Originally Posted by
kev67
I have just read Orwell's essay, Prevention of Literature. In it he writes that good literature is impossible to write in a totalitarian or repressive regime, because either the author's work is censored and the author is punished, or the author has to self-censor, in which case he cannot write freely. He said there were very few good books written in the Soviet Union in the first half the 20th century after the Russian Revolution. He also said there were very few books written in the Mediaeval period because of the dominance of the Catholic Church. I wondered how true this was. Shakespeare seem to be able to write good literature (although I do not like it myself) and he was living at a time when you could be hung, drawn and quartered for treason. Shakespeare did not seem to mind keeping off some dangerous subjects. Indeed, he wrote the some very sychophantic plays. For example, one of his plays villifies King Richard III, in the process justifying Queen Elizabeth's grandfather in usurping the throne. Richard III was not a good man, but Shakespeare wrote no plays about Henry VIII, the queen's father, who was much, much worse. When Elizabeth I died, she was succeeded by James I of England, also James VI of Scotland. Almost immediately, Shakespeare writes Macbeth, which flattered King James by having a character tell his forbear, Banquo, that his line would succeed forever. He also flattered James by writing a play with witches in them. James was very interested in witches, and took part in interrogating them (I believe). Another thing that Orwell said was that there were not many good Catholic writers, because the Catholic Church had been very controlling and censorious. There seemed to be a whole school of mid-twentieth century Catholic writers, for example Graeme Green, Muriel Spark and Evelyn Waugh, so where did he get this from? Also, is it true that no good literature came out of Russia after the revolution?