsky's 'influence'. Beyond that nothing more. I would be pleased to have your specific references. Rcpaterson 22:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The danger here is of imposing our own ideas on Orwell and of thinking of Orwell's ideas as fixed when in fact they changed over time. I certainly wouldn't deny that Animal Farm is broadly speaking anti-communist, and there is no way that it's a ringing endorsement of Trotskyism. But Orwell had been very much involved in the 1930s in a political milieu - the Independent Labour Party in the UK and the POUM in Spain - in which Trotskyism was an important current, and Trotskyist ideas had a significant influence on his own thinking. The best source on this is John Newsinger's Orwell's Politics, published in 2000 by Macmillan. Newsinger also makes the point that the Goldstein book in Nineteen Eighty-Four owes rather more to the former Trotskyist James Burnham than it does to The Revolution Betrayed, incidentally.Paulanderson 21:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I would most certainly never wish to, or intend to, impose my 'own ideas' on Orwell, and I am very well aware that his thinking changed over time. There was, neverthless, something remarkably consistent about his socialism, which made it free from the intellectual perversions of 'smelly little orthodoxies' like Leninism, Stalinism or Trotskyism, and as English as muffins and cream teas. I have not read the book you mention; but I would always seek to consult Orwell on his politics, and not what someone else thought of his politics. It is arrant nonsense to say that he was influenced in any way by Trotskyism. I am sorry to be so direct, but I would ask you to consider the following by way of example;

It is probably a good thing for Lenin's reputation that he died so early. Trotsky, in exile, denounces the Russian dictatorship, but he is probably as much responsible for it as any man now living, and there is no certainty that as a dictator he would be preferable to Stalin. New English Weekly, 12 January 1939

...this is an easier opinion to swallow than the usual Trotskyist claim that Stalin is a mere crook who has perverted the Revolution to his own ends, and that things would somehow have been different if Lenin had lived or Trotsky had remined in power. Actually there is no strong reason for thinking that the main lines of development would have been very different. James Burnham and the Managerial Revolution

The fact that Trotskyists are everywhere a persecuted minority, and that the accusation usually made against them, i.e. of collaborating with the Fascists, is absolutely false, creates an impression that Trotskyism is intellectually and morally superior to communism; but it is doubtful whether there is much diffference. Notes on Nationalism, Polemic, October 1945

I think, perhaps, you are not closely acquainted with the politics and history of the ILP? I am quite prepared to admit that it contained any number of Trotskyite varieties in its ranks in the 1930s; but they would have found themselves heavily outnumbered by the Christian Socialists, Fabians and other men of independent mind, like George Orwell. As for Orwell's involvement with the POUM, I would ask you to consider the following;

I was associated with the Trotskyists in Spain. It was chance that I was serving in the POUM militia and not another, and I largely disagreed with the POUM "line" and told its leaders so freely... Pacifism and the War, Partisan Review, Ssptember-October 1942

I do not doubt your sincerity, but I do think you have been misled about Orwell's whole approach to the great political questions of his day. Can I take it that you are the principal-or originating-author of this item on Orwell? It is generally a fair and balanced piece of writing; but I would ask you, once again, to reconsider your views on the alleged Trotskyist influence, and to see Animal Farm for what it truly is-a critique of political corruption and moral perversion; a critique, in other words, of communism in its entirety and not just Stalinism. I am sure we both share-like Orwell-a simple commitment to the truth Rcpaterson 00:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is better to go to Orwell rather than his interpreters. But, briefly, because I'm tired, on one hand I don't think that acknowledging the influence of Trotskyism on Orwell is in any way to claim that he was a Trotskyist; and on the other I don't think that Orwell quite gave up on Lenin, even though his revolutionary socialist proclivities were much more libertarian. I'll give chapter and verse on this some time, but my hunch is that Orwell remained until his death a socialist who would have liked a revolution in which the working class seized power and the red militias occupied the Ritz but in the absence of any such possibility supported Attlee's Labour government.Paulanderson 00:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


For Orwell's socialist manifesto you could do no better than refer to The Lion and the Unicorn, his wartime essay, where, amongst other things, he tells us;

A Socialist movement which can swing the mass of the people behind it, drive the pro-Fascists out of positions of control, wipe out the grosser injustices and let the working class see that they have something to fight for, win over the middle classes instead of antagonising them, produce a workable imperial policy instead of a mixture of humbug and Utopianism, bring patriotism and intelligence into partnership-for the first time, a movement of such a kind becomes possible.

I think we know just exactly what Lenin and Trotsky would have made of that!

I'm puzzled-you do not seem to be grasping the essential point that I am trying to make: Orwell's socialism was from the outset based on a uniquely English set of ideas and assumptions, echoed very much in the above; ideas that would have been familiar to Godwin and Morris. Marxism, and the fifty-seven varieties of intellectual corruption that it spawned, is completely alien to this tradition, founded, as it is, on tolerance and good sense, and a distrust of abstract intellectual games. Consider this;

The various other Marxist parties, all of them claiming to be the true and uncorrupted successors of Lenin, are in an even more hopeless position. The average Englishman is unable to grasp their doctrines and uninterested in their grievances. And in England the lack of the conspiratorial mentality which has been developed in police-ridden European countries is a great handicap. English people in large numbers will not accept any creed whose dominant notes are hatred and illegality. The ruthless ideologies of the Continent-not merely Communism and Fascism, but Anarchism, Trotskyism, and even ultramontane Catholicism-are accepted in their pure form only by the intelligentsia, who constitute a sort of island bigotry amid the general vagueness. The English People

I'm clearly in danger of pushing you into a corner, if you are not already there. But please do not let your commitment to the silly nonsense that Orwell was 'influenced' by Trotskyism blind you to the simple truth of the matter. For me this suggestion entails the kind of corruption of ideas that Orwell spent so much time fighting against. But we are getting far away from my original point, which is that Animal Farm has a much wider resonance than the anti-Stalinist label you have given it. I have not attempted to reintroduce my more neutral rewording, and I absolutely refuse to resort to puerile editing wars I have seen elsewhere in these pages, but I think we need to reach an amicable compromise on this matter in the near future. For the sake of truth, and for that alone. Rcpaterson 02:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not budging! I simply don't accept that Orwell's socialism rested upon "uniquely English" ideas or that Marxism was "alien" to the socialist tradition to which he belonged. I don't think ideas have nationalities, and there has been a small Marxist current (or rather a number of small Marxist currents) in British socialism since the days of Marx. Of course Orwell was influenced by many English writers and by English people and customs. He certainly had little but contempt for the English left intelligentsia that had only hatred for anything English and who took their politics from Moscow and cooking from Paris. But there's a lot less evidence that he took Godwin or Morris seriously than there is of his critical engagement with Trotskyism and other varieties of dissident Marxism. And for all his enthusiasm for England and the English, he was also a great proponent of American and continental modernist writers, an anti-imperialist and for a while at least a European federalist.Paulanderson 09:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, Mr Anderson. I thought I was dealing with an adult here, but sadly not. I've countered your arguments and misconceptions one by one with direct quotations from Orwell, and all you have been able to do is fall back on generalities and platitudes; and as a last defence you have encased yourself in stubborn dogmatism and blind preconceptions. You clearly know very little about George Orwell, his work or the cultural and political milieu in which he operated; and it is obvious that your opinions have been derived, in large measure, from second-hand sources. You have been unable to produce any evidence at all that Orwell was influenced by Trotskyism. Your insistence that it is the case will simply not do. It is regrettable you have allowed your vanity to prevent a proper understanding of what I have been trying to say to you over the past few days, and even to maintain an argument in the face of clear evidence to the contrary. It has become increasingly obvious to me in the brief period that I have been involved in Wikipedia, that its chief weakness is that there are too many editors of your calibre-autodidakts with only the loosest understanding of the subject in question, and for whom ignorance of a topic is no obstacle to authority. I am sorry if you think these comments harsh; but I have no patience with any argument that ends in a childish insistence that 'it is so' and nothing else. I leave all of my above comments for those with eyes to see and minds to understand. My own involvement with this page is at an end. Rcpaterson 23:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


Your decision is your own, but the reason I've not been quoting large passages of Orwell here is simply that I've been too busy - among other things editing a collection of Orwell's journalism in Tribune. Please quit the casual abuse.Paulanderson 01:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear, dear, dear, Mr Anderson; can't you even tell the difference between trenchant criticism and 'casual abuse'? Abuse is gratuitous. You opened yourself to everything I said above by your inability to counter the points I was puting to you in the gentlest way I could think of. I can assure you I am just as busy as you; but once I undertake an argument I make sure I master my brief. For you to try to hide behind your alleged work on Orwell seems to me to make the position considerably worse: one would have to assume a detailed insight, which in your case clearly is not there. Moreover, to be working for Tribune and yet believe, as you do, that Trotskyism was an 'important current' in the ILP quite frankly beggers belief. Again I apologise if you think this harsh; but I have always taken a direct approach in these matters: and I believe in intellectual honesty, regardless of the cost in wounded feelings. Rcpaterson 07:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


Sorry, but it really would take more time than I have at present to trawl through the Collected Works to give chapter and verse. I shall do so as soon as I have a spare day. In the meantime, there are two secondary works online that are of background relevance: Peter Sedgwick's essay in International Socialism in 1969 on Orwell's relationship to the ILP in the early to mid 1930s [6] and Martin Upham's unpublished thesis on Trotskyism in Britain before 1949 [7].

Should we not link "Orwell" direct to here and leave a disamb page?

