George Orwell Books

This book is a three parter. In the first part John W. Young explains to us how language in Orwell's "1984" was used for thought control. In part Two and Three, he compares the fiction to the reality of language and terminology used in Nazi Germany and Communist Russia. Not only does he show us the flaws in totalitarion languages, he even shows us the counter-languages that develop to help people under the dictatorial rule keep things 'real'.
One point he makes is that while governments have a hard time changing the meaning of words or banning them completely, they can make words worthless by using them so much that the words lose all meaning. Kind of like how we use 'democratic' today.

In this critically acclaimed essay, Christopher Hitchens, in his usual contrarian's irreverent style explores the life and myth of a great political writer and moral philosopher, George Orwell, (1903-1950). Hitchens is both admiring and critical of his hero answering both Orwell's detractors and political claimants on the left and right of the political spectrum. Orwell lives to see the rise of Imperialism, Fascism and Stalinism and critically rebukes all three political systems in his writings. Orwell had first hand experience in seeing the wonton depravity of Imperialism while serving as a policeman in Burma. He witnessed the absurdity of Fascism and Stalinism while serving as a volunteer soldier in the Spanish Civil War fighting for the "Workers Party, (POUM). Besides writing classics like "Animal Farm and "1984" he was the first person to coin the phrase "Cold War" in an essay he wrote about nuclear weapons. In 1946 he wrote an essay in which he foretold that Russia would either democratize or perish.


I recommend this book to anyone who is interested in political philosophy, and history.

I love this book, it was a great read.

However, there are simply too many mistakes, misspellings, etc in this version. This is the very worst edition of any book I have ever read. I started highlighting the mistakes on my kindle, but there were just too many and I gave up.

Add to that that the chapters are not marked, and there is no proper index.

If you do buy this horrible edition, be prepared to read around an obvious error every other page or so.

Some examples include:
"There were four others oil the committee"
"And they would sit round die table"

Bottom Line: I want my money back.

This is an incredible book. I was very impressed with how well it is written and amazed that someone in the mid 40's was able to come up with such futuristic ideas and almost shocked at how much of it pertains to the realities of life. I loved every word of it and was almost sad that it was over.

After getting the opportunity to finally soak in this book, I am beside myself that there are even bad reviews for it. There is just two reasons that are possible for bad reviews. One, they are on crack and two, they are jealous that they are unable to write like Orwell.

I came to 1984 after reading a series of novels by Russian authors about life in Stalingrad during the onslaught by Hitler and then after the cruelty of Stalin. It's easy to see how Orwell extended the grim realities of the concentration camps of Germany and the labor camps of Russia into this dark prophecy. Of course, in many instances his vision has become realized. Big Brother seeks to invade our privacy at every turn via electronic media. Governments pose rhetoric immersed in "doublespeak". The Thought Police exist to bully our free expression. Power is exercised by imposing real human suffering upon multitudes. "The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of the products of human labour. War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent." Oil comes to mind here. And munitions. And diverse other commodities. In 1984 the war is endless. "Everywhere there is the same pyramidical structure, the same worship of a semi-divine leader, the same economy existing by and for continuous war." Sound familiar? The High, or the "priests of power" only fall when assaulted by the Middle and usually assisted by the Low classes. Then the Middle becomes the High and oppresses the Low for which change only means a new master. The protagonist, Winston, a "minority of one" questions his own sanity but ultimately defends the "spirit of man" as a force which cannot be overpowered. In the closing pages we see Orwell's true convictions about the infallible power of Big Brother and the triumph of the human spirit. This dark view has real overtones of Nietzsche and Machiavelli, who wrote with the view of realism based upon the inhumanity they witnessed in their heydays by "princes" with the "will to power". But the "spirit of man" is truly formidable and cannot be overcome, except temporarily, by totalitarian figures and corrupt democracies. The next US national election will be telling about down which road America will travel. 1984 is a cautionary, post-World War II tale but to say it's unrealistically dark and couldn't happen here and now is to overlook eons of history. And to be unconscious of the powers of orthodoxy infringing greedily and corporately upon the spirit of man in our time.

