
George Orwell: Why I Write (1946) - jasim
http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79e/part47.html
======
a_bonobo
An interesting sidenote on the history of copyright:

If you're in the US and most other countries, by clicking the above link you
may commit copyright infringement.

In Australia, the copyright for work of authors who died before 1955 expires
50 years after the death of the author, so Orwell's copyright expired in 2000.
That's why OP's link is hosted in Adelaide. The same site has a warning for US
users:
[http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/](http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/)

In the US it's 70 years, so Orwell's work is still protected until 2020.

~~~
salvadors
Simply viewing a copyright work is not deemed copyright infringement in most
jurisdictions. The transient nature of browser caches etc don't generally
constitute a reproduction.

So clicking the link should be perfectly OK.

~~~
a_bonobo
Is downloading the mobi/epub OK?

------
awt
Some of his reasons for why he writes seem to be the same as why I work on
software. I love this. I've been in a slump for months where I've lacked
inspiration to work on anything. Maybe realizing that doing things for
attention might be an acceptable reason to work on something if something good
comes out of it might remove some roadblocks for me.

------
contingencies
As an Australian who spent a year living in the same building Orwell did in
London ( _Down and out in Paris and London_ ), having read his _1984_ and
_Animal Farm_ in my youth, and since having spent years living on the
Burmese/Chinese border (as he lived in Burma during the English colonial
period), and also struggling with writing what equates to an essentially
political history (of that area, no less) I would like to TLDR this guy for
the others.

Orwell was an individual, a talent, but above all an observer. He spent his
time distilling injustice through a lens of analytical thought and
regurgitating it as the written word in precisely the format most sought after
as the entertainment of the era. In this form, he was a populist and he states
as much in this famous summary of his motivations, prepared five years before
his death at 47.

Perhaps the modern equivalent of his character would be living and traveling
in relative poverty whilst independently producing media with political
messages, and possibly distributing them freely online. Assange is undeniably
politically motivated, moved around a lot living in Africa and other
interesting locales before his 2010 run-in with the authorities, and could in
this sense be considered a fair example of a modern day Orwell. ( _If only he
could make it across town to East London, he too could see Orwell 's old
abode... I see the Wikileaks Party in Australia is organizing a care package
for him in the Ecuadorian consulate. Anyone care to donate a UAV?_ :)

Finally, some parallels. First, between our learning of programming languages
and Orwell's statements here on language in general: _The problem of language
is subtler and would take too long to discuss. I will only say that of late
years I have tried to write less picturesquely and more exactly. In any case I
find that by the time you have perfected any style of writing, you have always
outgrown it._

Second, that of the notion that 'every program is buggy': _I have not written
a novel for seven years, but I hope to write another fairly soon. It is bound
to be a failure, every book is a failure, but I do know with some clarity what
kind of book I want to write._

Finally, on open source and distributed systems as social change: _I see that
it is invariably where I lacked a POLITICAL purpose that I wrote lifeless
books and was betrayed into purple passages, sentences without meaning,
decorative adjectives and humbug generally._

------
jal278
In summary, Orwell finds that his books are most full of life when he writes
mainly with:

> (iv) Political purpose. — Using the word ‘political’ in the widest possible
> sense. Desire to push the world in a certain direction, to alter other
> peoples’ idea of the kind of society that they should strive after. Once
> again, no book is genuinely free from political bias. The opinion that art
> should have nothing to do with politics is itself a political attitude.

~~~
FreakLegion
_> The opinion that art should have nothing to do with politics is itself a
political attitude._

Or people just disagree about the definition of 'politics.' Once you get to a
point where "no book is genuinely free from political bias," you've basically
reduced 'politics' to 'point of view.' Sure, most books have a point of view,
but that doesn't make them political in any meaningful sense. Or
alternatively, if you broaden the meaning of 'politics' to include all the
things, then you've diluted it to the point that it ceases to be an effective
critical or creative tool.

Edit: All those 'you's are the indefinite 'you.' I realize you're quoting.

~~~
Hasu
>Or people just disagree about the definition of 'politics.' Once you get to a
point where "no book is genuinely free from political bias," you've basically
reduced 'politics' to 'point of view.'

He gives his definition of politics, which is not just 'point of view' as you
claim: "Desire to push the world in a certain direction, to alter other
peoples’ idea of the kind of society that they should strive after."

You can argue that not all books try to push the world in one direction or
another, or you can agree with Orwell that they do, but your objection doesn't
make sense. Yes, people generally disagree about the definition of the word
'political', but Orwell has defined it here for you, so you're supposed to use
his definition when evaluating his claim.

I disagree with you. I think Orwell is correct, and I think that his use of
the word 'political' doesn't dilute it at all, but rather, cuts directly to
the heart of what 'politics' is all about.

