Orwell observed how some writers are so important that cultural and political “ownership” of their work is fiercely contested. He said this of Dickens and Shakespeare, so would be delighted that he’s now firmly in that camp. But I think he’d be less happy that the weasel word ‘problematic’ is the cover under which his position is now being undermined – as he’d have predicted, by our censorious ‘progressives’.
To this group, certain writers – Eliot, Pound, Kipling, Celine – are clearly beyond the pale, so that any discussion of them has to be prefaced by an impassioned and often inaccurate lecture on their moral and political failings. There is a sense that this is done as much from the fear of not doing so, especially for Pound. The denunciations are highly performative and follow a script, an observation that could be easily made of much discussion with progressives. They seem to speak nervously and miserably, as if under constant observation. Self-censorship is at work: they feel the need to monitor everything and everyone and so assume this applies to them.
I was subjected to one such lecture by some graduate students, whom I and a good friend were chatting to in an Oxford cafe. One chap was English, the other Italian, both were doing DPhils in Literature. The place is Greek-run and, being half-Greek (though not a speaker), I enjoy its atmosphere and coffee. Indeed, we started talking when I overheard them speaking Greek to the English bloke’s Greek girlfriend.
The students maintained that the important thing is quality of writing but, paradoxically, this can only be judged by a strict contemporary “evaluation” of any Right-wing or outdated views. Inevitably, this contextualisation then reveals that said writers are “problematic” and “not as good as XYZ” – usually some figure who fits their sensibilities, and coincidentally one who’s almost always female – or at least better suited to the diversity required by these commissars.
So far, so well known and wearily familiar. The absolute impossibility of literature under such a mindset – one enthusiastically endorsed by graduate students who professed to live for literature – is utterly depressing. We’re in effect dealing with its cancellation
I made a perfunctory effort in observing their complete inconsistency, but things got more interesting when Orwell was discussed. Of course, Orwell famously wrote against their stand, not least in his brilliant defence of Kipling’s literary merit and his refusal to allow orthodoxy to dictate his aesthetic preferences, in Benefit of Clergy.
Unfortunately, Orwell’s stint in the Burmese Imperial Police made him a despicable figure to the students, little better than a Waffen SS or Gestapo officer. True, he’d belatedly retrieved himself by his “eventual writing” in the 1940s, but he’d spent many years performing the dirty work of the British Empire. His famous essay, A Hanging, showed him enthusiastically hands on at it.
I’d honestly never heard such a narrow and limited view, and was intrigued. As a preposterous misrepresentation, it needs little rebuttal. A Hanging is indeed a brilliantly disturbing account of an Indian murderer being hanged, a man who’d have been executed at that time in any country. The essay explores the deep unease Orwell felt about his role, so it’s a lie to claim it shows him uncritically doing his job, let alone revelling in his exertion of British authority.
Such an interpretation shows a shocking lack of understanding. As does the idea that Orwell only recanted any pro-Imperial views in the 1940s; his underrated Burmese Days was published in 1934 and he wrote extensively about his disgust for the job he did in the late 20s and 1930s. Of course, he didn’t only feel disgust, nor would he pretend that the British brought only misery and were unique as imperial exploiters.
What I’m most interested in is how an alternative Orwell was then offered up, a writer who’d accepted the British Empire was “problematic” yet offered a nice comforting view of how nice and comforting life can be – if you agree with the progressives, that is.
Step forward Jan Morris and his trilogy Pax Britannica. Now, I haven’t read this non-fictional account of the British Empire but from background knowledge, it’s not in any way a replacement for Orwell or even remotely comparable. It’s an exhaustive historical work, not a personal creative one. But this trilogy was extolled by the students as what Orwell should have done when discussing empire. There was the implication that Orwell could now be – somewhat thankfully – ignored.
Bizarrely, the Englishman then introduced Joyce, first saying that the man was a lifelong sponger who’d have probably fleeced him, but as a writer was the very model of a pan-European, liberal and open to all cultures. Again, the grubby contradictions and sheer banality of such a perspective are eye-popping – from a DPhil student in perhaps the country’s finest university.
And I’ve a nagging feeling that Jan Morris – a famous case of gender realignment (he ‘transitioned’ to female in 1972) – was picked for the ‘acceptable author’ reasons. That’s the problem with ‘author context’ vetting – as with ‘diversity hires’. Much as I’ve enjoyed Morris’s travel writing, especially Oxford, it’s staggering for this author to be proposed as some alternative to Orwell! Not only in terms of obvious lesser importance, but they’re not remotely comparable in terms of genre or aims. How could any serious reader – let alone one at a leading university – talk such gibberish?
Discussion on Pound and Eliot was even more absurd. Both were (begrudgingly) great poets, but it was impossible to read either without a thorough warning of their antisemitism – the Italian seemed to think this was a safety requirement. He had no faith in any reader simply reading a text, whilst disingenuously claiming to believe that anything worthwhile would always survive on its own merits. If someone genuinely feels this, then why the need for all the Health and Safety proclamations? It’s the pathetic unwillingness to be honest I most despise – why not just say “I want Eliot to neither be read nor survive”?
Pure funk – he’d be afraid someone would accuse him of being a philistine, as Eliot’s status is near-unassailable. I say “near”, since these people are – though they’d never admit to it – really working on that. So, just be honest about it!
Needless to say, discussion then moved on to the Rhodes statue at nearby Oriel College, which both DPhils were adamant had to be removed. It was easily as disturbing to “victims of British imperialism” as any supposed hurt caused by Gaza protest chants of “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” to Oxford’s Jewish students. Anyway, the English chap maintained, Jewish students (of which he wasn’t one) mostly approved of the protests, since only two had signed a petition in Balliol approving Israel’s actions.
