George Orwell

[Michael]

Orwell and the British Left
by Ian Williams

According to his own last words on the subject, just before his death, Orwell was a supporter of Socialism and of the British Labour Party which had swept to power in 1945. Before then, for most of his writing career, certainly from The Road to Wigan Pier in 1937 onwards, George Orwell was an avowed proponent of socialism, although his conceptions of what that meant certainly changed over the years.

Despite his own unequivocal and often expressed views, the popularity of the Orwell “brand” has led many people to misrepresent his views since his death, and to appropriate his prestige for their own political projects. That was typified by the introduction to the most popular edition of Nineteen Eighty-Four in the US, which quotes him accurately as saying that all his work “was against totalitarianism,” while in a somewhat Orwellian manner cutting out his important following phrase “and for democratic socialism.” Since his death of course, other people’s ideas of socialism have also changed, and even geography has an effect. Socialism will have entirely different connotations, for example, for West Europeans, East Europeans and for Americans, as the truncated Orwell quote would suggest.

Article (http://www.logosjournal.com/orwell-and-the-british-left.php)

This is one of the best essays I've ever read about Orwell. And as I'm fond of pointing out, Orwell is one of the most misunderstood writers of all time, often praised or attacked by both right and left - sometimes correctly, often incorrectly.

Anyone who is familiar with Orwell should know that he is at the very least, unconventional, a radical dilettante or alternatively, a moderate socialist. Orwell even sometimes called himself a "tory anarchist" which just serves to confuse the issue even more.

Anyway, this thread is for discussions about George Orwell, Orwell's books and Orwell's political ideas. Without a doubt Animal Farm and Nineteen-Eighty-Four are amongst the finest pieces of 20th century political literature and for that, Orwell will always be remembered and celebrated. The irony is when those whom the novels attack unknowingly share in the praise! :D

[Michael]

Okay, in an attempt to get some discussion going about one of the most interesting and misunderstood political thinkers of the 20th century...

Do you consider Orwell to be a socialist? Why or why not?

Personally, I don't think Orwell qualifies as a socialist at all. He certainly has socialist leanings, but he appears to categorically and consistently reject the one fundmental tenet of socialism - that the means of production ought to be owned by the state. Indeed, Orwell seems to be closer to the 'anarchists' with the expressed ideal that ownership of the means of production ought to just evaporate. :shrug:

[Non Sequitur]

His philosophy seems to me to be a critique of central authority in general instead of economic or specific government systems. 1984 seems to me to be more about who is in control.

On related note, this comic (http://harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=44) might be relevant.

[andrewl]

Im stuck just thinking about things he was against - fascism, totalitarianism, jingoism.

Ive only read 1984 and it was clearly meant as a sort of warning against those things (and others) - not as a promotion of any particular economic or political system.

Andrew

[andrewl]

Just considering this a bit more im thinking that Orwell was concerned deeply about the notion of militancy and the takeover of political/civilian systems by the power and influence of modern militaristic institutions. An earlier warning of the MIC later coined by Eisenhower???

Andrew

[The Drunk Guy]

Just considering this a bit more im thinking that Orwell was concerned deeply about the notion of militancy and the takeover of political/civilian systems by the power and influence of modern militaristic institutions. An earlier warning of the MIC later coined by Eisenhower???

Andrew
I agree. Personal freedom above nationalism. Very clear in Animal Farm, too.

[Margot]

Just read half of England Your England. (http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/lion/english/e_eye) I'll finish it up tomorrow.

It seems to me- it has always seemed to me- that Orwell had issues, and nothing was as well defined as it seemed. Thats what so appeals to me about him. Even when he was part of the bat-shit propaganda machine he was thinking. Always thinking. In "England Your England" you can see arguments for both autonomy AND for socialism. He's not clear cut at all, and I think his ideals and his logic rubbed each other the wrong way with unnerving frequency.

I'm not saying he didn't lean one way or the other. I'm just saying that to read 1984 and say "I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT HE THOUGHT" is sort of like saying "I read Genesis and then quit, but I'm still pretty sure I got it."

Ugh. I'll make more sense after some sleep.

[Michael]

His philosophy seems to me to be a critique of central authority in general instead of economic or specific government systems. 1984 seems to me to be more about who is in control.

On related note, this comic (http://harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=44) might be relevant.
I'll agree with this - Orwell seems to be critical of centralized authority systems in general.

Just considering this a bit more im thinking that Orwell was concerned deeply about the notion of militancy and the takeover of political/civilian systems by the power and influence of modern militaristic institutions. An earlier warning of the MIC later coined by Eisenhower???