Orwell/Blair

Would it not be better to refer to the man as Blair through the whole article, instead of changing between Blair and Orwell?

IRD list

I noticed that the list is mentioned in the article...but there is no mention made of one of the most controversial aspects, which is Orwell's annotations, which included (erroneous) speculations on Chaplin's Jewishness, and a note to the effect that Paul Robeson was "anti-white". Should some mention of this controversy be included? A discussion of it is included here: [8] 69.209.218.60 20:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


In fact the list Orwell gave to Celia Kirwan who was working for IRD did not speculate on whether Chaplin was Jewish and does not include Paul Robeson at all. The comments on Chaplin and Robeson appear in a notebook Orwell kept for his own use listing people he thought were soft on the Soviet Union or fellow-travellers. What his comments in the notebook mean can only be a matter for speculation and should not, I think, be gone into here: if you want, set up a separate page on 'Orwell's lists of supposed communist sympathisers'. The only comment on Chaplin in the IRD list, incidentally, is "Films?" Paulanderson 21:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


Requesting article "Tribunite"

Does anyone feel able to create a stub on Tribunite (sub-set of the mid-20th century British Left)?
The only sources I have are

http://www.allwords.com/word-Tribunite.html

(and other pages with identical text)

and this from Guardian

http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,6109,1530801,00.html

"According to his biographer, Professor Bernard Crick, Orwell saw himself as a Tribunite socialist whose experiences in the Spanish civil war had left him sharply disillusioned with Soviet communism."

--201.50.123.251 12:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Orwell and Connolly

I am a little mystified that Connolly is presented--unless I'm overlooking some possible alternate reading--as an example of a leading intellectual that Orwell became friends with at Eton. Their earlier friendship at St. Cyprian's, though intermittent, is possibly the most famous in 20th-century English literature. Can someone perhaps rewrite the Eton paragraph, substituting a more appropriate figure? --Cosh 3:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I never met George Orwell ...... but I knew Eric Blair very well indeed

These are the words of Jacintha Buddicom, a close friend to Eric Blair during his formative years and someone who probably had a greater influence on the man to be than any of us realise. Her memories are the only primary source of biographical material from when he was 11 until aged 19; arguably the most tractable years of his intellectual development. A source that has been largely overlooked by the academic community, for reasons unknown, many of whom seem to favour speculation over documented fact. Her story and Eric Blair's contained in the book “Eric & Us” is being re-released this year and deserve closer scrutiny. Below is a summary of that account for your consideration.

Jacintha May Buddicom was born in Plymouth (England) in May 1901, the eldest of three children. Jacintha’s parents, Robert and Laura Buddicom (nee Finlay) moved to Shiplake-on -Thames when she was still a baby and her brother Prosper (July 1904) and sister Guinever (1907) were born at Quarry House, Shiplake, their home for many years. Jacintha was at Oxford High School when, in 1914, the three Buddicom children met and became inseparable from the two younger children of Richard and Ida Blair whose garden bordered their own. In 1914 Eric Blair was eleven and attending St. Cyprian’s, Eastbourne, a boys’ preparatory school. Avril, his younger sister was then six, a few months younger than Guiny Buddicom and they quickly became friends. Eric found in Jacintha (13) and Prosper (11) two completely different personalities, both of whom were very much to his liking. Young Prosper was a charming and outgoing boy, very keen on sporting activities and wild life while Jacintha, tiny and fine-boned in stature and already an attractive child immediately appealed, both because of her doll-like size (he was unusually tall for his age even then) and, even more, for the unusual depth of her passion for books and learning. Eric Blair was a brilliant child, winning scholarships without much effort and his hunger for facts and all things weird and controversial began in early life. He discovered an identical outlook in Jacintha and their teenage years were spent in reading, debating, exploring the unknown together.

The Buddicoms spent some part of every school holidays with their paternal grandparents. A.E. Housman was a popular read at Ticklerton and the children eventually were able to recite most of A Shropshire Lad by heart. Eric, accompanying his friends on these visits, learned to do the same. Old Mr Buddicom enjoyed the benefit of a library of priceless books, collected by his father, which the children were encouraged to read and were a fount of endless pleasure to both Jacintha and Eric. The first time Eric stayed at Ticklerton he was offered a gun and invited to shoot with Prosper and Ted Hall who was in charge of the Ticklerton estate. Eric, by then 14 and already a member of his school cadets and therefore familiar with firearms, acquitted himself very well by shooting a rabbit with his second shot. Thereafter, he and Prosper shot regularly around the estate, a pastime he seemed very much to enjoy. At this same time (August 1917) Lilian Buddicom, the children’s aunt who lived with her widowed father and ran the Estate, noted in a letter to Laura that Eric had a bad cough and he had told her that it was chronic.

When Jacintha joined the boys at Ticklerton Eric was not so keen to shoot and Prosper would become annoyed that his sister was affecting Eric’s concentration. For there was no escaping the fact that Eric and Jacintha were wrapped up in each other. They never stopped talking unless they were reading, they would go for long walks in order to have the privacy to argue, throw conundrums at each other, create and recite poetry. What Jacintha did not truly appreciate was that her tall parfit gentil knight had, since he was eleven years old, been gradually falling in love with her. They were so comfortable together. They explored each others’ minds with such intimacy, they charmed each other with the excellence of their prose, their ideas, their agreements – but although she could see his devotion and felt safe and cherished within it, she was not ready for her own reactions when he began to tell her of his feelings. One perfect evening in September 1918 after they had been collecting mushrooms in the fields beside Harpsden woods, they sat down in the warm grass to watch the sunset and discuss the subject that was close to their hearts – going on to Oxford. By that time Jacintha (17) was at Oxford High School for Girls and Eric (15) was at Eton. They had also been discussing religions and Jacintha, very much her mother’s daughter, declared that she liked parts of many religions but did not approve of any single one. They were in complete agreement on this subject and went on to discuss the benefits or drawbacks of organised sports – with which Jacintha thoroughly disagreed. She never did try her hand at anything more energetic than walking! Later that day Eric gave her a sheet of pale blue notepaper on which was written in his tidiest hand a poem entitled ‘The Pagan’. It was his first love poem. It remained so precious to him that he still had the rough copy of it when he died. It is now in the Orwell Archive. Jacintha received this treasure with pleasure and discomfort, as it was the first love poem that she also had ever received. She covered her embarrassment by dropping him a little note to thank him and suggesting that a word or two be changed – which he did. That special moment out mushrooming in the warm September fields would stay with both of them always. Eric wrote another poem to Jacintha that winter, during the 1918 Christmas holidays which he and Avril were spending with the Buddicoms and again Jacintha says that it was one of those cameo moments that forever stay in the memory. I won’t describe it here because she describes it so much better herself in Eric & Us. But the poem was his second love poem, which he also kept all his life. It was ‘ Our Minds are Married......’ In Jacintha’s book, another of their Shiplake friends, the artist and writer Edward Ardizzone has drawn a frontispiece for the book and it is the scene of the two younger children and Prosper sitting and reading by the fire, and Jacintha and Eric, heads bent over their books – and writing paper, engrossed in their winter afternoon comfort. The title of the picture has borrowed the last two lines from that poem – “

We shall remember, when our hair is white,
These clouded days revealed in radiant light

Jacintha left school the following year and spent more time travelling between Bournemouth and Shropshire. Grandfather Buddicom at Ticklerton.was coming to the end of his days and her aunt Lilian, with her fine mind and wealth of botanical knowledge, was always the very best companion for a young girl who had at last been allowed to put her hair up (18) and was about to be launched on her first set of Hunt Balls. She was expected to enjoy her first Season as a young and attractive girl with good marriagable prospects! She had plenty of admirers and when Prosper went to University there were plenty more young men to entertain Prosper’s pretty little sister.

Eric also knew by this time that he too was to be denied the longed-for years of learning at university. His father was adamant that he should follow family tradition and make his career with the Imperial Police Force in Burma. In those days, one might argue against doing as your parents wished – but in the end you did as you were told. The Blairs had moved to Southwold and suddenly there was a wide gap opening up between Eric and Jacintha. She had told him that she cared deeply for his mind and companionship but that she had no personal passion for him. Life was busy and happy for her and then Eric was suddenly gone. He wrote to her several times from Burma but she was enjoying being a young adult at last. Childhood was over.. She wrote once and told him not to be so sorry for himself – and never wrote again.

It was 1927 before Eric returned to England, older, wiser, a much embittered adult. The allure of Burmese girls had attracted him and he had lost his virginity very quickly. One wonders whether he was thinking of his diminutive Jacintha as they lay in his arms?

He went to stay at Ticklerton where he enjoyed the company of Prosper and Guiny – but there was no Jacintha and everyone was evasive when her name came up. Jacintha was busy somewhere else and did not write to him. The flame had died?

On Tuesday the 8th February 1949 Lilian Buddicom wrote to Jacintha in London to tell her that she had discovered that Eric was, in fact George Orwell. It produced an enormous sense of shock in Jacintha. She was still unmarried. Somehow, the right man had not appeared in her life. She had already bought and read Animal Farm and had adored it and so she looked up the publisher’s name and phoned them at once to ask for Eric’s address. She was shocked to hear that George Orwell was extremely ill and was in a sanatorium. She wrote to Eric at once – and rushed out to buy as many of his books as she could find. A week later an envelope arrived from Eric containing two letters. The first was formal – ‘how nice to get your letter after all these years.......’ It continued in that vein over two typewritten pages, telling her about his life and at the end signed ‘yours Eric Blair’ The second letter was written the following day. It came from another world, the old world of their youth and courtship, filled with their secret signs and special phraseology. ‘Hail and Farewell, my Dear Jacintha’ it began and continued as though they were still those two engrossed young people, united in their own magical world. It ended ‘As we always ended so that there should be no ending, Farewell and Hail, Eric’. How poignant that was. Jacintha sat and wept over what had been said and what had not. She wanted to go to him right away but held back because she was afraid of how he would be. They were outwardly so different now. More letters followed in the passing months and he grew a little better and then much more ill. While she was still trying to muster the courage to go to Gloucestershire where he was, she heard in January 1950 that he had died.

