7 ms·

Anger over sale of George Orwell archive

72 points by lermontov 2y ago

ggm 2y ago
the UK government has a power to act if it wants.
- jakeogh 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - croes 2y ago
    Given the current state of the US I doubt it worked out well. No universal healthcare but guns. Great choice /s
    - jakeogh 2y ago
      I can say whatever I want; as long as I am not threatening someone else's life or liberty. These things are well defined. Nobody is going to knock on my door tomorrow. The same is not true for you if you live under their laws, you couldn't agree with me if you wanted to. The system you defend is banning sharp objects. We have sharp objects to prevent exactly what I pointed out is wrong. We can defend ourselves and others around us. The US is a wonderful amazing place. I welcome you to visit or immigrate and make a life here. Heck, hit me up.
      - Kuinox 2y ago
        https://theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1819576527/ https://theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation...
      - stavros 2y ago
        I was with you until the last paragraph. The notion that the people of the US can rise up against the US army and last more than two seconds is ridiculous. You have sharp objects and all you do with them is kill yourselves and each other.
        jakeogh 2y ago
        https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title10/html/USCODE-2011-title10-subtitleA-partII-chap31-sec502.htm https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title10/html... (a) Enlistment Oath.—Each person enlisting in an armed force shall take the following oath: “I, ____________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.” These are the people that care about our way of life the most. Your assumption is incorrect even if you assume that the US Mil has the ability to suppress the US population en mass without destroying it's self. They are not robots.
        stavros 2y ago
        Oh man, if only other countries that became military dictatorships had the foresight to make the soldiers swear an oath, they could have avoided the whole thing.
        jakeogh 2y ago
        You ignored my comment on the oath. Setting that aside, perhaps you know of another country with a voluntary force and a judicial branch upholding Heller[1] and Bruen[2]? Even a cursory understanding of mil force is enough to seriously question your unsupported assumption. It's why we have the 2nd right after the 1st. [1] Justice Antonin Scalia reading Heller(2008)[1] for the majority: https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-media.ogg/case_data/2007/07-290/20080626o_07-290.ogg https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-media.ogg/case_data/2007/... [2] https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/20-843 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/20-843
      - exe34 2y ago
        you think your guns protect you from your government? how much koolaid have you drunk?
      - chgs 2y ago
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_ex... You think your limits are the correct ones. Others believe picketing funerals with hate but banning porn is the wrong balance.
      - latentcall 2y ago
        > The US is a wonderful amazing place. Do you really believe this?
        vixen99 2y ago
        Any country that can roll on normally with a debt of $35 trillion has to be amazing.
      - edent 2y ago
        > I can say whatever I want; as long as I am not threatening someone else's life or liberty. The people who are in jail for, as you claim "offending others online" were threatening people's lives. > The system you defend is banning sharp objects Again, not true. I can buy as many sharp objects as I want. I can even take them out in public if I want. The law even allows me to use them for self defence. We've had a problem with some people buying weaponry - and it is weaponry which has been banned. You can go into any DIY store and buy all the knives, machetes, and chainsaws that you want. > The US is a wonderful amazing place. I would encourage you to join the 40% of your fellow citizens who have passports and go explore the world rather than reading about it.
        sva_ 2y ago
        > I can buy as many sharp objects as I want. I can even take them out in public if I want. https://mk-law.co.uk/new-law-targets-zombie-knives-and-machetes-with-upcoming-ban/ https://mk-law.co.uk/new-law-targets-zombie-knives-and-mache... Oddly specific rules though
        edent 2y ago
        Sharp objects are not the same as weaponry. The US Constitution says something about the right to bear arms, but I don't think you're allowed to own a landmine or nuclear bomb, right?
        adrian_b 2y ago
        Assuming that the rules enumerated at that link are the complete rules, I have a Japanese bread knife that I use every day for its exquisite sharpness, and which would become forbidden by these rules. The reason is that it has a 9-inch serrated blade, which is a very frequently encountered size for bread knives, and the angle at the tip of the blade is slightly smaller than the 90 degree angle mandated by the new rules. The slightly acute blade tip is very handy when cutting some big hard vegetables, like water melons or pumpkins, or some very big breads, which have a diameter greater than the 9-inch blade length. The rules as written on that site are ambiguous, because they could be also interpreted as only forbidding the 2-edged blades, where one edge is plain and one edge is serrated (a kind of knife that I have never seen). However this interpretation of the rules is contradicted by "other than a serrated cutting edge of up to two inches next to the handle", which is a typical feature of single-edged blades and which would not make sense on a 2-edged blade. The rules still allow the possession of a fighting/utility knife, like the classic KA-BAR, whose blade is only 7-in long and which has a small serrated edge that satisfies the rules.
