George Orwell: Why I Write (1946)(ebooks.adelaide.edu.au)
ebooks.adelaide.edu.au
George Orwell: Why I Write (1946)
http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79e/part47.html
9 comments
Some of his reasons for why he writes seem to be the same as why I work on software. I love this. I've been in a slump for months where I've lacked inspiration to work on anything. Maybe realizing that doing things for attention might be an acceptable reason to work on something if something good comes out of it might remove some roadblocks for me.
As an Australian who spent a year living in the same building Orwell did in London (Down and out in Paris and London), having read his 1984 and Animal Farm in my youth, and since having spent years living on the Burmese/Chinese border (as he lived in Burma during the English colonial period), and also struggling with writing what equates to an essentially political history (of that area, no less) I would like to TLDR this guy for the others.
Orwell was an individual, a talent, but above all an observer. He spent his time distilling injustice through a lens of analytical thought and regurgitating it as the written word in precisely the format most sought after as the entertainment of the era. In this form, he was a populist and he states as much in this famous summary of his motivations, prepared five years before his death at 47.
Perhaps the modern equivalent of his character would be living and traveling in relative poverty whilst independently producing media with political messages, and possibly distributing them freely online. Assange is undeniably politically motivated, moved around a lot living in Africa and other interesting locales before his 2010 run-in with the authorities, and could in this sense be considered a fair example of a modern day Orwell. (If only he could make it across town to East London, he too could see Orwell's old abode... I see the Wikileaks Party in Australia is organizing a care package for him in the Ecuadorian consulate. Anyone care to donate a UAV? :)
Finally, some parallels. First, between our learning of programming languages and Orwell's statements here on language in general: The problem of language is subtler and would take too long to discuss. I will only say that of late years I have tried to write less picturesquely and more exactly. In any case I find that by the time you have perfected any style of writing, you have always outgrown it.
Second, that of the notion that 'every program is buggy': I have not written a novel for seven years, but I hope to write another fairly soon. It is bound to be a failure, every book is a failure, but I do know with some clarity what kind of book I want to write.
Finally, on open source and distributed systems as social change: I see that it is invariably where I lacked a POLITICAL purpose that I wrote lifeless books and was betrayed into purple passages, sentences without meaning, decorative adjectives and humbug generally.
Orwell was an individual, a talent, but above all an observer. He spent his time distilling injustice through a lens of analytical thought and regurgitating it as the written word in precisely the format most sought after as the entertainment of the era. In this form, he was a populist and he states as much in this famous summary of his motivations, prepared five years before his death at 47.
Perhaps the modern equivalent of his character would be living and traveling in relative poverty whilst independently producing media with political messages, and possibly distributing them freely online. Assange is undeniably politically motivated, moved around a lot living in Africa and other interesting locales before his 2010 run-in with the authorities, and could in this sense be considered a fair example of a modern day Orwell. (If only he could make it across town to East London, he too could see Orwell's old abode... I see the Wikileaks Party in Australia is organizing a care package for him in the Ecuadorian consulate. Anyone care to donate a UAV? :)
Finally, some parallels. First, between our learning of programming languages and Orwell's statements here on language in general: The problem of language is subtler and would take too long to discuss. I will only say that of late years I have tried to write less picturesquely and more exactly. In any case I find that by the time you have perfected any style of writing, you have always outgrown it.
Second, that of the notion that 'every program is buggy': I have not written a novel for seven years, but I hope to write another fairly soon. It is bound to be a failure, every book is a failure, but I do know with some clarity what kind of book I want to write.
Finally, on open source and distributed systems as social change: I see that it is invariably where I lacked a POLITICAL purpose that I wrote lifeless books and was betrayed into purple passages, sentences without meaning, decorative adjectives and humbug generally.
In summary, Orwell finds that his books are most full of life when he writes mainly with:
> (iv) Political purpose. — Using the word ‘political’ in the widest possible sense. Desire to push the world in a certain direction, to alter other peoples’ idea of the kind of society that they should strive after. Once again, no book is genuinely free from political bias. The opinion that art should have nothing to do with politics is itself a political attitude.
> (iv) Political purpose. — Using the word ‘political’ in the widest possible sense. Desire to push the world in a certain direction, to alter other peoples’ idea of the kind of society that they should strive after. Once again, no book is genuinely free from political bias. The opinion that art should have nothing to do with politics is itself a political attitude.
> The opinion that art should have nothing to do with politics is itself a political attitude.
Or people just disagree about the definition of 'politics.' Once you get to a point where "no book is genuinely free from political bias," you've basically reduced 'politics' to 'point of view.' Sure, most books have a point of view, but that doesn't make them political in any meaningful sense. Or alternatively, if you broaden the meaning of 'politics' to include all the things, then you've diluted it to the point that it ceases to be an effective critical or creative tool.
Edit: All those 'you's are the indefinite 'you.' I realize you're quoting.
