Coming (Quite) Soon

We had intended seeing Interstellar before now. Maybe we'll eventually make it to the cinema before the film disappears from the schedule. Until we get to see that movie, a couple of tidbits relating two others, for the future, which could be worth a look.

British director Paul Greengrass, best known for The Bourne Ultimatum, is to bring George Orwell's 1984 to the big screen (again). Orwell's dystopian novel will be produced by Scott Rudin, whose hits include The Social Network and Iris. No casting details for 1984 have yet been announced. John Hurt played the novel's lead character Winston Smith, in an actual 1984 adaptation of Orwell's 1984 by Michael Radford, best known for Il Postino.

I wonder who'll play Winston Smith this time? Someone a prospective audience will recognise and, more importantly, accept in such a role might be Brian Cranston of Breaking Bad; or Damien Lewis of Homeland and Band of Brothers. Either would have me impatiently waiting for the movie's release! Please don't let it be Brad Pitt or Tom Hanks!

See here: BBC.com News/Entertainment
Also, clicking on "1984" in the Label Cloud in my sidebar will lead to several other relevant posts.

Director Josh Boone is planning a set of four films based on Stephen King’s 1978 long-winded novel The Stand. There has already been a TV adaptation of The Stand, as a mini-series. I think we've seen it, but cannot be certain. Having read a brief synopsis of the theme, oddly it doesn't ring many bells.

The Stand is yet another dystopian tale - they are proving popular, guarantee lots of bums on seats. If film-makers keep over-egging the dystopian pudding with many stale oeufs, though, the audience might soon be turned off. There's always the argument that younger film-goers almost certainly will not have read the novels, and likely haven't seen earlier adaptations, so the do-overs will seem new to them.

These two do-overs don't irritate me as much as some other re-makes have done. 1984 could benefit from a 21st century perspective (knowing what we know now); and The Stand, as long as the director doesn't go into full-on horror/smash-bang mode, but makes a thought-provoking set of movies, could bring the story to an entirely new audience, as well as to some who have read the 800+ page novel, and/or seen the earlier adaptation, but would appreciate a refresher.

See screenrant.com

History's Secrets

According to Steven Aftergood's Secrecy News website:
"A 1991 statute mandated that the State Department publish the documentary record of U.S. foreign policy (known as Foreign Relations of the United States, or FRUS) no later than 30 years after the events described. They were years behind when President Obama, still in his sunshine mode, hit the Oval Office and ordered State to complete the processing of the backlog of 25-year-old records awaiting declassification by the end of December 2013."


Tom Engelhardt writes, referring to the above, (See The Sunshine Presidency Takes History to a Dark Place)

Didn't happen, of course. And that, it turns out, is the least of it. A State Department historical advisory committee (HAC), a "panel of distinguished historians," has just weighed in with its own fears that "a substantial percentage of those records that have been reviewed by the NDC [National Declassification Center] have not been cleared for release to the public. In the opinion of the HAC, the relatively high number of reviewed documents that remain withheld from researchers and citizens raises fundamental questions about the declassification guidelines." The historians wonder, in fact, whether the majority of the FRUS volumes will ever see the light of day.

When I read Mr Engelhardt's piece Orwell's 1984 immediately sprang to mind:

"Do you realize that the past, starting from yesterday, has been actually abolished? If it survives anywhere, it's in a few solid objects with no words attached to them, like that lump of glass there. Already we know almost literally nothing about the Revolution and the years before the Revolution. Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book has been rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street and building has been renamed, and every date has been altered. And that process is continuing day-by-day and minute-by-minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right. I know, of course, that the past is falsified, but it would never be possible for me to prove it, even when I did the falsification myself. After the thing is done, no evidence ever remains. The only evidence is inside my own mind, and I don't know with any certainty that any other human being shares my memories. Just in that one instance, in my whole life, I did possess actual concrete evidence after the event – years after it." (2.5.14, Winston to Julia)

I wonder what it is that's so incriminating to.......? Isn't that one likely reason documents are being kept from researchers? They are probably waiting for........to die. Fill in the blanks, dear reader!

"Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past," repeated Winston obediently.

