MASARYK UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF EDUCATION

Department of English Language and Literature

Nonconformity and Antiheroism in Orwell’s early novels

Diploma thesis

Brno 2017

Supervisor: Mgr. Jaroslav Izavčuk Written by: Bc. Jiří Hrabovský

Declaration

I hereby declare that this diploma thesis is my own work and that the information I used has been fully acknowledged in the text and included in the reference list. I agree with putting the thesis on public display at Masaryk University for study purposes.

Prohlášení

Prohlašuji, že jsem diplomovou práci vypracoval samostatně, s využitím pouze citovaných literárních pramenů, dalších informací a zdrojů v souladu s Disciplinárním řádem pro studenty Pedagogické fakulty Masarykovy univerzity a se zákonem č. 121/2000 Sb., o právu autorském, o právech souvisejících s právem autorským a o změně některých zákonů (autorský zákon), ve znění pozdějších předpisů.

…………………………………

Bc. Jiří Hrabovský Bibliografický záznam

HRABOVSKÝ, Jiří. Nonconformity and antiheroism in Orwell’s early novels. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, Fakulta pedagogická, Katedra anglického jazyka a literatury, 2017. Vedoucí diplomové práce Mgr. Jaroslav Izavčuk.

Annotation

Diploma thesis Nonconformity and Antiheroism in Orwell’s early novels deals with the analysis of different approaches the main heroes apply regarding their crises of identity. This thesis emphasizes the aspect of unconventional solutions of various life situations, aiming at both the inner dynamics of the characters, the same as the dynamics between these two fictional individuals.

Anotace

Diplomová práce s názvem Nonkonformita a Antihrdinství v raných Orwellových románech se zabývá analýzou různých přístupů hlavních hrdinů k jejich krizím osobnosti. Důraz je kladen na aspekt nekonvenčích řešení různých životních situací s cílem hledat jak dynamiku v jejich postojích vzhledem k získávaným zkušenostem, tak dynamiku mezi těmito fiktivními postavami samými.

Keywords

Nonconformity, antiheroism, war, money, society, poverty, escapism

Klíčová slova

Nonkonformita, antihrdinství, válka, peníze, společnost, chudoba, únik

Acknowledgements

I would like to gratefully acknowledge the supervision of Mgr. Jaroslav Izavčuk. I would like to thank him for his kind supervising of this thesis and his helpful advice and insightful comments on the text as well as recommending literature.

Poděkování

Chtěl bych poděkovat Mgr. Jaroslavu Izavčukovi za jeho kvalitní vedení mé diplomové práce, za jeho podporu a cenné připomínky, stejně tak jako za doporučení literatury.

Table of Contents 1. Introduction ...... 7 2. George Orwell...... 9 2.1. Life ...... 9 2.1.1. Childhood ...... 10 2.1.2. The view on war ...... 12 2.1.3 Social status ...... 13 2.2. Orwell in the 1930s ...... 14 2.3. Forms of writing ...... 16 2.4. Inspiration...... 17 3. Nonconformism ...... 20 4. Gordon Comstock ...... 23 4.1. Dynamics of Comstock’s character ...... 25 5. George Bowling ...... 28 5.1. Dynamics of Bowling’s character ...... 31 6. Aspects playing roles in the choice of Orwell’s heroes’ personalities: ...... 34 6.1. Colonial experience ...... 35 6.2. Interest in the poor ...... 35 6.3. Political preferences ...... 38 6.4 Fear ...... 40 7. Symbolism ...... 42 7.1 Keep the Aspidistra Flying ...... 42 7.1.1. Aspidistra ...... 42 7.1.2. “Two-quid a week” wage ...... 43 7.1.3. Antichrist vs. The New Albion ...... 43 7.1.4 Women in Comstock’s life ...... 44 7.2 Coming Up for Air ...... 46 7.2.1. The past ...... 46 7.2.2. False teeth ...... 46 7.2.3. Fishing ...... 47 7.2.4. The pool ...... 48 7.2.5. The Church...... 48 7.2.6. Modern devices ...... 48 8. The comparison of Gordon Comstock and George Bowling ...... 49 8.1. Personal wars ...... 49 8.2. Inner worlds...... 52 8.3. Relations with their women ...... 53 8.4. Crisis of identity ...... 55 9. Conclusion ...... 56 Works Cited ...... 60

1. Introduction

The opening chapter generally introduces the reader into the investigation of nonconformity in early Orwell’s novel. The introduction shows who George Orwell is, briefly reveals what are the novels in question, and describes fundamental features that this thesis will try to answer in the conclusion part.

George Orwell is without any doubts a very important and inspiring writer and journalist. Although it was not so clear during his life, he became one of the most significant and influential English prose writer and essayist ever. To prove this, Christopher Hitchens who is according to Rodden a well-known journalist and Orwell’s defender (Rodden 142) quotes that:

“The reputation of George Orwell is secure among those who have never read him, high among those who have read only 1984 or Animal Farm and pretty solid among those who have read his Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters for confirmation of their own opinions. The value of his work is debated only by his fellow socialists and anti-imperialists. And even they, by ridiculing or scorning his precepts, pay an unintended compliment to his influence” (Hitchens 125).

Much has been written about the author’s most famous works published in the 1940s. That is the reason why this thesis does not investigate Orwell’s most famous works and deals with the two early novels that are not so well-known to the public. First is Keep the Aspidistra Flying, which was written in 1936. It is a tragicomic story where Orwell points out to the difficulties of the lower-classes and the importance of money. The main protagonist denies the conform world where everything is about values measured with money and decides to stay out of this mainstream society.

The second novel to study is Coming Up for Air, which was released in 1939. England stands on the edge of WWII and through the eyes of the main character the readers can see the nation slowly preparing for the conflict with Germany. Despite omnipresent expectation for the beginning of the war, which marks the background, the author criticises various aspects of society that are more deeply rooted and that influence the daily life of millions of people much longer than any war. Hence, differences in social status and the widening gap between rural and urban England play an important role.

7

The fact is that Orwell is considered and praised mainly as a political prophet, the evidence of which gives this thesis. His attempts to become a poet, his journalist experience together with his sharp literary tongue create a writer who led millions of people to think about the world that surrounds them. Brannigan sees in him a certain turning point in literary history as he says that “Orwell closes the door as well as opens them” (Brannigan 4).

However, as the title of the thesis hints, this piece of work will focus on different aspects of his writings. The intention then is to cover the humour of the main protagonists in the books mentioned above. To be precise, the aspect of the so-called nonconformism of the main characters in relation to the society is the focus of this thesis. This includes another feature that might be considered as a subtype of nonconformism and that is the viewpoint of anti- heroism in the behaviour and thinking of the two protagonists. Special attention will be paid to the dynamics of these qualities throughout the novels in order to find possible common statements that this thesis supposes in advance. Apart from the expected results, this study intends to show that there is a certain development in the characters and their attitudes towards society. To be more specific, it is anticipated that the beginning negative positions and radical beliefs of the anti-heroes will fade away to finish conciliated and adapted with their roles in the society. Further, it is presumed that the author wittingly makes the characters undergo a long process that forms their personalities. Many times they must find themselves on a dead-end street that finally should help them to discover the right ways.

To sum up, this thesis concentrates on the interpersonal struggle of the protagonists and seeks to identify all possible signals of dynamism of nonconformism and antiheroism as their most striking patterns of behaviour.

There are two novels and two main characters. The goal of the thesis is to examine the dynamics of nonconformity. Given the facts, a comparative method will be applied to confirm or deny the assumed facts.

The aim of this paper is also to support the general understanding of Orwell as a very prolific and influential writer, not only because of the existence of his most famous novels Animal Farm and 1984. Especially by his ability to critically describe the weak points of western society by making fun of outsiders and showing how fruitless their fights are, he depicts the problems of the world he lived in. Revealing the deepest needs of the characters, the author gives names to existential problems of individuals living in the 1930s.

8

2. George Orwell

General information about the author is described in this chapter. However, it is not the purpose of this thesis to scrutinise all the details of the author’s life. Relevant pieces of information from Orwell’s life are described to provide the reader with the necessary background in order to understand better his choice in style, setting and content of the novels that are examined. These are arranged in the order that is believed to be logical in terms of relevant pieces of information necessary for the understanding of the fact why Orwell created his characters in the way they are and not to bother the reader with redundant facts from his life. The chapter deals first briefly with the basic data of the author to count his childhood experience later. As warfare occupies a big part of his life and follows his youth, this is mentioned immediately after his childhood ensued by a subchapter dedicated to a class- system. A list of works from the 1930s is then presented to give a brief overview of forms of writing. The chapter ends with the attempt to cover Orwell’s main sources of inspiration.

2.1. Life

This novelist, essayist, newspaper reporter, critic and simply the great observer of society was born in 1903 in Bengal as Eric Arthur Blair. George Orwell is a pseudonym that had been first applied in 1932 in Down and Out in Paris and London because of fear from not succeeding in initial writings. With this, the young author kept the backdoor open and still had a certain chance to continue writing under the right name. Nevertheless, as history proves, the dark concerns did not have solid foundations. Only the real fans know the name Erick Blair now and George Orwell is a good mark for those who like to think and speculate about the state of things that is considered as official, and it is spread by authorities and widely accepted by masses without any effort in critical considerations.

Why George and why Orwell? The reason is that George sounds very English. It is one of the most common English names. The origin of the choice of Orwell is, from the first point of view, nothing sophisticated or noble as it is the name of a river in Suffolk where he had lived with his parents for some time after moving from Burma. On the other hand, the inspiration came also from reading Chaucer who as a tramp had been using various pseudonyms and among others, he mentioned also George Orwell (Crick 21). On the other hand, Bowker who

9

gives similar explanations considers the origin of the nickname rather uncertain (Bowker 142).

2.1.1. Childhood

What Orwell could see, try and experience during his childhood became extremely important for his future choice of content in writing. Much of his childhood can be seen in his writing and appears also in Keep the Aspidistra Flying and Coming Up for Air. The answer to the question of why Orwell’s characters are as they are, is possible to find also in the analysis of this period of life.1 Learning about his youth, one could come to the conclusion that Orwell’s works are partly autobiographical with Coming Up for Air considered to be the most autobiographical. Nevertheless, according to Crick, rather than faithful protagonists of real events, Orwell understands his heroes as a kind of representation of such qualities and situations. What is more, some parts are depicted more than others, which show that it is not generally possible to take the autobiographical aspect for granted (Crick 136).

His father was not a very important employee as an officer in charge with the opium business in India2. His mother is described by Posekaná as intelligent and nonconformist, which is very interesting for the thesis’ goal (Posekaná 8). Together, his parents formed a good mix of personalities to understand Orwell’s future life’s values and themes for his writing.

His father’s social status may be reflected in the fact that both Comstock’s and Bowling’s fathers do not appear in their memories as somebody to follow. They are described as weak, unimportant, and tired men, which is to say, highly conforming and non-assertive people. This might be one of the reasons why Comstock and Bowling bet on nonconformist solutions.

His father, like the other Comstocks, was a depressed and therefore depressing person … was the kind of father you couldn’t help being ashamed of … (Keep the Aspidistra 45, 47).

Father had a slow sort of mind, he’d never taken to book-learning, …, his English wasn’t good. … when I think of Father I remember him always behind the counter …(Coming 46, 48).

1 The reader will find the description of these characters in chapters four and five 2 Richard W. Blair was in the Opium Department of the Government of India. … For nearly twenty years he moved posts annually (Crick 9). 10

Foundations of parental education and mainly inhuman behaviour by the part of the school staff, the snobbery of his classmates, frequent offends and lack of solidarity; all of these factors experienced during his childhood contributed to the choice of content of Orwell’s novels, essays, columns, and reports. From the very beginning, Eric could feel the tensions between classes and step by step he was indoctrinated with the practical meaning of the term “class” – partly from his own experience, and partly from reading. The injustice that he had observed was enormous and this fact led to the frequent use of this factor in his works. His heroes are predominantly weak. They are, in fact, anti-heroes. The confirmation of this hypothesis could be found, among others, also here in the letter he sent to his mother at the age of 8 used by Posekaná in her thesis:

In the age of eight, after being thrown away to an unknown environment he started to urinate his bed and was cruelly punished by the part of campus authorities. He later wrote that: „Sin was not necessarily something that you did: it might be something that happened to you.” Despite not being able to formulate it in the age of eight he started to realize how much is his life out of his control and later also how inhuman and thoughtless is the treatment of children at school.3

Despite the fact that it is not one of the most famous Orwell novels, Coming Up for Air plays a unique role in the entire author’s writings in relation to his childhood. Imaginary Lower Binfield substitutes Henley, a place where he spent a part of his life, and is described almost autobiographically. It is a narration about the peaceful and slow-paced life in the always fresh and green countryside, the slow-flowing Thames, and this is all represented by fishing – a symbolic representative of good old England. What is more, Meyers recalls Bowling’s words that this fishing is “the opposite of war” (87)4. It is true that if any of Orwell’s England exists, then it is the “quiet, cosy havens of modesty, privacy and decency” as Brannigan suggests. According to him, Orwell represents the England of those forty-five million people and not that of the property-owning class. Frequent descriptions of peaceful countryside should evoke a connection to the people which it represents (Brannigan 2).

3 The translation of Posekaná’s text: “Poté co byl v osmi letech vytržen z domova a vržen do neznámého prostředí, začal v noci pomočovat postel, za což byl ve škole krutě potrestán. Píše, k čemu tato zkušenost vedla: “Sin was not necessarily something that you did: it might be something that happened to you.” V té chvíli si začal uvědomovat, přestože v daném věku nebyl schopen myšlenku zformulovat slovy, nakolik je jeho život mimo jeho kontrolu, a později také, jak nehumánně, bezmyšlenkovitě a na základě jaké nevědomosti je s dětmi ve škole zacházeno” (Posekaná 10).

