I believe Orwell when he says "I am not commenting, merely pointing to a fact." The sad fact that he is pointing to is the desensitization to human suffering and desolation. When people read this piece, they may not agree with what Orwell is stating, because quite frankly, it paints a horrifying and despicable picture of the human race. Yet, it is an unrealized fact that people maintain this kind of mentality, even if it is unintentional. And it is precisely because it is unrealized that makes what he is saying a fact. People do not realize their own numbness to poverty-stricken groups, and what's more is that they do not realize their own inabilty to realize. Identity is lost in these massive groups of suffering people, and they essentially become numbers, figures incomprehendable to the non-sufferers. As a result, the presence of compassion becomes scarce and often times non-existent. Orwell remarks on how the Negroes have come to believe that they deserve their position in society, and while those in control work toward this horrifying goal, they are undoubtedly convincing all who witness it of the same thing.
I do not believe Orwell when he says "I am not commenting, merely pointing to a fact" because he's contradicting himself. Earlier on, when he describes giving money to the tiny old woman, Orwell shows that he, at least, has noticed these "invisible" people. He also shows it when describing the fear white people had of the Africans revolting, assuming that counts as brown, which I believe it does because he includes both Asia and Africa as the homes of these starving workers. It may be that what he says is often true, but to call it a solid fact is not a truth. It is an exaggeration.
I believe that George Orwell is commenting as well as pointing to a fact. He states his facts with opinionated views. The situations of these individuals are indeed sad and his comments are what enhance the signifying images. “This kind of thing makes one’s blood boil…” Stating a fact is one thing, but dramatizing it is what makes it a comment. Agreeing with Jennifer, Orwell is pointing out the desensitization of human suffering. He points out various facts with descriptive details as he perceives it, I view that as commenting. This piece of literature was touching, and the comments made regarding the facts is what caused it to be even more interesting.
I do believe Orwell when he says "I am not commenting, merely pointing to a fact" because I think he actually believes that also. His description of what he has witnessed clearly shows that he believes his opinions on these people - how those with brown skin are invisible - are complete truth to everyone. However, is his statement completely accurate? In my opinion, no. In response to his statement regarding people's "blood boiling" over animal abuse but not the "plight of the human", I think that is much more a comment of what he has witnessed and what he ultimately conludes from this. In general, is his entire piece in fact commenting or "merely pointing to a fact" as he claims? Again, maybe what he has seen has led him to believe all of the contents in his "postcards" are factual, but in the end its all commentary, and his perception of what is true. Others who witness what he has may not draw the same conclusions from it.
Orwell is commenting by pointing to the facts. His statement is that he is trying not to be biased. But it is obvious from what he's commenting on and how he comments on it that he is not just pointing to a fact. There are implications in his wording.
Because Orwell is taking the time out to "point to a fact," he is commentating. Why else would Orwell be writing about it? All pointing to facts is in some way a comment on that same fact--it's inevitable.
Literary journalism seems by its own very nature to be as close to comment as it is to the pointing of facts. At the same time, Orwell seems to be implying that something’s ability to make someone’s blood boil is an irrefutable fact. The line cannot be taken literally, because knowledge can’t make someone’s blood actually come to a boil (that I know of). Nothing in the story can actually make someone’s blood boil. Unless Orwell is referring to other things within the story that are merely facts that he’s pointing out, I can’t think of a way to break down this sentence as one that I can “believe.” Orwell also says “…it is generally owing to some kind of accident if one even notices the old woman under her load of sticks,” but this statement is contradicted by the existence of the piece in which this sentence was written. To me, these sentences are for effect and not to be interpreted in a believe/disbelieve mindset. He’s only trying to drive home the adamancy with which he presents his opinions and…comments.
Is Orwell commenting or pointing to a fact? I found it hard to decipher in this piece. There are times when he reveals the sad and ignorant state of humanity, such when he describes how the Negro has "been taught that the white race are his masters." This is a comment on the state of racial relations, because not all people may describe such a stratification the way Orwell does. On the other hand, Orwell does point to facts in his descriptions of Marrakech, such as how people are overlooked or living in unfortunate conditions. I believe that Orwell is commenting on what he feels towards the racism that he sees, but also points out facts within the society regarding the unfair system of racial bias. Whether he's commenting or stating a fact, is relative to which part of the issue is being looked at.
When George Orwell says that he is only "pointing to fact," I do not believe him. I've learned that one way this kind of literary journalism is similar to traditional journalism is that neither authors will state their opinions directly. Journalism is exactly that, pointing to fact in a way that implies the authors viewpoint. So, although Orwell only describs a series of events or scenes, he is actually incinuationg the ignorance of human beings to the less fortunate, poor, and starving laborours.
