the standards that he obeyed were private ones

'Far too much has been said by far too many people about George
Orwell, and most of what has been said here is quite unnecessary for
the appreciation of his work, but it is worth adding a few more words
to the record.

His writings seem very straightforward, but he was a very complicated
man. It is possible to detect two main driving-forces in his career -
a sense of compassion and guilt, and a determination to be tested and
not to be found wanting. He was always putting himself to the test,
forcing himself to endure hardship and discomfort, swallowing disgust
and pain, going without proper food during the war and proper medical
care after it, wearing down his health and his talent, fighting the
evils of the world and the weakness of his body to the day of his
death, always striving, striving to tell the truth about what he saw
and what he felt.

He had his faults. He often spoke out without verifying his facts and
often he was grossly unfair. Hardly any literary or political group
escaped his bitter criticism. But he should be seen not just as an
angry middle-aged man but as an extreme example of the English middle-
class dissenter who, having rebelled against his own group, must
always rebel against any group, even a group of conscious rebels. So
he was a puritan who despised other puritans, a patriot who despised
other patriots, a socialist who despised other socialists, an
intellectual who despised other intellectuals, a bohemian who despised
other bohemians. He was a man full of logical contradictions and
emotional ambivalences, but the point is that this made him better,
not worse. He was always able not only to see but to feel both sides
to every argument, to realise the imperfections of every position,
including his own, and his honesty about the difficulties this raised
was one of his most valuable characteristics. He was a heretic obliged
to betray his own heresy, a protestant protesting against his own
faith, a political quaker reduced to trusting only his inner light.

Above all, it is reasonable to conclude that his personal and
political qualities were based on an individual form of secular
humanism. Vernon Richards said in his obituary that "Orwell was, first
and foremost, a humanist" (Freedom, 4 February 1950). Evelyn Waugh
said in his review of Critical Essays that Orwell expressed "the new
humanism of the common man" (Tablet, 6 April 1946). Orwell himself
said that "the basis of Socialism is humanism" (Manchester Evening
News, January 1946), and frequently emphasised the contrast between
the humanist and religious views of the world. He added in his review
of George Woodcock's edition of Oscar Wilde's essay The Soul of Man
Under Socialism that "such publications remind the Socialist movement
of its original, half-forgotten objective of human
brotherhood" (Observer, 9 May 1948). And in 'Reflections on Gandhi' he
referred with approval to "the belief that Man is the measure of all
things, and that our job is to make life worth living on this earth,
which is the only earth we have" (Partisan Review, January 1949).

His most utterly hopeless book, Nineteen Eighty-Four, does contain two
hopeful passages. First, on the proles: "They were not loyal to a
party or a country or an idea, they were loyal to one another ... The
proles had stayed human. They had not become hardened inside." (This
is why "the only hope is the proles".) Then, on Winston Smith's dead
mother: "She had possessed a kind of nobility, a kind of purity,
simply because the standards that she obeyed were private ones. Her
feelings were her own, and could not be altered from outside." Orwell
is describing his ideal type - "the last man in Europe", to use the
phrase which was the original title of the book - but he is also
describing himself. He may perhaps be seen as the 'Man-of-Letters
Hero', described by Thomas Carlyle in his book On Heroes, Hero-Worship
and the Heroic in History(1841):

"This same Man-of-Letters Hero must be regarded as our most important
modern person. He, such as he may be, is the soul of all ... Whence he
came, whither he is bound, by what ways he arrived, by what he might
be furthered on his course, no one asks. He is an accident in society.
He walks like a wild Ishmaelite, in a world of which he is as the
spiritual light, either the guidance or the misguidance!"

Orwell would have rejected such pretentious stuff with scorn, if only
because of the fancy style, but there is something of him in it. We
can dig up all the available facts about him and go through all the
accessible writings by him, but he remains a mystery, an accident in
society; yet he was certainly one of our most important modern
persons, one of the few real heroes, true souls, whom our age has
seen. Unhappy the country that needs such a person, perhaps, but happy
the country that gets it. In one of his last statements, made to his
childhood friend Jacintha Buddicom, in the shadow cast by worsening
illness and approaching death and in the gloom raised by the Cold War
and the publication of Nineteen Eighty-Four, he still insisted:
"Nothing ever dies" (Letter, 8 June 1949). Of course everything does
die, but sometimes something lives. Eric Blair's body lies a-
mouldering in the grave - in All Saints churchyard at Sutton
Courtenay, as it happens - but George Orwell's soul is marching on.'

- Nicolas Walter, from his essay 'Orwell and Anarchism' 1998

B.