Jacintha was left to read his books, approving some, hating others, unable to understand what had brought his thinking into the state of bitterness and self-loathing that darkened much of his work. It must have occurred to her that the Buddicoms were reflected very recognisably, here and there. She was also aware that her mother’s attraction to dabbling in spiritualism when the children were young, had rubbed off on all of them, including Eric. They had talked for hours and weeks about the Occult and the power of the mind. Eric had gleefully bought her Dracula one Christmas, adding a silver crucifix and a clove of garlic to ward off any spirits that might disturb her dreams after reading it. They read everything from Kipling and G.K.Chesterton to The Ingoldsby Legends, E.A. Poe and even the wicked Aleister Crowley. Many years later Jacintha would become an acolyte of that ageing Satanist, just to see what all the fuss was about! She became a poet of some merit, designed two delightful houses in Shropshire and even two motor caravans in which she and Guiny, as the years went on, travelled the British Isles with great enjoyment. After their mother died in 1949, the family moved to London and then down to the sea at Bognor Regis.

In 1970 Jacintha was approached by Weidenfeld and Nicholson, to contribute an essay on George Orwell’s childhood and youth for The World of George Orwell, which was published in 1971. Writing the essay encouraged her sit down and write much more fully of the childhood she had shared with her family and with young Eric and Avril Blair. Eric & Us was published by Leslie Frewin in 1974 and remains the most complete account of George Orwell’s childhood and early youth, showing where certain influences were propagated which, in later years, had a profound effect upon his thinking and writing.

In her later years Jacintha Buddicom was regularly visited by scholars from overseas, eager to talk to Orwell’s primary muse.. She never ceased to feel frustrated that not one of the many biographers who had written Orwell’s life after the publication of her book, had recognised the hidden truths of Eric & Us.. She had written it on two levels as she knew Eric would have approved – and no one had read her book slowly enough to realise that within the very simplicity of her story she had fashioned deeper truths concerning the metamorphosis of Eric Blair’s unique and brilliant mind. She would have been very glad indeed had she been alive in 2003 when Gordon Bowker published his book George Orwell, because he is the ONLY writer who has seen beneath the surface of Eric & Us and written his biography knowing just how deeply had been the influence upon Eric of the Buddicoms and of Jacintha in particular. Jacintha died in 1994 in the house on Bognor Regis seafront, which she had shared with her sister Guiny for nearly forty years.


D. Venables 13 September 2006



There was a new edition published on the 1st December 2006 of Eric & Us (the Postscript editon) 

ISBN:9780955379816 in which the Postscript by Dione Venables reveals new material concerning George Orwell and Jacintha Buddicom which has been withheld by her family up to now.  Orwell biographer (Orwell 2003) Gordon Bowker says 'these new details make rivetting reading and will change a lot of thinking concerning Orwell."  Peter Davison (The Lost Orwell 2006) says "The Postscript is an important contribution to our understanding of Jacintha and Orwell.....No one has correctly interpreted certain aspects of Eric & Us."  This new book needs examining. Dominic L.

Merge 1st wife's bio in

There's not really a bio of a notable person at Eileen O'Shaughnessy, but just a few facts that might add to this article. Her name should redirect to his; she may deserve a section here.
--Jerzy•t 02:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Removing tag from the front page. Over one month and not one supporting vote in favour. AnAn 08:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Vastly over-rated

1984 and Animal Farm are the two most over-rated books in the English language. They are those rare books that actually made the world a worse place. Animal Farm is simply a lie. Animal Farm is an allegory about the Russian Revolution but it fails to have a Lenin figure. Lenin and Stalin are represented by the same pig Napoleon. There is no excuse for this as there is a Goebbels figure in the pig Squealer who represents nobody at all in Soviet Russia. Also the pigs represent the Bolshevik party but the 1917 central committee of the Bolshevik party were the first people Stalin killed. All of that committee were killed by Stalin with the exception of Lenin who was6 already dead. Yet there is not a single case of Napoleon killing any of the other pigs in Animal Farm. Also Soviet Russia was invaded by Hitler and they heroically fought back and beat him. Again not a whisper of this in Animal Farm. I repeat : the book is a lie. 1984 is even worse. In 1948 when it was written Britain had it's greatest government ever, The Atlee Labour government which created the Welfare State and the National Health. What is Orwell's - the one time socialist - response? This vicious, spiteful piece of rubbish. Also some of the tortures used in 1984 were later taken up by dictatorships. Nice work Orwell, creating fresh forms of torture. Now, with the collapse of the Soviet Union the prophetic side of 1984 is even more laughable than it was then. The Soviets were never going to take over Western Europe. Let us hope that these awful books will re-assessed by more perceptive readers and given the dustbin status they deserve. SmokeyTheFatCat 15:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

That's nice, do you have any comments about the article? Please note wikipedia is not a soapbox. Morwen - Talk 15:32, 3 Novemb

This is the talk page not the article. I am expressing a political opinion about a political writer. Is there a problem here?SmokeyTheFatCat 16:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

"Also some of the tortures used in 1984 were later taken up by dictatorships. Nice work Orwell, creating fresh forms of torture." This sentences are really stupid.
--Loudon dodd 17:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Talk pages are for talking about improvements to the article. They are not discussion forums. Robin Johnson (talk) 12:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT#SOAP applies to articles and talk pages alike. Go and start your own blog on some other site. Viewfinder 17:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

In terms of the actual history of revolutionary Russia, there were lots of candidates for Squealer. Notably Nikolai Krylenko, who praised the "execution of the innocent" because it would impress the masses even more than the execution of the guilty. But that point aside, Animal Farm was not meant to refer only to the Russian events but to speak to the constants of revolutionary dynamics in general. That is why the pig Napoleon has the same name as a certain Corsican, after all. --Christofurio 20:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to pick up the argument of whether Orwell's novels are overrated. Personally, I believe that his strengths as a writer lie in the essays, literary criticism and political pieces. The novels may not be at the same level but they are more accessible than "Homage to Catalonia", "The Lion and the Unicorn" or the "As I Please" columns since they do not demand familiarity with so many events and historical characters.

In spain with his wife

As it can be seen here :

http://www.k-1.com/Orwell/site/about/pictures.html?expand=11#image

Opium department

in "Early life" it says his father worked in an opium department? Is this true or is it a bit of vandalism that got missed? Totnesmartin 11:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not vandalism : you can read it for example in Crick's biography (I'm sorry, this is the french translation, but it can be easely confirmed, I guess) : "Le commerce de l'opium avec la Chine avait été légalisé en 1860 sous la forme d'un monopole gouvernemental. Richard [Orwell's father] y était employé depuis l'âge de dix-huit ans." (Bernard Crick, George Orwell, une vie, climats, Paris, 2003, p. 48 - first chapter, in french : "et j'étais un petit garçon joufflu")--Loudon dodd 23:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
sacre plusungood! Totnesmartin 00:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The Origins Of His Name

My English teacher once infrormed us at school that the origin of his name was to do with H.G. Wells. This seems entirely logical as the "G" in "H.G." stands for George (as found here). The statement in the article about the river still remains possible in conjunction with this theory. Is there any way of proving this? --SteelersFan UK06 06:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

His pen name has been chosen with his publisher (editor ? I'm not sure about the english word), Victor Gollanz. Orwell gave him a list of names : P.S. Burton, Kenneth Miles, George Orwell, H. Lewis Allways. This fact is mentionned by Bernard Crick in his Orwell's biography. It seems that Eric Blair didn't mentionned Wells. But he knew the Orwell river. I don't know more about that. --Loudon dodd 18:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, the surname 'Orwell' is from the River Orwell in Suffolk, the the christian name 'George' from the King of England at that time.Ivankinsman 13:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

The following lines in "Influence on English Language" are POV: "Current examples include "affirmative action," designed to serve as a smokescreen for reverse discrimination; or euthanasia described as "comfort care," though neither comfort nor care are the result, but death. Similar examples could be multiplied ad nauseum." I'm removing them.

