Scan barcode
salam_'s review
4.0
Okay so, let's get one thing straight: My review is not of this particular book, but I've read a collection of Orwell's essays and didn't know how to mark them.
The essays I read are:
- Politics and The English Language: It was what intrigued me to read these bunch of essays in the first place. I got the idea that it was what gave birth to the idea of Newspeak (the language used in 1984), but upon reading it, it was very different.. More like a critique of changes in writing styles. Orwell was very "bitter? lol" in his criticism, though.
- Some Thoughts on the Common Toad: This was, I think, my favorite of the collection. It basically sends the message that: even though the world is crumbling around us, doesn't mean that we can't appreciate the little beautiful things surrounding us.
- Shooting An Elephant: This essay, was the most thought-provoking of them all. It made me think of colonization in a deeper way. It was very interesting to see the point of view of someone among the colonizers.
- You and the Atomic Bomb: I could see many ideas that ended in the book in 1984 forming in this essay, and like 1984 it was somewhat prophetical.
- Confessions of a Book Reviewer: I thought I'd relate more to this essay but it was in fact, more like a description of how a life of a professional book reviewer is (someone who does it as a job). So naturally- did not relate. But George Orwell did build a realistic, almost tangible setting and atmosphere.
- Poetry and the Microphone: Reminded me of what we now call Podcasts. Orwell would've been proud that this thing exists now. But the dilemma of the image of poetry, and its accessibility is still unfortunately, present.
- Books Vs. Cigarettes: THE BEST ARGUMENTS AGAINST BOOK-BUYING HATERS!
In conclusion, I can say with confidence, that I prefer Orwell's nonfiction, over his fiction.
The essays I read are:
- Politics and The English Language: It was what intrigued me to read these bunch of essays in the first place. I got the idea that it was what gave birth to the idea of Newspeak (the language used in 1984), but upon reading it, it was very different.. More like a critique of changes in writing styles. Orwell was very "bitter? lol" in his criticism, though.
- Some Thoughts on the Common Toad: This was, I think, my favorite of the collection. It basically sends the message that: even though the world is crumbling around us, doesn't mean that we can't appreciate the little beautiful things surrounding us.
- Shooting An Elephant: This essay, was the most thought-provoking of them all. It made me think of colonization in a deeper way. It was very interesting to see the point of view of someone among the colonizers.
- You and the Atomic Bomb: I could see many ideas that ended in the book in 1984 forming in this essay, and like 1984 it was somewhat prophetical.
- Confessions of a Book Reviewer: I thought I'd relate more to this essay but it was in fact, more like a description of how a life of a professional book reviewer is (someone who does it as a job). So naturally- did not relate. But George Orwell did build a realistic, almost tangible setting and atmosphere.
- Poetry and the Microphone: Reminded me of what we now call Podcasts. Orwell would've been proud that this thing exists now. But the dilemma of the image of poetry, and its accessibility is still unfortunately, present.
- Books Vs. Cigarettes: THE BEST ARGUMENTS AGAINST BOOK-BUYING HATERS!
In conclusion, I can say with confidence, that I prefer Orwell's nonfiction, over his fiction.
senordustin's review
5.0
Great thinker. Incredible writer. Orwell is striking, almost regardless of topic. He and David foster Wallace are my favorite essayists.
owlette's review
3.0
Underwhelmed.
It might be because I just didn’t enjoy the choice of selections. The classics—“Politics and the English Language” and “Shooting an Elephant”—are timeless and deserve to be included. I quite liked the pairing of “Such, Such Were the Joys” and “Charles Dickens.” But “Charles Dickens” is the only literary review piece of the three in this collection that I read because of my familiarity with the titular author's work. I never have and probably never will read Henry Miller or Rudyard Kipling. And then there were pieces like “The Art of Donald McGill” whose topics are too contemporaneous to be enjoyed by modern readers.
It might be because I just didn’t enjoy the choice of selections. The classics—“Politics and the English Language” and “Shooting an Elephant”—are timeless and deserve to be included. I quite liked the pairing of “Such, Such Were the Joys” and “Charles Dickens.” But “Charles Dickens” is the only literary review piece of the three in this collection that I read because of my familiarity with the titular author's work. I never have and probably never will read Henry Miller or Rudyard Kipling. And then there were pieces like “The Art of Donald McGill” whose topics are too contemporaneous to be enjoyed by modern readers.
apinsk's review
5.0
A thoughtful and thorough account of Orwell's life through his voice - a peak into his story, his happenstances. He plays with the reader by tricking us with uncommon misconceptions ---- keeps you reading. His stylistic choices are well thought out. Very interesting.
levibaus's review
4.0
There were some interesting essays. There were some intriguing ones. There were also some thought-provoking ones as well. I didn't read all of them, but I appreciated a decent foray into his nonfiction writing and I will come back to his writing in the future. His suggestions in "Politics and the English Language" on how to write well were adept. His personal account of growing up and being educated in "Such, Such Were the Joys" was insightful. I really appreciated his detailed analysis of Charles Dickens and Rudyard Kipling. Plus, he provided inspiration in his essay detailing the reasons he wrote. Overall, I'm glad I read through a good clip of his essays and will be glad to come to them again.
cizt's review
3.0
Flera korta essäer och krönikor. Flera väldigt bra. Andra lite tristar, exempelvis två om hur underbar den brittiska maten EGENTLIGEN är. Å andra sidan en underbar text om hur man EGENTLIGEN kokar bäst te.
Generellt känns det som att det måste ha varit jobbigt att heta George Orwell. Att ständigt va i opposition mot allt.
Generellt känns det som att det måste ha varit jobbigt att heta George Orwell. Att ständigt va i opposition mot allt.
lanko's review
5.0
The most impressive thing of the book was how Orwell himself changed some of his views over time, specially some he was very adamant early on.
The book spans essays over decades, and Orwell is really good at giving a clear picture of the situation of the time, but intentionally or not, giving hints of himself as a person.
While it's clear Orwell has an obvious preference for an economic system, over time he changed views on some of the things he endorsed early, but better yet, and what gives him a lot of respect, is how that he also never looked the other way about the wrongdoing, corruption and mistakes of his own side as well.
Better yet, he also called his side on it loud and clear, often incurring the wrath of people (political parties, biased journalists and so on) who decided to simply pretend to be blind.
In times where political discussion can ridiculously escalate, and when bias often make people extremely partial, it's refreshing to see someone who clearly has his own preferences, but always called the bullshit his own side was doing as well.
After all, blind following is exactly what people in power want. It's practically a free pass for corruption, abuse and other things, which makes for a worse government for all.
The book spans essays over decades, and Orwell is really good at giving a clear picture of the situation of the time, but intentionally or not, giving hints of himself as a person.
While it's clear Orwell has an obvious preference for an economic system, over time he changed views on some of the things he endorsed early, but better yet, and what gives him a lot of respect, is how that he also never looked the other way about the wrongdoing, corruption and mistakes of his own side as well.
Better yet, he also called his side on it loud and clear, often incurring the wrath of people (political parties, biased journalists and so on) who decided to simply pretend to be blind.
In times where political discussion can ridiculously escalate, and when bias often make people extremely partial, it's refreshing to see someone who clearly has his own preferences, but always called the bullshit his own side was doing as well.
After all, blind following is exactly what people in power want. It's practically a free pass for corruption, abuse and other things, which makes for a worse government for all.