I won't summarize the story as many other reviews do that. This book was shocking to readers in 1948, but to those of us who have seen the Soviet Union and even modern day America, it is not really shocking. Oceana, in the book, has an exagerated toletarian system similar to Nazi Germany or Soviet Communism, but with the sexual attitude of the Shakers, or some other group that twists Christianity into a miserable heavy-handed religion. Obviously the author was writing based on events in his time. What is amazing is how the goals of the regime in the book have actually been accomplished, and more easily, in American democracy without the heavy handed approach. The approach in the book is unlikely as they limit human sexuality to a level never acheived by puritanism, except for groups like the Shakers, who died out. It is more effective to break down the family the way it has been done in America, through promoting sexual immorality, divorce, abolishing parental rights, and university brainwashing against parental values. Of course this breaks down society as a whole, but passifies the subjects, and the breakdown of America is necessary to establish a world wide form of democratic facism, or, "the Plan". The futuristic telescreen, would be called an interactive flatscreen TV in our day. While it has not yet come to pass, fully, the internet does much of the same, where people's movements are being tracked and recorded, largely for market purposes at the present, but aside from entrapping people seeking presently illegal forms of sex, its full potential as a law enforcement tool has not yet been utilized. Large search engines have used it to censor speech and thought in some regions, as well as rewrite the past. New speak would be hard to acheive in a democracy, but schools and the media have attempted the separation of word and thought through programs such as the failed Evonics course in California. Words have lost meaning, such as when my son calls something "bad", it can mean good or bad. When he calls something "sick", it could also mean he likes it, or he hates it...or both. Double speak is prevaelent, and the thought police exist in the spirit of "politcal correctness". An example of double-speak is when President Clinton stated, "we will re-define the immutable". Thought crimes are labled as "hate crimes" and are being enforced in order to bring harsher justice to enemies of the state. Threats of terrorism are used to convince the populace to eagerly forfeit their freedoms, though the government is doing the same things they always did, the media is publicizing it as something new to make people consciously aware of the activity in order to accept it. The US Constitution is being reinterpreted and called a "living document" in order to change it's meaning and use doublespeak. Examples are "separation of church and state", a phrase commonly believed to be in the Constitution, but not actually there. The words that are there to prevent government interferance in church affairs, have been twisted to mean the opposite, and is commonly used to erase certain forms of religion (mainly Christianity) from the public sector. The reading of founding documents is forbidden in some state schools due to the mention of God and other ideas which are conflict with the revision of history. Students are also taught that the Pilgrims came to America because they liked to travel, or they wanted gold. The former reasons of fleeing religious persecution and freedom are no longer historical fact as it would interfere with the forthcoming persecution. Another example is the supreme court ruling which supports the confiscation of land by a government body if it can be sold to a source offering higher tax revenues, something clearly forbidden by our founding fathers. In the book there was one party. In America, it is limited to 2, but they are much the same, but appear to argue over inflamatory issues to create the illusion of difference. One example is abortion, which the balance of the Supreme Court comes close to tipping to make illegal, but never quite makes it. The next presidential election is planned to ensure that, regardless of which party wins, or is planned to win. Abortion, being a symptom of a greater cause, keeps people focused on it's own battle, thus preventing them from interfering with the root of the cause which is part of the Plan. In reality, secret agendas are co-operated on by both parties, such as de-industrialization of America for personal profit and the Plan, and the formation af an American Union. Not even the media is allowed in on such negotiations, and the lawmaking procedures are bypassed. Science is allowed, but thought in the scienific community is one of the most strictly controlled, comparable perhaps to the Catholic Church during the days of the inquisition, though penalties are limited to ruining ones career, rather than martyring them. A specific scientific theory of origin, not proposed by a scientist, but a bitter son of a clergyman, is taught as fact, not theory, and increasing scientific evidence against the theory or its obvious flaws, and equally or more viable scientific theories are forbidden for discussion, and lawsuits and severe punishment awaits any state school teacher who disobeys this order. No questioning or free thinking is allowed in this area, as it is considered almost as a blasphemy towards the unofficial state religion of Humanism. This theory is also the basis for racism and ethnic cleansing, and has been the foundation for more death in the world than any other religious dogma. While racism is not tolerted in the realm of political correctness, the concept of different races despite genetic proof of only one human race is supported by all government forms asking which race you identify with. This is because there are many in power who secretly benefit from racism and cultural divisions. While Christianity is forbidden in the state schools, Islam is tolerated and often promoted. It is unclear if this is out of fear, or part of a larger plan, when that religion will replace the vacuum created by the elimination of Christian thought and freedom. An interesting perspective is the essay "Will Islam Be Our Future" by Joel Richardson. Thought crimes today also prohibit the distribution of medical literature published by organizations such as the AMA warning agianst the consequences of practicing certain unsafe or deviant sexual behaviors. In fact, such activity is being taught and encouraged to young school children, and parents can face stiff penalties for interfering with such doctrine. While most Americans once believed the government should keep out of the bedroom, the liberal proponents of these practices will themselves be eliminated after they help to usher in the next phase in the Plan, where human sexuality and the role of women are strictly controlled by the Government. This will precede the third phase where a world leader will come into absolute power. The Mhadi, caliphate, Anti-Christ, the name varies depending on the religion. The transformation of American state run achools from among the best, to among the worse in developing nations, is largely due to the emphasis taken away from acedemics in favor of social engineering this will ensure the weekening of America in order to balance power and bring about the results of the Plan. The way things are brought about in 1984 cannot happen, as human nature will not allow it. The failure of the Soviet Union is an example. It is much easier to manipulate people theough false religion. People will get tired of a political system, but will die for religon. America is unique as it was founded on true "religion", though false notions have tainted it with evils such as slavery, but true freedom can only survive with true Judeo-Christian values, history has proved, and is proving this point before our eyes today. While history may have been colored in the past, it is being changed in today's books, just like in Oceana...

The story is well described in the other reviews, especially in the first one above from the professional reviewer, but I do find it necessary to point out a few observations:

First: George Orwell is a literary genius. There's a reason why he graces the cover of the book: Don't Weep for Me, America: How Democracy in America Became the Prince (While We Slept). If you liked "Animal Farm", "1984" is going to knock you into another thought paradigm.

Secondly, and more important: Whether you read about "Animal Farm" from the professional reviewers, Cliff Notes, or in the introduction to the book itself, there is one self-imposed "limitation" that stays consistent throughout, and that is the sovereign state Orwell has in mind when he wrote "Animal Farm" (or "1984" for that matter)is the Soviet Union. While this may be true, the bigger and more relevant point is getting missed. This bigger and more relevant point is that for ANY sovereign nation, when there is a change of power in its governance (for its betterment), it is ALWAYS the case, I repeat, it is ALWAYS the case that the new governance will gradually become the same as the one it replaced. Look no further than the United States of America. The 1776 rebels overthrew the British tyrant, King George III, mostly due to oppressive business practices, taxes and lack of representation. And look where we are today, in 2008! Corporations rule. Taxes, which we already fought one war over, are exorbitant, and Congress is simply a millionaires club representing the wealthy.

How do we know that George Orwell saw this happening? Because he worked in the BBC and the BBC was spewing the SAME propaganda that the Soviet Union was using. How do we know this? Because writer Martin Esslin worked at the BBC at the same time as Orwell and he wrote that this was the case! For further reference, see my review of the book: U.S. Television News and Cold War Propaganda, 1947-1960 (Cambridge Studies in the History of Mass Communication).

So the point, as is the point with ALL my reviews is this: Become a CRITICAL THINKER!

The book was in great condition and was promptly delivered. I highly recommend using you guys again.

