What do you think?
Rate this book
20th Century Inside The Whale And Other Essays
George Orwell is best remembered for ANIMAL FARM and 1984, but it is his essays that launched him. In them he not only demonstrated how he thought, but proposed a rule as to how thinking ought to proceed. Tracing his arguments and their development in these essays is a rich and rewarding exercise.
The range of Orwell's interests was limitless, and a glance at the titles of some of his subjects in this book gives us an idea..."Shooting an Elephant," "Lear, Tolstoy and the Fool" and "England Your England."
"Orwell requires of himself that he think his way through things using truthfulness as his only star. His contribution to our culture came during a desperate era, and helped us navigate the trackless post-war years." (B-O-T Editorial Review Board)
Contents:
Inside the Whale
Down the Mine
England Your England
Shooting an Elephant
Lear, Tolstoy and the Fool
Politics vs. Literature: An Examination of Gulliver's Travels
Politics and the English Language
The Prevention of Literature
Boys' Weeklies
202 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1932
149 people are currently reading
4630 people want to read
About the author
George Orwell
1,257 books50.5k followersEric Arthur Blair was an English novelist, poet, essayist, journalist and critic who wrote under the pen name of George Orwell. His work is characterised by lucid prose, social criticism, opposition to all totalitarianism (both fascism and stalinism), and support of democratic socialism.
Orwell is best known for his allegorical novella Animal Farm (1945) and the dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949), although his works also encompass literary criticism, poetry, fiction and polemical journalism. His non-fiction works, including The Road to Wigan Pier (1937), documenting his experience of working-class life in the industrial north of England, and Homage to Catalonia (1938), an account of his experiences soldiering for the Republican faction of the Spanish Civil War (1936–1939), are as critically respected as his essays on politics, literature, language and culture.
Orwell's work remains influential in popular culture and in political culture, and the adjective "Orwellian"—describing totalitarian and authoritarian social practices—is part of the English language, like many of his neologisms, such as "Big Brother", "Thought Police", "Room 101", "Newspeak", "memory hole", "doublethink", and "thoughtcrime". In 2008, The Times named Orwell the second-greatest British writer since 1945.
Orwell is best known for his allegorical novella Animal Farm (1945) and the dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949), although his works also encompass literary criticism, poetry, fiction and polemical journalism. His non-fiction works, including The Road to Wigan Pier (1937), documenting his experience of working-class life in the industrial north of England, and Homage to Catalonia (1938), an account of his experiences soldiering for the Republican faction of the Spanish Civil War (1936–1939), are as critically respected as his essays on politics, literature, language and culture.
Orwell's work remains influential in popular culture and in political culture, and the adjective "Orwellian"—describing totalitarian and authoritarian social practices—is part of the English language, like many of his neologisms, such as "Big Brother", "Thought Police", "Room 101", "Newspeak", "memory hole", "doublethink", and "thoughtcrime". In 2008, The Times named Orwell the second-greatest British writer since 1945.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 157 reviews
March 26, 2020
More fascinating essays from Orwell. The more of them I read the more I want to read, and he did, thankfully, write quite a lot. There is great essay here on Miller's Tropic of Cancer, and I'm not even a fan of that novel, but Orwell's writing is just so good, you can't but help get completely sucked in.
July 27, 2025
Know a writer and know fear. Your innermost thoughts may be picked up. For writers are always listening and taking things down like the folk with headphones to wiretaps.
If writers' ghosts watch readers as closely, then, be warned before you pick up this book. Your reaction will give you away as an enemy or friend. "But I felt nothing," you plead. Read it once more. Think again.
Now, tell me. How much is 2 + 2?
As relevant today as when these essays were written in the 1930s and 1940s. Sets the stage for Orwell's Animal Farm and 1984 and gives food for thought.
If writers' ghosts watch readers as closely, then, be warned before you pick up this book. Your reaction will give you away as an enemy or friend. "But I felt nothing," you plead. Read it once more. Think again.
Now, tell me. How much is 2 + 2?
As relevant today as when these essays were written in the 1930s and 1940s. Sets the stage for Orwell's Animal Farm and 1984 and gives food for thought.
September 15, 2020
130th book of 2020.
Inside are the following essays -
"Inside the Whale"
"Down the Mine"
"England Your England"
"Shooting an Elephant"
"Lear, Tolstoy and the Fool"
"Politics vs Literature: An Examination of Gulliver's Travels"
"Politics and the English Language"
"The Prevention of Literature"
"Boys' Weeklies"
I won't discuss all essays but there are certainly some that have noteworthy elements. The final essay was perhaps my least favourite, though interesting as a metaphorical 'Polaroid' of the time - Orwell analyses the sorts of weekly stories one could buy at a shop, mostly 'boy' stories.
"Inside the Whale" begins as an essay on Henry Miller's 1935 Tropic of Cancer which I found very interesting. Frankly, for whatever reason, Orwell doesn't strike me as the man who would read or enjoy Miller, but he speaks incredibly highly of him. Notably (about Miller's second novel Black Spring), There is a long passage in the earlier part of Black Spring, in praise of the Middle Ages, which as prose must be one of the most remarkable pieces of writing in recent years... And although I do not remember the instance Orwell is referring to in the novel, I do agree with something from later in the essay. Though I am certain I underlined it, I cannot find it in my copy, but, paraphrased, Orwell claimed that Miller's writing had a way of lingering in your mind, and that I can very much agree with. In the essay his scope widens to the generation's other writers, and about the state of literature. On Joyce he said: When you read certain passages in Ulysses you feel that Joyce's mind and your mind are one, that he knows all about you though he has never heard you name, that there exists some world outside time and space in which you and he are together. But most interestingly on Miller, Orwell says, If this were a likely moment for the launching of 'schools' of literature, Henry Miller might be the starting-point of a new 'school', and I wonder how right he is? Kerouac (and perhaps the whole of the Beat Generation) certainly seems to be a by-product of Miller's, and maybe Dos Passos, too.
"Down the Mine" and "Shooting an Elephant" are less essay. The former simply describes the conditions and feeling of mine-work in great (I could even say Orwellian) detail, suffocating and claustrophobic - again, even, dystopian - like where Morlocks dwell. Interesting as an essay but its merit lies within a just a few lines: You could quite easily drive a car right across the north of England and never once remember that hundreds of feet below the road you are on the miners are hacking at the coal. Yet in a sense it is the miners who are driving your car forward. Their lamp-lit world down there is as necessary to the day-light world above as the root is to the flower. The latter is one of the better pieces in the collection. Though it has never been confirmed as being true or not, the biography aligns with the story - a policeman in Burma having to shoot at elephant that has gone wild. In true Orwell fashion, it is not only about shooting at elephant; it is about the white man. The famous quote from it being, I perceived in this moment that when the white man turns tyrant it is his own freedom that he destroys. And just as interestingly, A white man mustn't be frightened in front of 'natives'; and so, in general, he isn't frightened. It's a short piece, but horribly powerful, in both story and theme.
"Lear, Tolstoy and the Fool", "Politics vs Literature: An Examination of Gulliver's Travels", "Politics and the English Language" and "The Prevention of Literature" are all heavily literature based. The first in the list touches upon (Orwell, even then, says how hard to come by the pamphlet is, and that our only chance of hearing any part of it is through him) Tolstoy's hatred for Shakespeare. As someone who has always felt alienated by fairly negative views towards Shakespeare (on the whole) I found this essay fascinating. Though Orwell steps in and (mostly) disregards Tolstoy, it is an interesting debate. The best quote on the matter: Tolstoy is right in saying that Lear is not a very good play, as a play. It is too drawn-out and has too many characters and sub-plots. One wicked daughter would have been quite enough, and Edgar is a superfluous character: indeed it would probably be a better play if Gloucester and both his sons were eliminated. "Politics and the English Language" has too much to quote, as a student of Creative Writing, Orwell dissects 'poor' writing and gives wonderful advice - quotes like these are gems: The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. He strikes down poor use of metaphors, of idioms and passive writing. The latter I am guilty of, horribly so. The other two are interesting, discussing literature and language, but I won't go into all.
Finally, "England Your England". For some reason I read it first despite being the third essay because I was drawn in by its fantastic opening line, As I write, highly civilised human beings are flying overhead, trying to kill me. As expected, it is a novel on England, and though the title does not speak to all (because for some, it is not their England - Orwell certainly wrote the essay for his own countrymen) - it spoke to me, as an Englishman. This essay was magnificent, both intellectual and full of his wit (which I feel is often forgotten, in the same way Orson Welles complained that no one ever seems to know how funny Hemingway was). He says the English are not gifted artistically, or, the English are not intellectual. Better yet (for even today this stands true), One has only to look at their methods of town-planning and water-supply, their obstinate clinging to everything that is out of date and a nuisance, a spelling system that defies analysis and a system of weights and measures that is intelligible only to the compiles of arithmetic books, to see how little they care about mere efficiency. It is so true that even this morning my girlfriend and I were laughing and saying how right Orwell was, because even now we all drive manual cars, when America has long transitioned to the far simpler automatic. Today I believe it is still considered effeminate to pronounce a foreign word correctly, too. But some elements are less humorous. Orwell touches upon the English quality that repels the tourist and keeps out the invader, which to me, stung, thinking about the people complaining and abusing the poor families landing on our beaches from war-torn countries. But let's not get political. Orwell sums up the English as this, and I wouldn't jump to say he's wrong:
They are inveterate gamblers, drink as much beer as their wages will permit, are devoted to bawdy jokes, and use probably the foulest language in the world.