"Who controls the present controls the past," said O'Brien, nodding his head with slow approval. "Is it your opinion, Winston, that the past has real existence?" (3.2.39-40)

The Future Seen from the Past: Visions of Orwell, Huxley & Zamyatin

Writers are throwing the name Orwell around more than usual just now. There's an example at HuffPo this week: Orwell 2013 by Jeff Danziger. I've mentioned and featured George Orwell in posts a few times over the years myself - best example, with some astrology and several interesting comments is from April 2011, titled simply George Orwell.

(Illustration, titled Visions Of The Future Seen From The Past was
Posted by Wastedpapiers at scrapiteria.)




I don't feel like re-reading 1984, only to depress myself further, but did pick up my copy the other day and re-read Erich Fromm's "Afterword", written in 1961. There's a full transcript of it online HERE.

Mr. Fromm remarked on the marked difference in tone between post-medieval writings, when optimism reigned: "With the breakup of the medieval world, man's sense of strength, and his hope, not only for individual but for social perfection", and writings after World War I when what's now categorised as "speculative fiction" took a turn into the decidedly negative, now known as dystopian. Fromm mentions, as examples of post-medieval writings Thomas Moore's Utopia, Campanella's City of the Sun, the German humanist Andreae's Christianopolis, and the latest of these Edward Bellamy's Looking Backward, published in 1888. There are differences in approach but all have positive, utopian, flavours (a utopia: is a community or society possessing highly desirable or perfect qualities).

The visions of dytopia, arising post 1918 are best seen in three books mentioned by Fromm: Orwell's 1984, the Russian author Zamyatin's We, and Aldous Huxley's Brave New World.

Snip

This new trilogy of what may be called the "negative utopias" of the middle of the twentieth century is the counterpoint to the trilogy of the positive utopias mentioned before, written in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The negative utopias express the mood of powerlessness and hopelessness of modern man just as the early utopias expressed the mood of self-confidence and hope of post-medieval man. There could be nothing more paradoxical in historical terms than this change: man, at the beginning of the industrial age, when in reality he did not possess the means for a world in which the table was set for all who wanted to eat, when he lived in a world in which there were economic reasons for slavery, war, and exploitation, in which man only sensed the possibilities of his new science and of its application to technique and to production -- nevertheless man at the beginning of modern development was full of hope. Four hundred years later, when all these hopes are realizable, when man can produce enough for everybody, when war has become unnecessary because technical progress can give any country more wealth than can territorial conquest, when this globe is in the process of becoming as unified as a continent was four hundred years ago, at the very moment when man is on the verge of realizing his hope, he begins to lose it. It is the essential point of all the three negative utopias not only to describe the future toward which we are moving, but also to explain the historical paradox.

The three negative utopias differ from each other in detail and emphasis. Zamyatin's We, written in the twenties, has more features in common with 1984 than with Huxley's Brave New World. We and 1984 both depict the completely bureaucratized society, in which man is a number and loses all sense of individuality. This is brought about by a mixture of unlimited terror (in Zamyatin's book a brain operation is added eventually which changes man even physically) combined with ideological and psychological manipulation. In Huxley's work the main tool for turning man into an automaton is the application of hypnoid mass suggestion, which allows dispensing with terror. One can say that Zamyatin's and Orwell's examples resemble more the Stalinist and Nazi dictatorships, while Huxley's Brave New World is a picture of the development of the Western industrial world, provided it continues to follow the present trend without fundamental change..........................................


In spite of this difference there is one basic question common to the three negative utopias, The question is a philosophical, anthropological and psychological one, and perhaps also a religious one. It is: can human nature be changed in such a way that man will forget his longing for freedom, for dignity, for integrity, for love -- that is to say, can man forget that he is human? Or does human nature have a dynamism which will react to the violation of these basic human needs by attempting to change an inhuman society into a human one? It must be noted that the three authors do not take the simple position of psychological relativism which is common to so many social scientists today; they do not start out with the assumption that there is no such thing as human nature; that there is no such thing as qualities essential to man; and that man is born as nothing but a blank sheet of paper on which any given society writes its text. They do assume that man has an intense striving for love, for justice, for truth, for solidarity, and in this respect they are quite different from the relativists. In fact, they affirm the strength and intensity of these human strivings by the description of the very means they present as being necessary to destroy them. In Zamyatin's We a brain operation similar to lobotomy is necessary to get rid of the human demands of human nature. In Huxley's Brave New World artificial biological selection and drugs are necessary, and in Orwell's 1984 it is the completely unlimited use of torture and brainwashing. None of the three authors can be accused of the thought that the destruction of the humanity within man is easy. Yet all three arrive at the same conclusion: that it is possible, with means and techniques which are common knowledge today.

