by Christopher Hitchensand - Why Orwell Matters (Paperback) Basic Books; Reprint Edition (September 11, 2003) - [Bargain Books]

by Christopher Hitchens

In this widely acclaimed biographical essay, Christopher Hitchens assesses the life, the achievements, and the myth of the great political writer and participant George Orwell. In true emulative and contrarian style, Hitchens is both admiring and aggressive, sympathetic yet critical, taking true measure of his subject as hero and problem. Answering both the detractors and the false claimants, Hitchens tears down the façade of sainthood erected by the hagiographers and rebuts the critics point by point. He examines Orwell and his perspectives on fascism, empire, feminism, and Englishness, as well as his outlook on America, a country and culture towards which he exhibited much ambivalence.

Whether thinking about empires or dictators, race or class, nationalism or popular culture, Orwell's moral outlook remains indispensable in a world that has undergone vast changes in the fifty years since his death. Combining the best of Hitchens's polemical punch and intellectual elegance in a tightly woven and subtle argument, this book addresses not only why Orwell matters today, but how he will continue to matter in a future, uncertain world.

Christopher Hitchens, one of the most incisive minds of our own age, meets Orwell on the page in this provocative encounter of wit, contention and moral truth.

Genres: Nonfiction, Biography, Politics, History, Philosophy, Essays, Literary Criticism

Unknown Binding

First published January 1, 2002

About the author

Christopher Hitchens was a British-American author, journalist, and literary critic known for his sharp wit, polemical writing, and outspoken views on religion, politics, and culture. He was a prolific essayist and columnist, contributing to publications such as The Atlantic, Vanity Fair, Slate, and The Nation.
A staunch critic of totalitarianism and organized religion, Hitchens became one of the most prominent public intellectuals of his time. His book God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (2007) became a bestseller and solidified his place as a leading figure in the New Atheism movement. He was equally fearless in political criticism, taking on figures across the ideological spectrum, from Henry Kissinger (The Trial of Henry Kissinger, 2001) to Bill and Hillary Clinton (No One Left to Lie To, 1999).
Originally a socialist and supporter of left-wing causes, Hitchens later distanced himself from the left, particularly after the September 11 attacks, when he became a vocal advocate for the U.S. invasion of Iraq. His ideological shift, combined with his formidable debating skills, made him a controversial yet highly respected figure.
Hitchens was also known for his literary criticism, writing extensively on figures such as George Orwell, Thomas Jefferson, and Karl Marx. His memoir, Hitch-22 (2010), reflected on his personal and intellectual journey.
In 2010, he was diagnosed with esophageal cancer but continued to write and speak publicly until his death in 2011. His fearless engagement with ideas, incisive arguments, and commitment to reason remain influential long after his passing.

Reviews

[Bill Kerwin · Rating 5 out of 5]

I’ve decided I was wrong about Christopher Hitchens. I used to think that he was at his best when he was attacking public figures he loathed both for their deeds and their hypocrisies (Bill Clinton and Mother Teresa being quintessential examples), but, after reading Why Orwell Matters (2002), I have decided that when he is defending a controversial figure he greatly admires he is even better. Not only can he still delight his readers with glorious invective (against the man’s critics. of course), but he must also make full use of his considerable talent for discernment, in order to reveal to his reader what makes this person worthy of of admiration.

And who could be a better object of his admiration than Orwell? Like Orwell, a lifelong socialist who hated cant and totalitarianism wherever the found it, whether it be in Hitler’s Germany, the Communist Party during the Spanish Civil War, or Stalin’s regime in Soviet Russia, Hitchens was a left-wing maverick who frequently found himself at odds with the established American Left, first for his condemnation of the corporatist hypocrisies of Bill Clinton, and later—a few years after Orwell was published—for his praise of George Bush’s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (a necessary strike—in Hitchen's view—against the pernicious forces of religious fundamentalism).

Hitchens begins by looking closely at Orwell’s relationship with the institutions and influences of his time (Empire, the Left, the Right, America, “Englishness,” and Feminism), and ends with three brief treatments of three narrower topics (Orwell’s supposed betrayal of leftists by “The List,” the “Generosity and Anger” contained in his novels, and the particularly apt and witty essay on recent Orwell criticism, “Deconstructing the Postmodernists”).

I decline to summarize Hitchen’s nuanced observations of Orwell’s complex political and social opinions here, and instead will end with these words from his final chapter, “In Conclusion”:

”...it remains the case that, in an epoch of extreme yet cynically fluctuating factual loyalism, he managed both to be a consistent and adamant foe of both Hitler and Stalin, while writing commentaries that tried to be “objective” about each of them...This is the same Orwell who would not shoot a Spanish fascist soldier while the man was running from the latrine and trying to hold up his trousers; the same Orwell who sacrificed the enormous extra bounty of a “Book of the Month Club” selection, at a time of extrme financial anxiety, rather than make some minor suggested alterations to his novel…

...Orwell’s “views” have been largely vindicated by Time, so he need not seek any pardon on that score. But what he illustrates, by his commitment to language as the partner of truth, is that “views” do not really count; that it matters not what you think, but how you think; and that politics are relatively unimportant, while principles have a way of enduring, as do the few irreducible individuals who maintain allegiance to them.