Inside are the following essays -
"Inside the Whale"
"Down the Mine"
"England Your England"
"Shooting an Elephant"
"Lear, Tolstoy and the Fool"
"Politics vs Literature: An Examination of Gulliver's Travels"
"Politics and the English Language"
"The Prevention of Literature"
"Boys' Weeklies"
I won't discuss all essays but there are certainly some that have noteworthy elements. The final essay was perhaps my least favourite, though interesting as a metaphorical 'Polaroid' of the time - Orwell analyses the sorts of weekly stories one could buy at a shop, mostly 'boy' stories.
"Inside the Whale" begins as an essay on Henry Miller's 1935 Tropic of Cancer which I found very interesting. Frankly, for whatever reason, Orwell doesn't strike me as the man who would read or enjoy Miller, but he speaks incredibly highly of him. Notably (about Miller's second novel Black Spring), There is a long passage in the earlier part of Black Spring, in praise of the Middle Ages, which as prose must be one of the most remarkable pieces of writing in recent years... And although I do not remember the instance Orwell is referring to in the novel, I do agree with something from later in the essay. Though I am certain I underlined it, I cannot find it in my copy, but, paraphrased, Orwell claimed that Miller's writing had a way of lingering in your mind, and that I can very much agree with. In the essay his scope widens to the generation's other writers, and about the state of literature. On Joyce he said: When you read certain passages in Ulysses you feel that Joyce's mind and your mind are one, that he knows all about you though he has never heard you name, that there exists some world outside time and space in which you and he are together. But most interestingly on Miller, Orwell says, If this were a likely moment for the launching of 'schools' of literature, Henry Miller might be the starting-point of a new 'school', and I wonder how right he is? Kerouac (and perhaps the whole of the Beat Generation) certainly seems to be a by-product of Miller's, and maybe Dos Passos, too.
"Down the Mine" and "Shooting an Elephant" are less essay. The former simply describes the conditions and feeling of mine-work in great (I could even say Orwellian) detail, suffocating and claustrophobic - again, even, dystopian - like where Morlocks dwell. Interesting as an essay but its merit lies within a just a few lines: You could quite easily drive a car right across the north of England and never once remember that hundreds of feet below the road you are on the miners are hacking at the coal. Yet in a sense it is the miners who are driving your car forward. Their lamp-lit world down there is as necessary to the day-light world above as the root is to the flower. The latter is one of the better pieces in the collection. Though it has never been confirmed as being true or not, the biography aligns with the story - a policeman in Burma having to shoot at elephant that has gone wild. In true Orwell fashion, it is not only about shooting at elephant; it is about the white man. The famous quote from it being, I perceived in this moment that when the white man turns tyrant it is his own freedom that he destroys. And just as interestingly, A white man mustn't be frightened in front of 'natives'; and so, in general, he isn't frightened. It's a short piece, but horribly powerful, in both story and theme.
"Lear, Tolstoy and the Fool", "Politics vs Literature: An Examination of Gulliver's Travels", "Politics and the English Language" and "The Prevention of Literature" are all heavily literature based. The first in the list touches upon (Orwell, even then, says how hard to come by the pamphlet is, and that our only chance of hearing any part of it is through him) Tolstoy's hatred for Shakespeare. As someone who has always felt alienated by fairly negative views towards Shakespeare (on the whole) I found this essay fascinating. Though Orwell steps in and (mostly) disregards Tolstoy, it is an interesting debate. The best quote on the matter: Tolstoy is right in saying that Lear is not a very good play, as a play. It is too drawn-out and has too many characters and sub-plots. One wicked daughter would have been quite enough, and Edgar is a superfluous character: indeed it would probably be a better play if Gloucester and both his sons were eliminated. "Politics and the English Language" has too much to quote, as a student of Creative Writing, Orwell dissects 'poor' writing and gives wonderful advice - quotes like these are gems: The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. He strikes down poor use of metaphors, of idioms and passive writing. The latter I am guilty of, horribly so. The other two are interesting, discussing literature and language, but I won't go into all.
Finally, "England Your England". For some reason I read it first despite being the third essay because I was drawn in by its fantastic opening line, As I write, highly civilised human beings are flying overhead, trying to kill me. As expected, it is a novel on England, and though the title does not speak to all (because for some, it is not their England - Orwell certainly wrote the essay for his own countrymen) - it spoke to me, as an Englishman. This essay was magnificent, both intellectual and full of his wit (which I feel is often forgotten, in the same way Orson Welles complained that no one ever seems to know how funny Hemingway was). He says the English are not gifted artistically, or, the English are not intellectual. Better yet (for even today this stands true), One has only to look at their methods of town-planning and water-supply, their obstinate clinging to everything that is out of date and a nuisance, a spelling system that defies analysis and a system of weights and measures that is intelligible only to the compiles of arithmetic books, to see how little they care about mere efficiency. It is so true that even this morning my girlfriend and I were laughing and saying how right Orwell was, because even now we all drive manual cars, when America has long transitioned to the far simpler automatic. Today I believe it is still considered effeminate to pronounce a foreign word correctly, too. But some elements are less humorous. Orwell touches upon the English quality that repels the tourist and keeps out the invader, which to me, stung, thinking about the people complaining and abusing the poor families landing on our beaches from war-torn countries. But let's not get political. Orwell sums up the English as this, and I wouldn't jump to say he's wrong:
They are inveterate gamblers, drink as much beer as their wages will permit, are devoted to bawdy jokes, and use probably the foulest language in the world.
April 1, 2022
Џорџ Орвел пише кратке, јасне и недвосмислене реченице, а мисао му је бритка и чиста. У есејима, причама и чланцима које је аутор писао у ратним периодима, од шпанског грађанског рата преко првог и на крају другог светског рата, осликава се пишчева снажна тежња ка слободи против тоталитарних и диктаторских режима. Многи од оваквих режима су, ипак, видљиви и у садашњости обавијени велом нећега што се зове 'демократија'.
August 25, 2016
Para mim, uma (ainda) desconhecedora da ficção de Orwell, esta introdução à sua escrita (de carácter exclusivamente jornalístico), acicatou a minha vontade de mergulhar mais profundamente na sua obra. Destaque para o ensaio "Como morrem os pobres", uma "peça jornalística" em que Orwell relata a sua experiência enquanto paciente internado num hospital público de Paris.
March 1, 2025
no mida perset taaskord. ma ikkagi olin eelmises elus George Orwell (või Jorjor Wel, nagu talle vaimukamates kuluaarides vahel viidatakse). sest ta lihtsalt kirjutab kõigest nii heast ja olulisest ja mulle meeldivast. et siis millest. fašismi tõusust, ebameeldivast pedagoogikast, klassivahedest, kärnkonnadest ja loodusest, natsionalismist, kolonialismi pahedest ja sellest, kuidas õigesti teed juua. viimase teema (ehk kõige olulisema) juures jagab ta kätte ka üksteist näpunäidet, kuidas rituaalset toimingut läbi viia ning sellest, kuidas täpselt peaks jook kurgust alla sattuma. ja natuke räägib veel ühest pubist ja sellest, mis seal olema peaks, nii sisekujunduse kui ka pakutava söögipoolise poolest. ehk siis üpris 20/20 teemad ngl. või nagu ütleks Austin Powers: “shagadelic, baby!”
October 26, 2018
Nine essays, each one a gem. From the deconstruction of what makes a great novel, an almost homo-erotic homage to miners, the savaging of Tolstoy's distaste of the Bard, to the Political mangling of the language and how we are conditioned to kow-tow to the moneyed classes, Orwell's precisioned contempt shines through. Also included is the masterpiece 'Shooting an Elephant' - an uneasy, tragic, and disheartening account of imperialism in action. Invaluable.
