George Orwell Blogs From the Grave

flaming error writes to tell us the Orwell Prize organization will, starting today, post George Orwell's diary entries online exactly 70 years after they were written. NPR discussed the blog and shared excerpts from the diary. We talked about a similar undertaking several years ago, when a diary from 1660 was put online. According to the blog's creators, it will allow you to "follow Orwell's recuperation in Morocco, his return to the UK, and his opinions on the descent of Europe into war in real time. The diaries end in 1942, three years into the conflict."

Comments

Great! Orwell is always worth reading.

[Animats]

If all you've read is "1984", you don't realize what a great commentator he was.

Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading.

[Red Samurai]

Very true. His essays and political commentary are some of the best I've ever read, and still hold great relevance today. I recommend them to anyone who isn't already familiar. That said, I'm looking forward to reading these diary entries.

Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading.

[Hal_Porter]

You can read some of them here

http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/index_en

This is something a lot of slashdotters really need to read
http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/nationalism/english/e_nat

(v) Pacifism. The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to the taking of life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists whose real though unadmitted motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration of totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writings of younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States. Moreover they do not as a rule condemn violence as such, but only violence used in defence of western countries. The Russians, unlike the British, are not blamed for defending themselves by warlike means, and indeed all pacifist propaganda of this type avoids mention of Russia or China. It is not claimed, again, that the Indians should abjure violence in their struggle against the British. Pacifist literature abounds with equivocal remarks which, if they mean anything, appear to mean that statesmen of the type of Hitler are preferable to those of the type of Churchill, and that violence is perhaps excusable if it is violent enough. After the fall of France, the French pacifists, faced by a real choice which their English colleagues have not had to make, mostly went over to the Nazis, and in England there appears to have been some small overlap of membership between the Peace Pledge Union and the Blackshirts. Pacifist writers have written in praise of Carlyle, one of the intellectual fathers of Fascism. All in all it is difficult not to feel that pacifism, as it appears among a section of the intelligentsia, is secretly inspired by an admiration for power and successful cruelty. The mistake was made of pinning this emotion to Hitler, but it could easily be retransfered.

Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading.

[gregbot9000]

Best one: Politics and the English language, should be required reading for all English classes.

These journals as blogs are neat, but I hate it when the people posting it in the present step in with a post of their own every few days, really breaks the illusion. On the whole, these are great ways to read journals I'd never pickup as a solid book. Theres another one that follows a WW1 soldier but it sucks.

Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading.

[pha7boy]

I always found Orwell to be a visionary. Not like Nostradamus, but in a specific way - of attracting attention to the possible undercurrents of events and their consequences. I look forward to seeing what he recorded as his personal thoughts.

Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading.

[Myrddin Wyllt]

And while we're at it, everybody get a magic marker and 'correct' your record collection to read

• Vincent Furnier
• Declan McManus
• Marc Feld
• Robert Zimmerman
• Marvin Lee Aday

They're not 'wrong' names, they're noms de plume, there is a difference.
(Free virtual coconut to anyone who gets them all without looking them up)

Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading.

[Boronx]

How many times a day to read on /. someone saying something like, "Iran has a right to the bomb" or "US invades countries. Hitler invaded countries. Coincidence?" or my favorite, "Terrorists kill civilians. So does the US!". That moral equivalency bullshit is exactly what Orwell is calling out here.

In the passage quoted, he is calling out fascist sympathizers feigning pacifism as a means to an end of selling their country. He does elsewhere callout true pacifists as "objectively pro fascist", but later renounced that thinking as Stalinist, which it is.

British pacifists were clearly misguided IMHO, but were German pacifists in '38 and '40, not to mention '14? Their views were suppressed too, should we applaud that?

"Terrorists kill civilians. So does the US!".

What else makes a terrorist evil? I suppose torture and kidnapping, but the US does that too.

If you think the high-altitude bombing of civilians especially of a nation that never overtly or covertly attacked us is some how morally superior to ramming planes into buildings, then you are a moral relativist of the worst sort. Bush and bin-Laden are both mass murdering war criminals that should be brought to justice, using force if necessary, and tried for their crimes.

You'll note there is no moral dimension to Orwell's argument, he's point is about patriotism and putting your country before your ideals or your political fantasies. In this situation, where the US is not faced by an existential by a superior military force bent on its destruction, but is instead waging an unprovoked war of aggression, it's the closet fascists in the pro-Iraq war faction that have (this time successfully) betrayed their country.

Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading.

[Boronx]

Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist.

Orwell later wrote his regrets about that bit.

If you haven't figured it out yet replace "fascist" with "terrorist", "Germany and Japan" with "Al Qaeda and Iran"

Why would anyone do something so ridiculous? This is exactly the kind of muddled thinking of which Orwell correctly accused pacifists in his day.