.

[Stephanie Sun · Rating 4 out of 5]

"A phrase much used by Communist intellectuals of the period was 'the great Soviet experiment'. That latter word should have been enough in itself to put people on their guard. To turn a country into a laboratory is to give ample warning of inhumanity."

I feel like I have just taken an excellent graduate seminar on George Orwell, complete with the brilliant professor who likes himself just a little too much, one who can't stop himself from saying things like:

"Now as it happens, I know for certain that Williams had seen Orwell's early and late work on George Gissing."

But when Hitch is good, he is good, and he is very good here, as he shows how Orwell the flawed man (Hitchens discusses his hero's sexism, homophobia, limitations as a fiction writer, and other blemishes in detail) is just as much a part of "why" he "matters" as Orwell the brilliant critic and writer.

Writing—as the expression of one individual conscience to another, across culture, geography, and every other cause of fractured subjective experience, but especially class—is the tool of the flawed person, and thus is it the tool of us all. In Chapter 9, after having a great deal of fun with the slimy utterances of post-modernists, Hitchens quotes Orwell:

""Prose literature as we know it,' he wrote, 'is the product of rationalism, of the Protestant centuries, of the autonomous individual.'"

For people who don't understand why people get so freaked about who controls books and reading, this is why. Yes, price-fixing and boycotting Kindle and Goodreads aren't the answer, and, yes, this doesn't mean that everyone who had a publishing job that they loved five years ago will have that same job five years from now, but that doesn't mean that the stakes are not high. I have been perversely sympathetic to date to the idea that literary fiction may be a dying, bloated "elitist pursuit," but I've read too many books in just the past year whose immediacy and idiosyncratic wisdoms fly straight in the face of cheap "received wisdom" like that.

I had originally promised to look into Hitch's Iraq War boosterism era, but I only have time to post one quote, from an April 2003 Slate piece defending no-bid contracts that, let's put it this way, has not dated as well as 1984:

"I think we can be sure that the contract would not have gone to some windmill-power concern run by Naomi Klein or the anti-Starbucks Seattle coalition, in the hope of just blowing out the flames or of extinguishing them with Buddhist mantras."

Yeah. So difficult, still, to square this Hitch with the Hitch who wrote (and just a year earlier!) at the crescendoing end of his tour de force chapter on Orwell's fiction:

"With a part of themselves, humans relish cruelty and war and absolute capricious authority, are bored by civilized and humane pursuits and understand only too well the latent connection between sexual repression and orgiastic vicarious collectivized release."

Late in the Orwell book, Hitchens alludes to without quoting these famous excised stanzas of W.H. Auden's poem "In Memory of W.B. Yeats":

Time that is intolerant
Of the brave and innocent,
And indifferent in a week
To a beautiful physique,

Worships language and forgives
Everyone by whom it lives;
Pardons cowardice, conceit,
Lays its honours at their feet.

Time that with this strange excuse
Pardoned Kipling and his views,
And will pardon Paul Claudel,
Pardons him for writing well.

It's Hitchens' very Hitchensy way of explaining that he knows that he lags behind the curve in appreciating Orwell in 2002.

Or, perhaps he just anticipated that he, not Orwell, was the one who might need to earn Time's belated exonerations.

[Bettie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Description: In this widely acclaimed biographical essay, Christopher Hitchens assesses the life, the achievements, and the myth of the great political writer and participant George Orwell. In true emulative and contrarian style, Hitchens is both admiring and aggressive, sympathetic yet critical, taking true measure of his subject as hero and problem. Answering both the detractors and the false claimants, Hitchens tears down the façade of sainthood erected by the hagiographers and rebuts the critics point by point. He examines Orwell and his perspectives on fascism, empire, feminism, and Englishness, as well as his outlook on America, a country and culture towards which he exhibited much ambivalence.

Whether thinking about empires or dictators, race or class, nationalism or popular culture, Orwell's moral outlook remains indispensable in a world that has undergone vast changes in the fifty years since his death. Combining the best of Hitchens's polemical punch and intellectual elegance in a tightly woven and subtle argument, this book addresses not only why Orwell matters today, but how he will continue to matter in a future, uncertain world.

Christopher Hitchens, one of the most incisive minds of our own age, meets Orwell on the page in this provocative encounter of wit, contention and moral truth.

This arrived today, and already I am having a problem keeping my eyes out of it: there are others on the currently reading list, don't you know.

