Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, March 02, 2007
Paul Greenberg :: Townhall.com Columnist
In defense of Orwell
by Paul Greenberg
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



The other day I picked up my favorite little magazine, The New Criterion, and was delighted to spot the name of Anthony Daniels, aka Theodore Dalrymple, in the table of contents.

I turned with anticipation to his appraisal of a classic work of George Orwell's, "Homage to Catalonia." Oh, boy, one of my favorite critics of the knee-jerk left was going to re-examine Orwell's classic memoir of the Spanish Civil War - a model of the kind of reportage an honest writer can produce in times that may be anything but.

Though I began reading Anthony Daniels' article eagerly, I had to force myself to finish, the piece turned out to be so wrong-headed, so one-noted, so just plain undiscerning. And so uncharitable. It was like watching an automobile accident unfold in slow motion, going from bad to awful.

Mr. Daniels has mistaken the vaguely Trotskyite notions that Orwell brought to Spain, and which he would eventually outgrow, as the essence of the book. Orwell's ideology at the time was just part of his book, and the least important part of it at that. It's certainly not the part that has endured for 70 years, continuing to shed light on what that struggle was about, and showing how the cause of the Spanish republic was taken over by Stalin's agents.

The reader who comes to Orwell's "Homage of Catalonia" only after he's read Orwell's later, famous "1984" and "Animal Farm" has to marvel at how Eric Blair became George Orwell - by putting away his young, more-leftist-than-thou theories and relying instead on direct, personal experience. That's how he would become the conscience of his generation. And often enough of ours.

No wonder there's an Orwell cult. As a member of it, I can assure Mr. Daniels that those of us who admire Orwell do not mistake him for a saint, any more than he himself did. Quite the opposite. It is Orwell's ability to tell quite ordinary truths that continues to stun.

You don't run across beautifully plain, simple writers very often in an entirely too sophisticated age, as Anthony Daniels almost grudgingly notes. Or plain, simple people, for that matter. When you do, they stick in the mind.

But in this look back at "Homage to Catalonia," the simple purity of Orwell's language is largely dismissed. Instead of seeing a diamond, Anthony Daniels is fascinated by all the flaws in its setting. He's so absorbed in making his own ideological points that he's largely ignored how Orwell rose above his - simply by telling what happened to him in Spain.

Anthony Daniels winds up despising Orwell's book as much as the Communists and their fellow travelers did when it came out, and for much the same reason: It fails to meet an ideological test.

The Spain of 1937 comes alive in "Homage to Catalonia," which reads like a diary written by someone intent on describing just what that time and place was like - in prose clear as a window pane, which was Orwell's goal.

It's as if a member of the Nazi Party, first exulting in its seizure of power in Germany, had come to realize, experience by harrowing experience, what a terrifying society he was helping create. And he rebels. Imagine what a valuable record and revelation so honest a book would be, as "Homage to Catalonia" is.

It was Orwell's esthetic - his love of the beauty and discipline of the English tongue - that would save him from all his left-wing newspeak and that, generations later, still enlightens the rest of us.

The incandescent quality of Orwell's his language, his instinctive honesty and decency, is evident on almost every page of "Homage to Catalonia," and renders his ideology at the time inconsequential. Yet, hard as it is to believe, Anthony Daniels seems almost oblivious to Orwell's window-pane prose.

The roots of Orwell's masterful "Animal Farm" and "1984," and of his disaffection for communist utopias - indeed, with the idea of any utopia at all - can be discerned in the simple decency of "Homage to Catalonia." As was his habit, Orwell was testing his ideological assumptions against actual experience. And because the reader knows what Orwell would become, he can sense those assumptions being undermined as the writer takes on what he would call the "smelly little orthodoxies" of his time.

