George Orwell and the Radical Eccentrics: Intermodernism in Literary London

South Asian broadcasters in Britain and the BBC: talking to India (1941–1943)

“…4. See also Bleumel (2004Bleumel ( , 2009 and the growing body of work on non-metropolitan modernisms, notably Mitter (2007).…”

The Right(s) to Water

“…The court ruled against this practice, emphasizing that the right to freshwater and free air were basic elements of life itself, and considered them of attributes of the right to life of the Indian constitution. 287 21 of the Constitution of India".…”

Late Modernism, 1928–1945: Criticism and Theory

“…Kristin Bluemel’s George Orwell and the Radical Eccentrics: Intermodernism in Literary London (2004) has also proposed a more intricate topography of these political contexts and, like Keith Williams and Steven Matthews’s anthology Rewriting the Thirties: Modernism and After (1997), should prove an “indispensable pathfinding chart for subsequent undertakings” (Williams and Matthews 3–4). Bluemel’s framework for analyzing non‐modernist work during the period is the concept of “intermodernism.” Focusing on George Orwell, Stevie Smith, Mulk Raj Anand, and Inez Holden, Bluemel maps how these authors’ writing was shaped by their relationships within a particular historical moment (the 1930s–1940s, but more particularly the period’s wars and the waning of England’s Empire) and cultural context (a literary group outside the Bloomsbury and Oxbridge set, involved with the BBC, and self‐identified as outsiders who examined the perspective of outsiders – the lower and working class, immigrants, and racial and ethnic “others”).…”

“…Bluemel’s framework for analyzing non‐modernist work during the period is the concept of “intermodernism.” Focusing on George Orwell, Stevie Smith, Mulk Raj Anand, and Inez Holden, Bluemel maps how these authors’ writing was shaped by their relationships within a particular historical moment (the 1930s–1940s, but more particularly the period’s wars and the waning of England’s Empire) and cultural context (a literary group outside the Bloomsbury and Oxbridge set, involved with the BBC, and self‐identified as outsiders who examined the perspective of outsiders – the lower and working class, immigrants, and racial and ethnic “others”). “Intermodernism” proposes to tackle the questions of taxonomy and legitimization these authors’ works raise: if their works do not fall under the rubric of modernism or postmodernism, how does one “define, analyze, legitimize, and publicize” it (Bluemel 2)? Introducing the label “radical eccentrics” as a rubric for analyzing Orwell, Smith, Anand, and Holden (2), Bluemel helps delineate the elaborate pathways of a late modernism that recognizes a plurality of aesthetics.…”

“…Understanding “[i]ntermodernism, like modernism and postmodernism, […] as a kind of writing, discourse, or orientation rather than a period that competes with others for particular years or texts or personalities” provides a category for “the work of others who do not fit into existing categories” (Bluemel 6, 5). It seems that “intermodernism” might work well alongside “late modernism” as complementary categories of the period since Bluemel defines the former with the over‐arching characteristic of “non‐modernist” (4) and late modernism can be defined as aesthetics that identify with or are in a dialectical relationship with modernism.…”