Whereas it's easy to see how, from where we are now in 2013, a dystopia similar to those envisioned by the authors above could quite easily emerge, in light of the last paragraph quoted, there may be hope still that the better parts of our human nature might prevail. These could be obliterated only by deliberate and concerted effort. Equally, though, it'd be only through determined and concerted effort, and constant watchfulness on a level we have not yet attained, that certainty of retaining the better parts of our humanity would prevail.

GEORGE ORWELL

The quote from novelist George Orwell in the sidebar links to this re-airing of my 2008 post. His words are often quoted these days in strings of comments at political websites. His vision of the future may not ever materialise just as he described it in "1984", but his writings certainly instilled a long-lasting dread in the minds of readers. We see much in today's political scenarios that, if not exactly Orwellian - is surely headed in that direction.

George Orwell (real name Eric Blair) was born on 25 June 1903 in Motahari, Bihar, India, taken to live in England when one year old. (Natal chart and some astrology later in this post).


At Live Science this article: Study: George Orwell's Illnesses Influenced '1984' provides some insight into the darkness of his subjects:

"He suffered multiple bouts of bronchitis and other respiratory ailments, Ross writes. As a young man, Orwell had several episodes of bacterial pneumonia, and also contracted dengue fever while in Burma. He was a heavy smoker, and he suffered fits of coughing from a condition called bronchiectasis.

In 1938, Orwell went to a sanatorium because he was coughing up blood. He was eventually diagnosed with tuberculosis..............Eight years later, depressed by his wife’s death, Orwell moved to a windy and damp Scottish island. His health worsened significantly just as he was working on the first draft of "1984," Ross reports. Fever, weight loss, and night sweats sent him to the hospital, where he underwent “collapse therapy,” a treatment designed to close the dangerous cavities that form in the chests of tuberculosis patients.

Relying on Orwell's own descriptions of the treatment, Ross says it "may have influenced the depiction of the tortures of Winston Smith in the Ministry of Love" in "1984.""

Confirmation from the man himself:

"Orwell himself told his friends that 1984 would have been less gloomy had he not been so ill—it was a very dark, disturbing, and pessimistic work," Ross said. Orwell's illnesses "made him a better and more empathetic writer, in that his sense of human suffering made his writing more universal."

"1984" wasn't meant as prophecy. I suppose that having experienced the Spanish Civil War and World War2, the idea of totalitarianism was an unwelcome spectre in the minds of many people, and was played upon by this novel. Orwell once said:

The Spanish war and other events in 1936-37 turned the scale and thereafter I knew where I stood. Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it.

Had he been aiming at prophecy, a more appropriate title might have been "2024". Perceptive minds have been noting warning signs of what I'll call 1984-ness in the USA during recent years.


ASTROLOGY
Orwell was taken to England when one year old, was educated there and spent much of his life in the British Isles. So re-location would have had a bearing on where the angles of his chart were placed, in addition to the birth-time question which has already muddied the water in that respect.

Time of birth, according to Astrodatabank, was 11.30am, though with a DD rating (dirty data) so it is not reliable. I've used it anyway, in the absence of any alternative. If time of birth isn't correct, the ascending sign/degree will be incorrect, as well as Moon's exact position.



If I'd been given this chart without knowing to whom it belonged I might have guessed that the owner was a writer of some kind - journalist or novelist - he was both at various stages of his career: Virgo ascending, if time of birth is correct, and Mercury in Gemini are both good indicators of someone adept with the pen, or in today's world, the keyboard.

