“cultural vandalism” indeed! It's ironic then that a nation that pride itself on preserving tradition should allow its national broadcaster the BBC to destroy early archives in the 60s/70s (https://www.quora.com/Why-was-there-a-purge-of-the-BBC-archi...). "Who would want to watch a program twice?" and "Wow, isn't storage expensive?!" Orwell would have turned in his grave.
The honest truth is that the Britain of today isn’t a colonial power anymore, and is rather poor by its relative standards of the past. I feel it’s more concerned with selling its past to tourists for money more than preserving it of late.
Not just to tourists, unfortunately a significant part of our (British) politics is selling our past to voters, as rose-tinted "good old days" emotions at the expense of focussing on how to make the best of the current situation (which, let's face it, despite no longer being as much of a global power as during the empire days were still an extremely privileged country compared to global averages).
Whilst I'm not in any way arguing in favour of destroying culturally significant works, you've completely mischaracterised the answer you linked to.
> "Who would want to watch a program twice?"
This isn't even remotely what was said.
The answer makes it clear that it wasn't feasible to air some programs again, due to the fees that must be paid to actors etc., and as such:
> So, if a programme could not be aired again, what was the point in keeping it?
Which is a reasonable line of thinking for the British _Broadcasting_ Corporation.
> "Wow, isn't storage _expensive_?!"
Yes, it was. But the answer makes clear that it wasn't just an issue of storage costs; the _tape_ was extremely expensive, and could be reused. So it was.
> When I worked in the tape library in the late ’60s a one hour reel of tape cost the equivalent of six weeks of my pay. Storage was expensive too.
One final point I would make is that the BBC is publicly funded. It doesn't have unlimited funds, and its primary function is to create content. As the answer clearly states:
> Some samples of programmes were kept as being of interest, but the BBC saw itself as a maker of programmes not a museum.
Controversial take maybe, but who really gives a damn? Filing cabinets that haven't been opened for 50 years? I'm sure people would flock to a museum to see those /s. Researchers obviously weren't that interested. If private collectors are happy to pay large amounts for these things then that seems like the best option, they'll enjoy owning it.
We really don't need the minutia of every decision Orwell made while writing his stories, I'd go so far as to say agonizing over such devalues the work.
Without the originals, however, it's not so difficult, say for a dystopian government, to replace the work entirely with a completely different propaganda attributed to his name. As modern governments do to flip the script on everything from the events of the world wars, the history of the founding of the United States, slavery, and every other politically charged topic hijacked to rally support for one violent or profitable ideal or another.
It's very easy to imagine that tomorrow some government somewhere will be describing the dystopia that George Orwell predicted would occur if people were suddenly allowed to speak freely.
In fact, it's easy to imagine that even the original works themselves can barely serve to protect the original message.
Also: the originals are mostly only relevant for their collectible value. Researchers can more easily work off digital scans. No need to buy anything or keep anything together physically, just scan it if you are really that interested.
In UK we have legislation that protects buildings if they're significant (eg peculiar, famous, old). Perhaps we should have a law requiring digitisation of significant artefacts (at public expense) in order to sell works that may be of historical/cultural significance.
Honestly, I couldn't care less about keeping original documents, but preserving images of those documents seems reasonable.
Same would go for selling artwork or artefacts, offer true opportunity to national museums to retain a digital copy.
Fwiw, I like old artefacts, papers, books, even rusty old filling cabinets, but I don't see value for the country in preserving those things.
Also fwiw, I think the Listed Building laws go a bit far in some cases: preventing people's reasonable enjoyment of their own properties.
Before this hit the news - how many of the now-angry people had previously demonstrated any real interest in the George Orwell archives? Or had actually worked to preserve any collection of historical documents?
It's real easy to sit on your ass, while bitterly complaining that a whole legion of Somebody Elses is not working 25-hour days, for free, to make the world conform to your whims.
True...but his quoted bit of the article amounts to "why didn't somebody else, on their own time and dime, Do Stuff"? There's no hint that he (or anyone associated with him) had previously cared to even look for such materials. Let alone do a superficial study of them.