      - matthewmacleod 2y ago
        Honestly, this is just kind of shallow conversation if you don’t engage honestly with it. Both US and UK societies have the general concept of freedom on speech - you are free to say what you want for the most part, subject to some specific limits on that right where the speech infringes on someone else’s rights. These rights are codified, came about, and are implemented slightly differently - but in practice the difference you’re identifying is really more about what the respective societies define as acceptable. In recent cases, the people who’ve been jailed have been done so for (among other things) incitement to racial hatred - things like public posts encouraging people to commit specific acts. The UK considers this outside the bounds of acceptable free speech. The US maybe considers this boundary elsewhere, but it is clear that some forms of expression can constitute harassment or other criminality even in the US. The interesting discussion is the bit in the middle - how do we build a messy consensus that deals with our differences and protects as many people’s rights to live peacefully as possible, while still allowing others to speak freely and without fear. A discussion from the starting point of “I can say whatever I want” when it is demonstrably not true doesn’t really engage with that. The US is indeed a wonderful and amazing place full of incredible people. It would be even more wonderful and amazing with occasional bouts of self-reflection.
      - croes 2y ago
        You banned Kinder surprise eggs and have more school shootings per month than others in a decade. You had the January 6 United States Capitol attack because field by the former president which led to the death of five people. Somehow Americans fear to become a tyranny (maybe because of all the armed people) and at the same time ignore all the people already dying like they were already living in a tyranny. I'm from a country that was turned in a tyranny but I fear people with guns more than my government. >The US is a wonderful amazing place. Have you been to other countries?
  - Kuinox 2y ago
    > first to face jail for stirring up racial hatred during the violent unrest It's not just offending others, racial hatred is illegal there. Yes doing something illegal can lead to prison time.
underlogic 2y ago
why don't they just scan it and release the images as a public archive? are we arguing over old paper now? what will we do with it in a museum? lock it in a glass case so no oily fingers can turn the pages? maybe scholars want to rub their faces all over the book cover at the weekends as a kink?
jemmyw 2y ago
Controversial take maybe, but who really gives a damn? Filing cabinets that haven't been opened for 50 years? I'm sure people would flock to a museum to see those /s. Researchers obviously weren't that interested. If private collectors are happy to pay large amounts for these things then that seems like the best option, they'll enjoy owning it. We really don't need the minutia of every decision Orwell made while writing his stories, I'd go so far as to say agonizing over such devalues the work.
- bpshaver 2y ago
  I'm not aware of any Orwell short stories
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- HPsquared 2y ago
  That's an interesting perspective how analysis can devalue works of literature. Stripping away the mythos, perhaps.
- thyristan 2y ago
  Agreed. Also: the originals are mostly only relevant for their collectible value. Researchers can more easily work off digital scans. No need to buy anything or keep anything together physically, just scan it if you are really that interested.
  - keskival 2y ago
    Are there digital scans though? Edit: It seems there's a lot of digitalized materials in UCL online archives, but I would be surprised if all documents were digitalized: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/library/digital-collections/collections/orwell https://www.ucl.ac.uk/library/digital-collections/collection...
    - thyristan 2y ago
      I don't know if there are digital scans. But that there aren't proves the OPs point that researchers can't be THAT interested after all, if they didn't even take scans of the documents.
FerretFred 2y ago
“cultural vandalism” indeed! It's ironic then that a nation that pride itself on preserving tradition should allow its national broadcaster the BBC to destroy early archives in the 60s/70s (https://www.quora.com/Why-was-there-a-purge-of-the-BBC-archives-in-the-late-60s https://www.quora.com/Why-was-there-a-purge-of-the-BBC-archi...). "Who would want to watch a program twice?" and "Wow, isn't storage expensive?!" Orwell would have turned in his grave.
- cannonpr 2y ago
  The honest truth is that the Britain of today isn’t a colonial power anymore, and is rather poor by its relative standards of the past. I feel it’s more concerned with selling its past to tourists for money more than preserving it of late.
  - FerretFred 2y ago
    Absolutely right!
  - swores 2y ago
    Not just to tourists, unfortunately a significant part of our (British) politics is selling our past to voters, as rose-tinted "good old days" emotions at the expense of focussing on how to make the best of the current situation (which, let's face it, despite no longer being as much of a global power as during the empire days were still an extremely privileged country compared to global averages).
- monooso 2y ago
