/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11888033]

Why are there no writers/essaylists like Orwell anymore? People who can just honestly look at the world and describe what they saw and how they felt, without trying to see everything through a political lens. His essays like "Thoughts on the common toad" and "the moon under water" feel almost like they could not be written today, because today everyone has a political viewpoint first and perceives everything through it. In in wigan pier where he advocates for socialism, he describes his experience going down a mine and through poor towns very naturally

[Anonymous No.11888181]

There are, you just like people with black and white photos too much
Read foreign authors, read authors born to poverty

[Anonymous No.11888194]

>Why are there no writers/essaylists like Orwell anymore? People who can just honestly look at the world and describe what they saw and how they felt, without trying to see everything through a political lens.
read 'why I write' by Orwell OP
jesus fucking christ

[Anonymous No.11888976]

>Orwell
>without trying to see everything through a political lens

13/10 trolling

[Anonymous No.11889164]

>>11888194
>>11888976
>Is it wicked to take a pleasure in spring and other seasonal changes? To put it more precisely, is it politically reprehensible, while we are all groaning, or at any rate ought to be groaning, under the shackles of the capitalist system, to point out that life is frequently more worth living because of a blackbird's song, a yellow elm tree in October, or some other natural phenomenon which does not cost money and does not have what the editors of left-wing newspapers call a class angle? There is not doubt that many people think so. I know by experience that a favourable reference to "Nature" in one of my articles is liable to bring me abusive letters, and though the key-word in these letters is usually "sentimental", two ideas seem to be mixed up in them. One is that any pleasure in the actual process of life encourages a sort of political quietism. People, so the thought runs, ought to be discontented, and it is our job to multiply our wants and not simply to increase our enjoyment of the things we have already. The other idea is that this is the age of machines and that to dislike the machine, or even to want to limit its domination, is backward-looking, reactionary and slightly ridiculous. This is often backed up by the statement that a love of Nature is a foible of urbanized people who have no notion what Nature is really like. Those who really have to deal with the soil, so it is argued, do not love the soil, and do not take the faintest interest in birds or flowers, except from a strictly utilitarian point of view. To love the country one must live in the town, merely taking an occasional week-end ramble at the warmer times of year.

[Anonymous No.11889233]

>>11888033
Blair is a salty proto-commie who got in way over his head in the spanish civil war then got /shook/ when the actual commies purged the pretenders. He should have snapped out of it and woken up after but he didn't. He's a stubborn child effectively.