Reviews

"Back in the United Kingdom, Orwell supported himself by writing freelance reviews, mainly for the New English Weekly but mostly for Time and Tide and the New Statesman." This sentence is clearly nonsense - "mostly x but mainly y and z"? Which one was it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lfh (talk • contribs) 12:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

The term "Cold War"

By many accounts, Walter Lippman, the influential American journalist and public philosopher, may have coined the term in his 1947 book by the same name, a work which gathered his previous essays. See teel, Ronald (1980). Walter Lippmann and the American century. Little, Brown and Company. ISBN 0-7658-0464-6 Billyvamp4 08:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: This comment was inserted in the text of the article. I brought it here because:
  1. It's signed.
  2. As it stands, it doesn't prove its point: a 1947 date isn't good enough. The term "cold war" is in a 1945 article by Orwell (cited in the text). If Lippmann used it before Orwell, we would need a reference to the actual earlier article by Lippmann and date.
Andrew Dalby 12:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Jura

Most tuberculosis sufferers seek out hotter, drier climates to alleviate their condition. Why on earth did Orwell move from southern England to western Scotland? Drutt 20:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

A question I have answered in the article - some critics have implied that Orwell had a death wish, but Jura is actually quite mild. --Stephen Burnett 21:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

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 supported the war effort but detected (wrongly as it turned out) a mood that would lead to a revolutionary socialist movement among the British people. "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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)


"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)

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)

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)

"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)

"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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Personal Life

Could this section not be somehow integrated into the biography? That would make it easier for someone doing research on how he lived.205.250.78.245 (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

What about his son? He is referred to in the article as both Richard H. Blair and R. Orwell. Surely his son must have been registered as one name or the other and would have had no use of a pseudonym, so which is correct? Luke-Samual Ezekiel Cullen (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

"First, proper, adult income"

This is my first ever contribution to Wikipedia so please be gentle with me. And I admit it is a small point, but the article says the royalties from Animal Farm were Orwell's "first, proper, adult income". But he had been a high ranking police officer, a schoolteacher, had a job at the BBC that the article itself says had a "good salary", and all the others. He may have had more money after Animal Farm, but why use the words first, proper and adult ? Idealfarmer (talk) 13:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You are right - there is much to be improved in the article which tends to spin the line of the poor suffering writer. The bit that amuses me is the comment that he took a job "to escape dire poverty". Don't most people? Motmit (talk) 14:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

George Orwell: EU

The link to his essay on European integration is broken. http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/globalrights/europe/Orwell-Toward%20European%20Unity.html is the correct link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlesbrophy (talk • contribs) 17:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Article needs a lot of work

Orwell is a contentious subject, in that pretty much every shade of political opinion wants to have him on their side. This article is suffering from a lot of problems, but a lot of sincere people have worked on it and there is much here that is potentially valuable. I think we can improve this article a lot if we confine ourselves to relying on sources, rather than trying to editorialise about what we would like Orwell to have thought about any given subject. I have an entire shelf of his books (all the novels, the 1970s' 4-volume 'Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters' and about half of the volumes of the 1990s Collected Works) and am looking to those who have no special axe to grind to help improve this article. The intro, in particular, is shoddy and too brief. I invite suggestions from anyone who is seriously thinking about how to present the complex legacy of Orwell to general readers; I am not interested in suggestions from people who want to make their own arguments about what exactly Orwell finally is about. Save it for your theses, boys and girls. This is an encyclopedia, and has less glamorous ambitions - I merely want to establish the most commonly-agreed facts about the man and his work. Lexo (talk) 00:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

I think Penguine Books might also publish the book Homage to Catalonia under the name "Fighting for Spain"

http://www.penguin.co.uk/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9780141025537,00.html

Apparently it's Homage to Catalonia plus another previously unpublished retrospective text written later called "Looking Back on the Spanish War" . --Mia-etol (talk) 00:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Journal/Blog

Added a brief section in legacy about the publication of 4 years worth of his journal by the Orwell Prize. Ffenliv (talk) 02:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

Also, many people don't notice that the Appendix on Newspeak is written in the past tense. Newspeak is described as being a language that people used to use, the implication being that they don't use it anymore. The fact that the Appendix itself is not written in Newspeak is another strong implication that O'Brien's vision of the Party holding power forever was not, in the end, fulfilled. Lexo (talk) 14:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Animal Farm

Animal Farm is not a novel. It is to short. Change it, someone. --212.247.27.176 (talk) 22:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong; it's a short novel. In future, if you don't like something in an article, change it yourself. If it's a good change it will probably be retained, and if it's not it will be reverted. Don't just complain. And please log in before making comments. Lexo (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Response to Vastly overrated

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)
Smokey and the unsigned contributor are both IMO wrong (neither of them have read Orwell with anything like attention) but more to the point, their discussion, and Mvdwege's knowledgeable contribution to it, are inappropriate. I would prefer it if people who are so partisan about Orwell do not attempt to work on the article, as it will inevitably result in violations of WP:NPOV which will only have to be undone. I am not trying to violate anyone's freedom of speech - if you want to argue about Orwell, you are free to do it in a chat room somewhere. An encyclopedia article must not come down on one side or other of the how-socialist-was-Orwell debate, but should present the evidence and, in so doing, reflect the nature of the debate. Lexo (talk) 12:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Orwell "radical": Maybe not

Removing characterization of Orwell as "radical" in the first sentence, as opinion of the editor. For comparison, Florence King has characterized Orwell as "Every conservative's favorite liberal and every liberal's favorite conservative." - http://www.nationalreview.com/100best/100_books.html
We can probably produce various sources with various characterizations of Orwell, but if we characterize him we should produce sources. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 02:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That's the thing about Orwell: nearly everyone wants him on their side. The usual left criticism of him is that he wasn't left enough, or was embarrassingly politically incorrect (see Raymond Williams' Orwell); the usual right criticism of him is that for some inexplicable reason he thought of himself as a leftist, when it's perfectly obvious that all his books are anti-socialism, etc. etc. I think we should be careful when we attempt to characterise Orwell one way or the other, considering how his legacy and influence is still in dispute. But by all means let's portray the struggle over ownership of his influence. Lexo (talk) 14:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
It should be established, however, that after a certain point in his life, Orwell always seems to have regarded himself as a left-wing radical. He makes it clear in the unpublished foreword to Animal Farm that he did not write the book against revolutions as such, just against revolutions in which the masses fail to get rid of the revolutionary leadership after their usefulness is over. Sources can be found for Orwell's sense of himself as a radical, whereas it is not very difficult to demonstrate that the neo-conservative attempt to enlist Orwell as a conservative is based on highly selective use of sources, i.e. they ignore anything he may have said that doesn't suit their case. But some factions on the left do the same thing, when they criticise him for not being Stalinist or feminist enough (in the opinions of, respectively, Raymond Williams and Beatrix Campbell). Lexo (talk) 21:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Orwell quotes

I've heard this quote attributed to Orwell a couple of times, but haven't been able to substantiate it:

"Nine out of ten revolutionaries are social climbers with bombs."

Anyone able to cast any light?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 03:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a misquote. The original passage is in his 27 July 1939 review of Stendhal by F.C. Green (p. 440 volume 1 of the old Penguin collected essays, journalism and letters - sorry, I would check it in the S&W "Complete Works" but it's upstairs and I can't be arsed to go up and get it). He's talking about the character of Julien Sorel from Stendhal's Le Rouge et le Noir:
"But what gives the book its tone is that his hatred is mixed up with envy, as it would be in real life, of course. Julien is in fact the type of the revolutionary, and nine times out of ten a revolutionary is merely a climber with a bomb in his pocket. After all, the hated aristocrats are deeply fascinating."
The point seems to be that Julien is the kind of revolutionary who hates aristocrats because he envies them. I haven't read Stendhal and can't shed any light on that aspect of the matter. Hope this is helpful. Lexo (talk) 21:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


Thank you, Lexo.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 11:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

How to edit the article

I think I do know how to edit this article. The first thing that it needs is a good, thorough copyedit. It is riddled with bad punctuation, bad grammar,http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c8/Button_redirect.png awkward sentences and badly-constructed sections, all of which need fixing. That will be a long, boring thankless job and I will do it myself if nobody else can be bothered to. The article is also full of sometimes rather naive remarks, like this one:"Throughout his life Orwell continually supported himself as a book reviewer, writing works so long and sophisticated they have had an influence on literary criticism." Leaving aside the clumsy writing, if Orwell's reviews have influenced subsequent lit crit, it was not because they were "so long and sophisticated". While I note that George Woodcock is the source for applying Orwell's remarks on Dickens to Orwell himself, I take issue with it because it just doesn't sound a very useful comparison to me. I'm not dissing George Woodcock, but that's not his most perceptive remark ever. (Orwell is not very like Dickens.)

Next, the structure is eccentric and illogical. The "References" section is really a "Notes" section and should be retitled as such, with the sources placed in a proper references section and reformatted; another boring job for someone to do. The "Legacy" part of the article is just a grab-bag of people's favourite bits of or about Orwell, and should be reorganised - Orwell's defence of Wodehouse, while notable, does not belong in "Literary influences" because Wodehouse was not, I think, a significant influence on Orwell.

I can think of two ways of reorganising the "Legacy" section: chronologically, giving a history of Orwell's reputation, or thematically, sketching out the main themes of his writing. The trouble with the latter is that it means deciding and agreeing on what the main themes actually are, which could take forever.

Lastly, the intro is not good. It is weak and almost meaningless to say "His writing is marked by concise descriptions of social conditions and events" - he did much more than just describe them, he also interpreted them. Also, Orwell did not have "a contempt for all types of authority". He had a high regard for military discipline, as long as the troops were fighting for a cause he approved of. When I get round to it, I will have a go at improving things like this but in the meantime, I'm off to fix the grammar. Lexo (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Should the nonessential appositives be separated by commas? If so, I can do what I can to assist, when either this page comes off semi-protected status or I reach autoconfirmed status. --Dromioofephesus (talk) 16:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Separate List of publications by George Orwell

Greetings All, Given Orwell's prolificness, I thought it might be interesting to set up a spin-off article, something along the lines of List of publications by George Orwell. It would coincidentally lighten the article here, but I think it might be especially interesting as an overview of his works if listed in chronological order of publication (with date of writing, if known, in brackets) and not separating his novels from his essays, etc. It would complement Essays of George Orwell (which needs serious wikifying, by the way). However, further details could be discussed at the corresponding talk page. Feedback, anyone? --Technopat (talk) 14:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

As it doesn't affect the content of this article - and therefore consensus not required - I decided to be bold and not wait for feedback...--Technopat (talk) 15:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Death

I have noticed that the death section of this article does not really explain exactly how he actually died. All that is mentioned is he ruptured an artery - why was he in the hospital? It's written as if someone cut out a whole chunk of the section. Can someone please expand on this? This is quite an important section in an article about any deceased person. Thanks. --Hamster X 16:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Try reading the preceding paragraph which explains the history of his illness and why he went into hospital Motmit (talk) 17:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed paragraph with a reference from a blog...

