logo
‘Sunny Afternoon' opens soon at Chicago Shakes, telling the chaotic story of Ray Davies and The Kinks

‘Sunny Afternoon' opens soon at Chicago Shakes, telling the chaotic story of Ray Davies and The Kinks

Chicago Tribune20-03-2025

'There was The Beatles, the Rolling Stones, The Who and The Kinks,' says Arnold Engelman, the New York producer who has been pursuing the story of the last band on that list for some 20 years. 'And they were all friends. That was the most incredible generation. Comedy. Fashion. Music. It was all together.'
Engelman, a veteran entertainment promoter and the head of WestBeth Entertainment, is sitting in the seats at Chicago Shakespeare Theater on Navy Pier, pondering the most defiantly British of all the so-called British Invasion bands.
'They all looked at America,' he says, wistfully, 'at all these kids having a wonderful time and thought, 'Why can't we do that?''
They could, of course. And, as the decades passed, the first three of those bands achieved a level of global stardom without comparison. But The Kinks? Well, the clue was right there in their name. Lead singer and songwriter Ray Davies was a lot more complicated but was as big a talent as Roger Daltrey, Mick Jagger or any of 'em.
Mark Harrison, a British vinyl record dealer and a specialist in the era, argues that without The Kinks, bands like Blur and The Jam could not have existed and that only 'Sgt. Pepper's'-era Beatles competes. 'Is there a better British pop song than Davies' 'Waterloo Sunset?' Harrison asks.
On stage at Chicago Shakespeare's Yard theater, the familiar iconography of the jukebox musical, a venerable Anglo-American genre, is being rehearsed.
'That sounds like a bloody nightmare,' shouts Danny Horn, the actor playing Davies, the lead singer of The Kinks. 'Ray, it's commercial,' says the sort of character destined to be the enemy of all true creative souls. 'We're just trying to smooth the rough edges.'
'It's poncified,' insists the Davies character. 'We all feel like ponces. You. Can't. Hear. What. I. Can. Hear.'
Of course, as their fan base well knows, Davies and The Kinks were all about the rough edges. So much so that while their peers largely sold their music to American publishers, and then made myriad licensing details from Hollywood to Las Vegas and back again, Davies largely remained the same old working-class guy from Muswell Hill, London — socially aware, eccentric, elegiac, ever nostalgic for Britain's disappearing rural charms, and yet with a Monty Python-like insouciance toward anything and everything he missed.
The struggles of The Kinks are all too familiar: sudden success with band members ill-prepared to handle it; bad behavior on stage; inter-band power struggles, especially between Ray and his younger brother Dave Davies; fights with anyone who tried to pigeonhole them or do any kind of 'smoothing' so as to try and make The Kinks conform to an audience more likely to buy their records.
Sir Raymond Douglas Davies CBE was a remarkable iconoclast.
There was the repertoire of The Kinks itself, a hefty and staggeringly diverse catalog (most written by Davies) ranging freely from pop to blues to rock to jazz to avant-garde to heavy metal to a kind of proto-punk, featuring hits like 'You Really Got Me,' 'All Day and All of the Night,' 'Lola,' 'Set Me Free,' 'Dedicated Follower of Fashion' and 'Till the End of the Day,' and encompassing singles and concept albums alike.
Davies' 'unauthorized autobiography,' the 1996 memoir 'X-Ray,' consciously employed an unreliable narrator. He scored movies. He appeared in movies. He penned short stories. He wrote stage musicals, several of them, including a 1988 version of Jules Verne's 'Around the World in Eighty Days' and a 2008 show called 'Come Dancing,' based partly on his hit song of the same title but with a bunch of new songs.
'Ray wrote chronologically,' Engelman says. 'When something happened in his life, he wrote a song about it.'
'Sunny Afternoon,' the current Stateside project involving Davies, now 80, actually features a book credited to Joe Penhall, a well-respected British playwright. But over the phone from London earlier this month, Davies (who has been struggling with his health) points out that he wrote 'a few drafts' himself.
'Ray and Joe worked together,' says Hall in an interview after the rehearsal.
The reason why 'Sunny Afternoon' is having its American premiere at Chicago Shakespeare Theater, in cooperation with Engelman and the busy British producer Sonia Friedman, has everything to do with Edward Hall, the theater's new artistic director and also the man who helmed the world premiere of said title at the Hampstead Theater in London in 2014. (Talk about a show long in gestation.)
'Once Ed got the job in Chicago,' Engelman says, 'it finally all fell into place for America.'
'Sunny Afternoon,' named for one of The Kinks' most familiar songs from 1966, tells the story of the band's early years with, as is common in jukebox musicals, judiciously inserted songs at key moments. 'To understand the early years,' Davies says, by way of explanation and with the economy that comes with age, 'is to understand the later years.'
