George Orwell’s estate has been accused of attempting to censor 1984 by adding a ‘trigger warning’ preface to a US edition of the dystopian novel. The Telegraph has more.
The new introductory essay describes the novel’s protagonist Winston Smith as “problematic” and warns modern readers may find his views on women “despicable”.
Critics claim the preface, written by Dolen Perkins-Valdez, an American novelist, and included in the 75th anniversary edition published in the US last year, risks undermining the work’s warning against control of thought by the state.
In 1984, citizens of the superstate Oceania are punished for subversive thoughts by the Thought Police.
Now, in a real-world twist, the estate that oversees Orwell’s literary legacy stands accused of ideological policing.
“We’re getting somebody to actually convict George Orwell himself of thought crime in the introduction to his book about thought crime,” said Walter Kirn, a novelist and critic, on America This Week, a podcast hosted by journalist Matt Taibbi.
“We’re not yet in a world where books and classic books are being excised or eliminated,” Kirn added, but warned that the Orwell estate-approved edition of 1984 had been “published with an apology for itself”.
Ms Perkins-Valdez’s preface is included in the anniversary edition of the 1949 classic, published by Berkley Books, an imprint of Penguin Random House.
In it, the award-winning novelist said that she aimed to approach 1984 as a new reader, and admitted that, given the protagonist’s views, she might once have abandoned the book entirely.
“I’m enjoying the novel on its own terms, not as a classic, but as a good story, that is, until Winston reveals himself to be a problematic character,” she wrote. “For example, we learn of him: ‘He disliked nearly all women, and especially the young and pretty ones’.”
The novel follows Winston Smith, a minor bureaucrat who secretly rebels against the regime with Julia, a fellow party member. Their doomed affair is cut short when they are arrested, tortured and brainwashed into betraying one another.
Although Ms Perkins-Valdez eventually concludes that Orwell was portraying misogyny as a feature of totalitarianism, her comments have provoked a backlash.
Her preface also takes issue with the novel’s handling of race. As a black woman, she says she finds little to connect with characters in Oceania.
Mr Kirn questioned the need for Ms Perkins-Valdez’s introduction, pointing out that the anniversary edition already included a foreword by Thomas Pynchon, one of the greatest living American novelists.
“If you have a foreword by Thomas Pynchon to a book, you don’t need another foreword, right? You got maybe the greatest living novelist of our time, who’s also a recluse, to come out and write something. That’s all you need.
“But no, these people felt they needed an introduction before the old white man’s introduction. So this version of 1984 has a trigger warning!”
He called it “the most 1984-ish thing I’ve ever f—— read”.
Worth reading in full.
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.
This is consistent with the collectivist mindset which views other human beings as feeble and incapable, constantly in need of assistance and protection.
Trigger warnings not only assume others to be fragile and incapable of putting things in context, it encourages it.
In a world in which we aspire for people to be free, independent and autonomous we assume they are capable, we encourage it, we even demand it in order to make it so.
Nothing sickens me more about collections than their constant debasement of others and their capabilities.
Modern proponents of the nanny state want other human beings to become (or, in case of children, remain) feeble, incapable and constantly in need of assistance and protection.
As both fascism and communism had war as central plank, either to achieve the world-wide overthrow of capitalism by a world revolution or to ensure the survival of one’s own people in the eternal, global struggle of peoples against each other, they wouldn’t have any use for such people. Hitler’s war against the world resulted in the death of about 5.3 million German conscripts. That was surely not caused by trying to assist and protect them.
She’s not making trigger warning, she’s making a statement to her peers… Ms Perkins-Valdez ticks every box you might care to imagine.
This was one book the bovine neo-communist ‘progressives’ could never find a way of wiping their arse on. Now they have.
Her preface also takes issue with the novel’s handling of race. As a black woman, she says she finds little to connect with characters in Oceania.
Interesting how she manages to merge dimness and racialism.
Does the novel describe the ‘race’ of any of the protagonists? I’ll have to read it again.
RW has made much the same point earlier….
I’ve never even read the book. I think I’d prefer to watch the movie, just because I’ve always rated John Hurt as a quality actor and enjoyed everything I’ve seen him in. Movies are also quicker to watch than books are to read, so there is that.
Watch out for a Disney remake in which the regime gets praised.
Mogs, please do not leave Planet Earth without having read ‘1984’ and ‘Animal Farm.’
How can anybody take these people seriously they’re pathetic.
They’re stoned.
Not surprised.
1984 was banned in all communist countries, including the country of my birth.
The book is such a perfect description of totalitarian regimes, it is virtually unthinkable that their citizens should be allowed to read it.
I suspect the book is also a constant source of irritation for the woke movement because it depicts their methodology.
Well it’s certainly a manual of sorts for some people.
Her preface also takes issue with the novel’s handling of race. As a black woman, she says she finds little to connect with characters in Oceania.
The novel doesn’t handle race at all, because that’s not an economic criterion and thus, immaterial to something essentially based on Marxism. If this means some person of some sex and skin colour doesn’t want to read it, maybe, this person of some sex and skin colour should simply not read it instead using it as a convenient opportunity to piggy-back her political preaching onto it.
As white, German man, I don’t particularly care about prejudices of certain black American woman. They’re entitled to them. And I’m entitled to ignore them.
As there are no Inuit or Australian Aboriginals I guess these peoples won’t ‘connect’ with this book either.
The 1984 society is split into classes. There’s the ruling party elite represented by O’Brien. Then, a middle class of clerks in service the of party like Smith himself. Finally, there’s the proles. As that’s the organisation of one of three huge superstates, it’s obvious that people of all skin colours and ethnic origins must be exist in this class hierarchy but for the story of the novel, this simply doesn’t matter.