Have removed the following paragraph:

Conversely, there has been speculation about the extent of Orwell's links to Britain's secret service, MI5, and some have even claimed that he was in the service's employ.(Inline citation:"Orwell and the secret state: close encounters of a strange kind?", by Richard Keeble, Media Lens, Monday, 10 October 2005.) The evidence for this claim is contested.

Apart from the reference being from a blog, which is a Wikipedia no-no, the actual link to the article on said blog is broken. If anyone out there can fix it and reference the info from any other source, please do so and stick it back in the article. Cheers!--Technopat (talk) 09:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice work. A claim like that needs a very strong citation. Nick-D (talk) 11:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Possible WP:COPYVIO

This edit deleted material from the article because "this statement has been used in a book that has been published". The original phrase was added to the article on 25 August 2008. The the only book edition I have found was an online version, described as "newly added" on 11 November 2008. I'm asking, who is copying from whom here? I'm inclined to put it back, once again. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I've just made an interesting comparison between Wikipedia's Gone with the Wind and the same online publisher's recently issued edition of the work. See for yourselves! Meanwhile, I'm restoring the material. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I wrote that particular description of Orwell's writing myself. I was just trying to find a non-controversial description of what characterised his writing. Very flattering to think that it's been quoted elsewhere! My record as a contributor shows that I am very conscientious about providing citations. I wouldn't steal something and not give an attribution for it. I will be exceptionally surprised if anyone can show that I unconsciously plagiarised it from somewhere, but I remember sweating over the phrasing, so I doubt that I did. If someone does find an earlier attribution, I will of course happily delete it from WP but it would definitely have been unconscious rather than conscious plagiarism on my part. Thanks to Old Moonraker for restoring the edit, anyway. Lexo (talk) 00:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Socialist until the bitter end?

In spite of the fact that this topic has obviously been discussed at some length here, I am not satisfied. Why, please explain to me (without passion and with logic and evidence) why, does a book about "totalitarianism" by a socialist feature a magnificently vilified English Socialist party? Some points have been clarified to a degree, but there still seem to be some holes here.

This quote appears to support that Orwell was a Democratic Socialist until very near the end of his life:

"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it," he wrote in 1946.

I have two major issues with this. Firstly, where's the citation for this quote? It says, "he wrote in 1946." Where or to whom? Secondly, this was three years before the publication of Nineteen Eighty-Four. Granted, the changes to the name of the book (from Nineteen Eighty, then to Eighty-Two, then Eighty-Four) seem to indicate a four-year writing period for the book (if someone could clarify how long it really did take to write, from start to finish, it would help) but where is the evidence that as he wrote the book, and as he was more and more ravaged by a disease that was slowly killing him, that he didn't begin to change his views?

To be clear about this, I understand that there is a possibility that Orwell chose his own political affiliation to vilify to illustrate the corruptibility of any political system, even his own. It has not escaped me that Ingsoc is atheistic, another thing the party has in common with Orwell. I also understand that Ingsoc's ideals are a complete bastardization of the actual principals of socialism, which certainly could be intended as ironic. But was it?

It continues to strike me as unlikely, and I believe further clarification and explanation is needed to help readers understand how someone who outwardly appeared to display strong anti-socialist leanings in his most famous work could actually be a socialist, if indeed he still was at the very end of his life.

Full disclosure: I am, myself, sympathetic to the views of democratic socialists, and personally lean towards a democratic semi-socialist form of government. So I have no personal interest in Nineteen Eighty-Four being anti-socialist. I merely wish the information about it, and its author, to be correct, and I'm still not convinced that is so. I also do not claim to be particularly knowledgeable about George Orwell, which is why I'm making this argument. I came to Wikipedia hoping to find some condensed (but clear) information about him. I have not, to my satisfaction.

So... clarification please!

--Verminjerky (talk) 13:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

In a letter to Francis A. Henson of the United Automobile Workers, dated 16 June 1949 (seven months before he died), excerpts from which were reproduced in Life (25 July 1949) and the New York Times Book Review (31 July 1949), Orwell stated the following: "My recent novel [1984] is NOT intended as an attack on Socialism or on the British Labour Party (of which I am a supporter) but as a show-up of the perversions ... which have already been partly realized in Communism and Fascism. ...The scene of the book is laid in Britain in order to emphasize that the English-speaking races are not innately better than anyone else and that totalitarianism, if not fought against, could triumph anywhere." The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell Volume 4 - In Front of Your Nose 1945-1950 p.546 (Penguin) --Technopat (talk) 16:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, so why isn't that quote clearly presented in either the article about Orwell or about Nineteen Eighty-Four? It needs to be, because without knowing what Orwell himself said, it's almost impossible to take the novel as anything but anti-socialist. This is the kind of information that's too relevant to leave out, because it eliminates confusion, and the evidence currently presented regarding the meaning of the book is, as I pointed out, lacking. This quote, complete with citations, needs to be in its place. --Verminjerky (talk) 11:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC) PS: Thank you, Technopat.
Greetings Verminjerky. My pleasure. I agree that it should be included in both articles, but as a newcomer to this article, I thought I'd post it here first and maybe someone with better knowledge of the layout of the Orwell articles at Wikipedia (and possibly with more time to spare) could copy and paste it. Wikipedia is an on-going project and can only get better, and there are some pretty knowledgeable folks already working on Orwell-related pages. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi and greetings too - the first quote apparently appears in Why I Write, although I have not checked the original. Lots of problems with Orwell - too many people trying to read his mind, too many people seeking his support for their own views, too many people thinking he had all the answers, some of his adherents seeking to canonise him as a suffering martyr, others piling on his bandwagon, some biographers failing to understand his background, others pushing their own interpretations and being selective with their material (and that's just the adults). His own words often don't help - he enjoyed being provocative and controversial, he wrote for effect, he had the English public schoolboy's ironical sense of humour, he enjoyed winding people up and writing cruel satirical pieces, he was extremely self-deprecating - there are no easy answers. He was an extreme individual who defied categorisation. This confusion ends up on the pages of Wiki and alot of work is needed as Lexo points out below - the Nineteen eighty four article reads like the description of some teenager's computer game and others are simply dire - even some half decent ones have needed corrections to fundamental errors of fact. As Technopat says Wikipedia can only get better and people are working on it, but also a neutral POV is critical and that means concentrating on authentic facts sufficient to allow the readers to make up their own minds rather than having one line or another pushed on them. It also explains why information cannot be easily condensed. Regards Motmit (talk) 22:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Greetings Motmit. Thanks for locating the "Every line of serious work..." quotation: it is indeed from "Why I Write" (1936) (The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell Volume 1 - An Age Like This 1945-1950 p.23 (Penguin) ). BTW, your excellent description above would do very nicely, with very few modifications, in the lead to the article ... if it could be suitably referenced. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 22:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Greetings Technopat and thanks - well done for adding Kopp - I was thinking of doing so myself but you beat me to it. Regards Motmit (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I thought that as a major and recurrent figure in Orwell's life - and, as such, well-known to anyone interested in Orwell's world & writing - it was high time Kopp had an article. Unlike some other articles at Wikipedia, at least it refers to a person, i.e. of flesh and blood, not a fictional character. Maybe meet up with you at Wigan Pier? In serious need of propping up... Regards, --Technopat (talk) 12:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The following reference, added recently by OldMoonraker, may help explain any apparent confusion as to his political leanings:

However, MI5, the intelligence department of the Home Office, developed the information to note that "It is evident from his recent writings - 'The Lion and the Unicorn' - and his contribution to Gollancz's symposium The Betrayal of the Left that he does not hold with the Communist Party nor they with him."