Later: No need to recommend this - you will viscerally know if this is one for you just by title and author. Hitchens brings up so many points to chew on.

[Ed · Rating 3 out of 5]

Why Orwell Matters is a misleading title for this book, which does not really set out to develop the argument it implies: Orwell's importance being already quite well established. What Hitchens actually aims to do here is to extricate Orwell from the clutches of both the political right and left, and defend the man and his legacy against his accusers and detractors.

Hitchens, who has read everything that Orwell wrote, and for whose life Orwell's has been something of a template (though this is clearly true, I'm not sure he's ever explicitly acknowledged it) is the ideal champion to undertake this defense. The two men have much in common: professionally, in their political outlook, and above all in a commitment to their principles, which was consistently demonstrated through actions as well as words. Hitchens was never afraid to alienate his supporters in order to uphold his values, and Orwell, famously, was shot in the neck for his trouble.

Hitchens is vastly informative and entertaining as always, although in this defensive role he is not quite as impressively acerbic as he is when on the offence. But in all honesty I don't think Why Orwell Matters is a particularly important or necessary book. The wrongs that Hitchens seeks to right here are largely irrelevant, bygone or esoteric. Whatever few detractors Orwell has, they have been rendered invisible by the reputation he holds in the collective consciousness: as something of a visionary; a man who opened our eyes against the possibility of a future that may otherwise have been all too conceivable.

Ultimately, Why Orwell Matters seems to be less an argument for Orwell's importance, or a vital defense of his character, than it is simply a tribute to a man whom Hitchens greatly admired, and whose legacy he sought to enhance in whatever small way he could.

[Susan · Rating 5 out of 5]

I love George Orwell, but I haven’t read 1984 and Animal Farm since I was 17—the summer before college—and I haven’t read the rest of his fiction at all. But I love the nonfiction. I taught “Shooting and Elephant” and “Politics and the English Language” to countless freshman and not only memorized important passages, but stored away their main ideas, about anti-colonialism and about deliberate obfuscation, among those very most important ideas to me. I recently read Down and Out in Paris and London, The Road to Wigan Pier, and Homage to Catalonia and was convinced that Orwell matters significantly. So this book was a natural for me.
Hitchens’ writing and his arguments are sophisticated. I read this one like a text at school, looking up relevant stuff, marking passages, writing in the margins. It’s a little book. Hitchen’s goal was not a complete analysis of Orwell so much a plea to take this guy seriously, don’t let this 20th century writer fade away as relevant only to his own time (1903-1950—Orwell died of TB and he might have been saved had he been able to get the appropriate antibiotic from the US in the immediate post-war period).
Hitchens seems to think Orwell’s anti-colonial stance his most significant since that’s the first concept he tackles. So do I. I’m positive that “Shooting an Elephant”, which I read first in a Freshman English class myself, colored my view of colonialism, arguments about postcolonial literature, and about the third world generally. Before reading this book I’d have said my own anti-colonial bent was learned as a Peace Corps Volunteer in Africa; now I’d say the fire was probably lit by Orwell and that was a huge part of my motivation to join the Peace Corps in the first place.
Hitchens goes on to analyze how both the left and the right have used and abused Orwell as well as his ideas about America, “Englishness”, feminism, and anti-Communism. He typically deals not only with Orwell’s relationship with the ideas but how proponents of those ideas deal with Orwell. Finally he analyzes the fiction, convincing me to reread 1984 if not to read all the fiction. He even touches on Orwell and post-modernism in a chapter that not only rescues Orwell from the post-modernists, but causes me embarrassment at my initial enthusiasm for post-modernist analysis of literature and validates my current views that it’s just as well the academic world is getting over that craze.

[Theo Logos · Rating 2 out of 5]

I’m not exactly sure who is the audience for this book. The title isn’t helpful, as anyone who would read this book already knows that Orwell matters, and Hitchens make no visible attempt to prove that as a thesis. Rather than using his familiar style — erudite but clear and concise prose heavily seasoned with acerbic wit — he here used an overly academic style that muffled much of his famous snark, and turned long passages into a slog. And, as Hitchens noted in his conclusion, ”The disputes and debates and combats in which George Orwell took part are receding into history.”. The practical effect of this truism is that most of the Old Left intelligentsia who attacked Orwell, and whom Hitchens in turn is refuting are names without meaning. Unless you are an academic specializing in political history from the 1930s through the 1970s you will only recognize a fraction of the figures mentioned. Orwell has survived. They have not. Which once again begs the question, why this book?

I read this book because I’m a great fan of both Christopher Hitchens and George Orwell. As such, it is not wholly without value. There was some useful analysis of Orwell and his critics, but I find myself questioning whether that was enough to justify reading it. I’ve been delighted by almost every book by Hitchens that I’ve read. Sadly, this proved the exception — it was tedious.