August 19, 2018
"Il nazionalismo è sete di potere frammista a illusione. Ogni nazionalista è capace della più atroce disonestà ma è anche – in quanto consapevole di servire qualcosa più grande di lui – incrollabilmente certo di essere nel giusto." (Appunti sul nazionalismo, p. 169)
"Il fatto è che non appena entrano in gioco la paura, l'odio, la gelosia e l'adorazione del potere, il senso della realtà viene stravolto. […] Quando si tratta di lealtà a un'idea, la pietà viene meno." (ivi, p. 183)
"Il fatto è che non appena entrano in gioco la paura, l'odio, la gelosia e l'adorazione del potere, il senso della realtà viene stravolto. […] Quando si tratta di lealtà a un'idea, la pietà viene meno." (ivi, p. 183)
November 1, 2023
Ovo je sad vec 4. Orvel kog čitam i mogu reći da se svakim romanom penje sve više na lestvici pisaca koji su mi dragi.
Zbirka eseja, priča i članaka različitih tema.
Da ne ocenjujem svaku ponaosob, reći ću samo da su mi uspomene iz knjižare, vešanje, beleške o nacionalizmu i sloboda govora medju boljim iz ove zbirke.
Zbirka eseja, priča i članaka različitih tema.
Da ne ocenjujem svaku ponaosob, reći ću samo da su mi uspomene iz knjižare, vešanje, beleške o nacionalizmu i sloboda govora medju boljim iz ove zbirke.
December 31, 2017
Ədəbiyyatı olduqca gözəl şərh edib. O şərhlərdən yola çıxaraq, George'n dahi yazar deyil, bir analitik olduğunu düşünürəm. Oxuduğum əsərlərində də daima ətrafı olduğu kimi əks etdirməyə çalışması, sistemə münasibət bildirən xarakterlər yaratması və müxtəlif təbəqələri anlamaq üçün onlar tək yaşamaq kimi çılğınlıqlar etməsi bunu göstərir.
March 20, 2014
Inside the Whale
This has to be Georgie's most personal essay. He's sarcastic, funny, and relentless (tears into the "poser artist"... I am quite familar with this kind of artist. thanks George... thank you very much).
Aside from this book, I have never thought of Orwell as this type of personality ((I usually imagine him a nerdy introvert raddling shit off about politics, Big Brother, and other things no one really cares about unless it's on TV and it's entertaining. I always thought George was a socially awkward dork, not a charmistic, witty person; this is a great surprise! Also, do I need these paranthese still??? Is that how you spell "paranthese"?... ugh, I forgot everything!!! I understand if you stop reading, this is pathetic..).).).
Anyways, Orwell's wit and charm is exceptionally amazing so far in this book.
Also, Orwell loved Henry Miller apparently, which was kind of a shock considering the difference in style. Though, I dont know, maybe Miller is like Orwell (I have never read Miller), though I doubt Miller writes about thought criminals and animals that speak and illustrate the pitfalls of Communism...I dont know...Maybe he does? I just feel like he doesn't...I guess I have to read Tropic of Cancer next and stop annoyingly speculate over whether an author is one way or another in a weak attempt to appear witty and to fill space in a terrible book review no one cares about...
Orwell fcouses on wars and the impact it had on writing and art. He is always one of the only writers I feel that can write on politics without being annoying and preachy, without really pushing an agenda. With looking at the whole picture and going, "look here and here". If he does preach, he calls himself out on it, he's conscious of it. He is the only author (besides Huxley) that I know to successfully weave politics and literature together in such a beautiful way, which always seems to fail for the most part with other authors. He discusses much about authors and there political leanings along with how war affected them. He describes epochs so geninuely, it's hard not to see similiarities and how things may re-occur in culture and the such in the future. Shit, come to think about, is he talking about now?!?! SOOTHSAYER!..Or has nothing actually changed at all and we have been doing the same boring retarded shit for the last 100 years or so?? He had his "hand on the pulse" of the culture and everything of the time... Genius! True journalistic work. He can always manage to link it to politics in the end. To put it bluntly and using youthful urban slang you might be comfortable with... "this motherfucker can break shit down"...
Quotes from Inside the Whale:
"...Paris was invaded by such a swarm of artists, writers, students, dilettanti, sight-seers, debauchees, and plain idlers as the world has probably never seen (MODERN DAY DENVER!). In some quarters of the town the so-called artists must actually have outnumbered the working population (DENVER!)- indeed, it has been reckoned that in the late twenties there were as many as 30,000 painters in Paris, most of them impostors. The populace had grown so hardened to artists that gruff-voiced lesbians in corduroy breeches and young men in Grecian or medieval costume could walk the streets without attracting a glance (HAHAHA! DENVER AGAIN!), and along the Seine banks by Nortre Dame it was almost impossible to pick one's way between the sketching-stools. It was the age of dark horses and neglected genii; the phrase on everybody's lips was 'Quand je serai lance? (when am I launching?". As it turned out, nobody was "launching"...(HAHAHAHAHA! Hate, Hate, Hate! Paris sounded like a shithole and Orwell is a funny snob guy!!)...the slump descended like another ice age, the cosmopolitan mob of artists vanished, and the huge Montparnasse cafes which only ten years ago were filled till the small hours by hordes of shrieking poseurs (hahaha!) have turned into darkened tombs in which there are not even any ghosts. It is this world- described in, among other novels, Wyndham Lewis's Tarr- that Miller is writing about, but he is dealing only with the under side of it, the lumpen-proletarian fringe which has been able to survive the slump because it is composed of partly genuine artists and partly of genuine scoundrels (sure it was, George, sure it was)."
"Books like All Quiet on the Western Front, Le Feu, A Farewell to Arms, Death of a Hero, Good-bye to All That, Memoirs of an Infantry Ofiicer, and A Subaltern on the Somme were written not by propagandists but by victims."
"When one says that a writer is fashionable one practically always means that he is admired by people under thirty."
"And notice also the exquisite self-pity- the 'nobody loves me' feeling:
The diamond drops adorning
The low mound on the lea,
These are the tears of morning,
That weeps, but not for thee.
Hard cheese, old chap!"
-Haha!
"And no book is ever truly neutral."
"What Joyce is saying is 'Here is life without God. Just look at it!'"
"In 'cultured' circles art-for-art's-saking extended practiacally to a worship of the meaningless"
"As early as 1934 or 1935 it was considered eccentric in literary circles not be more or less "left". Between 1935 and 1939 the Communist Party had an almost irresistable fascination for any writer under forty. It became as normal to hear that so-and-so had 'been received'. For about three years, in fact, the central stream of English literature was more or less directly under Communist control. How was it possible for such a thing to happen?"
"Every Communist is in fact liable at any moment to have to alter his most fundamental convictions, or leave the party."
"So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot."
"Literature as we know it is an individual thing, demanding mental honesty and a minimum of censorship."
"Good novels are not written by orthodoxy-sniffers, nor by people who are conscience-stricken about their own unorthodoxy. Good novels are written by people who are not frightened."
"Almost certainly we are moving into an age of totalitarian dictatorships- an age in which freedom of thought will be at first a deadly sin and later on a meaningless abstraction. The atuonomous individual is going to be stamped out of existence. But this means that literature, in the form in which we know it, must suffer at least a temporary death."
"Give yourself over to the world-process, stop fighting against it or pretending that you control it; simply accept it, endure it, reocrd it. That seems to be the formula that any sensitive novelist is now likely to adopt..."
Down the Mine (3 stars)
A sentimental propaganda piece that illustrates empathisizing with the working class. I don't say propaganda in a negative way, it's just the feeling I got from reading it. After raddling on about how the left is "kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot" in the pervious essay; irony is in full swing here. However, I think Orwell is aware of this. The essay is very well written (unlike this review) and is done in quite a journalistic fashion and stripped down to the bare essentials. He can be a bit repetitive in holding the coal miners up so high and praising the coal workers (why dont you marry them, Orwell?! geez...), which can be annoying (we get it; they were tough and busted their asses, I go to work in a comfortable office everyday and sit and push buttons, where's my goddamn recognition?!). But I get the feeling he would just like to have the miners get a little recognition for pretty much working to allow everyone to exist with comfortable lives the coal miners couldn't afford. Though no one deserves to have such luxuaries anway... I guess people took this for granted and still do, though no one cares about anything unless it's wrapped in bacon...
Quote from Down the Mine:
"For it is brought home to you, at least while you are watching, that it is only because miners sweat their guts out that superior persons can remain superior."
England your England (3 stars)
This essay is some what outdated with some of the names dropped I have never heard of in local British politics. However, some of Orwell's take on how England can come together like a big family (like after 9/11, the U.S. did) the classes, arts, and politics in England can have also have immediate parallels to the current USA. Not much changes, interesting quote below to illustrate this...
