A Collection of Essays by George Orwell
Most people are familiar with George Orwell based on his two dystopian novels, Animal Farm and 1984. Both were very influential, and a case can be made that the future of 1984 didn’t come about in part because of 1984. The tropes of that novel had become so widespread – far beyond those who had read it or even those who had seen of the movie versions – that they became an effect countermeasure against some kinds of state totalitarianism. Even now, if the state tries to oversee too much of what we do, cries of “Big Brother” are used to fight and ridicule, making it very difficult for the state to impose such measures.
Yet, despite these two famous novels, Orwell’s best work was his non-fiction, including his many great essays. A Collection of Essays provides a wonderful selection of his essays, demonstrating both the depth and breadth of his writing. They range from autobiographical essays on his life to literary essays to essays on politics and history. There are even essays on what today we’d call “pop culture.”
What distinguishes Orwell as piercing intellect combined with unswerving ability to say what he felt. Whether expressing his opinion of the Western democracies and their reaction to fascism or Charles Dickens and his views of society, Orwell plainly and pointedly puts forth his views, in a fashion that’s both insightful and captivating. Even in those cases where you don’t agree with him on all points, his views, expressed from his unique angle, are thought-provoking and cause you to look at the subject in a different way, from a new angle of your own.
His views are rather dark and pessimistic at times, even by the standards of today. But that’s because, while we are living in what is a somewhat dark time, it’s really what in math would be called a “local minima.” Things seem bleaker today than they did in the 1990s. But things are far, far better than they were in the late forties and early fifties, where fascism, war, totalitarianism, and the thread of nuclear destruction hung over everyone. Combine this with the post-war depression and shortages England experienced and you’ll understand a bit more of Orwell’s pessimism.
However, as dark as his writing can sometimes be, it gives a clear, insightful look at the world of the 1930s and 1940s – especially of England and the Empire in that period. But beyond that, much of it transcend the period, and looks clearly and unflinchingly at things that, in many cases, still are true or still threaten us from the edges of things.
“Such, Such Were the Joys” is an autobiographical essay in which Orwell examines his own early education, and through it, the educational system of England and the way children were treated at the start of the twentieth century. The attitude toward children was very different then (and in fact Orwell notes that it had changed to some degree by the time he wrote the essay). In many ways, they were badly treated, and they certainly weren’t valued the way they are now. In poor families children were forced to work, while in middle and upper class families – even in lower-middle-class families, like Orwell’s, children were sent away to boarding school. There, they were subject to harsh treatment, while those in charge had what we would consider strange and rather cruel ideas of child rearing. We’ve all heard the stories of children beaten for not knowing the answers, but Orwell also cites the common attitude of the time that it was good for children to leave the table feeling as hungry as they did when they sat down. Much of the school system was run by people who just wanted to profit from each child, and who really didn’t care about education or the children themselves.
One can also see the attitude Snow described in the “two cultures.” Orwell notes that they were not taught science, and in fact there was a general contempt for science, to the degree that even children who liked going outside to look at nature were sneered at.
It was a system where snobbishness and class and money consciousness existed to a degree well beyond that that we see today. Oh, our schools certainly have some of this, but it permeated the schools Orwell went to, and much of a child’s standing and social circle was determined by who his parents were and how much money they had. It was also a system that fostered bullying to a degree we wouldn’t tolerate: some of the students were actually given permission by the teachers to discipline (that is, beat) the other students, and of course this type of position was a lure to those who liked beating the other students.
In “Politics and the English Language,” Orwell examines changing trends in the English language – in writing, especially. He notes the trend toward less precise writing, toward cobbling together pieces out of stock phrases, which he correctly sees as a sign of the writer not wanting to really think about better ways of saying things, of not really believing the words matter. He examines several categories of writing problems – dying metaphors, pretentious diction (including overuse of foreign words and the tendency to look for a word of a Latin or Greek origin when an Anglo Saxon word would work better), and meaningless words. To make his point on the latter, he translates a few lines of Ecclesiastes (the section on “the race is not to the swift, not the battle to the strong…”) into “modern English”:
“England Your England” is, in fact, a pointed, at times blistering, yet at the same time loving look at England and the English. On one hand, he notes that “England is the most class-ridden country under the sun. It is a land of snobbery and privilege, ruled by the old and silly.” He is especially harsh on politicians like Chamberlain who couldn’t understand the growing threat of Fascism. But at the same time, he says “..the English ruling classes are morally fairly sound.” He point out that for all the problems the ruling class might have, they weren’t treacherous or bribable, the would not simply give in to a conqueror because it they personally could profit from it (something he contrasts with the ruling class in France).
