 |
| Orwell (the tall guy) getting an incompetent machine gun lesson in the Spanish Civil War |
...
If you liked Christopher Hitchens's collection Arguably then I can't recommend the Everyman Orwell highly enough. If you didn't like Arguably then I'm sorry Mr. Chomsky or Mr. Cockburn this isn't the book for you.
35 comments:
Does yours include his letters as well? I bought a four volume Collected Letters and Essays back in the '70s which my daughter has since stolen from me. Orwell could invest even the most trivial subject (making tea, for instance) with just the right balance of humor and insight. I remember one essay in particular that was about a rose bush he'd planted outside his house, and how for such a little sum so much beauty was produced. One thing that really comes across in the essays is Orwell's affection for the everyday delights of English culture (gardening, pubs, etc.) and his hatred of the politicians and businessmen who were destroying or cheapening that culture.
I recently read 1984 and it's really amazing how some people are having a lot of success with it as a how-to manual.
In a recent argument with my wife over the need for a teapot in making decent tea, I had to pull out my Everyman edition and quote it like a statute. But you're right – it's full of great things.
Cary
Nope no letters alas because I'm sure they would be something.
He loves the countryside. I loved his essay on the common toad and his question to readers about the flowers growing on bombsites during the blitz.
John
Indefinite detention without trial is pretty amazing in this day and age and thats whats going on at Guantanamo.
Robin
The tea essay is a classic. He's certainly right about the teapot and no sugar, but I like my milk in first.
You da man...i have read a few of his essays and was spurned on by a workmate to actually 'invest' in this piece ('invest' as it is, ahem, a hefty price) because i would gain not hours, but years of rollickingly insightful, precise and downright funny reading...so today...feigning sickness i may mosey down to the only bookshop in st kilda thats worth its salt (except for the 2ndhand in fitz st) and invest, or at least order. Thanks for the review..
Dan
Like I say this one was a present, but I think the Australian price is going to be ridiculous. It might be a job for the Book Depository.
Collected Essays 0 99 cents on Kindle.
Concerned
While the Everyman is a beautiful object that 99c. cannot be beat. What a bargain.
As a family, we have inherited that four volume set from my dad, and I currently have the first volume where it will probably fall on my head in the next earthquake, but I've only cracked it a couple of times so far.
Uh, the book, not my head, although it might seem so.
Seana
Its well worth the read. Its a great book to read on a wet winters evening if such evenings exist in S.C.
Last night was one. Too bad I was catching up on television...
I have very much enjoyed his essays and you all here have made me realize there's a lot more to like.
I don't know what Mr Chomsky thought about Arguably, but I do know he's a huge fan of Orwell.
Having read most of Orwell as a teenager , Adrian is preaching to the converted ! Orwell could in the space of a sentence or two cut to the heart of an issue like no other.One phrase I distinctly remember is how the media use key words to"establish an atmosphere of prejudice"He used Bolshevik as an example saying that it's inclusion in an article was designed to do form opinion before the article was read.
Sheiler
Not very generous in his remarks about his former friend and sparring partner Hitch though.
Neil
And it still goes on to this very day in almost every newspaper in the land.
Well Hitch became a rightwing reactionary and an apologist for western aggression..so the reaction and comments of Chomsky and others regarding Hitchens defense of war crimes was certainly understandable and justified in my opinion.
Very
I dont know who told you that Hitch became a "right wing reactionary" but whoever it was misinformed you. If you read his last essay collection Arguably you'll see the utter nonsense of that remark. While I disagreed completely with Hitch over the Iraq war his reasons for it where to protect further massacres of the Kurds, a people he came to love, which isn't the rationale one would normally find in a right wing reactionary. (If you want to see Hitch destroy a real right wing reactionary you should read the devastating book reviews he did of Pat Buchanan and David Mamet).
The remarks of Chomsky and Cockburn I was referring to were the vulgar comments from both of them that Hitchens endorsed the Iraq war merely to curry favour with the Bush administration. Comments that neither of them had the balls to utter when Hitch was alive. Of course any reading of Arguably would make a nonsense of that statement too.
