David Ryan
George Orwell on Screen
Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland & Company, 2018
This book took me down a rabbit hole when I discovered it last June. For several days I didn’t want to do anything but watch old television dramatizations and documentaries about George Orwell’s works and life. There have been a surprising number of them, and most of the key ones can be found online or in other digital media. A few, alas, have vanished into the ether, and we have to make do with David Ryan’s script synopses.
To his credit, Ryan does not spend much ink on critical analyses of the various presentations. That would make for a very fat and dreary book. In nearly every instance he’d have to tell us that the production was uneven and woefully miscast. I wondered if he was going to carp about the misconceived film adaptation of Keep the Aspidistra Flying (1997; American title: A Merry War). Not a bit of it; he leaves it to us to do the carping and ridicule. What he does provide is a rich concordance of Orwell presentations over the years, with often amazing production notes, technical details, and contemporary press notices. And if you don’t care to get that far into weeds, George Orwell on Screen is still an indispensable guidebook, pointing you to all sorts of bio-documentaries and dramatizations you might never discover on your own. This is particularly true of the many (mostly) BBC docos produced forty or fifty years ago, where you find such delights as Malcolm Muggeridge and Cyril Connolly lying down in tall grass and trading tales about their late, great friend.
TV and film versions of Orwell’s last novel (published as Nineteen Eighty-Four in England, 1984 in America) weigh very heavily in the text, and also take up a lot of viewing time when you try to sit through them all. Among the first entries were live teleplays, one broadcast by NBC in 1953 (for the Studio One series), the other staged and broadcast twice by the BBC the following year. There was no videotape in those days, but we do have adequate if fuzzy kinescopes, recorded with a 16mm film camera aimed at a studio monitor. There were also radio adaptations in that era, including two riotous parodies by Spike Milligan and his Goon Show gang. And then, in 1956, came a big-budget feature film that was made in England but distributed under the American title 1984.
It raises some questions, this obsession with Orwell’s novel in the first half-decade or so after his death in January 1950. Was there a political motive at work, early in the Cold War? Was the book so rich in drama and human interest that everyone wanted to do it, the way all actors want to be Hamlet? I think the answer is much simpler. Live TV drama was a gaping maw that needed to be fed, and the hunger for scripts was intense, because radio drama was still very much a thing, too. (The first radio version was an American one soon after the book’s publication in 1949. It stars, incredibly enough, David Niven as a very suave-sounding Winston Smith.) Another reason for the abundance of 1984 productions might be that Orwell’s novel was that rare thing, a work of fiction that almost immediately entered common parlance, even among the many millions who never read the book. You’d have to go back to early Dickens or maybe Uncle Tom’s Cabin to find a novel with that kind of widespread impact. By 1950 anybody literate enough to read a newspaper knew who or what Big Brother was, and maybe could even appreciate jokes about “thoughtcrime” and “Room 101.”
Those two early teleplays, from NBC and the BBC, were melded together in a 1956 feature film, with Edmond O’Brien, Jan Sterling, Michael Redgrave, and Donald Pleasance (partly reprising his role from the BBC version). This version surpasses other screen adaptations in one respect: its exterior shots. It was made on location in London, and made use of recognizable landmarks and wartime bomb damage, giving us the dismal look and feel of the city in the novel. When there’s a celebration in Victory Square we don’t need to have it explained to us that this is really Trafalgar Square.
Balanced against this virtue are the movie’s oddities, and they are legion. Edmond O’Brien as Winston looks wasted and beaten-down, as Winston should, but here’s it’s as a paunchy and cirrhotic figure, rather than the gaunt and pallid nicotine addict in the book. Michael Redgrave wears a spaceship-commander uniform as the Inner Party bigwig O’Brien. Only in this movie they change his character’s name to O’Connor, because two O’Briens in the same film was thought to be too confusing for the audience.
