George Orwell went to Eton College still the most prestigious establishment school in the world. It’s primary task is not academic education but to give its “chosen children” (£50,000 per annum fees) the three C’s. Confidence. Contacts. Character. You can take the man out of Eton but you can’t take Eton out of the man.
That said I still think George Orwell did far more honest writing than almost any other author of the 20th century. It is perfectly true that he was dying when he wrote 1984 and I think that he was desperate to get the truth that is in the book out to as wide a public as possible especially from his experience of trying to get Animal Farm published which was thwarted for a longtime by Winston Churchill and the government because it was unhelpful to Anglo-Soviet relations in the Second World War.
True about Eton, and from what I've read, a lot of his socialist beliefs came from feeling like a bit of an outsider there.
New suspicions aside, I have always gotten the feeling that Orwell was genuine, and you're right that he didn't always have an easy time getting his books published due to his refusal to play by other peoples' rules (I believe he also pissed off his previous publisher, Victor Gollancz, because Gollancz had commissioned "The Road to Wigan Pier" as a pro-socialist book, and Orwell returned with a book that was very critical of socialism as it was practiced then).
You bring up a good point about Animal Farm—it was only able to be published once the British government wanted people to be hostile towards Russia again. Perhaps, while this whole political 'game' was happening around Orwell, he really was just observing the whole thing and writing what he wanted.
I have great respect for George Orwell and the Everyman collected essays etc is like a second bible to me. You are correct about his socialist beliefs emanating from feeling an outside at Eton because he was a scholarship boy (didn’t pay to attend bright enough for a bursary) and that would have been a stigma as it still is today but the “education” he received was the same as all the others of this divine superiority to rule as an elite class and had its effect on him.
True, and I think that what made him so well-rounded as a writer was that he was able to see the bigger picture (he understood the upper class and was taught to think like them from a young age, but he also got an understanding of the 'other side' by immersing himself in a life of poverty).
What kind of effect do you think it had?
It's nice to have another Orwell geek here. I hope you continue to follow this project as it develops—I think you'd find it really interesting.
I've come upon the same experience recently in my own searching and writing. I held John Muir in high esteem. I posted an article about my love for the wilderness and shared my adventures and photography. I wrote passionately about the need for us to recognize the importance of a symbiotic relationship with nature. I quoted John Muir several times. After posting i received a comment that caused cognitive dissonance... And then resulted in my doing a deep dive investigation into who John Muir really was. I learned what REALLY happened when National parks like Yosemite became protected lands. What the government does in the name of GOOD usually comes at a great price. It turns out some of those people who made history for their famous writings and actions were part of a group of elites with an agenda... That the rest of us are not privy to and are usually the victims of. It will be interesting to hear what your final conclusions are.
Isn't it strange when this happens? It makes you wonder whether you're still 'allowed' to enjoy the person's work and the positive impact that it's had on you.
Your example is interesting—I've always considered the National Parks to be one of the few good things that the government has done (although I can't say I'm surprised to have this illusion shattered). Have you written anything on the topic? I'd love to read it!
I haven't written about my personal take away so much as just exposing a tiny bit of the dark side of the agenda. it's a huge conundrum really. While I value the National parks and protected land, I also have to ask about the whole concept of human ownership of land? In the case of Yosemite, which was the focus of my post, thousands of indigenous people were forced off of the land by the US military, losing their homes, and their livelihood. These people were stewards of the land that showed their deep wisdom and understanding of the symbiotic relationship we as humans should be practicing with all of Nature. John Muir fell in Love with Yosemite because in his vision it was a Garden of Eden. to him the indigenous people were a filthy blight on the land. While this view was not only a complete misunderstanding, it was racist. In forcing them off the land and CLAIMING it as their PRIZE it was a form of White Supremacy, and in many opinions was seen as an act of eugenics. Purposefully removing people seen as undesirable.
The post covering this is, and the previous post linked within are here:
Wow—I really enjoyed your post. The article illuminates not only the deep irony of how someone can drive a whole group out of their home in the name of 'loving the land' (as if every animal is part of 'nature' except for humans), but also how easy it is to forget that the way we live is not the only way.
My knee-jerk reaction to your point about human ownership of land was that there's no way around it, but this is obviously not true. It speaks to humanity's dark side (and you put it rightly by saying that the balance has been tipped too much towards this dark side as of late).
I recently heard a piece about Orwell on local BBC radio. (I was drivingin a bad reception area and had no choice) the BBC mouthpiece came to the conclusion that Orwell was a socialist. I beg to differ.