In his essay on Dickens, Orwell takes a view that’s different from many who have adopted Dickens to their causes. While others view Dickens as a revolutionary of sorts, Orwell points out that this is not the case. Dickens clearly points out the problems with the various social systems in the England of his time – whether these systems are the schools, the courts, etc. But, unlike a revolutionary, Dickens by and large doesn’t seem to want to change the system. He doesn’t for example advocate large changes in the educational system. Instead, the Dickensian view is close to saying that the current system would work just fine if only those people in it would behave better and do the right thing. Dickens clearly believed that people by and large were good, he liked all sorts of people, and felt that much of what was wrong could be fixed if those people who didn’t do what was best would simply do so. In some ways, this seems like a rather simplistic view, but on the other hand, it’s one of Dickens’s great strengths. One of the reasons that the best Dickens is so enjoyable to read is that he clearly does like people and had great fondness for his characters. Orwell sees both of these sides of Dickens, and as in all of his essays, here plainly lays out both strong and weak points.
Orwell’s style at times seems a bit rambling in that he starts out in one place, then goes off to make a different point. But this is usually effective. An essay on post-card art turns into a reflection on society. An essay about Miller’s Tropic of Cancer turns into a significant examination of literature and societies relationship to it (as well as what kinds of literature are read by what societies). On the other hand, “Shooting the Elephant,” while focused on a specific event – an incident in which Orwell, as an Indian official, had to kill an elephant that had escaped and killed someone – it is really a reflection on the ethics and problems of colonization.
This is a wonderful book of essays. You don’t always agree with Orwell. There are times when he may overstate a matter or overemphasize some aspects of the issue under examination, but you always come away looking at the subject differently. Orwell will affect the way you view the world he is examining.
Yet, despite these two famous novels, Orwell’s best work was his non-fiction, including his many great essays. A Collection of Essays provides a wonderful selection of his essays, demonstrating both the depth and breadth of his writing. They range from autobiographical essays on his life to literary essays to essays on politics and history. There are even essays on what today we’d call “pop culture.”
What distinguishes Orwell as piercing intellect combined with unswerving ability to say what he felt. Whether expressing his opinion of the Western democracies and their reaction to fascism or Charles Dickens and his views of society, Orwell plainly and pointedly puts forth his views, in a fashion that’s both insightful and captivating. Even in those cases where you don’t agree with him on all points, his views, expressed from his unique angle, are thought-provoking and cause you to look at the subject in a different way, from a new angle of your own.
His views are rather dark and pessimistic at times, even by the standards of today. But that’s because, while we are living in what is a somewhat dark time, it’s really what in math would be called a “local minima.” Things seem bleaker today than they did in the 1990s. But things are far, far better than they were in the late forties and early fifties, where fascism, war, totalitarianism, and the thread of nuclear destruction hung over everyone. Combine this with the post-war depression and shortages England experienced and you’ll understand a bit more of Orwell’s pessimism.
However, as dark as his writing can sometimes be, it gives a clear, insightful look at the world of the 1930s and 1940s – especially of England and the Empire in that period. But beyond that, much of it transcend the period, and looks clearly and unflinchingly at things that, in many cases, still are true or still threaten us from the edges of things.
“Such, Such Were the Joys” is an autobiographical essay in which Orwell examines his own early education, and through it, the educational system of England and the way children were treated at the start of the twentieth century. The attitude toward children was very different then (and in fact Orwell notes that it had changed to some degree by the time he wrote the essay). In many ways, they were badly treated, and they certainly weren’t valued the way they are now. In poor families children were forced to work, while in middle and upper class families – even in lower-middle-class families, like Orwell’s, children were sent away to boarding school. There, they were subject to harsh treatment, while those in charge had what we would consider strange and rather cruel ideas of child rearing. We’ve all heard the stories of children beaten for not knowing the answers, but Orwell also cites the common attitude of the time that it was good for children to leave the table feeling as hungry as they did when they sat down. Much of the school system was run by people who just wanted to profit from each child, and who really didn’t care about education or the children themselves.