(inline citation)http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6976576.stm confused by Orwell's politics - access date=22 November 2008. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 08:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the name-check, but it was a joint effort. If the above link doesn't work, try here. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Greetings Old Moonraker (sorry for getting the name not quite right). Thanks for adding the right URL here - have fixed mine above. Cheers! --88.25.1.221 (talk) 13:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC) - It's gonna be one of those days - got logged out above/didn't preview... --Technopat (talk) 13:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
As one who could make better use of the "preview" button himself: no problem! Guessed. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I felt like the editorial review of "Orwell's Victory", by Christopher Hitchens, might be relevant reading for this discussion, specifically this part "In answer to the accusation of inconsistency, he argues, 'Orwell as a writer was forever taking his own temperature.' In other words, here was someone who never stopped testing and adjusting his intelligence." [9]. A lot of the discussion here seems to be around the fact that all sorts of people with differing viewpoints have been able to quote Orwell as backing for their own cause. A simple explanation would be that his work is inconsistent over time. An explanation for that would be that he constantly assessed and re-assessed his own viewpoints and changed them over time. So, quoting from one work, you might easily find a contradiction in a later work. It's not that surprising or unlikely to me that he didn't come up with a coherent, internally consistent ideology, considering that he died at a fairly young age during a period of time in which the world was being rapidly exposed to a large number of different ideologies, many of which were quite compelling. I'm writing this mainly in reference to Motmit's post above, much of which I agree with. Jwgloverii (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

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)
It may be true that Orwell had an uneasy relationship with Gollancz, but it's not true that he always addressed him as "Gollancz" in letters. The original contributor was probably relying on the incomplete Penguin Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters, or just hadn't been reading attentively. The Secker & Warburg Complete Works are full of letters where Orwell addresses Gollancz as "Mr Gollancz" - I have one before me, dated 9 May 1937 (Vol. 2, Facing Unpleasant Facts 1937-39, p.22). Even if Orwell did address an acquaintance in a letter by his surname, it isn't necessarily evidence of a strained relationship as it was fairly common practice among men of Orwell's class and age at the time. Orwell addressed letters to Cyril Connolly as "Dear Cyril", but he'd been at school with Connolly. Given that this sentence is based on a mistake, I'm not sure it makes sense anymore and I will rephrase it completely. BTW, we don't delete talk page sections because it makes it difficult to trace what has been discussed about an article and what hasn't been. Lexo (talk) 12:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
You are absolutely right and I have been thinking of removing this completely in due course (together with a lot of other twaddle).Motmit (talk) 12:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Just for the record, and re. use of surnames, a letter dated 14 February 1936 is addressed "Dear Connolly" and the following letter, dated 8 June 1937, is "Dear Cyril". CEJLGO Vol 1 (An Age Like This). --Technopat (talk) 01:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

HTTP error(s) found on page

1 error(s) was/were found on George Orwell in the references. The URL(s) and corresponding error type(s) are shown below:

[('HTTP Error 404', u'http://www.hoover.org/publications/uk/2939606.html')]

You may wish to remove the link(s) or update it as needed. Thank you, AiuwBot (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that one out. The Hoover Institute portal is currently being overhauled, but I managed to use the search function to get the direct link to citation. --Technopat (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

I don't know much about Orwell's homophobia apart from the odd reference to "pansies" or "nancies" and some comment in his essay on Salvador Dali referring to homosexuality as an "aberration" or "perversion". To be honest I don't think it's worth getting too excited about - it's fair to remember he was expressing a fairly prevalent view at the time. Perhaps some comment could be made in the section on his personal life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.141.53 (talk) 11:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm reading An Age Like This at the moment, and think it would be fair comment to say that Orwell does display homophobia here and there. He is probably less homophobic than the average English person of his generation, but possibly more so than the average left-wing intellectual of his generaton. Which could make it noteworthy, but, unless a secondary source can be found, I'd suggest it would be difficult to write in in an NPOV, non-OR way. I think it would be good to include in the article, but care would be needed.
I'd suggest that it is potentially interesting enough for an encyclopedia because:
1) It shows that Orwell was not an unerring prophet ("...if I find (him) unreliable where I know the facts, how can I trust (him) him where I don't know the facts?" - Orwell on Frank Jellinek);
2) There may be a connection to Orwell's attitude to certain types of bourgeois liberal socialists - ie he either dislikes them because some are gay, or, because he dislikes them and some of them are gay he comes to dislike homosexuality. The might be highly relevant to the development of Orwell's political views. ("...so many of them are the sort of eunuch type with a vegetarian smell who...have at the back of their minds a vision of the working class all TT, all washed behind the ears and readers of Edward Carpenter or some other pious sodomite" - letter to Jack Common, 1936)
It's possible that Orwell's views may have changed over time, of course.
In the Dali essay, Orwell refers to homosexuality as a "perversion", but I wouldn't take this as homophobic. I think almost everyone in England would have thought that this was strictly, by definition, true. Noel Coward would have thought it, so I don't think Orwell can be blamed.
BTW, I also think that Orwell's attitudes to people of other races, whilst of their time, are not unproblematic. But no-one else has mentioned it, so I certainly won't. --78.148.68.13 (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Orwell Doubted the Gas Chambers

Orwell was an antisemite who even doubted the holocaust gas chambers. At the conclusion of the war in Europe, Orwell expressed doubt about the Allied account of events and posed the following question in his book Notes on Nationalism, "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear... Is it true about the gas ovens in Poland?". 65.32.128.178 (talk) 14:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Right, the essay "Notes on Nationalism", written in May 1945 and published in the first issue of Polemic (October 1945) contains the following (in chronological order):

Indifference to Reality. [...] For quite six years the English admirers of Hitler contrived not to learn of the existence of Dachau and Buchenwald. [...] Many English people have heard almost nothing about the extermination of German and Polish Jews during the present war. Their own antisemitism has caused this vast crime to bounce off their consciousness.

(My note: And in the context of stating that "Some nationalists are not far from schizophrenia, living quite happiliy amid dreams of power and conquest which have no connexion with the physical world", he asks, among other questions: "Is it true about the German gas ovens in Poland?", adding "Since nothing is ever quite proved or disproved, the most unmistakeable fact can be impudently denied")

(Positive Nationalism) Zionism. [...] All English people of goodwill are also pro-Jew in the sense of disapproving of Nazi persecution...
(Negative Nationalism) Antisemitism. There is little evidence about this at present, because the Nazi persecutions have made it necessary for any thinking person to side with the Jews against their oppressors...

I may be biased here and not seeing things as clearly as others might, but I really don't see anything in there that corresponds to what you are insisting on. --Technopat (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Orwell does not deny there was a Dachau, but he does not believe there were any gas chambers. 65.32.128.178 (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
OK - now that I have your attention, will you please check out your discussion page and we can continue there. We are at best trying the patience of other editors by using this article's talk page to discuss matters other than trying to improve the article. Thank you, --Technopat (talk) 23:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
There should be a section in the article about Orwell's 1940 essay and the many published accusations that he was antisemitic, that's all I'm asking. I wrote one, and you pulled it, so you write one, or put mine back. 65.32.128.178 (talk) 23:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Influence of Huxley on Orwell?

Even in the actual article it says that Aldous and Orwell only had the most brief of contact in his formative years, though Orwell had written that he was impressed by Huxley's language. While I know that they corresponded a bit (there is a somewhat famous letter from Aldous congratulating Orwell on the success of 1984) is there any proof that Huxley should be listed under his "Influences"? I should think that, at most, they were cordial acquaintances, not literary buddies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.106.97.176 (talk) 21:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


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 lol 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)
I find it presumptuous to predict what Orwell's opinion about today's political goings on would have been had he still been alive. You're probably right, I admit that, but you're making projections about a dead man's thoughts. I can't help but feel that you're hurting how seriously you're taken by others here (you're quite the gentleman, Mr. Burnett) by stating what Orwell's views might be as though it was absolute fact as in "So in this day and age Orwell would be..." That statement at the very least needed a "probably." You know? --Verminjerky (talk) 13:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
The greatest mistake made about Orwell is to claim, that your interpretation is indisputable truth.--83.88.93.176 (talk) 17:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

Speculation is indeed pointless. Agressive TB is often a secondary infection arising from a subclinical primary infection acquired years before which lies dormant - see the wiki entry on this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuberculosis - so its quite possible that the original infection was at neither point. It may be that it was reactivated in either Spain or Wigan or elsewhere. He certainly liked to live hard and rough and this could have helped trigger a secondary infection. But the original could have been acquired in Burma, Paris or even his old boarding school.[Newtownian] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.253.14 (talk) 12:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Orwell was Antisemitic

A controversial essay by Orwell should be included in the article: Orwell wrote a famous controversial essay where he actually praised Adolf Hitler. It was a review of Mein Kampf. See it here: http://worldview.cceia.org/archive/worldview/1975/07/2555.html - Wikipedia should mention this essay. Also, I have read that Orwell in his personal notes made fun of gas-ovens, doubting the holocaust gas chambers. Also, Orwell picked a stereotypically Jewish name Goldstein in 1984. Goldstein was the other face of Big Brother, representing the phoney opposition. All this adds up to antisemitism. 65.32.128.178 (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.32.128.178 (talk)

Have you bothered to read the essay? It's pretty anti-Hitler, and Orwell was consistently opposed to Facism and Nazism. Please provide sources for your other claims. Nick-D (talk) 04:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Orwell writes that he cannot dislike Hitler. Go read it carefully. He compares Hitler to Jesus Christ, read it. 65.32.128.178 (talk) 04:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
No he doesn't: the article is about how Hitler successfully portrayed himself as a victim and Orwell is writing about his public image (any number of other anti-Nazi authors of the time noted that Hitler managed to concoct a respectable facade). The article states only that in a photo of Hitler he has a "pathetic, dog-like face" which "reproduces the expression of innumerable pictures of Christ crucified" and "there is little doubt that that is how Hitler sees himself". Please provide reliable sources which state that Orwell was ever pro-Hitler and anti-semitic rather than engage in your personal speculation. Nick-D (talk) 05:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Orwell says that he cannot dislike Hitler, and comparing him to Christ is powerful, it got Orwell much criticism at the time and Wikipedia should include it in the article. 65.32.128.178 (talk) 05:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source which supports that you can add it (as well as a reference to the source) to the article yourself. Nick-D (talk) 05:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I just removed that section - you need to find a reliable third-party source which states that the review was 'controversial'. Nick-D (talk) 05:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I removed the word controversial but I assure you it was. 65.32.128.178 (talk) 05:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Again, please find a reference which supports that. Your opinion is not enough. Nick-D (talk) 05:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I added it, from the New York Times. 65.32.128.178 (talk) 06:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that a couple of letters to the NYT is really a sufficient reference for this, especially given that there must be dozens of biographies of Orwell. Your interpretation of the review as comparing Hitler's 'suffering to that of Jesus Chris' appears to be both original research and wrong and I don't see where Orwell says that he cant dislike Hitler - instead he discusses how he convinced Germans to approve of him despite his 'monstrous vision' and desire to establish a 'horrible brainless empire'. Nick-D (talk) 06:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Greetings 65.32.128.178 - Just in case you haven't yet seen it, I have left a note on your talk page.--Technopat (talk) 09:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)To refer to the specific edit here, apart from his book review of Mein Kampf, Orwell referred to anti-semitism on at least two occasions that I can think of off the top of my head: a) an "As I Please" article for Tribune and b) a later essay called "Antisemitism in Britain" published in the Contemporary Jewish Record.