And then there’s the problem of the finale. The novel’s finish was thought too downbeat, with Winston a broken man, drunk on clove-scented gin and separated from Julia, waiting for a bullet in the back of the head. So the director shot two different endings, one in which Julia and Winston get back together again, briefly, after which Winston finds redemption by cheering for Big Brother; and a second one in which Julia and Winston shout “Down with Big Brother” and start ripping down Big Brother posters. This “Down with Big Brother” ending is said to have been distributed in the British (and presumably European) market. I saw it on television someplace a long time ago and it was a real surprise: had I completely misremembered the ending?
* * *
Viewing the two teleplays and their mashup in the 1956 movie, one notices that, production values aside, the American “take” on the Orwell story was very different from the British one. American tastemakers conceived of 1984 as futuristic science-fiction. You see this in the lurid cover of the original Signet paperback, and in the posters for the 1956 film. The stark sets and random costumes in the 1953 Studio One production will put one in mind of something by Edward D. Wood, Jr. The designers were aiming for something like German Expressionism, but the effect is more like a cardboard dollhouse. While Big Brother posters are everywhere, “BB” is nothing like the mustachioed Stalin avatar that Orwell had in mind. Instead, “Big Brother Is Watching You” appears over a “hairless, freakishly distorted cartoon face [that] looks like something Mad magazine has commissioned from Picasso” (as author David Ryan puts it).
Speaking of Ed Wood: Lorne Greene plays a very fey O’Brien, rather like Bunny Breckinridge’s “Ruler” character in Plan Nine from Outer Space. He wears an ornate suitcoat, sort of early-Roxy-usher, to indicate his high status in the Inner Party. When he slips Winston Smith (Eddie Albert) his address and suggests they get together that evening, it looks to all the world like a homosexual assignation. And some of the costume choices suggest that the crew didn’t understand the book at all. Orwell put most of his Party members in “overalls”: meaning, the kind of onesie garment that flight mechanics would wear; like Winston Churchill’s “siren suit.” But the costume people at Studio One saw “overalls” and thought of farmers’ bib overalls. So Eddie Albert as Winston was going to go around attired in necktie and farmer overalls, foreshadowing his 1960s sitcom role in Green Acres. But it appears somebody caught the mistake at the last minute, and came up with a few grease-monkey outfits, so at least Winston and the male ensemble don’t look entirely foolish.
What I found most baffling and annoying about this 1953 NBC production is that it entirely ignores the significance of Emmanuel Goldstein in the Two Minutes’ Hate. There is no Goldstein; instead the giant telescreen shows us a beefy talking-head known as Cassandra. Perhaps the Studio One producers were chary of Goldstein’s Jewishness. Or perhaps they didn’t want to complicate things by alluding to the whole Trotsky-vs.-Stalin saga, or suggest that Orwell’s novel (author’s disclaimers notwithstanding) really truly was about Soviet Communism.
This coyness carried over into the 1956 feature film, scripted by the same scenarist, William Templeton. Once again, no Emmanuel Goldstein, no explicit suggestion of Communism per se. But this time they couldn’t call the telescreen traitor Cassandra, because in mid-1950s England “Cassandra” had a very special meaning: not the doomsayer of Ilium, but a popular, snarky columnist in the Daily Mirror. It would be like calling the Goldstein figure “Liberace.” So when the morning scrum at the Ministry of Truth gathers for their Two Minutes’ Hate, their wrath focuses upon a talking head called “the archenemy Kalador.” Kalador? Just a sci-fi-sounding name the writer or someone pulled out of the air. Inexcusable.
No such issues in the 1954 BBC teleplay. The costumers knew what “overalls” were, and the producers weren’t touchy about using the name Emmanuel Goldstein or alluding to Leon Trotsky. Here the Goldstein on the telescreen is even made up to look like Trotsky. This production is twice as long as the American one, and has sufficient time to develop minor characters and subplots. Winston Smith is played by Peter Cushing, which gives the drama something of a Hammer Horror aspect (after all, Nineteen Eighty-Four is indeed a horror tale). The real diamond in the cast, though, is young Donald Pleasance as Syme, the nerdy lexicographer who can’t stop talking about the wonders of Newspeak. In fact, I’m pretty sure he has more lines in this teleplay than he does in the book.
