> No, it's White Saviour stuff now, Obama dropped a bomb with it in his Farewell Address.
There's always someone that comes along and spoils the party.
> Calvin and Hobbes cover most essentials
I was going to say that would be uncontroversial too but I'm going to wait to see what Obama has to say about it.
> I think that is likely to prove the least controversial and most widely acceptable suggestion.
Was on the GCSE reading list when I did mine. Made me hate the book more than you can imagine. Have found re-reading it in my 20s to be far more enjoyable,
> Roger's profanisaurus
The only book listed here to which I have contributed.
> No, it's White Saviour stuff now, Obama dropped a bomb with it in his Farewell Address.
Is it? Obama quoted Atticus Finch in his Farewell Address, but that seems to be where our realities diverge.
'Europe: A History'
Just a reminder that Europe is an interesting, fluid and complicated place and we are somewhat on the edge of it.
The discworld series by Terry Pratchet.
Religion: small gods
Finance: Making money.
Etc.
> Jesus wept. You really havent a clue have you?
> Animal Farm and 1984 for every socialist and socialist apologist.
Ha ha, I was taking the piss FFS!
But such wide sweeping statements as Sticht's are as accurate / relevant as mine.
It the same old shite trundled out about JC taking us back to the days of Uncle Joe.
we've moved on may be your attitude should too.
> I think that is likely to prove the least controversial and most widely acceptable suggestion.
Thanks
> To kill a Mockingbird. Atticus Finch standing up for what is right, despite the risks it involved.
More than that, it tells you that there a two sides to every story and you'll only get to truth if you listen to both
Quite agree it about it being essential reading
Viz and Fat Freddys Cat
> Yorkshire Gritstone vol 1 & 2.
For any budding grade-creep apologist
Seriously Calvin and Hobbes only suggestion here that a lot of 16yr olds would put down their phone and read. Those that do read grown-up books for leisure are going to be alright
> Is there a debate ? Wasn't Orwell quite clear that it was a satirical take on the Russian revolution and the rise of Stalin, which he saw as detrimental to the wider Socialist cause he was sympathetic to ?
If that was the case the book would have little long lasting impact. What does a fourteen year old care about a revolution from way back. It's powerful because its message applies to Mussolini as much as Stalin.
This book can be applied to any number of situations or contexts, but that is rather different than claiming it was written as a satire on any other events than those the author himself has stated.
Orwell claimed that , although it was primarily a satire on the Russian revolution, he did intend it to have a much wider application, presumably referring to the politics of revolution in general.
> Orwell claimed that , although it was primarily a satire on the Russian revolution, he did intend it to have a much wider application, presumably referring to the politics of revolution in general.
True, but most satires from MASH to Catch 22 easily lend themselves to wider application. Animal farm contains characters depicting Trotsky and Stalin specifically. The time it was written, the author's past history and Orwell's own letters and interviews all make clear what his main target was.
> > To kill a Mockingbird. Atticus Finch standing up for what is right, despite the risks it involved.
> More than that, it tells you that there a two sides to every story and you'll only get to truth if you listen to both
> Quite agree it about it being essential reading
>
And that heroes can be found in unexpected places
> > If that was the case the book would have little long lasting impact. What does a fourteen year old care about a revolution from way back. It's powerful because its message applies to Mussolini as much as Stalin.
> This book can be applied to any number of situations or contexts, but that is rather different than claiming it was written as a satire on any other events than those the author himself has stated.
True but you equated it with "the left" so for all the nuances in left wing politics you chose to paint the whole left wing, socialist, communists, marxist, etcist, with the same brush.
It was denigrating and you knew it. It also implies that we haven't learnt anything from the mistakes of the past or that we should never change our minds about anything.
Not so very long ago Aung San Suu Kyi was near enough a saint who was being prevented from saving all the persecuted souls in Burma, thing are a bit different now though.
Whoa there hoss....
I'm afraid you've grabbed tightly onto completely the wrong end of the stick. If you read through my posts on this thread you'll see that I've taken the position that Animal Farm was directly aimed at the corruption of the Russian revolution and the rise of Stalin. As far as I'm aware Orwell remained a staunch socialist until his last, wheezing breath.
For what it's worth my own sympathies lie to the left of centre, while I remain dubious about much in British politics.
Pilgrims Progress was a good read at 14 and I’m not a Christian.
> I think that is likely to prove the least controversial and most widely acceptable suggestion.
Not for me; though as mentioned when discussing a different book on a different thread, having had to study it for O level English Literature might play a part here.