George Orwell's classic novel, Animal Farm, is basically a book that shows the reader all of the problems with communism. Animal Farm first addresses the problem of how tempting communism sounds to the uninformed, and in some cases uneducated, ear. Doesn't it sound nice that everyone pulls their own weight and everyone reaps the benefits? It did to the animals of Manor Farm. At first it was great without those pesky humans around; the animals ate all of the food and got to keep their children. However, it quickly became very obvious that this system wasn't working. The pigs, the smartest of all the farm animals, began to take over led by Napoleon and Snowball. Soon after the establishment of Animal Farm (formerly known as Manor Farm) seven commandments were set forth such as "no animal shall sleep in a bed", "no animal shall kill any other animal", "all animals are equal", etc. After Napoleon ran Snowball off the farm with vicious dogs, Napoleon claimed full leadership of the farm and its animals. One by one, Napoleon modified each of the seven commandments to fit his liking such as "no animal shall drink alcohol to excess." In the end of the book it is impossible for Clover, a horse of Manor Farm (formerly known as Animal Farm and more formerly known as Manor Farm), to tell the difference between the pigs and humans while they are playing a card game.
I would recommend this book to the reader that loves irony. Throughout the story I kept wondering who was going to be the first animal to figure out that in order get rid a tyrant (Mr. Jones the farm owner) they acquired another ("Comrade" Napoleon). Alas I was relieved when a horse realized that Napoleon was changing the commandments for his own benefit. However, when the horse kept this knowledge to himself I was angry at him. I asked myself, "Why wouldn't he show the animals who Napoleon really is?" I never figured it out but for the reader who loves character analysis, this is the book for you! However, this book isn't written for the people who want everything spoon-fed to them. But for the reader that feels the need to read between the lines Animal Farm is full of mysteries for you to figure out.

Deemed a classic by modern day scholars, George Orwell's Animal Farm is a must read. It is a humorous yet realistic satire on Soviet Russia. Although never specifically named as the target of Orwell's story, much controversy has come about from Animal Farm's similarities to the Russian Revolution. Telling the story of animals who are tired of suffering under the oppression of humans, it brilliantly illuminates the struggle of the common man against tyranny. Old Major, a prize winning boar who has the revolutionary spirit of Karl Marx, tells the animals of a dream he has had of a utopian farm where animals have the power. After winning over the emotions of most of the farm animals, Old Major dies and the pigs (Napoleon and Snowball) take over the revolution. Napoleon forces his way into unquestioned power using underhanded tactics and clever slogans like "Napoleon is always right" and "Four legs good, two legs bad." Addressing his fellow animals as "comrades" Napoleon is reminiscent of Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin, covering up the corruption of the farm by saying it's all "for the good of the animals." As conditions worsen and support for the revolution dwindles, the power is questioned and the animals wonder what happened to their dream of equality.
The allusions pour out of this seemingly elementary story, every action was masterfully planned by Orwell to emulate history. For readers who enjoy history and contextual significance, Animal Farm is perfect. Even readers with no knowledge of the political importance behind this book would still find delight in this whimsical story of animals that kick the humans off their farm and try to set up their own government. It is an extremely simple concept, yet is speaks volumes about revolution gone wrong. George Orwell's progressive eccentricity mixed with his classy criticism makes Animal Farm perfectly poignant. This reader would recommend it to all ages!

Animal Farm begins as a tale of triumph over the human race for animals. Yet as it continues you realize the humans never really left. The pigs take over and become the one thing they swore they hated. The worst part is the other animals don't do anything about it and suffer, and whether they do in the future or not we never find out. If happy endings are your thing, forget about this book, because it only represents the cruelest and hardest parts of life, from where there is no rescue. It is disappointing in happiness, yet you cant leave the book unsatisfied, for it does contain a powerful message,we all need to learn whether we like to hear it or not. Life is not all sugar and gumdrops, it also contains Brussels sprouts and tripe, and some people only get the sprouts and tripe, when most of us have the sugar and gumdrops. Orwell is an amazing author and the book is amazing, but for a mature audience( such as myself).

he's realy got an amazing way of turning a phrase. if you are at all interested in the Spanish Civil War this book is a great introduction.

Homage to Catalonia This book is a great read for anyone out there who likes to read. I normally don't read nonfiction books but this one kept my interest throughout the entire book. Orwell describes things in a way that kept my attention the entire time. He even added some selected humour throughout which seemed to lighten the mood. Overall this is a great book that's worth every penny. I'd say go and read it right now if you're looking for a great read.

This is one of the most complete and well-thought-out reports of the Spanish Civil War written in the English language. Considering the importance of international fighters in the war (debatable, but certainly in a political sense, noteworthy), and the effect of the war on socialist myth in the latter half of the 20th century, it is a book not to be missed by anyone interested in either World War II, modern socialism, communism, and/or anarchy, Spain, or George Orwell.

The personal narrative was wonderful and typically vivid Orwell. His complaints about the politics going on behind the scenes, however, were sometimes dull. He admits (repeatedly) that he is biased and perhaps does not know all of what is going on. However, after reading _The Battle for Spain_, I got the sense that his complaining was actually very revealing from an historical perspective.

I read _Homage to Catalonia_ and then _The Battle for Spain_ to get a basic idea about the Spanish Civil War, which I had previously known mainly through punk-rock songs and revolutionary anthem anthologies. I wish I had read them the other way around, though. Although I think this book is indispensable for English-speaking people to understand the Spanish Civil War, it is also a narrow view and very biased (as most works on the subject are). If it were anyone else, my expectations would be lower and I would probably have given it five stars. But compared to other Orwell works (including _Down and Out_) I would give it four.

"Homage to Catalonia" has long passed from the shelf for current events to the shelf of primary historical sources. No one can study the Spanish Civil War without encountering it. On that basis, it's a five-star book; all primary sources should get five stars. As a reading experience, it's not without weaknesses, which the earlier review by H. Schneider examines cogently. I refer you to that review.

