That article is kind of written in an annoying and arrogant tone tbh. There is no objectively good or enjoyable novels. And also there’s not only one possible interpretation of 1984.
With that said I don’t really have a dog in this fight, it’s fucked up what orwell did late in life and also I don’t know if you would ever truly call him an anarchist. But 1984 depicts three nations in constant unending war - In my interpretation it’s the Soviets, the capitalists, and the fascists. While the book does focus on the Soviets or seems too, part of the book for me is that it could truly be any of the three nations. It’s not just a criticism of Stalinism (although I think it certainly is one) but a criticism of the global system which Orwell to me seems to see as being part of the same thing. Like each nation kind of requires the other two, the criticism is of all of them.
And besides You can despise Stalin even while someone “worse” is around. Like you can choose to spend your time on criticizing Stalin even if someone worse exists. The point that that’s “infantile” isn’t even supported by anything it’s jsut mudslinging.
Like I said fuck Orwell for sure. He was a homophobe and antisemite and a snitch. Let there be no association between me and him. But I also find this article really annoying. And it seems like it’s also attempting to tie the criticism of Orwell (obviously justified) into a criticism of anarchists which i don’t think he really was despite his collaboration with them. Also I kind of think 1984 isn’t that far off the money. The dreary and system controlled existence produces a novel with a monotonous energy, that’s the point as I see it, and I think it makes a good point about the world we live in.
That article is kind of written in an annoying and arrogant tone tbh. There is no objectively good or enjoyable novels. And also there’s not only one possible interpretation of 1984.
With that said I don’t really have a dog in this fight, it’s fucked up what orwell did late in life and also I don’t know if you would ever truly call him an anarchist. But 1984 depicts three nations in constant unending war - In my interpretation it’s the Soviets, the capitalists, and the fascists. While the book does focus on the Soviets or seems too, part of the book for me is that it could truly be any of the three nations. It’s not just a criticism of Stalinism (although I think it certainly is one) but a criticism of the global system which Orwell to me seems to see as being part of the same thing. Like each nation kind of requires the other two, the criticism is of all of them.
And besides You can despise Stalin even while someone “worse” is around. Like you can choose to spend your time on criticizing Stalin even if someone worse exists. The point that that’s “infantile” isn’t even supported by anything it’s jsut mudslinging.
Like I said fuck Orwell for sure. He was a homophobe and antisemite and a snitch. Let there be no association between me and him. But I also find this article really annoying. And it seems like it’s also attempting to tie the criticism of Orwell (obviously justified) into a criticism of anarchists which i don’t think he really was despite his collaboration with them. Also I kind of think 1984 isn’t that far off the money. The dreary and system controlled existence produces a novel with a monotonous energy, that’s the point as I see it, and I think it makes a good point about the world we live in.