I found the themes of standing up for what is right despite what others do, say and think, and of people being of equal value no matter what the colour of their skin fairly obvious even as a 15-year old. I agree that it was an important book when released and for years beyond in an America where racial prejudice was a way of life for far too many people, and even in a Britain where the tedious abuse-dressed-up-as-humour of Love Thy Neighbour was watched by a large audience; but surely there's another text more accessible and relevant to today's adolescents that explores the same themes?
Or perhaps it's like my grandparent's dining table that has been with me for twenty five years and is too modern to be antique but old to be worth anything and which I keep, repair and maintain for sentimental attachment (and because it's a good table); and so TKAM may be too modern to be classic literature, too old to speak to a new, young audience.
Or, and I'm prepared to accept this, it may just be me.
T.
> Whoa there hoss....
You're right, I do apologise it was to Mr. Martin's comment "Orwell's "Animal Farm" to every would-be SJW/left-wing activist.".
The above should have been directed. Please accept my bumhole apologies.
No problem kriks.
I think it is well-established that Orwell was specifically referring to the extremes of left-wing politics. His view that the lesson could be applicable wider than merely Stalinism really just makes the case that it isn't confined to events in Russia from 1917, and could be seen as a general theme of left-wing extremism. Doesn't preclude application to right-wing politics, but it's pretty clear Animal Farm's subtext (claims to speak for and serve the masses, to remove hierarchy and power structures, to take from the elite masters and redistribute to the poor, and eventually the oppressed becoming the oppressors) is a far more salient lesson to the left than the right.
That's not painting all lefties with the same brush. Just asking for a bit of acknowledgement from the left that its own particular brand of thinking has a track record of leading off in a well-established direction.
> It was denigrating and you knew it. It also implies that we haven't learnt anything from the mistakes of the past or that we should never change our minds about anything.
I think anyone who claims to be left-of-centre should be willing to own and accept that, rather than take offense to it. It is the left that points the finger at, for example, white-privilege or that people today owe debts to groups who were discriminated against by previous generations. If they want to push such concepts of collective historic guilt they should also accept that left-thinking carries a guilt of millions of dead too - and that this trajectory is an intrinsic part of where left-thinking can lead. Denial, perceiving left-oppression as a bastardisation of left thinking or a result of the right-wing corruption, shows that lessons haven't been learnt and the likes of Animal Farm are still required reading. The slide from idealism to genocide is so insidious even the perpetrators can be unable to acknowledge it. The potential for it should be foremost in any activist's mind, and not taken offense to.
> I thought about that for the social justice element but I'm afraid to say I think it's an unsubtle sledgehammer of a book. The message is important but the delivery poor.
It's OK for kids though, right?
> That's not painting all lefties with the same brush. Just asking for a bit of acknowledgement from the left that its own particular brand of thinking has a track record of leading off in a well-established direction.
It's true that Orwell was referring to the extremes, however your post wasn't "Orwell's "Animal Farm" to every would-be SJW/left-wing activist." It was vague and all encompassing, "left wing activist" what does that mean? Anyone in Labour is surely a left wing activist by definition. As for SJW do you include environmentalists, feminist and civil rights groups in the broad brush painting?
I think I understand your sentiment (a warning), possibly though I'm only guessing, but the same could be said of right wing activist, capitalist or just about any other group you might care to mention, it works equally well.
> Jesus wept. You really havent a clue have you?
> Animal Farm and 1984 for every socialist and socialist apologist.
You do realise that 1984 is a rather contested work don’t you? Orwell objected to its interpretation by the right, and it can be argued that it’s both a critique of fascism and of managerialism capitalism.
Have a look at this - https://www.bl.uk/20th-century-literature/articles/nineteen-eighty-four-and...
> It was vague and all encompassing, "left wing activist" what does that mean? Anyone in Labour is surely a left wing activist by definition. As for SJW do you include environmentalists, feminist and civil rights groups in the broad brush painting?
Which I think is fair enough. People do tend to stay quieter about the indiscretions of those marginally further to their side of the political spectrum than those marginally further in the opposite direction. Probably because each political side views itself as being under attack, the vanguard movement of their own more extreme allies are more tolerated.
This is exactly the sort of thing that allows people on both sides of the political fence to remain silent as extremes get more traction. The lessons aren't just there to be learnt by someone else, or that those of us who consider ourselves moderate can safely say we aren't part of the extreme problem. Hence why I feel all on the left, and even those who are simply progressively-socially active, should give it a read.
The right would benefit from it too. But the lessons, or scenarios portrayed, in Animal Farm are so clearly mirroring the results of left-wing extremism that it seems to be a text far more appropriate to the left.
> On a vaguely related note, there's a campaign to get this into every primary school in Scotland. Start 'em young. https://www.johnmuirtrust.org/initiatives/the-lost-words
Hmm Kingfisher, Otter and Dandelion. Are any of these words lost?