Today's newspapers (7-11-08) carried extended obituaries for David Smith, who died in Berkeley, CA, at age 95. Mr. Smith was one of the only 30-some veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, the volunteer contingent of Americans who joined the republican cause in Spain to stop fascism before World War II. The defeat of the republican forces, due at least partly to their own turmoils as described by Orwell, allowed the dictator Franco to suppress the 20th Century in Spain until his welcome death in 1975. David Smith was wounded in Spain in 1938. He returned to America, settled in New York, and married Sophie Kaplan, a marriage that lasted 59 years. Smith worked as a machinist, a union organizer, and for 18 years as a public school biology teacher in New Rochelle, where he campaigned for school integration.
David Smith and his wife were active Communist Party members in the 1940s and 1950s, but left the party in disillusionment in the early 1960s. He was one of the victims of blacklisting in the McCarthy era. He retired to Vermont in 1977, and then to California two decades later. During his long retirement, Smith was a dedicated campaigner for peace, a familiar personage at anti-war demonstrations, and an active raiser of relief funds for Central American countries hit by civil strife.

I knew David Smith reasonably well. He was a man of sincerity and integrity; I doubt that he ever did anything in his life that failed to meet his standards of conscientious humanity. He meant to do well, and he did what he believed was right. His support for the welfare of working people and for oppressed people everywhere was unwavering. He had no lust for power or fame. Like several other grass-root American Communists I've known, he was above all a decent guy. That he was naive about Stalinist Russia is clear; that he wasn't always right about his positions seems clear also, but who is? But to portray such a person as a menace to free society, an unscrupulous plotter, a pawn in the game of Kremlin masterminds is libel and foolishness, and a self-deception honorable people in America cannot afford.

After re-reading Catalonia, some 20 years after my first encounter, I am disappointed. I do not think that this is Orwell's best work. It has many of his strengths, mainly the elegant, efficient and straightforward prose that he developed so impressively, but there are some flaws. Main flaw in my view is the fact that the main political theme has become dead and irrelevant. Stalin died some decades ago, the Soviet Empire collapsed, we don't need to dig in the little details of their abominable strategies any longer. Of course we can't blame Orwell for the fact that his concerns are not ours any more. But it shows that the book was not timeless in the sense of surviving its immediate subject, as his other non-fiction did.
Second main weakness of the book: the narration of the Barcelona street fighting and the attempts at understanding them are rather boring.
On the strong side: the tales from the Aragon front are much more interesting. Orwell saw less fighting than he was keen to experience, but he describes the trench routine with the same livelyness that he brought to Wigan coalmines and Paris restaurants previously.
He did see enough fighting to get dangerously injured. People said to him that few men survive a shot through the neck, so he was lucky. He thinks he would have been luckier if he had not been shot at all.
Orwell published the book a few months after his adventure, and before the Spanish Civil War was over. Surprisingly the book was a commercial failure then, and equally surprisingly it has later been named as one of the best non-fiction books of the century.
Why was it ignored in the early time? Possibly because he told the world things that the world didn't want to know. He busted the myth that there was a confrontation of the good and the bad in Spain, that democracy fought fashism. Orwell shows us that there were at least 3 camps, not 2. The most vicious fighting that he experienced was among the 'good guys'. The government side was influenced strongly by the communist party who had secured the support from Russia. Since no other country provided weapons to the government side, that secured a lot of mileage.
Orwell was a hopeless romantic, who loved the feeling of working class rule that he got when he first arrived in Barcelona. That must be the reason for the otherwise incomprehensible book title. That basically socialist attitude must also have put quite a few potential readers off at the time of publication.
Orwell later saw the few months in Spain as his political training period. It put him off communism and Stalin for good, but confirmed his socialist attitude, which however never found a political home in a party, though he did support Labor in his remaining years, from the outside.

The book itself describes the daily lives of people in two different nations/societies that were impoverished in his era. The way that they struggled to just receive the bare minimum as far as food and shelter are eye opening. To anyone entertaining ideas about accepting libertarianism please read this to understand how we as a society really do need to look out for one another. The parts that he includes showing the social hierarchy in poor groups is entirely necessary and in itself amazingly descriptive. Do read this because you will most definately not be disappointed.

I like Orwell's prose style, which is curt, clear and to the point, so it isn't surprising that I enjoyed this book. I was a bit wary at first, thinking I wouldn't enjoy reading about squalor, but Orwell brings to life a whole world of tramps and hunger without trying to elicit pity. The section on working in French restaurants is great, and so is his encounter with Bozo, the street artist in London. The book is not an exhaustive coverage of poverty; it is deprivation seen impressionistically by an author who was extremely poor for a period of time. The constant in the book is poverty and the search for food and a bed, but the experiences are varied, sometimes amusing, and the characters he meets are different. An interesting glimpse into the past, told humanely but without sentimentality.

Orwell began as an idealist and remained one until his untimely death at the age of 48 from tuberculosis. In most of the photographs I can find of the great writer, he always has a smoke in his mouth, typing away, while a white haze of thoughts, ideas, nicotine and tar surround him, like a dangerous muse.

Eric Blair or Orwell was of the writing school of thought that in order to write with authenticity, the writer must have experienced the emotion, relationship or event in some way. Many writers at the time were of the same persuasion; Hemmingway is the first that comes to mind...Jack London too, particularly his early work.

In Down and Out in Paris and London, the young writer sets out, a middle class Englishman, to find and work any manual labour job that he could find to eventually land one in Paris as a 'dogs body' -diswasher, cleaner, et al. He is paid very little and (most importantly) fed for his gruelling 14 hour shifts.

Though this was a great opportunity, as a writer, searching out material, this was the place to be...the characters' in the book are priceless.

One of the more memorable descriptions:

"In the kitchen the dirt was worse. It is not a figure of speech, it is a mere statement of fact to say that a French cook will spit in the soup - that is if he is not going to drink it himself."

This not to say this happends now in the twenty-first century, but this is only an observation from the author at the time - some eighty years ago.

This is early work from Orwell - an apprentice, so to speak, learning his trade.

Interestingly, next to Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm: Centennial Edition Down and Out is one of his best endevours.

In this book or as most say, Diary, the reader will recognize Orwell's gift for characterization.

Worth a look at.