[Ana · Rating 4 out of 5]

Whenever I come back to one of Hitchens' books, I feel like I'm breathing the most exquisite mountain air in terms of literature. This man can be accused of many things, but not of poor writing or style. This study, which I've wanted to read for a long time, makes no exception. Every serious fan of Hitchens knows that one of his heroes is George Orwell. You can tell this not just because he wrote an entire book on him, but because he manages to insert him into every other work of his, and uses Orwell's work to make many points across his own. For those interested in the person behind the book, it's always fascinating to read about an author's life, their strengths and shortcomings, the things we wouldn't get out of the book that we idolize them for. "1984" is one of what I consider to be my (and a lot of people's) go-to literary repertoire; a book to which I go back time and again, without ever losing the ability to surprise me. Thus, Orwell matters to me. And, as Hitchens points out, he matters to our the entire human society.

[Jonfaith · Rating 4 out of 5]

More of a polemic than analysis. Hitch has been gone for a while now. Interesting triangulations have occurred since his passing, I'm just as curious about what Orwell would have thought of Hitchens, especially now (2025) when everything solid has melted into memes. I shudder as the Gulf Stream tolls and we have instead mandated prayer at our food banks, while those without tickets loiter on the outskirts of Elysium. Orwell's O'Brien would handle those shirkers. I was thinking of reading Hitchens on Kissinger but I honestly don't anticipate returning to this or most Hitchens's other work any time soon.

[Mikey B. · Rating 2 out of 5]

Even though I like both Hitchens and Orwell I couldn't get into this at all. It seemed written for the academic-philosopher type. A lot of name-dropping of what other people said or thought of Orwell. A lot of meandering. Not much said on Orwell's thoughts, personality, and life.

One chapter is titled "Orwell and the Feminists: Difficulties with Girls". Girls! Come on Christopher - get in the 20th century (this was written in 2002).

Maybe if you read a lot on Orwell this could appeal to you - maybe.

[Andrew Lafleche · Rating 5 out of 5]

A passionate and thought-provoking defense of George Orwell's enduring importance. The book serves as both a tribute to Orwell's legacy and an exploration of the timeless relevance of his ideas in the context of political and social issues, such as a commitment to social justice, intellectual honesty, and the defense of common decency. Hitchen's argues that Orwell's works speak to luniversal truths about power, language, and the human condition. Makes me want to read more of both authors.

[Somethingsnotright · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wonderful book and a very timely read given the references to "Orwellian" terms such as doublethink, 2 minutes hate, thought police etc bandied about in these strange days in which we live. I was interested to learn about his careers as a police officer and working for the BBC, both of which inspired 1984. And, of course, this is by the late, great Christopher Hitchens who was a genius, so it was beautifully written.

[Julian Worker · Rating 4 out of 5]

Christopher Hitchens wrote this biographical essay in the early 21st Century about George Orwell, a man I think he greatly admired in some ways. The result is an appraisal of Orwell's life and his achievements as well as an investigation into the myths that have surrounded Orwell since he passed away in 1950.

The book is written in the usual Hitchens manner, a vigorous, if sometimes pompous writing style, heavily laden with adjectives, elegantly stringing together words most people will have to look up in a dictionary - and there's nothing wrong with that. Hitchens writes with an intellectual honesty that is refreshing.

Once again, there's no index and no bibliography, a frustration for me as I'll want to refer back to some of the things written about in the book, and the lack of an index makes this more difficult.

[Peycho Kanev · Rating 4 out of 5]

A great writer examines the life and works of a great wordsmith. Hitchens's knowledge of the life and books of Orwell is profaund and as he tells his story he does not hesitate to criticize the great writer, essayist and journalist. Extremely important book.

[Ushan · Rating 4 out of 5]

The late Christopher Hitchens made a career of bashing things and people the bien pensant hold dear, from Mother Theresa to religion to opposition to the Iraq War. There were three historical figures, however, who commanded his respect: Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson and George Orwell, and Hitchens wrote a short book-length biographical essay on each. According to Hitchens, Orwell matters because he made decency a virtue. The ideological battles of the 1930s-1940s in which Orwell participated (sometimes non-metaphorically: Orwell fought in the Spanish Civil War and was wounded in the throat by a Nationalist sniper) have been fading away for some years, but the way he approached them deserves admiration. The original draft of Animal Farm said that during an attack by humans on the farm, "The pigeons swirled into the air, and all the animals, including Napoleon, flung themselves flat on their bellies and hid their faces." When Orwell learned that even in the darkest hour of World War II Stalin remained in Moscow and refused to be evacuated, Orwell changed this sentence to say, "all the animals, except Napoleon." The man who may have coined the term "Cold War" and authored a famous anti-Stalinist fable wanted to be fair to Stalin. Unlike former Communists who became anti-Communists, former Trotskyites who turned into neo-conservatives, and innumerable fools ever since, Orwell never radically changed his views. He formed his opposition to the British Empire as a young man in Burma, and remained an anti-imperialist until his death. He also supported democracy and socialism and opposed fascism and Stalinism more or less through his whole life. The contradiction between democracy and socialism, or more generally between freedom and equality, beautifully enunciated by Isaiah Berlin a few years after Orwell's death, was never central to Orwell.