Some numbers, as is typical of the genre, are played in concert settings, including The Kinks' appearance on 'Top of the Pops,' the iconic BBC music show, and a notorious 1965 appearance in Cardiff where The Kinks had a blazing internal fight in the middle of their concert between the drummer and Ray's brother.
'Mick Avory knocked Dave out with a cymbal,' Hall says, shaking his head. 'All this happened while they were playing 'Set Me Free.''
Chris Dreja of the Yardbirds was watching that night from the edge of the stage and thought he had just witnessed a murder. 'It was such a violent act,' he later told Johnny Rogan, who wrote a 2015 biography of Davies under the apt title, 'Ray Davies: A Complicated Life.' Dave Davies recovered though and, improbably, The Kinks went on with their tour, even playing Chicago's Arie Crown Theatre later that same year, their first visit to a city that quickly understood what The Kinks was all about. (The band also performed at the Auditorium Theatre in 1972 and the Uptown Theatre in 1980, among numerous other Chicago appearances over the years.)
'We wanted to try and find a way of telling the story about a bedroom band and a family that became this incredibly influential movement that changed the whole world of rock 'n' roll and had an effect on so many other musicians,' says Hall. 'Very early on, it became clear to us that it had to be all about the music, about the process of making, writing and playing the music.'
In 2014, 'Jersey Boys,' the musical story of Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons, was packing them in on both sides of the Atlantic. That show opened up the idea that artists whose careers were mostly behind them could extend their reach by creating (or approving) their own narratives, wherein their younger selves were played by more youthful performers, warbling their hits with their original arrangements for a now-aging fan base. 'Sunny Afternoon' was seen in London to be very much in that vogue, albeit more appreciative than most such shows of Davies' particular charisma and improvisational skills. And with an ability to send Kinks fans into a state of euphoria.
Like 'Jersey Boys,' 'Sunny Afternoon' has paid close attention to the precise replication of The Kinks' sound, no easy feat given that the band's distinctive 'fuzzy' sound famously was created when Dave Davies, annoyed that he was stuck with a faulty Epic amplifier, aggressively slashed the speaker cone with a razor blade, accidentally (maybe) changing the sound of his guitar and creating the kind of distortion that gave the band a musical calling card, especially once Davies hooked up the jerry-rigged amp to another amp to make the sound a whole lot louder and, well, change the face of rock music forever. Especially once guitarists like Pete Townshend of The Who heard what Davies had done.
Amps are the entire backdrop of the set on the stage at Chicago Shakespeare. 'I saw 'Side Man' years ago,' says Hall, 'and I remember being frustrated that although this was a great play, nobody played. So we knew we had to find the people who could play, the right guitars with the right pick-ups, the whole sound.'
Davies, famously, has a way of disassociating himself from his own biography and his own work, endlessly cynical about the so-called Swinging Sixties. Hall says that during the London development process, Davies would sit there and 'talk about the Ray character.'
'He never wanted a sugar-coated version of his own self,' Hall says. 'But I think you do understand in this show the enormous amount of pressure The Kinks were under from an industry that wanted them to be another hit band doing three-chord songs and wearing fashionable clothes, here today and gone tomorrow. They weren't that. They were a round peg being squashed into a square hole. You have this groove of misfits. When they played, everything was beautiful. But when they stopped playing, stopped making music, everything would fall apart for one reason or another. If you know anything about The Kinks, you know they never did anything the same way as everyone else. They always left chaos behind.'
The plan for 'Sunny Afternoon,' Engelman says, is to create a tour from this Chicago Shakespeare premiere, which features actors from the original London production and Chicago-based performers and musicians. In some ways, what happened with 'The Who's Tommy,' a rock-oriented show that premiered at Chicago's Goodman Theatre before an enthusiastic audience only to struggle on Broadway, where fans of The Who were far less evident, especially among critics, is a cautionary tale. 'Broadway a crapshoot,' Engelman says. 'The finances alone could drown you. But The Kinks have an audience all across America.'
'Lots of great memories,' Davies says when asked about The Kinks playing in Chicago.
Now comes a treat for old Kinks fans, surely?
'New audiences,' he says, twice for emphasis. 'New audiences.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

