Rating: 
Summary: Orwell Would Object
Review: Hitchens has contributed a lot of valuable works to society and he's certainly got the right idea here - in defending Orwell from unjustified attack. He sings his praises but he uses a voice far too obscure for all but a select group to understand. Orwell was a true socialist - his work was given to the people and in so doing, he helped to make our world a better, less corrupt, place. Hitchens is trying to do the same, I think, but he's reached a level in his own thinking that is over the heads of most people and he needs to come back down - not dumb it down, just remember the simplicity that Orwell weaved his terrific tales and essays with. It's the only way to get through... and matter.
Rating: 
Summary: Good Title
Review: Hitchens longa, vita breva. If your really want to know why Orwell matters, just read Orwell's essay "Politics and the English Language." Then try to watch most TV Newspeak without upchucking.
Orwell remains his own best defense. My commendations to Mr. Hitchens for his good taste and excellent title.
Rating: 
Summary: A disappointment and a warning
Review: I have always admired Cristopher Hitchens (though not as much as his brother Peter). I was thrilled with his break from the NATION magazine--however of late Chrispoher's polemical tone has been increasing and the exploratory side of his writing shrinking (can a side shrink?). Christopher once said in a debate with his brother that a good polemicist speaker or writer should be able to marshal the best counter arguments to his own. Now when Christopher attacks figures like Clinton or Kissinger who deserve no defense that does not bother me; however the critics, particularly the left wing critics of Orwell deserve better. The Tribune I believe published an attack on Orwell by D.A.N. Jones years ago. It is a good essay--informative and transparent. It is never mentioned though it deserves respectful discussion. I am MUCH put off by the way Hitchens dismisses E.P. Thompson--a great historian, wonderful writer and (one the basis of the one time I heard him) a wonderful speaker as well. Orwell at the beginning of Homage to Catalonia made it a point to praise the "stalinoid" grunts who were out in the field doing battle against Franco. Orwell grants more than a measure of heroism to the communist movement( many of whom were also shot in the neck) that Hitchens refuses. What else? There is one reference to Aneuran Bevan--a great man, but Orwell never explores it. Neither does he explore the bond that developed between Orwell and Evelyn Waugh near the end of Orwell's life. There is a qurellous aspect to Orwell for whom nothing is ever right (which perhaps explains why he admired Waugh) that manifests itself increasingly in Hitchen's writings. I don't know what to make of his remarks about Deutcher. Consider also the question of 'Balance": Whom does he criticize on the right? Burnahm--who as he rightly points out history has forgotten, Hayek who deserves a longer and more thoughful critique and Pohoredez (sic) who is hardly worth mentioning (a critique of his brother Peter, a most thoughtful man would be much more enlightening.)
Orwell as Jones notes in the conclusion of his essay was a complex man on whom historical judgements are difficult to render. Christopher has no such qualms.
I did like the bit about post modernism but the importance of absolute transparancy in good prose was not made sufficiently transparent. Christopher quoting Judith Butler neutrally in the face of her recent disgraceful, unreadable and unlearned book on Anigone gives the Social Text people, and the various academic frauds who have turned our universities into cisterns an out. Here was the place to be polemical!
Alas the book is a screed and does not do justice to the complexities of Orwell--actually Christopher you are sounding more and more like Podoredez(sic) and his female.
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting perspective on frequently misunderstood man
Review: I've never been George Orwells biggest fan. It's not his ideas that I disagree with so much as an aversion to mixing politics and fiction. I've yet to read a really good piece of polemic in fiction form that could truly be called Literature, and it has always bothered me that people claim 1984 as a work of art. Thus is was with great delight that I read in this book Hitchens description of the novel as one of the "Good Bad Books" of 20th century fiction. This book enabled me to divorce Orwell from my views on literature and art, and start to view him from a scope of political scrutiny. Hitchens writes the portrait of a man who was, throughout his life, a contradiction. He aborhed racism and expressed a desire for true equality, while at the same time combating conservative views in himself that believed 'blacks' and the poor to be inferior. A man who spent his life in constant support of socialism, yet filling volumes with scathing criticism of the Left. What ultimately surfaces in this book is a picture of a man who believed in truth above all. on the closing page, Hitchens states that "politics are relatively unimportant, while principles have a way of enduring, as do the few irreducible individual who maintain allegiance to them." This is why Orwell matters, not because of what he contributed to politics, important as those contribution may be, but because he followed principle above all. This book is undoubtbly worth the time and effort to read, but it isn't without it's flaws. In more than a few spots Hitchens falls prey to the "sickely veneration and sentimental overpraise" that he condemns in the introduction. The lack of footnotes and bibilography is troubling to say the least, as he rarely gives exact locations of quotes, something he repeadetly calls Orwells detractors on. If you can, ignore these faults, and simply realize that this book is not an objective authority, and should be taken in most parts as merely opinion. But regardless, it is very englightening opinion on one of the most misunderstood figures of our time.