I think he experienced a lot of different cultures and situations and he really was a humanitarian. He witnessed the worst of humankind and how people were just useful idiots to some regimes. I think he saw socialism as a wolf in sheep's clothing, a top down pyramid of social control and where the state was there to think for you and you weren't allowed to question the state. For me his greatest work was Animal Farm. This called out the belligerence of the 3 ‘ism's. We all know what they are.
While you're absolutely right that Orwell recognized the Russian brand of socialism/communism as the wolf in sheep's clothing that it was, he referred to himself as a socialist throughout his entire career, even proclaiming in his 1946 essay "Why I Write," "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it."
That being said, you're correct. His 'brand' of socialism was different than a lot of peoples' at the time , and was heavily influenced by his breadth of experience, having interacted closely with the highest and lowest echelons of British society. His thinking was that capitalism was obsolete (he made little judgment about whether it was a good or bad thing, it simply was), and there were only two options for what type of economic system would take its place: socialism or fascism. Socialism was the more ethical of the two options.
History would prove him wrong, of course—the new system that would take its place wouldn't fall under either label. However, while he started to see it as more and more far-fetched, as far as I know, he held onto his moral optimism regarding socialism until his death.
In 80ies, when 1984 was mostly compared to the reality of Soviet Union, Orwell didn't seem particularly prescient. Yes, the overall picture was terrifying, some minor details guessed right (such as the poor quality of cigs and booze), but just as many things seemed off.
It's just now that we start noticing some of Orwell's insights. Perhaps the most important of those is the «outer party» being more miserable than proles, which wasn't the case in the USSR (although trends were already in place).
Great observation about the quality of life of the outer party vs. proles. I don't really think 1984 was intended to mirror the Soviet Union (although it may have drawn some inspiration from it), but you're absolutely right to point out that this was unusual for the time—I wonder if this mirrored life in England, or if this really did signify some knowledge or foresight into a state of affairs that hadn't happened yet.
That Orwell rabbit hole sounds deep and intriguing! Love how your initial idea evolved – sometimes the journey is just as valuable as the destination. Definitely interested to see what you unearth next about Orwell's life and work.
Sounds like a journey of detective work of the human condition. Sometimes I am surprised that all communication, all art, is inherently manipulative--the good or bad outcomes depend on character. At a New York cocktail party an architectural graduate, that didn't want to pursue architecture said she didn't want the responsibility of how people should live, which is the inherent nature of architecture. While I thought that would be the magic of it, but I was confident that I could add to their quality of life. So if it is all manipulation the issue becomes is it a step in evolution or to suppress humanity?
Great point, and it reminds me of George Orwell's oft-repeated phrase "all art is propaganda."
You're right—we all create things in the hope of our work influencing people, and there is an implicit trust that this is done in good faith.
The question you pose is not an easy one. As far as whether an idea is objectively 'good' or not, I think this absolutely depends on its impact on humanity, but often times the outcome isn't clear until we see the idea put into practice. Well-intentioned but 'dangerous' ideas can have as negative an effect as deliberately malevolent ones (which are much rarer).
What is the solution? Do you ban all thought (like the example of the architectural graduate who doesn't want the power of creating architecture)? This would undoubtedly have a worse effect than encouraging all communication so long as it is sincere. Then you get to the issue of censorship—are some ideas permissible and some not, and if so, who decides?
Iv mentioned this before, but I like the way you think. In the case of the architect, she censored herself, but she may of made a good decision if she didn't have the artistic "it." There is ethically fun issue you bring up about banning. My mom says that she is entitled to her opinion but she acts as if it automatically a worthy one, that all opinions should be treated equally. Absolutely yes in freedom of expression, and not if it is bullshit. Hahaha.
Thank you—I like the way you think, too. You bring up an uncomfortable but really important point that sometimes, abstaining from expression might be the best move. The book that got me started writing was Julia Cameron's "The Artist's Way," whose essential point was that everyone has some kind of artistic calling. This philosophy makes me wary to discourage anyone from trying their hand at something, but doesn't mean that everyone will excel at everything they pursue, and all ideas certainly aren't created equal.
Must be a thing with moms—mine does the same thing, and she'll often argue her point belligerently just for the sake of it, long after being proven wrong, haha.
Having misspent 3 years of my youth is boarding schools (One meticulously modeled after English public schools including a headmaster with a cane known as Bloody Joe the Fifth, and a senior alley, equivalent to St. Cyprian,s sixth form), reading his recollections reminded me of how very much such shapes although such does not delimit nor necessarily define one's future.