King Charles ‘livid' as royal family's cherished Christmas tradition faces cancellation: expert
King Charles ‘livid' as royal family's cherished Christmas tradition faces cancellation: expert

New York Post

timean hour ago

  • New York Post

King Charles ‘livid' as royal family's cherished Christmas tradition faces cancellation: expert

King Charles is said to be 'livid' that he won't exactly get Christmas cheer this year. The Sun recently reported there is a potential shortage of pheasants at the monarch's Sandringham Estate, which could affect the chances of a full shooting calendar this winter. Advertisement It is known as one of the monarch's favorite pastimes during the holiday season. 'King Charles III is livid, frustrated and disappointed, reflecting both his deep personal attachment to the cherished family tradition and his broader commitment to his royal heritage,' British royal expert Hilary Fordwich claimed to Fox News Digital. 'He's also annoyed that the mishap reflects rather poorly on the management of Sandringham, which he inherited from his mother, Queen Elizabeth II,' she explained. 'The shoot gathers his extended royal family and guests, reinforcing bonds while upholding a long-standing aristocratic tradition. The root of the problem is that Charles has always opposed importing birds from elsewhere, preferring to maintain the estate's game population. The eco-friendly approach has failed.' Advertisement According to the outlet, the number of birds currently available has dropped. 6 Britain's King Charles III wore hearing protection as he watched an artillery piece be fired in Lark Hill on Friday. via REUTERS This may force the 76-year-old, who is battling an undisclosed form of cancer, to cancel the traditional Boxing Day shoot, which is described as a central part of the royal family's holiday plans. Fox News Digital reached out to Buckingham Palace for comment. Advertisement 'Allegedly, King Charles is disappointed that one of his favorite Christmas family traditions may not take place this year,' British broadcaster and photographer Helena Chard told Fox News Digital. 'The Sandringham shoot is questionable due to a lack of Sandringham pheasants on the estate. It seems the family will have to bond, enjoy and celebrate over another hobby, or possibly clay pigeon shoots are the way forward.' 'King Charles may have felt a fleeting healthy upset, but in light of recent times, with the slimmed-down monarchy, cancer battles and more… the monarchy has found their typical ways changing as they are forced to be flexible,' she shared. 6 King Charles III was recently pictured taking a stroll at the Sandringham Estate. Bav Media / The Sun reported that a long-serving gamekeeper, who is responsible for managing the bird population on the estate, is said to have been let go in a recent staff shake-up, resulting in the shortage. Advertisement 'It was a total cock-up,' a source claimed to the outlet. 'No birds, no bang, just red faces. The king wasn't having it.' According to Chard, while the king may be let down, he isn't opposed to change. The monarch is said to be adjusting to a new routine as he continues his weekly cancer treatments and remains devoted to full-time royal duties. 6 King Charles III and Queen Camilla with Prince William, Prince of Wales attend the Christmas Morning Service at St Mary Magdalene Church on December 25, 2024. UK Press via Getty Images 'He pushes for change on occasion,' said Chard. 'He broke royal tradition with his last Christmas speech, recorded at the Fitzrovia Chapel, rather than a royal residence. It was there that he chose to reflect on the deeper things that connect us all — community, health, inclusivity and love.' Chard also pointed out that the shortage may prompt the king to review the shooting tradition, which has come under fire from animal rights groups. Royal expert Ian Pelham Turner is hopeful the change of plans will allow the king to prioritize one thing — making amends with his younger son, Prince Harry. The Duke of Sussex and his wife Meghan Markle stepped back as senior royals in 2020, citing the unbearable intrusions of the British press and a lack of support from the palace. They reside in California. 