  Whilst I'm not in any way arguing in favour of destroying culturally significant works, you've completely mischaracterised the answer you linked to. > "Who would want to watch a program twice?" This isn't even remotely what was said. The answer makes it clear that it wasn't feasible to air some programs again, due to the fees that must be paid to actors etc., and as such: > So, if a programme could not be aired again, what was the point in keeping it? Which is a reasonable line of thinking for the British _Broadcasting_ Corporation. > "Wow, isn't storage _expensive_?!" Yes, it was. But the answer makes clear that it wasn't just an issue of storage costs; the _tape_ was extremely expensive, and could be reused. So it was. > When I worked in the tape library in the late ’60s a one hour reel of tape cost the equivalent of six weeks of my pay. Storage was expensive too. One final point I would make is that the BBC is publicly funded. It doesn't have unlimited funds, and its primary function is to create content. As the answer clearly states: > Some samples of programmes were kept as being of interest, but the BBC saw itself as a maker of programmes not a museum.
micheljansen 2y ago
'Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.'
- chgs 2y ago
  If that were true control would never change
  - readthenotes1 2y ago
    If there are only one polity in existence the assertion would be true.
bell-cot 2y ago
Before this hit the news - how many of the now-angry people had previously demonstrated any real interest in the George Orwell archives? Or had actually worked to preserve any collection of historical documents? It's real easy to sit on your ass, while bitterly complaining that a whole legion of Somebody Elses is not working 25-hour days, for free, to make the world conform to your whims.
- jerry1979 2y ago
  The director of the George Orwell foundation appeared in the article and seemed interested in the archive.
  - bell-cot 2y ago
    True...but his quoted bit of the article amounts to "why didn't somebody else, on their own time and dime, Do Stuff"? There's no hint that he (or anyone associated with him) had previously cared to even look for such materials. Let alone do a superficial study of them. The article also notes that the company had previously tried to sell the entire Gollancz collection - vastly more material than just the George Orwell part - to institutional buyers for £1m. None of them were interested. And I don't see any criticism of them for that neglect. But now, when it's easy for the ass-sitters to score points by screaming about Evil Corporations destroying England's sacred history, there is a huge fuss.
    - readthenotes1 2y ago
      It seems like a GoFundMe should solve this for Orwell, right?
      - AtomicOrbital 2y ago
        make it so number one
pbhjpbhj 2y ago
In UK we have legislation that protects buildings if they're significant (eg peculiar, famous, old). Perhaps we should have a law requiring digitisation of significant artefacts (at public expense) in order to sell works that may be of historical/cultural significance. Honestly, I couldn't care less about keeping original documents, but preserving images of those documents seems reasonable. Same would go for selling artwork or artefacts, offer true opportunity to national museums to retain a digital copy. Fwiw, I like old artefacts, papers, books, even rusty old filling cabinets, but I don't see value for the country in preserving those things. Also fwiw, I think the Listed Building laws go a bit far in some cases: preventing people's reasonable enjoyment of their own properties.
verisimi 2y ago
Hats off to the team managing the sale of this archive for getting an article in the Guardian and then here to promoting their work.
- lupire 2y ago
  The Guardian a reliable outlet for whipping up outrage among the uninformed and easily misled.
tweetle_beetle 2y ago
“That nobody had opened those filing cabinets for 50 years was because they were idiots and didn’t understand the archive’s value." But who is it valuable to? Ultimately a great deal of this is purely interesting to the increasing small number of people who are personally or professionally invested in Orwell. The value here is that the archive could generate a couple of conference keynotes for professors, a new foreword in a reprint, or, at a stretch, a new biography. There is a very small chance that enough new material, or changes to material, could merit a brand new publication, but ultimately the existing published works stand by themselves and the rest amounts to high brow gossip.
- Sakos 2y ago
  History. It should be a part of our historical and cultural record, not the private playthings for the wealthy. Whenever something like this comes up, I'm appalled at how little people seem to give a shit about preserving things for the future. In the end, it's all we have to pass down through the ages.
  - lupire 2y ago
    Do you intend to dedicate all your personal communication and financial dealings to historians to study after you death? Or only Orwell's?
    - Sakos 2y ago
      When I die, family and close friends will have access to all my data. They can choose what to do with it. Once I'm dead, I'll have no interest in my privacy. This is also a nonsensical argument and I don't appreciate these bad faith "gotcha" arguments. While my data might be of some historical interest in the sense of understanding the average male in Western Europe in the early 21st century, it isn't nearly of the same significance as that of Orwell. Nobody is going to buy my data and lock it away in a vault. In addition, much of my presence, my "data" is available publicly online in my posts and comments on HN, Reddit and other social media. Orwell didn't post on Reddit, afaik, so somebody buying up Orwell's archive is a much more significant and impactful loss in multiple ways. But you just wanted to "win" an argument, so I don't know why I'm wasting my time. Have you given any of this any thought at all? Like, really? This really isn't the place for trolling or just making noise. Reddit's more suited for that.
pcf 2y ago
The UK is moving rapidly towards 1984, so it only seems fitting that Orwell's letters and various material should just be... memory-holed. And at the very end of the day, no one will understand why "He loved Big Brother" was not a happy ending.
- xhkkffbf 2y ago
  The publishers are probably embarrassed that they turned down the book because of their pro-Stalinist vision. Holodomor? What Holodomor?

