�鶹��Ժ

The historian loaned her voice to the author in the summer of 2024 to commemorate her 40th year in Boulder and the 75th anniversary of��1984

It was a hot summer evening in June of 2024, in a barn on the east side of Boulder, Colorado. On a low stage blanketed with a small, thin rug, two empty chairs sat facing each other, and between them, tall and menacing against the black backdrop, stood a red banner with “1984” written on it.

A large gray eye gazed out upon the audience from the center of that banner, lidless and all-seeing, an icon of surveillance.

Big Brother, it seemed, was watching, and he likely disapproved of what he saw.

��

CU Boulder Professor Patty Limerick embodied 1984 author George Orwell in several public conversation, guided by the belief that “historians are people who try to reactivate the voices of the departed.”��

His creator and harshest critic, George Orwell (born Eric Arthur Blair), had returned from the dead to discuss his life and work nearly 75 years after succumbing to tuberculosis at the age of 46 on Jan. 21, 1950, seven months following the publication of his most famous novel, 1984, the nightmare-vision that gave the world Room 101, memory holes, Newspeak and doublethink.

It would be the first of two public conversations he’d have over the summer, this one with TV show host�� and the second with scholar, author and educator��.

Harber took the stage and faced the humble gathering of spectators. “I would like to introduce to you��George Orwell,” he said.

Applause mounted in the sweltering barn as the author of Animal Farm, Road to Wigan Pier��and numerous essays ambled down the aisle dividing the crowd and stepped up to meet Harber, dressed sharply but unseasonably in a jacket, trousers, tie and hat . . .

. . . and bearing a remarkable resemblance to University of Colorado Boulder history professor��Patty Limerick.��

Why channel Orwell?

“Tragedy . . . belonged to the ancient time, to a time when there was still privacy, love, and friendship, and when the members of a family stood by one another without needing to know the reason.”

—George Orwell, 1984

The year 2024 marked Limerick’s 40th in Boulder, which is another way of saying she moved there in 1984. She wanted to celebrate, but how?

“Then I thought, ‘Yes, 1984—when was that published?’ I thought I knew, but I didn't. And when I checked, it was the 75th anniversary.”

This convergence of round numbers gave Limerick an idea: Maybe she could observe both anniversaries together, with the same event, as only a historian would.��

Her initial thought was to ask her friend��Jenkinson to don Orwell’s persona while she interviewed him. Having impersonated many historical figures—Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt and J. Robert Oppenheimer, among others—for a variety of audiences, including Supreme Court justices and U.S. Congress, he seemed the natural choice.

But Jenkinson didn’t have sufficient time to prepare for the role, which left Limerick wondering: Could she do the impersonation herself?

She’d impersonated President Richard Nixon in her American History survey course several years prior, thinking this would prove more engaging than her usual lecture on the man. “The lecture on Richard Nixon was so useless because I, as a person of my age group, have a lot of feelings about Nixon,” Limerick says. “The lecture would be quite interesting if you were curious about my feelings about Nixon, but if you thought you might want to learn about Richard Nixon, you came to the wrong place.”

Even without the standard accoutrements—makeup, clothing, five o’clock shadow—Limerick’s impersonation of the 37th president did the trick, she says. Her students asked thoughtful questions, and she got the chance to put some flesh and sinew on the bones of her Nixonian knowledge.��

“I certainly conveyed some moments in which Nixon was insufferably full of questionable convictions, but I also . . . conveyed his accomplishments,” such as “the lessening of tensions with China and the signing of crucial environmental laws,” she recalls. “I feel I got it right.”

So, why not impersonate Orwell? Why not lend him her voice as she had Nixon?

Why not indeed. After all, Limerick says, “historians are people who try to reactivate the voices of the departed.”

Guaranteed tyranny

“Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.”��

—George Orwell, 1984

One of 1984’s most famous innovations is Newspeak, a language Orwell constructed to represent the nation-state of Oceania’s drive to control not just its citizens’ behavior but also what went on in their heads.��

��

Patty Limerick (left), a CU Boulder historian, embodied George Orwell during a televised conversation with Aaron Harber. (Screen grab: PBS)

“The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc (English socialism), but to make all other modes of thought impossible,” Orwell says in his appendix to 1984,��

“It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought—that is, a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc—should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words.”

“Newspeak,” says Limerick, “is the foundation of guaranteed tyranny. You don’t let people have the words that they need. What became of justice? What became of freedom? What became of honor? They can’t ask those questions if they don’t have those words. People can’t resist if they don’t have the word ‘resist.’”

Orwell held strong views about the relationship between word and thought. He famously criticized nebulous prose in his essay�� by arguing that fuzzy writing both emerges from and leads to fuzzy thinking.

Decades later, not fully realizing her indebtedness to Orwell,��Limerick made a similar case in her essay�� though she approached the issue from an educational rather than a political angle. Yet both agreed that the stakes of clarity are high: freedom of thought for Orwell, the legitimacy and survival of academia for Limerick.

But what about some of the words that appear in the media these days—words like “mistruths” in place of “lies”? Would Orwell consider these examples of Newspeak?

Not necessarily, Limerick argues. For one thing, these words, wooly as they may be, add to the English language, creating new shades of meaning, while Newspeak feeds on subtraction.

“Do you know that Newspeak is the only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year?” the Newspeak enthusiast Syme asks of 1984’s protagonist, Winston Smith. “Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller.”

For another thing, a word like “mistruth,” says Limerick, is often used not by the powerful��to maintain their power but by media outlets that are trying to report on falsehoods without using incendiary words like “lie” or “liar.”