Speaking from memory, in both instances he refers to examples of English writers such as Chesterton, H. G. Wells, T. S. Eliot, etc whose writings clearly reflect anti-semitism (coincidently these were writers whose art he respected tremendously, but whose opinions he denounced time and time again) and he insists on the need for a profound investigation into the origins of such a "neurotic" prejudism.

There's no reason why this can't be reflected here - suitably referenced - or at one of the dedicated articles. --Technopat (talk) 09:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Orwell is not the first antisemite to back down after the war. 65.32.128.178 (talk) 13:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Surely if Orwell was anti-semitic or strongly opposed to anti-semitism this would be discussed in the many biographies on him, and they'd make the best source. Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Have removed the following from the article pending future consensus:

Orwell's Controversial Essay on Mein Kampf In 1940 Orwell wrote a controversial review of Mein Kampf, where Orwell wrote that he could not dislike Hitler and compared Hitler's suffering to that of Jesus Christ. (See essay: http://worldview.cceia.org/archive/worldview/1975/07/2555.html ). The essay raised eyebrows in the New York Times (ref: http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60C1FFC3E5D0C7A8EDDAF0894DC484D81 ).

Apart from any other consideration, and as pointed out above, a letter to the NYT is not a suitable reference. --Technopat (talk) 09:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
See also As I Please 29 Nov 1946 and 6 Dec 1946 for post-war views. Motmit (talk) 12:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) In the former, Orwell states:

How about inviting, say, 100,000 Jewish refugees to settle in this country? Or what about the Displaced Persons, numbering nearly a million, who are dotted in camps all over Germany, with no future and no place to go, the United States and the British Dominions having already refused to admit them in significant numbers? Why not solve their problems by offering them British citizenship?

He then goes on to add:

In the end it is doubtful whether we can solve our problems [of unemployment, low birthrate, etc.] without encouraging immigration from Europe.

But I digress yet again... (From The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell Volume 4. Penguin)--Technopat (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Orwell is not the first antisemite to back down after the war. 65.32.128.178 (talk) 21:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Orwell was not anti-Semitic, you obviously have not bothered to properly research Orwell, or even, for that matter, properly read this article. In Nineteen Eighty-Four, the use of Goldstein as a name for the phoney opposition is meant to imply anti-Semitism within Ingsoc, it does not reflect his own personal views. He himself, in 1945, criticized Anti-Semitism in Britain. Although he was definitely Anti-Zionist, that doesn't make him Anti-Semitic, many Jews happen to also oppose Zionism. With regards to his review of Mein-Kampf, you obviously do not seem to understand the literary techniques he has used. Also, if you would only bother to read the article properly, you'd notice that he himself had Jewish friends. These friends of Orwell never once publicly stated that he had ever discriminated against them. You seem, having misread a single review authored by Orwell, to have developed a strong negative bias towards the man. Before coming back to this matter, I would suggest you do proper research and develop opinions based on fact, not prejudice.--Part Time Security (talk) 00:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Gathering material for future inclusion re. Hitler

Just to get things into perspective, Orwell states in his review of Mein Kampf (New English Weekly, 21 March 1940):

I should like to put it on record that I have never been able to dislike Hitler. Ever since he came to power - till then, like everyone, I had been deceived into thinking he did not matter - I have reflected that I would certainly kill him if I could get within reach of him, but that I could feel no personal animosity.

He goes on, referring to the photograph of Hitler in the book:

..it is a pathetic, dog-like face, the face of a man suffering under intolerable wrongs. In a rather more manly way it reproduces the expression of innumerable pictures of Christ crucified, and there is little doubt that that is how Hitler sees himself.

From The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell Volume 3. Penguin --Technopat (talk) 10:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Orwell's essay was condemned in the Guardian, see: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/dec/06/race.uk .

In Orwell's 1939 essay Marrakech Owell also wrote unflatteringly of Jews:

As the Jews live in self-contained communities they follow the same trades as the Arabs, except for agriculture. Fruit-sellers, potters, silversmiths, blacksmiths, butchers, leather-workers, tailors, water-carriers, beggars, porters—whichever way you look you see nothing but Jews. As a matter of fact there are thirteen thousand of them, all living in the space of a few acres. A good job Hitler isn’t here. Perhaps he is on his way, however. You hear the usual dark rumours about the Jews, not only from the Arabs but from the poorer Europeans. (ref: http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79e/part8.html ). 65.32.128.178 (talk) 14:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

That's taken out of its context. He describes how the Jews were rounded up in ghettos and how people spread rumours about them controlling the economy despite labouring for a penny an hour. You're making very twisted interpretations. -- Magnus Holmgren (talk) 14:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
He wrote it before they were rounded up. And Nothing but Jews is nasty. 65.32.128.178 (talk) 14:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
The Guardian article you so like to quote was written by a raving ranting journalist who provided no evidence whatsoever to her wild accusations - the Guardian was forced to publish TWO rectifications to that article alone in the Guardian's Corrections and Clarifications column (as can be seen from the page you kindly provided). It's true that no actiual rectification was made of the accusations against Orwell, but that's minor point. It is well known that Orwell is controversial and the target of accusations from all sides. The same "journalist" in a more recent article comes out with a real beaut: "I'm a Christian Zionist, a Christian feminist and a Christian socialist. But the Christian part has become the most important" http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/14/religion.anglicanism
So can we please try to be just a little bit more rigourous in our research and provide founded references by acknowledged experts in the field rather than trying to convert Wikipedia into a mere blog where anything goes... That obviously includes trying to reach consensus on what gets into the article, especially if it's contentious or likely to be challenged. --Technopat (talk) 12:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Once again, rather than engage in original research, please find some authoritative sources which state that Orwell was anti-semitic - borrow some biographies of him from a library and see what they say. Wikipedia is neither a discussion forum or a publisher of original research. Nick-D (talk) 07:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I gave you a source, in the Guardian, they condemned Orwell's essay of 1940. This belongs in the article here, why hide the truth ? I know Orwell is your idol but he praised Hitler as a person and compared him to Christ. No censorship ! Include it here ! 65.32.128.178 (talk) 13:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Could you please re-read what I added at the beginning of this section - it puts things in a context. Thank you. --Technopat (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Here is a whole list of publications calling Orwell antisemitic, take your pick ! Read the lines in red http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/orwell.htm 65.32.128.178 (talk) 13:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I just removed a section on this. It seems wise to avoid adding material which is so widely controversial. Moreover the description in the removed section as original research is appropriate. The full quotes do not seem to buttress the sentiment the section portrayed them in, and there seems to be no reliable source which describes these passages as anti-semetic. --TeaDrinker (talk) 03:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia routinely includes controversial subject matter. And you did not look very closely at the sources provided, the New York Times and the Washington Post both called Orwell antisemitic. Those are top references. 65.32.128.178 (talk) 05:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Of course Wikipedia writes about controversial subjects; but I'd ask you not to include sections in the text of the article on which there is no consensus to include among the editors here. Doing so would be inviting an edit war, which is not helpful for anyone. It seems to me the references to Orwell being anti-Semitic on the page you include are all offhand remarks, made in passing and not particularly defended (except perhaps for Taylor's bit in the Guardian). While the site you reference is hardly a reliable source, the very point of the page is to show that "Virtually anybody who was anybody has been called an 'anti-Semite...'" Do you believe the idea of Orwell being anti-Semitic an undisputed fact, or has it been the subject of scholarly debate? I have a hard time buying the former, and so I ask for documentation of the latter, particularly documentation of that argument being done outside the context of a polemic. Best, --TeaDrinker (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
There is a large repertoire of witness accounts of Orwell in his life and there is no record in it of any antisemitic behaviour. Gollancz, Warburg, Kimche and Fyvel, all close Jewish friends of his, would certainly not agree with the suggestion that he was antisemitic. There is plenty that Orwell can be accused of but this is one smear that does not stick, and it is unhelpful to try to distort a serious encyclopedia article with a personal interpretation of a minor book review Motmit (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting how you guys defend this antisemite Orwell. The New York Times and Washington Post sources both explicitly interpret his writings as antisemitic, which by Wikipedia rules they need be included as top sources. 65.32.128.178 (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Orwell & the USA

Somewhere or other I remember reading about how someone was surprised at Orwell not showing more interest in the USA. Apart from his relationship with Philip Rahv and Partisan Review, and a couple of other US leftwing intellectuals, I have come across the following which I think worth including in the article, but am not sure where:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/5739 The New York Review of Books Volume 31, Number 14 · September 27, 1984 "Orwell's America" by T.R. Fyvel

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/article-preview?article_id=5810 The New York Review of Books Volume 31, Number 10 · June 14, 1984 "Not One of Us" by Alfred Kazin