Or people just disagree about the definition of 'politics.' Once you get to a point where "no book is genuinely free from political bias," you've basically reduced 'politics' to 'point of view.' Sure, most books have a point of view, but that doesn't make them political in any meaningful sense. Or alternatively, if you broaden the meaning of 'politics' to include all the things, then you've diluted it to the point that it ceases to be an effective critical or creative tool.
Edit: All those 'you's are the indefinite 'you.' I realize you're quoting.
>Or people just disagree about the definition of 'politics.' Once you get to a point where "no book is genuinely free from political bias," you've basically reduced 'politics' to 'point of view.'
He gives his definition of politics, which is not just 'point of view' as you claim: "Desire to push the world in a certain direction, to alter other peoples’ idea of the kind of society that they should strive after."
You can argue that not all books try to push the world in one direction or another, or you can agree with Orwell that they do, but your objection doesn't make sense. Yes, people generally disagree about the definition of the word 'political', but Orwell has defined it here for you, so you're supposed to use his definition when evaluating his claim.
I disagree with you. I think Orwell is correct, and I think that his use of the word 'political' doesn't dilute it at all, but rather, cuts directly to the heart of what 'politics' is all about.
He gives his definition of politics, which is not just 'point of view' as you claim: "Desire to push the world in a certain direction, to alter other peoples’ idea of the kind of society that they should strive after."
You can argue that not all books try to push the world in one direction or another, or you can agree with Orwell that they do, but your objection doesn't make sense. Yes, people generally disagree about the definition of the word 'political', but Orwell has defined it here for you, so you're supposed to use his definition when evaluating his claim.
I disagree with you. I think Orwell is correct, and I think that his use of the word 'political' doesn't dilute it at all, but rather, cuts directly to the heart of what 'politics' is all about.
From The Devil's Dictionary (1881-1906) [devil]:
> POLITICS, n. A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage.
On a more serious note, I tend to agree with Orwell. Works of art (prose, paintings, photographs) are largely defined not by what they contain, but what they leave out.
Consciously or unconsciously they represent a form of distilled reality that will inherently expose how the creator sees the world (or perhaps rather: how the author observes the world; what he notices).
How is this political? Any rational person decides what should be done based on what is -- if you perceive reality to be different, you will come up with different explanations for why things are the way they are, and more importantly how and why they should change. Do you look at images from the World Soccer Championship in Brazil and see a merry sport festival? Or do you see thousands on the streets demonstrating for the right to a decent life?
I agree that not all art should be (or is) intentionally or overtly political, but I also think that it is right to claim that all art, on some level is political, in the sense that they impart the artists view (and connected feelings) of the world to those that experience the work.
At any rate, I find it hard to disagree with the the concrete quote you picked: Isn't discussing how art and politics interact an aspect of politics?
[devil]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Devil's_Dictionary
[edit: On a somewhat related note (by virtue of dealing with writing, and being written by Orwell) see also:
George Orwell: "Politics and the English Language"
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm ]
> POLITICS, n. A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage.
On a more serious note, I tend to agree with Orwell. Works of art (prose, paintings, photographs) are largely defined not by what they contain, but what they leave out.
Consciously or unconsciously they represent a form of distilled reality that will inherently expose how the creator sees the world (or perhaps rather: how the author observes the world; what he notices).
How is this political? Any rational person decides what should be done based on what is -- if you perceive reality to be different, you will come up with different explanations for why things are the way they are, and more importantly how and why they should change. Do you look at images from the World Soccer Championship in Brazil and see a merry sport festival? Or do you see thousands on the streets demonstrating for the right to a decent life?
I agree that not all art should be (or is) intentionally or overtly political, but I also think that it is right to claim that all art, on some level is political, in the sense that they impart the artists view (and connected feelings) of the world to those that experience the work.
At any rate, I find it hard to disagree with the the concrete quote you picked: Isn't discussing how art and politics interact an aspect of politics?
[devil]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Devil's_Dictionary
[edit: On a somewhat related note (by virtue of dealing with writing, and being written by Orwell) see also:
George Orwell: "Politics and the English Language"
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm ]
An interesting sidenote on the history of copyright:
If you're in the US and most other countries, by clicking the above link you may commit copyright infringement.
In Australia, the copyright for work of authors who died before 1955 expires 50 years after the death of the author, so Orwell's copyright expired in 2000. That's why OP's link is hosted in Adelaide. The same site has a warning for US users: http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/
In the US it's 70 years, so Orwell's work is still protected until 2020.
If you're in the US and most other countries, by clicking the above link you may commit copyright infringement.
In Australia, the copyright for work of authors who died before 1955 expires 50 years after the death of the author, so Orwell's copyright expired in 2000. That's why OP's link is hosted in Adelaide. The same site has a warning for US users: http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/
In the US it's 70 years, so Orwell's work is still protected until 2020.