“If you're going to call the leader of the United States a liar repeatedly, and his supporters are not gentle and forgiving people, you’re going to spend much of your conscious life wondering how you’re going to cope with the consequences of your having said he’s lying.”

Newspeak does not deal in such subtleties, Limerick believes. Newspeak is where subtlety goes to die.

��

Two plus two equals five

“You are a slow learner, Winston,” said O’Brien gently.

“How can I help it?” (Winston) blubbered. “How can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four.”��

“Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.”

—George Orwell, 1984

Another of Orwell’s stickier inventions in 1984��is doublethink, or the capacity to believe two logically opposed things at once—things like war is peace, freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength.

“Doublethink is the power of tyrants to say contradictory things and not be held responsible for the disparities,” Limerick explains. “It is really bad, and really dangerous, and really perilous.”

Winston discovers how perilous when he’s interrogated by O’Brien, a character he assumes is a friend but who turns out to be a member of the Thought Police tasked with rooting out thought-criminals. After learning of Winston’s secret opposition to Ingsoc, O’Brien tortures him relentlessly to convert him back into doublethink, arguing that it “is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party.”

Yet Limerick points out that it is important not to mistake the direct contradictions of doublethink in 1984 with the paradoxes of real life.

Take historical figures, for example. The more one learns about them, says Limerick, the more complex they become, to the point that they may force students of history to hold seemingly contradictory thoughts when appraising them.

This happened to Limerick herself with William Stewart, senator of Nevada from 1865-75.

“Environmental activists and historians hold Stewart in contempt because he was the guy who wrote the 1872 mining law, which enshrines the notion that individuals can just go out and make mining claims and owe nothing in the way of revenue to the government,” she says.

Yet Stewart also proved crucial to getting the Fifteenth Amendment passed in 1870, which granted African American men the right to vote—an accomplishment Limerick urges everyone to admire.

Evidence sometimes demands conflicting feelings, Limerick says. Villains can do heroic things, and heroes can do villainous things, including Orwell. The great champion of free thought also expressed��complicated, often inconsistent views about women, Jews and Catholicism. He wasn’t perfect, and any estimation that claimed he was would be flat. Posterity can both praise and blame him simultaneously—paradoxical, but true.

But that doesn’t mean two plus two will ever equal five.

Orwell’s lingering relevance

“We are the dead. Our only true life is in the future. We shall take part in it as handfuls of dust and splinters of bone. But how far away that future may be, there is no knowing.”

—George Orwell, 1984

The conversation between��, organized by the Vail Symposium, took place on Aug. 21, 2024, at the Donovan Pavilion in Vail. That night, the two engaged in an often funny and frequently tetchy back-and-forth about Orwell’s childhood, his views on socialism and his enduring legacy.

��

“Doublethink is the power of tyrants to say contradictory things and not be held responsible for the disparities. It is really bad, and really dangerous, and really perilous,” argues historian Patty Limerick.��

When, about three-quarters of the way through the discussion, Jenkinson revealed he was wearing a 1984��T-shirt, Orwell stared at it, nonplussed, and asked, “My understanding from that shirt is that my name and that book are still recognizable?”

“Universally!” Jenkinson proclaimed. “One of the most recognizable books written in English and certainly one of the most recognizable books of the 20th century. And it has become extremely important again in the last dozen years or so because the world is having a strange flirtation with authoritarianism, and one of the ways that people have coped with this abroad and at home . . . is to go back to your book. And they find solace in it, they find warning in it, they find hope in it, and they find discouragement in it, but it is a key text as people try to sort our way through this extraordinarily difficult time in modern history.”

A long silence followed while Orwell gathered his thoughts.

“I’m having such mixed feelings,” he admitted to Jenkinson. “I hoped that what I wrote about (in 1984) would become mocked, humorous. ‘He thought these terrible things were going to happen.��Nothing like that happened! Boy, did he get that wrong!’

“As an author, I am gratified knowing that (1984) went on and on,” he added. “(But) as a human being who welcomed��a child (his adopted son��) into the world, I’m not anything but shaken to believe that this book is still so relevant.”

Yet Orwell’s distress turned to horror when Jenkinson delivered the worst news of the night: the definition of the word “Orwellian.”

“When we say ‘Orwellian,’” Jenkinson said, “we mean surveillance, torture, discrimination, disappearances, propaganda, lies, permanent war, keeping the class system, keeping down the poor … ‘Orwellian’ is a dystopian word for us meaning a nightmare world.”

Orwell winced at this revelation. “The things I tried to prevent, the things I tried to warn people about, they associate with me?” he railed. “Change that word!”

Jenkinson held out his hands, welcoming Orwell’s ideas. “What would you prefer?”

Orwell offered two alternative definitions: one about intellectual openness and diversity, the other about the necessity of��precise language.

But a third definition, one governed not by foreboding or criticism but by a zeal for life and all it contained, can be culled from the beginning of Orwell and Jenkinson’s talk.

“If you think . . . that I wrote 1984��when I knew I was dying, and knew that this would be my last book, and that the grimness of this book comes from the melancholy and despair of a dying man, you have that wrong,” Orwell said. “I lived with a commitment to being alive that never, never faltered.”��

Perhaps the only thing comparable to Orwell’s commitment to being alive is Limerick’s commitment to keeping him alive—or, if not him, at least his memory. He won’t be memory-holed on her watch.

“I hate it so much that he died when he did, just a few months after 1984��came out, and that he was so sick and so frail while he was writing it,” she says. “I wanted to do anything I could to provide people today with an interlude where he was speaking.”

Did you enjoy this article?����Passionate about history?��Show your support.

��