My pleasure.
At 01:29 PM 1/24/2005, you wrote:
>Thanks for this, Mark, such an indepth look and so much context and with
>interesting questions raised along the way, sort of the pulse of some
>particular
>action, or how an action is the intersection of many things, so many frailties
>here intersecting, I'm in your debt, for this helped me to understand
>something
>and not just of Orwell, so thanks,
>
>Rebecca
>
>
>---- Original message ----
> >Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 01:31:54 -0500
> >From: Mark Weiss <[log in to unmask]>
> >Subject: Re: orwell
> >To: [log in to unmask]
> >
> >A very good article about Orwell's list by Timothy Garton Ash was published
> >in NYRB in 2003. It provides a lot of detailed context.
> >http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16550.
> >
> >Mark
> >
> >At 12:39 AM 1/24/2005, you wrote:
> >> >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.
> >>
> >> I don't know where you derive this expectation of writers behaving 'with
> >> perfect
> >>moral probity' or expecting 'people to be pure or without contradiction.' ?
> >>
> >>It is odd, in that I don't know how my being troubled by at Orwell's
> >>particular
> >>action to try and black list 125 people implies some expectation
> >>of "people to
> >>be pure or without contradiction" or "writers to behave with perfect moral
> >>probity"?
> >>
> >>Is wondering at such a political and public act particularly by one who
> is so
> >>critical of the name blackening Wodehouse suffered based implicitly upon an
> >>assumption of purity? It just seems to me a particularly rotten thing to
> >>do, and
> >>I'd think the action was particularly rotten if a janitor did it. Being
> >>troubled by
> >>someone trying to send 125 people to some sort of gulag is hardly tsk
> >>tsking at
> >>imperfect 'moral probity.'
> >>
> >>As a reader, one ought to read what they wrote
> >> >and go from there, rather than judging their lives, which are not our
> >> >business.
> >>
> >> I think it's possible to consider this particular _action_ of Orwells,
> >> vounteering
> >>to provide this black list to the government, without that constituting
> >>"judging
> >>his life" or his work. It seems to me that particular action exists in its
> >>own right
> >>and can be considered and weighed in the same way it would be if a
>politician
> >>or other public figure made speeches about the mistaken ferreting out of
> >>'small
> >>rats' like Wodehouse and found it a scapegoating process of the 'guilty
> >>hunting
> >>the guilty" and then who engaged in such ferreting himself, with a
> >>different sort
> >>of bigger rat.
> >>
> >> I'd guess that if this were a politican who talked against witch
> hunting in
> >>defense of Wodehouse and then attempted to witch hunt 125 people, it
>could be
> >>called hypocrisy or a lie or a moral failure of one's principles. Writers
> >>aren't
> >>exempt; if they are truly 'like us' then their various actions can be
> >>questioned
> >>just as a politician's might be, which isn't to say that their lives
> should be
> >>judged or that their work should be evaluated or read on this basis,
> but the
> >>action itself can be questioned and wondered at, as it can be with any
> public
> >>figure, or as any of us can be, at these profound contradictions,
> particularly
> >>when it is a public and political action.
> >>
> >>Also, in terms of the 'exemplar,' as for instance in the Wodehouse essay,
> >>Orwell
> >>is writing very much as a 'voice of conscience' , a gadfly questioning
> >>these sorts
> >>of issues in his society and times, and if he is taking on the unfair
> >>treatment of
> >>Wodehouse, I think his own attempt to blacklist others can be questioned
>too,
> >>and in the same way. One's writing, or being a writer, anymore than one's
>work
> >>as a carpenter, or being a machinist, isn't really a refuge or exemption
> >>from that
> >>questioning,
> >>
> >>Best,
> >>
> >>Rebecca
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>---- Original message ----
> >>
> >>---- Original message ----
> >> >Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:05:29 +1100
> >> >From: Alison Croggon <[log in to unmask]>
> >> >Subject: Re: orwell
> >> >To: [log in to unmask]
> >> >
> >> >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
|