Quotes from England your England:
"It is a strange fact, but it is unquestionably true, that almost any English intellectual would feel more ashamed of standing attention during "God save the King" than of stealing from a poor-box. All through the critical years many left-wingers were chipping away at English morale, trying to spread an outlook that was sometimes squashily pacifist, sometimes violently pro-Russian, but always anti-British....If the English people suffered for several years a real weakening of morale, so that the Fascist nations judged that they were 'decadent' and that it was safe to plunge into war, the intellectual sabotage from the Left was partly responsible...Given the stagnation of the Empire the military middle class must have decayed in any case, but the spread of a shallow Leftism hastened the process...It is clear that the special position of the English intellectuals during the past ten years, as purely negative creatures, was a by-product of ruling class stupidity. Society could not use them, and they have not got it in them to see the devotion to one's country implies 'for better, for wore'...high brows took for granted, as though it were a law of nature, the divorce between partiotism and intelligence. If you were a patriot you publicly thanked God that you were 'not brainy'. If you were an intellectual you sniggered at the Union Jack and regarded physical courage as barbarous...A modern nation cannot afford either of them. Partiotism and intelligence will have to come together again."
Shooting an Elephant (5 stars)
Kind of dark humor with a twist; deeply personal experience for Orwell and he illustrates being a coward while ongoers Burmese watched (I can relate). I think it's made clear in this piece why Orwell was anti-imperialsim. No quotes really, just read the story...
Lear, Tolstoy and the fool (2 stars)
Apparently Tolstoy hated, HATED (with capital letters!) Shakespeare. I wouldn't be surprised if Tolstoy dug up Shakespeare's grave just to piss on his bones... Orwell describes why Tolstoy hated him and Orwell paints a picture that Tolstoy was pretty self-righteous and kind of a douchey guy (I guess he hit people that didnt agree with his crazy beliefs about love and being a self proclaimed poor person, though he was a poser aristocrat...what a fascist....). Maybe Tolstoy was jealous or something. Tolstoy says he is "repulsed" and "weary" when reading Shakespeare, and thought Shakespeare should "eat a bag of dicks"...I guess also Shakespeare ripped off a lot of people or something...I don't know... Frankly, I could give two shits about both these authors; Tolstoy and Shakespeare seem boring, there both dead, and what I have heard about them they really don't appeal to me (though I could be wrong, I really haven't read much by either of them). I have more important things to do like pay bills and focus on not showing up to work drunk and pretending to be an adult, I don't have time to worry about dead people and their shitty stories. Anyways, if you care about Tolstoy or Shakespeare, maybe this story is for you, again, I didn't really care so hence the low rating...
Politics v. Literature an examination of gulliver's tavel (3 stars in the beginning; kind of boring...4 towards the end, better!)
Orwell thought of Swift as a poop loving (I guess Swift had some weird love/hate thing with poopie), incurious, and a nihilistic person. Orwell disagrees with him on a "political and moral level", but believes it should be one of six books to survive if all books were to be destroyed. He answers the questions "what is the reltionship between agreement with a writer's opinions, and enjoyment of his work?" Orwell states, "If one is capable of intellectual detachment, one can perceive merit in a writer whom one deeply disagrees with, but enjoyment in a different matter". Good point...Orwell thinks Swift is a "diseased writer" because he remains permanently in a depressed mood. He thinks Swift is a total downer and Swift falisfies the world because he only sees "dirt, folly, and wickedness". I don't know, never read Swift. Orwell is really good at picking authors I have not read...
Quotes
"But Swift's greatest contribution to political thought in the narrower sense of the words, is his attack, especially in Part 3, on what would now be called totalitarianism. He has an extraodrinarily clear prevision of the spy-haunted 'police State', with its endless heresy-hunts and treason trials, all really designed to neutralize popular discontent by changing it inot war hysteria."
"...aims of totalitarianism is not merely to make sure that people will think the right thoughts, but actually to make them less conscious."
"When human beings are governed by 'thou shalt not', the individual can practise a certain amount of eccentricity: when they are supposedly governed by 'love' or 'reason', he is under continuous pressure to make him behave and think in exactly the same way as everyone else."
"They had reached, in fact, the highest stage of totalitarin organization, the stage when confromity has become so general that there is no need for a police force."
"In the queerest way, please and disgust are linked together. The human body is beautiful: it is also repulsive and ridiculous, a fact which can be verified at any swimming pool." AHHAHA...
"The sexual organs are objects of desire and also of loathing, so much so that in many languages, if not in all languages, their names are used as words of abuse. Meat is delicious, but a butcher's shop makes one fell sick: and indeed all our food springs ultimately from dung and dead bodies, the two things which of all others seem to us the most horrible."
"...a writer is a propagandist, the most one can ask of him is that he shall genuinely believe in what he is saying, and that it shall not be something balzingly silly."
"...the force of belief behind it, a world-view which only just passes the test of sanity is sufficient to produce a great work of art."
Politics and the English Language (4 stars)
This chapter illustrates that Orwell was a total nerd; as thought earlier in this review...In addition, if you ever want to consider writing seriously, don't skip this chapter.
Haha, Orwell uses 5 passages to illustrate how language is being used in a 'nonsensical, ugly, vague, and clumsy way'. what an elitist prick... Most of his examples are from professors, and upon reading them, make you realize people have always been shitty writers (a comforting feeling?). (obviously this review is an exception to all of those criticisms). Orwell lays into the problems of language and how it is used ineffectively.
Quotes:
"This mixture of vagueness and sheer incompetence is the most marked characteristic of modern English prose, and especially of any kind of political writing."
"...prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated hen-house."
Dying Metaphors
"...incompatible metaphors are frequently mixed, a sure sign that the writer is not interested in what he is saying...a writer who stopped to think of what he was saying would be aware of this, and would avoid perverting the oringal phrase".
Operators or Verbal False Limbs
"The keynote is the elimination of simple verbs. Instead of being a single word, such as break, stop, spoil, mend, kill, a verb becomes a phrase, made up of a noun or adjective tacked on to some general-purposes verb such as prove, serve, form, play, render.(by examination instead of by examining).
Pretentious Diction
I wrote a thing here and accidentally deleted it. I am too lazy to re-wrtie it. You should stop being lazy also and read a book.
Meaningless words
"...in literary criticism, it is normal to come across long passages which are almost completely lacking meaning."- I have absolutely no idea what Orwell is referring to in this passage, his verbose language seems to illustrate the current milieu of literary criticism that one is so inclined and insisted upon replicating in times of dire need...
"...democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realist, justice....Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different. Marshal Petain was a true patriot, The Soviet Press is the freest in the world, The Catholic Church is opposed to persecution are almost always made with intent to deceive. Other words used in varibalbe meanings, in most cases more or less dishonestly, are: class, totalitarian, science, progressive, rreactionary, bourgeois, equality."
"Modern writing at its worst does not consist in picking out words for the sake of their meaning and inventing images in order to make the meaning clearer. It consists in gumming together long strips of words which have already been set in order by someone else, and making the results presentable by sheer humbug. It is easier- even quicker, once you have the habit- to say In my opinion it is a not unjustifiable assumption that than to say I think."
"By using stale metaphors, simlies and idioms, you save much mental effort ast the cost of leaving your meaning vague, not only for your reader but for yourself."
"A scrupulous writer in every sentence he writes, will ask himself at least four questions, thus: What am I trying to say? What words will express it? What image or idiom will make it clear? Is this image fresh enough to have an effect? and he will probably ask himself two more: Could I put i more shortly? Have I said anything that is avoidably ugly?"
** "In our time it is broadly true that political writing is bad writing. Where it is not true, it will generally be found that the writer is some kind of rebel, expressing his prviate opinions and not a 'party line'."
"A speaker whou uses that kind of phraseology has gone some distance towards turning himself into a machine. The approriate noises are coming out of his larynx, but his brain is not involved as it would be if he were choosing his words for himself. If the speech he is making is one that he is accustomed to make over and over and over again, he may be almost unconscious of what he is saying, as one is when one utters the responses in church. And this reduced state of consciousness, if not indispensable, is at any rate favourable to political conformity.
** "Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenceless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them..."
Is it just me or did Chomsky just rip off everything Orwell wrote about lanuage? I dont know, some passing thought....
Wow, I never used up a whole review??! Weird, I guess I will continue on another edition (In reality, I need a real life)
This has to be Georgie's most personal essay. He's sarcastic, funny, and relentless (tears into the "poser artist"... I am quite familar with this kind of artist. thanks George... thank you very much).
Aside from this book, I have never thought of Orwell as this type of personality ((I usually imagine him a nerdy introvert raddling shit off about politics, Big Brother, and other things no one really cares about unless it's on TV and it's entertaining. I always thought George was a socially awkward dork, not a charmistic, witty person; this is a great surprise! Also, do I need these paranthese still??? Is that how you spell "paranthese"?... ugh, I forgot everything!!! I understand if you stop reading, this is pathetic..).).).
Anyways, Orwell's wit and charm is exceptionally amazing so far in this book.