4 The symbolism of fishing is analysed in detail in chapter seven. 11

Childhood is an important part of a life of an individual. It forms his/her future steps. Nevertheless, it is not the unique aspect. Let’s consider it as a kind of inner inspiration. The next subchapter will deal with outer inspirations.

2.1.2. The view on war

War is omnipresent in Orwell’s portfolio. It is also the main threat of George Bowling in Coming Up for Air, where he proves how a war could deprive people of the things they loved. “But now the war and the feeling of not being one’s own master overshadowed everything“ (Coming 113). He also expresses his fear of the upcoming conflict. “I can see the war that’s coming and I can see the after-war, the flood-queues and the secret police and the loudspeakers telling you what to think.” (158). As he was born in 1903, he did not fight in WWI, but other little older fellows were dying there, which made him sorrowful and distracted. He could have had the feeling as if he owed something to his country. Later, he fought in the Spanish Civil War, where he was shot in his neck and was lucky to survive. All his experience from defending Spain’s freedom against Franco’s Fascism is well described in his Homage to Catalonia. Back in England during the Second World War, his health was far from perfection and Orwell was desperately finding a way to help his country in the war against new totality. In 1940 he perfectly knew the international politics as the experience in Spain gave him a practical show in terms of what the conditions in Europe were between the wars. The Soviet approach proved to be a disaster for Orwell and reactions in western Europe towards Hitler disappointed him as well. It was always very important for him to take a side. However now, he did not take any of opposite sides – not communism, nor the prevailing approach of western European countries that lay in non-involvement. Thus, a nonconformist was born. He stayed somewhere in the middle, criticising sharply the communism as well as the western society.

Posekaná, supporting her findings by citing Taylor in her thesis, claims that in 1940 came the change of view on war. She suggests that before, he could identify himself with George Bowling in Coming Up for Air as he, in a passive way, was waiting for the breakout of war, nervous and full of sorrow and nostalgia.

However now he came to conclusion that it was necessary to fight. Orwell explains that the reason for his immediate change of opinion was his dream. When the war broke out in the

12

dream he realized his patriotic tendencies and felt relief as this meant the end of uncertainty and expectations. 5

The same feelings accompany Coming Up for Air. In whatever way, it is important to realise that it is slightly imprecise to assume that Orwell was rather passive and that he resembled George Bowling before 1940. By this year, he was indeed full of emotions and experience from his visit to Spain where he went in 1936 to see and write about the Spanish Civil War. The fact that immediately after the arrival to Barcelona he joined the republican army and started to fight reveals that he was not like George Bowling. He was not afraid to risk his life in order to help to defeat the enemy of the democratic world he formed part of.

‘I had come to Spain with some notion of writing newspaper articles, but I had joined the militia almost immediately, because... in that atmosphere it seemed the only conceivable thing to do.’ (Crick 97).

It is then incorrect to state that in 1940 Orwell underwent any significant “turmoil” in his understanding and acting in connection with war as Posekaná claims (25). It was rather another step in his posture. In every aspect, he was not George Bowling before 1940. Orwell had many faces and passive and nostalgic Bowling formed just part of his personality. The devoted activist who fought against any form of totalitarianism and fascism was another one.

2.1.3 Social status

Orwell belonged to the lower-middle-class. He was socialist too. From his stay in Asia, he inherited a real disgust towards all of the colonist habits. Therefore he evaluated e.g. Rudyard Kipling6 for his description of the nineteenth-century colonial England though it does not automatically mean that he appreciated him (Voorhees 107). Then he lived among the lowest classes in Paris and London to understand and experienced their problems7. Consequently, he was perfectly aware of all the difficulties lower classes had to undergo, which did not make any better his consciousness about the capitalism of his times. He had excellent requisites to write about the real state of western European society and to name the

5 The translation of Posekaná: “Nyní si však uvědomil, že je třeba bojovat. Orwell vysvětluje, že důvodem pro jeho náhlou změnu názoru byl sen, který se mu zdál. Ve snu si uvědomil jednak své vlastenecké tendence a jednak pocítil úlevu, když ve snu vypukla válka, protože to znamenalo konec očekávání a nejistoty” (Posekaná 26).

6 The influence of Rudyard Kipling is further analysed in the subchapter 2.4 Inspiration. 7 Down and Out in Paris and London appeared as a direct reaction to his time in these cities. 13

most painful problems of his times, i.e. hypocrisy in colonialism, injustice, exploitation of the working class, inability to distinguish evil – Hitler, and totalitarian tendencies. Some of these aspects were more or less incorporated into Keep the Aspidistra Flying and Coming Up for Air, which led to the nonconformist behaviour of their main characters.

Orwell always struggled with two points of view. He condemned all that was related to an unequal distribution of power and wealth and at the same time, he acknowledged the quality of life in good old Britain before WWI, which, by contrast, was founded on uneven possibilities. For this, Rose calls him “an eternal contrarian” and “marvellously paradoxical” (The Cambridge 28). There were, in fact, more Englands Orwell referred to in his writings. He said that he was a “Tory anarchist”, which helps to explain a bit this unusual discord (George Orwell: A Reassessment 5). The Tory philosophy is based on traditionalism and conservatism. It seems that Orwell approved these values only from certain points of view. Regarding the quality of life, Orwell was very positive about Edwardian England, especially in Coming Up for Air where he had made Bowling a real patriot. The problem is that the standard of living Orwell praised was enabled by measures that he refused.

2.2. Orwell in the 1930s

It has been mentioned that for the majority of people who have been conscious about Orwell, the 1930s are the time before 1984 and Animal Farm. Nevertheless, it is the most prolific era of his writing. It was when he had been forming his political opinions and where he had been developing his writing style. There would not be any utopian and anti-totalitarian masterpiece without his writings in the 1930s. The first half of the 1930s opens Down and Out in Paris and London from 1933, which is the first major work. Orwell lived in these towns taking various jobs in order to be able to write about the lives of the working poor. In 1934, he published Burmese Days, which is an autobiographical and anti-colonial novel. A year later, A Clergyman’s Daughter was published, where he again concentrated on social issues.

The interest in describing the stories of ordinary people remained Orwell biggest challenge and the second half of the 1930s starts, in 1936, with Keep the Aspidistra Flying. Most of his novels are at least partly autobiographical and also the main hero – Gordon Comstock – carries certain qualities of his author. The life of lower and lower-middle-classes has never been easy and Orwell always felt bound to point out the difficulties in their effort to

14

survive. The Road to Wigan Pier followed in 1937 to confirm his preferences in dealing with the uneasy conditions of the working class together with autobiographical features.

The Second World War was approaching and Orwell spent half a year in the Spanish Civil War to help the fight against fascism. The result came with the book Homage to Catalonia that recounts his experience and serves as a great source for those who want to understand the political difficulties of that period of time.

The decade chronologically closes in 1939 with Coming Up for Air which foreshadows upcoming world conflict and shows another ordinary and uninteresting man, i.e. an anti-hero who nostalgically recalls his childhood.

The question arises whether Orwell was more of a writer or a political commentator. The fact is that politics formed an inseparable part of his existence. It is difficult to explain Orwell’s dealing with international affairs. What can help is Hitchens’s idea that says “what Orwell is not” (131) pointing to the fact that he is not consistent in the development of his political ideas. Rankin adds that “the problem is that Orwell never clearly explained how his “democratic socialism” would function” (83). Truth or not, it is possible to claim that Hitchens had difficulties in finding at least something to criticise about him and he became a devoted supporter of Orwellian thoughts. Touching the consistency in Orwell’s expressions, one can find that there are numerous aspects he focuses on. He favours democratic socialism, supports anarcho-syndicalism, criticises social injustice and inequality, fights against any kind of totalitarism, and speaks against imperialism and colonialism8. These are really broad areas of interest and one can always find something to criticise in a person with such a wide range of interests. If there is anything that can be reproached in him, it is his conviction that common sense is the value that should be applied first. Orwell often encouraged people to rely on their common sense, however, it has to be noted that in the name of common sense people historically believed in various things. Long ago, it was clear that the Earth was flat or that the witches should be hanged. Seen from this perspective it is not very clever to appeal to people’s judgements based on universal truth.

8 The thesis gives examples of most of these aspects by quoting from Keep the Aspidistra Flying and Coming Up for Air. 15

2.3. Forms of writing

Dealing with the literature of the 1930s, Levenson wrote that Orwell “was writing after the heady days of modernism and beneath its shadows” (The Cambridge Companion 59). What was typical of that period must have appeared in his writing. What it brought to society and how it was reflected in social issues was crucial for the content of Orwell’s novels and essays. Regarding the form, modernists left the concept of a novel as a complex, extensive and well-elaborated work, which was Orwell’s dream earlier in his youth. In the essay Why I Write Orwell confesses about his writing beginnings that “I wanted to write enormous naturalistic novels … full of detailed descriptions … and full of purple passages in which words were used partly for the sake of their sound” (Decline 182). Nevertheless, his experience led him to a different way and he became a writer who used mainly exact words in order not to leave any space for ambiguity. He disliked euphemisms and paid special attention to remain clear, truthful and consistent in his writing, which stood him in opposition to modernist features.

Orwell is well-known mainly for his novels. However, fiction forms only a part of his portfolio. Apart from being a novelist, Orwell wrote dozens of essays and critical articles. As Voorhees states, “the interest in the ordinary man which characterizes the fiction … also characterizes his literary criticism.” (105). It has to be mentioned that most of them were published later, in the 1940s, but e.g. A Hanging from 1931 is considered by Michael Hiltzik9 as “one of the five greatest Orwell’s essays” (George Orwell’s). Among others, there are Bookshop Memories from 1936, and Shooting an Elephant related to the same year and inspired by his Burmese experience. The Road to Wigan Piers published in 1937 comprises autobiographical essays Down the mine and North and South. Motives to write Homage to Catalonia dealing with Spanish Civil War served also to publish an essay Spilling the Spanish Beans (1937) that criticised the international Left during this conflict.

It is clear that with Orwell, content was always of bigger importance than the form. What describes his development best is Hunter’s point where he adds another piece to a mosaic of the author’s professional growth.

Orwell's methods as a novelist, however, were hardly at all fixed in the thirties. He was still in transition, still looking for an independent style, and still conscious of owing a debt to older writers which he could repay only by imitation (Hunter 40).

9 A Pulitzer Prize winning Columnist (George Orwell’s Five Greatest Essays) 16

2.4. Inspiration

The theme of the thesis is closely connected to politics, which explain subchapters 2.1.2 and 2.1.3. Nonconformism can have various connotations. One can be a nonconformist in relation to housing or working habits, toward family traditions or religious ones. Nevertheless, Comstock and Bowling are unconventional considering political, macroeconomic and social customs. That is why it is essential to know what had driven Orwell to his postures.

Orwell said that “reading was good preparation for writing” (Crick 93). Particularly, there were several significant writers that he appreciated and took as a reference for their styles and the content of their writing. At the same time, however, there were novelists whom he criticised. All of them formed his style. If the goal is to examine a particular aspect of Orwell’s writing, it is vitally important to get to know the writer before one can judge his work. Orwell himself expresses this idea in his essay Why I write (Decline 182). What influenced him can help us to understand why he decided to create Gordon Comstock and George Bowling in the way they are.

The first author to mention is Herbert George Wells. The reason is that George Bowling, the (anti)hero of Coming Up for Air himself mentions Wells as the author who caught his interest most. What is more, Hunter in this book sees a continuator of the tradition originated in Dickens and Wells. He also claims that Wells “is a major influence in his10 life” as well as many other leftist colleagues (Hunter 39). He goes even deeper in his analysis of Orwell’s relation towards Wells as he suggests that “Orwell was Wells’ creation” (41). Also Crick refers to Wells as a “heritage” and a writer that meant a lot to him (Crick 250). Meyers directly quotes Orwell saying that “I have a great admiration for Wells as a writer and he was a very early influence on me.” (Meyers 89).

Another artist from whom George Orwell was influenced was Charles Dickens. According to Orwell in his essay called simply Charles Dickens, he is a fairly controversial person as for his heritage the world of literature inherited. It would be inaccurate to suppose that Dickens served as a clearly positive example to Orwell. By thinking of him, Orwell rather realised what Dickens is not and then he could be more specific about what direction as a writer he wanted to go. Orwell’s passion for the truthful, critical and accurate style of writing

10 In Orwell’s life 17

avoiding euphemisms and vague words is well-known. He likes to go into detail and describe the background, mentioning purpose and possible solutions. These are the characteristics Orwell reproached him of lacking. It seems that Dickens simply stood on the other side of the literary barricade.

Nevertheless, to be precise, there are qualities that Orwell praised, especially Dickens’ ability to write from the child’s point of view. If we consider the importance of childhood in Orwell’s works, namely in Coming Up for Air, it is possible to understand Orwell’s ambivalent posture towards Dickens. Another positive feature in Dickens is that he was not vulgar towards foreigners, which was in sharp contrast with the predominant British patriotic opinion that was militant, superior and violent as e.g. Kipling shows.

Orwell generally criticised his ignorance and vagueness on the one side and on the other side he appreciated some outcomes proceeding from it. Therefore Orwell’s nonconformism can be seen as a result of his setting against Dickens (Decline 82-140). Not by chance is George Bowling called by Crick “a Dickensian hero” (Christopher Hitchens).

Jonathan Swift is important for Orwell thanks to his dedication to the themes of humanity, political satire, and critical thinking. Crick in his biography states that when famous enough, Orwell was compared to Swift (65).

Gulliver’s Travels was the most popular of Orwell’s books from his youth. For that matter, Orwell himself admits in an “imaginary interview” with Swift that “Gulliver’s Travels has meant more to me than any other book ever written” (The Lost Writings 112). Despite the fact that it served as inspiration for Animal Farm rather than for the subjects of our interest, even there it is possible to find the influence of the nonconformist aspects in Keep the aspidistra Flying and Coming Up for Air. Working with Orwell’s essay Politics vs. Literature: An Examination of Gulliver’s Travels, it is the age and two children that Gulliver and Bowling have primarily in common.