The BBC dramatization is also much more inventive when it comes to Room 101. NBC’s Studio One version briefly locks Eddie Albert in a cubicle with (unseen) rats. Eddie screams. Blackout. So much for the horrors of Room 101. But the BBC crew really went to town. They built a whole kludgy apparatus for the rats, involving a cage, a face mask, and a kind of plastic ventilation coil running between them (something like a supersized version of the Habitrail ducts that hamsters scamper around in). Unfortunately the rats weren’t at all fearsome or hungry when they shot this scene, so we end up with insert shots of peaceful lab rats sniffing around their cage. But you have to give the set techs an E for Effort.
The crucial difference between the 1953 American teleplay and the 1954 British one is how they approach the material. Once again, the American team thought they were doing science fiction. The British team dealt with it all as naturalistic kitchen-sink drama. This seems to me to be the only correct way to deal with Orwell. Those bedraggled Party members, sullenly putting in time at the Ministry of Truth; downing their disgusting grey stew at the canteen; maintaining themselves in a mild stupor with regular shots of cheap gin—this is pretty much wartime London as Orwell knew it and as the BBC crew remembered it. There’s very little here that’s futuristic.
Tellingly, when The Goon Show did their parody, “Nineteen Eighty-Five,” it was mainly a series of jokes about the food at Big Brother Corporation’s office canteen.
ANNOUNCER:
(over public address system) BBC workers. The canteen is now open. Lunch is ready. Doctors are standing by.
FX:
SOUND OF CANTEEN HUBBUB, CUPS & SAUCERS CLINKING
WINSTON:
As I sat at my table eating my boiled water I began to hate Big Brother Corporation.
The “naturalistic” BBC television script had a long afterlife. After being presented twice in 1954 and parodied by the Goons in 1955, it was re-produced in 1965, for a series called The World of George Orwell. And when Michael Radford made his visually stunning feature with John Hurt and Richard Burton (filmed and released in A.D. 1984), the film’s mise-en-scène recalled the fetid atmosphere of the BBC teleplays rather than the confused, big-budget 1956 movie. What’s missing in the Radford version is a clear backstory, as reflected in the novel’s atmosphere of wartime privation and squalor. This was something easy to get across in the 1954 BBC teleplay, but it doesn’t really register in the Radford version, which seems to take place in an alternative reality that exists somewhere outside our own chronological scheme.
* * *
Finding the right tone for dramatizing Orwell seems to be more of an obstacle for scriptwriters than it ought to be. Nearly everything he wrote was a depresso-gram, highly resistant to playful optimism. Earlier I mentioned Keep the Aspidistra Flying, a woeful black comedy that is set in the 1930s but follows a similar plot arc to Nineteen Eighty-Four. Somebody made a BBC teleplay of Aspidistra in the 1960s, and that seems to have been pretty faithful to the book. I.e., it was a downer. It didn’t get revived or rebroadcast, and eventually the BBC lost or erased the tapes. When the property came up again thirty years later as a feature production, the decision was made to turn it into a frothy period piece about a carefree young couple (Richard E. Grant and Helena Bonham-Carter), and that’s pretty much what we got. The idea seemed to be that the only acceptable treatment of the 1930s was something out of Masterpiece Theatre.
Two of Orwell’s best and most adaptable novels, Burmese Days and Coming Up for Air, have never gotten anywhere near feature production. The first seems to be permanently trapped in development hell, while the second was made into a BBC teleplay way back in 1965 and hasn’t been heard from since.
And then there’s Animal Farm, filmed twice but very unsatisfactorily, once in cel animation (1954) and once in live-action-plus-CGI (1999). In both instances the directors/animators missed the essential point: that this is a talking-animal tale (“A Fairy Story,” Orwell subtitled it), and the talking animals need to have distinct, developed personalities. Those personalities get lost in these films. Because in the first production the animals don’t really get to talk, the whole drama being explained in voice-over narration. The 1999 production went to the other extreme, giving us an Uncanny Valley of “real” talking barnyard animals. Instead of Orwell’s fairy-tale anthropomorphized critters, we get grotesque close-ups of drooling dogs and snot-nosed hogs. The effect is horrifying. Any sympathy we might bring to Orwell’s delightful creations doesn’t stand a chance.