72 points by lermontov 2y ago

ggm 2y ago

the UK government has a power to act if it wants.

jakeogh 2y ago
[flagged]
- croes 2y ago
  Given the current state of the US I doubt it worked out well. No universal healthcare but guns. Great choice /s
  - jakeogh 2y ago
    I can say whatever I want; as long as I am not threatening someone else's life or liberty. These things are well defined. Nobody is going to knock on my door tomorrow. The same is not true for you if you live under their laws, you couldn't agree with me if you wanted to. The system you defend is banning sharp objects. We have sharp objects to prevent exactly what I pointed out is wrong. We can defend ourselves and others around us. The US is a wonderful amazing place. I welcome you to visit or immigrate and make a life here. Heck, hit me up.
    - Kuinox 2y ago
      https://theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1819576527/ https://theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation...
    - stavros 2y ago
      I was with you until the last paragraph. The notion that the people of the US can rise up against the US army and last more than two seconds is ridiculous. You have sharp objects and all you do with them is kill yourselves and each other.
      - jakeogh 2y ago
        https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title10/html/USCODE-2011-title10-subtitleA-partII-chap31-sec502.htm https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title10/html... (a) Enlistment Oath.—Each person enlisting in an armed force shall take the following oath: “I, ____________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.” These are the people that care about our way of life the most. Your assumption is incorrect even if you assume that the US Mil has the ability to suppress the US population en mass without destroying it's self. They are not robots.
        stavros 2y ago
        Oh man, if only other countries that became military dictatorships had the foresight to make the soldiers swear an oath, they could have avoided the whole thing.
        jakeogh 2y ago
        You ignored my comment on the oath. Setting that aside, perhaps you know of another country with a voluntary force and a judicial branch upholding Heller[1] and Bruen[2]? Even a cursory understanding of mil force is enough to seriously question your unsupported assumption. It's why we have the 2nd right after the 1st. [1] Justice Antonin Scalia reading Heller(2008)[1] for the majority: https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-media.ogg/case_data/2007/07-290/20080626o_07-290.ogg https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-media.ogg/case_data/2007/... [2] https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/20-843 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/20-843
    - exe34 2y ago
      you think your guns protect you from your government? how much koolaid have you drunk?
    - chgs 2y ago
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_ex... You think your limits are the correct ones. Others believe picketing funerals with hate but banning porn is the wrong balance.
    - latentcall 2y ago
      > The US is a wonderful amazing place. Do you really believe this?
      - vixen99 2y ago
        Any country that can roll on normally with a debt of $35 trillion has to be amazing.
    - edent 2y ago
      > I can say whatever I want; as long as I am not threatening someone else's life or liberty. The people who are in jail for, as you claim "offending others online" were threatening people's lives. > The system you defend is banning sharp objects Again, not true. I can buy as many sharp objects as I want. I can even take them out in public if I want. The law even allows me to use them for self defence. We've had a problem with some people buying weaponry - and it is weaponry which has been banned. You can go into any DIY store and buy all the knives, machetes, and chainsaws that you want. > The US is a wonderful amazing place. I would encourage you to join the 40% of your fellow citizens who have passports and go explore the world rather than reading about it.