You are of course right, the subject of racism does not come up in 1984.
But that doesn’t matter: for a black American woman who makes a living out of racism, absolutely everything is about racism and sexism.
Orwell was white? Ah, he had to have an inherently racist attitude.
Winston Smith did not like women? Ah, of course, he was a misogynist. Just like Orwell.
Eurasia is at war with Oceania? Clear reference to colonialism.
This is a stupid and pretty uneducated woman who – in all likeliness – never actually read this book or didn’t read anything beyond the first coulpe of pages. That’s evident in her description of Smith’s initial stance towards women, especially, sexually attractive women, as totalitarian misogyny.
This is a contradictio in adiecto because the enemy of a totalitarian system is each individual which tries to escape from its grip, men, women and children alike. This strongly suggest that she doesn’t really understand the term and envisions it as some kind of oppressive patriarchy on steroids: Patriarchy is misogynistc. Hence, totalitariansim must be super-misogynistic.
It also doesn’t match Winston’s character and character development over the course of the plot at all. He starts out as somewhat cynic and bitter but mostly resigned cog-in-the-machine-type loner and his nominal position towards ‘women’ is obviously a sour grapes style way to express his own sexual frustration. His romance with Julia, the middle part of the book, changes all of that and turns him into someone who at least believes to be an dashing idealist ready to sacrifice his own life to fight the system for a better future. That’s a very strange kind of misogyny.
I agree.
But also – let’s say an author decides to create a character that doesn’t like women.
So what? It’s called artistic freedom.
“As a black woman, she says she finds little to connect with characters in Oceania.”
No imagination then.
Although Ms Perkins-Valdez eventually concludes that Orwell was portraying misogyny as a feature of totalitarianism
Similar to not dealing with race, the text also doesn’t deal with so-called misogyny
as the mere existence of male single who wouldn’t describe themselves as incels and are thus naturally not particularly fond of the cherchez la femme circus isn’t misogynistic. A substantial part of the novel is also the love story of Winston and Julia which finds a cruel end in the torture chambers of the Big Brother regime.
It takes a particularly shallow and self-centered character to read this book (assuming Ms Foreword did actually read it¹) and manage to miss this completely.
¹ As she’s not mentioning Winston’s initial fantasies about raping and torturing Julia by the time he still sees her as the symbol of system he’s coming to reject, which would make for much more juicy accusations of misogynism, this seem very unlikely to me.
As Syme explained to Winston:
“In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.”
Woke will eat itself
It will, brother, it will.
Any system built on lies is guaranteed to collapse.
There is order in the universe. Nothing but the truth can survive.
The great deceiver is a loser.
Mog the cat- preface, trigger warning this book has themes of death which children might find disturbing.
The Naughtiest girl in the School – Enid Blyton, this book has themes that may create anxiety in girls as it portrays elements of misogyny as Elizabeth Allen behaves in a way which causes anxiety in others.
Peter Rabbit – Beatrix Potter contains themes of cruelty to Carrots and bullying of Rabbits in clothes because of their lifestyle choices.
The Bible- multiple authors, contains themes of violence, bullying, racism,
Woukd anyone be surprised?
I would like a trigger warning on all trigger warnings saying to the effect. The following trigger warning contains patronising and progrexssive wokeism themes which many readers might find insulting.
So if we’re sinking to the perma-offended’s standards then I think the Bible should have a trigger warning. Plenty to make these dingbats’ brains implode in there, and then there’s the Koran…😆 Honestly, I think some people are so off their heads and devoid of all reason they could read a phone book and find something to be affronted by.
I think she should read this, preferably with a defib to hand;
https://x.com/BrexitDuck/status/1931401382097015280
If Winston Smith was gay then his ‘views’ of other men would be acceptable?. And if he was Trans then any of his views would be acceptable? This US edition of 1984 needs ‘decolonising’ and as in colon.
‘He disliked nearly all women, and especially the young and pretty ones’.
He does not trust anyone. He suspects that if he comes to love someone they will betray him. Within the circumstances of the book he’s right.
Orwell probably believed in Freud’s theories and hence, Winston has a classic set of repressed sexual urges turned into demonstrative outward rejection of the objects of his desire and violent, sexual fantasies. All of this collapses into non-existence the moment Julia starts to show an interest in him.
I wonder who are the Trustees. Are they yet more elitist lefties or are they just numpties.
The additional intro seems to completely misunderstand the book; an accident, ignorance or by design?
Have you noticed how the woke and the left manage to spoil everything they touch.
The gist of 1984 is well known so why on earth do they ask a clearly biased black woman to comment. As a white person I am triggered by such an effing idiot commenting on such an iconic publication.
Absolutely.
Why do you need a Foreword to a novel? Let alone two.
Just read the book and think for yourself.
As I already wrote in another comment: Piggy-backing on a successful novel to deliver The Message™ once again. Wokhurts absolutely love to decorate good books written by other people with politically appropriate (according to their opinion) execretions in form of footnotes and forewords.
Eg, an English version of Jünger’s In Stahlgewittern (Storms of Steel) comes with a footnote misinforming the readers that Karl May, mentioned as memory of the author in the text in the context of sneaking up to the enemy lines in the night, would be a “post-colonial German novelist.” Considering that he died in 1912, that’s strange epithet, to say the least.
I don’t care what a black woman has to say about a white, Anglo-Celtic ethnicity author and hia story. Black people can never understand our people for they are not of us.
Remigrate. Repatriate.