Also, Orwell loved Henry Miller apparently, which was kind of a shock considering the difference in style. Though, I dont know, maybe Miller is like Orwell (I have never read Miller), though I doubt Miller writes about thought criminals and animals that speak and illustrate the pitfalls of Communism...I dont know...Maybe he does? I just feel like he doesn't...I guess I have to read Tropic of Cancer next and stop annoyingly speculate over whether an author is one way or another in a weak attempt to appear witty and to fill space in a terrible book review no one cares about...
Orwell fcouses on wars and the impact it had on writing and art. He is always one of the only writers I feel that can write on politics without being annoying and preachy, without really pushing an agenda. With looking at the whole picture and going, "look here and here". If he does preach, he calls himself out on it, he's conscious of it. He is the only author (besides Huxley) that I know to successfully weave politics and literature together in such a beautiful way, which always seems to fail for the most part with other authors. He discusses much about authors and there political leanings along with how war affected them. He describes epochs so geninuely, it's hard not to see similiarities and how things may re-occur in culture and the such in the future. Shit, come to think about, is he talking about now?!?! SOOTHSAYER!..Or has nothing actually changed at all and we have been doing the same boring retarded shit for the last 100 years or so?? He had his "hand on the pulse" of the culture and everything of the time... Genius! True journalistic work. He can always manage to link it to politics in the end. To put it bluntly and using youthful urban slang you might be comfortable with... "this motherfucker can break shit down"...
Quotes from Inside the Whale:
"...Paris was invaded by such a swarm of artists, writers, students, dilettanti, sight-seers, debauchees, and plain idlers as the world has probably never seen (MODERN DAY DENVER!). In some quarters of the town the so-called artists must actually have outnumbered the working population (DENVER!)- indeed, it has been reckoned that in the late twenties there were as many as 30,000 painters in Paris, most of them impostors. The populace had grown so hardened to artists that gruff-voiced lesbians in corduroy breeches and young men in Grecian or medieval costume could walk the streets without attracting a glance (HAHAHA! DENVER AGAIN!), and along the Seine banks by Nortre Dame it was almost impossible to pick one's way between the sketching-stools. It was the age of dark horses and neglected genii; the phrase on everybody's lips was 'Quand je serai lance? (when am I launching?". As it turned out, nobody was "launching"...(HAHAHAHAHA! Hate, Hate, Hate! Paris sounded like a shithole and Orwell is a funny snob guy!!)...the slump descended like another ice age, the cosmopolitan mob of artists vanished, and the huge Montparnasse cafes which only ten years ago were filled till the small hours by hordes of shrieking poseurs (hahaha!) have turned into darkened tombs in which there are not even any ghosts. It is this world- described in, among other novels, Wyndham Lewis's Tarr- that Miller is writing about, but he is dealing only with the under side of it, the lumpen-proletarian fringe which has been able to survive the slump because it is composed of partly genuine artists and partly of genuine scoundrels (sure it was, George, sure it was)."
"Books like All Quiet on the Western Front, Le Feu, A Farewell to Arms, Death of a Hero, Good-bye to All That, Memoirs of an Infantry Ofiicer, and A Subaltern on the Somme were written not by propagandists but by victims."
"When one says that a writer is fashionable one practically always means that he is admired by people under thirty."
"And notice also the exquisite self-pity- the 'nobody loves me' feeling:
The diamond drops adorning
The low mound on the lea,
These are the tears of morning,
That weeps, but not for thee.
Hard cheese, old chap!"
-Haha!
"And no book is ever truly neutral."
"What Joyce is saying is 'Here is life without God. Just look at it!'"
"In 'cultured' circles art-for-art's-saking extended practiacally to a worship of the meaningless"
"As early as 1934 or 1935 it was considered eccentric in literary circles not be more or less "left". Between 1935 and 1939 the Communist Party had an almost irresistable fascination for any writer under forty. It became as normal to hear that so-and-so had 'been received'. For about three years, in fact, the central stream of English literature was more or less directly under Communist control. How was it possible for such a thing to happen?"
"Every Communist is in fact liable at any moment to have to alter his most fundamental convictions, or leave the party."
"So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot."
"Literature as we know it is an individual thing, demanding mental honesty and a minimum of censorship."
"Good novels are not written by orthodoxy-sniffers, nor by people who are conscience-stricken about their own unorthodoxy. Good novels are written by people who are not frightened."
"Almost certainly we are moving into an age of totalitarian dictatorships- an age in which freedom of thought will be at first a deadly sin and later on a meaningless abstraction. The atuonomous individual is going to be stamped out of existence. But this means that literature, in the form in which we know it, must suffer at least a temporary death."
"Give yourself over to the world-process, stop fighting against it or pretending that you control it; simply accept it, endure it, reocrd it. That seems to be the formula that any sensitive novelist is now likely to adopt..."
Down the Mine (3 stars)
A sentimental propaganda piece that illustrates empathisizing with the working class. I don't say propaganda in a negative way, it's just the feeling I got from reading it. After raddling on about how the left is "kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot" in the pervious essay; irony is in full swing here. However, I think Orwell is aware of this. The essay is very well written (unlike this review) and is done in quite a journalistic fashion and stripped down to the bare essentials. He can be a bit repetitive in holding the coal miners up so high and praising the coal workers (why dont you marry them, Orwell?! geez...), which can be annoying (we get it; they were tough and busted their asses, I go to work in a comfortable office everyday and sit and push buttons, where's my goddamn recognition?!). But I get the feeling he would just like to have the miners get a little recognition for pretty much working to allow everyone to exist with comfortable lives the coal miners couldn't afford. Though no one deserves to have such luxuaries anway... I guess people took this for granted and still do, though no one cares about anything unless it's wrapped in bacon...
Quote from Down the Mine:
"For it is brought home to you, at least while you are watching, that it is only because miners sweat their guts out that superior persons can remain superior."
England your England (3 stars)
This essay is some what outdated with some of the names dropped I have never heard of in local British politics. However, some of Orwell's take on how England can come together like a big family (like after 9/11, the U.S. did) the classes, arts, and politics in England can have also have immediate parallels to the current USA. Not much changes, interesting quote below to illustrate this...
Quotes from England your England:
"It is a strange fact, but it is unquestionably true, that almost any English intellectual would feel more ashamed of standing attention during "God save the King" than of stealing from a poor-box. All through the critical years many left-wingers were chipping away at English morale, trying to spread an outlook that was sometimes squashily pacifist, sometimes violently pro-Russian, but always anti-British....If the English people suffered for several years a real weakening of morale, so that the Fascist nations judged that they were 'decadent' and that it was safe to plunge into war, the intellectual sabotage from the Left was partly responsible...Given the stagnation of the Empire the military middle class must have decayed in any case, but the spread of a shallow Leftism hastened the process...It is clear that the special position of the English intellectuals during the past ten years, as purely negative creatures, was a by-product of ruling class stupidity. Society could not use them, and they have not got it in them to see the devotion to one's country implies 'for better, for wore'...high brows took for granted, as though it were a law of nature, the divorce between partiotism and intelligence. If you were a patriot you publicly thanked God that you were 'not brainy'. If you were an intellectual you sniggered at the Union Jack and regarded physical courage as barbarous...A modern nation cannot afford either of them. Partiotism and intelligence will have to come together again."
Shooting an Elephant (5 stars)
Kind of dark humor with a twist; deeply personal experience for Orwell and he illustrates being a coward while ongoers Burmese watched (I can relate). I think it's made clear in this piece why Orwell was anti-imperialsim. No quotes really, just read the story...
Lear, Tolstoy and the fool (2 stars)
Apparently Tolstoy hated, HATED (with capital letters!) Shakespeare. I wouldn't be surprised if Tolstoy dug up Shakespeare's grave just to piss on his bones... Orwell describes why Tolstoy hated him and Orwell paints a picture that Tolstoy was pretty self-righteous and kind of a douchey guy (I guess he hit people that didnt agree with his crazy beliefs about love and being a self proclaimed poor person, though he was a poser aristocrat...what a fascist....). Maybe Tolstoy was jealous or something. Tolstoy says he is "repulsed" and "weary" when reading Shakespeare, and thought Shakespeare should "eat a bag of dicks"...I guess also Shakespeare ripped off a lot of people or something...I don't know... Frankly, I could give two shits about both these authors; Tolstoy and Shakespeare seem boring, there both dead, and what I have heard about them they really don't appeal to me (though I could be wrong, I really haven't read much by either of them). I have more important things to do like pay bills and focus on not showing up to work drunk and pretending to be an adult, I don't have time to worry about dead people and their shitty stories. Anyways, if you care about Tolstoy or Shakespeare, maybe this story is for you, again, I didn't really care so hence the low rating...
Politics v. Literature an examination of gulliver's tavel (3 stars in the beginning; kind of boring...4 towards the end, better!)