Sun conjunct Neptune (creativity) and Moon in Cancer (if time of birth was other than 11:30 AM Moon could be either in late Gemini, or a little further into Cancer). Lots of scope for a fertile imagination and creativity there, either way. Cancer is usually seen as a rather gentle, passive sign. I'd have guessed Orwell's writing might reflect that: historical dramas, mild romantic sagas - something along those lines. How wrong I'd have been!

Sun conjunct Neptune has a darker side too though. Creativity is the bright side of Neptune, the potential for addiction is one of Neptune's darker sides, especially when the planet is closely aligned with a personal planet - and you don't get more personal than natal Sun. Orwell was a lifelong heavy smoker = addiction. As noted in the quotes which follow, his smoking may have caused his untimely demise. His ill health may also have been one factor in the draw to darkness in his subject matter.

There's a Grand Trine in air signs (3 linked 120 degree aspects) in Orwell's chart. Air connects to intellect, ideas, communication. Mars in Libra, Saturn in Aquarius and Mercury in Gemini are connected in this "circuit", providing an excellent harmonious link-up of skills for any writer, sign-wise. However, the planets involved with Mercury in the Grand Trine: Mars and Saturn, are both traditionally labelled "malefics" (potentially negative in some way). This might reflect an attraction to subject matter less than uplifting - Orwell's dystopian novels "1984" and "Animal Farm" for instance. Had that Grand Trine linked, for example, Venus, Jupiter and Mercury, we might have on our bookshelves some Orwellian visions of a wonderful future filled with art, philosophy and beauty. Just a thought!


From "1984", and with today's mainstream media in mind:

"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?… —Book 1 chapter 5.

"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas of which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is "not done" to say it... Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the high-brow periodicals".
~~Introduction to Animal Farm. 1945.'

A final quote from "1984"

"It was curious to think that the sky was the same for everybody, in Eurasia or Eastasia as well as here. And the people under the sky were also very much the same--everywhere, all over the world, hundreds or thousands of millions of people just like this, people ignorant of one another's existence, held apart by walls of hatred and lies, and yet almost exactly the same--people who had never learned to think but were storing up in their hearts and bellies and muscles the power that would one day overturn the world." —Book 1 chapter 10.

Contemplating Psyops as Mercury Retrogrades

Planet Mercury will appear to be in what astrologers call "retrograde motion" until 12 September. The current episode of backward-seeming movement began on on 20 August. As has oft been repeated, these regular periods of Mercury Retrograde connect to an extra helping of difficulties in all areas of communication. These periods also provide a time when fruitful reflection of things past can be achieved.

With the latter in mind, I started re-reading George Orwell's 1984 and watched, again, the tape of the movie adaptation of his book - the one starring John Hurt and Richard Burton. 1984 struck a chord:

"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?... Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?... The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact, there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking—not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness."
- George Orwell, 1984, Book 1, Chapter 5

1984 was written long ago. As a view of how Orwell's words relate to the state of things today, I offer a link to a film I stumbled upon while drafting this post yesterday: Psywar - "The real battlefield is the mind". The full film (around 1 hour 40 mins, ends abruptly, it's possibly to be continued) and is available to view in full, or as a brief 4 and a half minute trailer either at 911 Blogger.com or at Exposure Room. If a passing reader is pressed for time, the trailer is highly recommended, though the full film is far more enlightening.

UPDATE: If the video film has been removed from the above links try THIS LINK .

Its creator said, at the 911 site:

I'm pleased to present the first feature in my documentary series, entitled Psywar ("The real battlefield is the mind"). It premiered on Global Research and should be appearing on some other alternative news websites in the coming days.

The film explores the evolution of propaganda and public relations in the United States, with an emphasis on the “elitist theory of democracy” and the relationship between war, propaganda and class.

This is not a high budget affair, but was financed via a blue collar job, and is being released online for free. The interviews contained within are original and were conducted by proxy.

The film takes us back, with the guidance of some highly regarded historians and philosophers, over past centuries to illustrate the use of propaganda and manipulation of public feeling....mind control....psyops...call it what you will.