Andrew
I don't think this holds up. Please see the England Your England essay linked by Margot above. I think that will shoot down the idea that Orwell wasn't a nationalist. Indeed, that essay is a tribute to English nationalism - and Orwell celebrates it.

I agree. Personal freedom above nationalism. Very clear in Animal Farm, too.
Yes, good old liberty seems to be the key to understanding Orwell.

[Michael]

Just read half of England Your England. (http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/lion/english/e_eye) I'll finish it up tomorrow.

It seems to me- it has always seemed to me- that Orwell had issues, and nothing was as well defined as it seemed. Thats what so appeals to me about him. Even when he was part of the bat-shit propaganda machine he was thinking. Always thinking. In "England Your England" you can see arguments for both autonomy AND for socialism. He's not clear cut at all, and I think his ideals and his logic rubbed each other the wrong way with unnerving frequency.
This is the hardest part for me with Orwell. On the one hand he shows brilliant foresight (1984 and Animal Farm), but at other times he strikes me as terribly niave and innocent, as when he praises petty English nationalism - and fails to reconcile his own contradictory ideals.

I'm not saying he didn't lean one way or the other. I'm just saying that to read 1984 and say "I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT HE THOUGHT" is sort of like saying "I read Genesis and then quit, but I'm still pretty sure I got it."

Ugh. I'll make more sense after some sleep.
That's a good point. I often make that argument when people say they've 'read' Nietzsche. I ask, "how many times?" - if the answer is just once, I laugh at the arrogant fool.

You are quite correct that 1984 is deeper than most people make of it. I'm certain that Orwell would consider private corporations as much a danger to liberty as any totalitarian government authority. Rightwingers reading 1984 usually fail to see this. :shrug:

[andrewl]

I don't think this holds up. Please see the England Your England essay linked by Margot above. I think that will shoot down the idea that Orwell wasn't a nationalist. Indeed, that essay is a tribute to English nationalism - and Orwell celebrates it.


Yes, you can see by reading England Your England that Orwell has a certain affection for England. But also in the essay are overt signs of his anti-militarism and anti-nationalism. One of the characteristics he seems to like about England is that there is an anti-war / anti-jackboot strain that defines England.

In my first response i used the word jingoism for a reason - it is the fanatical nationalism that leads to totalitarian militancy that Orwell seems to be critical of. I don't think he was against love of country in the way that one can cheer for a national sports team one day and scathingly criticize the nation the next.

Andrew

[Michael]

Yes, you can see by reading England Your England that Orwell has a certain affection for England. But also in the essay are overt signs of his anti-militarism and anti-nationalism. One of the characteristics he seems to like about England is that there is an anti-war / anti-jackboot strain that defines England.
Yes, but 'anti-militarism' doesn't quite describe Orwell since he spent a couple of years as a volunteer soldier in the Spanish Civil War.

It is hard to reconcile the concept of 'anti-militarism' with volunteering to fight in a foreign war. :ummm:

In my first response i used the word jingoism for a reason - it is the fanatical nationalism that leads to totalitarian militancy that Orwell seems to be critical of. I don't think he was against love of country in the way that one can cheer for a national sports team one day and scathingly criticize the nation the next.

Andrew
I don't know. Anyone who writes about their own country with that kind of tone - nowadays - is always suspect of being a strident and/or military-worshipping ethnic nationalist. :shrug:

Please note that Orwell doesn't just list a bunch of reasons why he loves England. That would be perfectly reasonable - but Orwell doesn't do this. Orwell writes an essay stating that the English are superior to others because of these various eccentricities. That's strident nationalism.

[andrewl]

Yes, but 'anti-militarism' doesn't quite describe Orwell since he spent a couple of years as a volunteer soldier in the Spanish Civil War.

It is hard to reconcile the concept of 'anti-militarism' with volunteering to fight in a foreign war. :ummm:

Perhaps. He was a bit younger at the time, but seemingly wise enough to see the looming "fascist" threat.


I don't know. Anyone who writes about their own country with that kind of tone - nowadays - is always suspect of being a strident and/or military-worshipping ethnic nationalist. :shrug:

Please note that Orwell doesn't just list a bunch of reasons why he loves England. That would be perfectly reasonable - but Orwell doesn't do this. Orwell writes an essay stating that the English are superior to others because of these various eccentricities. That's strident nationalism.

I don't necessarily disagree with that. But he was writing this essay during the blitz of 41, he thought it was maybe the end of England. Surely his tone is forgivable given the circumstances?

To me it reads as a moderate defense of his home country amidst destruction and uncertainty.

Andrew

[Michael]

Perhaps. He was a bit younger at the time, but seemingly wise enough to see the looming "fascist" threat.
In the England Your England piece, Orwell admonishes others for not supporting that anti-fascist movement. That indicates that Orwell is still holding to that 'willing militarist' viewpoint in 1942 (and it was a categorically wrong view to have, as history subsequently demonstrated).

