Actually it was Rick Froman. I was not addressing the veracity of the claim that Dickens did nothing positive. I just thought it ironic, if it was true, that Orwell, who wrote 1984 without a happy ending, would criticize another author of writing a fictional work criticizing society without suggesting a fix.
Rick Dr. Rick Froman, Chair Division of Humanities and Social Sciences John Brown University Siloam Springs, AR 72761 rfro...@jbu.edu ________________________________________ From: Allen Esterson [allenester...@compuserve.com] Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 1:29 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: RE:[tips] Drop Kicking Malcolm Gladwell, continued ���On 8 August Rick Freeman wrote: >I know that Orwell was an interesting and self-contradictory person who believed many different things over the different phases of his life (as many of us do) but it does strike me that the author of 1984 would have a hard time seeing past the hypocrisy in saying that Dickens shouldn't have written novels in which he provides no positive alternative to the problems described.< Apart from the influence his widely read books would likely have had on public opinion, Dickens also worked hard for social reform: "While in America in 1842 he upset his hosts by condemning slavery. Dickens also decided to invest some of his royaltie s in a new radical newspaper, The Daily News. Dickens became editor and in the first edition published on 21st January 1846, he wrote: 'The principles advocated in The Daily News will be principles of progress and improvement; of education, civil and religious liberty, and equal legislation.' The Daily News was not a great commercial success and Dickens resigned as editor. However, he was determined to create a means where he could communicate his ideas on social reform and in 1850 he began editing Household Words. Dickens published Household Words between 1850 and 1859 and during that time campaigned in favour of parliamentary reform and improvements in the education of=2 0the poor…" http://www.eppingforestdc.gov.uk/community/history/CharlesDickens.asp Sounds positive to me! But from his article Gladwell evidently doesn't approve of this approach, since Dickens didn't argue for the "overthrow" of the social order. But, given the relative freedoms admired by Voltaire, there was little appetite for revolution even among working class organisations (and of course there was no "vanguard" middle class party to bring the benefits of a Leninist-style revolution (aka a coup) :-) ). Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