I do not believe Orwell when he says "I am not commenting, merely pointing to a fact" towards the end of Marrakech. The sentence immediately preceding to this statement reads "the kind of thing makes one's blood boil, whereas-on the whole-the plight of the human beings does not." This seems like the most obvious comment in the entire story, so how is Orwell pointing to a fact? If he were to say that the donkeys are treated worse than the humans and retracted the "blood boil" statement, he would be pointing to a fact, but since he clearly expresses his opinion after the description, he is commenting.
Believing that a writer is not commenting in their piece is almost like not understanding truly what a writer does. All authors somewhere in their pieces place their comments, even if it is slight there is always a bias. When Orwell writes, "I am not commenting, merely pointing to a fact," it doesn't make his piece any less slanted. The questions he raises in the piece actually speak the opposite. Even how he describes the African at towards the end. "I saw how it was.... He has been taught that the white race are his master, and he still believes it." In all its about how Orwell sees the world, even if he does acknowledge that to a certain extent this is the overall opinion.
I'm about where Katrina is--Orwell's drive to write the piece in such depth and "powerful description" itself can not be overlooked as a comment. He did maintain his distance throughout the essay, but the commentary inevitably lies behind such a vivid depiction of life and death.
Orwell, in some ways, could be seen as commenting during Marrakech. Although, I believe he is just pointing to the facts. There is no real instance in the story where he adds in his own “comments”, because he is purely describing factual information. Then again, any person is going to have some sort of bias, but I don’t see this as him sharing his comments on a situation. He explains situations that he sees, but not with his comments injected into the descriptions. The story is bound together by facts that cement together a cruel picture of human nature.
He said, “I am not commenting, merely pointing to a fact” to greater establish the severity of our desensitization to the conditions these humans live in. The point was, in my opinion, that we are not able to see the facts that are right in front of us.
If I understand the general reaction, what most of you are saying is that there's no fact that, once selected, doesn't acquire an aura of comment. To select facts from the great blooming, buzzing confusion of the universe amd integrate them into a story is in itself making a political or social or cultural statement. I don't disagree, though I'd add that what hold true for Orwell holds true for mainstream journalists as well -- except that tend to side with conventional attitudes and values. Which raises another question: Are writers who matter of necessity intellectual outlaws, aesthetic rebels?
14 comments:
I believe Orwell when he says "I am not commenting, merely pointing to a fact." The sad fact that he is pointing to is the desensitization to human suffering and desolation. When people read this piece, they may not agree with what Orwell is stating, because quite frankly, it paints a horrifying and despicable picture of the human race. Yet, it is an unrealized fact that people maintain this kind of mentality, even if it is unintentional. And it is precisely because it is unrealized that makes what he is saying a fact. People do not realize their own numbness to poverty-stricken groups, and what's more is that they do not realize their own inabilty to realize. Identity is lost in these massive groups of suffering people, and they essentially become numbers, figures incomprehendable to the non-sufferers. As a result, the presence of compassion becomes scarce and often times non-existent. Orwell remarks on how the Negroes have come to believe that they deserve their position in society, and while those in control work toward this horrifying goal, they are undoubtedly convincing all who witness it of the same thing.
I do not believe Orwell when he says "I am not commenting, merely pointing to a fact" because he's contradicting himself. Earlier on, when he describes giving money to the tiny old woman, Orwell shows that he, at least, has noticed these "invisible" people. He also shows it when describing the fear white people had of the Africans revolting, assuming that counts as brown, which I believe it does because he includes both Asia and Africa as the homes of these starving workers. It may be that what he says is often true, but to call it a solid fact is not a truth. It is an exaggeration.
I believe that George Orwell is commenting as well as pointing to a fact. He states his facts with opinionated views. The situations of these individuals are indeed sad and his comments are what enhance the signifying images. “This kind of thing makes one’s blood boil…” Stating a fact is one thing, but dramatizing it is what makes it a comment. Agreeing with Jennifer, Orwell is pointing out the desensitization of human suffering. He points out various facts with descriptive details as he perceives it, I view that as commenting. This piece of literature was touching, and the comments made regarding the facts is what caused it to be even more interesting.
I do believe Orwell when he says "I am not commenting, merely pointing to a fact" because I think he actually believes that also. His description of what he has witnessed clearly shows that he believes his opinions on these people - how those with brown skin are invisible - are complete truth to everyone. However, is his statement completely accurate? In my opinion, no. In response to his statement regarding people's "blood boiling" over animal abuse but not the "plight of the human", I think that is much more a comment of what he has witnessed and what he ultimately conludes from this. In general, is his entire piece in fact commenting or "merely pointing to a fact" as he claims? Again, maybe what he has seen has led him to believe all of the contents in his "postcards" are factual, but in the end its all commentary, and his perception of what is true. Others who witness what he has may not draw the same conclusions from it.