6 On Christmas Day in 2017, the late Queen Elizabeth II, her husband and other members of the royal family were pictured leaving the St Mary Magdalene Church in Sandringham, Norfolk. AFP via Getty Images Advertisement Since the couple's royal exit, they have aired their grievances in interviews and podcasts, as well as Harry's explosive 2023 memoir, 'Spare.' Sources close to the prince, 40, previously claimed to People magazine that the king won't respond to his phone calls and letters. 'Perhaps he could bring the royal clan together, lock the door, knock all their heads together and unite the entire family, including Harry and Meghan,' Turner told Fox News Digital. 'This may be feathers flying in a different way than a grouse shoot, but if they really believe in the Christian principles, they would try, in my view. It is what Britain expects.' People magazine reported that Charles supports traditional practices and opposes importing birds from elsewhere for the customary rural pastime. However, the outlet reported that maintaining game birds in the area has been 'challenging.' 6 Britain's King Charles III greeted families of service personnel during a visit to the regiments headquarters in Lark Hill, Wiltshire. via REUTERS Advertisement People also reported that the king's grandson, Prince George, was taken on his first grouse-hunting expedition at Balmoral, the royal family's Scottish estate. Royal author Tom Quinn claimed in his new book, 'Yes Ma'am — The Secret Life of Royal Servants,' that Kate Middleton isn't allowing her three young children, including George, 11, to participate in 'blooding.' This longtime ritual calls for members of the royal family to smear blood on their faces from their first kill during fox or stag hunting. Fox News Digital reached out to Kensington Palace for comment. In his 2023 book 'Gilded Youth,' Quinn claimed that William also wanted his family to get with the times. Advertisement ''William is struggling with the traditional pastimes of the royal family as they become ever more unpopular with the public,' he wrote. 6 Ingrid Seward, editor-in-chief of Majesty magazine, previously reported that Princess Diana wasn't a fan of game shooting. Getty Images 'William loves shooting — a love he shares with his father — but he is also conscious that the tide is now moving against what many people now refer to as blood sports (the royals prefer to refer to them as field sports). But are they suitable for George, Charlotte and Louis?' Quinn also wrote that while William, 42, was 'keen' to get the children into shooting, he also noted that 'few' expected Kate to 'allow' her children to take part in the blooding tradition. Advertisement Harry previously detailed his experience with the tradition in his memoir, 'Spare.' The 40-year-old recalled how his hunting guide, Sandy, pressed his face into the belly wound of a stag he shot during a blooding ritual on the grounds of Balmoral Castle. 'He placed a hand gently behind my neck and… pushed my head inside the carcass,' the Duke of Sussex wrote, as quoted by the New York Post. 'I tried to pull away, but Sandy pushed me deeper,' the prince wrote. 'I was shocked by his insane strength. And by the infernal smell. My breakfast jumped up from my stomach. After a minute, I couldn't smell anything, because I couldn't breathe. My nose and mouth were full of blood, guts and a deep, upsetting warmth.' Harry wrote that he 'felt swelling pride' that he had 'been good to that stag' by killing it with a single shot so it wouldn't feel pain. He said it was a 'show of respect for the slain' and 'an act of communion by the slayer.' The outlet noted that the book's revelations prompted animal rights organization PETA to condemn the father of two for his graphic descriptions. Ingrid Seward, editor-in-chief of Majesty magazine, previously reported that Princess Diana wasn't a fan of game shooting, which has been one of the royal family's favorite activities for centuries. Seward claimed that the late Princess of Wales didn't even like her sons being photographed holding guns. Seward claimed Diana reportedly told William and Harry, 'Remember, there's always someone in a high-rise flat who doesn't want to see you shoot a Bambi,' as quoted by the U.K.'s Express. Still, the boys loved hunting, and Diana used to jokingly call them her 'Killer Wales.' Ken Wharfe, Diana's former royal protection officer, also claimed that Diana was disgusted by hunting. 'The royal shooting obsession was something Princess Diana found repugnant,' Wharfe said, as quoted by the outlet. 'Requiring little or no skill, royal pheasant shoots are a pre-planned carnage of wildlife, bred specifically for slaughter.'