Orwell had a curious hobby of wondering, which British intellectuals would go Nazi if Britian were occupied by Nazi Germany, and which would go Communist if Britain were Sovietized. As Orwell lay dying, he was approached by a representative of a Foreign Office propaganda outfit with the question, which British left-wingers could be asked by this organization to write anti-Communist propaganda, in order to demonstrate that not all anti-Communists conform to the stereotype of a capitalist in a frock coat and a top hat, and which couldn't be because they were pro-Communist. Orwell gave his second list. There were no repercussions for the individuals involved except not being asked to write anti-Communist propaganda. This fact was uncovered in a 1980 biography of the writer, but it was publicized when documents about it were declassified in 1996, and the press gave epithets like "Winston Smith cooperated with the Thought Police" although, as Hitchens argues, it was nothing of the sort.

There are other chapters on topics like Orwell and feminism and Orwell and postmodernism, but they are not that interesting.

[Jim · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a worthwhile study of Orwell that perhaps places too much credence in the ideological battles between totalitarianism, communism, and the right. On the plus side, it makes me want to read more of Orwell, which is perhaps the best result to be gained from reading Hitchens. One interesting point he makes is that Orwell, though not a great writer, is attractive to readers because of his unflinching honesty irrespective of the intellectual cross-currents that are swirling around him.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

I couldn't help but be struck by the unspoken parallels between the Orwell described by Hitchens, and Hitchens himself. (Trotskyites who fell out with their fellow communists, etc.) The similarity between Orwell's treatment by the fellow traveling pro-USSR 'useful idiots' of the so-called intellectual left during his lifetime and beyond, and Hitchens' own battles with people like Noam Chomsky is remarkable, making me wonder if he is consciously modeling himself after Orwell, at least intellectually. That is to say, his ex-Trotskyite tendencies notwithstanding, he is committed to telling the truth as he perceives it, consequences be damned. His abuse by Western intellectuals for his observations that the modern American Left (or at least the staff of The Nation) is more concerned with Republicans than Osama bin Laden is very reminiscent of Orwell's excoriation by Leftist contemporaries for criticizing Stalin's betrayals and murderous abuses - they would rather attack the messenger if the truth was hurtful to their narrow and immediate cause, regardless of the consequences for their country - and the same is true of their political and intellectual heirs today.

I don't want to carry this too far - both Hitchens and Orwell are products of the time and place in which they live(d), which are different. Hitchens seems to have a bigger ego, and more of a desire to whip up controversies because of the opportunity for attention and celebrity it affords than Orwell ever did, but again that may reflect the times and his upbringing.

I recommend this book for Hitchens' use of English if nothing else.

[Erik Graff · Rating 5 out of 5]

I broke with Hitchens when 'The Nation' did and for similar reasons: Like many erstwhile Trotskyites, he has to know, have an evaluation of and a plan for everything, in that case Iraq, the invasion of which he favored, Hussein's state being a bad one deserving of overthrow, its people deserving of liberation. There's a purity of principle here to be admired, except, as happened in this case, in its actual execution, such things as moral dilemmas being often sadly real.

Hitchens admires Orwell in this book, 'critically' admires of course, the occasional criticism only highlighting the praise, and one can see why: they are, author and subject, not too dissimilar, the author quite probably modeling himself on his elder. Both wrote, Hitchens being recently deceased, and both wrote well; both were politically engaged and both with the Trotskyists for a time; both were independents for the most part, uncorrupted by long-term institutional supports; both were, to repeat, 'morally pure'--or aspired to be so.

I mimic, poorly, Hitchens' style above, an attempt which must not cover up the fact that I found Hitchens' admiration for Orwell to be uplifting and his writing style impressive. Despite many differences, politically speaking, with Hitchens, I've always admired his prose.

I've only encountered Hitchens once, that being at a reception held for him by the graduate students of the New School in New York. It was not much of an encounter, nor was it much of a reception, the guest of honor appearing suddenly and just long enough to pocket a bottle of whiskey before heading off again.

[Eric K. · Rating 2 out of 5]

Hitchens at his worst. It combines a smarmy pseudo-intellectualism in which Hitch throws out a lot of names to distract from his lack of original insight, rebuttals of figures unknown and irrelevant outside an incestuous circle of Orwell-followers, and a general failure to advance his thesis "Why Orwell Matters." Really Hitch is at his best deriding something, rather than praising it.

If you want Orwell, then read Orwell. Not Hitchens.