Rating:
Summary: There is another reason why Orwell matters.
Review: It is interesting to note that most individuals who review Orwell's life and work fail to note or mention his Cultural Connection. Orwell in 1984 was addressing far more then just totalitarianism.
Question. In Orwell's 1984, do you remember off the top of your head, what land and people the three nations were fighting over?
Most readers do not remember this important cultural aspect of Orwell's work. Why Orwell Matters, also missed the cultural connection. The answer is edifying and worth a closer look. Orwell spoke more truth then he is given credit for.
Rating:
Summary: Hitch Gushins...
Review: It's nice to see the Hitch, old attack dog that he is, back off on the usual invective and give himself over to a 210 page fit of uncontrollable gushing. He's persuasive, too. It's hard not to come away from reading the book with a newfound respect for Orwell, for his "power of facing", and his fireproof integrity. I can't help but feel that Hitchen's warning not to think of Orwell as a saint is just a fig leaf. Obviously, it's a cannonization essay, it's just that Hitch is too embarrassed to admit he's written such a thing. But why shouldn't we cannonize Orwell? Why shouldn't we take our hats off in awe at the man who saw each of the historical forces that would shape the next 50 years with such amazing clarity, all without ever abandoning an ethical code that would only be vindicated by everything that followed? Orwell's insights remain fresh, the power of his ethical vision remains urgently relevant, and as a role model on personal integrity, an inspiration for those who want to "walk the walk", we could scarcely do better.
Rating: 
Summary: Entertaining Book by a Tough-Minded Latter-day Disciple
Review: Remarkably, as the 21st century opens George Orwell's shadow looms larger than ever over the world, undiminished by the end of the Cold War (a phrase which he probably invented). He is increasingly claimed by both Left and Right as one of their own. Two Englishmen now living in America, Andrew Sullivan and Christopher Hitchens, can best claim the mantle of Orwell by virtue of their clearsightedness and ability to cut through cant. Hitchens has written a short, bracing book on why "Animal Farm", "1984", and the collected essays are still essential reading. Orwell was a divided man. He was emotionally a conservative and intellectually a socialist. He was able to live out the contradiction and thus was blessed (or cursed) with the ability to see the big picture. Most of us in our own little lives are opportunists; our social and political views are shaped by what seems to us will allow us to rise in the world. Because of his awareness of his contradictions (and an unusual strength of will or character) Orwell could more closely approach "objectivity" (that noble dream) than most of us. Hitchens claims that Orwell was right about the three big issues of the 20th century--imperialism, Fascism, and Communism: something almost no other of his contemporaries can claim. In the chapter "Orwell and the Left" Hitchens swiftly eviscerates those critics who see Orwell as a sellout (Including Edward Said, whose blurb approving of Hitchens' earlier work appears prominently on the dust jacket of this one.) In "Orwell and the Right" he establishes that Orwell did not advocate mindless aggression against the Communists. Orwell attacked James Burnham for his pessimism and Hitchens says that Orwell didn't want a nuclear first-strike against the Soviets as so many did--it would have killed many of the people who made the successful peaceful revolution against Communism 40 years later. Perhaps the most important chapter in this book is "Deconstructing the Post-Modernist: Orwell and Transparency" in which Hitchens explains Orwell's abiding concern with "objective truth" and exposes the bad faith of the deconstructionists. (A disbelief in demonstratable truth can cover an awful lot of sins.) Hitchens has made a lot of news the past few years with his arguments with his friends on the Left. He detests Bill and Hillary Clinton; and he has broken with the anti-war movement because of what he says is its solipsism and anti-Americanism. In these things he is merely following the lead of his mentor Orwell, who angered many on the left with "Animal Farm" and "1984." But these books have been proved correct over the years as any books could be. I'm betting time will be kind to Hitchens, too.