Down and Out in Paris and London is yet another book by George Orwell I couldn't put down! I am well into my adult life yet I had some how managed to not read any of his works until a friend convinced me I "Had" to read 1984. I'd heard the term "Big Brother" like we all had but since I read that book, I have made it a mission in life to get my hands on everything he has ever written! Without a doubt I would have to say he is certainly my favorite author! Down and Out like all the works I've read by him thus far, grabbed me instantly.

The descriptions alone allows one the sense of being wherever it is he is describing and the characters he employs all smack of realism as does the subject matter and conversations themselves! As in all the stories I've read by Orwell, he leaves no stone unturned! Humor is addressed, reality is addressed, and one can't help but feel after reading this story that they have been given a birds eye view of living a life of poverty through the eyes one who has in fact endured it and can recant what was witnessed and observed with uncanny accuracy and in vivid detail!

Orwell will take you into the streets, into the pawn shops, into the squalor and one would think below human living conditions and the severe differences/truths about our society and the chasms that exist between those that have and those that have literally nothing. Graphic, in depth in the varying beliefs and also sure to hit even the most emotionless person, in a place where they will no doubt feel sympathy for impoverished.

What Orwell has managed to do in all the stories I have read by him thus far, is take something like homelessness, poverty, refusing to bow to the "Money God" or politics or you name it and put a human face on it.

One that will remain with you long after you have completed the read.

Couldn't recommend this another "Extraordinary Literary Master Piece" with the rating system here so a five and hopefully the weight of what I have shared here will be enough to convince those that haven't read it, that they will be immensely thankful that they did.

Your Chance to Hear The Last Panther Speak

Orwell's first published book established a literary name for him and brought him some moderate success, which must have helped to escape the conditions that the book describes. It is a 'non-fiction' book with a lot of fictional spicing.
Roughly, the book has two parts, as the title indicates: the Paris part is dominated by work as minimum salary helper in restaurant kitchens, then the London part is exclusively given to trampdom, caused by homelessness and joblessness.
The two parts are oddly different in tone. The Paris adventures are, despite misery, darkly comical; the comedy aspect is clearly intended. The descriptions of lodging, eating, resp. not eating, working, partying are interjected with darkly funny tales about the types that populate the urban slums of the Paris of 1930. Some of them are quite disgusting, like the tales of drunken Charlie, who considers raping sex slaves as the ultimate in true love, while pitying them is base emotion. Or friend Boris, the ex captain of the White Russian army who considers Jews so far below a Russian officer, that they are not even worth his spittle. Less obnoxious is the tale of the miser who gets talked into investing some of his matress money into a load of cocain for transportation to England, gets arrested for possession, but freed when the police finds out it is 'face powder', whatever that is. The man dies of a broken heart.
(The Orwell of the Paris half has a contemporary successor in Germany, an investigative journalist named Guenter Wallraff, who has made himself a name as undercover serf in the worst paid jobs in Germany, and is honestly dreaded by German employers.)
The conditions in the two restaurants where Orwell works are so abominable that one would rather not eat in France any more. Of course that was nearly a century ago, and today everything is different. Right?
Orwell then had enough and had hopes for a job in London, so he went back, but found his hopes frustrated. He runs out of cash fast and spends weeks with the homeless crowd, tramping from one asylum to the other and writing 'hotel reviews'. There are few jokes in this part. An intriguing quote from this part: a clergyman and his daughter came and stared silently at us for a while ('us' being a group of tramps waiting for the shelter to open).
Orwell includes some theoretical chapters, like suggestions how to improve the legal situation, a typology of beggars, and a glossary on street language. This part lives mostly from his portraits of fellow tramps. The most impressive character is a pavement painter, who turns out to be a veritable philosopher. (An embittered atheist. He did not disbelieve in God as much as he disliked him.)
The book is highly readable, despite its uneven character. Of course it stood in a broad literary tradition, and Orwell added to it.

The Second Declaration
Every Day A Miracle Happens
The Secret Meaning of Names
Lighter Than Air
The Devil's Disciple
Les Miserables, Volume I & II
THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO Vol II
PUBLISH IT NOW
Book Marketing Basics - The New Model For Promoting Your Book
Illumination: A Gnostic Handbook for the Post Modern World

BURMESE DAYS is my least-favorite Orwell novel - not because it is badly written (in some ways it features his very best descriptive prose outside of 1984) - but because it is the only book he ever wrote which lacked an overt political purpose. By his own admission, Orwell was at his best when he was writing politically, and at his worst when he was "betrayed into purple passages" by his love of language for language's sake. And while BURMESE DAYS is most definitely an anti-imperialist work from start to finish, it was penned mainly so that Orwell could exorcise the demon of his own years in the Southeast Asia from his head. As he later wrote, "The scenery of Burma so haunted me I later had to write a novel just to get rid of it."

BURMESE DAYS is the story of a young British official named Flory working in the jungles of Burma during the middle 1920s. What Flory actually does for the Empire isn't relevant to the story; suffice to say that he's simply one of the many lower middle-class Englanders who were able, by virtue of being white and in the East, of living in a style they never could have afforded in England - horses, mistresses, servants, whisky, club life. Despite the petty priveleges he cannot bring himself to relinquish, however, he hates the Empire and the psychological burdens it imposes on those who serve it - especially the necessity of isolating oneself from the naitives (whom Flory likes much better than the drunken, racist, morally decayed British officials he is forced to associate with). The plot of the novel revolves around two separate, yet linked storylines: the first is Flory's politically inconvenient friendship with a Burmese doctor, whose nomination to the hitherto whites-only club is the cause of much ugliness, gossip and plotting; the second is his clumsy pursuit of a husband-hunting Englishwoman whom he sees as a refuge from his terrible isolation. Both situations put Flory through an emotional wringer, as he awkwardly tries to protect his friend and at the same make a vital emotional connection with a woman who is much, much less than she appears.

