# annoying silliness *The Urth list — 3 messages, 3 voices, 31 Jul 2002* > Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright > in each message remains with the person who wrote it. > Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original > archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than > retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact. --- ### Michael Andre-Driussi *31 Jul 2002, 23:51* >> Hartshorn quoted blattid and wrote: >> As for granting Orwell primacy in this matter, well, that's >> pretty silly. > Oh, pish-tosh. Indeed. We were drawn (or "suckered") into discussing Orwell because blattid expressed incomprehension as to why =anyone= would link Orwell to Ascian Correct Thought. Was blattid unaware of the Newspeak notion (a top-down language reform that attempts to shape a new national character by design rather than the natural accident that has produced for example the stereo-typical Frenchman, Spaniard, German, Italian, etc.)? No, not at all -- so he is not strangely ignorant of Orwell (a relief, in a sense). Was blattid aware that Mao's little red book had not historically been used across an entire culture the way that it had been used, anecdotally, by a couple of Berkeleyites in the 70s? Yes, he was aware (a relief, in a sense). Blattid has presented an inscrutable position, and seems to relish it that way. No matter: blattid was the one who asked for explanation; between us, hartshorn and I have presented the case. Case closed. =mantis= --- ### Dan'l Danehy-Oakes *01 Aug 2002, 00:14 · follows Michael Andre-Driussi* Sigh. Okay, let me clarify things here ... I believe my original statement was: > I was quite certain, reading the utterances of Loyal > to the Group of Seventeen, that Wolfe was pointing his > barb at Maoism and the "Little-read Book." Others, I > have learned on this list, have been equally certain > that Wolfe is satirizing Orwell's "Newspeak," which I > find simply implausible. Okay, that was way too strong ... I think I had better have said that I find it implausible that "Newspeak" was the primary target of the satire. I frankly feel that the insistence that it _is_, is an example of the parochialism of the SF community; there is (imho) extremely powerful evidence, both biographical and stylistic, for Maoist-style Communism as the primary target. I would also dispute one point of facticity in Mantis' latest post on this subject: > Was blattid aware that Mao's little red book had not > historically been used across an entire culture the way > that it had been used, anecdotally, by a couple of > Berkeleyites in the 70s? Yes, he was aware (a relief, > in a sense). I said no such thing, nor am I convinced by any means that you are correct here. It is my understanding that a major aspect of Chinese Communist culture of the later Mao years, and probably through the next few years after his death, _was_ the frequent quoting of Mao. I am unwilling to do the research to "prove" this right now, but will stick to my guns on the point unless and until strong counterevidence is posed; I admit this is stubbornness on my part, but it's stubbornness based on my memory of the period. --- ### Andy Robertson *31 Jul 2002, 00:02 · follows Dan'l Danehy-Oakes* ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" Annoying? Never!!! "pish-tosh" does not indicate annoyance!! ---