George Orwell's contention was that it is a sure sign of trouble when things can no longer be called by their right names and described in plain, forthright speech.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
In our time political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible.
Orwell is almost our litmus test. Some of his satirical writing looks like reality these days.
With me it was that defending the Communist Party was something worse than naming the names.
I'd always been a great fan of George Orwell.
George Orwell's '1984' frequently tops surveys of our greatest books: it's not a celebration of poetic language. It's decidedly anti-literary, a masterpiece of personal and political narrative sequence. And its subject matter is crucial, because what '1984' shows is that language can be a dirty trick.
The way I think liberties get eroded is not that all of a sudden you become an Orwellian state, but gradually it becomes harder for people with unpopular views to speak out without being in danger, be it from the state or just from the majority of the people who don't like them.
Sticks and stones may break bones, but words do more damage than most people can imagine. Especially name-calling. 'You're dangerous!' 'Deceived.' 'A false prophet.' 'A compromiser!' Charges like these by young-earth leaders, both spoken and implied, are intended to discredit, maim, and crush old-earth advocates, including me.
He said true things, but called them by wrong names.
I hold with Henry George, that at the back of every great social evil will be found a great political wrong.
Orwell wasn't right about where society was in 1984. We haven't turned into that sort of surveillance society. But that may be, at least in small part, because of his book. The notion that ubiquitous surveillance and state manipulation of the media is evil is deeply engrained in us.