1363 pages of holly fuck I'll never make it to the end of this. Most of this book is correspondence, book reviews and stuff like that. His articles and short stories are great, especially "shooting an elephant" and his "As I Please" essays.

great writing from a great writer/thinker

Orwell is at his strongest in his essay writing. From his enlightening book reviews to his poignant descriptions of urban poverty to his in-depth analyses of the world around him (look for "Inside the Whale"), Orwell always strikes a nerve somewhere. This collection deserves a place in the book shelf of anyone interested in the problems of the 20th century.

That any man was able to write so much material at such a high level is almost impossible to believe. One almost imagines Orwell as a collection of highly accomplished writers placing their most controversial work under a single banner. Pay any price to be the owner of this marvelous collection.

One of the very best writers in the English language. Orwell has an incredible mind with a knack for the unique detail. His essay on Dicken's is absolutely amazing. Read these essays because you want to be entertained, but mostly read these essays if you want to learn how to write. There is no better gift to a new writer than this book.

As famine struck Europe after World War II, a “Save Europe Now” committee was formed to spread awareness to this problem. It proposed a program for well-off people in Britain to voluntarily give some of their food to those who were starving in European countries. Naturally, this idea was not received well by the public. Sir Philip Joubert, a commander in the Royal Air Force, wrote that many Britons surely would have objected sending food to Germany because the Germans might be “using their strength to make war on the world again in another generation.” (quoted in p. 993) George Orwell, in his 1946 essay “The Politics of Starvation”, found this argument specious. He remarked that the program proposed to send food not only to Germany — as there were also people in Hungary, Austria, Czechoslovakia, France, and Greece who were starving — and he lamented the dishonesty that presented the proposal only as something that will take away much-needed British food and send it to their former enemy. He closed the essay by drawing a parallel to the end of World War I:

Air Marshal Joubert advises us to feed ourselves rather than feed German children who will be fighting against us a generation hence. This is the “realistic” view. In 1918 the “realistic” ones were also in favour of keeping up the blockade after the Armistice. We did keep up the blockade, and the children we starved then were the young men who were bombing us in 1940. No one, perhaps, could have foreseen just that result, but people of good will could and did foresee that the results of wantonly starving Germany, and of making a vindictive peace, would be evil. ... [I]f we do decide to do this, at least let the issues be plainly discussed, and let the photographs of starving children be well publicised in the press, so that the people of this country may realise just what they are doing. (p. 996)

This essay, one of the 240 collected in this book, is not Orwell’s best piece of writing or his most famous, but it shows the characteristics that make him still worth reading today: his ability to dismantle political obfuscations out of a contemporary problem and his use of clear, conversational language in expressing his thoughts. The debate around the issue above feels like something that can happen today, where there is a morally simple problem — people starving — but whose solution seems difficult because it is mired in various political calculations. In his writings, Orwell chose moral clarity as much as he could, being aware that lower-class people are the ones who suffer from the unfair decisions of world leaders.

The one essay in this book that shows the essentials of Orwell’s thinking is “Notes on Nationalism”. Here, he wrote about a phenomenon he chose to call “nationalism”, by which he meant “the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of people can be confidently labelled ‘good’ or ‘bad’.” (p. 865) The people who adopts this mindset,

having picked his side, he persuades himself that it is the strongest, and is able to stick to his belief even when the facts are overwhelmingly against him. Nationalism is power hunger tempered by self-deception. Every nationalist is capable of the most flagrant dishonesty, but he is also – since he is conscious of serving something bigger than himself – unshakeably certain of being in the right. (p. 867)

He pointed out the dishonesty that led “nationalists” to justify the alteration of historical record, such as what happened in Stalin’s Russia, where mentions of the Hitler-Stalin Pact in 1939 were “being effaced as quickly as possible from public memory.” (p. 1367)* Orwell also abhorred the acceptance of an argument for one’s own side, but the rejection of the same logic for the other:

A British Tory will defend self-determination in Europe and oppose it in India with no feeling of inconsistency. Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage – torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians – which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by ‘our’ side. (p. 872-73)

What separates Orwell from most political commentators, however, is his honesty in recognizing his own limitations and biases — he never writes from an elitist point of view. In the same essay, he acknowledged the shortcomings of his argument:

In the classification I have attempted above, it will seem that I have often exaggerated, oversimplified, made unwarranted assumptions and have left out of account the existence of ordinarily decent motives. ... It is important at this point to correct the over-simplified picture which I have been obliged to make. To begin with, one has no right to assume that everyone, or even every intellectual, is infected by nationalism. (p. 880)

And he certainly didn’t present himself as one was not susceptible to faulty thinking, or as one who has all the answers:

The Eltons [“Neo-Tories”] and Pritts [Stalinist sympathizers] and Coughlins [fascist sympathizers] ... are obviously extreme cases, but we deceive ourselves if we do not realize that we can all resemble them in unguarded moments. Let a certain note be struck ... and the most fair-minded and sweet-tempered person may suddenly be transformed into a vicious partisan ... (p. 881)
...
As for the nationalistic loves and hatreds that I have spoken of, they are part of the make-up of most of us, whether we like it or not. Whether it is possible to get rid of them I do not know, but I do believe that it is possible to struggle against them, and that this is essentially a moral effort. (p. 883)