“Gulliver is there to provide a contrast” says Orwell (Selected 121). In a certain sense, he could fall into a category of nonconformists, which connects him to Comstock and Bowling. Both can be seen as that they play a role of contrastive feature towards the mainstream society that Orwell could realise when reading Swift. Orwell also comments that “Gulliver is simply Swift” (122). In the same way Comstock and Bowling could be considered as alter-egos of their author.

18

As Part I of Gulliver’s Travels can be seen as a kind of satire, both Comstock’s nonconformist war on money and Bowling’s unconventional trip to his childhood can be seen as a satire of British society, especially in relation to the lower-middle-classes (the proletariat) and the political system in Britain in the first third of the 20th century. Swift was without any doubt very influential for Orwell. However, he was also able to find mistakes from him as he called him “a diseased writer” (Selected 140) something that has been questioned by Michael L. Ross who pointed out at Orwell’s own “psychological amateurism” in his fiction (George Orwell: A Reassessment 160).

Rudyard Kipling belongs to a group of writers that for Orwell matters. According to Crick, Orwell had a complicated relation to him. Despite being among his favourite writers in childhood, his attitude had been changing as he had gained experience (Crick 157). Nevertheless, in Orwell’s own words in 1940, Kipling matters not from the inspiratory point of view, but due to his racist, aggressive, militant and “class-prejudice” style (Decline 51). In the 1930s, Kipling was one of those famous people Orwell argued against. Also because of others who mattered in this sense, he wrote novels such as Keep the Aspidistra Flying or Coming Up for Air. In his essay, Rudyard Kipling, he brought him under crushing criticism. Notwithstanding, Orwell always tried to be objective and what he saw as positive was Kipling’s “sense of responsibility” and the historical value of his work (Decline 19, Voorhees 107). These two significant writers were both great patriots, however, from different angles. As the love of English countryside is mentioned in the subchapter dedicated to his childhood (2.1.1.), Rahman helps here to understand the different perception of his love for the nation claiming that Orwell’s “concept of patriotism is different from offensive nationalism. Like Kipling, Orwell admired British bravery, valour, skill and patriotism. But he condemns the abuse of imperialism and its economic explanation” (Rahman 13). Kipling’s preferred qualities definitely did not pose Comstock, nor Bowling.

The last contribution to the issue of Orwell’s inspiration is dedicated to the personality of Jack London. Both were considered rather on the left side of the political spectre, which makes believable why Orwell defended London in his essay from 1943. The brutality, suffering, and bad luck that predominate in his prose helped Orwell to understand the weak points of Socialist intellectuals and create Gordon Comstock a bit more suffering and bitter towards capitalism in his rebellion against the world ruled by money (The Lost Writings 125). Orwell’s confession about his will to write a naturalistic novel, that is mentioned at page 15 can also help us understand his later liking for London.

19

The authors mentioned above are, of course, not the only ones who influenced him. Bowker among others speaks about Joyce, Shaw, Thackeray, Foster, Conrad, or Hardy (15). Ross mentions also Oscar Wilde, or Henry Miller and his Tropic of Cancer as widely influential (George Orwell: A Reassessment 158, 172). These artists were not listed as this is a chapter that does not directly deal with the main goal of this thesis, and that would be inappropriately long and misleading.

It is believed that the final products, which are in this case the two early Orwell novels, cannot be successfully analysed without a deeper conscience about the author’s history. Chapter two intended to give at least a basic summary of Orwell’s experience, values and visions. To sum up the personality of George Orwell, it is hardly believable that someone with such a talent for observation, ability to write, to think, and call things as they really are, an Englishman with clear humanistic and democratic ideas free of hypocritical and bureaucratic thinking, was not identified and praised enough during his life and was until 1984 and Animal Farm almost unknown. History, however, proved his prophecies and brought Orwell’s greatness into full light.

3. Nonconformism

Jeffery Meyers says that “Orwell is a literary non-conformist whose work defies genres, a writer who is hard to place” (Rahman 14). With this statement in mind, it is interesting to investigate his early works from the point of view of the unconventional behaviour of his heroes.

The platform on which this thesis is built upon is nonconformism. But what does this word stand for? Let’s keep an eye on its meaning. Basically, it is a kind of behaviour. A behaviour that is difficult to bind with definitions and to give a label that would be valid in every situation. Once determined and affixed with denotation, it stops to fulfil its primary goal. The word “nonconformist” means unstable, unpredictable and disobedient. To connect it with definition, it enters into the world of conformity and the word loses its meaning, it dies.

Merriam-Webster says that it is a “failure or refusal to behave the way most people behave” (“nonconformism”). One of the points of view that can be applied is that nonconformism is a synonym for escapism. When one is nonconformist, it means that he or she does not want to be identified with the norm or majority and can feel the necessity to escape. There is an

20

interesting idea formulated by Hunter that says that the main heroes of the subject of this thesis compared to Wells’ The New Machiavelli, are unsuccessful or just temporal escapists (41). It is true because both Comstock and Bowling escape for some time and finally come back to the mainstream.

Thus, Gordon Comstock and George Bowling are nonconformists and it can be said that they are almost the same. Nevertheless, the aim of this thesis is to find out, to analyse and compare whether it is truth, or not. The paper intends to go into details and put into investigation these two characters from their respective books, to come to the conclusion that will say to what extent they are nonconformists, anti-heroes and why.

Nonconformism in its modern sense started to play a quite important role in literature in the 20th century. There were, of course, lots of heroes similar to Comstock and Bowling throughout the history of literature. Hamlet, Byronic heroes, or Leopold Bloom also did not fit into the category of fair, positive, reliable, balanced men who were worth following. In older, let’s say classical literature, main characters usually played roles of real heroes; somebody with the right values, men endowed with strong authority. The reader’s goal was to identify with their behaviour as they were representatives of norms.

However, literature is a vivid organism and needs to go forward and overcome itself. Without constant change, it would stop existing. That was the case of the transformation of heroes into anti-heroes. The readership in the early 20th century was getting wider as more and more people could afford to buy books. Writing for masses was no longer only about a good guy against evil, standard norms and official values. The wider audience needed new plots and pieces of literary work started to resemble their everyday problems and lusts.

Of course that a certain kind of anti-hero appeared much earlier. As an example, it is enough to mention famous Spanish anti-heroes Don Quijote de Miguel Cervantes from the 17th century or the even older Lazzarillo de Tormes from the 16th century, a picaresque hero and a small smuggler who made fun of the people around him. However, the world in the 1st half of the 20th century was much different from that of the first anti-heroes and therefore it is possible to talk about the trend or era of anti-heroes in English literature. Orwell was a pioneer whom the reader without knowing the date of his birth could easily include among postmodernists from the second half of the century. Keep the Aspidistra Flying and Coming Up for Air are preludes to 1984 that thanks to its paranoid tone could compete with masterpieces of the postmodern period.

21

What is, then, nonconformism? It is a philosophical question. How many points of view it can have, so many explanations can exist as well. Nonconformism taken as a broad tendency definitely receives its meaning according to the period in which is used.

Focusing on one of the subjects of the thesis, Gordon Comstock could have lived a quite successful life but he decided – absolutely consciously - to fall into poverty and suffer from hunger. Can we put an equalizer mark between nonconformism and poverty? Certainly not. Pultar examined morality in Orwell’s prose and he believes that:

… Orwell describes the positive features of poverty as well. These include primarily the notion of freedom related to the lack of property which could potentially be lost and a freedom to behave in a usually unacceptable way. He highlights the liberating impact of poverty on one’s personality by which he explains the eccentricity of some of the impoverished characters in the Parisian section of the book … Orwell studies the liberating effect of the lack of property... (Pultar 31).

Is then nonconformism the idea of freedom that comes from the lack of property? The measuring scale is highly individual and it depends only on the perception of a concrete person. The nonconformism is a way of being. It is brave not to go with the mainstream. It can also have bad faces and taking this into account, everything falls into the sphere of relativity where nothing is black or white and where everything is unsure.

George Bowling, in front of his wife, pretends a business trip in order to visit his hometown. He must, because his wife would not believe his right aim – to come up for air. She would feel a woman behind it. All he wants is to forget for a couple of days his recent life that suffocates him. He wants to dive into his nostalgic memories. Neither this, is a pure nonconformity. What he only wants to do is to recycle his thinking by taking some days off, out of reach of his recent life. It is the “deed” of a man who is facing a war - a man who is anxiously aware of the upcoming disaster. Although Orwell criticised people’s lack of interest in war, many fellows must have had similar feelings as Bowling. As shown above, the nonconformism is a broad notion. In different backgrounds and under different conditions it can have various faces. The chapter starts with a clear message about whether the author inclines to the nonconformism or not. The protagonists show two different approaches with which nonconformism can be expressed. The following two chapters, including their subchapters dealing with the dynamics, will analyse the main characters of the two novels in detail.

22

4. Gordon Comstock

The main character in Keep the Aspidistra Flying is an average man, a typical representative of English lower-middle-class in his times. There are thousands of others with similar destinies – hard, meaningless or boring work, low salary, no existential problems but without any great expectations. Their lives are like peas in a pod. They are pieces in a big machine, important pieces, but replaceable. They are a part of a big factory that produces masses of men with one clear goal – to go to work and spend money they earn - in other words, to serve. They live in an imaginary cell that gives them a certain feeling of freedom and power to decide, but only to certain extent. It is a class-system world where it is hard to go up, but very easy to fall down, which is proved by Comstock’s words in the following extract:

London! Mile after mile of mean lonely houses, let off in flats and single rooms; not homes, not communities, just clusters of meaningless lives drifting in a sort of drowsy chaos to the grave! He saw men as corpses walking…. Look at all these bloody houses, and the meaningless people inside them! Sometimes I think we're all corpses. Just rotting upright.' (Keep 91-92).

Orwell’s own life is partly resembled in Comstock’s history. While according to Crick, Keep the Aspidistra Flying cannot be considered as an autobiographical book (136), Bowker claims that this was Orwell’s most autobiographical book to date (169). Their families belonged to the lower-middle-class, which is nothing to be proud of as it is written in the book11 and both Orwell and Comstock underwent social inequalities during their studies.

His character is set in England in the 1930s. England is recovering from WWI and has no intention to be involved in another huge conflict. Great American Depression from 1929 extends its consequences also to its closest European business partner and a high unemployment scares also millions of Englishmen. General insecurity crashes mainly lower and middle-classes.

Gordon Comstock realises it quite painfully. He is resentful and fed up with all the system that governs around him. Levenson proposes a theory of social “trauma” with which he enters

11 “The Comstocks belonged to the most dismal of all classes, the middle-middle class, the landless gentry. In their miserable poverty they had not even the snobbish consolation of regarding themselves as an “old” family fallen on evil days, for they were not an “old” family at all, …” (Keep the Aspidistra, 31). 23

the story (The Cambridge Companion 67). However, he does not want to just digest it and live with it. When among young, unsatisfied and angry men appear someone capable of action, it usually leads to protests, but Gordon Comstock is not a leader. He does not know whether or not he wants to change the world. He is a poet, but not a revolutionary one. On the other hand, it is true that when he was at public school, almost everyone in his age was a revolutionary:

Every public school has its small self-conscious intelligentsia. And at that moment, in the years just after the war, England was full of revolutionary opinion. … For a whole year they ran monthly paper called Bolshevik … It advocated Socialism, free love, the dismemberment of the British Empire, the abolition of the Army … (Keep 48).

Nevertheless, when he grew older, his revolutionary ideas completely disappeared. It is visible in the conversation with his friend, Ravelston, an editor of Socialist magazine Antichrist. ”Oh Socialism! Don’t talk to me about Socialism … Give me five quid a week and I’D be a Socialist” (Keep 92).

What he certainly is, is a nonconformist – a nonconformist who feels that he did not choose it voluntarily. And he knows who, or what is responsible for such a miserable life – it is money. Therefore, Gordon Comstock declares war on money. Even though it sounds ideal in the times of big manifestations and riots, the truth is that he does not want to bother anybody else. It was his silent, private war where there were no shootings, no causalities, or even wounded people.

What did he want to achieve by this war? Was it a feeling of personal independence from the system? Did he want to inspire others? Did he want to show that one can be happy with as small a connection to the world of money as possible? No, probably not. Here, Orwell for some reason did not deal with the answers. Comstock was, in fact, a revolutionary theorist, a medium; a tool only to show how complicated, structured and elaborated was the western world of money, as the reader throughout the story learns his constant complaints.

… those moneyed young beasts from Cambridge write almost in their sleep – and Gordon himself might have written if he had a little more money. Money and culture! (Keep the Aspidistra, 6)

He was also a nihilist. He did not criticise only capitalism, he blamed also socialists and the lower-middle-class as well (The Cambridge Companion 68). Gordon was basically sure who or what was responsible for his misery. And this was his problem. He virtually could not

24

imagine that he should start to question himself instead of blaming money and all people just a little bit richer than him. He desperately wanted to write a good book. It was a big challenge. However, he did not feel able to do that. He was very good at finding excuses. Instead of thinking about what to do to change it, he always found something or somebody to blame. “Yeats, Davies, …, Hardy. Dead stars. … Eliot, Pound, … Spencer. … Dead stars above, damp squibs below. Shall we ever again get a writer worth reading?” (Keep 10).

4.1. Dynamics of Comstock’s character

Gordon could not be popular among people in his own surroundings. Intentionally the word friends, is not used, as he did not have any. He was a young, angry poet who was trying to find his place in society and was kicking those around him as much as he could. He was stubborn, ignorant, selfish and pessimistic. One would say he was a superficial anti-hero who was not worth-mentioning. Despite all of this, it is also possible to find some passages where Comstock naturally offers flashes of deeper thoughts, including some existentialist ones as in the example below:

Our civilization is dying. It MUST be dying. But it isn’t going to die in its bed. Presently the aeroplanes are coming. Zoom – whizz – crash! The whole western world going up in a roar of high explosives. (Keep the Aspidistra, 18).