I don't think you can dismiss Orwell's adventures in the Spanish Civil War as some 'youthful fancy' that the later outgrew, given that Orwell himself was well past age 30 at the time of the Spanish Civil War.

I don't necessarily disagree with that. But he was writing this essay during the blitz of 41, he thought it was maybe the end of England. Surely his tone is forgivable given the circumstances?

To me it reads as a moderate defense of his home country amidst destruction and uncertainty.

Andrew
Yes, I will grant some latitude to the Brits in 1942 for being a bit too patriotic - they had every right to be, as it was "their finest hour" as Churchill termed it.

But I think that still shows that Orwell was far more complex than a typical anti-war socialist, or some typical rightwing anti-totalitarian. Orwell is neither of these things at all and that's the key point that I wanted to raise in this thread - that Orwell defies most conventional ideological categories.

[andrewl]

In the England Your England piece, Orwell admonishes others for not supporting that anti-fascist movement. That indicates that Orwell is still holding to that 'willing militarist' viewpoint in 1942 (and it was a categorically wrong view to have, as history subsequently demonstrated).

I don't think you can dismiss Orwell's adventures in the Spanish Civil War as some 'youthful fancy' that the later outgrew, given that Orwell himself was well past age 30 at the time of the Spanish Civil War.


Yes, I will grant some latitude to the Brits in 1942 for being a bit too patriotic - they had every right to be, as it was "their finest hour" as Churchill termed it.

But I think that still shows that Orwell was far more complex than a typical anti-war socialist, or some typical rightwing anti-totalitarian. Orwell is neither of these things at all and that's the key point that I wanted to raise in this thread - that Orwell defies most conventional ideological categories.

Which i think is true of most great thinkers...

Andrew

[Michael]

Which i think is true of most great thinkers...

Andrew
I disagree with that. Most great [political] thinkers do fit a general [political] ideological pattern. Admittedly, some do not, but I think that most do.

Besides, the reason I've posted this thread is because rightwingers tend to believe that Orwell is one of theirs and so do the lefties. They both claim him as one who shares their ideology. I don't think he shares either one of them (much like Nietzsche I might add, another who is claimed by both right and left, yet he panders to neither).

[andrewl]

I disagree with that. Most great [political] thinkers do fit a general [political] ideological pattern. Admittedly, some do not, but I think that most do.

Besides, the reason I've posted this thread is because rightwingers tend to believe that Orwell is one of theirs and so do the lefties. They both claim him as one who shares their ideology. I don't think he shares either one of them (much like Nietzsche I might add, another who is claimed by both right and left, yet he panders to neither).

Maybe that is true of political thinkers but i've always found that the more i know about the ideas of a great thinker the less able i am to really put them into neat and tidy categories.

This makes sense to me because reality itself does not conform to political ideology, and so the more a thinker gets closer to the truth of things as they are, the less likely they are to fit into the rather narrow human concepts we try to force onto the world.

Andrew

[Michael]

Maybe that is true of political thinkers but i've always found that the more i know about the ideas of a great thinker the less able i am to really put them into neat and tidy categories.

This makes sense to me because reality itself does not conform to political ideology, and so the more a thinker gets closer to the truth of things as they are, the less likely they are to fit into the rather narrow human concepts we try to force onto the world.

Andrew
I agree with you here, but only in a general sense. There are many great writers and thinkers who didn't say anything specifically 'political' and thus are far more diverse and it is impossible to put political/ideological labels on them.

But when it comes to the ideas of politics, the field is so much narrower and less diverse, and most of the key positions are already long established. With particular political thinkers, particularly the greatest ones, there is almost no deviation in the course of their thought - Socrates/Plato, Aristotle and JJ Rousseau come to mind as remarkable for their ability to hit the exact same 'political' approach to every question/issue - always with the exact same justifications - in arguments written over a course of many years/decades. This is what makes them such interesting and dynamic thinkers - they apply their ideas across the board and 'follow' where it leads.

When a political thinker starts bouncing around, that's when the position starts looking shaky and untenable - this is a function of subjective whim rather than a result of rational rigor.

[Michael]

To provide a summary so far, I think there has been general agreement on a couple of points about Orwell:

1. Orwell treats individual and/or private liberty as a very important value, possibly the highest value.
2. Orwell was prescient in his awareness and warning of the danger of authoritarianism and totalitarianism.
3. Orwell himself claimed to be a socialist and all of his public political statements are all in favor of socialism and/or 1945 era British Labour Party.
4. Orwell himself volunteered to fight in the Spanish Civil War on the side of the 'International Left' against Franco's Nationalists and held this to be a highly noble cause - even though this meant alliance with the Soviet Union.

