This essay was written in 1946. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell_bibliography#Nov... consecutive books he published were:
* Coming Up for Air (1939)
* Animal Farm (1945)
Given the "seven years", it appears considered "Coming Up for Air" his previous novel, and "Animal Farm" not a novel. I wonder why?
In any case, the novel that he next wrote “fairly soon”, and which he predicted would be a failure, was:
* Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949)
• Burmese Days (1934): 97000
• A Clergyman’s Daughter (1935): 94000
• Keep the Aspidistra Flying (1936): 87000
• Coming Up for Air (1939): 83000 (?)
• Animal Farm (1945): 30000 (just over 30k)
• Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949): 103000 (or 99000 without the “The Principles of Newspeak” appendix).
> Writing a book is a horrible, exhausting struggle, like a long bout of some painful illness. One would never undertake such a thing if one were not driven on by some demon whom one can neither resist or understand. For all one knows that demon is simply the same instinct that makes a baby squall for attention.
Story of my life is how to align that demon to force me into things I actually want to do.
My favorite example of creators discussing the drive to create is from the video game Dwarf Fortress. It has mechanics for it [0].
Dwarves that are stuck with inspiration to create a masterwork will go mad and destroy themselves if they can't find the raw materials they need.
Dwarf Fortress is known for the absurd scale of its simulations: history, war, love, geologic formations, fluid dynamics, prognosis of specific injuries to specific body parts. It's an interesting detail that creative frustration earned a place in that web of "realism". It's a significant part of the game.
I have been reading the Aubrey-Maturin book series by Patrick O'Brien (you may have heard of the film, Master and Commander, based on some of the books). It is a literary treasure trove that has impeccable historical accuracy. The same demonic drive rings through in these books as POB started his series of 20 books well before the information age.
> which are rather nicely examined
Adapted to the meanest understanding, I hope.
Case in point, I've let AI help me write some documentation; I'd probably end up writing just as much in the end so I don't think there was much waste, but in the back of my head there's two voices now.
The one says "nobody will actually read this. I wouldn't, but I think it should be written down just in case".
But the other says "an AI will ingest all of this and give everything equal consideration, unlike most humans"
So yes, it is getting noisier, but as long as there's enough oversight and aggressive editing / cutting, it's probably manageable and hopefully helpful for our AI overlords.
Yeah that fits.
George Orwell: Why I Write (1946) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7901401 - June 2014 (9 comments)
George Orwell: Why I write - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3122646 - Oct 2011 (1 comment)
This is fascinating and totally alien to my experience. I don't often think in words at all unless I am preparing to either write or speak them.
https://www.ppfideas.com/episodes/orwell%E2%80%99s-war%3A-th...
https://www.ppfideas.com/episodes/orwell%E2%80%99s-war%3A-fa...
https://www.ppfideas.com/episodes/orwell%E2%80%99s-war%3A-fr...
What's great about these is that they're not the usual uncritical lionising, but a clear-eyed look at the many, many things he got wrong, his lack of self-criticism when he did, while still giving him appropriate credit for the big things he got asbolutely right, like the impending cold war (a phrase he popularised).
<https://www.ppfideas.com/episodes/history-of-ideas%3A-george...>
I'll also note: David Runciman is one of my absolute favourite podcasters. I'd discovered him through his earlier London Review of Boooks-affiliated Talking Politics, and followed his transition to Past, Present, Future. He's also contributed to several episodes of Intelligence Squared UK and a few free-standing lectures and YouTube videos.
For those not familiar with him:
- He's British, and a former professor of politics (largely political history) at the University of Cambridge. He left that post to pursue podcasting full-time.
- The podcasts (PPF, TP) focus largely on political history and philosophy, ranging from Greek times through the present. For the most part Runciman doesn't dwell on the Sturm und Drang of current events, though he'll occasionally reference them or discuss them in context. At the same time, the background he brings to these events has proved tremendously useful to me. Runciman provides the context missing from so much contemporary discussion and news.