Rating:
Summary: Entertaining Book by a Tough-Minded Latter-day Disciple
Review: Remarkably, as the 21st century opens George Orwell's shadow looms larger than ever over the world, undiminished by the end of the Cold War (a phrase which he probably invented). He is increasingly claimed by both Left and Right as one of their own. Two Englishmen now living in America, Andrew Sullivan and Christopher Hitchens, can best claim the mantle of Orwell by virtue of their clearsightedness and ability to cut through cant. Hitchens has written a short, bracing book on why "Animal Farm", "1984", and the collected essays are still essential reading. Orwell was a divided man. He was emotionally a conservative and intellectually a socialist. He was able to live out the contradiction and thus was blessed (or cursed) with the ability to see the big picture. Most of us in our own little lives are opportunists; our social and political views are shaped by what seems to us will allow us to rise in the world. Because of his awareness of his contradictions (and an unusual strength of will or character) Orwell could more closely approach "objectivity" (that noble dream) than most of us. Hitchens claims that Orwell was right about the three big issues of the 20th century--imperialism, Fascism, and Communism: something almost no other of his contemporaries can claim. In the chapter "Orwell and the Left" Hitchens swiftly eviscerates those critics who see Orwell as a sellout (Including Edward Said, whose blurb approving of Hitchens' earlier work appears prominently on the dust jacket of this one.) In "Orwell and the Right" he establishes that Orwell did not advocate mindless aggression against the Communists. Orwell attacked James Burnham for his pessimism and Hitchens says that Orwell didn't want a nuclear first-strike against the Soviets as so many did--it would have killed many of the people who made the successful peaceful revolution against Communism 40 years later. Perhaps the most important chapter in this book is "Deconstructing the Post-Modernist: Orwell and Transparency" in which Hitchens explains Orwell's abiding concern with "objective truth" and exposes the bad faith of the deconstructionists. (A disbelief in demonstratable truth can cover an awful lot of sins.) Hitchens has made a lot of news the past few years with his arguments with his friends on the Left. He detests Bill and Hillary Clinton; and he has broken with the anti-war movement because of what he says is its solipsism and anti-Americanism. In these things he is merely following the lead of his mentor Orwell, who angered many on the left with "Animal Farm" and "1984." But these books have been proved correct over the years as any books could be. I'm betting time will be kind to Hitchens, too.
Rating:
Summary: Typical sellebrity book - sycophancy and self-praise
Review: Revealingly, Hitchens dedicates this hagiography of George Orwell to Robert Conquest, as a 'premature anti-Stalinist'. Hitchens praises Orwell too as 'an early Cold Warrior'. Hitchens claims that Orwell always supported India's independence. Would that include when Orwell wrote that India's independence would be 'nonsense,' and that India could 'no more be independent than can a cat or a dog'? Most historians of the war in Spain believe that the 'revolution' supported by the POUM distracted from the war against Franco and his Nazi backers. Hitchens denies this, claiming bizarrely, "the words 'most historians' are meaningless; no such consensus exists or ever has." He dismisses those who fought for the Republic as 'the Stalintern forces'. Orwell wrote Animal Farm during World War Two, writing against our main ally, which was destroying three-quarters of the Nazi army's divisions. Why are Animal Farm and 1984 unavoidable in schools? Simply because they serve the employing class. In 1948, Orwell wrote against the trade union movement - "a strike is in effect a blow against the community as a whole, including the strikers themselves, and its net effect is inflationary." Tony Blair couldn't put it better! As for Orwell's fabled independence of mind - when in the Empire's service, he served the Empire; when in Spain in turmoil, he was for 'the revolution'; in England at peace, he was for peace (but against the anti-fascist alliance that could have saved peace); in England at war he was for England and for war; when Labour was in office, he was for Labour; in the Cold War, he was for the Cold War. Hitchens, like Orwell's biographers rehearsing their own treacheries, tries to defend Orwell's giving a list of what he called 'crypto-Communists and fellow-travellers' to a Foreign Office agent.
Hitchens hates 'the crowd', who 'will yell with joy to see' rebels 'dragged to the scaffold'. He ends by writing, "politics are relatively unimportant,' which means in practice, other people are unimportant. He lauds 'the few irreducible individuals who maintain allegiance' to principles, praising himself. Like Orwell, Hitchens damns everybody - else - as materialist, and sees through everybody.
Rating:
Summary: biased
Review: The book is nostalgic and to some extent like a fairy tale. Christopher Hitchens, as always, is inflexible and bent upon forcing his opinion on the reader. Hopefully, Christopher can do better in future.
| 