[Gary · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great read. Hitchens at his best (well, he always seemed to be on point…) in Rhetoric and honesty.

I enjoyed reading about Orwell’s controversial opinions and how it opened him up to criticism on all sides. I can’t help but wonder what Orwell (and even Hitchens) would have thought of the political state of the world today.

Who is going to carry the torch now with these 2 great polemicists gone?

[C. B. · Rating 4 out of 5]

While this is certainly loose and somewhat messy, I have to rate it highly for being so entertaining — and entertaining in spite of making reference to many debates and ideas of which I was hitherto unaware. The book is written with a journalistic flare, and exudes Hitchens' carefully-crafted polemical, contrarian style; in keeping with this, it sometimes comes across as a mere series of tasty take-downs of Orwell's detractors. Yet, the book is able to rise above this; it is, in the end, a great call for individual intellectual integrity in the face of dogmatic factionalism.

[Vel Veeter]

There's an Orwell shaped hole in so many ideologies in the world that the man and his writing is forcibly shoved into. I read a book awhile ago called Snowball's Chance by a writer named John Reed, who seems to take his umbrage about Orwell from his namesake, John Reed, the American journalist who was a sympathetic eyewitness to the Russian Revolution. This dislike of Orwell and his work comes from an earnest place, so it's almost refreshing that he has such a clear-eyed hatred of him. 

Others are more muddled in their fixation. If you read enough Orwell, both beyond Animal Farm and 1984 to include some of his earlier novels, and his nonfiction, you realize a few things. Orwell has an incomplete ideology about the world, in part, because he isn't all that ideological. Instead, he seems to be bound to a rather simple philosophy: decency vs beastliness.  This is one of the places that Hitchens looks into in this reading of Orwell. The other important element of Orwell is his subjects, which often fall into: empire, Facsism, and Stalinism, all of which he finds terribly beastly. 

And of course what Hitchens understands is that these don't fall squarely into a Left v Right dichotomy.

[iosephvs bibliothecarivs · Rating 5 out of 5]

The late Hitchens is your personal guide to Orwell's life and career in ten chapters of lively analysis. I don't think a familiarity with his work is a prerequisite, but having read Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four for the first time in the last couple months surely enriched my experience here. I'm looking forward to taking on The Road to Wigan Pier, Down and Out in Paris and London, and Orwell's acclaimed essays.

[Patrick McCoy · Rating 4 out of 5]

I must admit I feel ambivalent about Christopher Hitchens. But I think we can both agree on the importance and impressive body of work written by George Orwell. Why Orwell Matters is not a conventional biography, although it does contain biographical elements. Hitchens has a particular ax to grind and does it in a convincing manner, he sought to rescue Orwell from those who want to deify him or who want to crucify him. This is a slim volume that is just over 200 pages, but dense with ideas and information. This means refuting the criticism of his enemies on the right, the left, feminists, and postmodernists. Along the way he also discussed his attitudes toward colonialism, England, and America. There's a particular chapter dealing with a list he had kept to identify which individuals he thought might be Stalinist sympathizers, which he gave to the British Research Information Department (which is not the gestapo or anything like that). It has been known about since 1980 where it appeared in a Bernard Crick's biography. It's not a blacklist since Orwell was not able to hire or fire anyone, nor was the Research Information Department. He admits that Orwell had some flaws, his novels aren't exactly top rate, he has a problems with women, homosexuals, and has made some anti-Semitic remarks in his day. This paints Orwell as human, and not without his flaws. However, I think Hitchens does a good job of showing why he is important; mainly because he was right about three of this centuries biggest injustices: colonialism, fascism, and Stalinism. He is also author to two of the most influential novels of the 20th century, Animal Farm and 1984. His true gift lies in nonfiction and essay writing-he was a master stylist. I found this to be an interesting and thought provoking book, but it probably isn't the best place to start if you aren't familiar with the writings and criticisms of Orwell's work. But for anyone that is acquianted with either of these, it is a fascinating rebuttal well worth the effort.

[Anna · Rating 4 out of 5]

“ 'Objectivity' though in practice is unattainable as infinity is useful in the same way, at least as a fixed point theoretical reference. A knowledge of one's own subjectivity is necessary in order even to contemplate the 'objective'; ... The disputes and debates and combats in which George Orwell took part are receding into history, but the manner in which he conducted himself as a writer and participant has a reasonable chance of remaining as a historical example of its own. ...
Orwell's 'views' have been largely vindicated by Time ... But what illustrates, by his commitment to language as the partner of truth, is that 'views' do not really count; that it matters not what you think, but how you think; and that politics are relatively unimportant, while principles have a way of enduring, as do the few irreducible individuals who maintain allegiance to them.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Why Orwell Matters

(review to come)

[Cav · Rating 3 out of 5]

A book about George Orwell written by Christopher Hitchens?? I didn't know it existed until just recently, and put it on my list as soon as I came across it.
Unfortunately, although Why Orwell Matters was a somewhat interesting book, it ultimately did not meet my expectations...