This is a very interesting and important passage of the book. When you look at Comstock, in general, this thought is surprising and leads us to attempt to speculate about its meaning. There are several reasons for it. Firstly, it shows Comstock as a thinker in broader relations, much broader than anywhere else in the book. Orwell probably wanted him to be a little deeper than just an alcoholic and unsuccessful poet, who blames the world for his faults. Despite not showing any interest in politics as it was quoted earlier in the previous chapter, Gordon presented at least some concern about the world that surrounded him.

The second point is connected to the previous one in the purpose of his message about the world that is dying. It is assumed that the aeroplanes should have echoed the upcoming war. It can be presupposed that the western world will die because of bombing by military planes during the world conflict that is to come. In 1936 when this title emerged, Europe had been slowly forgetting the First World War and Orwell was starting his mission in Spain, where he wanted to write about their conflict with Franco. However, Mussolini and Hitler had been helping Franco, and another evil was arising. What is then interesting is the fact that Coming

25

Up for Air and not Keep the Aspidistra Flying, is considered to be a pre-war novel by which Orwell compensated his feeling about the end of peace-time in Europe.

Thirdly, the question is what is meant by “western” in the quotation. Is it that only the western world and not the rest of the planet is going to collapse? Again, there are various possibilities to consider. It has to be borne in mind that nowadays in the fully globalized world; it would have a slightly different meaning. Nevertheless, it is important to respect the conditions that ruled in Orwell’s world. The division between the western world – let’s say civilized and the rest of the world was comparatively bigger. One of possible explanations could be that Comstock did not consider the society he lived in as the most civilized in terms that he would not protest to a sort of regress. Another, less noble possibility, is that Gordon was so unbalanced and almost pathological that to him these phrases seemed no more than just a release of his anger with the evil of the western world, without any deeper meaning which is supported by another extract:

Better to reign in hell than serve in Heaven … Gordon's income was two pounds a week. Therefore the hatred of modern life, the desire to see our money-civilization blown to hell by bombs … Do you know that the other day I was actually wishing war would break out? I was longing for it--praying for it, almost. (Keep 92).

Not leaving the theme of war, it could be that he is speaking about war where the battlefield is Europe and the USA. Another assumption develops from the fact that money is much more rooted in the western world than anywhere else on Earth. In fact, for Gordon, the western world equals money and vice versa. The last concept about the meaning of the extract works with an idea that Orwell did not want Comstock to be any deeper and just let him pronounce this judgement as a recent superficial thought without any knowledge of the things around him – the judgement that comes only from Gordon’s anger with the world of money, of which the western world is the best representative.

Comstock was, in fact, lost - lost in his head. He chose his future voluntarily. He chose freedom in poverty that would unbind him from all the problems people have with money – debts, mortgages, bad sleep, difficult decisions about where to invest and the fear of being robbed. At school his view of the world was as clear, simple and pure as the minds of young thinkers usually are. His radicalism crystallized into the opinion that man has only two

26

options: to live in wealth, or to negate even any attempts to attain it. From this constellation, Gordon came to a conclusion that the worst thing to do is to try to make money and fail.

His choice should make him happy. But Gordon was not happy. He was cruel to all, including himself, and blames money for all of his and the world’s problems. He even blames money for not being able to develop a meaningful relationship with his girlfriend. He blamed money for all the difficulties that prevented him from having better and more equal relationship with his friend and possible editor Ravelston, the only people together with Rosemary, his girlfriend, who were willing to help him to get out of his poor existence. That was Gordon Comstock, blaming everything, angry at everybody, except himself - unable to receive any helping hand from outside. There seems to be no logic in his treatment of the world. This is the image of a pure nonconformist and antihero.

Nevertheless, he was not made of stone. To turn him human, Rosemary needed to have supernatural patience in order to survive beside him. And finally, she won. Despite his methods, because it was nothing to be proud of, he gave her a baby. Painfully he realised that from that moment on it was not just about him and his private war. It was them and he had to face it as a real man. He lost. He was defeated by the money as he did not dare to go ahead in his protest, having a baby to raise. The nicest thing turned out to be the fact that finally he did not care. He did not feel defeated, nor humbled. He was the happiest man on Earth and finally realised what values were immortal. From a young revolutionary teenager, through a short but intensive war on money, a radical posture that could have easily ruined his and Rosemary’s lives forever, finally back to a prospective middle-class man, conformed into the structures of – according to his opinion – the decaying capitalistic world that a couple of years ago, had nothing to offer him.

There are two lines from which Comstock could be observed. The first follows a pattern of a persistent adventurer who had believed in something. Somebody who had managed to suffer for two years and would have kept it up if something more important had not happened that stopped his effort. From this point of view, it is a pity that he did not win his war. The second pattern shows him as a selfish, egoistic and ignorant personality who rebels but do not give any solutions. However, it is the readers’ choice to decide which of the labels to give him.

Orwell intended to show a life of a man who represented millions of his fellows in a country that has always been strongly bound with class struggle. Disillusion is omnipresent. His hero is sentenced to live in the boundary of his class whatever he does. Dissatisfied with

27

the social rank of his family, a young student became an angry young man, fifteen years before the emergence of the famous literary movement represented by John Osborne or Kingsley Amis. Up to this moment, Gordon’s life resembles that of his author. However, this fictional personality remains angry and resistant up to the point of the birth of his child. This event can be considered as the rising moment of the story that shook all of Gordon’s convictions and made him surrender his war on money. Nevertheless, from a different angle, it is a victory that saves his life and gives birth to a new man. The man who is willing to fight another battle that is much more important and worthy. In fact, two people were born, which could represent a spark of optimism in Orwell’s view of society. Sometimes we are blind to the best option and not before the help from outside we are able to accept the right solution. Gordon was radical and led a personal war against the dictate of money. But he was not a loser. He had to demonstrate an extraordinary stamina not to give in. This probably helped him later when he fought for the better life of his child. In fact, he was a warrior, which shows certain nobility – a characteristic typical of the upper-classes he hated. At least he won at something and managed to put the label of anti-hero out from him. His attitude probably did not bring anything ground-breaking to his fellows but it strengthened a man that was bringing up a new individuality. By reading Comstock’s story, the reader has a chance to think of his/her own life. That is what Orwell probably had in view.

5. George Bowling

The past is a curious thing. It’s with you all the time. (Coming 14)

To introduce the protagonist of Coming Up for Air, it would be possible to use similar words that describe Gordon Comstock. Of course, they are not identical, but they have one important thing in common – they are not happy with themselves. This fact becomes the catalyst for changes in their lives, changes that can be qualified as unusual, or nonconformist.

The story of the character George Bowling takes place in the second half of the 1930s near London. What was written about the hero of the previous book, Gordon Comstock, is valid also here. What is new is the prevailing feeling of nervousness from the conflict that seems to be coming. It is in the air, it can be smelt and George Bowling admits it more than others. It is an unbearable insecurity and a feeling that the good old things are gone. Brannigan claims that “Orwell was concerned in the 1940s with writing about the future” (Brannigan 4). Coming Up for Air, that was released in 1936, proves that future interested him even before. 28

Going back to the description of Bowling, it can be said that he is a middle-aged man of average height, weight and look; a man with an average income, average family and correspondent state of mind. At forty-five, he starts to re-evaluate his life. The symbolic trigger seems to be his new temporary false teeth. He sees himself a bit fat, but not ugly. He is quite realistic in considering his physical appearance; however, he does not qualify himself as a loser. Women do not interest him any longer. At any rate, the suspicion of infidelity brings him finally into big trouble. He describes himself as “too old to fight … too fat to want the women … and too fat to be a political suspect” (Coming 94).

As for the relation between the author’s real life and some parts in the book, there are several interesting hints and, or similarities. Posekaná in her thesis mentions some of them.

At the age of five, Erik was sent to school in Henley where he did well. After that he was a devoted fisherman, which appeared in Coming Up for Air. Fictional Lower Binfield where Bowling spent his childhood is according to Crick probably Henley. Real citizens could have served as inspiration for the characters in the novel. … Later in Coming Up for Air, Bowling applied a similar approach. He was sure that if war breaks out, things around him would remain the same as before.12

Later, she gives another example where a real event from Orwell’s family life influences Bowling’s destiny in the book. It is the part of the book where George Bowling is in the Army, serving as a guard of food supplies. This idea has origins in Orwell’s father’s military experience as he entered the Army when he was sixty (Posekaná 12). It is well-known that also the author himself was a soldier. He did not serve in the British Royal Army, but he did fight against fascism in the Spanish Civil War as a volunteer. The cue in the story lies in a discussion with a young enthusiast during a lecture on Hitler that he attended.

Probably some of his pals are fighting in Spain. Of course he’s spoiling for a war. How can you blame him? For a moment I had a peculiar feeling that he was my son, which in point of years he might have been.(Coming 86).

12 The translation of the extract from Posekaná: “V pěti letech byl Eric poslán do školy v Henley, kde si vedl velmi dobře. Od té doby byl nadšeným rybářem, což se projevilo v jeho díle Coming Up for Air. Město Lower Binfield, ve kterém hlavní hrdina knihy prožil své dětství je podle Cricka pravděpodobně Henley. Vyskytují se zde také postavy, jejichž předlohou mohli být skuteční lidé, které v Henley znal…. Později v románu Coming Up for Air měl podobný přístup i hlavní hrdina George Bowling, který si byl vědom, že i kdyby propukla válka, v jeho kruzích se mnoho nezmění” (Posekaná 12).

29

Here, through the eyes of George Bowling who experienced the fighting of WWI, taking the high road, Orwell remembers his time in Spain.

Fishing, which is also mentioned by Posekaná, among other things, plays an immersed role in this work. Fishing is all about his childhood. It stands for the unspoiled world. Despite the fact that the last time he went fishing he was sixteen, it is still more important than women for him. The way he speaks about fishing reveals that it is a kind of religion for him - a stable point in the world that is spinning around him. Bowling is sentimental but realistic. As it is connected to his childhood he understands that it may never come back. He does not want to be young again. After all, his wife is clear about his longing and laughs at it. For George, however, it is something that represents the right state of things - a solid foundation. He says that “fishing does not belong to the modern world” (Coming 40). It is a symbol13.

Another aspect in searching for similarities in Orwell’s and Bowling’s lives is the family background. Bowling mentions the origin of Hilda’s parents and uses the term “Anglo-Indian” (Coming 74). The author himself was born in Bengal, India, which is mentioned in the chapter dedicated to his childhood and therefore here is another example that confirms that Coming Up for Air is partly autobiographical. Bowling describes the typical interior of an Anglo-Indian family house.

What can be seen as a clear link between the author and his character are the preferred writers that Bowling refers to. In the book, reading is considered to be the second love of the protagonist, just after the fishing. He declares Wells’ The History of Mr. Polly as the writing that most caught his interest. ”Wells was the author who made the biggest impression on me” (Coming 64).

This is very interesting because according to Cavendish, Wells’ novel from 1910 can be considered as “the obvious precursor to Coming Up for Air” (Cavendish).

The fact that Orwell was a devoted reader, Crick declares in his autobiography, saying that in deference to many other intellectuals, Orwell was open to the best of English prose throughout its history, mentioning H.G. Wells among others (Crick 48).

The last example from the similarities between the real life of the author and his character that are possible to be found in the book is their connection with the future. Generally, Orwell puts his concerns about the future into many of his books. Here it is the upcoming war that bothers

13 Symbols are scrutinized in chapter 7. 30

him visibly more than English society. The threat of Hitler became real and changed totally the world Orwell loved, in the same as with his “big brother” in 1984 that has now turned into industrial cameras and the internet.

The story is narrated in the 1st person singular and Bowling is an avid narrator. Especially in the parts dedicated to his childhood, there is a tendency to describe it as if it happened a few days ago. Even though he is talking about events that happened 30 years ago, it is vivid and detailed. Generally, he comments on everything that happens around him.

5.1. Dynamics of Bowling’s character

George is an introvert who keeps his nonconformism inside. The battlefield of his struggle is actually in his head. He is a melancholic, silent man, who does not stop thinking about the meaning of his being. George is very busy with evaluating everything he has reached so far and very sceptical as for his predictions of the future. It is vital to say that he is not very content with his family life as he does not have a high opinion about his wife nor his daughter. In fact, his wife is described as not very attractive and always very cautious with money.

Old Hilda was glooming behind the teapot, in her usual state of alarm and dismay because the News Chronicle had announced that the price of butter was going up, or something. She hadn’t lighted the gas-fire, and though the windows were shut it was beastly cold. … Hilda is thirty-nine, and when I first knew her she looked just like a hare. So she does still … (Coming Up or Air 4).

George Bowling is an instant complainer. He is a pessimist that is able to see things very darkly. Grey would be the colour that would best describe his attitude about life. He seems to have no bright expectations, partly from the fate that goes with most of the lower-middle-class people, partly because of a war that is slowly approaching the British Isles. He cannot see anything positive about his being on Earth and the only way to conform his mind is to escape to the past. Bowling desperately wants to flee from his recent life, at least for some time; to stop and relax, to gasp for a breath of the freshness that surrounded him all his youth in the place where he lived, just to come up for air.

The author of the book was an ardent fisherman and so is the hero. Orwell is able to dedicate pages to just describing his memories of fishing. There is something natural to it. It is a symbol of an unspoiled world where the water was so clear to have fish in it, compared to the

31

poisoned reality. Lower Binfiled is the place of Bowling’s birth and childhood. A pure, conservative but beautiful place, that symbolises the good old times that will never be the same. After the successful escape to his dreamy location, George can see a dirty hole full of stinky factories that produce nothing but smoke and rubbish. What a symbolism. For Bowling and mainly for Orwell, the atmosphere in England in 1939 represents a catastrophe on the eve of destruction.