Psyops (Psychological Operations), under one label or another, has been a part of warfare, and used by all countries, for centuries. It has included simple operations such as circulation of propaganda leaflets (as below), posters, radio broadcasts, as well as many more sophisticated and sinister operations. As well as being a part of warfare psyops are used to influence populations that war is necessary - remember those "weapons of mass destruction"? War, of course, is one of the most profitable of all events, but only for the power-wielders. Others lose their lives, their health or their sanity. Families are left devastated, on both sides of that divide of manufactured hatred.



Not always realised, though, is the continual use of a form of psyops on the population at large by those in power (and I don't necessarily mean a country's government).

One theory put forward in the film is that we are being manipulated because "the power-wielders" consider that "the people" (The Great Unwashed) are not fit to have a say in how countries are run in this advanced technological age. All power, and consequently all wealth, must be restricted to "the elite leaders". The power-wielders choose/designate individuals - candidates - for "election". This gives the appearance that these individuals are being "chosen" by the people. In reality the "candidates" are there only by permission of "the elite", and are there to do their bidding. This process is aided by a coordinated psychological operation using elite-controlled media as its front-line to push forward "candidate du jour" and denigrate others.

"The people" are, from time to time, given tid-bits of help (eg: the tidbit contained in new healthcare legislation. This could quite easily have been a much bigger portion of assistance, of benefit to more of "the people", but that would have resulted in a reduced share of goodies for the pharmaceutical corporations. Can't have that, can we?! "The people" receive just enough to avoid outright rebellion by the masses. Outright rebellion - revolution - is something "the elite" fear and always plan to avoid.



Quote from a respected philosopher:

Noam Chomsky, Thought Control in a Democratic Society

“If in some Orwellian future there were One Big Owner, he might be benevolent, in his own opinion, as indeed, Orwell’s Big Brother was – in his own opinion. Big Brother let the public see and hear a variety of things he deemed useful – where there is centralized control, it is the One Big Owner who makes the choices…Each year is more likely that the American citizen who turns to any medium – newspapers, magazines, radio, TV, books, movies, cable, recordings, video cassettes – will receive information, ideas, or entertainment controlled by the same handful of corporations, whether it is daily news, a cable entertainment program, or a textbook…Media giants have become so powerful that government no longer has the will to restrain them…Now that media owners are so large that they are part of the highest levels of the world economy, the news and other public information become heavily weighted in favor of all corporate values. The new corporate ethic is so single-minded about extreme fast profits and expanded control over the media business that it is willing to convert American news into a service for the affluent customers wanted by the media’s advertisers instead of a source of information significant for the whole of society.”

Beware Newspeak! My advice: be forever wary of what you read and hear, especially when what you read and hear will aid or profit "the elite". As a recent example, take the speeches and articles telling us that most of the millions of gallons of oil leaked from BP's exploded well, have already disappeared from the Gulf of Mexico. Mustn't upset the oil industry, they still want to drill...drill...drill, to further enrich their corporation - and to hell with the environment. And pause to wonder why more stringent (or any siginficant) measures are not in place to try to slow climate change. Again - it would not profit the corporations and "the elite" power-wielders. Outpourings of manipulative garbage come regularly from what are laughingly called "both sides of the aisle". There is only one side, the corporate side, and no aisle to speak of.

In the USA we need to question, too, all that will be fed to us during upcoming 2010 mid-term elections, and the big one in 2012. But, having questioned these things, what then? That is the ultimate question. I haven't yet found an answer.

"It was curious to think that the sky was the same for everybody, in Eurasia or Eastasia as well as here.
And the people under the sky were also very much the same--everywhere, all over the world, hundreds or thousands of millions of people just like this, people ignorant of one another's existence, held apart by walls of hatred and lies, and yet almost exactly the same--people who had never learned to think but were storing up in their hearts and bellies and muscles the power that would one day overturn the world."
- George Orwell, 1984, Book 1, Chapter 10

George Orwell & "1984"

I've noticed mention of George Orwell's "1984" around the internet in recent weeks, usually with the premise that "this is where we're heading if......." (insert opinion). I must have read the book as a teenager, and remember seeing a TV series based on the novel, but, unlike the futuristic novels of H.G. Wells, the story of "1984" (first published 1949) didn't have the same appeal.

