Hard to believe anyone could surmount that sort of background and have any semblance of a value system - let alone becoming a champion of free thought and autocratic critique. I mean, you'd be hard-pressed to find any more awful colonial misadventures than Jamica and the opium trade 👀 Really curious to read what the tipping points were in next week's piece. The Solnit book sounds 👌 as well
Such an interesting question: where do "pleasure and beauty and hours with no quantifiable practical result fit into the life of someone, perhaps of anyone, who also cared about injustice and truth and human rights and how to change the world?" My theory is that nobody can have the energy and enthusiasm to devote to changing the world UNLESS we already believe there are things here that are worth saving, as Orwell clearly did. Nice piece.
I always appreciated Orwell for being a loud voice which to my limited knowledge about him placed him clearly on the progressive/woke side of of the political and religious spectra...after reading your take he's been put more into a wishy-washy flippity floppity purgatory of mild hipocracy at best and outright duplicity at worst.
I did a cursory wiki dive on him and found evidence of his deceptive agility in the section on his religious beliefs, which began staunchly atheistic and gradually seemed to become more fitted to his bourgeoisie lifestyle to which he had become seduced:
"Orwell was an atheist who identified himself with the humanist outlook on life.[259] Despite this, and despite his criticisms of both religious doctrine and religious organisations, he nevertheless regularly participated in the social and civic life of the church, including by attending Church of England Holy Communion.[260] Acknowledging this contradiction, he once said: "It seems rather mean to go to HC [Holy Communion] when one doesn't believe, but I have passed myself off for pious & there is nothing for it but to keep up with the deception."[261] He had two Anglican marriages and left instructions for an Anglican funeral.[262] Orwell was also extremely well-read in Biblical literature and could quote lengthy passages from the Book of Common Prayer from memory.[263] His extensive knowledge of the Bible came coupled with unsparing criticism of its philosophy..."
I don't think we should try to pigeonhole great writers and thinkers into simplistic categories that don't necessarily reflect their varied beliefs, in this case I think you pulled back the emerald curtain on a wizard of cause but instead of decrying his lies you're celebrating the illusion.
Great take. Funny to see the Wikipedia thing... he definitely wrote based on what was trending, because that's got paid the most. It might be a matter of celebrating the illusion, because the books are still subjective to the reader despite the author behind them. That said, you'll definitely be interested in the next piece about his time in India...
Hard to believe anyone could surmount that sort of background and have any semblance of a value system - let alone becoming a champion of free thought and autocratic critique. I mean, you'd be hard-pressed to find any more awful colonial misadventures than Jamica and the opium trade 👀 Really curious to read what the tipping points were in next week's piece. The Solnit book sounds 👌 as well
Such an interesting question: where do "pleasure and beauty and hours with no quantifiable practical result fit into the life of someone, perhaps of anyone, who also cared about injustice and truth and human rights and how to change the world?" My theory is that nobody can have the energy and enthusiasm to devote to changing the world UNLESS we already believe there are things here that are worth saving, as Orwell clearly did. Nice piece.
I always appreciated Orwell for being a loud voice which to my limited knowledge about him placed him clearly on the progressive/woke side of of the political and religious spectra...after reading your take he's been put more into a wishy-washy flippity floppity purgatory of mild hipocracy at best and outright duplicity at worst.
I did a cursory wiki dive on him and found evidence of his deceptive agility in the section on his religious beliefs, which began staunchly atheistic and gradually seemed to become more fitted to his bourgeoisie lifestyle to which he had become seduced:
"Orwell was an atheist who identified himself with the humanist outlook on life.[259] Despite this, and despite his criticisms of both religious doctrine and religious organisations, he nevertheless regularly participated in the social and civic life of the church, including by attending Church of England Holy Communion.[260] Acknowledging this contradiction, he once said: "It seems rather mean to go to HC [Holy Communion] when one doesn't believe, but I have passed myself off for pious & there is nothing for it but to keep up with the deception."[261] He had two Anglican marriages and left instructions for an Anglican funeral.[262] Orwell was also extremely well-read in Biblical literature and could quote lengthy passages from the Book of Common Prayer from memory.[263] His extensive knowledge of the Bible came coupled with unsparing criticism of its philosophy..."
I don't think we should try to pigeonhole great writers and thinkers into simplistic categories that don't necessarily reflect their varied beliefs, in this case I think you pulled back the emerald curtain on a wizard of cause but instead of decrying his lies you're celebrating the illusion.
Great take. Funny to see the Wikipedia thing... he definitely wrote based on what was trending, because that's got paid the most. It might be a matter of celebrating the illusion, because the books are still subjective to the reader despite the author behind them. That said, you'll definitely be interested in the next piece about his time in India...