One can also see the attitude Snow described in the “two cultures.” Orwell notes that they were not taught science, and in fact there was a general contempt for science, to the degree that even children who liked going outside to look at nature were sneered at.
It was a system where snobbishness and class and money consciousness existed to a degree well beyond that that we see today. Oh, our schools certainly have some of this, but it permeated the schools Orwell went to, and much of a child’s standing and social circle was determined by who his parents were and how much money they had. It was also a system that fostered bullying to a degree we wouldn’t tolerate: some of the students were actually given permission by the teachers to discipline (that is, beat) the other students, and of course this type of position was a lure to those who liked beating the other students.
In “Politics and the English Language,” Orwell examines changing trends in the English language – in writing, especially. He notes the trend toward less precise writing, toward cobbling together pieces out of stock phrases, which he correctly sees as a sign of the writer not wanting to really think about better ways of saying things, of not really believing the words matter. He examines several categories of writing problems – dying metaphors, pretentious diction (including overuse of foreign words and the tendency to look for a word of a Latin or Greek origin when an Anglo Saxon word would work better), and meaningless words. To make his point on the latter, he translates a few lines of Ecclesiastes (the section on “the race is not to the swift, not the battle to the strong…”) into “modern English”:
Objective consideration of contemporary phenomena compels the conclusion that
success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be
commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the
unpredictable must invariably be taken into account.
- He sums it all up with six rules that still work well:
- Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
- Never use a long word where a short one will do.
- If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
- Never use the passive where you can use the active.
- Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
- Break any of these rules sooner sooner than say anything outright barbarous.
The mentality of the English left-wing intelligentsia can be studied in half a
dozen weekly and monthly papers. The immediately striking thing about all these
papers is their generally negative, querulous attitude, their complete lack at
all times of any constructive suggestion. There is little in them except the
irresponsible carping of people who have never been and who never expect to be
in a position of power. Another marked characteristic is the emotional
shallowness of people who live in a world of ideas and have little contact with
physical reality.
“England Your England” is, in fact, a pointed, at times blistering, yet at the same time loving look at England and the English. On one hand, he notes that “England is the most class-ridden country under the sun. It is a land of snobbery and privilege, ruled by the old and silly.” He is especially harsh on politicians like Chamberlain who couldn’t understand the growing threat of Fascism. But at the same time, he says “..the English ruling classes are morally fairly sound.” He point out that for all the problems the ruling class might have, they weren’t treacherous or bribable, the would not simply give in to a conqueror because it they personally could profit from it (something he contrasts with the ruling class in France).
In his essay on Dickens, Orwell takes a view that’s different from many who have adopted Dickens to their causes. While others view Dickens as a revolutionary of sorts, Orwell points out that this is not the case. Dickens clearly points out the problems with the various social systems in the England of his time – whether these systems are the schools, the courts, etc. But, unlike a revolutionary, Dickens by and large doesn’t seem to want to change the system. He doesn’t for example advocate large changes in the educational system. Instead, the Dickensian view is close to saying that the current system would work just fine if only those people in it would behave better and do the right thing. Dickens clearly believed that people by and large were good, he liked all sorts of people, and felt that much of what was wrong could be fixed if those people who didn’t do what was best would simply do so. In some ways, this seems like a rather simplistic view, but on the other hand, it’s one of Dickens’s great strengths. One of the reasons that the best Dickens is so enjoyable to read is that he clearly does like people and had great fondness for his characters. Orwell sees both of these sides of Dickens, and as in all of his essays, here plainly lays out both strong and weak points.
Orwell’s style at times seems a bit rambling in that he starts out in one place, then goes off to make a different point. But this is usually effective. An essay on post-card art turns into a reflection on society. An essay about Miller’s Tropic of Cancer turns into a significant examination of literature and societies relationship to it (as well as what kinds of literature are read by what societies). On the other hand, “Shooting the Elephant,” while focused on a specific event – an incident in which Orwell, as an Indian official, had to kill an elephant that had escaped and killed someone – it is really a reflection on the ethics and problems of colonization.
This is a wonderful book of essays. You don’t always agree with Orwell. There are times when he may overstate a matter or overemphasize some aspects of the issue under examination, but you always come away looking at the subject differently. Orwell will affect the way you view the world he is examining.
posted by Jim Mann at 7:05 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home