Why orwell matters pdf

Don't wait! Try Yumpu. Start using Yumpu now! Terms of service. Privacy policy. Cookie policy. The biggest value of this book is as a gateway with things Orwell has done that are more obscure, and Hitchens offers appreciated, though often times obvious, a Hitchens did an excellent job piecing together Orwell's vast works into one agglomerate. The biggest value of this book is as a gateway with things Orwell has done that are more obscure, and Hitchens offers appreciated, though often times obvious, analysis of specific text.

Like Orwell, Hitchens was willing to defend his principles to his death, and his love for the thinker shines throughout his writing. Hitchens gets a little tired in this wide-ranging postulation on Orwell's high standing. He occasionally drifts into excessive verbiage but succeeds in presenting a multi-dimensional Orwell in a generously articulate light.

One comes away convinced of Orwell's seminal place in socio-political thought but a little weary from the stretched attention and uneven reward that's involved. This doesn't rank beside his legendary hit-jobs where he summons his greatest invective and eloquence, but it's a s Hitchens gets a little tired in this wide-ranging postulation on Orwell's high standing.

This doesn't rank beside his legendary hit-jobs where he summons his greatest invective and eloquence, but it's a satisfying, academic complement nevertheless. The title suggests that this is an exposition of Orwell's political philosophy. It is, rather, an engagement with Orwell's many critics, to rehabilitate his politics in its historic context.

Lots of Hitch-slapping, as one would expect. An impassioned defence of George Orwell, and his views. Having only read Animal farm and , I was not exposed to his other books. Hitchens borrows from his journals, and other works to make a strong case of Orwell being mostly objective in his opinions. Interesting, but you need to rly care about him to enjoy it.

Moreover, it demands a great knowledge of his epoch to undertand some references. I thought I would like this more than I did. After all, I enjoy examining Orwell's ideas, and I adore Hitchens's turn of phrase. Perhaps here the writing is too sketchy and Hitchens drops a few too many names unknown to me. Nonetheless, I learned a few things about Orwell, and I will definitely read more by both authors. Interesting, but a bit of a slog in a lot of places. Literary criticism just isn't my thing, I guess.

Goes without saying, but don't read this without first having read most of Orwell. The incredible well-read and life-experienced Hitchens presents Orwell as not just a writer, but one whose own principles he came to and stood by from a young age and continued to stand by them through his life, and which the writings of Orwell are as relevant today as they were when he was alive.

To describe a piece of writing as 'Orwellian' is to recognize that human resistance to these terrors is unquenchable. Not bad for one short lifetime" 5. Hitchens argues convincingly and against many current thinkers that Orwell was the kind of "independent internation "To describe a state of affairs as 'Orwellian' is to imply a crushing tyranny and fear and conformism.

Hitchens argues convincingly and against many current thinkers that Orwell was the kind of "independent international," "Trotsyist" Leftist that was bound to be reviled by leftists and rightists of the totalitarian bent. A democratic socialist who believed that socialism could struggle against its own bureaucratic and authoritarian tendencies, to be a force for freedom An anti-fascist who recognized the human tendency to idolize brute power.

For Hitchens, "The three great subjects of the twentieth century were imperialism, fascism and Stalinism Most of the intellectual class were fatally compromised by accommodation with one or other of these man-made structures of inhumanity, and some by more than one" 5. His chapters on Orwell's work against each of these structures are philosophically and historically rich. I particularly liked the chapter on imperialism, which narrates Orwell's growing consciousness of how his participation in the British colonization of Burma contributed at once to the Burmese' political docility and economic underdevelopment, to the financing of Britain's industrial and imperial growth, and to the brutalizing - i.

The chapters on Orwell and Englishness, America, Feminism, and the novels are good biography. Alas, Orwell was a sexist and homophobe. But I was especially interested in the chapter on how postmodern theories of language and 'objectivity as ideology' work against Orwell's understanding of the necessity of 'a common language' that is 'plain' enough to allow 'contestable speech' as necessary for 'open democracy' and the struggle against commercial and political oppression.

He was able to see the monumental crimes of Stalinism and by extension, Leninism, which basically stands for Communism as it is believed and practised. This was in spite of him being a socialist at heart. Also, Orwell did produce strong reactions from both the Right and the Left.

This book deals with all the important questions relating to Orwell today. The Right likes to claim him on behalf of his strong critique of Stalinism as if Orwell supported all their deep desires to severely punish left leaning people in their societies. Hitchens shows how Orwell stood by the rights of the working classes and the poor while castigating Stalinism.

In the same way, the 'real Left' likes to demonize him as an agent of the bourgeoisie and portray him as an 'informer'. Hitchens again shows how Orwell was a genuine socialist at heart but knew that the centralized state like the USSR was not the way to get there. Hitchens paints a balanced picture of the man and the idealist without mopping over issues of relevance today. For example, Orwell was homophobic in some ways and Hitchens tries to investigate its possible causes. Orwell also did not have much time for feminists and in fact, for women.

Hitchens deals at length with 'The List', which has been used to taint Orwell with the charge that he informed on his left-wing friends to the British government and betrayed them.