- Runciman's analysis tends strongly to avoid the trite and commonplace. He treats friendly voices critically (as in the series referenced above on Orwell), and those he views poorly, fairly. Among the latter includes an exceedingly insightful analysis of Atlas Shrugged, a book he takes a dim opinion of but nonetheless revealed several points I and a friend, both of whom had read the work numerous times, were surprised by. (The points are well-backed by evidence.) He rarely makes glaring errors (one of the few I can think of was in a recent discussion of the Hiroshima bombing in which WWII-era B-29s are consistently referred to as Cold-War era B-52s), and in one piece where Runciman gives an account of Max Weber's definition of government, as that entity which has "the claim to the legitimate use on physical force" (emphasis added), which is often bastardised to "monopoly on violence". The latter characterisation utterly misplaces the focus from legitimacy to force, and is baldly false. Runciman's account appears in this episode: <https://play.acast.com/s/history-of-ideas/weberonleadership>, at about 15 minutes.
- He's a peer of the realm, 4th Viscount Runciman of Doxford, and related by marriage to John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton, 13th Marquess of Groppoli, better knonwn as Lord Acton, famous for the dictum "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". I find this delightful, though Runciman himself doesn't make a point of this (the relationship is revealed via associated Wikipedia articles).
As someone who's immensely fatigued by current political chaos and much news, Runciman's information and delivery (admittedly dry and quite RP, both of which I see as good aspects) are a breath of fresh air. Unreserved recommendation.
I never heard of Gangrel magazine [1]. It had only 4 issues total, and this essay was in the last one. Editors J.B.Pick (age 24 at the time) and Charles Neil asked Orwell and other writers to explain why they write. Pick later became a writer himself.
All this to say that we might've not see this essay if not for those two young editors trying to get established writers' perspective on the craft.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangrel_(magazine)
The whole 'demon' thing in the essay reminded me how my mom likes to say: you should only write if you cannot not write.
A power to face unpleasant facts is a super power. The world would be a much better place if everyone had it.
When trying to think on the fly, I often say something jumbled and nonsensical, then make another attempt after thinking for a second.
I need that editing step to even get my paragraphs or long sentences just right.
But why am I writing this comment? I don't know.
AI music appears to be reasonable music, but it carries no human emotion, it has no intent to exist and stand up on its own.
That's key to explain when it comes to writing or anything. AI assisted anything, sure, maybe, but AI for creative purposes is bland and ultimately poisons the well.
No one really wants to go see an AI movie at the cinema, except maybe to say that I tried an AI movie as a novelty item, like scented movie screening.
Those who are still formulating their thoughts and putting it down on paper will come across as incoherent no matter which writing style they adopt.
He’s Non-fiction books (Down and Out in Paris and London, The Road to Wigan Pier, and especially Homage to Catalonia) are great. If you are at all interested what it was like to live in Europe in this time of economic turmoil and political chaos, those are essential. I also think Catalonia very clearly spells out why Orwell hated Soviets (although he was socialist himself) and didn’t fall for Hitler and all the other themes behind Animal Farm and 1984. He had seen it all serving as an idealistic young man amongst the Spanish anarchists. As an essayist he is beyond reproach and very must enjoyed his short stories.
He was also a curmudgeon and conservative in the most ridiculous things (everything British is the best in the world according to him, he was a complete misogynist - he treated women horribly both in real life and in his writing - and vegetarianism for him was the stupidest nonsense ever, calling them “juice drinkers”). And I’m sorry to say this, but his novels are awful. Not 1984 of course, which is one of my favourite books, and Burmese Days is not half bad in itself, but it is god-awfully bleak with non really any real critique of colonialism or racism, it just kinda says “It’s a bit shit, isn’t it?” Aspidistra was just boring and stupid. You also do not hear Orwell’s voice and that direct unapologetic honesty you get from his essays (“A Hanging” and “Shooting an Elephant” are great). I get an idea he was trying to write like the great male writers of his era, not as himself, as a reporter of human life, what all good writers really are. But that’s just my opinion and it is ten years or more since I read them.
