5 ms·

It needs more public-spirited pigs: TS Eliot's rejection of Orwell's Animal Farm

29 points by samclemens 10y ago

RodericDay 10y ago
related: Isaac Asimov's scathing review of 1984 This is not science fiction, but a distorted nostalgia for a past that never was. I am surprised that Orwell stopped with the steel pen and that he didn't have Winston writing with a neat goose quill. Nor was Orwell particularly prescient in the strictly social aspects of the future he was presenting, with the result that the Orwellian world of 1984 is incredibly old-fashioned when compared with the real world of the 1980s. Orwell imagines no new vices, for instance. His characters are all gin hounds and tobacco addicts, and part of the horror of his picture of 1984 is his eloquent description of the low quality of the gin and tobacco. He foresees no new drugs, no marijuana, no synthetic hallucinogens. No one expects an s.f. writer to be precise and exact in his forecasts, but surely one would expect him to invent some differences. In his despair (or anger), Orwell forgets the virtues human beings have. All his characters are, in one way or another, weak or sadistic, or sleazy, or stupid, or repellent. This may be how most people are, or how Orwell wants to indicate they will all be under tyranny, but it seems to me that under even the worst tyrannies, so far, there have been brave men and women who have withstood the tyrants to the death and whose personal histories are luminous flames in the surrounding darkness. If only because there is no hint of this in 1984, it does not resemble the real world of the 1980s. Nor did he foresee any difference in the role of women or any weakening of the feminine stereotype of 1949. There are only two female characters of importance. One is a strong, brainless 'prole' woman who is an endless washerwoman, endlessly singing a popular song with words of the type familiar in the 1930s and 1940s (at which Orwell shudders fastidiously as 'trashy', in blissful non-anticipation of hard rock). The other is the heroine, Julia, who is sexually promiscuous (but is at least driven to courage by her interest in sex) and is otherwise brainless. When the hero, Winston, reads to her the book within a book that explains the nature of the Orwellian world, she responds by falling asleep - but then since the treatise Winston reads is stupefyingly soporific, this may be an indication of Julia's good sense rather than the reverse. In short, if 1984 must be considered science fiction, then it is very bad science fiction. http://www.newworker.org/ncptrory/1984.htm http://www.newworker.org/ncptrory/1984.htm
- labster 10y ago
  I don't know. I'd say Orwell did an excellent job of predicting North Korean society. 1984 is not really science fiction, but a political fantasy showing the worst a society could become with modern technology. As with all dystopias, it is a warning more than a true and consistent world. I co-ran the UC Davis branch of the Students for an Orwellian Society 10 years ago. The idea of doublethink, of encapsulating dangerous ideas in pithy slogans, of massive government surveillance -- those are all very relevant today. They serve well for helping to frame a debate. But still, I've never felt the urge to reread 1984, which in some ways proves Asimov correct. It's not amazing as fiction, but full of interesting ideas.
  - force_reboot 10y ago
    1984 describes the world as if the Soviet Union won the cold war. So it does seem to capture some aspects of a leftist totalitarian society like North Korea. On the other hand North Korea is different any many ways, e.g. 1984 doesn't characterize the proles as living in near starvation. When it comes to applying its ideas more generally, the problem is that everyone wants to use it as ammunition against their ideological opponents. For example opponents of Trump might consider the strong emotions he stirs up comparable with the 2 minutes hate, while opponents to the progressive movements might consider the attempt to erase gendered pronouns from our language as a kind of Newspeak.
    - labster 10y ago
      Of course, both sides would be correct. That's why Orwell works so well as a logical razor. The question of government is always the degree to which the culture is controlled. Orwell himself never really settled on an ideology, and were he American today I imagine he'd be deeply unsatisfied with all of our parties/candidates.
- letitleak 10y ago
  I find this criticism and Eliot's of very little value without Orwell's choice of rebuttals. The format of 1984 is very different from A clock Work Orange, which is the closest thing I can think of to Asimov's request. 1984 works on a different level because it doesn't distance the reader from the characters by giving them new vices or unessential tech that we must map to the present. The pigs in animal farm also work very well from Orwell's perspective. I don't think he viewed his class controlling India as an accident, and for all intents he was a civic minded pig that at best understood that his peers were going too far in making an empire with all the unfortunate traits of past empires.
williesleg 10y ago
Funny thing is the kids love Bernie

