> The difference between Orwell and Stephenson is that Orwell spent time as a police officer in Burma, and a solider in Spain. Stephenson does not understand the corrupting influence of power...

So you're saying Orwell has practical experience, such that one should weigh his musings on the subject more highly, while Stephenson is some rando expositing from a place he doesn't understand?

Fascinating. What happens if a bunch of people just disagree with your argumentum ab auctoritate and accept Stephenson's musings anyway? That would result in a bad outcome?

Should we have a mechanism in place to tilt people towards Orwell's interpretation over Stephenson (such as, hypothetically, putting one and not the other on the required reading curricula of schools)? If not, what happens if the Stephensonian interpretation of risks wins out?