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
|