Author Christopher Eric Hitchens was a British-American writer and journalist who is widely regarded as one of the most influential atheists of the 20th and 21st centuries. Author of 18 books on faith, culture, politics, and literature, he was born and educated in England, graduating in the 1970s from Oxford.

Christopher Hitchens:



The book gets off to a slow start, with Hitchens talking about Orwell's early life. His time in Burma as a policeman, and his time on the BBC broadcasting to India are talked about. Orwell's joining the Spanish Civil war on the leftist Republican side is also covered.

The book is a compilation of quotes from Orwell's writing, accompanied by commentary from Hitchens. The overall result was a bit dry...

The topics covered by the author here include:
• Orwell and the Left
• Orwell and the Right
• Orwell and America
• Orwell and ‘Englishness’ The Antinomies of St George
• Orwell and the Feminists Difficulties with Girls
• ‘The List’
• Generosity and Anger
• Deconstructing the Post-modernists Orwell and Transparency

***********************

As I mentioned above; this one did not resonate with me quite as well as I'd hoped; and I would generally consider myself a fan of both Orwell's and Hitchen's work.
Thankfully, it was a short read.
2.5 stars.

[Scott Rhee · Rating 4 out of 5]

Whenever I read anything by the late Christopher Hitchens, I feel like Wayne and Garth in an SNL “Wayne’s World” skit, prostrate before one of their rock gods, wailing, “I’m not worthy! I’m not worthy!”

Hitchens is like a literary rock god to me. Erudite, witty as hell, and mind-blowing in his intellectual capacity, Hitchens won me over years ago after I read his atheist manifesto, “God is Not Great”. I have relished everything I have ever read by him since, although I have not come close to reading everything by him. I have been savoring his essays one at a time from his collected book of essays, “Arguably”, partly because I feel quite intellectually drained after reading them. I consider myself pretty intelligent, but I feel like I definitely missed a few classes after reading Hitchens. I am not worthy.

Interesting fact: Hitchens was (one of) the preeminent contemporary experts on George Orwell, having spent many years reading, researching, and writing about Orwell. It helped that he was a fan.

Hitchens published “Why Orwell Matters” in 2002. Less an apologetics for the contemporary relevance of Orwell’s writings than an examination of Orwell’s socio-political significance in English letters, Hitchen’s book was a series of essays in which he attempted to defend Orwell from critics, detractors, and haters, of which there are quite a few.

Everyone from Communists to anti-Communists, liberals, conservatives, feminists, homosexuals, Anglophiles, Anglophobes, cat-lovers, coffee drinkers, and people from New Jersey hated Orwell. (Okay, I made up those last three, but I’m fairly certain a few Jersey folk may hate him, too. No proof of this, though...)

It may seem like a contradictory list, but Orwell was, as Hitchens continually points out, a complicated guy and not so easy to pin down in many ways.

A lifelong democratic socialist, Orwell despised tyranny and despotism in any form. Sometimes, unfortunately, that tyranny took the form of a socialist or communist regime. Orwell wasn’t afraid to criticize or denigrate fellow socialists and communists for their atrocious behavior. It didn’t get him invited to a lot of communist barbecues.

Many on the Left felt that he should have been a bit more gung-ho in his support for socialism, while many on the Right felt that his socialist leanings were a little too open and risque. Orwell’s response to both sides was the same: Poppycock.

Once, when his novel “1984” was accused of being an attack on the British Labour Party, Orwell responded, “My recent novel is not intended as an attack on socialism or on the British Labour Party (of which I am a supporter) but as a show-up of the perversions to which a centralized economy is liable and which have already been partly realized in Communism and fascism... The scene of the book is laid in Britain in order to emphasize that the English-speaking races are not innately better than anyone else and that totalitarianism, if not fought against, could triumph anywhere. (p. 85)”

Truer words could not have been spoken. It resonates even more today, in the U.S., with the fledgling dictatorship and embryonic totalitarian state of the Trump Administration.

Feminists and homosexuals, Hitchens argues, perhaps had a better case for their accusations of misogyny and homophobia in Orwell’s writing, although either accusation is somewhat unfair.

Orwell’s novels certainly paint a negative view of women as politically apathetic and dependent on men to the point of being somewhat infantile. Inexplicably, as the few women in Orwell’s life, including his wives, were all known to be extremely intelligent and independent-minded.