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
d crib-note interpretation of O’Brien (“zealous Party leader . . . brutally ugly”), but pray consider: a) Connolly was Orwell’s only acquaintance of note who came close to the novel’s description of O’Brien, physically and socially; b) if you bother to read O’Brien’s monologues in the torture clinic, you see he’s doing a kind of Doc Rockwell routine: lots of fast-talking nonsense about power and punishment, signifying nothing.
A good deal of Nineteen Eighty-Four, in fact, is a twisted retelling of Keep the Aspidistra Flying.
To repeat the obvious, Burnham was describing Communism, not some theoretical “totalitarianism,” as in some press blurbs for Nineteen Eighty-Four. As noted, Orwell explicitly disavowed any connection between his fictional “Party” and the Communist one. Nevertheless, the political program that O’Brien boasts about to Winston Smith is the Communist program à la James Burnham. It’s exaggerated and comically histrionic, but strikes the proper febrile tone.
In March 1947, while getting ready to go to Jura and ride the Winston Smith book to the finish even if it killed him (which it did), Orwell wrote his long, penetrating review of The Struggle for the World. He paid some compliments, but also noted some subtle flaws in Burnham’s reasoning. Here he’s talking about Burnham’s willingness to contemplate a preventive war against the USSR:
When Orwell finished Animal Farm in 1945, it was a very bad time to promote anti-Communist books with talking animals. This one was too clearly an allegory about the Bolshevik Revolution and the Stalinist aftermath, as subtle as a cow-pie (one barnyard feature that does not appear in the book). Over two dozen publishers rejected it promptly; Churchill’s coalition government had been touting a pro-Soviet line since 1941. Against this background, Animal Farm was about as welcome as a sympathetic book review of Mein Kampf (which Orwell did in fact once publish, during the Phony War period).
But the use of pigs raises all sorts of other complications. All the male pigs but Napoleon, we are told, have been castrated. This fact is introduced late in the book, and rather obliquely: “Napoleon was the only boar on the farm.” But hold on: Napoleon has sired many porkers, presumably male often as not. Surely they’re still intact – some of them, anyway. Is Orwell just being forgetful, or does he fear certain distasteful matters will slow down the story?
Cinematographer Franz Lustig’s opening scenes confront even the most unsuspecting and ill-informed audience with the sight of an almost obliterated Hamburg filled with crumbling buildings. Raw footage shows, or at least intimates, that a deliberate and premeditated plan had achieved its desired effect of sending Germany back to the Stone Age. This plan, codenamed Operation Gomorrah, which was at the time the heaviest aerial assault ever undertaken, was later called “Germany’s Hiroshima” by British Bomber Command. Reel after reel offers shocking images: black-and white photo montages of the chaff-filled skies and the abhorrent results of the merciless firebombing that had raised a four-hundred-and-sixty-meter scorching-hot tornado that reached temperatures of up to eight hundred degrees Celsius, and swept over twenty-one square kilometers of the city. Carried out by Lancaster, Wellington, Stirling, and Halifax aircraft, their blockbuster bombs turned asphalt streets into rivers of flame, asphyxiating young and old alike in a sea of carbon monoxide, and as one eyewitness later recalled, it “sucked people like dry leaves into its molten heart.”
Stefan Lubert (Alexander Skarsgard), a widower, and his daughter Freda (Flora Thiemann), are the people whose palatial home Rachael has in effect invaded when it is requisitioned by the occupying forces to billet the Morgans. Rachael insists, “I want them out!”, which means in effect expelling them to the refugee camps. She also asks them difficult questions about a certain portrait that had only recently been removed from a place of honor over their fireplace and hurriedly replaced by another painting. These are petty acts of spiteful sadism that were no doubt common practice and openly endorsed by the non-fraternization code at that time, but in the context of the film’s narrative clearly signals more about Rachael’s own insecurities than it does about any misdemeanors or malicious intent on the part of those in whose home she resides.