With all that said, I don’t intend to romanticize Orwell here, as he could be “an outstandingly silly as well as a very intelligent and observant man”†. For all his acuity, Orwell was still prone to using bad arguments. To pick a small, non-political example, he argued against the adoption of the metric system, saying that

the metric system does not possess, or has not succeeded in establishing, a large number of units that can be visualised. ... In English you can describe someone as being five feet three inches high, or five feet nine inches, or six feet one inch, and your hearer will know fairly accurately what you mean. But I have never heard a Frenchman say, “He is a hundred and forty-two centimetres high”; it would not convey any visual image. (p. 1204)

This is a silly argument, as I (and certainly many other people) can perfectly visualize how tall 142 cm or 201 cm are. Orwell ignores the fact that intuitions of measurement units are largely a matter of habit: A person who has used the centimeter for all of his or her life will be able to visualize accurately how long 30 cm is, just as an average American knows intuitively how long 12 inches is. In this case, Orwell was unable to see the world past his English way of life. I’m sure other readers can spot more of Orwell’s dubious arguments in his other essays; indeed, it’s still important to read him with some skepticism.

But, even with all his limitations, George Orwell undeniably wrote some of the best and most prescient political writings of the twentieth century, and we are fortunate to have free access to a lot of his essays.‡ Orwell’s writings show how puzzling and uncertain political issues are for the people who live through them. In these essays, we can see one writer who tries as best he could to bring honesty and clarity to these debates. The enduring value of Orwell, in the words of Christopher Hitchens, is that he “showed how much can be accomplished by an individual who unites the qualities of intellectual honesty and moral courage.”§

-- 6 May 2021

--------------------

* Orwell was wrong, however, in saying that no “Marxist or other left-wing writer, of whatever colour, came anywhere near foretelling the Pact.” (p. 1367) Leon Trotsky, writing for the American newspaper Socialist Appeal in 1938, said that it could be expected “with certainty [that] Soviet diplomacy [will] attempt rapprochement with Hitler at the cost of new retreats and capitulations”.

† Kingsley Amis, The King's English: A Guide to Modern Usage (London: HarperCollins, 1998), p. 136. Amis was criticizing Orwell’s bad example of the double negative not un- in his classic essay “Politics and the English Language”.

‡ See the pages of the Orwell Foundation and George Orwell’s Library.

§ From the introduction of George Orwell, Diaries, ed. Peter Davison (New York: Liveright, 2012), p. xvi.

I honestly have no clue how I forgot to catalog this. Two renewals twice as many summers past. Nine golden weeks. Makes for a good weapon in the case of a mugging as well, also good on the arm muscles. Indispensable.

I absolutely loved this book of essays. Not all of them, but I learned so much about early 20th century Britian, British literature, and politics. Surprisingly, for just under 1400 pages I learned little about the personal life of the author-just one essay on his "public school days" almost at the end of the book. If you are not as OCD as me you can read what you like. I suspect most younger/modern readers however will not enjoy it.

George Orwell, acclaimed for his works of fiction such as Animal Farm and 1984, also left behind a rich legacy of essays that offer profound insights into politics, society, and human nature. Written during tumultuous times of political upheaval and social change, Orwell's essays reflect his keen intellect, unwavering commitment to truth, and unflinching criticism of authoritarianism.

Orwell's essays draw inspiration from a wide range of topics, including politics, literature, language, and everyday life. Many of his political essays are marked by their incisive analysis of power dynamics, propaganda, and the erosion of democratic values. Orwell's experiences fighting in the Spanish Civil War and his disillusionment with Soviet communism heavily influenced his political writings, leading to seminal works such as Homage to Catalonia and Politics and the English Language- both excellent works.

Written against the backdrop of World War II and the rise of totalitarian regimes, Orwell's essays offer a trenchant critique of fascism, communism, and imperialism. His uncompromising stance against tyranny and oppression resonated with readers grappling with the moral complexities of the era. Additionally, Orwell's essays provide valuable historical context for understanding the social and political forces at play during his lifetime.

Orwell's essays are characterised by their clarity, precision, and lucid prose. His writing style is marked by a straightforward simplicity that belies the depth of his insights. Whether dissecting political rhetoric or reflecting on the nuances of everyday life, Orwell's essays are a testament to his mastery of the English language and his ability to communicate complex ideas with clarity and eloquence.

For me, Orwell's political essays, including Shooting an Elephant, Politics and the English Language, and Notes on Nationalism, in particular, stand out as highlights of the collection, offering incisive commentary on the pressing issues of his time.