The reader should not expect any bombastic ending. The melancholic atmosphere of the story perseveres to the end without any turbulences and Bowling, despite his shock from the state of things in Lower Binfield, comes back home to continue quarrelling with his wife that does not share his view of things. He bitterly realises that his trip was rather a wish, a childish idea that cannot come true. It only confirmed his prevailing feelings that the situation is serious and there is nowhere for him to escape. He is bound to live his grey middle-class life till the end, praying not to be among the war victims. In fact, we do not know if it would not have been better to die under the ruins of his house than to live the rest of the years of his miserable life. The truth is that there is almost no dynamism in his character. George Bowling continues through the story in the same mood from the beginning till the end. The following excerpt describes a part of Bowling’s trip to Lower Binfield, where he is trying to find the pool he used to know when he was younger:

The beech trees seemed just the same. Lord, how they were the same! I backed the car on to a bit of grass beside the road, under a fall of chalk, and got out and walked. Just the same. The same stillness, the same great beds of rustling leaves that seem to go on from year to year without rotting (Coming Up 123).

Nothing seems to interrupt his consistent setting and the story is rather a melancholic and gloomy narration with nostalgic features that basically illustrate the atmosphere of a country that has not recovered from one war and stands at the door of another.

On the other hand, not everything remains the same. The pool, finally discovered, is no longer the same. The time has changed; the pool is drained and has been turned into a rubbish dump. However, it is a change that cannot be considered as positive, or progressive. In fact, no change in Coming Up for Air is positive. The future is not bright and Orwell is quite negative about the upcoming events. The question is whether the sameness represents good, and the progress evil. The author does not give the reader any chance to look into the future with pink glasses. George Bowling is a character that opposes bildungsroman heroes. He should bring

32

us to the conclusion that progress does not automatically mean wealth and happiness and that the old good order does not mean anything old-fashioned.

Generally, men of Orwell’s age and time were not impressed by novelties, preferring the certainties they were surrounded by their whole lives. Bowling corresponds to the author’s mood. By means of the hero’s eyes, Orwell questions the progress that goes hand in hand not only with the devastation of the countryside where the pool can serve as a symbol, but also with the devastation of a peaceful life. Future expectations were not good for Bowling, nor for Orwell. Of course, WWII was at the door and nothing was sure; however, in 1939 they could not know what was to come.

Another level of the pessimism that interweaves the story lies in the hero’s ageing. Men in their forties in the first third of the twentieth century were seen much older that they are now. George Bowling is forty-five and starts to observe his appearance with concerns.

And I’m not what they call ‘disgustingly’ fat, I haven’t got one of those bellies that sag half- way down to the knees. It’s merely that I’m a little bit broad in the beam, with a tendency to be barrel-shaped … But at that moment I didn’t feel like the life and soul of the party. And it struck me that nowadays I nearly always do have a morose kind of feeling in the early mornings, although I sleep well and my digestion’s good (Coming 1).

Worries about good sleeping and digestion show that a man stands at the point where he re- evaluates his life. This posture might be caused by the fact that he realises that the beauty of youth has gone as he slowly grows old, and it is the same for his wife. The trip to Lower Binfield serves as a kind of curative care that should restart his taste for life. There is no other treatment than to travel back to the past. A new, innovative and fast-moving world is not the right option for the nostalgic man who tends to adore the good old days.

Even now, with my eyes open, so to speak, all those bloody fools hustling to and fro, and the posters and the petrol-stink and the roar of the engines, seemed to me less real than Sunday morning in Lower Binfield thirty-eight years ago…. I’m back in Lower Binfield, and the year’s 1900. … Is it gone for ever? I’m not certain. But I tell you it was a good world to live in. I belong to it (Coming 17).

Raul in his dissertation also dedicates to Orwell’s feeling of “hopelessness” expressed in an unpublished BBC talk:

"What you are not likely to find in the mind of any one in the year 1900, is a doubt about the continuity of civilization. If the world as people saw it then was rather harsh, simple and slow

33

moving ... things would continue in a more or less recognisable pattern, life might not get appreciably more pleasant."(Raul 45)

As can be seen, George Bowling looks like an average man; however, inside him there burns a conflict that can destroy an individual and consequently his family in a quite natural way. Bowling feels the pressure of modern times sensitively and only guesses whether his fellows feel the same. When there is no conventional way to extinguish the flames of his disappointment, he accepts the nonconformist solution, which ends up not working also because of his antiheroism. This thesis so far has covered some aspects of Orwell’s life that were crucial for the way Gordon Comstock and George Bowling were created. It also separately describes the characters themselves, pointing out at the dynamics of nonconformity in their behaviour. To be able to compare Comstock to Bowling and draw to a conclusion, it is vital to have a look more closely at the features that were significant in shaping Orwell’s future fictional protagonists. The following chapter sheds a light on the issues dealing of the main heroes’ characteristics in terms of what led them to their nonconformist attitudes.

6. Aspects playing roles in the choice of Orwell’s heroes’ personalities:

George Orwell lived in a certain time and place. He witnessed certain events and experienced various affairs. All of these influenced him in choosing the setting of his characters. As it is mentioned in the introductory part, he was a great observer of conditions that shaped the lives of individuals. He was not interested in details of living in wealth. He was a man of lower-middle-class origins dedicated his career to the defence of the rest of the spectra, to the majority. In order to obtain even more precise picture why and with what preconditions Orwell created Comstock and Bowling, this chapter tries to cover the issues that formed Orwell as a writer.

34

6.1. Colonial experience

The fact that he was born in an English colony and worked there for some time gave him insight to the imperial practice of his mother-country that in his youth still represented the world superpower. Treating locals from part of the white cream of society and the knowledge of the mentality of natives helped him to see clearly what the most striking problems in their coexistence were. These difficulties generally did not differ much from those that appeared between the rich and the poor in England. Snobbery, superiority, and lack of solidarity bothered the relations among people and Orwell was able to recognize it very well. He gives evidence in Why I Write where he admits that “the job in Burma had given me some understanding of the nature of imperialism” (Decline 184). Gordon Comstock is profiled clearly as a man who does not want to reconcile with the role in society. Orwell created a character that wrestles with the fate, does not matter whether successfully or not. Important for him is that he is active, not conciliated, angry and willing to do at least something to change the status quo. George Bowling also feels that things are not favourable to him. His protest is, however, much milder and here, Orwell made a character that is not able to go further to reach some change; a character that does not want any deeper conflict.

6.2. Interest in the poor

To write in a believable way, the author spent some time among poor and homeless people in Paris and London14. He found out how it was to be without money and he even got into the jail, which served as a certain inspiration for one situation in Keep the Aspidistra Flying where Comstock was imprisoned because of a nonconformist behaviour during one alcohol trip. Nevertheless, his interest in the poor was not based only on the interest formed by the relation observer - victim as usually left-wing intelligentsia did, and what he widely criticised. It was not only about a small trip to visit the lower-classes and go back to one’s life in wellness. Orwell felt it in his heart. He was a highly emphatic person. His experience as a scholarship boy in an expensive school, where the snobbery flourished, gave him first insight into the problematics of the English class-struggle.

14 Down and Up in Paris and London was created in 1932 to reflect this experience. 35

… he attended the expensive preparatory school … Orwell appears there as the school “rebel” and “intellectual.” He was later to write of the absolute misery of the poor boy at a snobbish school (Trilling commentarymagazine.com)

The meeting with the phenomenon of class belonging15, the unfair state approach showing the impossibility to study for the poor and bullying are reflected in his early novel. In A Clergyman’s Daughter, he touches the problematics of the attitude of the society towards school fees, in particular, that of parents of children studying at private schools.

On the one hand, they have only the dimmest idea of what is meant by education; on the other hand, they look on 'schooling' exactly as they look on a butcher's bill or a grocer's bill, and are perpetually suspicious that they are being cheated. (A Clergyman’s Daughter 200)

Poverty was touched in the previous chapter as it was claimed that Gordon Comstock chose to live in modest conditions. Pultar, who analyses Road to Wigan Piers and Down and Out In Paris and London dedicates a significant part of his thesis to the issue of poverty suggesting that “poverty carries both physical and psychological consequences” (Pultar 29). However, Gordon Comstock in Keep the Aspidistra Flying used to know only the second one, though in a very intensive way. According to his motto “You can be rich, or you can deliberately refuse to be rich. You can possess money, or you can despise money; the one fatal thing is to worship money and fail to get it.” Gordon decided not to even try to be rich (Keep 50). Nevertheless, then he painfully realised that to be a nonconformist was not as easy as he expected.

For after all, what is there behind it, except money? Money for the right kind of education, money for influential friends, money for leisure and peace of mind, money for trips to Italy. Money writes books, money sells them … O Lord, give me money, only money. … He was nearly thirty and had accomplished nothing. … It was the lack of money, simply the lack of money, that robbed him of the power to 'write'. … Money, money, all is money! Could you write even a penny novelette without money to put heart in you? Invention, energy, wit, style, charm--they've all got to be paid for in hard cash. (Keep 13-14).

15 For the first time in Burma (Decline 184). 36

As he tried to put the stress of money-world out of him, he later found that there was another kind of pressure replacing the old one. Pultar calls it “social stigma”, which the poor suffer from (29).

The time spent in Paris without money and later the Spanish adventure definitely formed his values. Hunter admits that e.g. Road to Wigan Piers is ideal to understand his relationship to the lower classes (39). The reader, then, can feel his “sympathy, tact and honesty” towards this issue (Hunter 40). Orwell simply needs to be close and understand as much as possible to the issue he is dealing with. With regard to this aspect, it is interesting to compare Down and Out in Paris and London to Keep the Aspidistra Flying. Pultar talks about Orwell revealing a liberating factor of being poor. In brief, this idea says that when you do not have much, there is nothing to worry about. You do not need to guard your material property, investments, nor your social status. You are free from this fear and you can live in presence without being afraid of the future because there is nothing to do about it. This is a concept that is very old and its first reference dates back to Diogenes of Sinope who lived in the 4th century BC in ancient Greece. Pultar comes to conclusion that “Poverty can therefore in a sense be regarded as true freedom” (Pultar 32).

George Comstock is poor and he wants to be poor. That is his biggest problem. He “took for granted that he himself would never be able to make money” (Keep the Aspidistra 38). The universal truth says that when you are strongly persuaded about something, then it comes true. By using Comstock as an example, Orwell describes people who are stuck in their social status. He refers to people who even do not want to try to do something with their lives. They persist on their poverty; they have poor aspirations reassuring themselves that it makes no sense to even try.

After developing this factor in his previous novels, Orwell changes the angle with Gordon Comstock. Gordon simply could not see any virtue in being poor. It is then not possible to confront the idea that poverty equals freedom with Comstock’s point of view as he cannot see anything positive about being poor despite doing everything possible not to become any richer. The problem of the English lower-middle-class was that too often they did not behave in a logical way. Upper-class members could show off and they could turn snobbish if they wish. Orwell takes this snobbishness as ammunition by showing Comstock family’s decision that

37

would fit the upper-classes and proved to be wrong and inadequate with a family like the Comstocks. Gordon was considered to be clever and sent to studies. He should have saved family’s reputation. In fact, he did not consider himself as clever and so he was not wealthy. His troubles at college refer to Orwell’s own suffering during his studies. There was Gordon’s older sister Julia who needed and deserved money more than Gordon, but after their father’s death, the sum of money left after him should have been taken to Julia, quitting Gordon out of school to find him job. Julia would have a business of her own. That would be a logical solution of the lower-middle-class family. However, here comes the paradox that Orwell was critical of.

Neither Julia, nor her mother would hear of Gordon leaving school. With the strange idealistic snobbishness of the middle classes, they were willing to go to the workhouse sooner that let Gordon leave school before the statutory age of eighteen. The two hundred pounds, or more than half of it, must be used in completing Gordon’s “education”. Gordon let them do it. He had declared war on money but that did not prevent him from being damnably selfish (Keep the Aspidistra 38).

The hero of Coming Up for Air does not suffer from lack of money and his recent problem is how to spend seventeen pounds that he secretly won in a horse-race. His poverty is actually inside him. It is a psychological state that arose from his unhappy marriage and disappointment from the development of the world. As he is emotionally empty, he decides to refuel his batteries by escaping to a place where his life started and also finished. In this case, it is the poverty of one’s soul. This emptiness might serve as the trigger to think of a nonconformist solution.

Pultar concludes that poverty leads to the loss of self-respect (67), which is not the case of Comstock. Bowling in the light of his effort to keep his trip secret might be seen that he is in doubts about himself as he does not stick to his guns and let his wife accuse him of cheating her. This attitude moves him into the category of anti-heroes.

6.3. Political preferences

What I have most wanted to do … is to make political writing into an art. (Decline 186)

38

Another and probably the most important aspect that helped to build Orwell’s characters was the politics. The author was a devoted and very active political commentator. He grew into a Socialist who had never paused to defend human rights with no respect to the amount of money, his opposition had in their pockets. As one of few intellectuals of his times, he clearly saw the danger not only of colonial, capitalist or fascist tendencies but also of left-wing totalitarian doctrine that helped him to create a complex message that should prevent people of falling to the obedience of any kind of totality, including that of money.

On the other hand, also an intellectual of his size had critics. The 1930s were times of significant shifts. Europe was recovering from WWI to fall soon into WWII. On the one hand, there were several newly independent states in Europe. On the other hand, the totalitarian tendencies were growing. Democracy and its defending mechanisms should have been tested in Spain at the end of the decade. Unfortunately, Spain proved that dictators were stronger than it was believed in England or in France. George Orwell was aware of the problems more than anyone else. What is more, Hitchens claims that Orwell was not mistaken with dictators and colonialism, considering them as the biggest dangers of the twentieth century (Rodden 147). His doubts proceeded from the knowledge of England’s imperial history16, the same as from the awareness of the poor situation of the English working class.