Mr. Wilson begins his “inquiry into the nature of the sickness of mankind in the twentieth century” at the effective point of the writers who have most influence in the present intellectual world. They are mostly good writers; they are not among the writers catering for those intellectuals who have every qualification except an intellect. They are good, some are very good: but at the end of it all what emerges? One of the best of these writers predicted that at the end of it all comes “the Russian man” described by Mr. Wilson as “a creature of nightmare who is no longer the homo sapiens, but an existentialist monster who rejects all thought”, As Hesse, the prophet of this coming, put it: “he is primeval matter, monstrous soul stuff. He cannot live in this form; he can only pass on”. The words “he can only pass on” seem the essence of the matter; this thinking is a chaos between two orders. At some point, if we are ever to regain sanity, we must regard again the first order before we can hope to win the second. It was a long way from Hellas to “the Russian man”; it may not be so far from the turmoil of these birth pangs to fresh creation. It is indeed well worth taking a look at the intellectual situation; where Europeans were, and where we are.
This union of mind and will, of intellect and emotion in the classic Greek, this essential harmony of man and nature, this at-oneness of the human with the eternal spirit evoke the contrast of the living and the dying when set against the prevailing tendencies of modern literature. For, as Mr. Wilson puts it very acutely: when “misery will never end” is combined with “nothing is worth doing”, “the result is a kind of spiritual syphillis that can hardly stop short of death or insanity”. Yet such writers are not all “pre-occupied with sex, crime and disease”, treating of heroes who live in one room because, apparently, they dare not enter the world outside, and derive their little satisfaction of the universe from looking through a hole in the wall at a woman undressing in the next room. They are not all concerned like Dostoievsky’s “beetle man” with life “under the floor boards” (a study which should put none of us off reading him as far as the philosophy of the Grand Inquisitor and a certain very interesting conversation with the devil in the Brothers Karamazof, which Mr. Wilson rightly places very high in the world’s literature). Many of these writers of pessimism, of destruction and death have a considerable sense of beauty. Hesse’s remarkable Steppenwolf found his “life had become weariness” and he “wandered in a maze of unhappiness that led to the renunciation of nothingness”; but then “for months together my heart stood still between delight and stark sorrow to find how rich was the gallery of my life, and how thronged was the soul of wretched Steppenwolf with high eternal stars and constellations . . . this life of mine was noble. It came of high descent, and turned, not on trifles, but on the stars.” Mr. Wilson well comments that “stripped of its overblown language,” “this experience can be called the ultimately valid core of romanticism — a type of religious affirmation”. And in such writing we can still see a reflection of the romantic movement of the northern gothic world which Goethe strove to unite with the sunlit classic movement in the great synthesis of his Helena. But it ends generally in this literature with a retreat from life, a monastic detachment or suicide rather than advance into such a wider life fulfilment. The essence is that these people feel themselves inadequate to life; they feel even that to live at all is instantly to destroy whatever flickering light of beauty they hold within them. For instance De Lisle Adam’s hero Axel had a lady friend who shot at him “with two pistols at a distance of five yards, but missed him both times.” Yet even after this dramatic and perfect illustration of the modern sex relationship, they could not face life : “we have destroyed in our strange hearts the love of life . . . to live would only be a sacrilege against ourselves . . .” “They drink the goblet of poison together and die in ecstasy.” All of which is a pity for promising people, but, in any case, is preferable to the “beetle man”, “under the floor boards”, wall-peepers, et hoc genus omne, of burrowing fugitives; “Samson you cannot be too quick”, is a natural first reaction to them. Yet Mr. Wilson teaches us well not to laugh too easily, or too lightly to dismiss them; it is a serious matter. This is serious if it is the death of a civilisation; it is still more serious if it is not death but the pangs of a new birth. And, in any case, even the worst of them possess in some way the essential sensitivity which the philistine lacks. So we will not laugh at even the extremes of this system, or rather way of thinking; something may come out of it all, because at least they feel. But Mr. Wilson in turn should not smile too easily at the last “period of intense and healthy optimism that did not mind hard work and pedestrian logic.” He seems to regard the nineteenth century as a “childish world” which presaged “endless changes in human life” so that “man would go forward indefinitely on ‘stepping stones of his dead self’ to higher things.” He thinks that before we “condemn it for short-sightedness”, ” we survivors of two world wars and the atomic bomb” (at this point surely he outdoes the Victorians in easy optimism, for it is far from over yet) “would do well to remember that we are in the position of adults condemning children”. Why? — is optimism necessarily childish and pessimism necessarily adult? Sometimes this paralysed pessimism seems