Points 2, 3 & 4 all point to Orwell as a socialist. Point #1 is at odds with that, since liberty has always had a difficult relationship with the idea of socialism. This is probably the origin of Orwell's quip about being a 'tory anarchist' - Orwell is making a clear statement about the value of liberty there - entirely at odds with the conventional 'trade-union' style 'democratic socialism' that defined the 1945 era British Labour Party. Though, it must be said that the love of liberty is not entirely a rightwing monopoly. There has always been libertarianism of the left, but that usually means anarchism. And if Orwell was an actual anarchist, one wonders how he reconciled that with his 'active' support for British Labour politics - particularly its pro-Soviet line?

I'm certainly not suggesting that Orwell was a rightwinger - rather that Orwell appears to be a man of conflict between his instinct for liberty, his thoughts of socialism and his passion for romantic nationalism. These three ideals all seem incongruous to me - though only if one judges the man as a political thinker. If one assesses Orwell as a man, or as an artist or as a writer, then one might come to a different conclusion. But as a political thinker (alone), I can't help but to see Orwell's politics as 'muddled' and confused - powerful and well stated, but I think there are too many unresolved contraditions here for any coherent conclusion.

[Zarquon]

Points 2, 3 & 4 all point to Orwell as a socialist. Point #1 is at odds with that, since liberty has always had a difficult relationship with the idea of socialism. This is probably the origin of Orwell's quip about being a 'tory anarchist' - Orwell is making a clear statement about the value of liberty there - entirely at odds with the conventional 'trade-union' style 'democratic socialism' that defined the 1945 era British Labour Party. Though, it must be said that the love of liberty is not entirely a rightwing monopoly. There has always been libertarianism of the left, but that usually means anarchism. And if Orwell was an actual anarchist, one wonders how he reconciled that with his 'active' support for British Labour politics - particularly its pro-Soviet line?

I'm certainly not suggesting that Orwell was a rightwinger - rather that Orwell appears to be a man of conflict between his instinct for liberty, his thoughts of socialism and his passion for romantic nationalism. These three ideals all seem incongruous to me - though only if one judges the man as a political thinker. If one assesses Orwell as a man, or as an artist or as a writer, then one might come to a different conclusion. But as a political thinker (alone), I can't help but to see Orwell's politics as 'muddled' and confused - powerful and well stated, but I think there are too many unresolved contraditions here for any coherent conclusion.
How does a progressive/liberal social policy contradict socialism?
That nationalism business appears to be a one-off thing, given it was WWII and what not.
And plenty of people fought against Franco's Fascists and their oppressive anti-republican war; can't a lover of liberty fight for it, even in alliance wih unusual fellows, if one thinks the end result will be more liberty/ a republican govt?

[Michael]

How does a progressive/liberal social policy contradict socialism?
Liberty and equality are inherently in conflict.

Socialism has equality trump liberty. Capitalism has liberty trump equality.

For the lover of liberty, socialism is thus bad news since they will always allow their goals of equality to constrain your liberty.

If one seeks a middle path, between the extremes of liberty and equality, liberalism is the only way that is known to be viable.

That nationalism business appears to be a one-off thing, given it was WWII and what not.
Nationalism is nationalism. One doesn't put it on one day and take it off the next.

And plenty of people fought against Franco's Fascists and their oppressive anti-republican war; can't a lover of liberty fight for it, even in alliance wih unusual fellows, if one thinks the end result will be more liberty/ a republican govt?
No lover of liberty could support the Communists in Spain. One had to be naive, ignorant or delusional to believe that defeat of Franco would lead to a liberal republic in Spain at that time.

That's the key here. The Spanish Civil War was between Franco's Nationalists and the Soviet-directed communists. Pick fascism of Franco or Soviet communism. That was the choice on offer in Spain. And as ugly as the fascists were, Franco was less bad than Soviet communism.

The Western International Brigades in Spain were nothing more than stooges for the Soviets - Orwell himself admitted this after he returned from Spain.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

What do people think of George Orwell's contribution to literature.

I think he is one of the greatest men in Britain's history.

His 2 most famous works, Animal Farm and 1984 are as good as people say they are, while the rest of his output is also wonderful and should be more famous.

I have read A Clergyman's Daugher (excellent), Coming Up For Air (awesome), Keep the Aspidistra Fyling (awesome), The Road To Wigan Pier (excellent), Down and Out in Paris and London (excellent) Homage to Catalonia (it bored me, but Orwell played a heroic role in the war) and Orwell's Essays (excellent).

I'm looking forward one day to reading Burmese Days.

