Slashdot Log In
George Orwell Blogs From the Grave
Posted by
Soulskill
on Sat Aug 09, 2008 12:01 PM
from the that-man-is-talented dept.
from the that-man-is-talented dept.
flaming error writes to tell us the Orwell Prize organization will, starting today, post George Orwell's diary entries online exactly 70 years after they were written. NPR discussed the blog and shared excerpts from the diary. We talked about a similar undertaking several years ago, when a diary from 1660 was put online. According to the blog's creators, it will allow you to "follow Orwell's recuperation in Morocco, his return to the UK, and his opinions on the descent of Europe into war in real time. The diaries end in 1942, three years into the conflict."
Related Stories
[+]
1660 Diary Becomes 2003 Weblog 193 comments
EnlightenmentFan writes "When technology improves a book that was already good, that's good news for nerds. I'm not talking about the Two Towers, but the diary of Samuel Pepys (1633-1703) (pronounced Peeps, as in marshmallow peeps), whose diaries record not only the Great Fire of London and the plague but his many seductions, trickeries, encounters with the king, almost getting executed, etc. Brit blogger Phil Gyford realized that this diary would make a great weblog--clickable footnotes, online feedback and all. So now he is serializing it daily, starting Jan 2, 1660, supposedly over the next ten years. The BBC has the backstory. I hope Gyford will deviate from Gutenberg's 1893 version to include some of Pepys's more outrageous sexual adventures, reduced by the 1893 version to "....""
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Great! Orwell is always worth reading. (Score:5, Informative)
If all you've read is "1984", you don't realize what a great commentator he was.
Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading. (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading. (Score:4, Insightful)
You can read some of them here
http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/index_en [orwell.ru]
This is something a lot of slashdotters really need to read
http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/nationalism/english/e_nat [orwell.ru]
(v) Pacifism. The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to the taking of life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists whose real though unadmitted motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration of totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writings of younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States. Moreover they do not as a rule condemn violence as such, but only violence used in defence of western countries. The Russians, unlike the British, are not blamed for defending themselves by warlike means, and indeed all pacifist propaganda of this type avoids mention of Russia or China. It is not claimed, again, that the Indians should abjure violence in their struggle against the British. Pacifist literature abounds with equivocal remarks which, if they mean anything, appear to mean that statesmen of the type of Hitler are preferable to those of the type of Churchill, and that violence is perhaps excusable if it is violent enough. After the fall of France, the French pacifists, faced by a real choice which their English colleagues have not had to make, mostly went over to the Nazis, and in England there appears to have been some small overlap of membership between the Peace Pledge Union and the Blackshirts. Pacifist writers have written in praise of Carlyle, one of the intellectual fathers of Fascism. All in all it is difficult not to feel that pacifism, as it appears among a section of the intelligentsia, is secretly inspired by an admiration for power and successful cruelty. The mistake was made of pinning this emotion to Hitler, but it could easily be retransfered.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
This is something a lot of slashdotters really need to read
Why?
Re: (Score:2)
This is something a lot of slashdotters really need to read
Why?
Maybe this one [orwell.ru] will help explain it better:
Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me'. The idea that you can somehow remain aloof from and superior to the struggle, while living on food which British sailors have to risk their lives to bring you, is a bourgeois illusion bred of money and security. Mr Savage remarks that 'according to this type of reasoning, a German or Japanese pacifist would be "objectively pro-British".' But of course he would be! That is why pacifist activities are not permitted in those countries (in both of them the penalty is, or can be, beheading) while both the Germans and the Japanese do all they can to encourage the spread of pacifism in British and American territories. The Germans even run a spurious 'freedom' station which serves out pacifist propaganda indistinguishable from that of the P.P.U. They would stimulate pacifism in Russia as well if they could, but in that case they have tougher babies to deal with. In so far as it takes effect at all, pacifist propaganda can only be effective against those countries where a certain amount of freedom of speech is still permitted; in other words it is helpful to totalitarianism.
