Why do we care so much about this kind of stuff? 1984 is a great book- has a great message/warning about how dangerous a world without privacy and unchecked institutional power can be. Read the book, tune out the noise.
> Why do we care so much about this kind of stuff?
Because we're in an environment in which authors can be and sometimes are "canceled" for reasons that have nothing to do with the quality of their work.
For me, it was refreshing to come across a piece that expresses admiration for Orwell's work, and also recognizes he was a flawed person when judged by modern standards. The two thoughts are not incompatible with each other.
Also, this passage struck a chord with me:
> However bad Orwell’s attitudes toward women were, the warning he gave us in “1984” was not that society might someday become so twisted that women would criticize him. His novel was a warning against the kind of leaders who call their opponents “vermin,” leaders who want to punish people for having the “wrong” opinions or being of the “wrong” ethnicity. It was written about leaders who become cult figures, whose idealized image is plastered everywhere as a symbol of belonging, who hold rallies at which their followers join to scream in ecstatic hatred. It was written about a world in which such leaders could avail themselves of advanced technology, in which propaganda and surveillance were unavoidable and ubiquitous."
Remaining cordial; George Orwell was a posh boy who sold out every single one of his comrades to save his own reputation including gay and other marginalised people. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orwell%27s_list
Perhaps more interestingly, the list was probably comissioned by Robert Conquest who went on to author multiple books that have become cannon for anticommunists despite being thoroughly debunked. Interesting how these posh boys always end up doing this, I wonder what their vested interests are.
We're so far through the looking glass when it comes to conservatives complaining about "woke" or "cancel culture". The words have lost all meaning except when virtue signaling about how much they hate the concepts.
Those words are bandied around quite a bit, true. That said I would not say they have lost as much meaning as the ones thrown around by "progressives", i.e. the ones those you call conservatives [1] get thrown at them at every occasion. You know the ones I'm referring to, words like racist and homophobe and transphobe and nazi and fascist and all the other -is[t|m]s and -phobes and such.
[1] ...who in real life come from nearly all ideological standpoints, from "traditional" Marxists through classical liberals through centrists via conservatives to whatever lies opposite Marxists nowadays.
The title is completely misleading, and the article is incoherent, for example, arguing on the one hand that attempts to discredit Orwell are not at all attacks on his work, but also claiming that his personal failings made it into the book. And then claiming the 'right wing' are the ones 'coming for' Orwell? I'm not at all on the right, but in this case I think they have a very valid point, this really does seem like a fact-warping argument.
This article is quite incoherent. I've read it once, scanned it once more, and can't find any reference to the titular claim. The article, at best, seems to summarize some criticisms levelled at Orwell by the left-wing commentariat.
13 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 22.1 ms ] threadPlease don't forget the OP is an opinion piece, and do your best to keep discussion civil.
---
EDIT: If the discussion degrades into low quality, please flag the OP.
> Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
If you want to see dead comments, you don't need to repost them, you can just turn on the showdead option in your account preferences.
Because we're in an environment in which authors can be and sometimes are "canceled" for reasons that have nothing to do with the quality of their work.
For me, it was refreshing to come across a piece that expresses admiration for Orwell's work, and also recognizes he was a flawed person when judged by modern standards. The two thoughts are not incompatible with each other.
Also, this passage struck a chord with me:
> However bad Orwell’s attitudes toward women were, the warning he gave us in “1984” was not that society might someday become so twisted that women would criticize him. His novel was a warning against the kind of leaders who call their opponents “vermin,” leaders who want to punish people for having the “wrong” opinions or being of the “wrong” ethnicity. It was written about leaders who become cult figures, whose idealized image is plastered everywhere as a symbol of belonging, who hold rallies at which their followers join to scream in ecstatic hatred. It was written about a world in which such leaders could avail themselves of advanced technology, in which propaganda and surveillance were unavoidable and ubiquitous."
I couldn't agree more.
Perhaps more interestingly, the list was probably comissioned by Robert Conquest who went on to author multiple books that have become cannon for anticommunists despite being thoroughly debunked. Interesting how these posh boys always end up doing this, I wonder what their vested interests are.
Ironically, the author himself does not seem to see him self as part of the problem.
I would rather him write about class, elites, grassroots or whatever.
[1] ...who in real life come from nearly all ideological standpoints, from "traditional" Marxists through classical liberals through centrists via conservatives to whatever lies opposite Marxists nowadays.
What is this weak drivel doing on the front page?
Cancelling George Orwell is just a humorous image.