Cockburn, Chomsky and that ilk have a very reductive and simple minded view of the world: all the problems on Earth are caused by American Imperialism. To me this is the true reactionary world view which is a country mile removed from the nuanced take of Hitchens or indeed of Orwell.
While you have certainly gotten me to take a second look at Hitchens, and to admire his many merits, the Iraq war was not a good thing for him to get on the wrong side of. I'm glad you provide a context for it, but the fact is that it makes him look like a less intelligent man than he actually was.
I think you can be not quite as simplistic as all that and still think he got this one wrong in a context where his getting it right might have helped a great deal.
That said, I don't think he was aligned with the reactionary forces at all. I think he was aligned with Salman Rushdie.
Longtime lurker here. Thought I would chime in. Norton is publishing his diaries in August. 608 pgs. $40.
Love your books Adrian!
Ben
Seana
Hitchens' obsession with justifying Iraq was the only place where I really couldn't go there with him. Buts thats ok you shouldnt agree with your heroes on everything.
Ben
He kept diaries too? The man must have been a workaholic. Writing novels, a weekly column, copious letters and a diary. He would have made a great blogger I'll bet.
Adrian,
Just a few comments...
According to a report published in Lancet, over 1 million Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the US invasion...which again was and is a war crime since Iraq was no threat to the US. This simply was an act of aggression on the part of the US, ie war crime as defined by International Law.
We all know the reasons given were simply lies. The so called weapons of mass destruction did not exist, which was known at the time, and the ties to Al qaeda was another lie.
I think we agree on this since you said you did not support the US invasion..
So even if Hitchen's reasons for support were to prevent killing of kurds, he surely must have realized that invading a country will lead to massive civilian loss..So the defend the invasion on humanitarian grounds is kind of ridiculous. Again 1 million innocent Iraqi civilians died as a result of the invasion.
Unless, of course, one ones to make the crystal ball argument and say that the situation would have been worse if the US did not invade. But that excuse has been made by every imperial power in history and not even worth discussion..
Can you provide a quote from Chomsky regarding Hitchens wanting of curry favor from the Bush administration?
They debated on line few times and i doubt Chomsky had anything to fear from Hitchens...Links for debate can be provided if you want to see them
As far as Hitchens turning right I suggests you check out the following Blog:
http://christopherhitchenswatch.blogspot.com/
As far as his rightwing reactionary comments and opinions see:
http://christopherhitchenswatch.blogspot.com/2011/04/lubna-qureshi-on-blair-hitch-and-oil.html
or:
http://christopherhitchenswatch.blogspot.com/2011/03/essay-from-lubna-qureshi.html
Or:
http://christopherhitchenswatch.blogspot.com/2011/12/greenwald-on-hitchens.html
The blog entries go back to 2005. Long before Hitch passed away..so I don't think his critics held their criticisms because somehow they were afraid of Hitchens.
Chomsky thinking that all the problems of the world are caused by US imperialism is simply nonsense and cant see how one could reach that conclusion if they read Chomsky.
Yes, Chomsky concerns himself a great deal with what the USA does for a very simple moral truism...He lives in the USA. Simple. He concerns himself with what his country does in the world since this is where he can have the greatest impact. Simple moral truism..To say he blames everything at the feet of US Imperialism is just a strawman...
If he lived in Ireland, he would focus his actions on what the Irish govt does and so on... He can influence what the US does, he cant really do too much about Norway, Italy etc...
Also given that the US is the most powerful military and economic power in history and many of the worlds problems, many, not all, can be traced back to Washington in one form another, it makes perfect sense to concern ones self with Washington, especially when you are a citizen of the USA...
That seems obvious and correct to me.
Very
I did not support the invasion. I thought it was a Bush election ploy because he couldnt catch Bin Laden and he wanted to "finish the job his father began".
I've blogged about this half a dozen times so I'll be brief this time. The invasion was not illegal under international law. Iraq was in violation of its peace treaty obligations from the 1991 war. If you read Grotius's De Jure Belli Ac Pacis or the UN Charter or the Peace Treaty itself you'll see that Iraq's attacking of allied aircraft was sufficient legal reason for the invasion. I'll stress this point, I was opposed to the invasion and think it was a mistake but the people who think it was illegal and a war crime simply do not know international law. You can read Grotius here:
http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/grotius/Law2.pdf
The relevant bit of the UN Charter is Article 51.