Now, apply that to today. If you haven't figured it out yet replace "fascist" with "terrorist", "Germany and Japan" with "Al Qaeda and Iran" and "freedom station" with "ANSWER", "MoveOn.org", "Code Pink" or "CAIR". Also, pay close attention to "he that is not with me is against me". Where have I heard that before? (and don't say 'Revenge of the Sith"!)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist.
Orwell later wrote his regrets about that bit.
If you haven't figured it out yet replace "fascist" with "terrorist", "Germany and Japan" with "Al Qaeda and Iran"
Why would anyone do something so ridiculous? This is exactly the kind of muddled thinking of which Orwell correctly accused pacifists in his day.
There were German pacifists in 1914 and 1939. Should we applaud their suppression the same as we do the British pacifists?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What I'm gathering you're trying to say, however, is that in the US, the attempt to repress the struggle between two sides by way of the so called "War on Terror" is Orwell's definition of pacifism. Therefore, you are likening Bush to Hitler as a result of his stating on numerous occasions that if "you're not with me, you're against me".
As far as "moveon.org" goes, it's a f
Re: (Score:2)
As far as "moveon.org" goes, it's a freaking social club for Democrats. That's all it is. They have bake sales to raise money to put ads defending their candidates on the TV. The Republicans have lots of those organizations too. One of them is called "Freedom's Watch". Now THOSE are some creepy dudes, and their name sounds like it was taken directly from another certain black arm band wearing militia. Code Pink has a dramatic name, but their reasoning is that they believe the Iraq War to be an illegal and Unconstitutional occupation that is causing the deaths of US soldiers for entirely unclear, vague reasons. And they have plenty of evidence to back up that claim that the Bush Administration cannot refute. ANSWER? CAIR? All more of the above.
Of course! MoveOn and Code Pink are just active in the community holding bake sales while any equivalent group on the right are just brownshirts. Nice, open mind you have there.
What I'm gathering you're trying to say, however, is that in the US, the attempt to repress the struggle between two sides by way of the so called "War on Terror" is Orwell's definition of pacifism. Therefore, you are likening Bush to Hitler as a result of his stating on numerous occasions that if "you're not with me, you're against me".
I think his point was to berate those Americans that do things like block military supplies from entering a port. Who do you think that helps? How is blocking the supplies different from, say, sinking the ship that was carrying them in reference to the conflict?
And I'm sorry, but you have to be a complete fucking moron to not und
Re: (Score:2)
Except for the part where she was a staunch atheist. Or the part where she supported the expansion of social freedoms. Or the part where she wanted to reduce the size of the government.
You seem to be confusing Libertarians with Republicans. Not even all Libertarians are Objectivists. Most Republicans are just as likely to dislike Ayn Rand as much as most Democrats, though it may be for different reasons. It is far from love anyway.
Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading. (Score:4, Insightful)
Besides which, the man's other writing clearly displayed a realization of the consequences of this kind of "with us or against us" thinking, and it was not a bright world that he saw emerging from that sentiment.
Parent
Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading. (Score:5, Informative)
Ah yes. The famous anti-pacifism rant Orwell published at the beginning of World War II. The one that keeps making the rounds on conservative blogs, being posted by idiots like you who have not read a letter of Orwell's other work. By posting this, you give yourself away as yet another stupid parrot.
To reiterate what someone else already posted: Orwell retracted that position. Which you would have known, if you had actually read his collected essays.
It really pains me to see how reactionary scum like you try to hide behind one of the most honest men the twentieth century gave us, without giving his memory even the respect to actually read his work. Then again, I take solace in the fact that Orwell also gives plenty of tools to identify blackshirt-supporting, Daily Mail-reading closet fascists like you.
Mart
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
What he said made sense in the second world war. Britain was under threat by a military force that had already conquered the rest of Europe. They only narrowly failed to invade Britain, and that was largely due to distance - Luftwaffe fighters only had enough fuel to spend a few minutes over the air of Britain while RAF fighters could spend a lot longer (and refuel and be back up in the fight quickly), and both sides only had enough ammunition for around 16 seconds of sustained fire (but, again, the RAF c
Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading. (Score:4, Insightful)
How many times a day to read on /. someone saying something like, "Iran has a right to the bomb" or "US invades countries. Hitler invaded countries. Coincidence?" or my favorite, "Terrorists kill civilians. So does the US!". That moral equivalency bullshit is exactly what Orwell is calling out here.