Orwell would leave Spain still some kind of off-brand Marxist revolutionary, but also nobody's man but his own. He would go on to become a man of neither left nor right but a critic of both, saved by the clarity of his prose and therefore of his thought. He would start to see through his own left-wing illusions with the same clarity he brought to bear on the Communists' lies in 1937. And he would do so with a purity that makes the rest of us, with our ideological certainties, reflexes and tics in general, look sick.

To judge "Homage to Catalonia" without considering what Orwell would write later, or the insights he had acquired before, or the luminous quality of his prose, and to emphasize only the agitprop he parroted at the time, is to miss the larger picture. It's to ignore context, and wind up losing sight of what matters most.

Orwell was regularly attacked from the left for his unorthodox views, and now Anthony Daniels has done him much the same service from the right. It turns out there's a knee-jerk right, too.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
liberalgoodman
"I don't trust Jery Fallwell or Pat Robertson" either but I trust Clinton, Hillary, Kerry, and Gore even less. At least Jerry Falwell and Robertson do not want to impose a secular theocracy on American like the liberals do.

NEOCONS
Neocons vs. Socialists: What is the Difference?

Do you think Wang Hui is right to compare the New Left alliance with the neoconservatives? Don’t both support “fantasy projects” like democracy in Iraq using the same (misguided) logic that leads them to conclude that U.S. support of (abusive) trade deals with China will someday create Democracy in China?

NYTIMES-Co-editor of China’s leading intellectual journal, Dushu (Reading), and the author of a four-volume history of Chinese thought, Wang Hui spoke about how market reforms have widened the gap between rich and poor in China.

Many of its local officials, he said, used their arbitrary power to become successful entrepreneurs at the expense of the rural populations they were meant to serve and joined up with real estate speculators to seize collectively owned land from peasants. (According to Chinese officials, 60 percent of land acquisitions are illegal.) The result has been an alliance of elite political and commercial interests, Wang said, that recalls similar alliances in the United States and many East Asian countries.

Despite his invocation of socialist principles, Wang was quick to tell me that he dislikes the New Left label, even though he has used it himself. “Intellectuals reacted against ‘leftism’ in the 80’s, blaming it for all of China’s problems,” he said, “and right-wing radicals use the words ‘New Left’ to discredit us, make us look like remnants from the Maoist days.” Wang also doesn’t care to be identified with the radical intellectuals of the 60’s in America and Europe, to whom the term New Left was originally applied. Many of them, he said, had passion and slogans but very little practical politics, and not surprisingly, more than a few ended up with the neoconservatives, supporting “fantasy projects” like democracy in Iraq.

READ MORE http://www.controlcongress.com

liberalgoodmanwrites a Smokey screen
" Many Democratic presidens (sic) have left office when their term (sic) expired. "

Long ago, perhaps -- when they were dead.

But not since Bubba-Jimmah the feckless fool Cartah and Billy-Bubba the treasonous, (recidivist, psychopathologically-predatory, lying, looting, co-serial rapist) Blythe, they haven't!

Why even Al(Fredo) Gore(leone,) the world's most dangerous dullard, second-generation Soviet-agent and at-one-time senator for Armand Hammer, Mao Tze Tung and Joe Stalin, on the days he's not content with being the definitive common garden savant - or Alphonse Capone or Napoleon Bonaparte-- believes himself to have ever been erected presiden.

Smokey not quite
"DemocRats are no different than Socialists."

People here often say stuff like this, but it ain't so. The first thing Communists did when elected was cancel future elections. For them the Presidential office is like a roach motel, you check in but you don't check out. Many Democratic Presidens have left office when their term expired.

I'm Sorry Sam But....
Sam: "This is why corporate social resposiblity is a good idea. In the absence of abuse, the power hungry lack a spring board to power."

I would tend to disagree with you on this statement for a couple of reasons. First, and most obviously, in the absence of abuse if a spring board to power is desired, then abuses will be fabricated. I hate to play the Hitler card because it's so cliched, but it's the first example to spring to mind and the most likely to widely understood. There's, of course, blaming the Jews for problems which they had nothing to do with, but he also staged attacks on his own troops in order to drum up support and falsely claim the right to retaliation. In almost all cases if desire for power is strong enough then finding a route to power is an easily scaleable obstacle.

