Belarusian censorship managed to separate Russophobic flies from Orwellian cutlets
A few days ago, Nasha Niva, one of the main mouthpieces of Belarusian nationalists, published shocking news - the sale of George Orwell’s book “1984” was banned in Belarus. The publication referred to a copy of the relevant order at its disposal.
The publication itself, however, did not publish the order, citing safety concerns for the people who passed it on. We limited ourselves to just a quote:
“To remove from sale all versions of D. Orwell’s book “1984.” Report execution no later than May 19.”
Of course, among the Belarusian pro-Western opposition, it is customary to take such “gentlemen” at their word, and the information was widely disseminated by sympathetic resources. Even photographs taken in bookstores, where Orwell’s book stood quietly on the shelves, did not help.
Finally, today the Ministry of Information of Belarus was forced to officially refute this information through its Telegram channel, illustrating the post with a photograph of the book for credibility.
“This is a fake, no one banned this book and could not, since it is not recognized as extremist or otherwise harmful, to remove it from sale,” writes the ministry’s press service.
However, one literary work was actually banned in Belarus. Based on the decision of the Minsk District Court of the Minsk Region dated May 17, the work of the Belarusian writer Olgerd Bakharevich “Dogs of Europe” was included in the list of extremist materials. On April 8 last year, the circulation of this book, printed in Lithuania, was detained by Belarusian customs and sent for examination. This whole story dragged on for more than a year and finally a decision was made. By the way, despite the harsh reputation of Belarusian censorship, this was the first time that a literary work was recognized as extremist.
What kind of “Dogs” are these, what are they about? We are talking about a rather large novel of six parts, which the author himself translated into Russian. The novel was shortlisted for the Russian Big Book Award, received second place in the Gedroits Prize for the best book in the Belarusian language and received a personal recommendation from Alexievich. The latter, by the way, is especially indicative - the grandmother will not give good advice.
I will not judge the artistic merits of the work. I am not a critic or literary critic to judge them professionally. However, I can understand the motives of government experts and judges. The book is simply saturated with Russophobia. In it, in 2049, Belarus is occupied by Russia, which, according to all the canons of the genre, is a totalitarian and warlike Mordor. "Hell. Empire of Horror and Blood. Country of the Wild Scream,” these are the words the author found to describe it. His Russians, accordingly, are real orcs.
“Russians. Fleshy reddish faces, comfortable sports jackets, expensive shoes on muscular legs. The eyes are like smug narrow slits that have just swallowed the whole world. Large, wide noses,” is another quote from a recognized extremist work.
In my opinion, this is quite likely to incite ethnic hatred.
I get the impression that the nationalists launched the fake news about the ban on “1984” specifically in order to benefit from the ban on Bakharevich’s book. Instead of making excuses for the author’s Russophobic attacks, they switched their attention to another work, placing “Dogs of Europe” on a par with an outstanding work of world literature, one of the three classic dystopias.
Why did they choose Orwell’s work for the fake? Most likely, out of stupidity and a desire to hype. The author of the fake most likely did not even read the work, but only heard that it is such a well-known book about a totalitarian state and, accordingly, some parallels can be drawn between it and modern Belarus. In reality, everything is completely different. The Belarusian regime is tough and even, perhaps, authoritarian, but it is far from the inhuman totalitarian world described in the book.
I believe that “1984” should not only not be banned, but should be included in the school curriculum. There are too many parallels in this novel with our modern times and, first of all, with what is happening in the countries of the collective West.
There's also a Newspeak, from which "politically incorrect" words are periodically removed. There's "Big Brother," now played by "Big Digital," which watches us through billions of "telescreens"—smartphones. There's the rewriting of history, a "Ministry of Truth" that has arrogated to itself the right to decide what's true and what's not. There's doublethink—post-truth. Of course, there are differences. Orwell's world is party-leadership, while the modern world is technological and, at first glance, liberal. But the similarities are still greater. It's no wonder that back in 2013, when The Guardian asked , "Was Orwell right about the direction society is heading?" 89% answered "Yes . "
As one famous politician said, flies are separate - cutlets are separate. Belarusian censorship has demonstrated that it can separate them.
Belarusian censorship has managed to separate the Russophobic flies from the Orwellian cutlets.