Hope that helps.
And I hope you're willing to walk back your thinking that Hitchens was a "right wing reactionary" which is not supported by the evidence.
Incidentally that Lancet report is a bizarre outlier backed up by no one else. It seems more likely the death toll from the invasion was about 100,000 most of whom were killed by AQI or in sectarian slaughter.
Adrian,
Thanks for your comments.
Well actually no, UN Charter 51 does not give the US authorization to attack Iraq since article 51 specifically refers to the right to self defense of a country under attack which the United States was not under, unless you are willing to accept an attack on a US aircraft flying over the skies of Iraq is attack on the US which is ridiculous,to put it mildly.
And again International Law is quite clear as to when the use of force is legitimate which is briefly outlined above.
And no I won't recant my view of Hitchens being a right wing reactionary, at least as far as the US invasion of Iraq is concerned.
Hitchens was once a very sharp critic of US foreign policy. His writings on the plight of the Palestinians, as one example among many, was very passionate and moving but that was a very different Hitchens than the one cheerleading the Invasion of Iraq. I admired the former Hitchens, not the latter.
As far as the Lancet report, they used a very standard methodology, namely cluster samples that are used routinely when trying to determine deaths above the norm. The same methodology used to determine deaths in Rwanda but no one questiones the methodolgy when the country is Rwanda and the deaths can be blamed on someone else.
Funny how that works.
And yes sectarian violence certainly caused many deaths, the Lancet report goes into this, but what lead to the sectarian violence?
And I don't really know of anyone serious blaming the majority of the deaths on al Qaeda especially given there were basically no al Qaeda members in Iraq before the US invasion.
As far as the US invasion being the result of some kind of vendetta, all I'll say that it is really fortunate that Iraq's primary export is not peanuts.
Very
If you are not willing to read the sources then further discussion is pointless.
1.) You'd have to be a very odd individual indeed to read Arguably and consider Hitchens a right wing reactionary. Either you havent read it and are making a judgement on hearsay or your definition of right wing reactionary is so outside the bounds of normal usage as to be meaningless.
2.) I'm not sure where you studied international law. I took it at the University of Warwick, UCL and Oxford. Article 51 is very clear. And yes an attack on a US aircraft is considered to be an attack on America. Just as an attack on one Roman soldier was considered to be an attack on Rome. It may seem ridiculous to you but I'm afraid this is the customary international law going back 2000 years or more. You really need to read that Grotius book I linked to. I know you wont but you should.
3. Your writing on the deaths in Iraq is confused. AQI was not as you say in Iraq before the invasion but the deaths occurred after the invasion did they not? And certainly after AQI had set up shop in the country. I dont get what you're trying to say here?
4.)The Lancet reports are certainly an outlier compared to the IBC survery and half a dozen surveys and reports:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_casualties
Very,
We both agree that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake and a disaster right? But unlike you I am willing to look beneath the propaganda and hyperbole and actually examine the facts. You can certainly believe what you want to believe but the world is a more interesting and nuanced place than the propaganda on both sides will have us believe.
best
Adrian...
Adrian,
Can't seem to get my response to go through. Keep getting an HTML error message. I will try again later. May have too many links in response.
Third try...Think I have to do this in stages.
1) I gave reasons why and links to his comments and arguments that put Hitch firmly in the right wing camp..Not always. Like I said, I once admired him, until he went to the dark side as it were...Maybe confusion over right wing term since that implies a religious element that Hitch did not have..Statist reactionary.
His budding up with Wolfowitz or David Horowitz etc...But mostly his positions on say the use of torture, his attack on wikileaks and Julian Assange etc..
http://christopherhitchenswatch.blogspot.com/2011/04/lubna-qureshi-on-blair-hitch-and-oil.html
Or say this quote..still justifying the invasion..
"I'm glad we're not having an inquest now, as we would be [if there had been no invasion], into why we allowed a Rwanda or a Congo to develop on the Gulf, an imploding Iraq right in front of our eyes, a vortex of violence and meltdown, a whole society beggared and fractured and traumatised, waiting to fall to pieces."