Orwell thought of Swift as a poop loving (I guess Swift had some weird love/hate thing with poopie), incurious, and a nihilistic person. Orwell disagrees with him on a "political and moral level", but believes it should be one of six books to survive if all books were to be destroyed. He answers the questions "what is the reltionship between agreement with a writer's opinions, and enjoyment of his work?" Orwell states, "If one is capable of intellectual detachment, one can perceive merit in a writer whom one deeply disagrees with, but enjoyment in a different matter". Good point...Orwell thinks Swift is a "diseased writer" because he remains permanently in a depressed mood. He thinks Swift is a total downer and Swift falisfies the world because he only sees "dirt, folly, and wickedness". I don't know, never read Swift. Orwell is really good at picking authors I have not read...
Quotes
"But Swift's greatest contribution to political thought in the narrower sense of the words, is his attack, especially in Part 3, on what would now be called totalitarianism. He has an extraodrinarily clear prevision of the spy-haunted 'police State', with its endless heresy-hunts and treason trials, all really designed to neutralize popular discontent by changing it inot war hysteria."
"...aims of totalitarianism is not merely to make sure that people will think the right thoughts, but actually to make them less conscious."
"When human beings are governed by 'thou shalt not', the individual can practise a certain amount of eccentricity: when they are supposedly governed by 'love' or 'reason', he is under continuous pressure to make him behave and think in exactly the same way as everyone else."
"They had reached, in fact, the highest stage of totalitarin organization, the stage when confromity has become so general that there is no need for a police force."
"In the queerest way, please and disgust are linked together. The human body is beautiful: it is also repulsive and ridiculous, a fact which can be verified at any swimming pool." AHHAHA...
"The sexual organs are objects of desire and also of loathing, so much so that in many languages, if not in all languages, their names are used as words of abuse. Meat is delicious, but a butcher's shop makes one fell sick: and indeed all our food springs ultimately from dung and dead bodies, the two things which of all others seem to us the most horrible."
"...a writer is a propagandist, the most one can ask of him is that he shall genuinely believe in what he is saying, and that it shall not be something balzingly silly."
"...the force of belief behind it, a world-view which only just passes the test of sanity is sufficient to produce a great work of art."
Politics and the English Language (4 stars)
This chapter illustrates that Orwell was a total nerd; as thought earlier in this review...In addition, if you ever want to consider writing seriously, don't skip this chapter.
Haha, Orwell uses 5 passages to illustrate how language is being used in a 'nonsensical, ugly, vague, and clumsy way'. what an elitist prick... Most of his examples are from professors, and upon reading them, make you realize people have always been shitty writers (a comforting feeling?). (obviously this review is an exception to all of those criticisms). Orwell lays into the problems of language and how it is used ineffectively.
Quotes:
"This mixture of vagueness and sheer incompetence is the most marked characteristic of modern English prose, and especially of any kind of political writing."
"...prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated hen-house."
Dying Metaphors
"...incompatible metaphors are frequently mixed, a sure sign that the writer is not interested in what he is saying...a writer who stopped to think of what he was saying would be aware of this, and would avoid perverting the oringal phrase".
Operators or Verbal False Limbs
"The keynote is the elimination of simple verbs. Instead of being a single word, such as break, stop, spoil, mend, kill, a verb becomes a phrase, made up of a noun or adjective tacked on to some general-purposes verb such as prove, serve, form, play, render.(by examination instead of by examining).
Pretentious Diction
I wrote a thing here and accidentally deleted it. I am too lazy to re-wrtie it. You should stop being lazy also and read a book.
Meaningless words
"...in literary criticism, it is normal to come across long passages which are almost completely lacking meaning."- I have absolutely no idea what Orwell is referring to in this passage, his verbose language seems to illustrate the current milieu of literary criticism that one is so inclined and insisted upon replicating in times of dire need...
"...democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realist, justice....Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different. Marshal Petain was a true patriot, The Soviet Press is the freest in the world, The Catholic Church is opposed to persecution are almost always made with intent to deceive. Other words used in varibalbe meanings, in most cases more or less dishonestly, are: class, totalitarian, science, progressive, rreactionary, bourgeois, equality."
"Modern writing at its worst does not consist in picking out words for the sake of their meaning and inventing images in order to make the meaning clearer. It consists in gumming together long strips of words which have already been set in order by someone else, and making the results presentable by sheer humbug. It is easier- even quicker, once you have the habit- to say In my opinion it is a not unjustifiable assumption that than to say I think."
"By using stale metaphors, simlies and idioms, you save much mental effort ast the cost of leaving your meaning vague, not only for your reader but for yourself."
"A scrupulous writer in every sentence he writes, will ask himself at least four questions, thus: What am I trying to say? What words will express it? What image or idiom will make it clear? Is this image fresh enough to have an effect? and he will probably ask himself two more: Could I put i more shortly? Have I said anything that is avoidably ugly?"
** "In our time it is broadly true that political writing is bad writing. Where it is not true, it will generally be found that the writer is some kind of rebel, expressing his prviate opinions and not a 'party line'."
"A speaker whou uses that kind of phraseology has gone some distance towards turning himself into a machine. The approriate noises are coming out of his larynx, but his brain is not involved as it would be if he were choosing his words for himself. If the speech he is making is one that he is accustomed to make over and over and over again, he may be almost unconscious of what he is saying, as one is when one utters the responses in church. And this reduced state of consciousness, if not indispensable, is at any rate favourable to political conformity.
** "Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenceless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them..."
Is it just me or did Chomsky just rip off everything Orwell wrote about lanuage? I dont know, some passing thought....
Wow, I never used up a whole review??! Weird, I guess I will continue on another edition (In reality, I need a real life)
April 3, 2021
ma jaoj završila sam još pre dva tri dana, poslednjeg dana marta ali užasno me je mrzelo da bilo šta pišem. i sad me malo mrzi odnosno nije da me mrzi samo nemam snage a i nije kao da je nekoga briga. a i o orvelu nemam mnogo toga da kažem, on čovek jednostavno nije moj тип. ovaj druškan i ja se zapravo u mnogim tačkama slažemo, ne osporavam ga, ali orvel baš voli драму. baš sve shvata fatalistički. udahni malo čoveče. tako da je stilski za mene dosta dosadan. sve rečenice su uredne, srednje dužine, skroz logički uređene, na neki način sterilne (možda se tako piše esej? možda ja sve ove godine grešim, iznova i iznova) i taj stilski aspekt bih ovako subjektivno ocenila sa 3 zvezdice. ali tehnički gledano, kako on koristi sva jezičko izražajna sredstva je za 4 zvezdice sigurno, iako mene to malo smara. sve je predvidivo. a i samo da primetim, baš se vidi da za sebe misli da je elita. možda odatle tolika драма (note to self: pazi da ne zapadneš u relativizam!!!)
April 28, 2024
Το συγκεκριμένο βιβλίο δεν υπάρχει στην βάση δεδομένων του Goodreads , λέγεται "Τέσσερα Δοκίμια" και εκδόθηκε το 1981. Περιέχει τα:"inside the whale ", benefit of clergy","raffles and Ms blandish","the prevention of literature ". Από αυτά ,τα δύο πρώτα είναι αρκετά ενδιαφέροντα, με τον Όργουελ να σχολιάζει τον Τροπικό του καρκίνου του Μίλερ και το φαινόμενο Νταλί.
May 15, 2020
Orwell hali hazırda severdim, ancak bu kitabı okurken bambaşka bir duyguya kapıldım. Kitap Orwell’ın farklı zamanlarda farklı yerler için yazdığı yazılardan oluşuyor ve sizinle sohbet ediyormuşçasına bir üsluba sahip. Gerçekten çok sevdim, özellikle de “Balinanın Karnında” ve “Atom Bombası ve Siz” kısımlarını.
June 30, 2021
Balinanın Karnında - Kitaplar ve Sigaralar - Dali'den Karakurbağasına Bazı Düşünceler toplu yorumudur. Bu kadar üst üste okuyunca biraz tekrara düşüyor insan tabii ama Orwell’in denemeleri ve anıları her zaman ilginç ve kafa açıcı bence. Yine genel olarak edebiyat, edebiyat eleştirisi, savaş ve sosyalizm temel konuları. Açıkçası bunları okumanın Hayvan Çiftliği’ni ve 1984’ü çok daha iyi çerçevelememi sağladığını düşünüyorum, bu nedenle memnunum. Üçünün arasında en zayıf olan Dali’den Karakurbağası’na Bazı Düşünceler’di. Kitaplar ve Sigaralar’ın özellikle yatılı okul anıları kısmı ilginçti, erkek yatılı okullarında okuyanların kendilerinden çok şey bulacağını zannediyorum. Balinanın Karnında da Avrupa’nın iki savaş arasındaki en acayip dönemlerine oldukça aydınlatıcı bir ışık tutuyor. Ezcümle: Orwell büyük bir yazar şüphesiz, ama kendisi o meşhur iki kitabından ibaret değil ve kafasının içinde gezinmek ziyadesiyle heyecan verici.
