Some thoughts of a Common Frog, or, 'It's the only thing worth having and we don't want it...'

“ 'Verily this is a sapling of Galathilion, and that a fruit of Telperion of many names, Eldest of Trees. Who shall say how it comes here in the appointed hour? But this is an ancient hallow and ere the sapplings failed or the Tree withered in the court, a fruit must have been set here. For it is said that, though the fruit of the Tree comes seldom to ripeness, yet the life within may then lie sleeping through many long years, and none can foretell this time which it will awake. Remember this. For if ever a fruit ripens it should be planted, lest the line die out of the world. Here it has lain hidden on the mountain, even as the race of Elendil lay hidden in the wastes of the North. Yet the line of Nimloth is older far than your line '...” (Gandalf's words to King Elessar)
; ...on Tolkien's Lord of the Rings (pt III, RotK) ; p. 303 , at 1982-paperback repr.)

“And there were far less trees. In the old days there used to be huge beeches growing in the hedgerows, and in places their boughs met across the road and made a kind of arch. Now they were all gone. […] I thought for a moment. Yes, I remembered ! Where those houses stood there used to be a little oak plantation, and the trees grew too close together, so that they were very tall and thin, and in spring the ground underneath them used to be smothered in anemones. Certainly there were never any houses as far out of the town as this. […] It occurred to me that the population of this place (it used to be two thousand in the old days) must be a good twenty-five thousand. The only thing that hadn't changed, seemingly, was Binfield House. It wasn't much more than a dot at that distance, but you could see it on the hillside opposite, with the beech trees round it, and the town hadn't climbed that high.“

; Orwell, on Coming up for Air (,novel, p. 1939 ; p. 218-9.)

(...Like noted priorly) I only quite randomly read Orwell at my 'early days'. Now, for this instance, I considered whether I'd further write smght) comprihensive and 'thorough' (by page-count) on Orwell here...Yet, then decided that there's actually quite much distance of present to that middle-wars period (1930s), and as an author he should be pretty much covered w. recent studies by now. (Notice that I even choose not to use the 'unca' prefix from Orwell, just due from my great respect for his uncompromising attitudes, views, etc.) ...And therefore, I considered it most proper combine this from only a few aspects, of selectively chosen.

; As I noted those old 1980s bio's I'd read, to be quite one-sided concerning his character (if not completely biased), figured it better to let his own words speak for themselves – and soforth the quoted selections. Orwell on his own words...as far as (smtgh like that) possible within these limits. Noticeably there are, probably lots, newer material/biographies on Orwell ; Those I've not read, even that some would've likely offered a more wider perspectives about his writing(s). ...But I sort of considered myself less interested on all from it personally, even if it might've offered some further light concerning this. ; More generally said, if you want the plain truth about it, and briefly put as possible, during that 1980s (to some people, it may have felt) mythologization about Orwell's figure must've been felt almost a necessity – Since he had said so much about actual causes of the war/wars, the hypocrisies of the cultural-politics, and about the obvious contradictions on social-economic level. 
(; But here I only make these a few references on those collected writings of G.O. - via that compilation of Orwell's non-fiction, etc.; The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of G.O., ed. Orwell and Angus, p. 1970.[covers writings btw 1920-50s]).

; ...The following (few) quotes concentrate/selected from Orwell's literary criticism – Since it, probably, appears somewhat less known or appreciated than fx his views on the close futures from 1950s, or the future prospects of the (then) totalitarian societies, or any his socio-political 'foresees' in general. ; And, suppose we must also mention alongside that foremost Orwell was socialist writer, which becomes quite obvious when reading his opinions and writing (...By his time it was a more common 'social category'/attitude than presently, but also quite more obscure a 'term'.) In short, we could state, that he along many his contemporary writers and socialist authors (West-European quite as well, or, them actually) believed that the late-industrialized economies would soon face a collapse due from the capitalism's inbuild 'logic', at the close futures...Or at least that the needed changes at the existent class-rooted questions were necessary, even unavoidable. He also rejected, strongly, at the time existent stalinist communism, harmful for individual, and was even more horrified about it's realities than the prospective futures of capitalist economies (For good reasons, as we all would know by now...)

...From various many Orwell's literary criticisms I thought it worth short quoting some his compact views on some other well-known authors from pasts. On Dickens, Orwell on his lot appraised essay from the y. 1935 writes:

“...It is said that Macaulay refused to review Hard Times, because he disapproved of it's 'sullen Socialism'. Obviously Macaulay is here using the word 'Socialism' in the same sense in which, twenty years ago, a vegetarian meal or a Cubist picture used to be referred as to 'Bolshevism'. There is not a line in the book that can properly be called Socialistic; Indeed, its tendency if anything is pro-capitalist, because its whole moral is that capitalists ought to be kind, not that workers ought to be rebellious. … And so far as social criticism goes, one can never extract much more from Dickens than this, unless one deliberately reads meanings into him. ...” ; of 'Charles Dickens', (on the Collected Essays..., Vol 1.; p. 459-60)

(; ...About Wells, btw, he says on the same essay followingly:)

“Anyone who has studied Wells's novels in detail will have noticed that though he hates the aristocrat like poison, he has no particular objection of the plutocrat, and no enthusiasm for the proletarian.” ; ibid. (The said source ; p. 470.)

