Why Orwell Will Always Matter

An MFT response below to this piece by John Dolan on Orwell and Hitchens entitled, "Big Brothers" (it's probably better to first read the Dolan piece and then my response below):

Why Orwell Will Always Matter

Dolan descends into the pit-fall that so many American Conservatives and Liberals continuously argue over: is Hitchens a Liberal or a Conservative? Of course, only a smart person would stay out of THAT debate, and choose to chat with those who think before speaking.

Dolan bemoans Hitchens and Orwell for their lack of empathy, and accuses Orwell of being an "Imperialist apologizer," and then lambasts Hitchens for being upset -- and hence un-empathetic -- towards those that kill in the name of god. (Using this model -- a sort of feigned anthropological study -- one might accuse Dolan of being un-empathetic towards Hitchens and Orwell.) Dolan's notion of Hate isn't very self-reflective, though. He incorrectly accuses Hitchens and Orwell as having hate-driven motives, but what does he mean by "hate." It's these, to use the cliche, broad brush-strokes and generalizations that contribute to Dolan's un-scholarly interpretation of Orwell.

He doesn't acknowledge Orwell's intellectual honesty about who writers actually are. At the outset of Why I Write, Orwell is all-too upfront about writers (himself included) as being lazy, at least when it comes to physical labor. Of course, a philologist or even an average writer needs to be thinking about what words they are using instead of moving bricks -- or doing whatever it is physical laborers do. Who wants to read lazy, un-focused, un-guided writing? Aren't there enough problems in the world already? Why compound them further with bad prose.

Orwell correctly pointed out the problem with many Intellectuals who continued to support the Pacifist/Passive cause (Ghandi included) during the Second World War, even as the Luftwaffe continued to drop Nazi bombs on Britain -- both military and civilian targets (TOTAL WAR, Baby!). What Dolan might be alluding to is suspiciously tainted with the Bill Maher-isms of our day: if it isn't Liberal, then it's George W. Bush! Using this same "theoretical" model (moreso a bad political polemic), Dolan could make a case that David Hume was both a Catholic Tory, and/or the next week, a Protestant Whig (Hume was despised by both). It would be determined by the particular political fevor of the day rather than what Hume actually contributed to Empiricism, History, and Philosophy.

In addition to all of this, when are we going to be able to stop reading about the "Imperialist European Colonizers!" thesis? For some reason it's still trendy, but it's also so beaten to death. It started at least as early as the beginning of the 20th-century (for more understandable reasons), and was furthered by graduate students in the 1960s and '70s. Today it's just an incantation ladened with too much political baggage to even begin deconstructing. Could Dolan think of something else to say, perhaps something a bit more original, or even nuanced?

And an explanation as to why Orwell may have chosen the name "O'Brien" (Dolan uses this as evidence of Orwell's "anti-Irishness") as the apparatchik-interrogator in 1984 could have had something to do with the Irish revolutionaries who were seeking "Independence," and willing to recieve funding from Moscow back in the day, and up through the 1980s. Think of that paradox when some Middle American starts talking about "Irish Independence!" during St. Patrick's Day -- the same Americas who tell people from Ireland, "Oh, I'm Irish too!" True Hibernians (meaning, they are actually from Ireland) typically respond to that statement with, "What a right wanker..."

It'd be interesting to read a Hitchens or a Jeffrey Meyers response to this Dolan piece.