24 MB MP3
By edict of the Ministry of Reshelving [avantgame/flickr]
“Everybody wants a piece of Orwell,” says Abbott Gleason. Gleason’s a professor of history at Brown University; more important, he’s right. Orwell was, more than anything else, a skeptic, suspicious of utopians and zealots. He was a kind of socialist, but his socialism was rooted more in anger than in hope. He went to Spain to see a civil war and wrote — in “Homage to Catalonia” — not about bravery or camraderie, but about head lice and incompetence.
And then he wrote the definitive work on totalitarianism, only it’s a little slippery for anyone to claim completely. The bad guys in “1984″ look like communists or fascists, depending on what you cite, and its hero finds absolution in love and a book of verse. Doesn’t everyone like those two things?
And he lives on, Orwell. Says Gleason:
George Orwell has turned out to be an amazingly durable writer, especially in view of his intimate connection with the Cold War, now receding into the past. A great many writers who appeared for long years to be among the twentieth century’s most important are now read by far smaller numbers. Their readers are rarely from the general public but are mainly academics, or specialists, or members of coteries. This is even true of major modernists, like Proust, Joyce and Kafka. But the years roll on and books on Orwell continue to appear, both biographies and appropriately titled commentaries like Christopher Hitchens’ Why Orwell Matters, to say nothing of the enormous edition of his complete works.
Steve Jobs has used him to sell computers; Michael Moore used him to frame a movie about George W. Bush; Norman Podhoretz has claimed him for the neo-conservatives who always saw communism for what it was. And just this month, a group that calls itself The Ministry of Reshelving Project has been shifting bookstore copies of “1984″ from “fiction” into “current events.”
Interview with Jane McGonigal of the Ministry of Reshelving Project
Who owns Orwell? Are we living in Orwell’s world?
Abbott Gleason
-
Professor of History, Brown University
-
From Brendan’s Pre-Interview Notes
-
One reason for Orwell’s continuing popularity is that he’s a thinker who both the left and right badly want. There’s almost no one like him. He’s a socialist with a considerable historical reputation, anti-soviet, but remained in favor of nationalization of certain industries.
Not a dramatic evolution to anti-soviet, not like the others — Whittaker Chambers — who moved from radical left to radical right. That’s all the more reason why the right wants him, a more credible witness. Orwell never had a conversion.
Always anti-authority, Orwell would NEVER support tax cuts that went to the rich like that; coulc be claimed that he was so hostile to totalitarian-style governments that he would have supported the war in Iraq.
1984: It’s extraordinary that a tremendous number of Soviet people who read it clandestinely said that he understood the Soviet Union better than the rest of us. How did he know? The seediness, the dirt, the bad food, all come from London during the war, he’s sentimental about rural life, hated bureaucratic governments, committed to liberal individualism, had some direct experience with Communists in Spain, they tried to kill him on his way out of the country.
He of course was very, very interested in the idea of betraying the revolution, Animal Farm is about that, he managed to get something about the Soviet Union that nobody else got, certainly no one else expressed in such a playful manner.
He’s a bible of twentieth-century politics, everyone can find what he wants. There also grew up around him the persona of the virtuous man, a truly free person who will tell the truth whatever the price.
Geoff Nunberg
-
Author of Going Nucular
Frequent contributor to Fresh Air
[On the phone from California]
Oh Brendan, good find with the The Ministry of Reshelving Project!
Excellent. Read 1984 when I was 12 and have a great story about it involving a concerned English teacher and The Thorn Birds. I’ll be calling in.
“Who owns Orwell?
Catchy title for a show.
“Are we living in Orwell’s world?”
Absolutely NOT.
I hope you get Chris Hitchens to interview or at least call in.
I’d say we are living in or around 1974. Big Brother isn’t quite as big as he needs to be yet but is gaining girth every day. The Patriot Act in the US has already given Carte Blanche to the Household Security Department – they are just now looking for enough funding to complete their merger with AmeriKorp. Then the network of intelligence feedback and think monitoring will be complete.
Pack your guns and head for the hills before it’s too late!
