"I am not commenting, merely pointing to a fact," George Orwell writes toward the end of "Marrakech." Do you believe him? Why or why not?
It'll help you answer the question if you also read this classic essay by Orwell:
http://orwell.ru/library/essays/wiw/english/e_wiw
Please respond by Wednesday, 4 p.m.
21 comments:
I definitely agree with Orwell's commentary about pointing out a fact. Personally, especially about what we talked about in class today, there are so many atrocities that go on every day and we have become blinded to them. We know they are wrong, but it is easier to be silent and agree with societys' view, then stand up and bring attention to it. We think that saying nothing will not change our way of life, but if we do if can mean so much for others. If this was a pure journalistic piece, Orwell would need proper sourcing to back up his position, but since this is literary, he can get away with his flawless writing on the atrocity he sees before him. He is intelligent enough to see what has come before him and see that it is happening where he lives. He even admits to seeing colonists as invisible, because it is what he was trained his whole life. But once he applied historical principles he was able to step out of the bounds and give an honest witness account.
From his essay on why he writes, I think Marrakech is mostly based on his belief of historical impulse. I was going to say political, but nowhere in Marrakech does he say this needs to change. He describes it as a horrendous view of society. Readers may feel empowered to change because it is such descriptive writing of a cruel system, but he is not issuing a calling of arms, he really is merely pointing to a fact.
George Orwell is an incredibly political writer. In "Why I Write," he states that he cannot say which of his motivations for writing are the strongest, but he does recognize which of them are the most deserving. "And looking back through my work," he writes, "I see that it is invariably where I lacked a political purpose that I wrote lifeless books..." This is why I do not believe him when he writes, "I am not commenting, merely pointing to a fact." It's not that I think Orwell is lying, I just think he is trying to draw attention to how the inequalities he describes in "Marrakech" seem to be so widely accepted that they come across as fact. For example, the “fact” that everyone looks over the laborers in the fields because of their skin color, and how it is more pleasant to look at the scenery instead. Therefore, I think Orwell's decisions about which scenes to include in his story are comments in themselves. He structured this story for a purpose. The purpose is to show how removed from the tragic realities of the everyday live of diverse and often impoverished communities the majority of the white race is. They are the storks flying in the opposite direction, high above the corpse of the donkey.
I agree with Orwell's note about pointing out a fact. His journalism in this piece is just his observations of this region. Everything from the old mummified women carrying the firewood to the flies rushing to the corpse is simply just presenting the facts to the reader. Orwell's senses are his own sources in this piece in which he states the facts of these peoples lifestyles. His detailed descriptions of the smells, sights and sounds all are stated in a non bias manner, making it factual. Since this a literary journalistic piece his own voice is accepted for fact.
I feel the purpose of this story is to have the reader make comments based on his facts.
Orwell throughout the piece acts as an observer in the foreign land. He watched everything surrounding him and put those observations in his story. There was no ending where he demands help or aid for these people and doesn't try to make the reader feel guilty. I feel he just wanted to educate readers that are unaware of this region. His descriptions may seem horrific to the reader but there is no call for assistance to make a change or difference in the lives of these people.
Judging from Marrakech and his classic essay, Orwell is truly a writer that writes with great purpose. He states that he is against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism. He also states that he writes with historical impulse which is "to see things as they are, to find out true facts and store them up for the use of posterity." I believe that he is not just commenting but pointing to facts that he writes with purpose. There is plenty of meaning behind his sentences and the way he describes it all. When he states that "people with brown skins are next door to invisible," I believe he writes that because it is true. Those around him were made to believe that because of society and how they perceived the land.
In order to decide if Orwell is commenting or pointing to a fact, one needs to understand the definition of each. Pointing to a fact is stating the truth while leaving out opinion. An example of this would be YNN (Your News Now), a local news station broadcasted for the Hudson Valley. They report the news straightforwardly. Nancy Grace has a segment on HLN, a national TV network, in which she focuses on specific news stories and makes harsh opinionated comments. For example, "Why would he walk into a bathroom with an AK47, point it at his wife, and pull the trigger?" Orwell has taken the Nancy Grace approach by commenting rather than pointing to fact. On page 434 Orwell says, "Gazelles are almost the only animals that look good to eat when they are still alive, in fact, one can hardly look at their hindquarters without thinking of mint sauce." He is suggesting that this is a universal thought by saying that he is pointing to fact. I have never seen a gazelle and thought of mint sauce, probably because I'm a vegetarian, but this is purely opinion. Another instance: "It is always difficult to believe that you are walking among human beings. All colonial empires are in reality founded upon that fact." Really Orwell? How do you how all colonial empires are founded upon that? Once again, he is commenting and not pointing to fact.