Most definitely knowing those early years is important to understand the man.
Thanks for bringing this up. I have read it, but it certainly bears repeating—so much of Orwell's opinions on class relations stem from his experience as a 'lower-upper-middle-class' scholarship kid being groomed as a member of the upper crust.
I think Orwell was able to achieve his nuanced look at class relations because he experienced so many different ones—he experienced wealth as a young person, spent time enforcing imperial rule abroad, came home and immersed himself in poverty. It's no surprise that he could see the 'bigger picture' in a way that a lot of people couldn't.
Bloody Joe the Fifth certainly sounds like something—I'd happily read a piece about that experience.
The most Intelligent person I ever knew told me over 20 years ago that Orwell's 1984 is based on a program he worked with MI5 to develop to be implemented at a later date
Interesting! To think that he actually worked on this project is mind-blowing.
It's so strange—if he was against the whole thing, why was he complicit, and if he supported it, why write a whole book against it? And if the book was dangerous to the narrative MI5 was trying to push, wouldn't it have been suppressed?
It fits what Cynthia said about coercion potentially being involved, and about Winston Smith being a literary representation of Orwell himself.
Or, conversely, maybe 1984 was a propaganda piece designed for this exact purpose...
Orwell was a self-proclaimed socialist, after all. I'd always chalked this up to him being a product of his time, but perhaps this was all part of his agenda.
So much to uncover! Where are people finding all this information?
Glad to hear it! It should be interesting—although I have to admit, I currently have no idea where to look for this information. At the very least it'll be a thorough literary analysis of Orwell (which is, admittedly, less intriguing, but hopefully will offer something of value nonetheless).
George Orwell went to Eton College still the most prestigious establishment school in the world. It’s primary task is not academic education but to give its “chosen children” (£50,000 per annum fees) the three C’s. Confidence. Contacts. Character. You can take the man out of Eton but you can’t take Eton out of the man.
That said I still think George Orwell did far more honest writing than almost any other author of the 20th century. It is perfectly true that he was dying when he wrote 1984 and I think that he was desperate to get the truth that is in the book out to as wide a public as possible especially from his experience of trying to get Animal Farm published which was thwarted for a longtime by Winston Churchill and the government because it was unhelpful to Anglo-Soviet relations in the Second World War.
True about Eton, and from what I've read, a lot of his socialist beliefs came from feeling like a bit of an outsider there.
New suspicions aside, I have always gotten the feeling that Orwell was genuine, and you're right that he didn't always have an easy time getting his books published due to his refusal to play by other peoples' rules (I believe he also pissed off his previous publisher, Victor Gollancz, because Gollancz had commissioned "The Road to Wigan Pier" as a pro-socialist book, and Orwell returned with a book that was very critical of socialism as it was practiced then).
You bring up a good point about Animal Farm—it was only able to be published once the British government wanted people to be hostile towards Russia again. Perhaps, while this whole political 'game' was happening around Orwell, he really was just observing the whole thing and writing what he wanted.
I have great respect for George Orwell and the Everyman collected essays etc is like a second bible to me. You are correct about his socialist beliefs emanating from feeling an outside at Eton because he was a scholarship boy (didn’t pay to attend bright enough for a bursary) and that would have been a stigma as it still is today but the “education” he received was the same as all the others of this divine superiority to rule as an elite class and had its effect on him.
True, and I think that what made him so well-rounded as a writer was that he was able to see the bigger picture (he understood the upper class and was taught to think like them from a young age, but he also got an understanding of the 'other side' by immersing himself in a life of poverty).
What kind of effect do you think it had?
It's nice to have another Orwell geek here. I hope you continue to follow this project as it develops—I think you'd find it really interesting.
I've come upon the same experience recently in my own searching and writing. I held John Muir in high esteem. I posted an article about my love for the wilderness and shared my adventures and photography. I wrote passionately about the need for us to recognize the importance of a symbiotic relationship with nature. I quoted John Muir several times. After posting i received a comment that caused cognitive dissonance... And then resulted in my doing a deep dive investigation into who John Muir really was. I learned what REALLY happened when National parks like Yosemite became protected lands. What the government does in the name of GOOD usually comes at a great price. It turns out some of those people who made history for their famous writings and actions were part of a group of elites with an agenda... That the rest of us are not privy to and are usually the victims of. It will be interesting to hear what your final conclusions are.
Isn't it strange when this happens? It makes you wonder whether you're still 'allowed' to enjoy the person's work and the positive impact that it's had on you.