In the passage quoted, he is calling out fascist sympathizers feigning pacifism as a means to an end of selling their country. He does elsewhere callout true pacifists as "objectively pro fascist", but later renounced that thinking as Stalinist, which it is.
British pacifists were clearly misguided IMHO, but were German pacifists in '38 and '40, not to mention '14? Their views were suppressed too, should we applaud that?
"Terrorists kill civilians. So does the US!".
What else makes a terrorist evil? I suppose torture and kidnapping, but the US does that too.
If you think the high-altitude bombing of civilians especially of a nation that never overtly or covertly attacked us is some how morally superior to ramming planes into buildings, then you are a moral relativist of the worst sort. Bush and bin-Laden are both mass murdering war criminals that should be brought to justice, using force if necessary, and tried for their crimes.
You'll note there is no moral dimension to Orwell's argument, he's point is about patriotism and putting your country before your ideals or your political fantasies. In this situation, where the US is not faced by an existential by a superior military force bent on its destruction, but is instead waging an unprovoked war of aggression, it's the closet fascists in the pro-Iraq war faction that have (this time successfully) betrayed their country.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Thank you! That is one of the finest examples of the moral equivalence bullshit arguments I was talking about.
What else makes a terrorist evil? I suppose torture and kidnapping, but the US does that too.
So, you equate the capture and interrogation of combatants to the kidnapping, torture and beheading of civilians, journalists and aid workers?
How many captured terrorists have been executed by the US? How many by the terrorists (I can list two by NAME!)? Like I said, perfect example.
If you think the high-altitude bombing of civilians especially of a nation that never overtly or covertly attacked us is some how morally superior to ramming planes into buildings, then you are a moral relativist of the worst sort. Bush and bin-Laden are both mass murdering war criminals that should be brought to justice, using force if necessary, and tried for their crimes.
What you fail to consider is the target and the reaction. Bin Laden targeted civilians. He wanted to kill men, wo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
likewise the US military doesn't give a shit who they target so long as all they have to do is *appear* remorseful afterwards
You're knowledge of the US military appears as if it comes from Al Jazeera. As a veteran, I can tell you that you're wrong. I've seen us let targets go because civilians were present. Don't believe me? Look at how many mosques are still standing in Iraq. How many schools that were packed with ammo and AAA were not blown apart. I can honestly say that you are full of shit. You are a politically motivated, partisan hack who will say or do anything to justify your hatred of all those that think differen
Re: (Score:2)
Either the attack on Iraq was accidental, the US strategy to conquer Iraq had a good chance of not killing anyone, or the civilian deaths were not accidental.
Also, the Iraqi soldiers, most of them just conscripts who weren't trying to wage war on the US, were quite deliberately targeted.
Re: (Score:2)
So basically, you think that deliberate slaughter of civilians is somehow morally equivalent to accidentally slaughtering civilians. So it fallows that you think manslaughter is just as bad as premeditated murder?
Let me know next time the FBI decides to bomb a Los Angeles apartment complex because they heard a mafia boss might be using one of the rooms as a hideout.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok then you agree that while the terrorists are guilty of premeditated murder, the air force is guilty of criminally negligent homicide and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law whenever they bomb a suspected terrorist gathering spot in a residential area?
Re: (Score:2)
All right then, lets make things more "even" for you. If the "perceived" terrorist threat was in a Manhattan apartment complex, would it be OK to use precision-guided bombs to eliminate it?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Funny how easy it is to mischaracterize your opponent's position, find an Orwell quote that condemns it, and believe yourself to be an intellectual.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
These journals as blogs are neat, but I hate it when the people posting it in the present step in with a post of their own every few days, really breaks the illusion. On the whole, these are great ways to read journals I'd never pickup as a solid book. Theres another one that follows a WW1 soldier but it sucks.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
If all you've read is "1984", you don't realize what a great commentator he was.