There were German pacifists in 1914 and 1939. Should we applaud their suppression the same as we do the British pacifists?

Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading.

[zullnero]

Replacing one word with another without taking into account the differences in definition between the two is completely ignorant.

What I'm gathering you're trying to say, however, is that in the US, the attempt to repress the struggle between two sides by way of the so called "War on Terror" is Orwell's definition of pacifism. Therefore, you are likening Bush to Hitler as a result of his stating on numerous occasions that if "you're not with me, you're against me".

As far as "moveon.org" goes, it's a freaking social club for Democrats. That's all it is. They have bake sales to raise money to put ads defending their candidates on the TV. The Republicans have lots of those organizations too. One of them is called "Freedom's Watch". Now THOSE are some creepy dudes, and their name sounds like it was taken directly from another certain black arm band wearing militia. Code Pink has a dramatic name, but their reasoning is that they believe the Iraq War to be an illegal and Unconstitutional occupation that is causing the deaths of US soldiers for entirely unclear, vague reasons. And they have plenty of evidence to back up that claim that the Bush Administration cannot refute. ANSWER? CAIR? All more of the above.

Oh yeah, and Orwell was an admitted Socialist as well. Check out Road to Wigan Pier. Ayn Rand hated him, you know. And the Bushies LOVE their Ayn Rand.

Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading.

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Funny how easy it is to mischaracterize your opponent's position, find an Orwell quote that condemns it, and believe yourself to be an intellectual.

Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading.

[Skreems]

The problem is, the interpretation of that passage out of context seems to lead to the logical fallacy that opposition to one cause automatically equates to support of ANY cause which opposes the same thing. However, it's entirely possible to be both anti-Britain and anti-Germany, to use an example from the quote. It's tantamount to claiming that there are only two possible sides to any conflict, which is obviously false as any reasonably intelligent person can always construct a new viewpoint that stands in support or opposition of both sides.

Besides which, the man's other writing clearly displayed a realization of the consequences of this kind of "with us or against us" thinking, and it was not a bright world that he saw emerging from that sentiment.

Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading.

[ArcherB]

Thank you! That is one of the finest examples of the moral equivalence bullshit arguments I was talking about.

What else makes a terrorist evil? I suppose torture and kidnapping, but the US does that too.

So, you equate the capture and interrogation of combatants to the kidnapping, torture and beheading of civilians, journalists and aid workers?
How many captured terrorists have been executed by the US? How many by the terrorists (I can list two by NAME!)? Like I said, perfect example.

If you think the high-altitude bombing of civilians especially of a nation that never overtly or covertly attacked us is some how morally superior to ramming planes into buildings, then you are a moral relativist of the worst sort. Bush and bin-Laden are both mass murdering war criminals that should be brought to justice, using force if necessary, and tried for their crimes.

What you fail to consider is the target and the reaction. Bin Laden targeted civilians. He wanted to kill men, women and babies and the more, the better. When he killed 3000+, there was dancing in the streets in the Arab world.
The US, on the other hand, targets military targets exclusively. The US military actually goes out of its way to avoid civilians and even misses some targets because of it. When civilians die as a result of a US action, the US is quick to apologize.

But, I guess it's all the same to you. Intent makes no difference and the US Soldier is the same as Mohamed Atta in your eyes.

You'll note there is no moral dimension to Orwell's argument, he's point is about patriotism and putting your country before your ideals or your political fantasies. In this situation, where the US is not faced by an existential by a superior military force bent on its destruction, but is instead waging an unprovoked war of aggression, it's the closet fascists in the pro-Iraq war faction that have (this time successfully) betrayed their country.

Uh, yeah. Because the US was never attacked on 9-11. Iraq did not violate 17 UN resolutions, fire on US and NATO forces and attempt to murder a former US president. The USS Cole was never attacked and no one shot down BlackHawk helicopters that were there trying to feed the starving.

Like I said, a perfect example of the moral equivalence bullshit argument and you are exactly the type of batshit-crazy pacifists that Orwell was talking about.

Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading.

[mvdwege]

Ah yes. The famous anti-pacifism rant Orwell published at the beginning of World War II. The one that keeps making the rounds on conservative blogs, being posted by idiots like you who have not read a letter of Orwell's other work. By posting this, you give yourself away as yet another stupid parrot.

To reiterate what someone else already posted: Orwell retracted that position. Which you would have known, if you had actually read his collected essays.

It really pains me to see how reactionary scum like you try to hide behind one of the most honest men the twentieth century gave us, without giving his memory even the respect to actually read his work. Then again, I take solace in the fact that Orwell also gives plenty of tools to identify blackshirt-supporting, Daily Mail-reading closet fascists like you.

Mart

Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading.