Your example is interesting—I've always considered the National Parks to be one of the few good things that the government has done (although I can't say I'm surprised to have this illusion shattered). Have you written anything on the topic? I'd love to read it!
I haven't written about my personal take away so much as just exposing a tiny bit of the dark side of the agenda. it's a huge conundrum really. While I value the National parks and protected land, I also have to ask about the whole concept of human ownership of land? In the case of Yosemite, which was the focus of my post, thousands of indigenous people were forced off of the land by the US military, losing their homes, and their livelihood. These people were stewards of the land that showed their deep wisdom and understanding of the symbiotic relationship we as humans should be practicing with all of Nature. John Muir fell in Love with Yosemite because in his vision it was a Garden of Eden. to him the indigenous people were a filthy blight on the land. While this view was not only a complete misunderstanding, it was racist. In forcing them off the land and CLAIMING it as their PRIZE it was a form of White Supremacy, and in many opinions was seen as an act of eugenics. Purposefully removing people seen as undesirable.
The post covering this is, and the previous post linked within are here:
https://karafree.substack.com/p/environmentalism-racism-eugenics?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
I still value the ideals that John Muir pointed to. The problem is that he did not practice his on IDEALS in relation to ALL PEOPLE
Wow—I really enjoyed your post. The article illuminates not only the deep irony of how someone can drive a whole group out of their home in the name of 'loving the land' (as if every animal is part of 'nature' except for humans), but also how easy it is to forget that the way we live is not the only way.
My knee-jerk reaction to your point about human ownership of land was that there's no way around it, but this is obviously not true. It speaks to humanity's dark side (and you put it rightly by saying that the balance has been tipped too much towards this dark side as of late).
Thanks for sharing this.
I recently heard a piece about Orwell on local BBC radio. (I was drivingin a bad reception area and had no choice) the BBC mouthpiece came to the conclusion that Orwell was a socialist. I beg to differ.
I think he experienced a lot of different cultures and situations and he really was a humanitarian. He witnessed the worst of humankind and how people were just useful idiots to some regimes. I think he saw socialism as a wolf in sheep's clothing, a top down pyramid of social control and where the state was there to think for you and you weren't allowed to question the state. For me his greatest work was Animal Farm. This called out the belligerence of the 3 ‘ism's. We all know what they are.
While you're absolutely right that Orwell recognized the Russian brand of socialism/communism as the wolf in sheep's clothing that it was, he referred to himself as a socialist throughout his entire career, even proclaiming in his 1946 essay "Why I Write," "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it."
That being said, you're correct. His 'brand' of socialism was different than a lot of peoples' at the time , and was heavily influenced by his breadth of experience, having interacted closely with the highest and lowest echelons of British society. His thinking was that capitalism was obsolete (he made little judgment about whether it was a good or bad thing, it simply was), and there were only two options for what type of economic system would take its place: socialism or fascism. Socialism was the more ethical of the two options.
History would prove him wrong, of course—the new system that would take its place wouldn't fall under either label. However, while he started to see it as more and more far-fetched, as far as I know, he held onto his moral optimism regarding socialism until his death.
I agree 100%. His view of socialism without the fascism was what everyone craves. The BBC's version is an oxymoron.
Absolutely—he wasn’t a socialist by modern terms, which i assume is what the BBC was implying.
In line with your Orwell Project Melissa; you might find Theodore Dalrymple's review of D. J. Taylor's 'Who Is Big Brother" of interest: https://lawliberty.org/book-review/orwells-arresting-ambiguities/
Thank you so much, Jim! Looks interesting—I appreciate the recommendation. Added to the reading list :)
Red PILLED…
I am very much looking forward to this... 🫡
Awesome! Thanks for reading!
In 80ies, when 1984 was mostly compared to the reality of Soviet Union, Orwell didn't seem particularly prescient. Yes, the overall picture was terrifying, some minor details guessed right (such as the poor quality of cigs and booze), but just as many things seemed off.
It's just now that we start noticing some of Orwell's insights. Perhaps the most important of those is the «outer party» being more miserable than proles, which wasn't the case in the USSR (although trends were already in place).
Great observation about the quality of life of the outer party vs. proles. I don't really think 1984 was intended to mirror the Soviet Union (although it may have drawn some inspiration from it), but you're absolutely right to point out that this was unusual for the time—I wonder if this mirrored life in England, or if this really did signify some knowledge or foresight into a state of affairs that hadn't happened yet.
That Orwell rabbit hole sounds deep and intriguing! Love how your initial idea evolved – sometimes the journey is just as valuable as the destination. Definitely interested to see what you unearth next about Orwell's life and work.