George Orwell (real name Eric Blair) was born on 25 June 1903 in Motahari, Bihar, India. Time of birth, according to Astrotheme, was 11.30am. He was taken to England when one year old, was educated there and spent much of his life in Britain.



If I'd been given this chart without knowing to whom it belonged I might have guessed that the owner was a writer of some kind - journalist or novelist - he was both at various stages of his career: Virgo ascending, if time of birth is correct, and Mercury in Gemini are both good indicators of someone adept with the pen, or in today's world, the keyboard. Sun conjunct Neptune and Moon in Cancer - hmmmm - lots of scope for a fertile imagination and creativity there, but Cancer is usually seen as a rather gentle, passive sign. I'd have guessed Orwell's writing might reflect that - historical dramas, mild romantic sagas - something along those lines. How wrong I'd have been!

There's a Grand Trine (3 linked 120 degree aspects) in Orwell's chart, in Air signs (intellect, ideas, communications). Mars in Libra, Saturn in Aquarius and Mercury in Gemini are connected in this formation, it's an excellent harmonious link-up for a writer. However, the planets involved with Mercury in the Grand Trine: Mars and Saturn, are both traditionally labelled "malefics", this might reflect an attraction to subject matter which is less than uplifting. Had that Grand Trine linked, for example, Venus, Jupiter and Mercury, we might have on our bookshelves some wonderful Orwellian visions of a future filled with art, philosophy and beauty. Just a thought!

Scooting around Google I hit upon a possible reason for Orwell's very depressing subject matter, not only in "1984", but also in "Animal Farm".
At Live Science this article: Study: George Orwell's Illnesses Influenced '1984' provides some insight:

"He suffered multiple bouts of bronchitis and other respiratory ailments, Ross writes. As a young man, Orwell had several episodes of bacterial pneumonia, and also contracted dengue fever while in Burma. He was a heavy smoker, and he suffered fits of coughing from a condition called bronchiectasis.

In 1938, Orwell went to a sanatorium because he was coughing up blood. He was eventually diagnosed with tuberculosis..............Eight years later, depressed by his wife’s death, Orwell moved to a windy and damp Scottish island. His health worsened significantly just as he was working on the first draft of "1984," Ross reports. Fever, weight loss, and night sweats sent him to the hospital, where he underwent “collapse therapy,” a treatment designed to close the dangerous cavities that form in the chests of tuberculosis patients.
Relying on Orwell's own descriptions of the treatment, Ross says it "may have influenced the depiction of the tortures of Winston Smith in the Ministry of Love" in "1984.""

Confirmation from the man himself:

"Orwell himself told his friends that 1984 would have been less gloomy had he not been so ill—it was a very dark, disturbing, and pessimistic work," Ross said. Orwell's illnesses "made him a better and more empathetic writer, in that his sense of human suffering made his writing more universal."

And, finally, from "1984":

"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?… Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?…The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact, there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking—not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness." —Syme, pg 46-47

Newspeak narrowing the range of thought hits uncomfortably home after media performances in this year's US primaries !

"1984" wasn't meant as prophecy. I suppose that having experienced the Spanish Civil War and World War2, the idea of totalitarianism was an unwelcome spectre in the minds of many people, and was played upon by this novel. Had he been aiming at prophecy, a more appropriate title might have been "2024"!

I suspect Orwell was actually writing out his anger, frustration and resentment at his lifetime of ill health. I'm not sure where the health problems show up in his natal chart. Chiron is the usual suspect, and it lay at 21 degrees of Capricorn, sextile Jupiter, semisextile Uranus, but those aren't really challenging aspects. Jupiter is just inside 6th house (health matters), but is usually thought to be a benign planet. Mars, in first house (self) lies just 3 degrees from natal North Node of the Moon (a sensitive point in a natal chart), so when transits hit that point, through the years, maybe nasty old Mars bared its teeth and delivered a blow to Orwell's health. I don't know. Those are just wild guesses.