In his essay "Why I Write", George Orwell writes, "I write it because there is some lie that I want to expose, some fact to which I want to draw attention, and my initial concern is to get a hearing." In "Marrakech" Orwell is observing the people in the area he is in and it seems that he wants to expose the fact that these people are so invisible, except I am not sure that this is a fact. From his perspective, he thinks the women walking by with firewood are invisible and he just sees the firewood floating along because he doesn't notice the women, possibly because they are so tiny. I think this is his opinion that the people are so invisible, just because he doesn't notice them doesn't mean that every single other person won't notice them either. He does write "but it is generally owing to some kind of accident if one even notices the old woman under her load of sticks." This suggests that most people wouldn't notice the women and because most people wouldn't, Orwell seems to think that it makes it a fact. I feel that the entire story, Orwell is commenting on the observations he makes and he states his opinion, therefore he really isn't pointing to facts like he claims.
I enjoyed reading Orwell's essay "Why I Write" because it has helped me understand myself and why I first chose to become a writer, or a journalist for that matter. His reasons for writing are the same as mine, and I like that he come up with that list of reasons for writing, I've just never been able to express it the way he has so reading this piece was both a breath of fresh air and motivation.
Just as Orwell said, when I too was a child, my story also ceased to be narcissistic (not necessarily in a crude way, but definitely raw, true and heartfelt)and also became more and more of what I was doing and the things I saw. I didn't carry out the literary exercise that he did of making up stories and such because I didn't embody that sort of thought process, nor I did have that need for my own "world" at the time. Things just were what they were and I my eye were wide open. I saw the struggle my mom had gone through raising twin girls on her own, I saw what life was like growing up without much money, I saw that the world wasn't such a nice, easy, or peaceful place at a very young age, and from then until my life now I have pretty much been a serious person. I begin to take my writings in that direction, although I didn't always take the writing in itself seriously, I did take the fact that it was expression serious and I talked about the things in society, in life, that I was struggling with, things I knew my peers were as well. I also grew to possess this Utopian world view which stemmed from my faith in God and an overall better world, as well as the beauty it already has. These were things I wanted to and still do want to talk about. These are the things that matter to me. People matter, and I've always felt and looked up to people who agreed that it is up to us to make sure we all survive. I've always had a sense of injustice and an indescribable compassion for people. This too all developed from the type of childhood I had. Being hurt and going through trials made me this way, to where I want to comfort others in their trails, because it's unifying. Although not every single thing Orwell wrote directly applies to me, I enjoyed every last bit of it.
(Sorry to write so much off topic, but doing so has helped get my brain on the track it needs to be for this response.)
I'd like to say that I love what you have written Laura. I agree that if Orwell's "Marrakech" piece was pure journalism, he would need proper sources as back up, but in literary journalistic style, his writing is flawless.
I too do think that Orwell was pointing out fact, but he does it in such a way where it does seem to be coming from a personal opinion, belief, or observation (of course).
Not to feed too much off of what Laura has written, but I too do believe that his motive for writing this piece comes from his historical impulses. The idea that white skin is always fairly conspicuous and the idea that meanwhile, people with darker skin goes unrecognized I believe is evident throughout history. I take this to be fact, but one could argue that this isn't true. I am not one of those people, but there might be a few. The question is I guess, does this mean that what he says is not a fact? Before he mentions that he is not commenting, merely pointing to a fact, he writes "this kind of things makes one's blood boil, whereas, the plight of human beings does not." I don't really think that a statement like that is entirely fact, but I think that he said it that way to get a reaction from people. I think that he could have been referring to himself mainly, because he talks about how he noticed the donkey's burden, but had not noticed the old women's until the day he gave her the five-sou piece. I know that what he was getting at was that these people, or old women particularly, have felt invisible for so long that it becomes natural, or an obligation of theirs to be invisible, as well as it becomes natural to us not to notice.
I think that the last motive he mentions, political purpose, can also be seen in the "Marrakech" piece. He just does in in a way that connects with the second motive, aesthetic enthusiasm. I can see by reading "Why I write" that he has an opinion, but goes about expressing them in ways that are true to his "nature."