more like the condition of a shell-shocked child. Health can be the state of an adult and disease the condition of a child. Of course, if serious Victorians really believed in “the establishment of Utopia before the end of the century”, they were childish; reformist thinking of that degree is always childish in comparison with organic thinking. But there are explanations of the difference between the nineteenth and the twentieth century attitude, other than this distinction between childhood and manhood. Spengler said somewhere that the nineteenth century stood in relation to the twentieth century as the Athens of Pericles stood in relation to the Rome of Caesar. In his thesis this is not a distinction between youth and age — a young society does not reach senescence in so short a period — but the difference between an epoch which is dedicated to thought and an epoch which has temporarily discarded thought in favour of action, in the almost rhythmic alternation between the two states which his method of history observes. It may be that in this most decisive of all great periods of action the intellectual is really not thinking at all; he is just despairing. When he wakes up from his bad dream he may find a world created by action in which he can live, and can even think. Mr. Wilson will not quarrel with the able summary of his researches printed on the cover of his book : “it is the will that matters.” And he would therefore scarcely dispute the view just expressed; perhaps the paradox of Mr. Wilson in this period is that he is thinking. That thought might lead him through and far beyond the healthy “cowboy rodeo” of the Victorian philosophers in their sweating sunshine, on (not back) to the glittering light and shade of the Hellenic world — das Land der Griechen mit der Seele suchen — and even beyond it to the radiance of the zweite Hellas. Mr. Wilson does not seem yet to be fully seized of Hellenism, and seems still less aware of the more conscious way of European thinking that passes beyond Hellas to a clearer account of world purpose. He has evidently read a good deal of Goethe with whom such modern thinking effectively begins, and he is the first of the new generation to feel that admiration for Shaw which was bound to develop when thought returned. But he does not seem to be aware of any slowly emerging system of European thinking which has journeyed from Heraclitus to Goethe and on to Shaw, Ibsen and other modems, until with the aid of modern science and the new interpretation of history it begins to attain consciousness.
He is acute at one point in observing the contrasts between the life joy of the Greeks and the moments when their art is “full of the consciousness of death and its inevitability”. But he still apparently regards them as “healthy, once born, optimists,” not far removed from the modern bourgeois who also realises that life is precarious. He apparently thinks they did not share with the Outsider the knowledge that an “exceptional sense of life’s precariousness” can be “a hopeful means to increase his toughness”. The Greeks, of course, had not the advantage of reading Mr. Toynbee’s Study of History, which does not appear on a reasonably careful reading to be mentioned in Mr. Wilson’s book.
But Mr. Wilson moves far beyond Sartre in regarding the thinkers of an earlier period; notably Blake. At this point he recovers direction. The reader will find pages 225 to 250 among the most important of this book, but he must read the whole work for himself; this review is a commentary and an addendum, not a précis for the idle, nor a primer for those who find anything serious too difficult. The author advances a long way when he considers Blake’s “skeleton key” to a solution for those who “mistake their own stagnation for the world’s”. Here we reach realisation that the “crises of’living demand the active co-operation of intellect, emotions, body on equal terms”; contact is made here with Goethe’s Ganzheit, although it is not mentioned. “Energy is eternal delight” takes us a long way clear o the damp caverns of neo-existentialism and
No men ever had a deeper sense of the human tragedy than the Greeks; none ever faced it with such brilliant bravery or understood so well not only the art of grasping the fleeting, ecstatic moment, but of turning even despair to the enhancement of beauty. Living was yet great; they understood dennoch preisen; they did not “leave living to their servants”. Mr. Wilson in quoting Aristotle in the same sense as the above lines of Sophocles — “not to be born is the best thing, and death is better than life” — holds that “this view” lies at one extreme of religion, and that “the other extreme is vitalism”. He does not seem at this point fully to understand that the extremes in the Hellenic nature can be not contradictory but complementary, or interacting. The polarity of Greek thought was closely observed and finely interpreted by Nietzsche in diverse ways. But it was left to Goethe to express the more conscious thought beyond polarity in his Faust: the Prologue in Heaven:
May we end with a few questions based on that doctrine of higher forms which has found some expression in this Journal and in previous writings? Is it not now possible to observe with reason and as something approaching a clearly defined whole, what has hitherto only been revealed in fitful glimpses to the visionary? What are the means of observation available to those who are not blessed with the revelation of vision? Are they not the thoughts of great minds which have observed the working of the divine in nature and the researches of modern science which appear largely to confirm them?