On 25 Jun, 19:52, georgeorw... RemoveThis @email.com wrote:
> 'Far too much has been said by far too many people about George
> Orwell, and most of what has been said here is quite unnecessary for
> the appreciation of his work, but it is worth adding a few more words
> to the record.
>
> His writings seem very straightforward, but he was a very complicated
> man. It is possible to detect two main driving-forces in his career -
> a sense of compassion and guilt, and a determination to be tested and
> not to be found wanting. He was always putting himself to the test,
> forcing himself to endure hardship and discomfort, swallowing disgust
> and pain, going without proper food during the war and proper medical
> care after it, wearing down his health and his talent, fighting the
> evils of the world and the weakness of his body to the day of his
> death, always striving, striving to tell the truth about what he saw
> and what he felt.
>
> He had his faults. He often spoke out without verifying his facts and
> often he was grossly unfair. Hardly any literary or political group
> escaped his bitter criticism. But he should be seen not just as an
> angry middle-aged man but as an extreme example of the English middle-
> class dissenter who, having rebelled against his own group, must
> always rebel against any group, even a group of conscious rebels. So
> he was a puritan who despised other puritans, a patriot who despised
> other patriots, a socialist who despised other socialists, an
> intellectual who despised other intellectuals, a bohemian who despised
> other bohemians. He was a man full of logical contradictions and
> emotional ambivalences, but the point is that this made him better,
> not worse. He was always able not only to see but to feel both sides
> to every argument, to realise the imperfections of every position,
> including his own, and his honesty about the difficulties this raised
> was one of his most valuable characteristics. He was a heretic obliged
> to betray his own heresy, a protestant protesting against his own
> faith, a political quaker reduced to trusting only his inner light.
>
> Above all, it is reasonable to conclude that his personal and
> political qualities were based on an individual form of secular
> humanism. Vernon Richards said in his obituary that "Orwell was, first
> and foremost, a humanist" (Freedom, 4 February 1950). Evelyn Waugh
> said in his review of Critical Essays that Orwell expressed "the new
> humanism of the common man" (Tablet, 6 April 1946). Orwell himself
> said that "the basis of Socialism is humanism" (Manchester Evening
> News, January 1946), and frequently emphasised the contrast between
> the humanist and religious views of the world. He added in his review
> of George Woodcock's edition of Oscar Wilde's essay The Soul of Man
> Under Socialism that "such publications remind the Socialist movement
> of its original, half-forgotten objective of human
> brotherhood" (Observer, 9 May 1948). And in 'Reflections on Gandhi' he
> referred with approval to "the belief that Man is the measure of all
> things, and that our job is to make life worth living on this earth,
> which is the only earth we have" (Partisan Review, January 1949).
>
> His most utterly hopeless book, Nineteen Eighty-Four, does contain two
> hopeful passages. First, on the proles: "They were not loyal to a
> party or a country or an idea, they were loyal to one another ... The
> proles had stayed human. They had not become hardened inside." (This
> is why "the only hope is the proles".) Then, on Winston Smith's dead
> mother: "She had possessed a kind of nobility, a kind of purity,
> simply because the standards that she obeyed were private ones. Her
> feelings were her own, and could not be altered from outside." Orwell
> is describing his ideal type - "the last man in Europe", to use the
> phrase which was the original title of the book - but he is also
> describing himself. He may perhaps be seen as the 'Man-of-Letters
> Hero', described by Thomas Carlyle in his book On Heroes, Hero-Worship
> and the Heroic in History(1841):
>
> "This same Man-of-Letters Hero must be regarded as our most important
> modern person. He, such as he may be, is the soul of all ... Whence he
> came, whither he is bound, by what ways he arrived, by what he might
> be furthered on his course, no one asks. He is an accident in society.
> He walks like a wild Ishmaelite, in a world of which he is as the
> spiritual light, either the guidance or the misguidance!"
>
> Orwell would have rejected such pretentious stuff with scorn, if only
> because of the fancy style, but there is something of him in it. We
> can dig up all the available facts about him and go through all the
> accessible writings by him, but he remains a mystery, an accident in
> society; yet he was certainly one of our most important modern
> persons, one of the few real heroes, true souls, whom our age has
> seen. Unhappy the country that needs such a person, perhaps, but happy
> the country that gets it. In one of his last statements, made to his
> childhood friend Jacintha Buddicom, in the shadow cast by worsening
> illness and approaching death and in the gloom raised by the Cold War
> and the publication of Nineteen Eighty-Four, he still insisted:
> "Nothing ever dies" (Letter, 8 June 1949). Of course everything does
> die, but sometimes something lives. Eric Blair's body lies a-
> mouldering in the grave - in All Saints churchyard at Sutton
> Courtenay, as it happens - but George Orwell's soul is marching on.'
>
> - Nicolas Walter, from his essay 'Orwell and Anarchism' 1998
>
> B.

Thanks, though the very last sentence lets it down I think.

N