Liberals have sparked controversy by adding trigger warnings to the 75th anniversary edition of George Orwell’s dystopian masterpiece 1984, with an introduction by an American professor highlighting content some readers might find unsettling.
According to The College Fix, the warnings stem from Dolen Perkins-Valdez, a literature professor at American University who describes herself as a “pre-eminent chronicler of American historical life” on her website. Her introduction, approved by the Orwell estate, flags potentially distressing elements in the novel, prompting debate over the necessity of such disclaimers in a work renowned for its critique of censorship and control.
Notably, Perkins-Valdez points out the absence of Black characters in 1984, a detail she deems significant enough to include in the trigger warning. Critics question the relevance of this observation, arguing it imposes contemporary social expectations on a novel written in 1949 about a totalitarian future, not racial dynamics.
BYPASS THE CENSORS
Sign up to get unfiltered news delivered straight to your inbox.
The inclusion of trigger warnings in a book that warns against thought control and manipulation has struck many as ironic, raising concerns about whether such additions undermine Orwell’s intent. As 1984 continues to resonate in today’s polarized climate, this editorial decision fuels discussions about the balance between sensitivity and preserving the integrity of classic literature.
Putin: John Podesta Wanted 'Dead or Alive' Following Davos Adrenochrome Bust
Modernity.news reports: When Orwell wrote the novel in the late 1940s, black people made up less than 1% of the English population.
The report adds:
For a “contemporary reader” such as herself, Perkins-Valdez says this gives her “pause.” She also says a “sliver of connection” is difficult with a book that “does not speak much to race and ethnicity.”
Yeah, the novel isn’t supposed to be about race and ethnicity.
In your world where you have to make absolutely everything about race, this book isn’t going to connect.
Perkins-Valdez continues, “I’m enjoying the novel on its own terms, not as a classic but as a good story. That is, until Winston [Smith] reveals himself to be a problematic character.”
Yeah. He’s supposed to be. But in what way do you mean?
“For example, we learn of him he dislikes nearly all women. And especially the young and pretty ones,” she further explains.
Faceplam.
“Winston’s views on women are, at first, despicable for the contemporary reader. He is the kind of character that can make me put a book down,” she adds.
Imagine if Orwell had instead written Winston as a woke liberal policing his own thoughts. The Party wouldn’t even need Big Brother.
Journalist Matt Taibbi, along with his podcast host Walter Kirn pointed out how idiotic this all is, given that the book is a warning about the erosion of language and freedom of thought.
The 1984 part of the discussion begins at 1 hour 36 mins:
The material in 1984 is supposed to be traumatising, that’s the entire point of the book. Putting trigger warnings on it is ludicrous and only proves Orwell was prescient.
Having this drivel as an introduction to one of the most iconic dystopian works of literature is like something out of Idiocracy.
It mirrors the novel’s own warnings about ideological conformity and the rewriting of art to appease dogmatic sensitivities.
It’s insulting.
Who on Earth commissioned it?
Perhaps the same people who agreed to a politically correct modern day re-write of 1984 from a feminist perspective.
Latest Video
Source link