Contents

Write a note on characteristion of George Orwell.

In fact, George Orwell did not have the quality of clear expression. His weakness of characterisation is one of the chief hinderence in his success as a novelist. His weak characterization shows that he could not observe human mind minutely. He is expert in presenting the psychology of a common man. He is able to see person from outside only. For instance, Bazo in Down and Out in Pairs and London’ could not win the sympathy of readers. When Orwell tried to create a character who was to be observed from within, he failed in its creation. He tried to created George Bowling in ‘Coming up for Air’, a credible character. But he could not avoid improbabilities of George Bowling. It is really a matter of great surprise how could such a vulgar man, being as a well read, articulate and sensitive to natural beauty, as Orwell suggests such a character. His characters are aware of the problem of identification and existence. So, they are often surrounded by a kind of development. They do their best in setting their goal. But their efforts are always fruitless. They always find that they are not able to remove darkness from their lives, for example, Winston Smith, the hero of Nineteen Eighty Four’, desires to do something extraordinary in his life. He does not agree with the opinion of the policy of the party. He is aware of his existence; so in order to make his personality free from the party, he revolts against it. But when he tries to do so, he is caught red handed, resulting which he get imprisonment and torture. Thus, Orwell has presented passive characters in his novels. All the important things to happen to them in their lives, but whenever, they desire to take action in the form of revolt against their passive role, their efforts end in failure. He seems to have faith in the life of actions. Even unheroic failure cannot check the activities of his characters. His characters are not as strong as that of Thomas Hardy. Michael Henchard in the Mayor of Casterbridge’ and Tess in Tess of the Durbervilles’ are also tragic characters, but the way through which they struggle, are far superior to those of Orwell. Orwell’s characters also suffer but we do not find the sublimity of action in them.

George Orwell had never shown sincerety in his any novel in the presentation of minor characters. It appears that he could not realize the value of minor characters in a novel. While his major characters are always remained in a state of tension, his minor characters are not build up on any pretence of growth of inner tension. Thus, he could not establish a harmony between his major characters and minor. characters.

George Orwell could not be able to create major characters convincingly in his novels. It is not due to the passivity of these characters, but it is because these characters have not been presented in their relationship with other characters. For example, Gordon Comstock, the hero of ‘Keep the Aspidistra Flying’, makes three personal relations- with his sister, his friend. Revelston, and with his girl friend Rosemary. But these relationship is not presented so as to become deep, because the characters do not show any individuality to sustain it and to strike out against egotism of self centredness. The sister of Comstock does not show normal relation with his brother.

Summing up it may be said that characterisation of George orwell is very poor, that is why, he is not considered a true novelist. But when he touches his characters with an element of comedy or incongruity, he creates some convincing characters. In ‘Clerygman’s Daugheter’. we find Dorothy Hare’s friendship with Mr. Warburton with its constant attempts to expel seduction. Similalry, the marriage of George and Hildo is the only interesting marriage. The Burmese Days’ also presents a very convincing and moving relationship between Flory and Dr. Veraswami, with all its humours misunderstandings and with the pathetic loyalty.