Orwell is commenting by pointing to the facts. His statement is that he is trying not to be biased. But it is obvious from what he's commenting on and how he comments on it that he is not just pointing to a fact. There are implications in his wording.
Because Orwell is taking the time out to "point to a fact," he is commentating. Why else would Orwell be writing about it? All pointing to facts is in some way a comment on that same fact--it's inevitable.
Literary journalism seems by its own very nature to be as close to comment as it is to the pointing of facts. At the same time, Orwell seems to be implying that something’s ability to make someone’s blood boil is an irrefutable fact. The line cannot be taken literally, because knowledge can’t make someone’s blood actually come to a boil (that I know of). Nothing in the story can actually make someone’s blood boil. Unless Orwell is referring to other things within the story that are merely facts that he’s pointing out, I can’t think of a way to break down this sentence as one that I can “believe.” Orwell also says “…it is generally owing to some kind of accident if one even notices the old woman under her load of sticks,” but this statement is contradicted by the existence of the piece in which this sentence was written. To me, these sentences are for effect and not to be interpreted in a believe/disbelieve mindset. He’s only trying to drive home the adamancy with which he presents his opinions and…comments.
Is Orwell commenting or pointing to a fact? I found it hard to decipher in this piece. There are times when he reveals the sad and ignorant state of humanity, such when he describes how the Negro has "been taught that the white race are his masters." This is a comment on the state of racial relations, because not all people may describe such a stratification the way Orwell does. On the other hand, Orwell does point to facts in his descriptions of Marrakech, such as how people are overlooked or living in unfortunate conditions. I believe that Orwell is commenting on what he feels towards the racism that he sees, but also points out facts within the society regarding the unfair system of racial bias. Whether he's commenting or stating a fact, is relative to which part of the issue is being looked at.
When George Orwell says that he is only "pointing to fact," I do not believe him. I've learned that one way this kind of literary journalism is similar to traditional journalism is that neither authors will state their opinions directly. Journalism is exactly that, pointing to fact in a way that implies the authors viewpoint. So, although Orwell only describs a series of events or scenes, he is actually incinuationg the ignorance of human beings to the less fortunate, poor, and starving laborours.
I do not believe Orwell when he says "I am not commenting, merely pointing to a fact" towards the end of Marrakech. The sentence immediately preceding to this statement reads "the kind of thing makes one's blood boil, whereas-on the whole-the plight of the human beings does not." This seems like the most obvious comment in the entire story, so how is Orwell pointing to a fact? If he were to say that the donkeys are treated worse than the humans and retracted the "blood boil" statement, he would be pointing to a fact, but since he clearly expresses his opinion after the description, he is commenting.
Believing that a writer is not commenting in their piece is almost like not understanding truly what a writer does. All authors somewhere in their pieces place their comments, even if it is slight there is always a bias.
When Orwell writes, "I am not commenting, merely pointing to a fact," it doesn't make his piece any less slanted. The questions he raises in the piece actually speak the opposite. Even how he describes the African at towards the end. "I saw how it was.... He has been taught that the white race are his master, and he still believes it." In all its about how Orwell sees the world, even if he does acknowledge that to a certain extent this is the overall opinion.
I'm about where Katrina is--Orwell's drive to write the piece in such depth and "powerful description" itself can not be overlooked as a comment. He did maintain his distance throughout the essay, but the commentary inevitably lies behind such a vivid depiction of life and death.
Orwell, in some ways, could be seen as commenting during Marrakech. Although, I believe he is just pointing to the facts. There is no real instance in the story where he adds in his own “comments”, because he is purely describing factual information. Then again, any person is going to have some sort of bias, but I don’t see this as him sharing his comments on a situation. He explains situations that he sees, but not with his comments injected into the descriptions. The story is bound together by facts that cement together a cruel picture of human nature.
He said, “I am not commenting, merely pointing to a fact” to greater establish the severity of our desensitization to the conditions these humans live in. The point was, in my opinion, that we are not able to see the facts that are right in front of us.
If I understand the general reaction, what most of you are saying is that there's no fact that, once selected, doesn't acquire an aura of comment. To select facts from the great blooming, buzzing confusion of the universe amd integrate them into a story is in itself making a political or social or cultural statement. I don't disagree, though I'd add that what hold true for Orwell holds true for mainstream journalists as well -- except that tend to side with conventional attitudes and values. Which raises another question: Are writers who matter of necessity intellectual outlaws, aesthetic rebels?
Post a Comment