Years ago I read this statement by George Orwell in his collected essays, and from time to time, especially when I suffer a reversal, I think about the second sentence.
“Autobiography is only to be trusted when it reveals something disgraceful. A man who gives a good account of himself is probably lying, since any life when viewed from the inside is simply a series of defeats.”
It’s the opening two sentences of Orwell’s 1944 essay “Benefits of Clergy: Some notes on Salvador Dali“.
Now Orwell wasn’t in the habit of making enigmatic statements, and I can see how he would view his own life as a “series of defeats”. His early work was rejected repeatedly, he was often attacked, often cheated on his wife, admitted that he treated her badly, and finally was diagnosed with the tuberculosis that killed him. On the other hand, he found success after publishing Animal Farm and then Nineteen Eighty-Four, and made a decent living as a writer and editor until he died at age 46.
So while I agree with Orwell that autobiographies can’t really be trusted, I’m not sure why he thinks that every life feels like “a series of defeats”. It doesn’t feel like that to me, though it may do so on my deathbed. So, after all these years, I’ll ask readers to tell me what they think Orwell meant by that. Interpretations below, please!
**********
Oh, and don’t forget that Hitchens wrote a superb book on the man, Why Orwell Matters, and you can hear a precis of the book in this hourlong podcast in which Hitchens is interviewed by Russ Boberts about the book. You can hear Hitchens’s repeated throat clearing; this podcast was made 10 months before Hitchens was diagnosed with stage 4 laryngeal cancer.
Orwell (his real name, of course, was Eric Blair) is one of my favorite writers, and you could do worse than read his Collected Essays (there are four volumes). Here’s the photo used for his press card:
I think it’s at least arguably true that regardless of how accomplished one is in life, his/her failures will outnumber successes. Success bias probably explains why we focus on the wins and downplay the losses to avoid feeling like life is a series of failures despite its being so.
I think Orwell’s statement is right, especially if you think of it as defeats and disappointments. I think that whatever success Orwell had late in life as an author was probably overshadowed by the fact that he was writing about the failure of socialism in his lifetime.
I think the quote is a bit deceptive, since what seems to be the main point — an honest autobiography will include some flaws and failures — doesn’t depend on the “reasoning” behind it — that this is because all we really notice about our lives is those flaws and failures. What Orwell notes about an honest biography seems both honest, true, and a bit trivial. An unrelenting series of recounted triumphs, positive anssessments, and self-congratulations would be as believable and enjoyable to read as listening to Trump talk about himself.
But “… any life when viewed from the inside is simply a series of defeats” seems either performative angst/modesty or an unhealthy habit of thought in serious need of some Cognitive Behavior Therapy. When you find yourself thinking it, snap your wrist with a rubber band and go take a brisk walk in the fresh air.
I was going to write a comment conveying pretty much exactly what you have here, and you’ve done so far better than I could have managed.
Like you, Jerry, I am a big fan of Orwell. I have never regarded this statement as enigmatic. When I first read it, I thought ‘Oh, good, I’m not the only one.’
I came here to say almost…no…precisely what Brandon said.
Authors writing about themselves create the narrative they want others to believe, not necessarily the narrative they tell themselves, so most autobiographies will be biased toward successes (and not to be trusted for their veracity). While it may be the case that only autobiographies of miserable lives can be trusted, *not all* of them can be trusted either, as some authors will mire in apparent misery to create that kind of narrative as well.
More interesting (to me) than Orwell’s trust (or not) in autobiography is the question of whether “any life when viewed from the inside is simply a series of defeats.” I don’t think so.
Anyone with many achievements will have undoubtedly have tried many things, and inevitably some are failures. A self-reflective person, as Orwell seemed to be, will probably over-emphasise the failures.
I think the second sentence of that quote says a lot about Orwell’s state of mind when he wrote it and very little about anything else.
The quote as a whole seems to me to be merely an expression of cynicism. I see no especially keen insight in it, except perhaps what it shows about Orwell’s character and state of mind.
I am not blind to the horrible events of reality. In my history, and our history. Yet given the alternatives, including oblivion, the world is a fantastic adventure and the thrill of achievement in the arts, in science and engineering, comradery, family, and romantic love move the balance far forward.
I am not shy to say, this might be an American worldview. Orwell never discovered America. Orwell was down. That’s my word for it. Here is his final warning:
“… no emotions except fear, rage, triumph, and self-abasement. The sex instinct will be eradicated, we shall abolish the orgasm, there will be no loyalty except loyalty to the party, but always there will be the intoxication of power, always at every moment there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever. The moral to be drawn from this dangerous nightmare is a simple one: don’t let it happen. It depends on you.
Orwell’s claim that life is simply a series of defeats is autobiographical, as he had knowledge of only his own life viewed from the inside. He doesn’t deny one can have success; his praise of Dali’s successes demonstrates that. So, his claim is about self-perception. To the degree that the claim portrays either humility or honest self-reflection, then he is providing a good account of himself. I thus conclude that he is probably lying.
Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky’s prospect theory says that people remember their losses more than their victories … seems to me that’s what Orwell means. There’s a number of passages in Orwell that seem to predict their work, including one about prediction: he says somewhere that you should write things down, in order that you can know how wrong you can be.
It is so hard to see oneself from one’s own perspective.
Some people are much harder on themselves than others.
Orwell has been part of my life for getting on for 60 years. I first read Animal Farm and 1984 as a teenager, and was knocked out by them. I started reading his Collected Essays and Letters in about 1971, and have re-read them many times since.
I understand his comment, in the first paragraph of his article on Dali, not so much as a personal statement, but as a sort of clearing of the throat before he embarks on his critique of Dali and his works. He is saying that an honest account of one’s life would include failures as well as successes, and implies that the former inevitably exceed the latter. That may actually have been true for him, at the time he was writing (1944, some years before he became a success as a novelist). But it also serves as a basis for his criticism of Dali’s autobiography, in that it is essentially dishonest but unintentionally more revealing than Dali intended.
I love Animal Farm and 1984. I have a soft spot for Orwell’s earlier novels, especially Coming Up For Air. But for me his journalism and essays are far more important. Read them!
I admit to not knowing the story of Orwell’s life, but that said I see his comment not as an attempt to state a literal truth, but rather to prompt people to consider a more grounded view of themselves and their lives. The world has always been rife with people so utterly full of themselves, and so apparently incapable of any sort of honest introspection, as to make one despair of the human race. Essentially by definition, autobiographies are written by persons who have achieved some substantial degree of success, or at least of notoriety. In this context Orwell is asking for some sober reflection.
Performative despair is not, of course, particularly helpful either. Some people have problems seeing their successes, or their positive attributes, and this is not a good thing. But Orwell was discussing arrogance, and while some may consider his comment over the top, I see it as a useful splash of cold water.
Perhaps he held grand outcomes for himself that never arrived, just missed, regrets.
As pointed out above (D J Lane) losses are felt acutely as opposed to gains and cloud recall, Orwell was human! and having a bad day.
I thoroughly enjoyed two books of Orwell’s that I really didn’t think I would; Homage to Catalonia and Down and Out in Paris and London.
I expected Homage to be too dry for me, on a subject that wasn’t previously of interest, but it was so well written and provided a fascinating insight into the Spanish civil war, war in general, its futility, and the politics of the struggle.
Down and Out, I suppose, wasn’t that big a surprise as I read it off the back of Homage. Another brilliant first hand account of a time and a way of life long forgotten/never known.
I’ll be reading Wigan Pier at some point.
Am I the only one who is constantly hitting the “reply” tab without wanting to? I wish it weren’t placed on the margin where it’s nearly impossible to avoid. Granted, I’m doing all this internet stuff on a cellphone. Just wondering…
Edit: I mean to inquire, not complain. I hope it’s not taken negatively.
Thanks
I find the comment strange. Why should anyone think that most people would view their lives as being mainly about defeats? Don’t we all know that people are all over the map on self assessment? I’ve been struck lately by how often I hear people say that if they could do it all over they wouldn’t change a thing. That seems strange to me too. I’d sure change things.
Sounds like he was very much a “glass half empty” kind of person. But maybe that’s how it must be if you are a great writer. Maybe to be that great means never being happy with what you’ve written, and the constant urge to improve it.
I may not have the details quite right here, but I seem to remember reading that James Joyce’s agent had to pull the finished manuscript for “Ulysses” out of his hands, because Joyce still wasn’t happy with it. (Although I wouldn’t rate Joyce as having as much quality as Orwell.)
Although being critical of your work clearly isn’t enough on its own, because that’s how I work, and I’m not a great writer.
“The Intimate Orwell” by Simon Leys, a very thorough review of some books on Orwell, his published letters and his diaries, seems to address convincingly this seemingly bizarre statement by Orwell. It would appear – as least according to Mr. Leys – that it was self-referential rather than a general observation.
A very good read:
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2011/05/26/intimate-orwell/
I think I agree with him insofar as the actual self falls short of the best version of you.
A friend of mine, Ben, pointed out this quote from Orwell’s essay on Gandhi, “Reflections on Gandhi,” which is free at the link and well worth reading. Here’s Orwell’s quote from there:
This implies that the “defeats” are not, as Ben says, failures in your career or aspirations, but simply that life defeats you by taking other people away from you, either via severed relationships or the death of those you care about. And that is inevitable.
I didn’t think of “defeat” in that sense; I thought of it as aspirations that were not realized. But I think Ben is right: this is what Orwell meant by “defeat.”
I have saved a comment from some unrelated discussion:
“Because memories are fundamentally about preserving past warnings for future survival, we are built to more clearly recall the negative – to dwell on moments of fear and shame, on slights and threats.
Stop and take a deep breath and literally drink in small moments… when something is ever satisfactory, positive, mildly successful, randomly joyful so your brain can code and integrate that experience because our natural lizard brain will quickly tape over it with mostly unnecessary negative survival shit… I remember this when I’m feeling good about a moment because our cave brains are still catching up with modern life…
Take the time to tell yourself, when something you did or bought or decided works out “That was a good decision and I’m glad I made it! Go me!””