The question arises whether Orwell was more of a writer or a political commentator. The fact is that politics formed an inseparable part of his existence. It is difficult to explain Orwell dealing with international affairs. What can help is Hitchens’s idea that says “what Orwell is not” (131) pointing to the fact that he is not consistent in the development of his political ideas. Rankin adds that “the problem is that Orwell never clearly explained how his “democratic socialism would function” (Rankin 83), which surprisingly shows a contradiction because whether Orwell criticised somebody, he criticised him for not offering solutions. Truth or not, it is possible to claim that Hitchens had difficulties in finding at least something to criticise on him. Touching the consistency in Orwell’s expressions, one can find out that there are numerous aspects he focuses on. He favours democratic socialism, supports anarcho-syndicalism, criticises social injustice and inequality, fights against any kind of totalitarianism, or speaks against imperialism and colonialism. These are really broad areas of interest where one can always find something to criticise on a person with such a wide range of interests.

16 He spent five years in Burma, working as a police officer, which reflects his Burmese Days from 1934. 39

To sum these aspects up, Orwell’s range of interests and his knowledge created a rich reservoir of aspects that played the role not only in the choice of the characters of Gordon Comstock and George Bowling. The question if Orwell is more of a writer or a political commentator disappears when we realise that he frequently connected both aspects within one book. Autobiographical features, as well as personal opinions, accompany his protagonists to transmit a message that the author intended to leave among the readership. Good example of personal opinion can be provided by mentioning George Bowling’s idea about the character of his fellow during the Boer Wars and the First World War.

At that time everyone, even the Nonconformists, used to sing sentimental songs about the war. … They were all true Englishmen and swore that Vicky was the best queen …, but at the same time nobody ever thought of paying a tax, not even a dog-licence if there were any way of dodging it (Coming 43).

6.4 Fear

After got acquainted with sources dealing with the content of Orwell writing, it is possible to claim that Orwell’s works are interwoven with different kinds of fear. If there is anything that connects them, it is the fact that it is an Orwellian individual who faces various traps both in fiction and non-fictional stories and comments it. The scale is wide, but the common denominator is the fact that all the fears influence people’s daily life. To consider his writing until 1939, non-fictional Down and Out in Paris and London questions what poverty brings and takes, Burmese Days from 1934 deals with oppression and exploitation and A Clergyman’s Daughter (1935) combines the struggle of lower classes to get what they deserve with the criticism of the Church. The Road to Wigan Pear from 1937 shows the hard life of the real English proletariat and Homage to Catalonia gives a comprehensive overview of the complexity of the European national interests and shows their basic claims without any cover.

The subject novels of this thesis were intentionally not mentioned in the previous paragraph in order to analyse the aspect of fear more thoroughly. As Levenson states Keep the Aspidistra Flying and Coming Up for Air are part of Orwell’s response – “an active response” - to the social crisis in Europe after WWI (The Cambridge Companion 66). Considering fear, Gordon Comstock cannot be considered as a timid man. Contrarily, he is quite determined to continue his image as “two pound a week” person. He rather comments on other people’s fear from stepping out of the system, which is based on money. He replaces the feeling of being afraid of things like losing one’s job, having no insurance, or robbers stealing his property, for

40

anger. It is his indignation that dominates his inner emotions. However even in this novel, there are moments that would fit better in some of the previous novels as this extract shows:

How it eats at them, that secret fear! Especially on winter days, when they hear the menace of the wind. Winter, the sack, the workhouse, the Embankment benches! Ah! … Winter's coming. Is my job safe? The sack means the workhouse (Keep 70).

If there is any fear in Comstock’s life, it comes at the end of the story with the information that the baby is coming. The fear of responsibility brings finally his war to the end. This could be interpreted in the way that he failed in his conviction. But the weight of a thing such is the birth of a new man prevails and the reader does not finally consider Comstock as a loser.

George Bowling in Coming up for Air is a bit wealthier. He says that he falls into the category of “five to ten quid a week” (Coming 14). On the other hand, his fears are almost visible. Orwell projects into Bowling his experience in a battlefield and the threat of war is omnipresent in the protagonist’s mind. Nevertheless, this is not the only fear. Also here it is possible to see the problematics of keeping the job and the dignity that goes along with it. Orwell here let his hero observe the conversation between the shop assistant and her supervisor where the pressure to be a good servant play the main role. Bowling later comments on it and adds that people live under constant fear. When one fear disappears, then comes another. “Fear! We swim in it. It’s our element” (Coming 19). Levenson in his analysis goes further saying that according to Orwell, people only substitute their fears. A fear from feudalism became the fear from capitalism, from the totality of the institutionalised Church to totality of Marxism, from fascism to communism, etc. (The Cambridge Companion 72). In this, Bowling’s indignation resembles that of Comstock for whom this is the crucial point in his war. Similar to Keep the Aspidistra Flying’s hero, Bowling also criticised the intellectuals because it is their job to advise people what to do and according to him they failed. He gives the explanation pointing to the fact that one can be a member of intelligentsia only thanks to money. That is the reason why they cannot see the real problems of people they think they are helping. Bowling is the person who can see it. He is a common man the society is built on (The Cambridge 73).

Generally speaking, Orwell’s interest in seeking the truth and the ability in seeing the world’s affairs in connection to a destiny of an individual helped to produce literary characters that

41

cannot be considered as ignorant. Both Comstock and Bowling have opinions and arguments regarding world’s politics that, on the whole, is the fruit of Orwell’s rich overview.

7. Symbolism

The world of symbols mingles with literature in the same way as Laurel belongs to Hardy. Fiction is the field where authors connect facts with imaginary situations. It is the place where author’s dreams, emotions and fantasy meet real world of the reader. The symbolism is one of several means by which the author communicates his or her intentions and messages that should illustrate his or her goal. Firstly, symbols help to create an atmosphere of the novels. Secondly, they help to explain the feelings of their protagonists. Finally, they help to understand why the heroes decided for these radical postures to solve their personal problems.

This chapter is divided into two parts that reflect the symbols in their respective novels. Before diving into particular stories, there is one aspect that emerged after reading all the Orwell’s materials, which goes beyond these two novels, and that is the fact that Orwell was obsessed with an aversion to planes. Newly-born aircrafts serving mainly as killing weapons symbolised a drastic change that Orwell did not approve of. Not only that Coming Up for Air is the clear example, also Keep the Aspidistra Flying involves several passages where Orwell through the words of his main hero expresses the fear from aeroplanes. The essay Money and Guns continues in a similar way. Rahman, Bowker, and Raul also pay attention to Orwell’s fear from planes as killing machines. Hunter suggests that “Orwell sends his great black bombing planes across the sky with almost ludicrous frequency, as though he was writing an expressionist propaganda” (Hunter 43). Among others, in the opening line of the essay England your England Orwell says that “As I write, highly civilized human beings are flying overhead trying to kill me” (Selected 63).

7.1 Keep the Aspidistra Flying

7.1.1. Aspidistra

It is possible to say that the very first symbol in one of the examined books appears in its title. It is an aspidistra – a flower so popular that according to Orwell (through the words of

42

Comstock) decorated almost every window of English household. “It ought to be on our coat of arms instead of the lion and the unicorn. There will be no revolution in England while there are aspidistras in the windows.” (Keep 37). What does Gordon Comstock mean by “revolution”? It has to be realised that Comstock fights against the system. Is he dangerous? It is believed that he is not. The fact that he is not politically active, speaks against a hypothesis that he would know something about any revolution being prepared. What is more, Comstock regularly denies Ravelston’s offers to express himself in Antichrist17 in favour of Socialism. “Ravelston had been trying for years to convert Gordon to Socialism, without even succeeding in interesting him in it.” (Keep 73).

The point here lies in the fact that Gordon Comstock is an anti-hero, a nonconformist. He is able to criticise heavily the English society; however, he does not give any solution. “Revolution” is a symbolic word – a word that carries an action, and that is pronounced by a man who is totally passive. The aspidistras, therefore, symbolise the conformity of English society.

7.1.2. “Two-quid a week” wage

This amount of money symbolises a lot. Two-quid a week represents the reality of the life he has chosen. Paradoxically, the fact that it is his free will should make him happy. He left the world of money he hated so much in order to liberate and live according to his conviction, which normally makes people satisfied with their successful decision. But it did not. Gordon is not happier. To be more precise, he is not happy at all. He behaves as an angry, grumpy, impatient man who cannot do anything about his own life. He finds out that this is no “heroic gesture”, but “dingy habit” (Keep 48). Everything seems to him complicated. However, he admits that all his blaming of the outer world proceeds from his desire not to have two-quid a week but five. Therefore, this wage symbolises the same result of his choice, as the reason of his bad temper.

7.1.3. Antichrist vs. The New Albion

The Antichrist gives an impression of a sharp left-wing political magazine that addresses angry young men. Such paper should have an editor that is abundant in politically

17 Antichrist is a Socialist monthly magazine published by Ravelston 43

incorrect matters. In fact, Ravelston is not this kind of a person. And that is the problem of the Antichrist. The editor is too mild and emphatic with the lower-class that he accepts every piece of writing just to help to feed the poor.

The New Albion is a publicity company - young, small but growing. What is the most important to mention – it is a go-getting, progressive product of capitalism. The problem is that the word “progressive” in this sense means absolutely rotten and disgusting word for Gordon Comstock. What is even worse for him is the fact that the managing director loves him for his imagination and creativity. Working here would give Gordon stability and bright future – from the materialistic point of view. Only a nonconformist would not make use of it.

Comstock started to work in the New Albion but soon abandoned it to become an independent poet with only one friend – Ravelston, the editor of the Antichrist. He declared war on the money-world; however, in the first serious crossroad of his life (the birth of his child) he turned the steering wheel back to land and directed again to the New Albion. This symbolic trip could be possibly seen from many angles. First, he visits a dead-end-street to understand later that this is not the way as for social and family life. Secondly, the difference between the two employers cannot be bigger. In an imaginary scale measuring the attitudes towards materialism, they would stand at the very opposite sides. The drive and success built on the discipline of so-called new age product is embodied in The New Albion. The embittered, angry, sharp and free-minded magazine roaring the truth about the devil of capitalism is symbolised by the Antichrist. After all, even the names themselves evoke what has been meant by the author. Orwell must have chosen them absolutely intentionally in order to convey a certain message - a bright future against an entity that is banished. Knowing the author’s values and political postures, the question remains how much of irony Orwell put into these names. These two places where Gordon can work symbolise the pure opposition between the conformism (The New Albion) and the nonconformism (The Antichrist).

7.1.4 Women in Comstock’s life

The female characters in this story help to investigate the hero’s character. They may be seen as a mirror to the personality of Gordon Comstock. His older sister, Julia, is a woman that helps to keep him in a real life. Gordon is obsessed with his war on money, but he needs 44

Julia to get over, financially, the hardest moments. It results in borrowing money from her. Julia is a hard worker who has not experienced anything else except everyday work with the only goal, which is to survive. Nobody has never given to her anything for free. Her health is broken. However, she believes that her younger brother deserves help. She supports him when he is down - due to his senseless adventures and despite the fact that his poems do not say anything to her. She also does not understand his leaving the job in the New Albion. Basically, Julia is her brother‘s lighthouse.

When Gordon surprisingly happened to obtain ten pounds for the publishing one of his poems, which was an extraordinary sum of money, his first thought belonged to Julia. “And, oh! By the way! Julia’s fiver. He hadn’t sent it yet. No matter. Send it first thing in the morning. Good old Julia. She should have her fiver.” (Keep 125). However, he did not give it back to her. He spent all the money during one night as he got drunk and woke up at the police station. At any rate, if Gordon has ever felt a twinge of conscience, it was for Julia.

Rosemary was his girlfriend. It should be not a surprise that some of her characteristics have the real background (Bowker 163). He met her in the New Albion and she was his closest ally and the subject of his suffering at the same time. According to his philosophy, one cannot satisfy a woman if he hasn’t got any money. He loved her but he was not able to suppress his egoism and kept hurting her a lot. She was the connection to the real world as well as the shooting gallery for him to absorb his excesses of anger with the world of money.

And then there were Julia and Rosemary. … they had no shyness about speaking their minds. They did not say euphemistically that Gordon was 'right in principle'; they knew that to refuse a 'good' job can never be right. Over and over again they besought him to go back to the New Albion (Keep 159).

Together with Ravelston, these three people were Gordon’s guardian angels. Despite their minor roles, from the symbolic point of view, they can be identified in following ways: Ravelston represents an interesting offer to the world that could possibly fit Comstock’s dream – a leftist world where money lacks importance. On the other hand, Gordon did not believe in Socialism. The presence of Julia reflects the remnants of empathy and social awareness that remained in him. Finally, Rosemary played the role of a bumper that prevented 45

Gordon from crashing too strongly into a trouble and in conclusion, Rosemary with their child became the meaning of a life for the new Gordon Comstock.

Julia and Rosemary symbolise the womanhood of Orwell’s times. They are stereotyped as they are patient, obedient and conformist. Julia is hard-working and Rosemary is devoted. Both are reconciled with their destiny as millions of their female contemporaries. Together with Gordon who represents the opaque values they form a pattern of English society of the 1930s.

7.2 Coming Up for Air

This novel is full of symbolism. The following text will guide us through various interpretations of Orwell’s imagination. Bowker emphasises that it is Orwell himself who needs to come up for air as he suffers from serious illness (239).

7.2.1. The past

The whole concept of going to the past by visiting the place of his youth is highly symbolic. The main hero is not satisfied with his recent life, he feels suffocating not only by his family but also by the rat-race at work and the whole society that surrounds him. He simply needs to come up for air - to escape18. It is his small, personal revolt – a revolt that should never be revealed by others. That seems to be the only logical solution for George Bowling. Naturally, the place where he was brought up cannot be the same as he remembers, yet he let himself be carried by the memories that are so sweet and tempting. The trip to the place that reminds him the past should help him to recover, to stand on his feet again, and to face the difficulties of living in the era he could not choose and does not prefer.

7.2.2. False teeth

Nevertheless, putting apart the concept of recovering the past, the very first symbol visible in the book are his first temporary false teeth, which Bowling obtains at the beginning of the story. With them, he realises that he is no longer “the life and the soul of the party” (Coming 1). Artificial teeth help him to become conscious of the fact that the youth has gone.

