George Orwell, patron saint of hacks

No argument can fail to be enhanced by an Orwell quote. That's why he's become the authority of first resort for people who don't know what they're talking about

by Alastair Harper / May 10, 2010 / Leave a comment

Published in May 2010 issue of Prospect Magazine

No-one, ultimately, had a clue about the election. The pollsters, the politicians, the pundits got it wrong. Even the bookies, who are always meant to be right, having a financial interest in being so, were wrong. No-one predicted the result we got or understands it now we’ve got it. Why did people vote this way here, that way there? Why did the Lib Dems lose seats? Who benefits most from a Tory deal? No idea.

Amid all this confusion, spare a thought for the poor political columnists, the people who have to pretend that they can still explain it all in 600 words. What on earth can they write? When a political journalist isn’t sure of their ground, the first rule is to keep things portentous, but vague. Tell the party leaders what they should be doing to make a success of this election. Just don’t say it’s what they will do. The second: when you do come down strongly on someone’s side, refer to a higher authority to give yourself the requisite gravitas. Someone whose authority will not be questioned – someone who radiates an indefinable but unimpeachable cachet. In America, if it’s not God, it’s the Founding Fathers. Over here, it’s Orwell.

Many journalists, moonlighting as clairvoyants, are able to reveal exactly what Orwell would think about any contemporary political question. In the last month alone we’ve learned how Orwell “foresaw our treatment of Sharon Shoesmith” (The Independent), that this election represented “a campaign that Orwell would recognise” (The Indie again), or how Orwell, an old Etonian just like Cameron, wouldn’t mind a bit of fagging (The Daily Telegraph).

If not giving us updates on Orwell’s spectral Twitter feed, then writers are letting us in on the secrets of the “real Orwell” (© The Times, The Scotsman and The Herald, all 2010), as if we’ve been making do with the beta version for the last 70 years. Another Times article is happy to set us straight about how “people invoke George Orwell … wrongly a…

YOU’VE HIT THE LIMIT

You have now reached your limit of 3 free articles in the last 30 days.
But don’t worry! You can get another 7 articles absolutely free, simply by entering your email address in the box below.

When you register we’ll also send you a free e-book—Writing with punch—which includes some of the finest writing from our archive of 22 years. And we’ll also send you a weekly newsletter with the best new ideas in politics and philosophy of culture, which you can of course unsubscribe from at any time

Prospect may process your personal information for our legitimate business purposes, to provide you with our newsletter, subscription offers and other relevant information.

Click to learn more about these interests and how we use your data. You will be able to object to this processing on the next page and in all our communications.

21329849895c67dfdade8776.77263823

Go to comments

The way we were: writers take stock

Ian Irvine / November 14, 2018

Extracts from memoirs and diaries

Share with friends

Comments

An American
May 10, 2010 at 17:33
Maybe your journos trot out Orwell so much because you Brits and your socialized NHS and CCTVs everywhere are already so close to the Orwellian dystopia. Just have to privilege some ridiculous standardized language to be exactly there...oh wait, you've already got "The Queen's English". Run for your lives!
An English
May 11, 2010 at 14:56
I take it the American commenter is being ironic, if they know what that means? Read the article again and think about what you have just written. And although you are very right about the cctv situation in the UK, your own paltry healthcare system, which condemns many of your uninsured to an early death, leaves you in no position to comment on ours. Orwells 1984 examined how true meaning can be perveretd by the distilling and bastardisation of language, which standard english seeks to avoid. It's the worldwide, banal, American English, aided by the internet, which best imitates newspeak.
JohnBax
May 13, 2010 at 11:46
Great little piece, Alastair. I have nothing against GO, he had a truly captivating prose-style, but he was too unsystematic a thinker to take us very far in understanding the world, and pinning down what he actually thought about anything is always a bit of a puzzle. But the accepted line is that he was a saint, and God help anyone who breaks ranks on this. What always perplexes me is that everyone talks about his 'courage'. Granted, it was courageous to fight in Spain, but that's not usually what they're talking about: they're usually referring to Animal Farm and 1984. But writing these books did not require courage in 20C Britain, and being turned down by one's publisher is not, I'm sorry to say, an uncommon experience, or some kind of martyrdom equivalent to the Gulag - especially when like GO you find another one soon enough. The sainthood of Orwell, as you suggest, blots out many other worthwhile 20C writers: J B Priestley's reputation, for example, has been virtually eliminated by Orwell-worship. I'm sure GO wouldn't have wanted this: he was a good guy and a good writer, and wouldn't have claimed to be anything else.
David M
May 17, 2010 at 23:12
The same idea occurred to me after reading one too many pieces invoking Orwell as the authority on anything. I went a little further in my blog post, going so far as to suggest that it's bordering on a personality cult.
George Orwell Books
May 18, 2010 at 02:47
Interesting perspective in the article. I would say that part of the reason so many people like to use Orwell is that he had a lot of great quotes! I am a bit biased though because he's one of my favorite authors.
Chris
May 21, 2010 at 09:45
No one predicted the election? I thought everyone knew the tories weren't strong enough to win it by themselves and that's why there was so much focus on Clegg to the point that he was asked who he would consult first in the event of a hung parliament. The fact of the matter is that commentators are simply that, not interested in analysing news properly but pinning anything that isn't completely normal and expected or comfortable on Orwell. That is lazy journalism and this article goes a step further to make an article about why this is so! Ever decreasing circles methinks...
KIMBLE_PERRY
June 8, 2010 at 09:52
Spot on!!!!
I. Ward
July 18, 2010 at 11:30
'A typewriter for hire'? You mean like Charles Dickens? That man was the Orwell of the nineteenth century.
Kahl
August 13, 2010 at 15:28
Orwell like any artist or person of real substance was a complex figure. He was an Atheist but wanted to be buried in the Anglican rite; he was a socialist but desired to have his son educated at elite posh schools. To expect something simply out of an Artist is a foolish thought. Your right people invoke his name so much it becomes a cliche, however don't underestimate his pragmatism and literary skill. If you need help, ask yourself: Are you perfectly aligned and clear in each and everything you put your mind and name to? if so either your mad, dumb or God. If not then your just like the rest of us: human. The notion that there is an absolute right and an absolute wrong is naive and childish. The ambiguity of Orwell is what makes him so great.