50th anniversary of 'Jaws': How the film impacted public perception of sharks

timean hour ago

50th anniversary of 'Jaws': How the film impacted public perception of sharks

A theme song consisting of a simple two-note motif has kept swimmers terrified of open water for decades. John Williams' iconic score for the movie "Jaws," which celebrates the 50th anniversary of its release later this month, is instantly recognizable -- the sound of which is enough to prompt people to look around for a monster of the sea to emerge from the surface, even if they are no where near the ocean, shark experts told ABC News. The movie, one of the first feature films directed by Hollywood legend Steven Spielberg and based on the book of the same name by Peter Benchley, shifted the collective consciousness surrounding sharks and the danger they present for the past 50 years, some experts said. Based in a coastal town in New England, residents are terrified after a woman is killed by a great white shark that seems to want to continue raising its number of human kills as it stalks boats and swimmers. "Jaws" is almost synonymous with the American summer -- similar to Fourth of July and apple pie, Chris Lowe, director of the Shark Lab at California State University Long Beach, told ABC News. The film tapped into humans' primal fear and became a social phenomenon in the U.S. and abroad, grossing over $470 million at the box office, adjusted for inflation. Shot at water level, which is where humans see the water, "Jaws" instilled a fear of the unknown -- which is why it is still relevant today, Ross Williams, founder of The Daily Jaws, an online community dedicated to celebrating the movie, told ABC News. "It villainized sharks and people became absolutely terrified of any species that was in the ocean," James Wilkowski, director of the Coastal Oregon Marine Experiment Station at Oregon State University, told ABC News. 'Jaws' transformed sharks into the new marine villain When "Jaws" was released on June 20, 1975, it transformed the apex predator into an underwater villain whose presence made water unsafe, Wilkowski said. Whales were the most feared marine animal in the generations before "Jaws," said Lowe, who grew up in Martha's Vineyard, where the movie was shot. Lowe's grandfather was a commercial fisherman, and his grandfather's uncles were commercial whalers, who passed down the terror of whales to the subsequent generations, Lowe said. The fear was based on stories of sailors coming back from whaling expeditions where friends and family had died, Lowe added. "Moby Dick," the 1851 novel by Herman Melville about a whaling ship captain named Ahab and his quest to get revenged on the giant white sperm whale that bit off his leg, likely contributed to the trepidation as well, Lowe said. But the anti-shark propaganda had been brewing long before the movie was released, Williams said. Horror stories published during World War II and films that preceded "Jaws" did not paint sharks in a nice light, Williams said. Chapple, who started his career in Cape Cod, knew people who saw the movie as a kid and still refused to enter ocean waters as an adult. "It was really in the psyche of the community," he said. Misconceptions about sharks due to 'Jaws' Like many fictional films, there were several exaggerations or dramatizations about sharks included in "Jaws" for cinematic effect. The most glaring inaccuracy is that sharks want to attack or eat people, the experts said. The notion that sharks are some "mindless killer" that are going to kill anyone who is swimming in the water or on a boat is inaccurate to the nature of the predator, Taylor Chapel, co-lead of Oregon State University's Big Fish Lab, told ABC News. "We're not on a shark's menu," Wilkowski said. "They don't want to eat us, and if they did, we'd be easy pickings. It'd be a buffet." Shark research began in the 1970s, so at the time, scientists -- and especially the public -- didn't know a lot about them, Chapple said. There are also anatomical inaccuracies in the shark animatronic itself -- including bigger teeth, larger "dark, black" eyes and an unrealistic 25-foot body, Wilkowski said. Technology at the time made it difficult for the filmmakers to get actual footage of the sharks, so there are barely any glimpses of real sharks in the movie and filmmakers largely relied on the animatronic as well, Lowe said. "When the movie came out, it was probably the most deceptively but brilliantly marketed movie ever," Williams said. The biggest misconception that still reverberates among public fear is that a shark sighting is a "bad thing." But the presence of sharks is actually a sign of a healthy ecosystem, Wilkowski said. "To see sharks in an environment is a good thing," he said. "...we just have to learn how to coexist with them." After the movie was released and permeated society's awareness of the dangers that lurk beneath the surface of the water, there was a direct correlation of shark population declines due to trophy hunting, Wilkowski said. "Because people's perceptions of sharks were negative, it made it easier for them to allow and justify overfishing of sharks, regardless of the species," Lowe said. Both Spielberg and Benchley have expressed regret in the past over how "Jaws" impacted the public perception of sharks. But Chapple has noticed a shift in the past two decades, where sharks have transformed from a "terrifying" creature to one people are fascinated by, instead, he said. "The fascination has outlasted and outpaced the fear," Williams said. Humans are actually a much bigger threat to sharks, killing up to 100 million sharks per year as a result of overfishing, according to the Shark Research Institute. Climate change and shifting food sources are also causing species-wide population declines, the experts said. Sharks are crucial for a healthy ocean ecosystem. The apex predators maintain balance in the food web and control prey populations. "If we lost sharks, our marine ecosystem would collapse," Wilkowski said.