Orwell has a terrific sense of humour when you read his lesser-known works.

He is a British hero!

[Tom Palven]

What do people think of George Orwell's contribution to literature.

I think he is one of the greatest men in Britain's history.

His 2 most famous works, Animal Farm and 1984 are as good as people say they are, while the rest of his output is also wonderful and should be more famous.

I have read A Clergyman's Daugher (excellent), Coming Up For Air (awesome), Keep the Aspidistra Fyling (awesome), The Road To Wigan Pier (excellent), Down and Out in Paris and London (excellent) Homage to Catalonia (it bored me, but Orwell played a heroic role in the war) and Orwell's Essays (excellent).

I'm looking forward one day to reading Burmese Days.

Orwell has a terrific sense of humour when you read his lesser-known works.

He is a British hero!

Need a good book and took your advice. Just ordered Keep the Aspidistra Flying and Coming UP For Air in one volume, used, from Amazon.

[Donkey]

I read Animal Farm at far too young an age.

[The Drunk Guy]

I read Animal Farm at far too young an age.
I read it early and don't remember all the details, but I remember the getting it. Made my first listening of Animals all the better! :D


EDIT/ADDITION: Thinking about reading 1984 in high school....I distinctly remember 95% of my classmates bitching and whining about how boring it was. No wonder America is a fucking police state. Thanks to Transformers and G. I. Joe, my generation thinks that buying tchotchkes is the only way to "save" the country. Maybe we all deserve to be enslaved.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Need a good book and took your advice. Just ordered Keep the Aspidistra Flying and Coming UP For Air in one volume, used, from Amazon.
Cheers :) I always appreciate it when people take my advice. By the way, much as I adore Coming Up For Air, there is a part of it which may seem a bit boring, because he goes on about fishing, rather a lot. But in general, it really is great, I think.:)

[MeMyselfAndI]

I've read the Animal Farm (in the 90s, a friend, she is a teacher, lent me a copy. Back then, under Yeltsin, they went to all lenghs to show how horrible the previous, Soviet, era was. So, brought up this book. It is a tradition, you know. Every Russian leader always tried to portray his predecessor in as bad a light as he could. Except for Stalin, mostly because... well... what could he do, take Lenin out of the Mausoleum, they'd shake the country up too much. But, yeah, all the others did and do that.)

Anyway, I kind of enjoyed it. I think, though, if people, those kids, were supposed to learn from it, they didn't. They went and elected Putin lol

[NickKIELCEPoland]

I've read the Animal Farm (in the 90s, a friend, she is a teacher, lent me a copy. Back then, under Yeltsin, they went to all lenghs to show how horrible the previous, Soviet, era was. So, brought up this book. It is a tradition, you know. Every Russian leader always tried to portray his predecessor in as bad a light as he could. Except for Stalin, mostly because... well... what could he do, take Lenin out of the Mausoleum, they'd shake the country up too much. But, yeah, all the others did and do that.)

Anyway, I kind of enjoyed it. I think, though, if people, those kids, were supposed to learn from it, they didn't. They went and elected Putin lol
It's not for kids. Anyone who treats it as a children's book clearly hasn't understood much.

[MeMyselfAndI]

It's not for kids. Anyone who treats it as a children's book clearly hasn't understood much.

Well, I don't know. How do you decide what literature is too mature or complicated for children? What criteria do use use? Should children only read... I don't know... Harry Potter? lol

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Well, How do you decide what literature is too mature or complicated for children?
Well, I don't think it's a children's book. But well done to your teacher for actually trying to explain what it was about.

By the way, why don't you like Harry Potter?

[MeMyselfAndI]

Well, I don't think it's a children's book. But well done to your teacher for actually trying to explain what it was about.

By the way, why don't you like Harry Potter?

Who says I don't? I just think that here in Moscow children in the earlier part of this decade, because they read Harry Potter books so much (and Lord of the Rings also and more of Tolkien's work), they forgot traditional Russian skazki folk tales that were always passed orally from generation to generation. Those children lost a big part of their culture. No wonder they are using English slang words now in their daily language, etc. It is sad.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Yes, it is sad - I fully agree. But whose fault is it? J. K. Rowling? Tolkien? The children themselves??? Or, their parents for not bothering to bring them up to learn about their own culture???

[Donkey]

Both Tolkien and Rowling lean heavily on a great diversity of Mythoi. Rowling "samples" from all over the world. Tolkien based his primarily on Scandinavian sagas.

I think that is how ancient myth will survive in the modern world.

[Michael]

Both Tolkien and Rowling lean heavily on a great diversity of Mythoi. Rowling "samples" from all over the world. Tolkien based his primarily on Scandinavian sagas.