18 The notion of escapism and its relation towards the goal of the thesis is mentioned in chapter 3 titled Nonconformism 46

On one hand, it symbolises his maturity and a certain standard of living, on the other hand, it is a sign of the fact that the hope and beauty of being young have disappeared forever. False teeth represent the change in his life, which means that Bowling is no longer able to satisfy his needs in a conventional way.

7.2.3. Fishing

The most significant symbol in the story is without any doubt fishing. Bowling is obsessed with the memories connected with this pastime. He proves it in many occasions. When talking about fishing, he refers to his childhood. However, he does not want to idealise this particular part of life. One could see that Bowling is sentimental about his youth and that he regrets growing old. He is sceptic and negative about his present life, which is marked by the false teeth, growing belly and unhappy wife. “Everything that really matters to me had happened before I was sixteen” (Coming 74).

In fact, he is realistic and does not want to adore the youth. He only feels the necessity to pronounce what the world was like before WWI and the Boer Wars. In this, he wants to keep at least some measure, according to which people could consider the current state of things. All this is wrapped into the cult of fishing that serves as a symbol of his childhood. Rahman further explains:

“Orwell long for something to trust in. … Orwell in the thirties made himself the spokesman of heterosexual, meat eating man, objecting to …, because they contained an imply insult to the ordinary way of life (Rahman 14).

He simply defended the old good order. Bowling’s fishing is a symbol of his faith. He says that “fishing does not belong to the modern world”. Everything has changed and he is not happy about it. Now when he is forty-five, fishing means so much to him that fish appear even when he thinks of his first love experience. He painfully realises that exactly when they were lying alone together and his mind was full of his girlfriend, a carp from a nearby pool somehow got into his head (Coming 59). If fishing means childhood, then it is also about senses and emotions. Kids and especially teenagers are full of emotions. Bowling is able to go back in time and think again about primroses or the smell of the nature – simply to come up for air. ”Before the war, and

47

especially before the Boer War, it was summer all the year round” (Coming 19). There are more symbols hidden in here. Summer represents peace for middle-aged Bowling, however, for George the child, the summer was joy and freedom. The fondness for fishing is so strongly rooted in Bowling’s mind that it could be considered as a nonconformist liking regarding his daily routine.

7.2.4. The pool

Bowling’s trip to Lower Binfield is full of symbols. Another example can be recognised in his desire to discover the pool where the best carps used to be. After his disappointment with the recent appearance of the city and people who settled down there after he left (knowing nothing about his Lower Binfield) he concentrates on the last chance – the legendary pool. It is exactly here where he could satisfy his lust for good old times by sitting on the banks, relaxing. The pool is now full of rubbish. It is a dump. This is another strong proof for Bowling that the world is spoilt. The symbol of his childhood turned out to be the symbol of the civilization, which is far away from his understanding.

7.2.5. The Church

In the flood of bad news from his visit to Lower Binfield, there is one safety anchor, and that is the Church, to be more precise – the local cemetery. It is the place where the time does not flow. He even recognises the vicar. What is worth-mentioning is that the vicar seems to look younger to him than twenty years ago, which is quite alarming to Bowling. This is in high contrast with all what he has experiences during his trip to the past so far. Despite not mentioning his religious belief, the cemetery with its dead, under the vigilance of the Church, represents the only foothold he has in his strong imagination of the place of his birth that should help him to live again. What is more, exactly here, in the place of the last rest for all the mortals, he observes a young lady focusing on her physical beauty - restraint and enjoying. It is as the opposites give him some inexplicable breath of life.

7.2.6. Modern devices

This brings us to another pattern that is applied. Bowling mentions several times in the book things that belong to the modern world and therefore represent the reality that is far away of his idea of ideal world. Barbed wire, machine guns, aspirin, radio, and aeroplanes, reflect his disgust in accepting the world he is caught in. He expresses his feelings by saying

48

that “… I AM sentimental about my childhood – not my own particular childhood, but the civilization which I grew up in” (Coming 40).

Given these points, it is clear that the symbolism plays an important part in Orwell’s two relevant novels from the 1930s. Despite the fact that the author denied the picturesque and flowery language later, the description of the nature of the good old English countryside in Coming Up for Air helped to make the message of the book even more vigorous. In fact, the symbols help to understand the reasons that led Comstock and Bowling towards their uncoordinated gestures.

8. The comparison of Gordon Comstock and George Bowling

The novels are examined from the point of view of the nonconformism and the anti- heroism. This chapter focuses both on aspects that these two characters have in common and features that make them different. It also concentrates on the possibility that there exist ties between them that the author perhaps intended to leave.

8.1. Personal wars

It has been mentioned that Comstock was not able to accept responsibility for his life with all its rights and necessities. He fought against the mainstream and was escaping to hide from the tasks that the life of an adult with commitments brings. It was foolish for him to think that he could continue attacking his girlfriend and his only friend Ralveston with his constant complaints about money.

It was the lack of money, simply the lack of money, that robbed him of the power to 'write'. He clung to that as to an article of faith. Money, money, all is money! Could you write even a penny novelette without money to put heart in you? Invention, energy, wit, style, charm--they've all got to be paid for in hard cash.(Keep 7).

Nevertheless, predominantly seen as somebody far away from a positive character and generally labelled as an antihero, Gordon Comstock was a hero, indeed. In his postures, he proved to be firm and persistent. He managed to suffer in order not to give in and all the time

49

he risked his reputation. Not taking into account his goal, he showed resistance and tenacity. That is what makes people heroes. Continuing in the aspect of lamenting, the character of the second book, George Bowling, was also a skilful complainer.

Is it gone for ever? I’m not certain. But I tell you it was a good world to live in. … The world I momentarily remembered … was so different from the world I live in now that you might have a bit of difficulty in believing I ever belonged to it.(Coming 17).

In the same as Comstock, Bowling is apparently not content with the world he lives in. However, he does not declare any war and does not bother his closest fellows. His fight is within himself. George Bowling is older than Gordon Comstock and that could be one of the reasons why his disapproval is not visible to his surroundings. While Comstock feels the necessity to share his objections with the system in conversation with Ravelston and Rosemary, in Bowling’s case Orwell uses an inner monologue.

As for the chronological aspect, they hypothetically could meet. The stories are both set in the 1930s. At first glance, they are fed up with slightly different things. Gordon fights the money- god and George the fact that the world after the war is not as good as it used to be before. Nevertheless, their complaints have the same trigger. What is common in their dissatisfaction is the fact that they blame the world, i.e. the others. The fault is out there. Comstock and Bowling are not guilty. It is possible to suggest that here Orwell wants to refer to the immortal human weakness in blaming others instead of looking for mistakes in ourselves.

Bowling uses the concept of “they”. By this, he sends a clear message that he does not want to be identified with people who according to him, do not share his point of view.

… THEY knew all about it. When I say THEY I mean all the people who wouldn’t approve of a trip of this kind and who’d have stopped me if they could —which, I suppose, would include pretty well everybody (Coming 99).

Many of Orwell’s works are interwoven with the conflict of “them”. “They” are people who do not fit into his view of the world. Hitchens’ argument, that the basis of Orwell’s effort is a criticism of servility, is a convincing one (Hitchens, “For George Orwell” 139). He continues 50

that “what Orwell hated about the English class system was the fawning and the acquiescence that it produced among its victims. … What he disliked in intellectuals was their willingness to find excuses for power.” (139). Orwell knew a lot. He experienced WWI, he was aware of the English colonial exploitations and the danger of totalitarian practice and the fall of the Spanish republic. Therefore, he could warn people in the best way he had – by writing. Comstock and Bowling carry some of his messages. The first is an answer to a system based on money that ruins millions of innocent lives and the latter shares his concerns about the upcoming war.

To give an example we can have a look at the passage where Bowling has an argument with his only friend – a former public school master. When asking about Hitler he gets the answer that Hitler is not dangerous. ‘I see no reason for paying any attention to him. A mere adventurer. These people come and go” (Coming 89). Of course, Bowling did not agree with old Porteous. He thought that Hitler really presented the danger, which shows Orwell’s awareness of upcoming difficulties. Bowling felt like he was in the eye of a hurricane. He almost wished the bombs would start falling, as the waiting for something that you know is going to happen, is unpleasant. Coming Up for Air was published a few months before the outbreak of WWII; however, some of the Orwell’s predictions were frighteningly truthful, as in the following extract. “Of course there’s no question that it’s coming soon” (Coming 10).

War! I started thinking about it again. It’s coming soon, that’s certain. … The world we’re going down into, the kind of hate world, slogan world. The coloured shirts, the barbed wire, the rubber truncheons. The secret cells where the electric light burns night and day, and the detectives watching you while you sleep. And the processions and the posters with enormous faces, and the crowds of a million people all cheering for the Leader till they deafen themselves into thinking that they really worship him, and all the time, underneath, they hate him so that they want to puke. It’s all going to happen. Or isn’t it? Some days I know it’s impossible, other days I know it’s inevitable. That night, at any rate, I knew it was going to happen (84).

Gordon Comstock in Keep the Aspidistra Flying also mentions bombs, when he criticises the life of ordinary people when he referrers to how empty, meaningless and intolerable they are just because they pray to the money-god. He hated it so much that he imagined this world under the attack of bombardiers only because of its tight connection to money.

51

Enemy aeroplanes flying over London; the deep threatening hum of the propellers, the shattering thunder of the bombs.(Keep the Aspidistra 14). Money, money! … The humming of the aeroplanes and the crash of the bombs. … Those aeroplanes are coming. In imagination he saw them coming now; squadron after squadron, innumerable, darkening the sky like clouds of gnats. … It was a sound which, at that moment, he ardently desired to hear (18).

There are three years between these two books and the bombs in the Keep the Aspidistra Flying do not play any important role. Nevertheless, the similarity in both characters’ thoughts is surprising. With the planes carrying bombs on England Comstock would hypothetically solve the problem of the money-based society, which is absolutely selfish. On the other hand, George Bowling sees the objective threat in the bombs as he knows that the world will never be the same and will probably be worse.

For a great deal of his story, Comstock is a self-centred man who does not care about others, while Bowling seems not to think primarily about himself. He is worried about the future of all the people who will survive the war as Kuluri suggests:

He does not belong to those people that live in the present, and do not care about their own destiny19 and the future happenings in the country. As a witness to the First World War’s occasions and the post-war development of the country, Bowling well knows its tremendous impacts on the people’s lives. With the oncoming Second World War he has a prophetic mood. He does not particularly care about his own life, he is worried about the conditions that such a war brings (Kuluri 58).

8.2. Inner worlds

What often remains hidden in front of people’s eyes can, in fact, form a totally different world. Only the reader can take a look into the characters’ minds to experience the comparison of real life and the life inside the protagonists’ heads. Comstock’s mind is fully occupied with how to express his disagreement with the rules of the system he lives in. Nonetheless, he is not as introverted as Bowling. Gordon has at least some people to talk to, while George spends most of the time talking to himself. His inner monologue is wider and covers more themes than Gordon’s. When Gordon Comstock thinks about his inabilities, problems and personal future, George Bowling gives a comprehensive description of the

19 In contrast with Gordon Comstock 52

world before WWI to show how decadent England has become. While Comstock consciously deprives himself of material delights as he lives on two pounds a week, Bowling is still prepared to experience something that would please him. Thus, the decadency of the world they live in is probably the only commonality that connects both heroes’ thoughts.

8.3. Relations with their women

Generally, both protagonists do not treat women very well. Rosemary is Gordon’s girlfriend and she is the person who suffers most from his unconventional behaviour. Based on the evidence stated in this paper, it seems like Comstock is actually a worse person than Bowling. However, as for the relationship with their women and despite the fact that Bowling has two children, he still treats his wife as if she was his unpopular sister. He shows almost no love towards her and the story ends in marital strife. “Hilda is thirty-nine, and when I first knew her she looked just like a hare. So she does still …“(Coming 3)

Bowling is disillusioned with Hilda’s attitude towards life as her only interest is her frustration with the high cost of living. In war terminology, her battle is against high cost of living, while George fights against change on a much bigger scale. They are in fact an ordinary couple, with ordinary income and corresponding problems. When George decides that he needs more, that he must change something, he encounters the biggest obstacle right at home in his wife. She is so conformist that she would not understand the reason why her husband spent seventeen pounds in such a meaningless enterprise. She actually joints a group of people that Bowling calls “them” as it is quoted in subchapter 8.1. He feels lonely, as nobody, including his wife, is thinking of what is going to happen.

I felt as if I was the only person awake in a city of sleep-walkers … I looked at the dumb-bell faces streaming past. Like turkeys in November, I thought. Not a notion of what’s coming to them. It was as if I’d got X-rays in my eyes and could see the skeletons walking (Coming 29).

He had the same feeling about Hilda. It follows a common pattern of a materially-based and terrestrial female who takes care of domesticity whose counterpart flies in the sky trying to solve the problem of a mankind. It is, in fact, his wife who provokes him to do something unusual and difficult to explain to people who are like Hilda.

53

Gordon’s relationship with Rosemary is different. The term machismo fits here better as Comstock behaves as if his girlfriend should survive everything. On the other hand, it has to be realised that the role of women in the 1930s was still a bit inferior than is common nowadays.

'In a way you do despise me. Oh, yes, I know you're fond of me. But after all, you can't take me quite seriously. I'm a kind of joke to you. You're fond of me, and yet I'm not quite your equal--that's how you feel.' … She cried out with tears in her voice: 'I don't, Gordon, I don't! You KNOW I don't!' 'You do. That's why you won't sleep with me. Didn't I tell you that before?' (Keep the Aspidistra 101).

Rosemary has to have great stamina and she has to really love him indeed to withstand Gordon’s nonconformist two-year period, when he looks like a beggar who with “two-quid a week” cannot afford any unnecessary expense.