; And, fx on Jack London, his 'judgement' reads like the subsequent quoted few paragraphs:

“...In the late nineteenth century Darwinism was used as a justification for laissez-faire capitalism, for power politics and for the exploiting of subject peoples. Life was a free-for-all in which the fact of survival was proof of fitness to survive: this was a comforting thought for successful businessmen, and it also led naturally, though not very logically, to the notion of 'superior' and 'inferior' races. In our day we are less willing to apply biology to politics, partly because we have watched the Nazis do just that thing, with great thoroughness and with horrible results. But when London was writing, a crude version of Darwinism was widespread and must have been difficult to escape. He himself was even capable of succumbing racial mysticism. … London was a socialist with the instincts of a buccaneer and the education of a nineteenth-century materialist. In general the background of his stories is not industrial, not even civilized. “ ; of 'Introduction to Love of Life and Other Stories by Jack London' (Collected Essays..., Vol 4. ; p. 46-7.)

; ...I find Orwell's views (of the said authors) well clear-sighted, even brilliant compact statements (also considering it was written that some 60-70 years ago by now.) In spite of the referred (quoted), he also 'merits' them, or their prose-work by some part, at those essays...but not omitting from mention the aspects above referred. ; For example, he also fx states on that that in spite of London's 'admiration for prize-fighters' (...etc.), smtgh is '...keeping him on the rails and checking his natural urge towards the glorification of brutality.' (at the better creations of London's texts/stories.) Indeed, Jack London's plentysome fiction books seem been noticeably uneven, quite varying by quality. (But I also think London's Iron Heel a more note-worthy effort for a futuristic novel than Orwell seems care to think. Likewise, Orwell, a bit, 'discredited' fx Zamyatin's We as an actual socio-futuristic effort, albeit more modestly so.) 
 

; ...W. quite resembling manner Orwell's remarks about Dickens contain along the said criticism some praises too. - He fx says there that '...The fact that Dickens is always thought of as a caricaturist, although he was constantly trying to be something else, is perhaps the surest mark of his genius.' (;Coll. Essays, Vol 1.; p. 499.) (...Orwell also fx remarks that) 'outside the english-speaking culture' Dickens is 'hardly intelligible' to read – Quite so I've noted, and thanks for that well-comprihensive essay I actually have not had any necessity from reading him. :) ; ...Of the above mentioned, on Wells Orwell's views are perhaps most 'unjustified' – or at least most limited. (He was still alive by the time Orwell was writing, and the two also critized each other's views occasionally, quite strongly at least by Orwell's part.) But actually I only selected that to emphasize just that aspect, since generally Wells' many fiction texts/writing appears actually quite absent on most Orwell's essays. Yet, I think, there's some truth on his claims too. I only notice that Wells 'futuristic horrifications', his hierarchist- (/”race-”) views or 19^th centurian originated view/futuristic descriptive 'scifi-'novels don't quite that straightforward reflect the old (bourgeoisie) interpretations from Darwinism (or, a social-darwinist thought, so usual on early 1900s), ...I'd say. At least I suppose his views must having somewhat developed during the years, about from early 1900s until second World War.

...There's naturally various other writers Orwell seems wrote interestingly on his numerous reviews and essays - fx incl. Henry Miller, D.H.Lawrence (1885-1930; Btw – whom he quite appreciates, see fx the review on/about 'Prussian officer and other short stories'. Lawrence may have been some of Orwell's literary exemplaries...but I actually find for more worth his novel Sons and Lovers, p. 1913. It being almost as good a view from that point of time than appears Sinclair's great social-historical book The Jungle, p. 1906.), Kipling, ao... 

 -------------
 

; As well Orwell's notices on books from social scientific issues (or fx 'cultural-sociologic' theories) by his time also are interesting - indeed often as much recommendable than anything else he'd written (Even that I have no intention from discuss those here.) But fx the article 'James Burnham and the Managerial Revolution' (on Coll. Essays, Vol 4.) is more than interesting from read, concerning the mid-wars / postwar thought. And, what generally appears less acknowledged from that period. (Acc. Orwell) Burnham's book fx during prewar years '...made a considerable stir both in the United States and this country...', ao, etc..., but let us leave that for the mention here too.

