Talk:George Orwell

Politics and the English Language

Why is the 4th rule written with "passive voice" instead of just "passive", as in the original. I understand that voice is put for clarification, but I think it narrows the meaning, just "passive" says a lot more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.42.9.254 (talk) 12:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed this and filled out the references. At the same time I noticed something that has been niggling me for some time, that the essay written here as "You and the Atomic Bomb" (and in the online ref) is actually titled "You and the Atom Bomb".

Links in quotes are frowned upon (MOS:QUOTE section Linking: "As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes"), but I've left them there for now. Si Trew (talk) 09:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Reasons for my edits

In response to this edit, the reasons for my "tinkering" are:

• "While at the school he became friendly with the local curate and became involved with the local church." uses "became" twice.

• " Mabel Fierz had pursued matters with Moore, and at the end of June 1932, Moore told Blair that Victor Gollancz was prepared to publish A Scullion's Diary for a £40 advance, for his recently founded publishing house, Victor Gollancz Ltd, which was an outlet for radical and socialist works." has a dependent clause within another dependent clause. It is preferable, wherever possible, to have less complex sentence structure.

• "Visitors were shocked by Orwell's appearance and concerned by the short-comings and ineffectiveness of the treatment". Using "concerned by", "concerning" as synonyms for "worried by" and "worrying" is a very recent, and regrettable, phenomenon.--Palaeovia^talk 23:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - It is important when making changes in line with personal style preferences not to alter the meaning or introduce things that were not in the source on which the text is based.

That Orwell "became" involved in the church is significant because he was generally opposed to religion and the church. Replacing a verb of transformation to a weak imperfect is just that - imperfect. One could rephrase "became friendly" but actually there is a strong dependence of the latter on the former. Repeating "became", though probably not intentional, actually emphasises this dependency.

I am not sure that your "Mabel Fierz had pursued matters with Moore, and at the end of June 1932, Moore told Blair that Victor Gollancz was prepared to publish A Scullion's Diary for a £40 advance, for his Victor Gollancz Ltd, recently founded to publish radical and socialist works." reads as well as the original. Perhaps replace "for" by "through" and hyphenate "recently-founded" in the original. Gollancz published radical and socialist works, but it is introducing an invention to state that it was founded expressly for that purpose.

Concern and anxiety are not synonymous. Concern is a cognitive reaction while anxiety is an emotional state. Like it or note, "concern" is the term used in the biography by Taylor which is the basis for much of the article, and it is a point he brings out more strongly than earlier biographers.

Hope that helps Motmit (talk) 08:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Since my edits were matters of stylistic sensibility, and not of substance, I am happy to let the issue rest.--Palaeovia^talk 08:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Restoring "lies and distortion"

This edit was to "modif[y] POV" by restoring: "The subsequent campaign of lies and distortion carried out by the Communist press, in which the POUM was accused of collaborating with the fascists, had a dramatic effect on Orwell." It succeeded: the POV of the article in regard to the communist press was certainly modified. However as it doesn't seem to have a reliable source I can't see how it's a modification for the better, but as a latecomer to this party I may be missing something. Anyone help me out?--Old Moonraker (talk) 07:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree that it is POV without an RS. Unfortunately I sold all three of my Orwell biographies last year, but I doubt it would be in any of them anyway; quoting Orwell himself we could probably get near to his saying something like that, but it would still have to be a quote and not an RS reference. Si Trew (talk) 09:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

My edit (simply restoring what was originally in there, and which had been edited out by a user who makes unsourced claims that the POUM collaborated with the fascists - see "Anti-Communist" above) fits in perfectly with the rest of the paragraph, which explains why GO didn't join the International Brigades so soon after the events in Barcelona. But no big deal, if everyone objects, by all means revert my revert. But check that the rest of the paragraph still makes sense. --Technopat (talk) 12:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

If it is RS it stays, if it is unsourced POV it goes. An insertion via reversion is still an insertion, and the onus is on the person inserting it to justify it. That means, also, at least as far as I interpret it, insertion of removed material still has to be justified as if it was inserted the first time, saying "it was already there" is not good enough.