Please don't mistake me: I love Orwell and here is much to recommend the book. The atmosphere of Imperial Burma in the 20s - the heat, the humidity, the sleepless nights, the hunting parties, the boring, endlessly recycled conversations, the [...] everybody keeps and nobody talks about, the gin-drinking, the hypocrisy and loneliness - is expertly captured by Orwell's pen. The descriptions of Burma are unbelievably vivid, and Flory himself is a refreshingly weak and complicated protagonist - strong enough to have subversive opinions but not quite strong enough to stand up for them. And yet BURMESE DAYS is one of those books that is a bit less than the sum of its parts - most of the individual scenes work, and Orwell's descriptive prose is often startlingly beautiful - but taken as a whole the book doesn't precisely know what it is trying to accomplish. Is it just a novel, with anti-imperialism as recurring subtext, or is it an anti-imperialist screed in novel form? The fact that this question can be asked at all shows how much Orwell grew as a thinker in the years after it was published.

This is by far the best book I have read in a long, long time. Orwell's mastery of the English language is apparent and the words flow so elegantly from cover to cover, it will be over before you know it. The story is powerful and interesting.

If you liked 1984 or Animal Farm, you need to read this too. While less famous than his later works, this novel is excellent in every sense of the word.

The book is an easy read with insights into the current state of Burma's (Myannmar) affairs. The colonial dismantling of traditional social structures with the resulting chaos is common throughout the world. George Orwell prophecies the future of Myannmar with this book and "1984". A common joke in Myannmar is " We have many dentists but no one goes because in Burma we are not allowed to open our mouths" This is a good book to read before reading Emma Larkin's "FInding George Orwell in Burma"

With his very first novel, Orwell earned an honorable position on the crowded shelves of Raj Lit. It was a kind of self-liberation, so he could drop the subject henceforth.
He had spent 5 years in Burma as a police officer. Why had he done that? His family was of the shabby genteel class, and his father's pension from the imperial service in India was barely enough to carry him through school. So he skipped university and did what the people in his novel do: sign up for the colonies in the hope of reasonable wealth and career.
When he quit after 5 years, he had some explaining to do. He did it with this novel.
Most first novels are autobiographic to some extent, but Orwell did something different: he figured out what he himself would have become had he stayed. His 'hero' Flory is an alter ego under the hypothical assumption of having stayed for 15 years instead of quitting after 5.
Flory has a different job, but that doesn't matter much. He is a deeply lonely and frustrated man without prospects. He is disgusted with himself and with his social crowd, the sahiblog, who enforce conformism in the most primitive way. They are generally a disgusting group of people.
Flory meets a young woman who seems the answer to his loneliness problem. For her, he might be the solution to her problem, which is the expectation of spinsterhood in poverty. They misunderstand each other thouroughly and make a huge mess of it.
The personal tragedy of Flory is framed by stories of imperial intrigues, by local officials playing Machiavelli and by the sahibs sinking into delirium tremens.
I read it first when I was working and living in other parts of the by then former Raj. I think everything would have been different if the poorpeople, the sahiblog, had had airconditioning. They might have been able to use their brains more.

It seems from other reviewers that this book was quite well-liked. I unfortunately cannot echo that sentiment.

I am a great fan of Orwell and love his prose. I have read his essays and novels (both old and new) with pleasure. Of everything I've read by him this I least enjoyed.

The novel's hero, Gordon Comstock, I find rather pathetic. He decides at a young age that he will be free of the "money god" and not accept a "good job." In so doing he willfully subjects himself to a life of poverty as a starving artist working at a bookstore. I have no sympathy for the character. If he were actually destitute and had no way out I would, but that is not the case. He chooses to be poor and then complains about it. The irony is he becomes more a slave to money by shunning it than he would had he accepted it. To Gordon I say get a life and stop complaining.

Aside from not liking the main character I also did not care for the writing. All the story does is go on and on and on about how money is necessary for everything. After about a 100 pages of this I didn't care anymore. After 150 pages of this I couldn't continue reading. Maybe the end is good but I will never know.

Gordon Comstock is not a very pretty sight. He's over thirty, moth-eaten, and doesn't much care for people. He's chucked up a "good" job at an advertising firm for a low-paying, dead-end position at a bookstore, and spends his evenings alone in his depressing rented room, scribbling poetry nobody reads. He never has enough money for cigarettes, the pawnshop owns most of his clothing, and his girlfriend won't sleep with him. He hates British corporate culture like poison, but ridicules the only real alternative, Socialism, at every opportunity. He's angry and apathetic, but mostly, just pathetic.

Gordon is introduced as the "last hope" of a decayed middle-class family who has spent its last farthing sending him to a snotty public school in the hopes he will "make good" and redeem the bankrupt family fortune. Unfortunately, all the high-minded Gordon wants to do is write poetry, a financial dead-end if ever there was one. After graduation, Gordon achieves success as a blurb-writer for an ad firm, but despises the work so much that he quits and "declares war on money", his euphemism for deliberately living in a quasi-poverty he feels will free his soul from all materialistic considerations and allow him to concentrate on his art. Of course it achieves just the opposite - Gordon's clothing is frayed, he's always cold and hungry and bored and tobaccoless, he has almost no friends and discovers that poverty is so mentally deadening he can no longer write poetry. He wallows in self-pity, misery, and an impotent anger towards everything around him, but refuses to bow to "the money god" and resume his decent-paying job. That is, until a situation arises with his long-suffering girlfriend Rosemary that forces him to make a choice - live out his life in "honest" poverty, or sell out his principles and become a "constipated office boy" in bowler hat and umbrella. Which will Gordon choose, and, more importantly, will the choice make him happy?

Such is KEEP THE ASPIDISTRA FLYING, a merciless and highly entertaining examination of middle-class poverty in 1930s England, based partially on author George Orwell's own experiences. Actually, ASPIDISTRA wears many different hats, examining not merely what it means to be poor when you've been raised with middle-class expectations, but also the relationship between money and happiness, as well as a scourging look at the creative mentality, which, being creative himself, Orwell must have truly enjoyed. ASPIDISTRA is arguably Orwell's best novel aside from 1984. Anyone creative - writer, actor, painter, comedian, singer/musician - will identify with Gordon and his unweildy, self-serving, and yet honest principles so completely that there are times you feel Orwell has written the book for you specifically. More importantly, however, Orwell raises important and more-relevant-than-ever questions about the nature of capitalism - not its morality or immortality as such, but the effect it has had on human nature, where the pressure to "make good" forces not merely Gordon but everyone to either consciously sell themselves to the system or make a futile stand against it.

