The content of our subjectivity

Rob Schaap rws at comedu.canberra.edu.au
Wed Aug 22 22:27:16 PDT 2001



> Orwell is not someone I'd cite as a great writer, more of a moralist and
>> stylist than an aesthetic innovator.

I beg to differ, Dennis. The fact that it all looks so ho-hum now might be a function of how dazzlingly and effectively new it was then. A billion imitators were spawned (I'd make the case all these trendy cyberpunks can be traced back to him, for a start). He thought it was precisely because he'd turned to political subject matter ('moralism', if you must) that a new style came to the surface. His explicit anti-purpleness/decoration/self-reference/'humbug' stance (see 'Why I write') was for him a natural function of realising why he was writing at all - and this, all by itself, enough to warrant the greatness tag (never mind the fact that his sparseness was never grating, unlike, say, Hemmingway's).

And his essays ('A Hanging' and 'Shooting an elephant' come to mind) are simply as good as expository literature can get. As good a fit between concept and word as I can imagine.

Quite enjoyed your list; though I'd have had Led Zeppelin, Patrick O'Brian and Apocalypse Now in the seventies column - but then, I'd have him under 80s, 90s and noughties, too ... it just never got better.

Cheers, Rob.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list