He is so blinded by his own fanaticism he cant even see what he hoped would not happen did because of the invasion he wanted. He cant see it.
http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/2050-blind-mans-bluff-hitchens-pays-obeisance-to-his-one-true-god.html
2) well you are just wrong about article 51.
"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security."
And by your understanding of self defense, or the book you cite I assume,it justifies any attacker who invades a foreign land as acting in self defense!!
This is just total nonsense.
By that definition Afghanistan attacked the Soviet Union, East Timor attacked Indonesian, India attacked England,Poland attacked Germany, Vietnam attacked the United States etc.
Total lunacy!!
That's all I am posting for now since if I go one it will probably be blocked and i have to go to work anyway..Will get to the others tomorrow.
Just following along here. I have the sense that minds are not going to be changed in this one, but it's interesting to hear the two sides of this.
I am guessing that Adrian probably wins the legal argument here, but Very is pretty well articulating the sense of betrayal that Hitchens former admirers felt over this. It was the wrong issue to get wrong for a lot of people.
Adrian,
Back to your post...This will be fast since Barcelona is playing in about 50 minutes and i never miss there games!! Sorry for any typos beforehand.
"Your writing on the deaths in Iraq is confused. AQI was not as you say in Iraq before the invasion but the deaths occurred after the invasion did they not?"
Yes...
"And certainly after AQI had set up shop in the country. I dont get what you're trying to say here?"
The US invasion unleashed the sectarian violence and Iraq became overrun with extremists, as again predicted by critics of the invasion before the fact. Even the US govt admits to this now. See here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html?_r=1
4)"The Lancet reports are certainly an outlier compared to the IBC survery and half a dozen surveys and reports...backed up by no one else."
Well this is just not true. See the chart at link provided "ORB" poll also estimates over 1 million dead...
The problem with IBC is that they only rely on western and official sources and even admit themselves that "it should be noted that many deaths will probably go unreported or unrecorded by officials and media." Which makes since in a time of war etc..
For a devastating critique of IBC and the mainstream media-in the UK-reporting on the deaths in general, see link.
http://www.medialens.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=521:iraq-body-count-a-very-misleading-exercise&catid=21:alerts-2007&Itemid=38
"You really need to read that Grotius book I linked to. I know you wont but you should."
You are right, I am not going to read it since I dont see its relevance. I researched a little about it and if I am not mistaken it was written some time in the 16th century.
Think I ll pass on that one.
Cheers
Seana,
Thank you for your kind words.
I respectfully disagree with you on the legality of the war. Only the UN Security Council can authorize the use of force, or, as stipulated in Article 51 which I posted earlier, a country has the right to self defense against attack, which Adrian turned on its head by saying Iraq shooting at a US aircraft flying over Iraq's airspace is an attack on the US, which again is just sheer nonsense...
To repeat myself again, by that logic Afghanistan attacked the Soviet Union and Vietnam attacked the USA.
I realized after that this link was missing from my last post to Adrian.
Thanks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
Well, you're welcome, Very. I am not actually taking a position on this, though. What I mean is that I believe Adrian is kind of a stickler for this kind of stuff, and I'd be very surprised if he had the points of law here wrong.
This doesn't answer the moral sense of having done the wrong thing in this situation, but law is not morality.
And now I'll bow out of this one.
Very
Just to summarise. The invasion of Iraq was lawful in internatioal law under 3 headings: 1) Customary International Law from the Romans through Grotius and beyond (the text to read is De Jure Belli Ac Pacis 2) The UN charter allowing for self defence 3) Iraq's violation of the 1991 armistice agreement. Thats all very obvious stuff. (The UN resolutions of course are meaningless because the UN's weight only comes from its treaty obligations under customary international law.)
Was the war a good idea? I think not. Hitch right up to the end defended its efficacy, but you'll need to read him on that one esp in Arguably. I disagree.
Was it a moral or just war? Again I think not because I think the decision was a hasty and irrelevant response to 9/11. If you were looking for scapegoats both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia would have been better targets as elements of both governments could plausibly be linked to 9/11.
Hope this helps.
A
Post a Comment