New '1984' foreword includes warning about ‘problematic' characters
New '1984' foreword includes warning about ‘problematic' characters

Miami Herald

time5 hours ago

  • Miami Herald

New '1984' foreword includes warning about ‘problematic' characters

The 75th anniversary edition of George Orwell's novel 1984, which coined the term 'thoughtcrime' to describe the act of having thoughts that question the ruling party's ideology, has become an ironic lightning rod in debates over alleged trigger warnings and the role of historical context in classic literature. The introduction to the new edition, endorsed by Orwell's estate and written by the American author Dolen Perkins-Valdezm, is at the center of the storm, drawing fire from conservative commentators as well as public intellectuals, and prompting a wide spectrum of reaction from academics who study Orwell's work. Perkins-Valdez opens the introduction with a self-reflective exercise: imagining what it would be like to read 1984 for the first time today. She writes that 'a sliver of connection can be difficult for someone like me to find in a novel that does not speak much to race and ethnicity,' noting the complete absence of Black characters. She also describes her pause at the protagonist Winston Smith's 'despicable' misogyny, but ultimately chooses to continue reading, writing: 'I know the difference between a flawed character and a flawed story.' 'I'm enjoying the novel on its own terms, not as a classic but as a good story; that is, until Winston reveals himself to be a problematic character,' she writes. 'For example, we learn of him: 'He disliked nearly all women, and especially the young and pretty ones.' Whoa, wait a minute, Orwell.' That framing was enough to provoke sharp critique from novelist and essayist Walter Kirn on the podcast America This Week, co-hosted with journalist Matt Taibbi. Kirn characterized the foreword as a kind of ideological overreach. 'Thank you for your trigger warning for 1984,' he said. 'It is the most 1984ish thing I've ever f***ing read.' Later in the episode, which debuted on June 1, Kirn blasted what he saw as an imposed 'permission structure' by publishers and academic elites. 'It's a sort of Ministry of Truthism,' he said, referring to the Ministry of Truth that features prominently in the dystopian novel. 'They're giving you a little guidebook to say, 'Here's how you're supposed to feel when you read this.'' Conservative commentator such as Ed Morrissey described the foreword as part of 'an attempt to rob [Orwell's work] of meaning by denigrating it as 'problematic.'' Morrissey argued that trigger warnings on literary classics serve to 'distract readers at the start from its purpose with red herrings over issues of taste.' But not all responses aligned with that view. Academic rebuttal Peter Brian Rose-Barry, a philosophy professor at Saginaw Valley State University and author of George Orwell: The Ethics of Equality, disputed the entire premise. 'There just isn't [a trigger warning],' he told Newsweek in an email after examining the edition. 'She never accuses Orwell of thoughtcrime. She never calls for censorship or cancelling Orwell.' In Rose-Barry's view, the foreword is neither invasive nor ideological, but reflective. 'Perkins-Valdez suggests in her introduction that 'love and artistic beauty can act as healing forces in a totalitarian state,'' he noted. 'Now, I find that deeply suspect... but I'd use this introduction to generate a discussion in my class.' Taibbi and Kirn, by contrast, took issue with that exact line during the podcast. 