June is not a particularly celebratory month, except for some school districts; And while summer vacation may have started for some, June contains two notable dates that should be of interest to English teachers everywhere. On the face of it, George Orwell and Ambrose Bierce don't seem to have many similarities, but if one digs around, similarities can be found.

Orwell has far outstripped Bierce in terms of popularity of course. Bierce's birthday (June 24th) and Orwell's (the 25th) might only be a day apart, but you can guess which one you'll be hearing about most, this week. Any high school student will be able to tell you who Orwell was (at least while being forced to read one of his greatest hits), but almost none of them would recognize Bierce's name, let alone tell you anything about him.

It's a bit of a shame: English teachers may have to teach about Orwell but, if they truly know their subject, you can bet their favorite literary curmudgeon is Bierce. More than a few of them probably have The Devil's Dictionary sitting on a bookshelf at home.

Both Orwell and Bierce spent time as journalists. Bierce worked in newspapers for most of his professional career, and literary geeks -- if they become enamored of Orwell -- usually find their way to Down and Out in Paris and London. He also edited a newspaper.

Orwell and Bierce spent some time in the military as well; both fought in a civil war (Orwell in the Spanish Civil war, Bierce in the American one). Both spent time in England, despite being born in another country (although Orwell was most definitely British).

Of all of their similarities, the most obvious one is a deep rooted cynicism. Nobody with a great deal of faith in humanity writes books like Animal Farm and 1984. Bierce's Devil's Dictionary was originally titled A Cynic's Workbook. There is no doubt that both of their lives were framed by deep disappointments, with Bierce's personal problems and Orwell's growing disappointment with the ideals of socialism (this is actually a rather confused point, but for the purposes of this essay it is enough to point out the different sources of an identical trait). The problem of governance has been something that poets, philosophers, political scientists, and many others have been dealing with since time began. What's surprising is the fact that a lot of thinkers throughout the ages looked at the subject with some optimism. At least, many believed that "perfect" governance could exist. Our own democratic government is one such instance; it was thought that with a bicameral legislature, separation of powers, and an electoral college, the baser desires of man could be managed well enough to allow the majority of people to be reasonably free to do what they want, most of the time.

It might appear contradictory to say that Marx was pretty optimistic. After all, to claim any philosophy that predicts widespread corruption and wealth disparity leading to a bloody, world-wide revolution is looking on the bright side, isn't a particularly popular position to take. But, notion of a world controlled by a working class, willing to cooperate and share amongst themselves in an egalitarian way is something out of a fairy tale; which is to say that it contradicts all notions of common sense. The fact that this dearest wish of any good marxist is to be proceeded by all-out class warfare only serves to demonstrate how truly bad conditions were at the time. Optimism is determined by one's present conditions.

Optimism is something that neither of our featured authors had much of. Neither did they have much faith in the leaders of their day. However, while Bierce held a general distrust of the government, he wasn't particularly concerned with the political system they inhabited -- there were human, and like all human beings, Bierce called their motives into question.

Orwell, however, had a particular ax to grind. While in Spain he saw Socialism in action, and early on it seemed to be working out pretty well ( he would change his mind when he returned to Barcelona a few years later). But socialists the world over were polarized by the rise of Stalinist Russia. Some thought that it was only the first of many ideal Communist states to come, while others saw their principles going horribly awry. Orwell did not like what he saw, and for the most part Animal Farm is a reaction against that. He might have had a good deal of hope for the future of socialism, but not fronted by a totalitarian regime. He saw it as inevitable that brutes and thieves would wind up in positions of power no matter what.

1984, the most famous of Orwell's books was addressed towards totalitarianism in general, incorporating both left and right wing ideals in its framework. Moving beyond the "Just So Stories" parable plotting of Animal Farm, it's probably more important than its predecessor. Whereas Farm was more concerned with showing that no matter how high a government's principles might be at the start, the same thugs will end up in charge. As such, it was a handy reminder that it might not be a good idea to waste lives and resources changing the system, because when all is said and done, the situation won't be much different.

In 1984 Orwell paints a larger moral: Once totalitarianism gets hold of a country, it's too late to do anything about it. There is no hope and no escape for the people in this novel.

These books are handy in the realm of political thought, as they provide enough straw-men to make any pundit weep with glee. But while they might teach people the fundamentals of governmental distrust, they're really not as relevant when applied to daily life (at least until the government finally controls every aspect of that as well -- including your private thoughts).

Bierce's more general sense of cynicism is therefore more easily applied to our daily interactions. Whereas Orwell pointed out the danger of coded political speech, Bierce taught us to see how far double-think had creeped into our current language. The Devil's Dictionary, while humorous, is an illustration of the widening chasm between the "proper" definitions of words and what they were actually being used to describe.

It might be axiomatic, but perhaps it would be a good idea to teach people to suspect the motives of others. People might distrust the "enemy" but they usually defer to the judgment of other, accepted authorities. One's political affiliation (to pick an easy target) is determined not only by one's beliefs, but also by the people one is willing to take direction from. Whether it's Rush Limbaugh or The Nation, most people offer allegiance to the ideals of others.

What a different world it would be if conservatives questioned the motives (and therefore actions) of The Heritage Foundation and liberals took everything the DNC said with a grain of salt.

It probably wouldn't change much, in the end. But if there's one thing that Orwell and Bierce would agree on, it's that the last bastion of freedom that we have as individuals is our own minds. Ignorance isn't freedom, but doubt is. Perhaps.

-B. C. Silvia