/lit/ - Literature

>>19613196
He made up a bunch of terms like "thoughtcrime" that conveniently piss off people who want to make it illegal to say stuff

>>19613196
True, but I enjoyed 1984.

>>19613202
Granted, that and Animal Farm are enjoyable to read and contain many trenchant political observations, but his positive opinions as expressed in his essays are cringe.

>>19613225
Couldn't agree more.

Threw bombs at fascists. Wanted the English to keep their guns. Wrote some books but who cares.

Everyone above this post needs to fuck off from this board. Holy shit, talk about cringe.

>>19613426
no, u

>>19613196
t. butthurt gommie

>>19613895
He uses “small soulled” as an insult. I think this one is a christcuck

>>19613426
>« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS 12/22/21(Wed)09:52:18 No.1961
Why are all women who read midwit tankies?

>>19614018
>women
that's a man, baby

>>19614018
I’m not a tankie and Orwell spoke out against them just as much as I do. Talk about midwit!

>>19614041
kek, Orwell might not have been a Stalist, but let's not pretend that he didn't have a massive hard on for Leninism. I like to think that given more time he would have realized that one leads always to the other, but I am not sure.

>>19613196
>fought for communists in Spain
Yeah he wasn't anything super special. Still had a lot of valuable things to say overall though.

>>19613225
>but his positive opinions as expressed in his essays are cringe.
example?

>>19613196
We can all agree that his non-fiction absolutely decimates his fiction, right? i remember giggling like an idiot at the thought of a "Naval Dictatorship"

>>19614615
Tolstoy was wrong about Shakespeare because society is what defines what's good.

>>19614630
is his argument really that popular=good or are you exaggerating?

>>19613196
>All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
Gommies exposed.

Every time someone says that the world we live in today is like what Orwell predicted in 1984 you can be sure they are a normie midwit

>>19614635
You're speaking to someone who just professed to think poorly of him as a person. You think he's going to represent his work honestly or accurately? The guy went off to war to fight against actual fascism, he had more heart and soul than any pathetic loser on this forum.

>>19614630

I think you commuted that.
Orwell was not saying society defines good or quality or some aesthetic in art. He is saying that art contains something -- call it aesthetic -- that society's members can see that the society itself as an entity defined by its philosophy or its consistency cannot.
He was saying Tolstoy critiqued Shakespeare from a thinking point of view, and a consistency of character point of view, but that even though he was correct in calling out Shakespeare's inconsistency and lack of coherent philosophy, yet some aesthetic shines through.
So NO. Society defines nothing, but society's individuals see something Tolstoy's definition of society's criteria of consistency and coherent philosophy doesn't measure.

>>19614655
>man fought in war so you should respect his personality

>>19614684
>Society defines nothing, but society's individuals do!

>>19614697
>man fought in war for his principles
Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and say that is grounds for a certain level of respect you gutless shitposter

>>19614684
Society's individuals collectively elevating something IS what popularity is

>>19614708
>certain level of respect means you can't objectively evaluate or criticise someone's personality
Btw can you stop talking like Jordan Peterson?

>>19613196
The most cinematic novel of I've ever read

>>19614715

AHHHAAA! So now we have hit on the paradox you are lost in. No. The group is not the individual and the individual is not the group, and it is your bad philosophies that have made you screw this up. How can A person be A group?

But the answer to this is far beyond an image board to resolve. You have all painted yourself into a corner you cannot get out of because you have made yourself out of the paint.
A hint: follow the narrator of the story by making the story its own narrator.

As to Orwell: this is why Op is so wrong, and why what >>19613926 says is probably spot on.
Orwell was Conscious. This means that he was not fooled by the non-conscious stories of ideology, or group identity, or circular rational proof, or belief, or technology that robs choice from those who can change what they are to get to where they want to go. Non-consciousness works by simply denying the goal as legitimate thus robbing choice of the ability to change what you are to be able to overcome the obstacles you currently cannot. Non-consciousness traps you!

You can’t put Orwell in any category by what he critiques or his expansion of his literary target’s failures into their inevitable entropic heat death by taking the opposite as his identity. This is why you can’t call him a socialist or a capitalist or monarchist or any ist! This is why you can’t take what he hates and create a man out of what he is not, because that is exactly what he was criticizing.
Consciousness chooses to make itself for what it wants because it can know what it is; Non-consciousness beggars away choice and becomes what is left over after it has excluded what it is not because it cannot know what it is.

>>19614718
Listen here, BUCKO, if you had cleaned your room and grappled with the evil that runs down the middle of each of our hearts you'd have known that Orwell is an unbelievably astute writer. If you can't even put your own house in order how do you expect to criticize the world? I mean, JESUS CHRIST, you ideologically possessed cultural Marxist, stand up straight and stop lying!

>>19614769
>The group is not the individual and the individual is not the group, and it is your bad philosophies that have made you screw this up. How can A person be A group?
What the fuck are you even saying? Who is conjecturing that a group is an individual? I said if enough number of people in a society consider something good, that's when that thing gets popular

>>19614803

(in for a penny; in for a pound)

Well that was either a tautology on the definition of popular that didn’t need to be said, or the flaw I was talking about. (It was the flaw by the way.) You don't understand because you can't.

Did society take a vote? Did you? So your narrator of the group story decided nothing. Yet when individuals see Shakespeare, many like it.
So the group did not exist, but you commuted it into existence. You commuted group with its members and gave it a narrator of the group. Now that group has its own story that changes the reused stories of all of its members. Now that story robs its members of becoming something that doesn’t do what the fake group narration wants because they can’t make their own stories.

This is a key flaw in all of philosophy. Orwell could not articulate it but he could show you stories where the flaw screws up everything. It just happens that that looks a lot like our lives now.
Funny that…. Maybe our philosophy is wrong...

>>19613196
Indeed

>>19614635
I mean, popular=good, by definition.

>>19614214
Anarchists. He had quite a few negative things to say about the communists in Spain.

>>19614778
Can you wash my penis?

>>19614615
-"Dickens sucked because he didn't have a systematic critique of the bourgeoisie."

>>19616329
That is, quite literally, the opposite of what he says.

>>19614615
-Got silently peer-pressured into murdering a majestic creature in its moment of freedom by a crowd of n-words who hated him.

>>19614615
-No ear for poetry

Down and Out in Paris and London and The Road to Wigan Pier are absolutely kino books.

>>19616190
This exemplifies the domineering all consuming matriarchal archetype that you are pathologically seeking. The fact that you want another person to clean the physical representation of your manhood demonstrates the deep unhealthy underdevelopment of your own soul and agency. Let's really be clear about this, you know, this is a pretty important subject, the orderliness of your private parts. I once had someone come up to me on the street telling me that my lectures prompted him to wash his own penis and improve his relationship with his testicles and... *sniff*, it's just really touching when you have complete strangers being so inspired by you to improve their scrotal hygiene.

>>19613196
Visionary adventurer. Unflagging humanist.

>>19616336
No, he says it and then half contradicts himself later.

>>19616345
That story reads like a punch to the gut, though.

>>19616433
The haggard woman shoving a stick up a clogged drainpipe is such a strong image and a perfect microcosm and symbol of the misery and hopelessness of these run down working class souls. Orwell really knew how to capture the essence of a scene.

>>19616541
He's writing with that anticipation in mind, only to undermine the idea that literary greatness stems from that.

>>19616527
So.. you can wash my penis?

>>19613196
true. he was the archetype of the "not real socialism, muh freedom, racism!!" anglo socialists that you see everywhere today