I read this book some years ago in college. And I do not think I ever flew so quickly through a book as I did through this one. I have to say first of all, I found a great deal of existential despair here, yes a political statement, but also a very personal one about a man trying to be an individual as he saw it and the world severely punishing him for it.

There's a great deal of humor here, without referencing the text I certainly recall him describing his boss at the bookstore as having a figure like a "pair of scissors." Another scene comes to mind where he takes Rosemary to a resturaunt and describes the feigned appearance of having class while really being quite seedy but very overpriced...but since Rosemary is there he thinks that he must pay for the best regardless.

Other less humorous scenes are where Gordon gets drunk and wastes all of his money, and tries to kiss Rosemary in a dark alley. A final memorable scene was where he had hit rock bottom, sitting on his bed, hungry and watching the ants walk on the ceiling.

Gordon often over thinks things to the point where he becomes stationary...exactly like the anti-hero in "Notes From the Underground," at one point he stands outside a bar, debating with himself about going in. Not because he does not have the money, but because he will need to present the bartender with various amounts of change instead of one large bill. It's absurd on so many levels.

This is a very dark book, like "Down and Out in London and Paris," it is about degrading poverty. In some ways more interesting and ultimately more scary than 1984, being myself, in a bad financial condition at this point in my life, it's not something I would want to revisit soon.

George Orwell had already proven to me he was a genius with 1984. He further solidified that with Animal Farm and Down and Out in Paris and London... And Keep The Aspidistra Flying only convinced me more of his remarkable genius!!!

I enjoyed this book as much if not more than all the others I've read by him!!! No one to date that I've read has been able to write in such a manner as this man and if he hadn't have written 1984 I would still consider the works I have read genius, and because he wrote 1984 as well, a genius who was also blessed with the gift of prophesy! As for the book, I felt as if I saw each of the characters because they were described so vividly...

And quite often I found myself laughing out loud at his description of things from "D'you know what your eyes look like, chappie?" he added to Gordon. "They look as if they'd been taken out and poached." "I was drunk last night," said Gordon, his head between his hands. "I gathered something of the kind, old chappie."

The premise of waging war on the "Money World" is something I had no idea would be so humorous but Orwell, true to form, takes something so serious and laces it with profound truths, and intertwines both comical satire and seriousness and all things under the sun into a master piece that only he can create! I could say more but I am off to find another one of his works so I can read more from this truly remarkably gifted soul!

As with all the books I've read by Orwell, was truly sorry to see it end...

Your Chance to Hear The Last Panther Speak

After recently reading the 4 volume set of the essays, plus Coming Up for Air, which I found in my shelf unread, I had thought that the Aspidistra would be the closing session on Orwell for me. I thought I had covered the field. Unfortunately and surprisingly, the aspidistra are so fresh and enjoyable, despite their sordid subject, that I find myself under compulsive pressure to order the books that I have not read yet (the Clergyman's Daughter, the Road to Wigan Pier, Down and Out in Paris and London).
As much as I like to look at plants, assuming they grow wild or they are cultivated by somebody else, I am no gardener nor botanist. I honestly did not know what an aspidistra is. I looked it up in the Langenscheid's Dictionary English - German. I learned that an aspidistra is an Aspidistra. Aha. Google Images teach me that the thing is a somewhat non-descript and somewhat unkempt pot plant. It seems to like growing in places that no self-respecting plant ought to survive. Orwell's novel has them as a symbol for undestructability under nasty circumstances.
For the novel's hero Gordon Comstock, they are the enemy. They are allied with the oppressors, the seedy boarding houses and lower middle class dwellings that he loathes so much. They symbolize the lack of money; money rules, specifically when you don't have any.
The twist of the 'plot' is that Gordon chose to be poorer than he needed to be, by throwing away 'good jobs' in the money making world. We have here a study in the pretensions of poverty.
The most brillant parts of this amazing novel have us watch confrontations, or should I say Pas-de-Deux, of different social strata. Gordon tries to hide and is ashamed of his poverty, while his friend Ravelston is trying to hide and is ashamed of his wealth. The rich man is the socialist, who tries and tries to convince the poor man of the merits of socialism. Gordon can't be bothered, he doesn't have enough money to be a socialist.
The novel is far exceeding my expectations and I may have to think again about my classification of Orwell as mainly an essayist.

I visited Burma recently for a tourism visit. I read this book in preparation. Since much of the narrative is in historical terms, I didn't, at first, get a sense of what to expect. Only on my return did I realize that it gave me a much richer experience than I otherwise would have had. It is an often beautiful book. I got to see a number of the places that are mentioned in the book, but I frequently recalled her descriptions, rich with historical context, when I was there.

What I gained from reading this book before my visit was to sit-in on the conversations that the author had with both seemingly ordinary and some extraordinary Burmese. Not knowing the language, and being a casual visitor, I wouldn't have dreamed of talking politics when I was there. This book is hardly a journalistic contemporary history piece, but the author asked all the questions of ordinary people that you would want to ask, but can't. Burma is an exceptionally beautiful place, but I was always conscious that I was seeing only what tourists are allowed to see. There was no obvious evidence of the horrible events of just a few months ago, but armed with the author's experiences I could better see what was around me.

The parallel narrative involving Orwell was quite effective. It made me want to reread Animal Farm, and seek out Burmese Days. For potential visitors to Burma, I would also recommend The Trouser People: A Story of Burma in the Shadow of the Empire

I lived in Burma in the late 80's because of my father's U.S. government job. I find most American's know little about Burma (as I did not before I went there.) The current regime has sealed off the country, so that its people suffer behind a veil. They are hidden from the rest of the world. Through the lense of a study of Orwell, the author provides a window into a country few know about. I loved that this book was short and accessible. I recommend this to anyone who wants to find out about Burma. You don't have to be a George Orwell scholar to understand the comparisons. (Although, I'm an English teacher and thought the author made some insightful observations.)

