Goofyness, Strangeness and Charm I
Goofyness, Strangeness and Charm
I really enjoyed Matt Welch's pointed complaints about this essay on Orwell by Louis Menand, particularly this one:
the point is not that he was always Right, but that he presented one of the most compelling examples in 20th century writing of how one can go about trying to think clearly and grapple proactively with the important events of the day, even while being poor and goofy-looking.
The essay which provoked this inspired observation is actually quite interesting as well, though it suffers from the fact that it focuses on the question of whether Orwell's "predictions" were accurate or not-- that's probably the least interesting question about his writing. I doubt that many of the Orwell "fans" whose motives Menand finds so suspect value him primarily as a seer.
Then there's this:
Orwell's prose was so effective that it seduced many readers into imagining, mistakenly, that he was saying what they wanted him to say, and what they themselves thought.
There may be something in this seduction-projection idea, but I've always thought that Orwell's chief appeal is rather the opposite: when you disagree, you actually know what you're disagreeing with. You can't say that about many writers, past or present. And many people really do appreciate contrariness for its own sake.
Posted by Dr. Frank at February 6, 2003 06:16 PM
| TrackBack