But there's nothing stopping you from finding out [george-orwell.org].
I personally recommend his Notes on Nationalism [george-orwell.org]
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
His name is Eric Blair. Let's stop perpetuating the wrong name shall we?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
And while we're at it, everybody get a magic marker and 'correct' your record collection to read
They're not 'wrong' names, they're noms de plume, there is a difference.
(Free virtual coconut to anyone who gets them all without looking them up)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the wrong name, it's a pseudonym chosen by him.
But there are truly several wrong names in the history books, like Christopher Columbus. This is an anglicized name because Americans didn't like the idea of an Italian discovering 'their' country. His real name is Cristoforo Colombo.
And George W Bush. His real name is George Shouldabeenimpeached Bush.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Anne Frank? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd really like to see this done with Anne Frank as well. I've actually suspected that this would be done with a nice round number of years since the events, such as 100 years later.
Re:Anne Frank? (Score:5, Informative)
I've actually suspected that this would be done with a nice round number of years since the events, such as 100 years later.
Actually, you's probably want a multiple of 28 years, so that the days of the week line up. For a short period of time, a multiple of 7 is probably OK, but if you pass over any leap years, they'll throw things off.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
That works fine for 28/56/84 year "anniversaries" but once you cross 100 things start getting wonky, especially once you cross 1582 (the year).
You early adopters can get off my lawn. I (and the *nix 'cal' program) didn't go Gregorian until September 1752.
Re: (Score:2)
I had no idea Unix was 250 years old.
Re: (Score:2)
That works fine for 28/56/84 year "anniversaries" but once you cross 100 things start getting wonky, especially once you cross 1582 (the year).
So we were lucky that 2000 was a leap year? (happens once every 400 years).
Excerpt from diary from grave (Score:5, Funny)
Dear diary,
Braaaaaaaaiiins!
George.
long diary (Score:5, Funny)
Re:long diary (Score:4, Funny)
Are you sure you would get anything out of reading any of the entries?
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Troll? Please mod parent up, made me laugh after reading Aggrav8d's comment and feeling annoyed.
Re: (Score:2)
Headline (Score:2)
Re:Headline (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Headline (Score:4, Funny)
God sues Apple.
Richard Stallman shaves.
Twitter found murdered by M$ agents.
Duke Nukem Forever released.
Slashdot named dating site of the year.
Bill Gates reveals he is the Goatse guy.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot named dating site of the year.
Since April the first, I've found Slashdot to be regularly advertising some Russian dating site. It took me a month to realise that it wasn't an April Fools joke that someone had forgotten to take down.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Dare to suggest a dumber headline then?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/08/01/virgin_goes_down_on_clients/ [theregister.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Good work on misspelling "dumbest" there!
Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think most people would prefer to have the entire diary available to download in one lump sum rather than having bits and pieces rationed out at intervals. I know I certainly would.
I think it's wonderful that they're publishing them, but imho the format is idiotic.
Yes, but... (Score:5, Funny)
How good will he be about responding to comments?
one paragraph only for today. next one tomorrow. (Score:1)
Reading the story one paragraph a day for four years doesn't make it more interesting...or does it ?
__
just passing through
Re: (Score:2)
Tuesday (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course,Tuesday. I could never get the hang of Tuesdays.
Orwell vs. the Ministry of Information (Score:3, Interesting)
Blair worked for the British Ministry of Information during WWII. Many of his memos are preserved in "Orwell - the Lost Writings", which turned up in the BBC archived a few years ago. This is where much of the detail of "1984" came from. "Big Brother" is actually some manager called "B.B." at the MoI. "Newspeak" comes from the BBC's effort to broadcast to the colonies in Basic English. One of Blair's jobs was translating material into Basic English, which, he discovered, is a political act. You have to detail the meaning of any idioms and metaphors when grinding down text into Basic English. Political ambiguity does not translate unless made specific.
Incidentally, Blair refused to write as George Orwell for the MoI; he took the position that they had hired Eric Blair, not George Orwell, and weren't entitled to use his professional reputation.
To get a sense of what the Ministry of Information turned out as propaganda, see this WWII MoI video [google.com].