Thanks, Ayesha! This latest 'twist' was definitely unexpected. Thank you for reading!
Sounds like a journey of detective work of the human condition. Sometimes I am surprised that all communication, all art, is inherently manipulative--the good or bad outcomes depend on character. At a New York cocktail party an architectural graduate, that didn't want to pursue architecture said she didn't want the responsibility of how people should live, which is the inherent nature of architecture. While I thought that would be the magic of it, but I was confident that I could add to their quality of life. So if it is all manipulation the issue becomes is it a step in evolution or to suppress humanity?
Great point, and it reminds me of George Orwell's oft-repeated phrase "all art is propaganda."
You're right—we all create things in the hope of our work influencing people, and there is an implicit trust that this is done in good faith.
The question you pose is not an easy one. As far as whether an idea is objectively 'good' or not, I think this absolutely depends on its impact on humanity, but often times the outcome isn't clear until we see the idea put into practice. Well-intentioned but 'dangerous' ideas can have as negative an effect as deliberately malevolent ones (which are much rarer).
What is the solution? Do you ban all thought (like the example of the architectural graduate who doesn't want the power of creating architecture)? This would undoubtedly have a worse effect than encouraging all communication so long as it is sincere. Then you get to the issue of censorship—are some ideas permissible and some not, and if so, who decides?
Detective work of the human condition indeed.
Iv mentioned this before, but I like the way you think. In the case of the architect, she censored herself, but she may of made a good decision if she didn't have the artistic "it." There is ethically fun issue you bring up about banning. My mom says that she is entitled to her opinion but she acts as if it automatically a worthy one, that all opinions should be treated equally. Absolutely yes in freedom of expression, and not if it is bullshit. Hahaha.
Thank you—I like the way you think, too. You bring up an uncomfortable but really important point that sometimes, abstaining from expression might be the best move. The book that got me started writing was Julia Cameron's "The Artist's Way," whose essential point was that everyone has some kind of artistic calling. This philosophy makes me wary to discourage anyone from trying their hand at something, but doesn't mean that everyone will excel at everything they pursue, and all ideas certainly aren't created equal.
Must be a thing with moms—mine does the same thing, and she'll often argue her point belligerently just for the sake of it, long after being proven wrong, haha.
99.99% sure you've already researched, read his essay about his school days, "Such, Such Were The Joys", but just in case; https://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/joys/english/e_joys
Having misspent 3 years of my youth is boarding schools (One meticulously modeled after English public schools including a headmaster with a cane known as Bloody Joe the Fifth, and a senior alley, equivalent to St. Cyprian,s sixth form), reading his recollections reminded me of how very much such shapes although such does not delimit nor necessarily define one's future.
Most definitely knowing those early years is important to understand the man.
Thanks for bringing this up. I have read it, but it certainly bears repeating—so much of Orwell's opinions on class relations stem from his experience as a 'lower-upper-middle-class' scholarship kid being groomed as a member of the upper crust.
I think Orwell was able to achieve his nuanced look at class relations because he experienced so many different ones—he experienced wealth as a young person, spent time enforcing imperial rule abroad, came home and immersed himself in poverty. It's no surprise that he could see the 'bigger picture' in a way that a lot of people couldn't.
Bloody Joe the Fifth certainly sounds like something—I'd happily read a piece about that experience.
The most Intelligent person I ever knew told me over 20 years ago that Orwell's 1984 is based on a program he worked with MI5 to develop to be implemented at a later date
Interesting! To think that he actually worked on this project is mind-blowing.
It's so strange—if he was against the whole thing, why was he complicit, and if he supported it, why write a whole book against it? And if the book was dangerous to the narrative MI5 was trying to push, wouldn't it have been suppressed?
It fits what Cynthia said about coercion potentially being involved, and about Winston Smith being a literary representation of Orwell himself.
Or, conversely, maybe 1984 was a propaganda piece designed for this exact purpose...
Orwell was a self-proclaimed socialist, after all. I'd always chalked this up to him being a product of his time, but perhaps this was all part of his agenda.
So much to uncover! Where are people finding all this information?
She was very insightful on many things.
I'm definitely interested. Orwell is a fascinating character and I'd love to find out more about the hidden aspects of his life.
Glad to hear it! It should be interesting—although I have to admit, I currently have no idea where to look for this information. At the very least it'll be a thorough literary analysis of Orwell (which is, admittedly, less intriguing, but hopefully will offer something of value nonetheless).
This sounds double-plus-good. Would love to read it.
Haha! I'm glad—the first chapter should be out soon.