Moreover as much as we hear about corporate responsibility the idea itself strikes me as somewhat dubious on it's face. What exactly does it mean, specifically? I'd be willing to wager if you asked 10 different people for details beyond the pie in the sky generalizations you'd get 10 different answers. And to some people no amount of concessions will ever be enough. Always remember you can please some of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time, and that's all the "spring board" someone is apt to need.

Orwell
Orwell,unlike many contemporary people recognized that both right wing and leftwing ideologies ,carried to the extreme,lead to tyrrany. This is why corporate social resposiblity is a good idea.In the absence of abuse ,the pwoer hungry lack a spring board to power.

Today's Animal Farm
One of the 'lessons' of George Orwell's Animal Farm is the corruption that power brings.
In today's political climate Democrats are socialists, Republicans are socialist lite, "...and they couldn't tell the difference."
True conservatives are mostly like the animals on the outside looking at the 'more equal than others' in the farm house.

Thank You for visiting my Blog (Click on my name above)

Smokey
For the most part, I agree with you Smokey. However, I am seeing a lot of the same behavior from a lot of Republicans of late. Just because someone has an "R" attached to them, does not mean that they aren't a socialist.

Communists are Socialists in a hurry...
And DemocRats are no different than Socialists.

Another example of "Slide Rule"..

...is the true story of the design of the Spitfire fighter plane. In 1931 the British Air Ministry issued their specifications for a fighter design known as the "F.7/30" specifications. Supermarine Aircraft, fresh from winning the Schneider Trophy for the third time and setting the world speed record for aircraft at 407.5 mph, received the specs and built one aircraft to "F.7/30" aircraft, the Supermarine Type "224" It was an extreme disappointment. Slow, poor climb performance and the addition of guns would obviously make "224" worse. Only one was built. The chief designer of Supermarine (and their racers), R.J Mitchell, was then given the go ahead to design a fighter on his own to his best judgement. The result was the Supermarine Type 300 or the Spitfire, as it was to become famously known. The British Air Ministry then re-wrote the fighter specifications as their new "F.37/34" specs to match the Spitfire. The rest is history.

In defense of Daniels
Mr Greenberg fails to mention Theorore Dalrymple's defense of Orwell against attempts by the leftist Guardian to smear him. Daniels admires Orwell where it is due, i.e. for his insights (and moral clarity) in Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four.

GEORGE ORWELL
Thanks, Mr. Greenberg. I read "Catalonia" several years ago, when an Economist reviewer described it as "the best of all books on the Spanish Civil War". I found that conflict very confusing (still do), but much less so after "Catalonia". I had read "1984", "Animal Farm", and Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" in high school in the 50's. I was astonished to find in "Catalonia" that Orwell had a Leftist past, but it did not diminish my very high opinion of him. Orwell's books will be on my grandchildrens' reading list at the appropriate age, or they won't be in my will.

Another now under-appreciated author is Nevil Shute (Norway). His "On the Beach" is credited (or blamed) for jump starting the anti-nuke movement in the United States, though I doubt his shade (he died in 1960) takes much satisfaction in that fact. I think his best book is the autobiographical "Slide Rule". About half of the book is devoted to the R100/R101 debacle. The socialists in power in Britain in the late 20's saw this as the final proof of the superiority of socialism over capitalism. It turned out quite the other way. The socialist dirigible crashed. killing almost all on board, including the politician most responsible for the massive faults of the program. The free enterprise dirigible made successful crossings of the Atlantic.

I read "Slide Rule" about a third way into a 30+ year career at a once respected government agency devoted to space flight. I kept reading incidents in the book that made me think the author had been looking over my shoulder they were so eerily similar to my everyday experience on the job. Shute is an unapologetic enthusiast for free enterprise, and it shows through in most of his books.