Feedback? Cheers!--Technopat (talk) 23:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Our Eric tended to replay the same limited set of tunes over and over, mainly based on his personal experience. The USA wasn't in his collection, any more than was publicly funded health - the socialist dream of his boss Bevan. Odd in a way considering he spent so much time in privately funded clinics. There are comments on both these omissions somewhere in the bio literature but such discussion is all a consequence of the hyping of EB as a political authority. A google search on Fyvel and CIA throws up a significant amount of material with CIA funding various Fyvel activities. Fyvel had much to do with the creation of the Orwell "myth" and, I suspect, had some influence on Orwell's later works and the self image he presented of himself. Regards Motmit (talk) 09:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Fyvel (is there enough info./notability to start an article on him?) et al undoubtedly influenced Orwell in his views, but of course some people (see recent proposals on this discussion page) would hold that our George was an antisemite... (who was it who pointed out the difference between Blair, the man and Orwell, the writer?). Regs., --Technopat (talk) 13:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
It is well known Orwell was identifying communists and leftists to the CIA. This should be included in the article here. 65.32.128.178 (talk) 15:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
'Ere we go again! If it's well known that Orwell was on the CIA's paybooks it should be easy to find notable references for including it in the article. Mind you, we enter into an interesting contradiction here, of course, because the CIA has been financing the World Zionist Organization since it (the CIA) was founded in 1947. --Technopat (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
The IP from Virginia USA may do well to read the article and associated links thoroughly both as an educational exercise and to see that the issues s/he raises are discussed. "It is well known", like "Everybody knows" and "It is a fact" are classic Orwell ploys that he himself used for arguing a case without any supporting evidence. Have fun Motmit (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
So the plot thickens - Virginia, you say. Ain't that the CIA's manor or am I thinking of some other Mickey Mouse outfit :) . I'm outta here to get some beauty sleep and start dreaming of leaks at Langley an' Our Orwell filling 'em with well-known facts. --Technopat (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Re. "to what extent can you even begin to predict the political positions of somebody who’s been dead three decades" + Orwell + CIA, there's an interesting article at Association for Cultural Freedom (and the recently-added External link to the CIA) which included several of Orwell's friends. Have fun! --Technopat (talk) 10:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed text

Have removed the following, seemingly irrelevant text from the Hampstead section:

He had also met in the bookshop a girl called Kay Ekevall.

If anyone thinks it significant enough to be included in an encyclopedia, please reference it and stick it back in. --Technopat (talk) 11:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Ekevall was a serious girlfriend for a time, and had a few things to say about him. Haven't found anything really valuable to add to that though so this was just a hook.
BTW should we consider archiving some of this page - people keep reviving threads that died long ago. Regards Motmit (talk) 12:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Go for it, though it should be done selectively so newcomers can see what issues have already been dealt with without having to wade through meaningless nonsense archives. Must be an easy way of doing it, but no idea.--Technopat (talk) 13:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Public domain

The article states "Peter Davison's production of the Complete Works of George Orwell, completed in 2000[115] put most of the Orwell Archive in the public domain." I find this confusing, and would appreciate clarification of the following:

  1. Does "in the public domain" here literally mean not subject to copyright, or is this a poorly phrased way of saying open to public scrutiny?
  2. Does "the Orwell Archive" refer to previously unpublished papers, or does it include the body of his works previously published under copyright?

Whether or not the fact of the matter (which I do not know) is that "most" of his published works are not subject to copyright, notwithstanding that works published after 1923 would ordinarily remain protected under United States copyright law for 70 years from his death (or until 1 January 2021, as noted at Wikisource), the article should be made clearer. ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Untitled

Have added the Talk page header - please read it carefully before contributing to this page. The bit about this NOT being a forum for discussing the article's subject is particularly relevant. As the template states, the aim of this page is to discuss improvements to the article. Thank you. --Technopat (talk) 16:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Moved

I Only find talk of it here in WIkipedia

For some reason, the comment above is unsigned. Anyways, I can recall seeing mention of that elsewhere. Mind you, it could just as well have been on another article about Orwell/Animal Farm here on Wiki. I will see if I can find it again.

Trevor Crane (talk) 06:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Miss/Mrs/Kazini

At Insein he had "long talks on every conceivable subject" with a journalist friend, Elisa Maria Langford-Rae — later Kasini Eliza Maria, who noted his "sense of utter fairness in minutest details".[11] Does this mean Miss Langford-Rae later became Mrs Kasini? If anyone sees a way to write this a bit clearer while retaining the change from a family name last to what is a family name first or some kind of Sikkimese title please do so. It seemed important to someone to add this line although exactly why is a mystery to me. Nitpyck (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Click on the link and the explanation is obvious - if there had been a way to write it clearer without the link that would have been done. There are few first hand reports of Orwell especially in his police role in Burma. Shelden regrets that he didn't know what happened to Langford Rae. She turns out to have been an extremely interesting individual and hopefully more will emerge. Motmit (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
The link is to Kazi Lhendup Dorjee (1904 – July 30, 2007) the first chief minister of Sikkim from 1974 to 1979 after its union with India.

That page doesn't mention Elisa Marie. Her connection to Kazi Lhendup Dorjee may be obvious, but not to me. On the other hand "There are few first hand reports of Orwell especially in his police role in Burma." explains perfectly why the sentence belongs. 71.175.51.77 (talk) 04:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Have edited the Kazi to make the statement of EML-R being his wife a bit more obvious. The solution would be for the lady to have her own page but I didn't feel we had enough yet to take on the del-boys - so for the time being she is buried with her last husband. Motmit (talk) 09:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


I'm working on a web page (not Wiki) about Elisa Maria, who was my grandmother. She began life as Ethel Maud Shirran, a lower middle class Scot, and changed her name to Elisa Maria when she moved out to Burma with her husband, my grandfather Bertram Langford Rae. Later on she married an Indian Health Administrator, and then married for the third time to Kazi Lhendup Dorjee Khangsarpa. By that point she was telling everybody she was a Belgian noblewoman, although in reality most of her family were farm servants in the vicinity of Turriff, Aberdeenshire, and her father was a Regimental Quartermaster Sergeant in The Black Watch.
I have found out nothing about her friendship with Orwell except what is on the Wiki page, and would be grateful if anyone who knows more about it could expand on the matter. It's certainly quite reasonable that she and the future Orwell would be friends as he and Bertram Langford Rae were both Assistant District Superintendents of Police in the same district at the same time. But her claim to be a journalist may have been as false as her claim to be a noblewoman. She was working as a shorthand typist as at 1923, although it's possible that she became the Rangoon stringer for some newspaper when she went out to Burma. Whitehound (talk) 02:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

First ever contribution, so please be nice

I feel that the following paragraph:-

'Other accusations, such as those of antisemitism, are not reflected in the large body of work describing his life and works. Public figures such as Gollancz, Warburg, Kimche and Fyvel, all close Jewish friends of his, would certainly not agree with the suggestion that he was antisemitic, while any close reading of his works would indeed suggest the opposite' suggests POV. I also find that this whole anti-Semitic section does not seem to flow as from my reading the the next two quotes seem to refute this accusation, but that is just my POV.

If I have completely got it wrong I apologise but as I mentioned this is my first contribution. Cheers --Bortholo (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely POV, vague and self-contradictory.
  • "Other accusations" - What accusations? They should be cited.
  • "..are not reflected in the large body of work describing his life and works" - Contradicts the previous phrase: if they are "not reflected", then surely they do not exist.
  • "..would certainly not agree..." Speculation.
If no justification is provided for this passage, I will delete it. Perhaps the editor who added it would like to re-write it. Marshall46 (talk) 07:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
On second thoughts, the section on "Criticism of Orwell's work" is such a dog's breakfast that it needs more than the removal of a single sentence to make anything decent out of it. It is not about criticism of Orwell's work but about reactions to his work, and so many editors have tried to sneak in their own POV that it needs a total re-write. I will have a go when I have time. Marshall46 (talk) 11:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

George Orwell and Burma

What about 1984 and Animal Farm? Can anyone link these as books inspired by his stay in Burma. Did he foresee what would happen after independence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.9.129 (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I seem to remember that Bernard Crick made a link, but I don't have his biography in front of me at the moment. Marshall46 (talk) 14:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Antisemitism in Animal Farm

Some people have claimed that the book Animal Farm has a secret antisemitic code, because Orwell apparently associated Communism with a hidden Jewish cabal. I'm not sure about this, but it would certainly deserve more adequate research if it is shown to be notable. [10] [11] [12] ADM (talk) 17:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Not "some people", a single anonymous poster on a message board. The idea that there is a "secret antisemitic code" in Animal Farm is rubbish. One of your links refers to statements in Orwell's letters that Communism had some Jewish basis. I have read many of Orwell's letters and have never come across such a statement. There is not a single reference in the index to the Collected Essays, Journalism and Letter of George Orwell (Vols 1-4) (Penguin, 1977-80) to Jews and Communism. The articles you link to appear to be written by people unfamiliar with Orwell's writings and I really do wonder what motivates them to promote these fantasies. Marshall46 (talk) 18:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
We had this discussion at Talk:Animal_Farm#Antisemitism, it posted there as well. One of those links mentions he had Jewish friends. Also, he published an article criticizing the antisemitism in England: http://www.george-orwell.org/AntiSemitism_In_Britian/0.html So yes, it is in fact rubbish. Dream Focus 18:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:George Orwell/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Informative, but uncited, with structute problems and a trivia section that shoud be trimmed.--Yannismarou 19:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 19:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20051207.htm
  2. ^ Introduction to Animal Farm excerpts, http://understandingpower.com/Chapter4.htm#f14
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_Orwell/Archive_1&oldid=1154950672"