I'll end off by saying that I do believe that he is stating fact, and not just where he says he is in "Marrakech," but throughout the entire piece, because history has proven it.
Tupac Shakur has a similar perspective to Orwell, when he mentions the donkey's burdens in relation to human struggle. Tupac stated once in an interview that "people love to have mercy and sympathy for everything, from animals, to whales, fur, everything expect us, your youth, the ones you give no attention to who become adults with no compassion." I believe that he is referring more to the youth not just in American, but all across the world who suffer, go hungry and without education or proper life necessities and are forgotten about. Our lack of compassion for people only begets a world wide lack of compassion, and those that we abandon grow up lacking the compassion that we should have given them.
No, I don’t believe George Orwell when he writes toward the end of "Marrakech" "I am not commenting, merely pointing to a fact," because he is obviously directly commenting in the paragraph this line references that people tend to empathize more with animals than they do other people, especially people who are not like them, a different race, nationality, ethnicity, religion, gender, etc. The entire piece adds up to be the comment; he is trying to, with the entire piece, draw attention to the fact that colonialism, imperialism and war are wretched, and also about how racism lends itself to this unbalanced power dynamic.
This particular point Orwell made about feeling sorry for the donkey while ignoring the native Moroccans reminds me of when I had an internship at very small newspaper in my hometown. One of the reporters had written a story about a bag of newborn beagle puppies someone had killed and disposed of on the side of the bypass in town. I remember my editor shaking his head, saying what a shame it was– someone had started a fund to collect donations to give to a local animal shelter in memory of the dead puppies, and the fund had generated more money than another local fundraising effort for a 10-year-old boy with cancer. I had never thought about it until then, but it does seem to be true, that people care more about how animals are treated than people sometimes.
Considering the piece as a whole, I think Orwell has a bit of every one of the four categories of reason or motivation described in “Why I Write” for writing this story: personal satisfaction or sheer egoism, because it helped him make sense of his own experiences, aesthetic enthusiasm because Morocco is beautiful and lends itself well to imagery and detailed description, historical impulse because he was involved in a historical event and offers a unique perspective to history. But mostly, it is for political purpose, because he is trying to say comment about colonialism, imperialism, war and racism.
I agree that Orwell relies on pointing out fact to achieve a certain impact with his piecees. However, while it is true that he doesn't make direct comments about things, his "observations" are tainted by his own opinion and viewpoint,so it is definitely not to say that his work is objective. Orwell has a unique way of presenting certain things as fact, such as the white mentality or how people overlook those with darker skin. Stating that every white person has this mentality makes the story more impactful, and gives his writing a matter of fact authority that make it easy to accept the things he is saying. In Marrakech, his fact-like presentation of the atrocities in the society prompts the reader to form their own comments, rather than react to those already made by the author.
I think Orwell says it well in "Why I Write", by stating he has a "power of facing unpleasant facts". I think that is exactly what Marrakech is all about; Orwell is presenting us with unpleasant facts in a deliberate and unflinching way.
I somewhat agree with this statement made by Orwell, especially after reading his essay, "Why I Write." I really agree with a lot of what Laura said in her response. When Orwell writes, he wants to disclose something and teach his readers and point to a fact. Orwell said, "I write it because there is some lie that I want to expose, some fact to which I want to draw attention, and my initial concern is to get a hearing." I think this is a really powerful motivator behind writing. I believe that some of his descriptions in his writing may be commentary, but he is focusing it on the fact of the situation. However, Brittanie's post was very insightful as well. What is considered fact, or a comment? How does one know what is ever a fact, especially when it comes to journalism? I think his writing in "Marrakech" can be considered a grouping of commenting and fact. I do not think that Orwell's statement is a blatant lie--I believe he is aiming towards revealing facts, however readers can interpret it otherwise.
I have to say, every time I read something by Orwell, I am overwhelmed with inspiration. He is such a commanding and engaging writer.
I found Orwell's four reasons for writing in "Why I Write" to be hilarious, but still pointed, especially the sheer egoism portion of it.
Though, the four points and Marrakech show that Orwell writes with a purpose - something that we have talked about in class on multiple occasions. If you are not writing with a purpose, or motive, what is the point in writing in the first place?
I think he says it best here in "Why I Write" : "Desire to see things as they are, to find out true facts and store them up for the use of posterity."