At some point the spirit, the soul — call it what you will — is ignited by some spark of the divine and moves without necessity; yet, again it is a matter of common observation that this only occurs in very advanced types. In general it is only the “challenge” of adverse circumstance which evokes the “response” of movement to a higher state. Goethe expressed this thought very clearly in Faust by his concept of evil’s relationship to good; he also indicated the type where the conscious striving of the aspiring spirit replaces the urge of suffering in the final attainment of salvation: wer immer strebend sich bemüht, den können wir erlösen. In the early stages of the great striving all suffering, and later all beauty must be experienced and sensed; but to no moment of ecstasy can man say, verweile doch, du bist so schön until the final passing to an infinity of beauty at present beyond man’s ken. Complacency, at any point, is certainly excluded. So must it be always in a creed which begins effectively with Heraclitus and now pervades modern vitalism. The philosophy of the “ever living fire”, of the ewig werdende could never be associated with complacency. Still less can the more conscious doctrine of higher forms co-exist with the static, or with the illusory perfections of a facile reformism. Man began very small, and has become not so small; he must end very great, or cease to be. That is the essence of the matter. Is it true? This is a question which everyone must answer for himself after studying European literature which stretches from the Greeks to the vital thought of modern times and, also, the world thinking of many different climes and ages which in many ways and at most diverse points is strangely related. He should study, too, either directly or through the agency of those most competent to judge, the evolutionary processes revealed so relatively recently by modern biology and the apparently ever increasing concept of ordered complexity in modern physics. He must then answer two questions: the first is whether it is more likely than not that a purpose exists in life? — the second is whether despite all failures and obscurities the only discernable purpose is a movement from lower to higher forms? If he comes at length to a conclusion which answers both these questions with a considered affirmative, he has reached the point of the great affirmation. The new religious impulse which so many seek is really already here. We need neither prophets nor priests to find it for ourselves, although we are not the enemies but the friends of those who do. For ourselves we can find in the thought of the world the faith and the service of the conscious and sentient man.
Naipaul had a unique background. He was of Hindu Indian origins and grew up in the British Empire’s West Indian colony of Trinidad and Tobago. Naipaul wrote darkly of his region of birth, stating, “History is built around achievement and creation; and nothing was created in the West Indies.”
The arrival of Islam to the Sind is the disaster which keeps on giving. 
The Kalevala was first published in 1835, but the tales therein date back to antiquity and were handed down orally. The poems were originally songs, all sung in trochaic tetrameter (now known as the “Kalevala meter”). This oral tradition began to decline after the Reformation and the suppression of paganism by the Lutheran Church. It is largely due to the efforts of collectors like Lönnrot that Finnish folklore has survived.