WHAT a fool I am' she said. In what way a fool? Because I'm so fond of you. Are you fond of me? Of course I am. You know I am. I adore you. It's idiotic of me. Then come somewhere where it's dark. I want to kiss you. Fancy being kissed by a man who hasn't even shaved! Well, that'll be a new experience for you. No, it won't, Gordon. Not after knowing YOU for two years. (Keep 94).

She met him at the New Albion where their romance started. Then Gordon declared war on money and changed into a shabby, morose man who tortures his surroundings with his constant sulkiness. Everything changes with the news that Rosemary is pregnant. This battler has to reconsider his conviction for this justified war on money. He finally admits that it is not possible to continue in his protest as he would seriously harm two more people and he gives in to the system. The obedience to this hated system is what he now needs, in order to take care of his family. This is totally in opposition to his belief. However, what is much more important – he does not care. He is so emerged into the new reality of life with the baby, that he insists on buying an aspidistra to decorate their new home. It is then Rosemary who saves Gordon before it was too late, from his epic experiment, which could not end up in any other way than in defeat. An individual cannot fight and win against any well-established system that is run by millions of voluntary servants. Is that the message that Orwell wanted to transmit? Bowling also undergoes a personal rebellion but in contrast with Comstock, he does not fight an open, public battle. He rather wrestles the unsatisfactory state of thing in his inner

54

monologues and his trip is a rather symbolic gesture to find the balance in his life. Unfortunately, Hilda does not play a similar role as Rosemary in Gordon’s life. Hilda is not that person who would save her husband from his escapism and from constant frustration of the world they have to live in. She is not the glue in their relationship. Despite the fact that Bowling has a family that is the basis of a content life, he is the loser. She has her problems and he has his own. Gordon Comstock finally wins but George Bowling does not. A certain dynamics in the relationship of Gordon and Rosemary can be observed as they are getting slowly closer and closer to being a completely happy couple. It is the end that promises a new beginning at the same time. George and Hilda show no progress throughout the whole story and in the end, she blames him from cheating her as he fails to come up with a bulletproof alibi. Bowling remains a loser and a poor man. The only thing he wanted in his forty-five years was only to come up for air for a few days. But instead, he sank even deeper into his preoccupations.

Her face had gone a kind of white under the surface, the way it does when she thinks of me with another woman. A woman. If only it had been true! … If I spent a week explaining to Hilda WHY I’d been to Lower Binfield, she’d never understand. And who WOULD understand, here in Ellesmere Road? (Coming 137).

8.4. Crisis of identity

It is clear that the main theme of both novels is the social isolation of their protagonists. Both have to resolve the conflicts that lie heavily on them. Orwell made them both fight with nonconformist weapons. Comstock rebelled actively while Bowling protested by escaping. The first one won, as he made the problem disappear. The later lost, as he restricted his fight only to an inner monologue that finally failed to remove the crisis. Comstock changed his identity as he converted into the status of a father while Bowling remained the antihero who could not help himself get rid of the thoughts that brought him so much anxiety. He simply realised that no man ever steps into the same river twice.

Kuluri in her thesis considers Bowling as “conventional” (Kuluri 44, 51, 53). It is possible to claim that in comparison to Comstock, Bowling is a conformist. Nevertheless, he also decides to undergo an adventure that e.g. his wife would never understand, which of itself it is a risk that could have ruined his family life. However, what is even worse is the fact that his reaction to his wife’s accusations of infidelity proved to be rather a non-reaction. What seems

55

as a perfectly common reaction turns into a surprising nonconformist solution of a marital row, in the light of our investigation of nonconformist features present in Orwell’s novels. Every second man would be conventional enough not to let his marriage fall into pieces and would fight to prove his innocence unlike Bowling.

This chapter worked at finding any common denominators that would show that there is a certain relation between Gordon Comstock and George Bowling. It found that what connects them in addition to the period and the place they are living in is their dissatisfaction with society. However, their means of expressing their opinions are different.

9. Conclusion

The two novels may not belong among the most popular Orwell’s works. However, they are very important in the development of a writer who was later able to come up with 1984 and Animal Farm. Ian Slater, a novelist, in one panel discussion on Orwell in the 1980s expressed the opinion that Keep the Aspidistra Flying and Coming Up for Air would be more appreciated in future (George Orwell: A Reassessment 186).

Having considered all the factors that played roles in analysing features of nonconformity in particular novels, it can be concluded that Gordon Comstock is more radical in his perception of the nonconformism. As we are dealing with fictional characters, we need to accept that what is not written does not exist. We could speculate that George Bowling feels it stronger and that the only visible difference is that Comstock’s protest is more extroverted and Bowling’s is rather introverted, as he does not involve his surrounding into his personal fight in the same way as Comstock does. It is a fact that all the people around Gordon are aware of his war, while Bowling’s war takes place rather in his head, not affecting his fellows much, except for his wife who misinterprets it. From this point of view, we cannot speak about any dynamism in nonconformity comparing Comstock with Bowling supposing that Orwell’s second hero would be more radical than the previous one or that he would be more sophisticated, or more willing to take risks. The dynamism lies elsewhere. It is within particular stories where the presence or absence of the dynamics is visible.

On the other hand, the factor of anti-heroism seems to appear in the opposite direction. It is the end of the story that tells a lot about the characters. While Gordon Comstock is throughout

56

the whole book much more radical in his nonconformist protests, he ends up in a happy marriage with a new-born, in fact, he starts a new life. George Bowling, on the contrary, does not lead any cardinal attack on the spoilt society and cannot be considered as a nonconformist with all his heart as Comstock proved to be for the two crucial years of his imaginary life. Bowling rebelled in silence for only a few days, to surrender in the end.

What Comstock managed to do, i.e. not to damage his life and to come back to society to pray for the life again, can be seen as heroic. Bowling ends his adventure in a quite different style as he was not able to oppose his wife and proved no courage at all. What is more, his noncommittal trip to Lower Binfield also did not fulfil his expectations and turned out to be a fiasco. Perhaps the more radical you are the bigger change you can expect in the end. Therefore, Bowling seems to be less radical, but more of an anti-hero than Comstock. To go into the depth of it, Levenson helps with his argument that Bowling simply ends up in resignation. He feels that it makes no sense to try (Rodden 74). Comstock also failed in his struggle; however, in contrary to Bowling he had at least a good reason – the birth of his child. Bowling just did not want to quarrel with his wife. He does not love her enough; otherwise, he would fight to clear the situation. Apart from their crisis of identity, the only significant message of these books is the criticism of the society that gives no other chance to ordinary men than to resort to nonconformist attempts in order to save their dignity.

Let’s now conclude the analysis with respect to the values of the author. The main questions are whether George Orwell wanted to transmit any message through these two characters, why and what reactions he expected to come.

George Orwell was a Socialist. In his article For George Orwell, Hitchens cites his words by saying that “a Socialist United States of Europe seems to me the only worthwhile political objective today.” (135). The message lies partly in Comstock’s protest against capitalism, which is Orwell’s own. It has been mentioned in the previous chapter that one cannot fight against the system. The author could possibly see that the only way how to draw people’s attention or to protest against something is to be a nonconformist. Considering this point of view, Keep the Aspidistra Flying might be seen as a protest novel.

On the other hand, Orwell did fight, thus he understood the simple emotions that are normal within armed conflict, which makes it clear that Orwell was not only Comstock. However, Gordon’s story is set in times of peace and that is why Orwell decided to have Comstock be

57

resistant in a passive way. He who is aware of colonial exploitations, militant nationalism and the situation of the poor, understands why Keep Aspidistra Flying was written.

The message therefore lies in fighting for Socialism with a human face – if we borrow Alexander Dubcek’s expression - that would not fuse with any kind of totality that would dictate to people what they should do. Comstock criticises this in the following extract, where he quarrels with him about the need for Socialism as the only meaningful alternative to Capitalism.

Four hours a day in a model factory, tightening up bolt number 6003. Rations served out in grease-proof paper at the communal kitchen. Community-hikes from Marx Hostel to Lenin Hostel and back. Free abortion-clinics on all the corners. All very well in its way, of course. Only we don' t want it.' (Keep 75)

Taking into account this part, another level brings the hypothesis that it is Ravelston with all his pros and cons where Orwell projects his political belief. Comstock is there to question his opinion as Orwell’s critics have done in real life.

A similar conflict like that between Comstock and Ravelston is able to be found between Bowling and Porteous, the old scholar and his only friend. Here, Orwell by means of Bowling expresses his fear of Hitler. His friend, Porteous, represents real people who do not believe Hitler is dangerous and Bowling opposes. Is this posture nonconformist or conventional? Definitely, it was not ordinary in 1939. Orwell was sure that the Germans would attack. Nonetheless, there was probably a bit of both in him. Outwardly Orwell led a decent life, however, inside his mind he was always in opposition towards the authorities, in a similar way as he has shown in Bowling. What can be seen in Orwell from Gordon Comstock and his two-year long adventure, is definitely Orwell’s time in Spain. One could not find a more nonconformist decision than to join the army and be prepared to die when you only went there to write a few articles about the war. Gordon Comstock mirrors in George Orwell, the voluntary soldier who helps to defend the foreign republic against the fascists. When he, fortunately, comes back to England20 he turns into George Bowling, pointing at the danger of war’s atrocities and the post-war experience.

20 He was injured as he was shot in his neck and was very lucky to survive. 58

As it has been mentioned, Bowling is much less radical and Coming Up for Air is rather a sigh and a warning against the human tendency to repeat mistakes. Through Bowling’s words about the consequences of WWI, Orwell points out the fact that mankind never learns from its mistakes, as it is approaching another devastating conflict. The war atrocities of the Boer Wars and the First World War served for Orwell as a reason to come up with a novel that would express his deepest concerns about the future of the mankind.

The questions, however, remain. What do the pictures that present these two novels say about our society and the system we embrace? Does it force us to do let’s say, nonconformist things? Would it be possible or normal to live in a system that is accepted by everyone? Would not it be called a totality?

The world has changed a lot since Orwell’s days. Nevertheless, basic human needs, lusts, faults and especially nonconformist solutions remain the same. There are many Comstocks and Bowlings among us. They work, spend idle time, protest, boycott, bring up children, pay taxes and insurance, owe money, criticise – they live. We still need Orwell to remember to consider why we live.

59

Works Cited

Primary sources:

Orwell, George. Coming Up for Air. Penguin Books: 1967. Print.

Orwell, George: Keep the Aspidistra Flying. Penguin Books: 1966. Print.

Secondary sources:

Bowker, Gordon. George Orwell. Abacus: London. 2003. Print

Cavendish, Dominic. “Coming Up for Air Revisited”. orwellsociety.com. Web. 25 Feb 2017.

Crick, Bernard. George Orwell A Life. Penguin Books: Harmondsworth. 1987. Print

“Christopher Hitchens on Orwell: What people do not want to hear”. newstatesman.com. 24 Jan 2013. Web. 28. Feb. 2017.

George Orwell, A Reassessment. Honk Kong: St. Martin’s Press. 1988.

George Orwell: Selected Writings. London: Heineman Educational Books. 1958. Print

George Orwell, The Lost Writings. New York: Arbor House. 1985

“George Orwell’s Five Greatest Essays”. Openculture.com. 12 Nov 2013. Web. 25 May 2016

Hall, Peter. “Review”. Jstor.org: The Geographical Journal, Vol. 141, No. 1 (Mar 1975): 127. Web 19 May 2016.

Hitchens, Christopher. “For George Orwell”. Jstor.org: Grand Street, Vol. 3, No 2 (1984): 125-141. Web. 18 May 2016

Hitchens, Christopher. “The Importance of being Orwell”. Vanity Fair. 9 Jul 2012. Web. 16 May 2016.

Hunter, Jefferson. “Orwell, Wells and Coming Up for Air”. Jstor.org: Modern Philology, Vol. 78, No.1 (August 1980): 38-47. Web. 20 May 2016.

60

Kuluri, Lucie. Babbit vs. Bowling: (Non-)Conformism in the work of Sinclair Lewis and George Orwell. Master Thesis, Ostravská Univerzita. 2011.

Meyers, Jeffrey. Orwell: Life and Art. Chicago: University of Illinois. 2010. Print.

Orwell, George. Decline of The English Murder and Other Essays. Penguin Books: Harmondsworth. 1953. Print.

George Orwell. Selected Essays. Penguin Books: Harmondsworth. 1960. Print.

Posekaná, Monika. The Theme of Loneliness and Estrangement in George Orwell’s Works. Master Thesis. Jihočeská Univerzita. 2015.

Pultar, Filip. Politics and Morality in the Works of George Orwell from 1933 to 1937. Bachelor Thesis. Masaryk University. 2014.

Rahman, Adibur. George Orwell A Humanistic Perspective. Atlantic Publishers and Distributors: New Delphi.2002. Print

Rankin, David. “On O’Flinn on Orwell”. Jstor.org: College English, Vol. 32, No 1 (1970): 82-84. Web. 19 May 2016.

Rodden, John. “Fellow Contrarians? Christopher Hitchens and George Orwell”. Jstor.org: The Keynon Review. New Series, Vol. 28, No 1 (2006): 142-165. Web. 18 May 2016.

Raul, Karuna Kara, George Orwell: A Reassessment. Dissertation. North-Eastern Hill University. 1989.

"nonconformism." Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, 2011. Web. 2 August 2016.

Pfeiffer, John, R. Jstor.org: Penn State University Press, Vol. 5, No. 1 (1994), pp. 200-201. Web. 19 May 2016

The Cambridge Companion to George Orwell. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2007. Print.

The Orwell Reader. New York: A Harvest Book, 1956. Print

Trilling, Lionel, “George Orwell and The Politics of Truth: Portrait of an Intellectual as a Man of Virtue”. commentarymagazine.com. Web. 24 Aug 2016.

61

Voorhees, Richard, J. George Orwell as Critic. Jstor.org: Prairie Schooner, Vol. 28, No.2 (1954: 105-112. Web. 18 May 2016.

62