Here’s an interesting 1984 site: http://www.orwelltoday.com/
I wonder how closely Orwell’s writing resembles that of other stories of infinity as originated by mythology. While mythology details the lives of the celebrity Gods, Orwell tells about the threads between those tales – part of the reason so many “regular” people identify with it.
Worthy of discussion, at least….
I concur with LeeJudt, a call from Christopher Hitchens would be marvelous.
Hey, you and me both. We tried to grab Hitchens through about six different avenues for this show, but never got ahold of him.
Hey folks here’s one to snicker at in Orwellian fashion: “democratic socialism” Or to be fair to my brothers and sisters on the left: “democratic capitalism.” What do these terms mean? Ironically having seen the worst of communism through the Spanish Civil War and the rise of the Soviet Union, Orwell felt comfortable calling himself a “democratic socialist” whatever that means. No one took him up on this irony.
I trust that our guest this evening will discuss Orwell’s profile of Ghandi. I just reread “Reflections on Ghandi” from The Partisan Review Anthology that I deshelved in preparation for this show. What comes across is a very politically incorrect recollection of Gandi calling into question his absolutist pacifism. Orwell’s criticism of Ghandi’s operational pacificism is based on his commitment to life on this planet and to humanist values. He also called Ghandi on the carpet asking what would a pacifist do in light of the Holocaust. Ghandi’s response was pitiful.
This essay proves that Orwell was able to cut the heart of a matter making him one of the greatest essayists in the English language.
Tikiskis, can you explain? I’m not quite sure what you mean by “the threads between those tales”?
Goodness – great show tonight. I’d love to hear the guests’ take on – “Where is the spirit of Orwell today”? Who is the plain speaker of _our_ times?
But keep this great stuff up.
“threads between those tales” – Citing 1984 in particular, we read about mandatory daily exercises, an all-seeing mirror in every room, people plodding off to work then back home again in a daily grind….
While these details in themselves are not of note, the fact that Orwell addresses the average person as pawns of the omniscent deities weaves an everlasting tale in itself. I mean, think about how the Iliad talks about the Gods but every now and then gives hints of the worshippers. Such historical literature never seems to dwell into just what those “worshippers” are thinking. This is where Orwell hones his skills masterfully, I believe.
Perhaps not a groundbreaking revelation here, but interesting for me to realize as a part of this discussion.
I think if you’re going to discuss Orwell and language, you need to also mention the role of propaganda–perhaps from Edward Bernays (the grandfather of American PR) to Geobbels (who was influenced by Bernays who was a Jew and related to Freud) to Karl Rove….
Anyway, great discussion!
Oops. Tuned in to the show late tonight – guess you’ve already discussed my question. The Daily Show as the modern Animal Farm – Wonderful!
For anyone who thinks of Orwell as “just” a political/allegorical writer–with the huge fame of Animal Farm and 1984–last year I discovered and thoroughly enjoyed his eaerlier novel, based on his youthful career as an officer in Burma, titled Burma Days. It’s a solid, engaging, realistic novel about his fellow Brits abroad.
On orwell: an essay that I think is one of the best, not mentoned in the discussiion, is “Lookiing back on the Spanish War” where he notes how much lying came from all positions, even the “good”" side, but that it was possible to know who was basically right by looking at the simple decenies the socialist/social democratic movement of history was fighting for compared to the other side, people with lots to lose if justice gained in the world.
allen graubard
aboout last night — having Amira Hass was brave. Her book Drinking the Sea at Gaza was completely ignored by the respectable (subject to the atmosphere created by the proisrael lobby and the standard presentation of the issues. But anyone who read the book learned more than was ever learned through network news, put together.
I was fascinated by this program because I have just had a book published on this very topic. My particular interest is in offering truthful definitions of words which – shades of Orwell- are used by our government as well as the mainstream media to soften the harsh realities of war. My emphasis in the book “Battlebabble: Selling War in America” (Common Courage Press) is on not only the familiar euphemisms such as “collateral damage” and “incontinent ordinance” but those more subtle bits of propaganda such as “job”, “liberation”, “Operation”, “democratization”, “preparing the battlefield” and many others. Our government, as distinguished from our country has used these artfully to foster acceptance of the wars against Iraq under the guise of patriotism. I offer this “Dictionary of Deception” to counterbalance this pernicious practice.