Orwell's political essays are characterised by their rigorous analysis, moral clarity, and unwavering commitment to truth. His ability to dissect propaganda and expose the mechanisms of power remains as relevant today as it was during Orwell's lifetime. Readers will find themselves engrossed in Orwell's astute observations and prophetic warnings about the dangers of totalitarianism and ideological fanaticism. An absolute legend.

The collection also includes essays of a more personal and idiosyncratic nature, such as A Nice Cup of Tea, and Some Thoughts on the Common Toad. I’ll be honest I just felt sad reading these, sometimes a guy needs to know when to stop writing every thought he has and just go to the pub and talk it out with some mates.

Despite the random, weird ones, Orwell's essays remain essential reading for anyone interested in understanding the complexities of the modern world, and I’d definitely recommend them to absolutely anyone.

A big volume of the best of George Orwell's essays, not including his longer booklength nonfiction like Down and Out in Paris and London. You will find here the classic essays on subjects like shooting an elephant, hop picking, and his terrible experiences at boarding school. The writing is so detailed and accessible, making difficult subjects approachable and always managing to be humane but also taking up a strong argument. I'm one of the many people who think that the essays are the best of Orwell, and this volume has all the essential ones.

How can I ever call this book finished. This book keeps Orwell alive for me. I swear to you when you are reading his essays it feels like he has his hand on your shoulder, a look of compassion and understanding in his eyes, while he is telling you what there is to life.

Several themes emerge from this 1,300 page volume: Hitler, Pacifism, Socialism, and Literature. Regarding Hitler and Socialism, Orwell has strong opinions, but his conclusions might surprise you.

Hitler

Review of Mein Kampf

Orwell explains, no doubt in terms that will be unintelligible to today’s intelligentsia, Hitler’s rise to power. Like all demagogues, Hitler captured the sentiments against the prevailing world order, this one being the decadence of progressive living. If all one desires is comfort and ease, it’s hard to imagine a world of patriotism and virtue. As Orwell notes, “The Socialist who finds his children playing with soldiers is usually upset, but he is never able to think of a substitute for tin soldiers; tin pacifists somehow won’t do” (251).

Pacifism

Orwell, rightly, has nothing but contempt for bourgeois pacifism. Leaving rhetoric and emotion aside, the position is ultimately incoherent. Pacifists know they do not really have an answer to the “Hitler problem.”

The pacifist will not resist Hitler. So far, he is consistent. If he lives in Germany he has a few choices: roll over and probably be arrested, or he can move to an Allied country. That seems logical. Here is where the problem is: in order for the pacifist to continue to believe in ideals like democracy, he has to hope that war-like countries can defeat Hitler. By force. If killing is a moral wrong, then for the pacifist it must be just as wrong for Churchill as for Hitler. In the following line, Orwell skewers the pacifist on the horns of a dilemma:

“You can let the Nazis rule the world; that is evil; or you can overthrow them by war, which is also evil. Whichever choice you choose you will not come out with clean hands” (389).

Socialism

Orwell’s socialism is simple: abolish private property. What he never connects, at least I have not seen him connect, is that such an abolition entails the statism he so eloquently condemns elsewhere. Orwell is quick to assure us, though, that the abolition of private property does not entail a stripping of private possessions (316). Technically, he is correct but if the State were to do so, it is hard to see on what grounds Orwell would oppose it.

It is actually refreshing to see a Socialist come to grips with the key problem of socialism. Orwell writes, “The State simply calculates what goods will be needed and does its best to produce them” (316). I said Orwell wrestles with this problem. In fact, I do not think he does. As every serious free market economist has pointed out, “By what criteria does the State know what will be needed?” Even worse, at what price should these goods be charged? This question is unanswerable on socialist grounds.

Literature

Politics and the English Language

Orwell’s insights on modern literature pervade this volume and probably deserve their own review. His most important essay, moreover, is “Politics and the English Language.” He does two things in this piece: exposes garbled prose and shows how that such prose warps reality. The death sentence for any writer is “You sound like a textbook” or “You sound like a sociologist.” Orwell gives you pointers for avoiding this fate.

“Now, it is clear that the decline of a language must ultimately have political and economic causes” (954).

Modern English prosody prefers catchy phrases than precise words (956ff). Verbs now become phrases. “Noun constructions are preferred to gerunds (‘by examination of’ instead of ‘by examining’)” (958).

A good writer, therefore, follows:
a) avoid pretentious diction
b) avoid meaningless words
c) prefer the concrete over the abstract.

A good writer asks the following questions:
a) What am I trying to say?
b) What words will express it?
c) What image or idiom will make it clear?
d) Is this image fresh enough to have an effect?

Orwell suggests, though he understands its limits, the following maxim: use the fewest and shortest words to convey one’s meaning (965). There is a danger to this. If applied too strictly, the writing loses all elegance and begins to look like an outline in prose form.

Conclusion

Readers of all political and cultural backgrounds should read Orwell. He serves as a model for clarity in writing and in thinking. In politics he is brave enough to avoid the party line. He is a socialist, but socialists come under far worse criticism than nationalists or conservatives. These are the ideas that formed his more famous dystopian novels.