He portrays it as a political soporific (and a debased one at that) that helps keep the party members enmeshed in the “creaking camaraderie” that holds Oceania together (presumably a camaraderie that, in the British context you describe, incorporates the phoney idea that party members are the vanguard of the working class). It’s not the degenerative vice Hogarth portrays but it does contribute to the perpetuation of what in Orwell’s view is Oceania’s very unhealthy body politic.
In part yes. But shits complex. Its not anything as simple as a literal opiate for the masses.
I don’t think his intent was to present drinking. Or even gin specifically as an over all negative. I also don’t think Orwell disliked Gin personally, though I don’t recall any specifics on it. But he was a drinker. His favorite pub is known and I think still around, and He had very direct ideas about what beer should be served in.
And he could have chosen nearly any alcohol to fill that role. But he picked something very specifically British. Not French. Or Irish. Or Scottish. Or Russian. And he was writing at a time when gin still very much had its working class reputation. But as it had already started to become seriously fashionable globally. And more importantly Victory Gin is bad gin. Described very much like bad gin any gin drinker has probably had at one point or another. Something that is almost but not entirely unlike gin. And its that he presents. An ersatz version of something British, nearly forced on a controlled population. To keep them drunk an complacent.
Not even the “opiate of the masses” is what it’s portrayed as by many of my fellow atheists.
I do agree that these matters are complex. Just offering my interpretation of what he saw as its role in the IngSoc party. And I do agree very much that he chose gin for its British-ness and that Victory Gin might not be real gin at all.
Roger That!
It’s been decades since I read the book, but I remember it being referred to as “synthetic” as well.
Imagine the rail gin at your local dive bar, but even worse.
I don’t believe it was. But the way its described is I think meant to imply that its flavored with weird.
…One wonders whether like so much in the novel, that was also a characteristic of WWII austerity. I do know that gin formulation was significantly cheapened during WWII
Maybe.
Its described as having a “sickly oily smell”. Poor fermentation creates an excess of fusel alcohols. Poor distillation concentrates them. These are heavier alcohols that aren’t exactly dangerous in the levels they show up in our booze. But contribute to hangovers and are often described as having an odor and flavor like diesel fuel or motor oil.
Like wise the other flavor descriptors, like a nitric acid taste, seem to indicate an alcohol harshness and artificiality of taste. Cheaper gins are made by infusion or by adding essential oils/flavorings. And really taste nothing like properly made gin. They can taste weirdly sweet, and very, very strongly like those pine tree air fresheners.
Coming off an era in which cheap, poorly made alcohol was kind of the rule for many people. Rationing and depression poverty in the UK. Prohibition and depression poverty in the US. I’ve always found it likely that he was deliberately drawing a comparison to cheaply or badly made booze that his readers would be likely to recognize. I’ve certainly had rot gut booze, especially shit cheap whiskey. That matches the description. And bad gin that’s damn close.
What?!? Do bartenders no longer keep a stout stick behind the bar?
These truly are degenerate times.
As a Brit, I don’t recognise this allegation. I simply haven’t encountered it.
And it’s ‘Scots’, not ‘Scotts’, unless you really are referring to a specific family’s surname.
You have to compare that with the companion piece – “Beer Alley” where the artist shows the same scene but with beer drinkers – who are good, responsible citizens rather than the gin maniacs. From a modern perspective that seems weird – alcohol is alcohol, right? But there was a real problem in England when gin was introduced from the Dutch – people just weren’t used to things with more than a few percent ABV.
Yes. Grain alcohol. And rainwater.
To preserve my precious bodily fluids.
Kind of, sort of.
As always it’s a bit more complicated than that.
As I understand it the gin craze was largely due to economic protectionism - high taxes on imported French wine and brandy (also outright bans on imports) (so plenty of stuff with more than a few percent ABV - Brits have never been short of liquor ) and low taxes on spirits made from domestic crops which were themselves cheap (and far less regulation on distillers than on brewers).
So you had an attempt to bolster native industries (farming and distilling) by blocking foreign goods and low taxes and low regulation on the favoured industries, in the hope of propping up grain prices and providing more external trade (to the colonies, etc. - balance of trade was a concern even then).
This then lead to people being able to buy large quantities of this cheap alcohol where before they could not - which of course they are being encouraged to do in order to keep grain prices up, etc.
You then get a backlash where the PTB decide that the lower classes are drinking far too much (fair enough, they probably were), leading to lots of moralising about the evils of gin, a sudden about-turn on the patriotism of gin (i.e. the whole beer is wholesome and British, whereas gin is nasty and foreign - even though probably distilled in Britain).
Speaking of which – any recommendations on good gins (or Gins) to have around the house? I usually have Bombay Sapphire or Plymouth around, but have heard good things about fancier, much pricier gins like The Botanist and Monkey 47.
I have heard it repeatedly from the Brit’s I know. And from my many Irish family members about Scots, the Northern Irish, And Limerick. And seen it regularly in British media. Pick an area a given part of the UK considers backward. And jokes will be made about them drinking questionable things and having interesting relationships with sheep. It’s a pretty common trope and most places make the same or similar cracks about whatever region or neighbor is the common butt of those sorts of joke. Many of my eastern European friends make these jokes about Russians. And the Russians I’ve known make them about every other part of eastern Europe.
The real problem when gin was introduced was a popular disdain for the working class and poor. Especially working and unmarried women. And a bit of economic protectionism. Whiskey was already available for centuries before that, and brandy had already been popular with the upper classes for centuries. Fortified wines like Madeira and Sherry as well. All with higher abvs than beer or wine (which was already a lot stronger than beer) . People were well used to higher abvs than beer and always had been.
There’s little evidence for any actual “gin craze” as described. Any real effect on violence poverty or alcoholism as a result of gins popularity. It’s a classic example of a moral panic.
Deaths door. Aviation. bulldog. Beefeater
Sapphire is bland. Sort of a gin for non gin drinkers.
Speaking of gin for non gin drinkers if anyone is looking for an entry level gin. New Amsterdam is an incredibly mild, citrusy gin that’s damn cheap. Almost drinks like a citrus vodka. But not sweet, And actually flavored with real citrus. Very light on the juniper and herbals.
Deaths door and Plymouth are my current favs. But there are tons of new gins out these days. Both classic London dries, “new American” style, And a revival of the Dutch gins and old Tom.
Is gin considered a particuarly “british” drink?
For some reason when I picture a gin drinker I picture Churchill pissing off a balcony
Vodka or gin, martinis in general are lame. It’s a shot and half of cold booze with a homeopathic amount of vermouth. And an olive. Great.
Order a G&T, God’s One True Cocktail.
I usually get a lemon twist.
Actually usually I just get a Manhattan TBH