I think that is how ancient myth will survive in the modern world.

I've looked into Rowling's writing only so far as to inquire about her sources for the mythology of magic that she uses (since that topic interests me). As far as I could tell, her inspiration for magic was primarily 'Dungeons & Dragons' (which itself is derived from Tolkein). I could find no trace of any 'mythology of magic' that was from outside British mythology or 20th century pop culture.

[Donkey]

I've looked into Rowling's writing only so far as to inquire about her sources for the mythology of magic that she uses (since that topic interests me). As far as I could tell, her inspiration for magic was primarily 'Dungeons & Dragons' (which itself is derived from Tolkein). I could find no trace of any 'mythology of magic' that was from outside British mythology or 20th century pop culture.

Well it's admittedly been a long time since I've read the HP books, but if I recall correctly, she occasionally goes further afield in her source material, especially when dealing with non-English wizards.

I don't think it's based in D&D so much as lifted and adapted from English folklore.

Rowling's elves are NOT Tolkein's elves; nor are her goblins.

"I've taken horrible liberties with folklore and mythology, but I'm quite unashamed about that, because British folklore and British mythology is a totally bastard mythology. You know, we've been invaded by people, we've appropriated their gods, we've taken their mythical creatures, and we've soldered them all together to make, what I would say, is one of the richest folklores in the world, because it's so varied. So I feel no compunction about borrowing from that freely, but adding a few things of my own."

That sounds about right.

[Michael]

Well it's admittedly been a long time since I've read the HP books, but if I recall correctly, she occasionally goes further afield in her source material, especially when dealing with non-English wizards.

I don't think it's based in D&D so much as lifted and adapted from English folklore.

Rowling's elves are NOT Tolkein's elves; nor are her goblins.
True - but Tolkein's weren't traditional from Scandanavian folklore either. ;)

My point about the D&D magic system is a bit more philosophical - I'm referring to ideas about magic being a combination of 'gift' and 'education' - and the source of magic power and related ideas, not necessarily terms of use. Much of this stuff has become subliminal through pop-culture. I detect no ideas relating to Far Eastern or Indian ideas about 'magic' in Rowling - that's my point - it seems very British in source material.

That sounds about right.
I totally agree. :lol:

[Donkey]

Man, now I want to go back and read them in depth again.

[Greendruid]

Man, now I want to go back and read them in depth again.

I have to completely agree with Michael on Rowling's adaptations of Gygax's D&D universe or cosmology where magic is concerned. Admittedly there are a lot of adaptations that the films have further fleshed out, but the pure text is definitely D&D. Especially the elements of caster types (broken down by the types of spells the different houses are likely to use), those fun and/or silly spells (the Weasley twins come to mind) and definitely the aspects of the use of different races to demonstrate different types of magic use. There are some divergences though. The lack of magical ingredients in the casting of spells except where potions are concerned is one area that differs. There is of course common ground between D&D and European folklore concerning the casting of magic spells such as the association of a familiar animal with the witch/wizard, the use of a wand, the use of a magical incantation or power word. Many of these differ completely from Wiccan spell casting BTW. Actual witchcraft is very differnt indeed!

[Donkey]

I have to completely agree with Michael on Rowling's adaptations of Gygax's D&D universe or cosmology where magic is concerned. Admittedly there are a lot of adaptations that the films have further fleshed out, but the pure text is definitely D&D. Especially the elements of caster types (broken down by the types of spells the different houses are likely to use), those fun and/or silly spells (the Weasley twins come to mind) and definitely the aspects of the use of different races to demonstrate different types of magic use. There are some divergences though. The lack of magical ingredients in the casting of spells except where potions are concerned is one area that differs. There is of course common ground between D&D and European folklore concerning the casting of magic spells such as the association of a familiar animal with the witch/wizard, the use of a wand, the use of a magical incantation or power word. Many of these differ completely from Wiccan spell casting BTW. Actual witchcraft is very differnt indeed!
I am not that familiar with D&D (what little gaming I do takes place in Savage Worlds), but I wonder how much of Rowling comes from D&D and how much D&D and Rowling draw from the same place.

[Michael]

I am not that familiar with D&D (what little gaming I do takes place in Savage Worlds), but I wonder how much of Rowling comes from D&D and how much D&D and Rowling draw from the same place.

I doubt if Rowling studied D&D magic. Rather that D&D has so permeated popular culture and thus defines the topic generally.