“I wonder how those brave souls felt?” I asked. “I thought minorities were the key to all this?”
The Englishman – in fact, a pseudo-European intellectual – lovingly informed me that he could sniff out a fascist, and only one course of action could then follow.
Some stirring words from Lorca on the Spanish Civil War were recited.
I should have quoted Nietzsche – but presumably he’s problematic and a fascist?
He who fights with monsters best take care lest he himself becomes the monster.
Paul Sutton can be found on Substack. His new book on woke issues The Poetry of Gin and Tea is out now.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I always liked the sentence before that one better:
When you stare into an abyss, the abyss stares back into you.
Seems worthy of pondering in the context of such discussions.
I would think there are vanishingly small numbers of people still reading and appreciating poetry and those that do, have no need of being told what to think.
This is not about people reading poetry but about people studying it (as part of studying literature) and specifically, its about them desiring to purge the body of English literature to remove everything written by people deemed politically nondesirable based on the worldview they have been taught to regard as the only acceptable one.
Orwell is best known for his dystopian fictional elaborations on what the believed to be the real nature of soviet communism, Animal Farm and 1984. Seeking to scrub his legacy from Academistan certainly can’t have anything to do with that.
“Oh, for Christ’s sake, one doesn’t STUDY poets! You READ them and think, That’s marvelous, how is it done, could I do it? and that’s how you learn. At the end of it you can’t say, That’s Yeats, that’s Auden, because they’ve gone, they’re like a scaffolding that’s been taken down. Thomas was a dead end. What effects? Yeats and Auden, the management of lines, the formal distancing of emotion. Hardy, well … not to be afraid of the obvious. All those wonderful dicta about poetry – ‘the poet should touch our hearts by showing his own,’ ‘the poet takes note of nothing that he cannot feel,’ ‘the emotion of all the ages and the thought of his own’ – Hardy knew what it was all about.” — Philip Larkin, Paris Review interview
On the contrary, I believe it has everything to do with that. The point is often made, these days, that 1984 was not supposed to be a guide to the rather dystopian world we find ourselves in. At the very least it stands as a beacon, a warning about what is coming our way. ‘They’ don’t want you warned, so they’ll do whatever they can to prevent it… in America they’ve apparently banned the book from some schools, here we’re a bit more subtle, if you can get the chattering classes to ‘cancel’ the man, his works are removed by default…
Me too. To people who believe in global communist technocratic wonderland, the popularity of Orwell’s works must be a huge annoyance. Especially as their solution is by the book —- rewrite the past to eliminate what should never have existed, according to whatever the party’s policy of the day happens to be. This also goes a long way towards dehumanizing people. Without a past, we’re just another bunch of monkeys forever living for the next moment.
When the dolts – DPhils in Literature – claim Orwell is “problematic” they provide yet more proof that our universities have crossed the threshold into the New Dark Age.
It’s the Literature equivalent of NET Zero emissions.
And on the topic of Gaza protest chants, here are a load of West-hating communists getting their collective knickers in a dramatic twist in Washington D.C today, all because PM Netanyahu was there speaking. They pulled down the American flag, burnt it then hoisted a Palestinian flag up in its place ( how very hostile and unpatriotic ), amongst other things.
My bad. An easy mistake to make….
I wish they’d all be dispatched to Gaza so they can really see how their right to freedom of expression works over there. I mean, ‘Palestine’ is renowned for its democracy in the Middle East, is it not? Well I heard they’ve a reputation for being very tolerant and welcoming of other cultures anyways…
Shit! Israel, Palestine. Palestine, Israel. I always get the two mixed up!
”So, if I’ve got this right, far-left protesters can riot in Washington D.C., sometimes for days, burn the American flag, torch leaders in effigy, take over buildings, disrupt official proceedings, and force a former president into a bunker, but the only time it’s an “insurrection” is when some protesters happen to be “Trump supporters”?
The only thing burning faster than this American flag is the state-controlled media’s credibility.”
https://x.com/kylenabecker/status/1816199749453905993
Some lovely Kamala Harris fans here, no doubt. Everybody knows, in the new normal only the sane people wear face coverings. That’s why only the terrorist supporters are the rational ones. Is that really somebody wearing a gas mask?? I think this is what it looks like when you live in a country you demonstrably hate. It screws you up mentally then you become a walking toxic waste dump;
https://x.com/RealMacReport/status/1816179420362908079
I say good morning to everyone who would ban Orwell or Mark Twain or any author that offends their 21st century woke sensibilities, or whose politics does not align with their Liberal progressive leanings. Good morning, but I would watch those cornflakes your munching on, I think they maybe look a bit tainted. But then again it’s all down to personal taste what?
Two things strike me about this. Having recently (in my 60s) completed my PhD (in history), which discussed Coleridge, I pointed out the importance that his words needed to be taken in the context of the time. This has to be true for any research. How, these students fail to approach literature in that way astounds me. Secondly, I did not find Danial Deronda antisemitic, any more than say, Merchant of Venice. It’s vital to read what’s written, rather than some ‘expert’s’ interpretation.
The student classes always did include smug, opinionated, quasi-intellectuals who believe themselves to be possessed of insight. Contemporary society offers far too many job opportunities for them.
I’m 62, maybe I am stuck in my ways, maybe I am all the things I have been called because I have the temerity to question the “Undeniable Truth”. Perhaps I am too old.
However, there is one thing that never changes: if you choose your truth it will always be a lie.You will spout that lie until you die or the fashionable truth changes.
Me? I’m getting old. A shovel is not a spade.