This is something many Leftists believe about Orwell. Hitchens argues strongly that Orwell did not 'inform' and that the argument does not hold water. But it was a fact that a certain 'list' existed in Orwell's handwriting and it was given to an influential friend of his.

Looking at the overall picture that emerges of Orwell from the book, it is hard to accept that Orwell would have been an 'informer'. The book is passionately argued and is not all that easy reading, though it is fairly concise.

One would have to have sufficient interest in George Orwell in order to enjoy the book. Watching Christopher Hitchens debate politics and religion on youtube is endlessly fascinating. Somehow, though, his magic doesn't quite translate onto the page, IMHO. In 'Orwell's Victory', C. I wish the author would have followed his subject's credo of keeping language simple and straightforward, however.

Hitchens' ine Watching Christopher Hitchens debate politics and religion on youtube is endlessly fascinating. My fault more than his, no doubt, but still annoying. My other problems with the book are: 1 the reader is, more or less, thrown into the deep end from the get-go. The author does a poor job in setting up what we are about to read. And, 2 Hitchens brings forth all sorts of literary criticism, some in favor of and some against Orwell. Since I have never heard of most of those critics, their opinions mean little to me.

Lifting one or two lines out of their books and railing against them seems a bit disingenuous. Furthermore, after scolding critics for their conflation of Orwell's characters' opinions with Orwell's own opinions, Hitchens does the very same thing at least once page - Hitchens claims that the voice of Gordon Comstock in 'Keep the Aspidistra Flying' is Stay consistent, Sir.

All that said, I'm still glad I read this book. My mental picture of the man who wrote one of my favorite books of all time, , is more fleshed out. I had no idea, for example, that '' was a deathbed undertaking. One last thing: If there are any publishers reading this, please use a larger font when printing books.

The font in my copy must be about 9-point; then the quoted passages get even smaller! Hitchens evidently saw Orwell as a kind of role model for his own committed and proudly non-aligned persona - which is fair, though H is a less careful and somewhat flabbier writer. In any event, in this book he mainly defends Orwell, though by no means uncritically, against his seemingly numerous detractors, in a series of thematic chapters on Orwell and empire, the left, the right, America, Englishness, feminism, accusations of betrayal of fellow or not leftists, the novels and transparency Hitchens evidently saw Orwell as a kind of role model for his own committed and proudly non-aligned persona - which is fair, though H is a less careful and somewhat flabbier writer.

The novels are found seriously wanting, with the exception of the two famous ones. I still haven't read Animal Farm and the example of doesn't fill me with the desire to do so, though I think I probably will get round to it. In fact Hitchens' summaries of the earlier, lesser, novels make them rather more appealing to me.

The chapter on the novels, and the concluding section in which Orwell is chastised for unfairness to Auden, are among the best parts of the book. The "postmodernism" chapter seems weaker, its specific target a French writer who tried most unconvincingly to contest the objectivity of Orwell's Homage to Catalonia a soft one, even if its author did win a Nobel prize.

One more reason to despise prizes. That said, it seems to me though Hitchens doesn't say so that it is in the mortal combat between, otoh, an Orwell-type commitment to truthfulness, clarity and fellowship with a clearly seen imperfect humanity and, otoh, the combined forces of academic post-everythingism, management-theory bullshit, meaning-free political sloganeering and all-pervasive relativism, that this book's title has its answer: this is why Orwell matters.

A reasonably rattling good read. I am not well-read enough to know that Orwell has been claimed as one of their own by both the Right and the Left, or that his opinions and stances have been frequently misrepresented by many who ought to know better.

Hitchens has here set himself the task of setting the record straight as concerns Orwell and those who have sought to find in his writings vindications of their own agendas.

Dividing his book into ten chapters, each of which focuses on a different topic Empire, the Left, the Right I am not well-read enough to know that Orwell has been claimed as one of their own by both the Right and the Left, or that his opinions and stances have been frequently misrepresented by many who ought to know better. Dividing his book into ten chapters, each of which focuses on a different topic Empire, the Left, the Right, America, feminists, etc.

What emerges is the portrait of a man who managed to make himself unpopular with partisans of all extreme positions. Consider his consistent opposition to fascism and to Stalinism -- to the totalitarian temptation, if you like -- and his constant critique of empire and the class system. He is one of the few people who lived during the mid-twentieth century who got all three of the major questions of that century right. And he did this not just by having opinions that turned out to be correct, but by struggling within himself -- with mistakes he'd made, with illusions he had nurtured.

Many others made similar mistakes, but he worked hard to achieve a clarity of mind about this kind of thing, and he demonstrated considerable intellectual courage and moral fortitude -- and physical courage, too, when he joined the fight to save the Spanish Republic.

Shot in the throat by the fascists at the front line -- and very nearly shot in the back by the communists in the rear. We have known all this about Orwell for a long time. But is something happening now that puts his reputation in danger -- somewhat under attack?

I started to believe that his reputation was in danger for two reasons. One is that he has become a set-book author. Internet Archive's 25th Anniversary Logo. Search icon An illustration of a magnifying glass.

User icon An illustration of a person's head and chest. Sign up Log in. Web icon An illustration of a computer application window Wayback Machine Texts icon An illustration of an open book. Books Video icon An illustration of two cells of a film strip.