George Orwell: A literary mediocrity (?)

[ShellShock]

Harry, I have not come across Will Self on TV, but he has certainly been on Radio 4 quite a lot, e.g. the Sunday morning opinion piece just before the nine o'clock news.

[DrNefario]

I've read his book The Great Apes, and thought it was very good, although it suffers the usual flaws of lit-fic: it's a bit full of itself and doesn't have a proper ending. Other than that, it's a good bit of SF, although it will never admit it.

I'm not quite sure I can be bothered to see what he's actually saying about Orwell, but the title does seem a bit clickbait. Orwell's books have the power to be life-changing. I haven't heard anyone say that about Self.

[Nabeel]

Yes, Will Self is one of those self-consciously provocative writers. He's pretty sharp.

Orwell had problems publishing 'Animal Farm' in 1945 because official government policy saw Soviet Russia as an ally. It was seen as too awkward.

[Prestidigitweeze]

The underlying argument has little to do with Orwell and Self per se. It has more to do with deeper questions about the purpose of style.

Will Self is making the same point that many others have made in response to the idea that transparent prose is the ideal for criticism and narrative fiction. Orwell's famous essay on style, which privileges Anglo-Saxon words over the Latinate variety in terms of vigor, is useful and even recommended by a number of writers I've known. Katherine Dunn, author of Geek Love, has practically made a science out of how and when to introduce Latinate words.

The problem is that (i) pellucid prose itself can become mannered and inexpressive (see the innumerable Hemingway imitators of the '30s and '40s) and (ii) taken too literally, Orwell's stylistic preferences can be used by dogmatic critics, editors and readers to rule out the work of many, many gifted and fecund writers -- including that of Mr. Self, whose diction can be pleasantly quirky.

Self seems to be saying that every writer should not be expected to ascribe to Orwell's precepts for stylistic excellence; that stylistic opacity is not always a bad thing.

I tend to agree. As much as I respect the sapphire-glass clarity of Andre Dubus, I also love the elaborate chamber music of John Hawkes. And you can't have Flaubert without a bit of clarity and opacity.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by Nabeel

Yes, Will Self is one of those self-consciously provocative writers. He's pretty sharp.

Orwell had problems publishing 'Animal Farm' in 1945 because official government policy saw Soviet Russia as an ally. It was seen as too awkward.

That makes sense. They did come out on the side of the Allies against Hitler in the end so I guess it wouldn't have been very PC to be too critical of their ways of doing things at that time.

[Luffy]

Originally Posted by DrNefario

I've read his book The Great Apes, and thought it was very good, although it suffers the usual flaws of lit-fic: it's a bit full of itself and doesn't have a proper ending. Other than that, it's a good bit of SF, although it will never admit it.

I'm not quite sure I can be bothered to see what he's actually saying about Orwell, but the title does seem a bit clickbait. Orwell's books have the power to be life-changing. I haven't heard anyone say that about Self.

Orwell is still relevant today, maybe more than ever. One or more of the songs of OK Computer was inspired by 1984. Margaret Atwood was influenced by Orwell’s strong commentary against communism. David Thorne, the humorist and Australian writer, references Orwell on his website.