Finding George Orwell in Burma is one of those rare finds (no pun intended). This book has allot of depth where the reader actually feels like they are sitting in the tea houses where most of the story takes place. The contrast between Orwells "1984" and "Animal Farm" (although a theory) in relation to this book is profound and makes the overall read even more fascinating. Given the fact that Burma is such an oppressive country, this book shows true color through its people.

Slowly but surely I'm reading through this book. So far so good. Nothing spectacular, but the author did what she intended to do...try to draw parallels between George Orwell and his life and his books with Burma and her situations. Like many writers from the West, I think it's seen through the eyes of a foreigner, so even though she probably has great understanding of the country and its history and people, I get this feeling that it's more like a study to her than something really personal. But it is well written, no doubt about that.

Emma Larkin methodically followed Eric Blair's footsteps in Burma. As an expatriate Burmese (having left the country in 1969), I find her description of the present socio-political situation in Burma and the parallels she draws with Orwell's vision of the human condition rather fascinating. I agree with Larkin that Blair's experiences in Burma had a definite impact on Orwell's views about the nature of human societies, but more interestingly, it is clear from the way Larkin describes many Burmese in her book (especially the kind of english books they read) that the impact of the british colonial period on Burma was substantial. What is then the more subtle message here? How much Burma changed a single colonial officer (a rather moody and pessimistic type at that!), whose later books did influence the way the world views colonialism, communism, fascism and other totalitarian regimes or how much England changed Burma (where the present regime is totalitarian)
I like the literary style of the book (easy to read) and there are many interesting and illuminating details about Blair and Burma. but perhaps the narrative is a bit too naive to really give a deeper understanding of what Blair experienced in Burma and more importantly what Burma went through in history to reach the present state of "State". Human societies (even the "isolated" burmese society!) and individual human beings (even Blair) are very complex in nature and beyond the comprehension of a single person whether it is an Orwell or a Larkin. I do admit that I read books not to find the "final explanation" to any kind of problem, but to enjoy and I really enjoyed reading this book.

A good writer can take you places; George Orwell, better than good, can take you places you never imagined.
Originally, I started to read Orwell's essays to learn his thoughts on language and writing. Then, because those essays were excellent, I visited--via Orwell--the boarding school where he received--somewhat unhappily-- his primary school education ("Such, Such Were the Joys. . ."), the Indian village where he acted--against his instincts--just to not appear foolish ("Shooting an Elephant"), and the slums of ("Marrakech"). . .
Additionally, I learned Orwell's opinion of risque post cards, the character of his countrymen, and Gandhi. . .
Excellent!

i have finished less than 30% of this collection of essays and i already enjoy this book.

if you are interested in becoming more acquainted with the mind behind 1984, then this is an excellent companion

I've always thought George Orwell was a great writer, and this year I've read or reread several of his works. "George Orwell - A Collection of Essays" has fourteen of his best short writings, including my favorite, "Such, Such Were the Joys..." about Orwell's years in school in England. It was fascinating reading, almost like something out of Dickens, with the Draconian teaching methods and the emphasis on class differences.

A diverse collection of essays, some better than others, but all well written. These essays were written in the 1930s and 1940s, although some of the events that are mentioned occurred much earlier in Orwell's life, and they reflect Orwell's time and culture.

If you enjoyed Orwell's novels, you owe it to yourself to check out his essays.

Giving less than five stars to a work by George Orwell, perhaps the greatest essayist and social critic of the 20th century makes me physically ill. Truly, were I making a determination on the works contained alone, I would want to give it six. Yet, readers should give serious consideration before purchasing this particular volume. While the works contained include some of Orwell's most memorable, the publisher offers zero context, either to the author, the period, or even where the works first appeared.

Some may say argue that it is up to the modern reader to have a sufficient background to understand these works; after all, isn't that what wikipedia is for? Yet the publisher here does not even do the minimum to aid the reader. One need look no further than the fact that the date these works first appeared is given at the end of each essay. Now this follows a literary convention common in Orwell's time, if less so in our own, but it seems feckless indeed to make the reader flip to the last page to determine when a particular work first appeared. Moreover, readers ignorant of the particulars of Orwell's biography and the period might take certain of his assumptions and statements way out of context. Examples abound of this, but lets look at one; in the brilliant and continually relevant "Looking Back on the Spanish Civil War," Orwell contrasts the atrocities of German fascists with Soviet Communists and determines that while both are evil, the former is clearly the worse. Now modern readers may balk at this, or at least be made uneasy thinking it a case not so clear cut. However, were the year Orwell wrote, 1943, at the beginning of the work, or better yet even a sentence or two of context offered to what Orwell knew, the reader would benefit from a far smoother experience.

None of these shortcomings, however, should be taken as Orwell being anything less than brilliant. Indeed, his keen mind and sharp pen eviscerated much of the social and political conventions of his time. For example, his in essay on Rudyard Kipling, the much beloved writer of the jungle book and reviled pro-Imperialist, Orwell balks at the conventional wisdom poking clever holes in the conventional wisdom of his day. Likewise, one wishes in the current milieu their lived an essayist able to write the following "Political language - and with variations this is true of all political parties, Conservative to Anarchist - is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." (Politics and the English Language, 1946). Or consider how much better American political discourse might be if every citizen considered the following "...atrocities are believed in or disbelieved solely on the grounds of political predilections. Everyone believes in the atrocities of the enemy and disbelieves in those of his own side, without ever bothering to examine the evidence....the very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world (Looking Back on the Spanish Civil war, 1943).

All of this to say, is that Orwell remains as relevant as ever. One only wishes that this publisher gave him all the attention he is due so that readers can gain from his work the proper and full effect.

Orwell only gets better with age. Not a dud essay in the lot, and a couple are all-time classics. Oh, if only George had lived long enough to eviscerate the post-modernists, deconstructionists, and structuralists!