      - sva_ 2y ago
        > I can buy as many sharp objects as I want. I can even take them out in public if I want. https://mk-law.co.uk/new-law-targets-zombie-knives-and-machetes-with-upcoming-ban/ https://mk-law.co.uk/new-law-targets-zombie-knives-and-mache... Oddly specific rules though
        edent 2y ago
        Sharp objects are not the same as weaponry. The US Constitution says something about the right to bear arms, but I don't think you're allowed to own a landmine or nuclear bomb, right?
        adrian_b 2y ago
        Assuming that the rules enumerated at that link are the complete rules, I have a Japanese bread knife that I use every day for its exquisite sharpness, and which would become forbidden by these rules. The reason is that it has a 9-inch serrated blade, which is a very frequently encountered size for bread knives, and the angle at the tip of the blade is slightly smaller than the 90 degree angle mandated by the new rules. The slightly acute blade tip is very handy when cutting some big hard vegetables, like water melons or pumpkins, or some very big breads, which have a diameter greater than the 9-inch blade length. The rules as written on that site are ambiguous, because they could be also interpreted as only forbidding the 2-edged blades, where one edge is plain and one edge is serrated (a kind of knife that I have never seen). However this interpretation of the rules is contradicted by "other than a serrated cutting edge of up to two inches next to the handle", which is a typical feature of single-edged blades and which would not make sense on a 2-edged blade. The rules still allow the possession of a fighting/utility knife, like the classic KA-BAR, whose blade is only 7-in long and which has a small serrated edge that satisfies the rules.
    - matthewmacleod 2y ago
      Honestly, this is just kind of shallow conversation if you don’t engage honestly with it. Both US and UK societies have the general concept of freedom on speech - you are free to say what you want for the most part, subject to some specific limits on that right where the speech infringes on someone else’s rights. These rights are codified, came about, and are implemented slightly differently - but in practice the difference you’re identifying is really more about what the respective societies define as acceptable. In recent cases, the people who’ve been jailed have been done so for (among other things) incitement to racial hatred - things like public posts encouraging people to commit specific acts. The UK considers this outside the bounds of acceptable free speech. The US maybe considers this boundary elsewhere, but it is clear that some forms of expression can constitute harassment or other criminality even in the US. The interesting discussion is the bit in the middle - how do we build a messy consensus that deals with our differences and protects as many people’s rights to live peacefully as possible, while still allowing others to speak freely and without fear. A discussion from the starting point of “I can say whatever I want” when it is demonstrably not true doesn’t really engage with that. The US is indeed a wonderful and amazing place full of incredible people. It would be even more wonderful and amazing with occasional bouts of self-reflection.
    - croes 2y ago
      You banned Kinder surprise eggs and have more school shootings per month than others in a decade. You had the January 6 United States Capitol attack because field by the former president which led to the death of five people. Somehow Americans fear to become a tyranny (maybe because of all the armed people) and at the same time ignore all the people already dying like they were already living in a tyranny. I'm from a country that was turned in a tyranny but I fear people with guns more than my government. >The US is a wonderful amazing place. Have you been to other countries?
- Kuinox 2y ago
  > first to face jail for stirring up racial hatred during the violent unrest It's not just offending others, racial hatred is illegal there. Yes doing something illegal can lead to prison time.