The article also notes that the company had previously tried to sell the entire Gollancz collection - vastly more material than just the George Orwell part - to institutional buyers for £1m. None of them were interested. And I don't see any criticism of them for that neglect.
But now, when it's easy for the ass-sitters to score points by screaming about Evil Corporations destroying England's sacred history, there is a huge fuss.
“That nobody had opened those filing cabinets for 50 years was because they were idiots and didn’t understand the archive’s value."
But who is it valuable to? Ultimately a great deal of this is purely interesting to the increasing small number of people who are personally or professionally invested in Orwell. The value here is that the archive could generate a couple of conference keynotes for professors, a new foreword in a reprint, or, at a stretch, a new biography.
There is a very small chance that enough new material, or changes to material, could merit a brand new publication, but ultimately the existing published works stand by themselves and the rest amounts to high brow gossip.
History. It should be a part of our historical and cultural record, not the private playthings for the wealthy.
Whenever something like this comes up, I'm appalled at how little people seem to give a shit about preserving things for the future. In the end, it's all we have to pass down through the ages.
Readit News
> "Who would want to watch a program twice?"
This isn't even remotely what was said.
The answer makes it clear that it wasn't feasible to air some programs again, due to the fees that must be paid to actors etc., and as such:
> So, if a programme could not be aired again, what was the point in keeping it?
Which is a reasonable line of thinking for the British _Broadcasting_ Corporation.
> "Wow, isn't storage _expensive_?!"
Yes, it was. But the answer makes clear that it wasn't just an issue of storage costs; the _tape_ was extremely expensive, and could be reused. So it was.
> When I worked in the tape library in the late ’60s a one hour reel of tape cost the equivalent of six weeks of my pay. Storage was expensive too.
One final point I would make is that the BBC is publicly funded. It doesn't have unlimited funds, and its primary function is to create content. As the answer clearly states:
> Some samples of programmes were kept as being of interest, but the BBC saw itself as a maker of programmes not a museum.
We really don't need the minutia of every decision Orwell made while writing his stories, I'd go so far as to say agonizing over such devalues the work.
It's very easy to imagine that tomorrow some government somewhere will be describing the dystopia that George Orwell predicted would occur if people were suddenly allowed to speak freely.
In fact, it's easy to imagine that even the original works themselves can barely serve to protect the original message.
The real version is that found in the state’s digital archives.
/s
Also: the originals are mostly only relevant for their collectible value. Researchers can more easily work off digital scans. No need to buy anything or keep anything together physically, just scan it if you are really that interested.
Edit:
It seems there's a lot of digitalized materials in UCL online archives, but I would be surprised if all documents were digitalized:
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/library/digital-collections/collection...
Deleted Comment
Honestly, I couldn't care less about keeping original documents, but preserving images of those documents seems reasonable.
Same would go for selling artwork or artefacts, offer true opportunity to national museums to retain a digital copy.
Fwiw, I like old artefacts, papers, books, even rusty old filling cabinets, but I don't see value for the country in preserving those things.
Also fwiw, I think the Listed Building laws go a bit far in some cases: preventing people's reasonable enjoyment of their own properties.
And at the very end of the day, no one will understand why "He loved Big Brother" was not a happy ending.
It's real easy to sit on your ass, while bitterly complaining that a whole legion of Somebody Elses is not working 25-hour days, for free, to make the world conform to your whims.
The article also notes that the company had previously tried to sell the entire Gollancz collection - vastly more material than just the George Orwell part - to institutional buyers for £1m. None of them were interested. And I don't see any criticism of them for that neglect.
But now, when it's easy for the ass-sitters to score points by screaming about Evil Corporations destroying England's sacred history, there is a huge fuss.
But who is it valuable to? Ultimately a great deal of this is purely interesting to the increasing small number of people who are personally or professionally invested in Orwell. The value here is that the archive could generate a couple of conference keynotes for professors, a new foreword in a reprint, or, at a stretch, a new biography.
There is a very small chance that enough new material, or changes to material, could merit a brand new publication, but ultimately the existing published works stand by themselves and the rest amounts to high brow gossip.
Whenever something like this comes up, I'm appalled at how little people seem to give a shit about preserving things for the future. In the end, it's all we have to pass down through the ages.
Dead Comment