First of all, please let me say that the following is not meant to sound arrogant or as though i'm blowing my own trumpet, but I do consider myself to be something of an expert when it comes to George Orwell. This aint really anything that great, or anything to be proud of, because there are so many more important or worthwhile things that I could have better spent my time on; so many other useful things that I could have invested my time in and gained expertise in instead!
But you'd be hard pushed to find me anything he wrote that I've not read. There might be an obscure letter or Tribune article that I missed or can't remember, but by and large, I am extremely familiar with his work and much of his stuff I have re-read multiple times. And I've also read more than a dozen biographies and countless articles written about him. With most things I know nothing or very little; with a few things I know a bit; with a handful of things I know a hell of a lot. George Orwell is one, Gillingham FC 1985-1995 is another!!
Having got that out of the way, just wanted too make a couple of points.
valencia claimed to be a socialist and a patriot, and Jerry then made reference to Orwell, which valencia took, understandably, as a compliment. I took that to mean Orwell is someone that valencia admires. This might seem strange at first. How can it be that both valencia and Buddha, who appear to have such opposing political views, both admire the same writer, especially given that that writer was so overtly political? How is it that Orwell's work can appeal to, or be representative of, two people who have such different point of views?
Actually, it's not so difficult to understand as it first seems. Orwell was, in essence, quite a contradiction. He most definitely was a patriot, though at the same time he opposed nationalism. He most definitely was a socialist, yet at the same time he held deep contempt for the bourgeois socialists of the 1930s (so much so that he dedicated half a book to attacking them!). Both Anarchists and Conservatives can easily find Orwell quotes that will support their arguments. As can Liberals, Socialists and patriots.
Part of the contradiction in Orwell comes from the fact that he came from a lower middle class family but was educated at Eton. Despite his privilege of attending Eton, his status as a lower middle class scholarship boy meant that he was near the bottom of the social scale, at Eton at least. Though he developed an understanding of the conditions of the poor and most definitely felt sympathy for the working classes, his own life experiences meant that he has no real understanding. He might have been able to sympathise but he couldn't empathise.
Then, as I'm sure loads of you already know, he went 'undercover' as a 'tramp' and his experiences were recounted in 'Down and Out in Paris and London'. This was partly inspired by having read a Jack London book called, 'People of the Abyss'. (This book is hard to find but I found a copy, I think at Aberdeen University, years ago and it is absolutely brilliant!). In 'Down and Out', Orwell is a little disingenuous because he gives the impression that he really did put himself 100% in the role of a tramp, or a 'down and out'. In reality this stretches the truth a little. Whilst in London he most certainly had places he could go to escape (if only temporarily) his self-imposed role, and in Paris he had an aunt who, if need be, could provide him some refuge. Nevertheless, he did essentially experience life on the margins and at last had a REAL understanding of the difficulties of living on next to nothing.
Not that this stopped him having class prejudice. On way to fight as a volunteer in Spain he was impressed by the camaraderie of those travelling with him on the train because a bottle of wine was being passed around. Orwell knew the bottle was coming his way and he felt internal conflict; he wanted very much to partake in the communal drinking of the wine yet at the same time he was freaking out that he was gonna have to put the same bottle that had touched these other men's lips up to his own. And the idea of that disgusted him!
There are other times when his class prejudice or simple lack of understanding is demonstrated. Whilst staying in Paris he is at one point holed up in some dank apartment and he is bemoaning the injustices of poverty. He explains that he has spent his last few centimes on some milk and is heating it on a small stove. He is hungry but whilst he's heating the milk a bug falls into it. This he sees as the final injustice; this is what happens to the poor - it's the last of the milk but it's been wasted because a bug has fallen in it. There is no option but to throw the milk away! Now I'm damn sure that any one of you who has ever really been hungry would know immediately that the milk would not have been thrown away! Orwell's concern for the poor is endearing but his conclusion that the milk must be wasted is pure middle class idiocy.
Anyway, I've gone off the point a bit, sorry, probably my early morning potato fix that's responsible for that!
My main point, I suppose, was that Orwell was such a contradiction, such an individual thinker and so opposed to dogma, that within his writings there is such a wide-range of opinions, ideas and reflections that supporters of various political ideologies can claim him as their own. And that's why an anarchist like me and a right-wing conservative (I'm being kind here, valencia, not calling you a fascist!) would both take a comparison to Orwell as a compliment.
One final thing, Jerry. The Lion and the Unicorn is an interesting piece and there are definitely bits in it that I wholeheartedly agree with. Nevertheless, I'd suggest doing a bit of research into when it was written, who commissioned it, and what it's real purpose was. I'd suggest that it was a deliberate attempt by him to appeal to the Left to support the war effort. For me it was the only consciously dishonest thing he wrote. You might not agree but check out the background. For me it was pure propaganda.
Sorry if I've gone on!