October 10, 2022
George estuda as obras de diversos autores em seu tempo e deixa suas opiniões para com a sociedade da época e também, para o futuro. Muitas das coisas ainda persistem em existir e assim será. O ensaio que mais gostei foi a do elefante, de alguma forma aquela história é nossa, isso é o ser humano. Por exemplo, as vezes para não ser isolado falamos de coisas que não sabemos para se encaixar e deixar as pessoas satisfeitas, apenas para não ser mais um bobo no mundo.
A crueldade é do ser humano.
George fala muito dos ingleses e franceses, de como lhe faltam algo e de como se tem muitas coisas ao mesmo tempo.
Aulas.
A crueldade é do ser humano.
George fala muito dos ingleses e franceses, de como lhe faltam algo e de como se tem muitas coisas ao mesmo tempo.
Aulas.
June 6, 2020
۲.۵
خیلی دوست داشتم که از این کتاب لذت ببرم(believe me i needed it) ولی هم من و جورج خیلی باهم مخالف بودیم، اونقدری که مجبور بودم بعد از هر جمله براش تو کتاب بنویسم چرا به نظرم حرفش درست نیست؛ هم اینکه ترجمه افتضاحش باعث شد به این فکر کنم که هر آدمی که دو ترم کلاس زبان رفته احتمالا میتونه از آقای مهدی افشار بهتر این کتاب و ترجمه کنه!
خیلی دوست داشتم که از این کتاب لذت ببرم(believe me i needed it) ولی هم من و جورج خیلی باهم مخالف بودیم، اونقدری که مجبور بودم بعد از هر جمله براش تو کتاب بنویسم چرا به نظرم حرفش درست نیست؛ هم اینکه ترجمه افتضاحش باعث شد به این فکر کنم که هر آدمی که دو ترم کلاس زبان رفته احتمالا میتونه از آقای مهدی افشار بهتر این کتاب و ترجمه کنه!
January 17, 2024
Sotsialist kõneleb. Aga selle elab üle, kui väga pingutada.
Tõsielulood, memuaarid, esseed, piir nende vahel kohati ähmane. Orwell (ma ei olnudki kunagi süvenenud, et see on pseudonüüm) jutustab oma koolipõlvest rikaste võsukeste keskel (kas seal hakkaski idanema sotsialismuse-seeme?), elevandi tulistamisest Birmas (tema "Birma päevad" mulle täitsa meeldis), Hispaania kodusõjas osalemisest, mõtiskleb poliitika üle, püüab ennustada maailm tulevikku (aatomipommi ja Aadu tolleaegsete tegude valguses pole ka imestada, et ta neid mõtteid mõlgutas).
Eraldi plokk on kriitika ja esseed kirjandusteostest või laiemalt mõne kirjaniku loomingust (Twain, London, Milleri "Vähi pöörijoon" jpt), eriliseks maiuspalaks muidugi "Retsensendi pihtimused". Ega see viimane nüüd just kuidagi eriliselt üllatanud, aga tore lugeda siiski.
Omamoodi tore on ka inglaste portreteerimine ja inglise köögi kiitmine.
Keel on ilus, tõlkinud Udo Uibo.
Tõsielulood, memuaarid, esseed, piir nende vahel kohati ähmane. Orwell (ma ei olnudki kunagi süvenenud, et see on pseudonüüm) jutustab oma koolipõlvest rikaste võsukeste keskel (kas seal hakkaski idanema sotsialismuse-seeme?), elevandi tulistamisest Birmas (tema "Birma päevad" mulle täitsa meeldis), Hispaania kodusõjas osalemisest, mõtiskleb poliitika üle, püüab ennustada maailm tulevikku (aatomipommi ja Aadu tolleaegsete tegude valguses pole ka imestada, et ta neid mõtteid mõlgutas).
Eraldi plokk on kriitika ja esseed kirjandusteostest või laiemalt mõne kirjaniku loomingust (Twain, London, Milleri "Vähi pöörijoon" jpt), eriliseks maiuspalaks muidugi "Retsensendi pihtimused". Ega see viimane nüüd just kuidagi eriliselt üllatanud, aga tore lugeda siiski.
Omamoodi tore on ka inglaste portreteerimine ja inglise köögi kiitmine.
Keel on ilus, tõlkinud Udo Uibo.
December 20, 2024
he would have loved the internet fr
July 25, 2018
کتاب همانطور که از نامش پیداست مجموعه مقالاتی از جورج اورول است هرچند یکی از مقالاتی که در کتاب اصلی هست در ترجمه کتاب آورده نشده.نثر مقالات رسا است و کمتر جایی پیش می آید که بخواهید برگردید و جمله ای را دو مرتبه بخوانید.اورول منظور خود را به خوبی ارائه می دهد و توضیحاتش درباره ی موضوعی که مطرح میکند نسبتا کامل است.تاریخ نوشته شدن مقالات بین 1930 تا 1946 است.
از بین مقاله های این کتاب "انگلستان،انگلستان شما" و "منع ادبی" بسیار خوب بودند بخصوص "منع ادبی" که به سانسور و ادبیات در رژیم های تمامیت خواه به خوبی می پردازد.او گزارشی را در بیان کار معدنچی ها آورده تحت عنوان "در اعماق معدن" و در "لیر،تولستوی و ابله" نظرات نه چندان جالب تولستوی در مورد شکسپیر را مورد بررسی قرار می دهد."سیاست و زبان انگلیسی" مقاله ی بسیار جالبی است خصوصا برای آن هایی که با این زبان آشنایی دارند.
راستی کتاب هدیه ی تولدم بود در هفده سالگی
از بین مقاله های این کتاب "انگلستان،انگلستان شما" و "منع ادبی" بسیار خوب بودند بخصوص "منع ادبی" که به سانسور و ادبیات در رژیم های تمامیت خواه به خوبی می پردازد.او گزارشی را در بیان کار معدنچی ها آورده تحت عنوان "در اعماق معدن" و در "لیر،تولستوی و ابله" نظرات نه چندان جالب تولستوی در مورد شکسپیر را مورد بررسی قرار می دهد."سیاست و زبان انگلیسی" مقاله ی بسیار جالبی است خصوصا برای آن هایی که با این زبان آشنایی دارند.
راستی کتاب هدیه ی تولدم بود در هفده سالگی
October 29, 2025
Yeah, babe, it's fine... I just didn't expect him to assign England's growing sociopolitical wealth divide to the bourgeois' ineptitude and anachronistic values... the implication of which is that the ruling class is actually just ignorant of this economic inequality instead of being instrumental in its implication, overlooking their willing subjugation of the poor in the name of exploitative capital accumulation... but, hey, it's not like George Orwell knows anything about totalitarian hellscapes or anything...
And on the point of the eponymous Henry Miller essay, I've got a couple of things to say...
'During the past ten years, literature has involved itself more and more deeply in politics, with the result that there is now less room in it for the ordinary man... [Miller's work] is a voice from the crowd... from the ordinary, non-political, non-moral, passive man.'
What a parculiar stance for the man who wrote 1984 to take. To exist outside of politics is to exist as a non-entity, to renounce involvement in the political is not to be 'ordinary', it is to be a chump. Only a white man can look into the 'approaching cataclysm' and 'declare irresponsiblity' because he stands alone as the only faction who has never faced political subjugation or consequences for his nonpartisan attitudes. He is an infant watching the flicker of a flame grow closer, stoic and brave because he doesn't know yet that it will burn him,too. It never has before, so why would it start now?
Miller's blasé faire acceptance of the filth and the poverty and the horror of the underbelly makes for a good tale (don't get me wrong, I'm a fan. Clunge forever... or whatever he wrote...) but to insinuate that it is a shame that political fiction is erasing the voice of the common man is to foster contrived ignorance. It is hypocritical to encourage political obstinancy, then, now, and forevermore. We have enough stupid people voting as is. (Cough cough - Reform).
Moreover, these essays were primarily written during the early to mid twentieth century, in which Orwell's distain for totalitarianism was becoming much clearer. Why, then, does he write an essay about the needless abundance of language? I understand: you don't have to use a ten-dollar word when you could pay a nickel for the same effect, but complaining that 'there is no real need for any of the hundreds of the foreign phrases now current in English'... my brother in Christ, you INVENTED Newspeak!? You preached about how the systematic reduction in the complexity of language is the route to eliminating critical thought! There is no harm in the expansion of communication, only in the reduction of it! What is blud yapping about?!
Also, kids these days are just labelling themselves all willy-nilly. What do you mean Orwell was a self-proclaimed 'Tory-Anarchist'? Top dog, I ain't arguing with ya, but I'm pretty sure you just pulled that out your arse. George Orwell: political party for one. And stop slonking off McCarthyism whilst you're at it.
