I agree with you Joanna speaking in a negative way of the mass, but there
are people I esteem who know what they are doing and where they are, the
others I just do not want them within my private sphere, life is too short.
Or better, a character is very complicated. These few chosen people are the
best, but on the other hand they have their different attitudes towards
things, reactions and so on. But you can still reason with them, and try to
make sense of things.
Others are too self-centered, they go simply where their interest lies, my
uncle used to call them flags that move according to the different winds, no
matter which way they blow.
Anny Ballardini
http://annyballardini.blogspot.com
http://www.fieralingue.it/modules.php?name=poetshome
The aim of the poet is to awaken emotions in the soul, not to gather
admirers.
Stalker, Andrei Tarkovsky
From: "Joanna Boulter" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 12:35 PM
> People just aren't consistent, on the whole, unless they're role-playing.
I
> twigged this at about ten years old, and have seen nothing since to make
me
> change my mind.
>
> best joanna
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alison Croggon" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 3:05 AM
> Subject: Re: orwell
>
>
> > No, I think it's another passage in another essay. Maybe the one on
> > nationalism.
> >
> > On 24/1/05 12:56 PM, "Rebecca Seiferle" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > > But what do we call this? what do we call it now?
> >
> > A dilemma?
> >
> > I think it's odd to expect people to be pure or without contradiction,
or
> to
> > expect writers to behave with perfect moral probity, or not to be, at
> times,
> > grossly mistaken or even criminal. They are not, surely, exemplars like
> > saints, but human beings who think and live in their times, like all of
> us,
> > and who in one way or another dramatise or think through what that might
> > mean, through their work. As a reader, one ought to read what they
wrote
> > and go from there, rather than judging their lives, which are not our
> > business. That's for those who knew them well, or who suffered by their
> > actions. If Orwell had lived longer, it might have been interesting to
see
> > whether he revised some of his views. I somehow think he would have;
but
> we
> > will never know.
> >
> > In any case Orwell, in many ways so admirable, is a case study of the
> > dangers of uncritical reading (his hijacking by the Right seems to me a
> case
> > of bad reading - he never eschewed socialism or social justice). I
can't
> > accept some of the things he says, although I find myself deeply engaged
> in
> > others. But that's true of most writers I really like.
> >
> > Hypocrisy is when one professes one thing and secretly does another.
> Orwell
> > is not, I think (it's debateable, of course) a hypocrite.
> >
> > Best
> >
> > A
> >
> >
> > Alison Croggon
> >
> > Blog: http://theatrenotes.blogspot.com
> > Editor, Masthead: http://masthead.net.au
> > Home page: http://alisoncroggon.com
>
|