underlogic 2y ago

why don't they just scan it and release the images as a public archive? are we arguing over old paper now? what will we do with it in a museum? lock it in a glass case so no oily fingers can turn the pages? maybe scholars want to rub their faces all over the book cover at the weekends as a kink?

jemmyw 2y ago

Controversial take maybe, but who really gives a damn? Filing cabinets that haven't been opened for 50 years? I'm sure people would flock to a museum to see those /s. Researchers obviously weren't that interested. If private collectors are happy to pay large amounts for these things then that seems like the best option, they'll enjoy owning it. We really don't need the minutia of every decision Orwell made while writing his stories, I'd go so far as to say agonizing over such devalues the work.

bpshaver 2y ago
I'm not aware of any Orwell short stories
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
HPsquared 2y ago
That's an interesting perspective how analysis can devalue works of literature. Stripping away the mythos, perhaps.
thyristan 2y ago
Agreed. Also: the originals are mostly only relevant for their collectible value. Researchers can more easily work off digital scans. No need to buy anything or keep anything together physically, just scan it if you are really that interested.
- keskival 2y ago
  Are there digital scans though? Edit: It seems there's a lot of digitalized materials in UCL online archives, but I would be surprised if all documents were digitalized: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/library/digital-collections/collections/orwell https://www.ucl.ac.uk/library/digital-collections/collection...
  - thyristan 2y ago
    I don't know if there are digital scans. But that there aren't proves the OPs point that researchers can't be THAT interested after all, if they didn't even take scans of the documents.

FerretFred 2y ago

“cultural vandalism” indeed! It's ironic then that a nation that pride itself on preserving tradition should allow its national broadcaster the BBC to destroy early archives in the 60s/70s (https://www.quora.com/Why-was-there-a-purge-of-the-BBC-archives-in-the-late-60s https://www.quora.com/Why-was-there-a-purge-of-the-BBC-archi...). "Who would want to watch a program twice?" and "Wow, isn't storage expensive?!" Orwell would have turned in his grave.

cannonpr 2y ago
The honest truth is that the Britain of today isn’t a colonial power anymore, and is rather poor by its relative standards of the past. I feel it’s more concerned with selling its past to tourists for money more than preserving it of late.
- FerretFred 2y ago
  Absolutely right!
- swores 2y ago
  Not just to tourists, unfortunately a significant part of our (British) politics is selling our past to voters, as rose-tinted "good old days" emotions at the expense of focussing on how to make the best of the current situation (which, let's face it, despite no longer being as much of a global power as during the empire days were still an extremely privileged country compared to global averages).
monooso 2y ago
Whilst I'm not in any way arguing in favour of destroying culturally significant works, you've completely mischaracterised the answer you linked to. > "Who would want to watch a program twice?" This isn't even remotely what was said. The answer makes it clear that it wasn't feasible to air some programs again, due to the fees that must be paid to actors etc., and as such: > So, if a programme could not be aired again, what was the point in keeping it? Which is a reasonable line of thinking for the British _Broadcasting_ Corporation. > "Wow, isn't storage _expensive_?!" Yes, it was. But the answer makes clear that it wasn't just an issue of storage costs; the _tape_ was extremely expensive, and could be reused. So it was. > When I worked in the tape library in the late ’60s a one hour reel of tape cost the equivalent of six weeks of my pay. Storage was expensive too. One final point I would make is that the BBC is publicly funded. It doesn't have unlimited funds, and its primary function is to create content. As the answer clearly states: > Some samples of programmes were kept as being of interest, but the BBC saw itself as a maker of programmes not a museum.

micheljansen 2y ago

'Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.'

chgs 2y ago
If that were true control would never change
- readthenotes1 2y ago
  If there are only one polity in existence the assertion would be true.

