In the controversy surrounding whether Johann Hari should be stripped of the Orwell Prize, the pundits are overlooking another left-wing 'journalist' closely associated with the same award.
This author - who never went to journalism school or even to university - is routinely invoked out as an example of progessive writing.
But a close look at his work indicates he may have just made things up.
For an example, "Shooting an Elephant" details how the author killed an elephant whilst in Burma. The power of its ant-imperialist message is reliant on the detail of the incident. But there was probably no such killing. It was not documented, and nor is there any independent evidence that it occured.
Similarly, the anti-capital punishment piece "A Hanging" depends on its telling detail - the defendant even sidesteps a puddle on the way to the gallows - but it seems the author told someone it was just "a story". Needless to say, no documentary evidence or independent accounts exit.
Most devastatingly, a 'critique' of private education - "Such, such were the joys" - which unlike the above two pieces actually purports to containe verifiiable detail - is dismissed by many children who were there.
As Professor Wikipedia tells us:
"Robert Pearce, researching the papers of another former pupil, made a comprehensive study from the perspective of the school, investigating school records and other pupils' accounts. While some features were universal features of Prep school life, he concluded that [this] depiction bore little relation to reality and that [the author's] defamatory allegations were unsupportable."
This is simply damning.
The author in question has been closely involved with the Orwell Prize since its very inception.
This cannot continue.
His followers know exactly who he is, and so there is no need for me to name him here.
But one thing is certain.
George Orwell must be rolling in his grave.
COMMENTS MODERATION
No purely anonymous comments will be published; always use a name for ease of reference by other commenters.
Monday, 4 July 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
Nice one.
I'm sure I've seen this defence of Hari on liberalconspiracy too...
"The story, Crick says, was widely circulated. When a friend pointed out that it was untrue, Orwell is supposed to have replied that it didn’t matter, 'it was essentially true.'"
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/bookclub/2009/04/common-people.html
By resorting to archetypes, even stereotypes, and creating its own universe - in which "events dear boy, events" don't intrude - fiction can sometimes capture what is "essentially true" better than non-fiction, in this case journalism. But passing off fiction as non-fiction is an admission of failure.
Incidentally, I remember when I read "In Cold Blood" looking on the back to see if it was fiction or non-fiction. There was no label.
This post only scratches the surface.
The man in question is widely believed to have authored several books which consisted almost entirely of fiction.
One book contained accounts of talking animals. Startling, if true - but did it happen?
Another contained reports of events taking place in 1984. Yet it was written years before that date.
Amazingly, the man's many defenders see nothing unusual about this.
The Orwell Prize rules state:
"‘Political’ is defined in the broadest sense, including (but not limited to) entries addressing political, social, cultural, moral and historical subjects. Entries may be fiction or non-fiction, but not poetry."
It should be clear then that submitting works of fiction is perfectly within the rules.
That is not the accusation though. The accusation is one of plagiarism and if the author of 'Shooting an Elephant' and the other works mentioned above received awards for those works and those works were subsequently found to contain plagiarised material then it would most certainly be prudent to investigate whether the author should be stripped of those awards.
This would be necessary because the Orwell Prize rules also state:
"A signature will be required on all entries – either from the author, publisher or editor – stating that the entrant’s work is all their own and has not been plagiarized, or is otherwise primarily the work of somebody else."
Personally, I do not think Hari should be stripped of the Orwell Prize but this Jack of Kent post only appears to agree with that position. It does not support it.
Very good.
Imagine if during the last US presidential campaign, there hadn't been that embarrassing Sarah Palin CBS interview where she was revealed as incoherent, unread and unelectable. Instead Fox news had done the interview and slotted in some snippets that showed her in an appropriately presidential light.
Post a Comment