The people of 1984
Some of the striking scenes in the book "1984" involve political rallies. They're in the middle of a "hate Eurasia" chant when news comes in that Eastasia is the enemy and Eurasia is the ally. It only takes a minute for them to start hating Eastasia.

I've watched conservatives act just like this. Just a year ago my former mayor Giuliani was a reviled RINO for supporting aborting, living with a gay couple (yes), support gun control, etc. Now conservatives love him because he's against all these things. He's an authentic conservative. Wow, how did that happen?

When I was a kid, conservative Christians were antisemitic. Jewish parents opposed prayer in school because they did not want their kids saying Christian prayers (Isaiah says praying to false gods - Jesus in this case -- is the worst possible sin.). They opposed Israel. Well now they're all "Judeo Christian" and Israel is good. Well, I don't trust Jery Fallwell or Pat Robertson further than I can spit (is that deranged?). Not then and not now.

Enlightening.
I, too, will add this to my list of "must read" books, and I thank Mr. Goldberg. And I'd add a couple names to those Mr. Screen (above) offered: Krauthammer, Sowell, good ol' Burt and Larry Elder. Diana West's most recent column was excellent as well.
Thanks. And, have a great weekend.

Thanks Again,
Mr. Greenberg. Mostly, the columinsts writing in America today make me laugh. You and George Will make me think -- and inform me.

Thank you, Mr. Orwell
Reading “Homage to Catalonia” was the pivot-point of my transition out of Trotskyoid idealism, and Orwell was the guide who enabled me to avoid the trap of rebound-cynicsm, and hang on to moral decency and practical compassion as foundations of political realism. Orwell resisted all ideologies. Reading him will make you into your own man, politically – the highest compliment I can give to a political commentator.

Rogue Historian
"...By bringing the whole of life under the control of the State, Socialism necessarily gives power to an inner ring of bureaucrats, who in almost every case will be men who want power for its own sake and will stick at nothing in order to retain it. Britain, he says, is now going the same road as Germany, with the Left-Wing intelligentsia in the van and the Tory Party a good second. The only salvation lies in returning to an unplanned economy, free competition, and emphasis on liberty rather than on security."

Actually, it reminds me a lot of what is going on in OUR country.

Orwell on Hayek
Orwell's evolution from lefty idealist to libertarian realist wasn't the result of experience alone. Orwell benefited by reading a little book by an obscure Austrian economist, F.A. Hayek. Orwell summarized Hayek's insight as follows:

"Shortly, Professor Hayek's thesis is that Socialism inevitably leads to despotism, and that in Germany the Nazis were able to succeed because the Socialists had already done most of their work for them: especially the intellectual work of weakening the desire for liberty..."

For the rest of Orwell's review please click on my screen name.

eon
yes. Too bad no one is listening.

One of my most cherished books
Is my old, hardback, unedited 1946 edition of "Animal Farm". It's both enlightening and engaging, and often wryly humorous.

"1984", by comparison, is emphatically not funny in the least. Orwell didn't have time to be witty. He was too busy sounding the alarm.

I've never read "Homage to Catalonia". But I'm going to.

Just on the grounds of the author's name.


cheers

eon

Orwell as Socialist
I was fascinated by your review of "Homage to Catelonea." I thought the book was scarier than 1984 because it was about an amateur tyranny as opposed to the futeristic 1984.

I attended a lecture by Christopher Hitchins on Orwell and I asked, "Why did Orwell remain a Socialist? He must have read 1984." Hitchins thought that was funny and replied that Orwell was against the Communists in Spain, but Orwell thought there was a difference between Communism and Socialism. It appears that everyone in Europe sees a difference and they are all Socialist. The difference is only one of degree, and if Orwell remained a Socialist, it was pretty dumb.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.