bell-cot 2y ago

Before this hit the news - how many of the now-angry people had previously demonstrated any real interest in the George Orwell archives? Or had actually worked to preserve any collection of historical documents? It's real easy to sit on your ass, while bitterly complaining that a whole legion of Somebody Elses is not working 25-hour days, for free, to make the world conform to your whims.

jerry1979 2y ago
The director of the George Orwell foundation appeared in the article and seemed interested in the archive.
- bell-cot 2y ago
  True...but his quoted bit of the article amounts to "why didn't somebody else, on their own time and dime, Do Stuff"? There's no hint that he (or anyone associated with him) had previously cared to even look for such materials. Let alone do a superficial study of them. The article also notes that the company had previously tried to sell the entire Gollancz collection - vastly more material than just the George Orwell part - to institutional buyers for £1m. None of them were interested. And I don't see any criticism of them for that neglect. But now, when it's easy for the ass-sitters to score points by screaming about Evil Corporations destroying England's sacred history, there is a huge fuss.
  - readthenotes1 2y ago
    It seems like a GoFundMe should solve this for Orwell, right?
    - AtomicOrbital 2y ago
      make it so number one

pbhjpbhj 2y ago

In UK we have legislation that protects buildings if they're significant (eg peculiar, famous, old). Perhaps we should have a law requiring digitisation of significant artefacts (at public expense) in order to sell works that may be of historical/cultural significance. Honestly, I couldn't care less about keeping original documents, but preserving images of those documents seems reasonable. Same would go for selling artwork or artefacts, offer true opportunity to national museums to retain a digital copy. Fwiw, I like old artefacts, papers, books, even rusty old filling cabinets, but I don't see value for the country in preserving those things. Also fwiw, I think the Listed Building laws go a bit far in some cases: preventing people's reasonable enjoyment of their own properties.

verisimi 2y ago

Hats off to the team managing the sale of this archive for getting an article in the Guardian and then here to promoting their work.

lupire 2y ago
The Guardian a reliable outlet for whipping up outrage among the uninformed and easily misled.

tweetle_beetle 2y ago

“That nobody had opened those filing cabinets for 50 years was because they were idiots and didn’t understand the archive’s value." But who is it valuable to? Ultimately a great deal of this is purely interesting to the increasing small number of people who are personally or professionally invested in Orwell. The value here is that the archive could generate a couple of conference keynotes for professors, a new foreword in a reprint, or, at a stretch, a new biography. There is a very small chance that enough new material, or changes to material, could merit a brand new publication, but ultimately the existing published works stand by themselves and the rest amounts to high brow gossip.

Sakos 2y ago
History. It should be a part of our historical and cultural record, not the private playthings for the wealthy. Whenever something like this comes up, I'm appalled at how little people seem to give a shit about preserving things for the future. In the end, it's all we have to pass down through the ages.
- lupire 2y ago
  Do you intend to dedicate all your personal communication and financial dealings to historians to study after you death? Or only Orwell's?
  - Sakos 2y ago
    When I die, family and close friends will have access to all my data. They can choose what to do with it. Once I'm dead, I'll have no interest in my privacy. This is also a nonsensical argument and I don't appreciate these bad faith "gotcha" arguments. While my data might be of some historical interest in the sense of understanding the average male in Western Europe in the early 21st century, it isn't nearly of the same significance as that of Orwell. Nobody is going to buy my data and lock it away in a vault. In addition, much of my presence, my "data" is available publicly online in my posts and comments on HN, Reddit and other social media. Orwell didn't post on Reddit, afaik, so somebody buying up Orwell's archive is a much more significant and impactful loss in multiple ways. But you just wanted to "win" an argument, so I don't know why I'm wasting my time. Have you given any of this any thought at all? Like, really? This really isn't the place for trolling or just making noise. Reddit's more suited for that.

pcf 2y ago

The UK is moving rapidly towards 1984, so it only seems fitting that Orwell's letters and various material should just be... memory-holed. And at the very end of the day, no one will understand why "He loved Big Brother" was not a happy ending.

xhkkffbf 2y ago
The publishers are probably embarrassed that they turned down the book because of their pro-Stalinist vision. Holodomor? What Holodomor?