He states here one of the most noble purposes for writing: to report the truth.
While I think it is funny that Orwell chose to say "I am pointing to a fact" rather than I am stating a fact. I think that Orwell is commenting and using those comments to point towards a fact.
He describes what he is seeing around him. The rush to get a cigarette, the passing of the firewood, the carrying of corpses. Yet, he doesn't use straight facts, we hear Orwell's voice and experience his commentary throughout the piece.
I think that his commentary points towards the bigger picture. It is being used as a tool to shine light on the fact that society is all out of wack with what is actually important. HE is using his words to show people what they choose not to see.
I agree with what Brittanie said, that you need to define commenting and pointing to a fact. I don't know if I am just stuck on the order in which he put his words together; however thats what writers do, no? Choose their words carefully, make sure they are saying what they mean.
Orwell is in fact commenting throughout the entire story, his voice and opinion are clear and evident, and that is how he points to the greater truth.
What's even more interesting is the line previous, where things exist that can really infuriate someone, like Orwell with the overloading of the donkeys. It reminds me when cliche sayings are just thrown around loosely, like "I hate my life," but things could be much worse. People just don't realize this.
Seeing dead bodies that just blend into the Moroccan soil, as if they didn't matter. Blacks have been the most disparaged group in history, next to the Jews, forgotten by society. Treated inferior, beaten and humiliated. However, for centuries this persisted, yet donkeys mistreatment could set someone off. It's like sitting by, but what can Orwell really do. Sometimes observation and objective reporting can change the world.
In class Monday we laid out the general structures of each piece (Davis’ being linear, Orwell’s scenes are linked by the theme of the piece and Herr’s is set up very much like stream of consciousness). I don’t really think that there are many comparisons to be made to between the pieces in terms of technical structures (it’s not like you can shuffle around Davis’ piece and have it make sense like Orwell’s would, just how Orwell’s piece wouldn’t have the same effect if it were told in the exposed and almost unstructured fashion of Dispatches). I do think though that each piece makes a clear statement on not only the writers’ views of war and imperialism, but also on the position of a reporter in war.
Clearly, none of the pieces particularly support war/imperialism, but they don’t say it in such blatant terms. Davis uses Rodriguez as his whitened up martyr who died for his country, spilling his blood into his homeland in the name of patriotism. He also used the piece to highlight the deficiencies in the Spanish armies, obviously to denounce his support. In Orwell’s piece, he uses a lot of imagery and descriptions of poverty and poor conditions to illustrate the living conditions brought on to Moroccans by war. Herr talks a lot about how he and the soldiers he interacts with in Vietnam are going “fucking crazy” because of the setting and war.
Unless I’m wrong here, none of these pieces seem to be trying to present any other connotations in regards to these subjects other than negative ones so I’m not sure how to explain the changing conceptions. I think what changes is the focus and the concentrations of sympathy which maybe lends to the changing values of first world societies. It seems that from by the time we get to Herr from Davis, the focus has shifted significantly to the reporter. I thought it was kind of strange that Herr chose to put so much emphasis on his thoughts and feelings (although this is narrative writing…) and kind of strayed from detailing his surroundings. I just feel like that for a writer, Vietnam would be a goldmine of external material. It’s different from Davis who writes an entire piece on the struggle and death of a stranger. I suppose Orwell falls into some happy medium between the two.
In the Davis and Orwell pieces (particularly in Death of Rodriguez) there is also a sense that the author feels a connection to the people who are being adversely impacted by war. In Death of Rodriguez, Davis uses the execution and his descriptions of Rodriguez (who he’s whitened up for the purpose of the piece) to extract as much sympathy and admiration from the reader as he can. I’m sure he’d seen other deaths and executions in his reporting career, but obviously at this moment he was particularly unsupportive and used this piece to demonstrate that. What I think he left out, and the Orwell and Herr pieces picked up on, is the illustration of the reporter’s privilege in settings of war and poverty. Orwell really hits the reader with it when he’s talking about giving away bread to the man while he’s feeding the antelope and also when he comments on the legitimacy of the lives of “brown people.” He obviously understands that he is in a position of privilege. Herr, while I think he tries to illustrate that potion of power, uses his whole piece (whether intentionally or not) to show how he’s a separate, scared entity of the war, the observer who’s scared out of his mind and is highly aware of his status and insecurities.
Post a Comment