29 points by samclemens 10y ago

related: Isaac Asimov's scathing review of 1984 This is not science fiction, but a distorted nostalgia for a past that never was. I am surprised that Orwell stopped with the steel pen and that he didn't have Winston writing with a neat goose quill. Nor was Orwell particularly prescient in the strictly social aspects of the future he was presenting, with the result that the Orwellian world of 1984 is incredibly old-fashioned when compared with the real world of the 1980s. Orwell imagines no new vices, for instance. His characters are all gin hounds and tobacco addicts, and part of the horror of his picture of 1984 is his eloquent description of the low quality of the gin and tobacco. He foresees no new drugs, no marijuana, no synthetic hallucinogens. No one expects an s.f. writer to be precise and exact in his forecasts, but surely one would expect him to invent some differences. In his despair (or anger), Orwell forgets the virtues human beings have. All his characters are, in one way or another, weak or sadistic, or sleazy, or stupid, or repellent. This may be how most people are, or how Orwell wants to indicate they will all be under tyranny, but it seems to me that under even the worst tyrannies, so far, there have been brave men and women who have withstood the tyrants to the death and whose personal histories are luminous flames in the surrounding darkness. If only because there is no hint of this in 1984, it does not resemble the real world of the 1980s. Nor did he foresee any difference in the role of women or any weakening of the feminine stereotype of 1949. There are only two female characters of importance. One is a strong, brainless 'prole' woman who is an endless washerwoman, endlessly singing a popular song with words of the type familiar in the 1930s and 1940s (at which Orwell shudders fastidiously as 'trashy', in blissful non-anticipation of hard rock). The other is the heroine, Julia, who is sexually promiscuous (but is at least driven to courage by her interest in sex) and is otherwise brainless. When the hero, Winston, reads to her the book within a book that explains the nature of the Orwellian world, she responds by falling asleep - but then since the treatise Winston reads is stupefyingly soporific, this may be an indication of Julia's good sense rather than the reverse. In short, if 1984 must be considered science fiction, then it is very bad science fiction. http://www.newworker.org/ncptrory/1984.htm http://www.newworker.org/ncptrory/1984.htm

labster 10y ago
I don't know. I'd say Orwell did an excellent job of predicting North Korean society. 1984 is not really science fiction, but a political fantasy showing the worst a society could become with modern technology. As with all dystopias, it is a warning more than a true and consistent world. I co-ran the UC Davis branch of the Students for an Orwellian Society 10 years ago. The idea of doublethink, of encapsulating dangerous ideas in pithy slogans, of massive government surveillance -- those are all very relevant today. They serve well for helping to frame a debate. But still, I've never felt the urge to reread 1984, which in some ways proves Asimov correct. It's not amazing as fiction, but full of interesting ideas.
- force_reboot 10y ago
  1984 describes the world as if the Soviet Union won the cold war. So it does seem to capture some aspects of a leftist totalitarian society like North Korea. On the other hand North Korea is different any many ways, e.g. 1984 doesn't characterize the proles as living in near starvation. When it comes to applying its ideas more generally, the problem is that everyone wants to use it as ammunition against their ideological opponents. For example opponents of Trump might consider the strong emotions he stirs up comparable with the 2 minutes hate, while opponents to the progressive movements might consider the attempt to erase gendered pronouns from our language as a kind of Newspeak.
  - labster 10y ago
    Of course, both sides would be correct. That's why Orwell works so well as a logical razor. The question of government is always the degree to which the culture is controlled. Orwell himself never really settled on an ideology, and were he American today I imagine he'd be deeply unsatisfied with all of our parties/candidates.
letitleak 10y ago
I find this criticism and Eliot's of very little value without Orwell's choice of rebuttals. The format of 1984 is very different from A clock Work Orange, which is the closest thing I can think of to Asimov's request. 1984 works on a different level because it doesn't distance the reader from the characters by giving them new vices or unessential tech that we must map to the present. The pigs in animal farm also work very well from Orwell's perspective. I don't think he viewed his class controlling India as an accident, and for all intents he was a civic minded pig that at best understood that his peers were going too far in making an empire with all the unfortunate traits of past empires.

williesleg 10y ago

Funny thing is the kids love Bernie