[ArcherB]

likewise the US military doesn't give a shit who they target so long as all they have to do is *appear* remorseful afterwards

You're knowledge of the US military appears as if it comes from Al Jazeera. As a veteran, I can tell you that you're wrong. I've seen us let targets go because civilians were present. Don't believe me? Look at how many mosques are still standing in Iraq. How many schools that were packed with ammo and AAA were not blown apart. I can honestly say that you are full of shit. You are a politically motivated, partisan hack who will say or do anything to justify your hatred of all those that think differently.

Now before you go getting your panties in a wad

Too late. I don't deal with liars well.

I am not a pacifist and believe that violence can be a means to an end, but in the words of General Smedley Butler, "the only 2 things worth fighting for are our homes and the Bill of Rights". The USA military's current endeavours are nothing more than acting as enforcers for powerful financial interests.

Yeah, we're making so money from Iraq right now that I don't have to pay taxes. And the money we're squeezing out of Afghanistan is amazing! Don't even get me started on the coin we are making from Germany and Japan! Didn't you know that Mercedes and Toyota are wholly owned by the US Govt!

To quote the most retarded president of the USA ever "either you are with us or you are with the terrorists"...

And to bring this back on topic, that "retarded" president was loosely quoting Orwell. You'd know that if you were keeping up with this thread. So, was Orwell retarded too?

...well GW, I think you're BOTH insane and will fight to the death to protect myself and my family from both groups.

First, you won't need to fight to the death from GWB. However, that is the goal of the terrorists. The US Servicemen and women will, however, fight to the death to protect you. Nothing is more important to the US Serviceman or the President than protecting the lives of Americans. Second is their freedoms. Third is the lives and freedoms of innocent people around the world. It makes me sad to think that so many are so willing to bite the hands that protect them. Don't worry, if you don't want the protection, that's fine. I hear Mexico is nice this time of year. Rest assured that the second you get past Laredo, you are free from the tyranny of GWB. I'm not saying "love it or leave it", but as long as you are within these borders, you are protected, want it or not. Your only escape is to leave the country. Good luck.

Anne Frank?

[dotancohen]

I'd really like to see this done with Anne Frank as well. I've actually suspected that this would be done with a nice round number of years since the events, such as 100 years later.

Re:Anne Frank?

[vrmlguy]

I've actually suspected that this would be done with a nice round number of years since the events, such as 100 years later.

Actually, you's probably want a multiple of 28 years, so that the days of the week line up. For a short period of time, a multiple of 7 is probably OK, but if you pass over any leap years, they'll throw things off.

Re:Anne Frank?

[Myrddin Wyllt]

That works fine for 28/56/84 year "anniversaries" but once you cross 100 things start getting wonky, especially once you cross 1582 (the year).

You early adopters can get off my lawn. I (and the *nix 'cal' program) didn't go Gregorian until September 1752.

Excerpt from diary from grave

[Anonymous Coward]

August 9th

Dear diary,
Braaaaaaaaiiins!

George.

long diary

[Aggrav8d]

Wait, the diary was from 1660, but ends in 1942? Tell me we've sequenced his DNA and found out how he lived that long. I don't think I'm going to get through the whole thing if I read just one entry a day.

Re:long diary

[maxume]

Are you sure you would get anything out of reading any of the entries?

Really?

[aerthling]

I think most people would prefer to have the entire diary available to download in one lump sum rather than having bits and pieces rationed out at intervals. I know I certainly would.

I think it's wonderful that they're publishing them, but imho the format is idiotic.

Re:Headline

[ari_j]

You seem to be pretty new here. The standard for "dumbest headline ever" is very, very high.

Yes, but...

[SilentBob0727]

How good will he be about responding to comments?

Tuesday

[Ghubi]

In 1938 (year the diary starts) August 9th was a Tuesday.

Re:Headline

[unfunnyguy]

God sues Apple.

Richard Stallman shaves.

Twitter found murdered by M$ agents.

Duke Nukem Forever released.

Slashdot named dating site of the year.

Bill Gates reveals he is the Goatse guy.

Re:Headline

[legirons]

Dare to suggest a dumber headline then?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/08/01/virgin_goes_down_on_clients/

Orwell vs. the Ministry of Information

[Animats]

Blair worked for the British Ministry of Information during WWII. Many of his memos are preserved in "Orwell - the Lost Writings", which turned up in the BBC archived a few years ago. This is where much of the detail of "1984" came from. "Big Brother" is actually some manager called "B.B." at the MoI. "Newspeak" comes from the BBC's effort to broadcast to the colonies in Basic English. One of Blair's jobs was translating material into Basic English, which, he discovered, is a political act. You have to detail the meaning of any idioms and metaphors when grinding down text into Basic English. Political ambiguity does not translate unless made specific.

Incidentally, Blair refused to write as George Orwell for the MoI; he took the position that they had hired Eric Blair, not George Orwell, and weren't entitled to use his professional reputation.

To get a sense of what the Ministry of Information turned out as propaganda, see this WWII MoI video.