I'll look over it as it stands and see if I can find a way through. Si Trew (talk) 12:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I presume we're talking about this diff? Am I missing something? The version before reversion is to my eyes less POV, the "lies and distortion, collaborating with the fascists", on the other hand at least the later version says who is doing the accusing (the Communists) and not just a vague "were accused of". There's also a subtle (or not-so-subtle) change from "Nationalists" to "fascists". I'd just cut the whole lot, myself. Si Trew (talk) 12:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can remember, GO himself always used the term Fascist - certainly the case in Homage and "Notes on the Spanish Militias" (in CEJL - An Age Like This), both of which I have in front of me right now. On the other hand, in all his correspondence written around the time of Homage being published, as well as his essay "Spilling the Spanish Beans" (1937), he goes to great lengths to denounce the Communist press' smear campaign against the POUM.--Technopat (talk) 13:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

A random quote from Homage: "The accusation of espionage against the P.O.U.M. rested solely upon articles in the Communist press and the activities of the Communist-controlled secret police." Homage to Catalonia p.168. Penguin, 1980 --Technopat (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

As a random quote, it makes a good inline citation. Going for it. --Technopat (talk) 13:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds fair enough to me. Si Trew (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Second thoughts, that quote doesn't say that the Communists were liars or distorted anything, it just says they accused the POUM of espionage. In particular, what I'm saying, is that quote on its own does not justify "lies and distortion", only "accusations of". i.e. one could argue the accusations were true and therefore not distortions. I realise that is not what Orwell means, but it's what this says when stood alone like that. Si Trew (talk) 15:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a quotation taken from GO regarding his views on the situation and explaining why, after he had already decided to join the International Brigades, he didn't. That doesn't mean he was right in his analysis re. POUM, although, as I mention above, he went to great lengths to denounce what he perceived as a smear campaign against them, to the extent of making it the underlying theme of his best-known work. That said, several authors, including most recently, Preston in We Saw Spain Die (Constable, 2009), who 50 years later had access to multiple eye-witness accounts and NKVD files accept GO's in situ assessment as being substantially correct. However, back to the man himself: "It may seem that I have discussed the accusations against the P.O.U.M. at greater length than was necessary.... I believe that libels and press-campaigns of this kind, and the habits of mind they indicate, are capable of doing the most deadly damage to the anti-Fascist cause. Anyone who has given the subject a glance knows that the Communist tactic of dealing with political opponents by means of trumped-up accusations is nothing new. "Homage to Catalonia pp.170-1. Penguin, 1980. If there's anything POV in there, it's Orwell's. --Technopat (talk) 21:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

{

Yeah that sounds better... it would be good to get a quote from the "We Saw Spain Die" book too, if we can (there's a copy available at my local library). The more the merrier. Si Trew (talk) 22:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

George Orwell bibliography at FLC

The editors of this article may wish to comment at the featured list candidacy for George Orwell's bibliography article. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 02:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Reactions to Orwell's works unclear

Study aids, in particular with potted biographies, might be seen to help propagate the Orwell myth so that as an embodiment of human values he is presented as a "trustworthy guide", while examination questions sometimes suggest a "right ways of answering" in line with the myth.

Could someone clarify the above sentence from George Orwell#Reactions to Orwell's works? Did Alan Brown write this? What is it trying to say? -84user (talk) 19:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Was he patriotic

He seemed very patriotic of England?109.154.25.16 (talk) 22:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

George Orwell#Religious views

Every sentence in that section has a reference. What's the thinking behind the new WP:NPOV tag, please? --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

This section may be referenced but it could still be unbalanced. Orwell's attitude to religion may be a complex issue and he may not have been totally consistent. However there are clear anti-religious sentiments in some of his works e.g. the character of Moses the raven in Animal Farm, some comments in his essay on Tolstoy and Shakespeare. Admittedly, at times he seemed to be specifically anti-Catholic. Some have said about 1984 that it seems difficult to believed that the religious instinct could have disappeared to the extent implied here. PatGallacher (talk) 11:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

A new ref for the "inconsistency" added. The more subjective, textual interpretations I'm leaving to others. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

This section still raises several problems e.g. I doubt if the term "Judaeo-Christian" appears anywhere in Orwell's works or was even widely used in Britain in his day. PatGallacher (talk) 12:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Please quote the comments from Tolstoy and Shakespeare that you consider to be clear anti-religious sentiments. Motmit (talk) 12:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I advise reading the whole essay rather than trying to reduce it to a few quotes, but:

"However, Tolstoy is not simply trying to rob others of a pleasure he does not share. He is doing that, but his quarrel with Shakespeare goes further. It is the quarrel between the religious and the humanist attitudes towards life. Here one comes back to the central theme of KING LEAR, which Tolstoy does not mention, although he sets forth the plot in some detail...