; As a literary 'reviewer' Orwell seems had his own limits too, of course. Fx, I think, mostly his reads don't seem so much covered mainly anything outside the 'British tradition' of literature history. (I may be wrong on that, of course. But most of the past authors he chooses merit – occasionally discrediting them too - originate for that 'English-speaking' realm.) Recognizing Orwell's renown fierce anti-imperialism and other bitter 'antis' against on the time prevailed 'white man's burden'-type-of-thinkin', this feels (a bit) downside. But most notable this is, apparently, on his views on contemporary European literature, I think. Orwell seems fx strongly disapproved Chesterton due from the admiration by the latter mentioned towards foreign literature (...ie mainly the French culture. Main reason actually Chesterton's political Catholicism, and related to that his 'religious patriotism', containing – Orwell may have felt - underrating of the 'domestic' cultural tradition.) But that too just for the mention...Because if one should remark any singular aspect about Orwell's way of thought – I'd say that the total negation of religion concerning any political ideologies would raise to most obvious. Notice also, that fx communism, even 'capitalism', can represent - on some levels - a religious attitude. In short, both (could be) seen to certain forms of a fanatism. Orwell discussed, he simply doesn't seem find any interest on the religion itself. 

 

; ...Resemblingly, mostly Orwell's contemporary female authors (perhaps some like Katherine Mansfield, 1888-1923, Rebecca West, or Colette, fx, even though her books perhaps weren't translated by the time, maybe...) seem shine only by their absence of his writing/literary criticism. Not any manner exceptional then, of course. (He some places mentions the Brontés, even approves the Wuthering Heights (p. 1847) for some his very favourite novels – but that's about most of it all. ...Obviously, one wouldn't view Orwell to any conservative for a critic, but of that part he's perhaps closer for some 'middle-of-the-road views' from his times.) 
 

; Likewise, not anything too interesting but...I also considered if I'd put here any commentary on the (so called) Orwell-list, that seems sometimes (prob. around 1990s) resurfaced. But I think I already made this 'inbriefing' lenghtier than I actually planned...so feel free to form your own opinion. 'Guess you can easily estimate the level from Orwell's commitment on any 'anti-Bolschevism' from the above presented paragraphs. If you think differently...at least read the selections from those essays of his, cited at above.

-------------  
 

; ...HAVING MISSED ME ?

Sort of, however (and thinking about Orwell's 'Love of Nature') I originally thought that I'd offered to the end of (this) brief 'walk-through' mostly emphasized on Orwell's ecological articles. ; There's a few references from other animal species on some his essays and columns...But yet this following about the frogs appears perhaps most enchanting some. And most 'actuelt' to us, by now. (Brings to mind that I also, some years ago now, wrote also this other compact brief notes from the frogs and climate issues, view that too if wish...) ; On this instance I spare you from descripting my encounter w. that above pictured magnificient specimen of the Common frog (Rana temporaria). Due because from the cold climates here at the North we have only a limited number (few species) of frog/or toads – So it always makes happy experience to me when I see any. ...Orwell actually says the most of it well better on it than anything I'd consider possible for me to say (But don't forget to glance what at begins of this text quoted from that prewar-era novel of Orwell's too. Quite as relevant concerning these aspects, ie the human behaviours and – so called - ecological losses.)

 
; ...(excerpt) from 'Some thoughts on the Common Toad' (p. 1946):

“Before the swallow, before the daffodil, and not much later than the snowdrop, the common toad salutes the coming of spring after his own fashion, which is to emerge from a hole in the ground, where he has lain buried since the previous autumn, and crawl as rapidly as possible towards the nearest suitable patch of water. … 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 schackles of the capitalist system, to point out that life is frequently more worth living because of a blackbirds' song, a yellow elm tree in October, or some other natural phenomenom which does not cost money and does not have what the editors of left-wing newspapers call a class angle? There is no doubt that many people think so. I know by experience that a favorable 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. … Certainly we ought to be discontended, we ought not simply to find out ways of making the best of a bad job, and yet if we kill all pleasure in the actual process of life, what sort of future are we preparing for ourselves? If a man cannot enjoy the return of spring, why should he be happy in a labour-saving Utopia? What will he do with the leisure that the machine will give him? ...by preaching the doctrine that nothing is to be admired except steel and concrete, one merely makes it a little surer that human beings will have no outlet for their surplus energy except in hatred and leader worship. ...” (; on Collected Essays..., Vol 4. p. ; 171-5.)

; ...I'd wish (for everyone) ; less of the jobs, less of productivity, less of the constructions/ (buildings/ houses/ offices), less of  roads, ; less... effectivity, cities, capital (/investments), ...And more of the frogs. ; (G.U.J.)

 ( The latest posts! - @ Mulskinner Blog @ )

----------
Powered by ScribeFire.