When we discus Orwell, it it not enough to consider the words and language he used or wrote about. It is the central theme that language has been and continues to be the relentless tool of those who desire a freeloader’s control and the rewards that control brings over common men which is revolting. It should be used to assist him to gravitate to the truth of his reality and his own unrealized power to determine his own affairs and move humanity toward a path of prosperity. Unfortunately, most of our social and political structures are more inclined to the former practice than the latter. They continue to exist by blasting us with the cacophonous firehose of doublespeak until we are senseless and unaware of what they do in totality. No one can see the whole truth of our reality.
Brendan
Hitchens is a very busy man apparently.
I’m very excited to listen to this show. You should have done this show directly after the program on enterprise in Cuba. For those interested in learning more about Cuba, read “Cuba Diaries: an American Housewife in Havana”. AND THEN read “1984″ or read them in the opposite order. “1984″ is an exact blueprint of Castro’s little island.
Have you ever found a favorite musician to listen to while you read a favorite author? Whenever I read Douglas Adams, I would listen to Pink Floyd, for instance. George Orwell, however, would always be accompanied by Radiohead. With album titles like OK Computer, Amnesiac, and (my favorite) Hail To the Theif, both artists’ unclouded vision of our culture stike a startling chord in my mind the more I listen.
I have started referring to him as “The Prophet Orwell.” The reason 1984 continues to hold its relevance is that Orwell realized that the mindset and techniques of totalitarianism are timeless. He seemed to realize that Nazism and Fascism were only particular examples, and that the pattern would repeat itself, in large ways and small. Thus his cautionary tale, which, from an ironic point of view, can seem to be taken by some as a how-to manual.
How else can we explain the actual words of our current President: “I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we’re really talking about peace.”* A little bit of editing and he’s reading directly off the facade of the Ministry of Truth.
Indeed, describing these present days as “Orwellian” is no hyperbole.
*(http://www.hud.gov/news/speeches/presremarks.cfm)
Geoff Nunberg above says: “could be claimed that he was so hostile to
totalitarian-style governments that he would have supported the war in Iraq.”
Like Christopher Hitchens did!? Doubtful, to say the least. George Orwell fought against the fascists in Spain, was shot through the neck there and saw war from the inside. Would he have been taken in by the homicidal Walter Mittiac Neocon crew and support them as Hitchens did (does)? Orwell had many faults; but he DID have integrity. He definitely would have seen through the totalitarian machinations of the Bush/Blair axis, and would have seen instantly that Iraq is but a pawn in their game. If we’all can figure it out, couldn’t Orwell!
FOR SYNCHRONICITY FANS ONLY: Two major figures in the most desperate (and clumsy) moves toward British Totalitarianism in modern times: Prime
Minister Blair and London Chief of Police, Lord Blair. Couldn’t have been better scripted by Eric Blair (pen-name: George Orwell) himself.
Just listened to the broadcast and I came away with the impression that Orwellian should mean “we are right you are wrong.”
Most speakers on the program acted as if they belonged to a single political party with God and Orwell on their side.
I doubt Orwell would have approved.
Finally, I was surprised that no one asked what Orwell would have said about islamo-fascism.
Any attempt to predict what George Orwell would have said about Karl Rove or the war in Iraq or the Patriot Act is, I think, intellectually empty and self-congratulatory. It’s presumptious to say what Orwell would have made of anything; what we always conclude, of course, is that he would have agreed with us. By this means we congratulate ourselves for being his heirs, which we are not. (I could feel Prof. Gleason’s unease whenever Christopher Lydon attempted to draw into this sort of discussion.)
I believe the point should be not idle intellectual games about what Orwell would have written about George Bush or Islamofascism, but our own critiques informed by a full and incisive reading of Orwell. And I will commit the sin outlined above by guessing that Orwell would approve of my last point.
Good post dkeiger.
of course Orwell would have approved of my views, LOL.