The morality of Shakespeare's later tragedies is not religious in the ordinary sense, and certainly is not Christian. Only two of them, HAMLET and OTHELLO, are supposedly occurring inside the Christian era, and even in those, apart from the antics of the ghost in HAMLET, there is no indication of a 'next world' where everything is to be put right. All of these tragedies start out with the humanist assumption that life, although full of sorrow, is worth living, and that Man is a noble animal --a belief which Tolstoy in his old age did not share." PatGallacher (talk) 12:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I have, of course read the essay which is why I was puzzled by the interpretation. Your quote confirms that I have not missed anything. There is nothing there that could not equally have been said in a discussion between two bishops at a vicarage tea party. Regards Motmit (talk) 14:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Orwell himself may have undergone the sort of process which he describes himself in relation to Dickens: "Dickens is one of those writers who are well worth stealing. Even the burial of his body in Westminster Abbey was a species of theft, if you come to think of it. When Chesterton wrote his introductions to the Everyman Edition of Dickens's works, it seemed quite natural to him to credit Dickens with his own highly individual brand of medievalism, and more recently a Marxist writer, Mr. T. A. Jackson, has made spirited efforts to turn Dickens into a blood-thirsty revolutionary. The Marxist claims him as ‘almost’ a Marxist, the Catholic claims him as ‘almost’ a Catholic, and both claim him as a champion of the proletariat (or ‘the poor’, as Chesterton would have put it). On the other hand, Nadezhda Krupskaya, in her little book on Lenin, relates that towards the end of his life Lenin went to see a dramatized version of The Cricket on the Hearth, and found Dickens's ‘middle-class sentimentality’ so intolerable that he walked out in the middle of a scene. Taking ‘middle-class’ to mean what Krupskaya might be expected to mean by it, this was probably a truer judgement than those of Chesterton and Jackson." PatGallacher (talk) 13:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

That is indeed a "subjective textual interpretation", as I requested! Meanwhile, a WP:SOURCEACCESS justification: I haven't got access to the original source for "Judeo-Christian", but Ingle's comment is alluded to in Faith and Reason, ISSN: 0098-5449, 28, 60: "Ingle argues that Orwell recognized such humanitarian values had evolved out of Judaic-Christian traditions". --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

A quote from his essay on Swift: "And the ease with which Swift has been forgiven — and forgiven, sometimes, by devout believers — for the blasphemies of A Tale of a Tub demonstrates clearly enough the feebleness of religious sentiments as compared with political ones." PatGallacher (talk) 01:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone, for coming to answer my initial question. So: the initial {{NPOV}} tag was placed because the section omitted some interpretations that an editor has made of some of Orwell's essays. This seems to be original research, so would we now be justified in removing it? If there are sound sources for what at present looks like a somewhat subjective personal interpretation, the material itself could be added without any need to resort to tagging.--Old Moonraker (talk) 08:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes - agreed. Motmit (talk) 08:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

"Clarify me" tag

It's often very helpful when another contributor looks over one of my edits—it can pick up a "wood for the trees" problem that I've missed—but I can't grasp the problems complained of here. I don't understand (but am willing to learn) why the Church of England shouldn't be referred to as "the institution" in its second appearance; it was the "established church", after all, and you don't get much more institutional than that. The second problem, the use of "belief", seems apt as atheism is under discussion in the following sentence. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I first tried to read that section with no prior knowledge (so I purposely ignored the fact that the CoE is referred to as an institution); that gave me the impression that "institution" was referring to " Anglican life". I realised that was not meant, and so tried to help a new reader by pointing to exactly what it refered to. Maybe "the institution of the Church" would be even clearer but clunky. The use of three different ways to refer to the same thing (Church Of England = institution = establishment) sometimes makes me pause, even though I realise it is a preferred writing style. This confusion is probably mine alone, so I have no objections if you revert that part back. The second problem, is the first part of the paragraph deals with Orwell's views on how an institution is managed while the second is about the depth and kind of his religious belief. The two appear different to me, in a similar way as disliking how air traffic control is managed (an arbitrary example) while at the same time believing air traffic should be controlled well. When I read "The ambiguity in his belief in religion echoed the dichotomies ..." I thought I had missed something in the preceding. After re-reading I cannot suggest any way to make this clearer, so you could also remove that tag if you like. -84user (talk) 19:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the trouble to explain this for me. In trying to introduce some variety in the wording, it seems I've introduced some confusion: not good. The original suggestion to deal with the other problem was to introduce a paragraph break: a simple and easy way out. Are there any other editors with suggestions of ways to fix my clumsy prose?--Old Moonraker (talk) 21:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Eton scholarship

To explain my lest, rather terse, edit summary: the Eton scholarship was obtained at St Cyprian's, not before he joined the school.--Old Moonraker (talk) 13:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Complete works = OR?

I was thinking of expanding the 'early life' section with the help of the first volume of his complete works. What I want to know is, would this be original research? Does an anthology of his complete works count as a primary source? BillMasen (talk) 16:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably - the biographical sections have avoided using Orwell's own works as a source for his life because there is considerable doubt over their historical accuracy. The biography is based on corroborated evidence from independent sources and the discussed assessments of biographers. Motmit (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking more of using them to point out his early views, not events in his early life. For example, the article 'a farthing newspaper', one of his first, suggests a basically leftwing outlook (which one would not necessarily expect from a former imperial policeman) BillMasen (talk) 18:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)