However, there’s plenty more to Orwell than just 1984 and Animal Farm. He was fascinatingly complex person, who could see through the fog clear-eyed when no-one else could, but still be completely blinded by his own misgivings and prejudices. But then again, aren’t we all.
Yes, but being aware of it is powerful in itself.
I think that in this case, read Orwell, but don't only read Orwell or base your entire viewpoint on his writing. Read many, read diversely, read from authors you don't like, read unknown authors, read poorly written books, and read random smaller "old web" style blog posts, like from https://bearblog.dev/discover/ or blog rolls or whatever.
Which ... I'm OK with. I've read most of his work too. Of course 1984 and Animal Farm are the best but Road to Wigan Pier and Down and Out in Paris and London are good too.
(I also love Wodehouse)
“ But Venables's postscript changes all that. Venables is the Buddicoms' first cousin, and was left the copyright to Eric & Us, as well as 57 crates of family letters. From these she made the shocking discovery that, in 1921, Eric had tried to rape Jacintha. Previously the young couple had kissed, but now, during a late summer walk, he had wanted more. At only five feet to his six feet and four inches, Jacintha had shouted, screamed and kicked before running home with a torn skirt and bruised hip. It was "this" rather than any gradual parting of the ways that explains why Jacintha broke off all contact with her childhood friend, never to learn that he had transformed himself into George Orwell.
Venables believes that the attempted "rape", which, in truth, sounds more like a botched seduction, may also explain the sad, desperate things that happened next. She reveals for the first time that, in 1927, Jacintha gave birth to a daughter as a result of an affair gone wrong, and was obliged to let her childless aunt adopt the baby. When Eric returned that year on leave from Burma, he interpreted Jacintha's absence from the Buddicom family home as evidence that she was still angry with him (in fact, she was spending six painful months in seclusion). Any chance of picking up where they had left off, perhaps even marrying, had now gone for good. From that point, both of them seemed to give up any hope of forming a nurturing relationship. Eric turned to Burmese prostitutes and Jacintha to a 30-year affair with a Labour peer.”
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2007/feb/17/georgeorwell.b...
His first wife contributed significantly to his work (including Animal Farm) but was never credited. She saved his life when he was shot in the throat in Spain, but I understand she was completely written out of 'Homage to Catalonia'.
I think "what one wants to be" is a fashion and depends on the era. Today's children want to be youtuber or content creator. I grew up in consuming youtube and social media so I consider those mediums to be more captivating and allows for vivid storytelling captivating dominant senses.
Just for the record, I don't think that's a widely used definition for "racism". Also, the linked article does not really support the view that he was "disregarding genuine differences"; if anything, his prejudice made him see differences where there were none (or misattribute traits that he notice on some individual to a whole population). The article speak about his contempt for the gaelic language though, which I guess is what annoys you the most? But then the article also states that he changed his mind on that.
Also, what's the downside of treating different cultures identical, aside from potentially offending people? As opposed to other kind of racism, where other people are treated as lesser subhumans that ultimately led to slavery. Why are both casually referred to racism when the other has more far-reaching consequences.
also, sad that he died at 46 of tuberculosis, what a waste.
1984 was surprisingly prescient about automatically generated propaganda. The slop deluge we're going through certainly echoes the "Novel-Writing Machines".
It left such a stark experience with me how my interpretation of that and what was happening in the world at that time, with the school & teacher and thus projected-onto-the-students interpretation, was so different and obviously this in itself in a meta way was what Orwell warned about in his works.
This top county, one of the richest public schools in Maryland, was teaching its students to interpret even Animal Farm in a biased and blind way unable to see their current political circumstances as the issue Orwell warned about and myopically focusing in on the Russian/overseas/communist philosophy as the only ones Orwell could have referred to in his works. I knew there was brainwashing I encountered growing up in any public school, experiencing it this fundamentally deep was visceral.
How many here have read Burmese Days, had the bookworm's childhood, and are imbued with that sense of political worldliness?
It sounds like you know your Orwell - want to share something about that?
Hacker News Guidelines
What to Submit
On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.