Btw, D&D also redefined dragons - before Tolkein/D&D, dragons were always manageable sized creatures in mythology. With Tolkein/D&D, dragons became monsterously large creatures that can talk. This is now the 'popular definition' of a dragon. Likewise with elves - seems that Tolkein's definition of elves has supplanted just about every traditional folklore definition of elves. :shrug:

[Tom Palven]

Who says I don't? I just think that here in Moscow children in the earlier part of this decade, because they read Harry Potter books so much (and Lord of the Rings also and more of Tolkien's work), they forgot traditional Russian skazki folk tales that were always passed orally from generation to generation. Those children lost a big part of their culture. No wonder they are using English slang words now in their daily language, etc. It is sad.

I 'd like to ask you an unrelated, off-topic question, and maybe Michael can move if if he wants to, if you answer it:
I was in Moscow and St Petersburg in 1984 when Chernenko was in power and the wonders of authoritarian collectivism had produced a situation where there the ruble was almost worthless and there was almost no food in the stores. In the department stores you had to go through three separate lines to buy something, but there was hardly anything to buy. Since that time, the Soviet Union supposedly "collapsed".

I've been hoping that the murderous authoritarian government of the US will go bankrupt and also collapse under its own weight, but the problem is, what happens next? Despite the "collapse" of Russia, it seems that the bureaucracy there has remained in place due to new tax collection methods. Is the system almost as stale and repressive as ever? What is it like?

[MeMyselfAndI]

Yes, it is sad - I fully agree. But whose fault is it? J. K. Rowling? Tolkien? The children themselves??? Or, their parents for not bothering to bring them up to learn about their own culture???

Well, as I posted before, there is a genious man in Moscow named Dmitry Emec
http://cs5171.vkontakte.ru/u50203857/124321342/y_0c5f311e.jpg(Here with son Mikhail)

As a writer and as a father of a young boy, he too was concerned about what effect Harry Potter was having on our children. So, what did he do?

He gave Russia her own harry Potter hero, or, rather, heroine.

Tanya Grotter
http://bookz.ru/pics/emetsd61.jpg
http://lib.aldebaran.ru/books/emec_dmitrii/emec_dmitrii_tanya_grotter_i_molot_peruna/cover.jpg
http://bookz.ru/pics/emetsd60.jpg
http://bookz.ru/pics/tana-gro_018.jpghttp://bookz.ru/pics/emetsd62.jpghttp://bookz.ru/pics/33c3dc3065041ee0.jpg
Etc. 13 books all in all, like Potter, but drawn rather from ancient Russian mythology. Oh, and instead of magic sticks, they use magic rings. And instead of kwiddich or how you call it, they play Dragonball, yes, the 'net' is the mouth of a firebreathing dragon. You have to admit, it is kind of more hardcore than just flying around on brooms (our guys use flying vacuum cleaners... yes, that is kind of weird, I have to admit lol)

Now, he added a new personage in, Mefody Buslaev, they met in the first book of that series
http://www.spbdk.ru/xml_content/litres/mcat78-2103279c-babe-102d-b00f-4f4c90eae8ca.jpg
Tatar boy. :D They are the other founding nation, as I said. Had to represent them lol

There's 5 Mefody books now, I believe
http://buslaev-grotter.ucoz.org/_ph/4/2/762106346.jpg
Tanya continues to appear, but sort of in a secondary role, like Hermione to Potter.

There's a online game now based on this
http://games.cnews.ru/trophy/screens/tanja_grotter_contrabas/aac.jpghttp://games.cnews.ru/trophy/screens/tanja_grotter_contrabas/aab.jpg
No movies yet, sorry lol They are talking about making one, I heard. We will see what happens. But the books are more popular than HP. In fact, they are not only sold all over former USSR now, but also (translated) in China, Mongolia, and some other places I cannot recall. In Europe, Rowling had to stoop to a lawsuit to prevent it from being sold there. Even she is afraid of competition, it seems... :rolleyes:

I 'd like to ask you an unrelated, off-topic question, and maybe Michael can move if if he wants to, if you answer it:
I was in Moscow and St Petersburg in 1984 when Chernenko was in power and the wonders of authoritarian collectivism had produced a situation where there the ruble was almost worthless and there was almost no food in the stores. In the department stores you had to go through three separate lines to buy something, but there was hardly anything to buy. Since that time, the Soviet Union supposedly "collapsed".

I've been hoping that the murderous authoritarian government of the US will go bankrupt and also collapse under its own weight, but the problem is, what happens next? Despite the "collapse" of Russia, it seems that the bureaucracy there has remained in place due to new tax collection methods. Is the system almost as stale and repressive as ever? What is it like?

Well, people can freely leave the country now, travel, without asking for permission from KGB/FSB (unless you happen to have any debts or had failed to pay your alimony. They will stop you at the border for that.)

Corruption is worse now than then. Police is more corrupt and brutal. In some towns these days, when in the old times if someone tries to shake you down for protection money, you'd go to police; now often enough it is the police who are collecting the protection money.