Hitchens flips the argument and writes, “[I]t would certainly be true to say that men in Orwell’s fiction are utterly incapable of happiness without women. Yes, they resent the need of women, as many men do, and as Orwell himself obviously did. Yes, they distrust the marriage bond as a ‘trap’ by a hypocritical and acquisitive society. But to write about male-female relations in any decade and to omit these elements would have been to abandon verisimilitude. (p. 150)”

Orwell’s few references to homosexuality in his books are almost always negative, and Hitchens doesn’t even bother defending it other than insinuating that it was the general view of the times and that Orwell had, like many British schoolboys, possibly been buggered by older boys, more than once.

I despise homophobia and support gay rights, but I suppose if I had been routinely involved in homosexual rape as a young man, under the noses of indifferent and, in some cases, inculpatory adults and authority figures, my views toward gay people may be somewhat, and understandably, tarnished.

“Why Orwell Matters” sheds deeper light on a fascinating person. Whether you love him or hate him, Orwell and his writings are nonetheless as important today as they were nearly seventy years ago when he was first published.

[sunny]

Dit was echt een bizar slecht boek, maar misschien daardoor juist ook heel entertainend. Masochisten opgelet: dit is een aanrader!

[Billie Pritchett · Rating 3 out of 5]

The title of Christopher Hitchens' Why Orwell Matters is misleading because the book never provides a clear answer on why he does. Hitchens instead spends the book juxtaposing Orwell vis-a-vis his critics--"Orwell and the Left," "Orwell and the Right," "Orwell and America," and so on. But each of the essays that make up the chapters in the book only serve to defend Orwell against his critics and never give a substantive answer to why Orwell matters.

I think Orwell does matter a great deal. Here are some of the reasons. Although Orwell grew up somewhat bourgeois, he spent most of his life trying to understand what life was like for most people, especially in their struggle to be free and equal. Orwell was able to deal with these big concepts practically, not abstractly. He very clearly showed the struggle for freedom that was at stake in Homage to Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War, and he rather humorously showed how the Anarchist forces he was fighting alongside were so much about equality that it was difficult to get the subordinates to obey their commanding officers in their armies!

Of course Orwell is also famous for showcasing this concern to be free and equal in the world in his two most famous works of fiction, 1984 and Animal Farm. Whereas Animal Farm was about the horrors of state socialism, 1984 was a nuanced account of how citizens in a country who blindly follow the country's agenda as displayed especially in the media and popular culture begin to lose their freedom because they internalize the censorship that is part of their social and political world. In 1984, as soon as the State says alliances have shifted, everyone abides. Some people turn themselves in for thinking terrible thoughts toward the government. Surely some of this is parody, but it does mirror perhaps the guilt that we feel when we oppose particular ideologies or resist conformity.

Orwell was aware of the power of art, conceived broadly, and his critical writings on artworks often contained analyses of the works' social and political subtexts. One book that really exemplified Orwell's thoughts on literature and the arts is All Art Is Propaganda, which was published posthumously.

These are some of the reasons I think Orwell matters, and I was hoping Hitchens was going to more clearly express his reasons for thinking Orwell matters. Here, Hitchens doesn't pay off.

[Mary Ronan Drew · Rating 5 out of 5]

I’ve been reading my way through the collected works of Orwell, in 20 volumes, edited by Peter Davison. I’m doing this because I think George Orwell matters very much indeed. And so I was pleased to see that another writer I admire very much, Christopher Hitchens, was chosen to write this short book to explain why people like me are sufficiently fascinated to read some 12,000 pages of his work.

Here’s what Publisher’s Weekly has to say about the book:

Far from being an ordinary biography, this small volume is an in-depth investigation of the essential George Orwell-"the heart on fire and the brain on ice." Hitchens recognizes that Orwell was more than the author of 1984 and Animal Farm. He was a keen critic of Nazism and Stalinism and didn't soften his pictures of them to sell books. His analysis of the grave inequities of those two forms of government is sufficiently acute to apply to the early 21st century's political spectrum. While claiming that Orwell "requires extricating from a pile of saccharine tablets and moist hankies [as] an object of sickly veneration and sentimental over-praise," Hitchens, a columnist for Vanity Fair and the Nation, asserts that in contrast to his many contemporaries who wrote about the era's political issues (e.g., Louis MacNeice, Stephen Spender, and Cecil Day Lewis), "it [is] possible to reprint every single letter, book review and essay composed by Orwell without exposing him to any embarrassment"-a remarkable feat, indeed. The only problem with this study is that it assumes that the reader already knows that Orwell conscientiously overcame his early anti-intellectualism, his dislike of the "dark" people of the English Empire, and his squeamishness about homosexuality-all to become a great humanist. Thus, it is written for readers who have already done their homework.

2011 No 115

[Andrew]

Hitchens is such a better writer when he's investigating personalities than trying to take on generalities. His takedowns of Kissinger and Mother Teresa were wonderful, and when he's examining Orwell, he shies away from hagiography, and points out that Orwell, while a great writer and a great man, is not the secular saint he's so often painted as. A humane and broad-ranging analysis of a fascinating figure, warts and all.