'Love heals? In 1984?' Taibbi asked. 'The whole thing ends with Winston broken, saying he loves Big Brother,' the symbol of the totalitarian state at the heart of the book. Kirn laughed and added, 'It's the kind of revisionist uplift you get from a book club discussion after someone just watched The Handmaid's Tale.' Perkins-Valdez, a Black writer, Harvard graduate and professor of literature at American University, also noted the novel's lack of racial representation: 'That sliver of connection can be difficult for someone like me to find in a novel that does not speak much to race and ethnicity at all.' Kirn responded to that sentiment on the show by pointing out that Orwell was writing about midcentury Britain: 'When Orwell wrote the book, Black people made up maybe one percent of the population. It's like expecting white characters in every Nigerian novel.' Richard Keeble, former chair of the Orwell Society, argued that critiques of Orwell's treatment of race and gender have long been part of academic discourse. 'Questioning Orwell's representation of Blacks in 1984 can usefully lead us to consider the evolution of his ideas on race generally,' he told Newsweek. 'Yet Orwell struggled throughout his life, and not with complete success, to exorcise what Edward Said called 'Orientalism.'' Keeble added, 'Trigger warnings and interpretative forewords... join the rich firmament of Orwellian scholarship-being themselves open to critique and analysis.' Cultural overreach While critics like Kirn view Perkins-Valdez's new foreword as a symptom of virtue signaling run amok, others see it as part of a long-standing literary dialogue. Laura Beers, a historian at American University and author of Orwell's Ghosts: Wisdom and Warnings for the Twenty-First Century, acknowledged that such reactions reflect deeper political divides. But she defended the legitimacy of approaching Orwell through modern ethical and social lenses. 'What makes 1984 such a great novel is that it was written to transcend a specific historical context,' she told Newsweek. 'Although it has frequently been appropriated by the right as a critique of 'socialism,' it was never meant to be solely a critique of Stalin's Russia.' 'Rather,' she added, 'it was a commentary on how absolute power corrupts absolutely, and the risk to all societies, including democracies like Britain and the United States, of the unchecked concentration of power.' Beers also addressed the role of interpretive material in shaping the reading experience. 'Obviously, yes, in that 'interpretive forewords' give a reader an initial context in which to situate the texts that they are reading,' she said. 'That said, such forewords are more often a reflection on the attitudes and biases of their own time.' While the foreword has prompted the familiar battle lines playing out across the Trump-era culture wars, Beers sees the conversation itself as in keeping with Orwell's legacy. 'By attempting to place Orwell's work in conversation with changing values and historical understandings in the decades since he was writing,' she said, 'scholars like Perkins-Valdez are exercising the very freedom to express uncomfortable and difficult opinions that Orwell explicitly championed.' Related Articles Gabbard Links 'Ministry of Truth' to Obama Speech, Calls Biden 'Front Man'Tulsi Gabbard Compares Biden Admin to Dictatorship Over 'Ministry of Truth'Joe Biden's Disinformation Board Likened to Orwell's 'Ministry of Truth'Memory Holes, Mobs and Speaker Pelosi | Opinion 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store