Bureaucracy is bigger now than then. All of USSR had 800,000 government officials of all sorts. Today, just Russia has 1,500,000. And anyone here who is in a position to demand bribes or kickbacks will do so, I guarantee you. Anything else you want to know, ask.

[Tom Palven]

Wow. Well at least you can leave the country without speical permission. I know you talked about the skinheads and poverty, but I didn't know it was that bad. When I was there if you wanted to go to the front of the line to the ballet or something, you just handed the person in charge some "hard currency"- US dollars or Swedish krona, and they put you right up front. I was amazed that no one in lined complained. That was just the way the system worked. But, it's news to me that the system is worse now. I haven't herard much here about Russia, lately, but what I've heard in the past few years was that industry was booming and millionaries are being created, but nothing about the bureaucracy and the corruption. At least you know English in addition to Russian, and maybe other languages, too, which give you some flexibility.

[MeMyselfAndI]

Wow. Well at least you can leave the country without speical permission. I know you talked about the skinheads and poverty, but I didn't know it was that bad. When I was there if you wanted to go to the front of the line to the ballet or something, you just handed the person in charge some "hard currency"- US dollars or Swedish krona, and they put you right up front. I was amazed that no one in lined complained. That was just the way the system worked. But, it's news to me that the system is worse now. I haven't herard much here about Russia, lately, but what I've heard in the past few years was that industry was booming and millionaries are being created, but nothing about the bureaucracy and the corruption. At least you know English in addition to Russian, and maybe other languages, too, which give you some flexibility.

I am not saying back then was better. Back then there were bad things, and now too there are bad things. I still think now is better, at least for creative people, artists, musicians. They are not censored, like back then. Many good, well known singers, like Mikhail Shufutinsky
http://station.ru/upload/images/%D1%88%D1%83%D1%84-2-620-220311.jpg (http://station.ru/upload/images/%D1%88%D1%83%D1%84-2-620-220311.jpg)

Villy Tokarev
http://zakazartistov.com/upload/iblock/c3b/1392_img_7998w_1.jpg

and others had left USSR because they did not want the Communist party to dictate to them what to sing about.

Now is not like that, which is why they are all back now.

[Tom Palven]

There are probably some areas of more freedom here in the US, too, but I can only think of one-- there is more tolerance now of gays, with official policy now allowing gays to serve in the miliatry, and some states are allowing gay marriage. But in the area of free speech, the government is trying to regulate speech on the internet, it's allowing more phone tapping and spying on US citizens, and so on, and the bureaucracy continues to grow like wildfire at the expense of those who actually produce something useful. I have no clue what could possibly reverse this. It seems a certainty that the political process won't, and it seems appalling that the best thing we might have to hope for is that a benevolent military dictator might turn things around after massive deficits and "quantitative easing" bring the US economy to its knees.

[Michael]

There are probably some areas of more freedom here in the US, too, but I can only think of one-- there is more tolerance now of gays, with official policy now allowing gays to serve in the miliatry, and some states are allowing gay marriage. But in the area of free speech, the government is trying to regulate speech on the internet, it's allowing more phone tapping and spying on US citizens, and so on, and the bureaucracy continues to grow like wildfire at the expense of those who actually produce something useful. I have no clue what could possibly reverse this. It seems a certainty that the political process won't, and it seems appalling that the best thing we might have to hope for is that a benevolent military dictator might turn things around after massive deficits and "quantitative easing" bring the US economy to its knees.

Quantitative easing is a mildly 'stimulative' policy. Alas, it wasn't enough and the FED ended that policy several months ago. Given the massive overcapacity of the US economy right now, inflation fears are non-existent (just look at 5 year or 10 year bond yields). In other words, your poking fun at the term "quantitative easing" seems misplaced.

[Tom Palven]

Quantitative easing is a mildly 'stimulative' policy. Alas, it wasn't enough and the FED ended that policy several months ago. Given the massive overcapacity of the US economy right now, inflation fears are non-existent (just look at 5 year or 10 year bond yields). In other words, your poking fun at the term "quantitative easing" seems misplaced.

The term "quantitative easing" deserves some poking at because it is a classic example of Orwellian Newspeak, invented to promote "goodthink". An older term for it is "currency debasement", and when private citizens do it it's called "counterfeiting".

[andrewl]

When measuring the overcapacity of the US economy do they include energy inputs? The reason i ask is that if they only look at infrastructure and assume that resources are infinite - then in a peak oil situation (or peak everything situation) the capacity of the industrial infrastructure does not tell the whole story. Inflation could still happen if supply cannot meet demand in a situation where oil production has plateaued?

Andrew