And on the point of the eponymous Henry Miller essay, I've got a couple of things to say...
'During the past ten years, literature has involved itself more and more deeply in politics, with the result that there is now less room in it for the ordinary man... [Miller's work] is a voice from the crowd... from the ordinary, non-political, non-moral, passive man.'
What a parculiar stance for the man who wrote 1984 to take. To exist outside of politics is to exist as a non-entity, to renounce involvement in the political is not to be 'ordinary', it is to be a chump. Only a white man can look into the 'approaching cataclysm' and 'declare irresponsiblity' because he stands alone as the only faction who has never faced political subjugation or consequences for his nonpartisan attitudes. He is an infant watching the flicker of a flame grow closer, stoic and brave because he doesn't know yet that it will burn him,too. It never has before, so why would it start now?
Miller's blasé faire acceptance of the filth and the poverty and the horror of the underbelly makes for a good tale (don't get me wrong, I'm a fan. Clunge forever... or whatever he wrote...) but to insinuate that it is a shame that political fiction is erasing the voice of the common man is to foster contrived ignorance. It is hypocritical to encourage political obstinancy, then, now, and forevermore. We have enough stupid people voting as is. (Cough cough - Reform).
Moreover, these essays were primarily written during the early to mid twentieth century, in which Orwell's distain for totalitarianism was becoming much clearer. Why, then, does he write an essay about the needless abundance of language? I understand: you don't have to use a ten-dollar word when you could pay a nickel for the same effect, but complaining that 'there is no real need for any of the hundreds of the foreign phrases now current in English'... my brother in Christ, you INVENTED Newspeak!? You preached about how the systematic reduction in the complexity of language is the route to eliminating critical thought! There is no harm in the expansion of communication, only in the reduction of it! What is blud yapping about?!
Also, kids these days are just labelling themselves all willy-nilly. What do you mean Orwell was a self-proclaimed 'Tory-Anarchist'? Top dog, I ain't arguing with ya, but I'm pretty sure you just pulled that out your arse. George Orwell: political party for one. And stop slonking off McCarthyism whilst you're at it.
October 20, 2017
Franco'dan edebiyata, oradan soğuk savaşa, oradan tekrar edebiyata oradan Antisemitizme geçiş yapılıyor ve açıkçası bu beni rahatsız etti. En azından ikiye ayrılıp edebi eleştiriler ve siyasi makaleler olarak iki bölüm yapılabilirdi. Sonuçta özellikle siyasi makaleler üzerinde düşünmeyi gerektiren ve zihni fazla çalıştıran unsurlar ama eleştiriler göreceli olarak daha keyif veren yazınlar. 1-2 kısa hikayesini çok beğendim, eleştirileri hoşuma gitti ama diğer makalelerde boğdu.
February 26, 2024
É definitivamente uma leitura fora de minha zona de conforto, mas independente disso, achei a combinação dessas “essays” um tanto quanto entediantes. Por ter lido a Revolução dos Bichos primeiro, não imaginava pegar um livro dele com uma profundidade de críticas literárias e políticas, que ao meu ver, apesar de destacar pontos interessantes do momento da história, da muita volta nos pensamentos que deixa tudo meio confuso e sem graça.
August 30, 2022
Kitapta, George Orwell’ın deneyimlerini aktardığı denemeler bulunuyor. Edebiyat, İspanya iç savaşı gibi farklı konularda fikirlerini paylaşmış..meraklısına gayet faydalı olacaktır..
Read
November 11, 2025part of the essay "inside the whale" reminds me of nabokov's list which contained opinions of many famous authors
August 9, 2025
I ate the whole thing up. Love reading about the horrible political status of the world in 1940 and see the same thing happening right now
July 30, 2022
Orwell writes very smoothly for an essayistic style
May 12, 2023
Nel saggio che dà il titolo a questa raccolta viene tracciato un bilancio della cultura di sinistra degli anni Trenta. Dagli interni della bohème creativa si poteva capire ben poco di quanto stava avvenendo nel mondo e del terrore che si preparava in Europa. La letteratura di Orwell ha la grandezza dell'onestà più testarda.
February 28, 2024
Des textes passionnants et variés, même si, la plupart, ont trait à la seconde guerre mondiale. Un parallèle très éclairant avec les écrits de Marc Bloch.
April 18, 2021
Vai um comentário simples e sucinto, apenas para não deixar passar em branco esse meu encontro com o Orwell ensaísta.
Acho que gostei mais do que do Orwell romancista, Não pelas ideias, que aqui como no romance são ótimas, mas porque Orwell não se mostra esperançoso como autor de ficção, e ficção deprê eu até leio, mas dificilmente vira meu favorito para ficar relendo.
Nos ensaios, essa visão de Orwell desce melhor, até porque aqui ele lida com a realidade, então, pode fazer previsões ora funestas, mas não pode determinar que os resultados serão de fato os que prevê - como numa obra de ficção.
Nesta edição, são 9 ensaios, e o que dá título, "Dentro da Baleia" é o melhor. Outros que merecem destaque mesmo sem achá-los tão bons como o primeiro, são "A prevenção contra a Literatura" - onde se comenta um encontro do PEN Club centrado na liberdade de imprensa, e onde segundo Orwell, pouco se falou - aliás, o tema foi escamoteado - sobre a liberdade política do escritor, a bandeira do direito à obscenidade sendo levantada com muito mais empenho (uma distração conveniente?); "Mina abaixo", sobre a realidade do trabalho dos mineiros ingleses, pelo menos nos anos de 1930; ""Inglaterra, sua Inglaterra", um interessante retrato da mentalidade do inglês comum segundo Orwell; "Política vs. Literatura: uma análise de As Viagens de Gulliver"; etc.
As observações e análises de Orwell são inteligentes, atentas, dando uma impressão de leitor curioso que não se contenta com lugares comuns seja qual for o tema. Nem sempre concordei, mas não senti - como já senti tristemente com autores que até gosto - que Orwell havia deixado sua inteligência de folga ao abordar política, por exemplo. Ele soava lúcido. Isso é bom. Para mim, é vergonhoso ler um contista ou poeta que, filiado a A ou B, põe sua mente para passear quando se trata de olhar para uma situação constrangedora que seu "partido" não pode explicar sem parecer covarde ou hipócrita. Que bom ler alguém que não faz isso.
Valendo como 4.5 porque Orwell não entende muito de cristianismo e faz generalizações que deixam isso vergonhosamente (para ele) evidentes. Uma afirmação sua porém merece destaque:
"O romance é praticamente uma forma de arte protestante; é produto da mente livre, da autonomia do indivíduo." Uia!
Acho que gostei mais do que do Orwell romancista, Não pelas ideias, que aqui como no romance são ótimas, mas porque Orwell não se mostra esperançoso como autor de ficção, e ficção deprê eu até leio, mas dificilmente vira meu favorito para ficar relendo.
Nos ensaios, essa visão de Orwell desce melhor, até porque aqui ele lida com a realidade, então, pode fazer previsões ora funestas, mas não pode determinar que os resultados serão de fato os que prevê - como numa obra de ficção.
Nesta edição, são 9 ensaios, e o que dá título, "Dentro da Baleia" é o melhor. Outros que merecem destaque mesmo sem achá-los tão bons como o primeiro, são "A prevenção contra a Literatura" - onde se comenta um encontro do PEN Club centrado na liberdade de imprensa, e onde segundo Orwell, pouco se falou - aliás, o tema foi escamoteado - sobre a liberdade política do escritor, a bandeira do direito à obscenidade sendo levantada com muito mais empenho (uma distração conveniente?); "Mina abaixo", sobre a realidade do trabalho dos mineiros ingleses, pelo menos nos anos de 1930; ""Inglaterra, sua Inglaterra", um interessante retrato da mentalidade do inglês comum segundo Orwell; "Política vs. Literatura: uma análise de As Viagens de Gulliver"; etc.
As observações e análises de Orwell são inteligentes, atentas, dando uma impressão de leitor curioso que não se contenta com lugares comuns seja qual for o tema. Nem sempre concordei, mas não senti - como já senti tristemente com autores que até gosto - que Orwell havia deixado sua inteligência de folga ao abordar política, por exemplo. Ele soava lúcido. Isso é bom. Para mim, é vergonhoso ler um contista ou poeta que, filiado a A ou B, põe sua mente para passear quando se trata de olhar para uma situação constrangedora que seu "partido" não pode explicar sem parecer covarde ou hipócrita. Que bom ler alguém que não faz isso.
Valendo como 4.5 porque Orwell não entende muito de cristianismo e faz generalizações que deixam isso vergonhosamente (para ele) evidentes. Uma afirmação sua porém merece destaque:
"O romance é praticamente uma forma de arte protestante; é produto da mente livre, da autonomia do indivíduo." Uia!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 157 reviews