Le communisme a facilement chuté partout finalement mais il a été remplacé parce que Debord nomme le spectaculaire intégré. Tocqueville déjà disait « qu’en démocratie on laisse le corps pour s’attaquer à l’âme. »
La surpopulation américaine menacera la démocratie américaine (triplement en un siècle ! La France a crû de 40% en cinquante ans) :
Dix ans avant Umberto Eco (voyez mon livre sur Internet), Huxley annonce un nouveau moyen âge, pas celui de Guénon bien sûr, celui de Le Goff plutôt :
Huxley n’est pas très optimise non plus sur l’avenir des enfants mués en de la chair à télé :
Quant au futur, no comment :
Dans son maigre énoncé des solutions (il n’en a pas), Huxley évoque alors la prison sans barreau (the painless concentration camp, expression mise en doute par certains pro-systèmes !) :
Despite cultural nativism being at its centre, Yeats’s Protestant background was shared by most of the leading figures of the movement. Among these were the Galway based aristocrat and folklorist Lady Gregory, whose Coole Park home formed the nerve centre of the movement, and the Rathfarnham born poet and playwright J.M. Synge, who later found solace in Irish peasant culture on the western seaboard as being a vestige of authentic Irish life amid a society of anglicisation. The poet’s identification with both the people and the very landscape of Ireland over the materialist England arose from his early childhood and formative experiences in Sligo, a period that would define him both as an artist as well as a man.
Despite some apprehension about the nature of the Easter Rising, as well as a latent sense of guilt that his work had inspired a good deal of the violence, Yeats took a dignified place within the Irish Seanad. He immediately began to orientate the Free State towards his ideals with efforts made to craft a unique form of symbolism for the new State in the form of currency, the short lived Tailteann Games and provisions made to the arts. Despite his 
En manipulant les archives, l’on manipule les consciences. Il suffit pour cela de « rectifier » le passé en l’alignant sur les nécessités politiques de l’heure. Si d’aventure il arrive que la mémoire individuelle contredise la mémoire collective ainsi façonnée, la contradiction doit être résolue au profit de la seconde par l’élimination de la première. D’où l’utilité de la « double pensée » pour assurer le triomphe de l’orthodoxie. Il n’y a plus ni réalité ni objectivité. Selon les termes même d’O’Brien, « la réalité n’est pas extérieure. La réalité existe dans l’esprit humain et nulle part ailleurs... Tout ce que le parti tient pour la vérité est la vérité ». Par cette perversion totale de l’histoire et de la conscience historique, on atteint le point extrême de la logique totalitaire. 
News of Seth’s victory reaches London where Basil Seal, the ne’er-do-well son of the Conservative Whip and a classmate of Seth’s at Oxford, is recovering from a series of scandalous benders that have forced him to abandon his nascent political career. Desperately in need of money, Seal travels to Azania as a free-lance journalist. Within a short time of his arrival, Basil becomes Seth’s most trusted adviser and is put in charge of the Ministry of Modernization; in effect, Basil has become the real ruler of Azania since Seth spends his time immersed in catalogs and dreaming up more and more ridiculous “progressive” schemes for the betterment of Azanians, such as requiring all citizens to learn Esperanto. The natives who run the other departments are all too happy to refer all business to Basil.
Today is the birthday of Henry Williamson (Dec. 1, 1895 – Aug. 13, 1977)—ruralist author, war historian, journalist, farmer, and visionary of British fascism.
Blackshirt sympathies are really a side-note with Williamson, as they are with Yeats, Belloc, and Wyndham Lewis. If he is largely forgotten today, this is not because he went to Nuremberg rallies (nobody forgets the Mitfords, after all), but rather because of the peculiar nature of his output. Apart from his war memoirs, most of his writing consists of highly detailed close observation, with little direct commentary on the world at large. (The newspaper column at the end of this article is a good example of Williamson’s work. Taken in large doses, such detail tends to become tedious.)
The romance of the country permeates his other fiction. In one novel after another, Orwell’s human characters rouse themselves, suddenly and unaccountably, to go tramping through meadows and hedgerows. In A Clergyman’s Daughter the title character gets amnesia and finds herself hop-picking in Kent. The superficially different stories in Nineteen Eighty-Four and Keep the Aspidistra Flying both have romantic episodes in which a couple go for long hikes through idyllic woods and fields, where they marvel and fornicate amongst the wonders of Mother Nature. The middle-aged narrator of Coming for Air spends much of the novel dreaming of fishing in the country ponds of his youth, but when he finally takes his rod and seeks down his old haunts, he finds that exurbia has encroached and his fishing-place is now being used as a latrine and rubbish-tip by a local encampment of beatnik nature-lovers.
