George Orwell: A Life in Letters
Page 30
Eric Blair
[XVI, 2403, p. 59; typewritten]
1.The collection was published in England by Secker & Warburg on 14 February 1946 as Critical Essays, and in the United States by Reynal & Hitchcock, New York, on 29 April 1946 as Dickens, Dali & Others: Studies in Popular Culture. Of the essays mentioned, ‘Gandhi in Mayfair’ and those on Sherlock Holmes, Swift, and Hopkins are not included; not mentioned here, but included are ‘Boys’ Weeklies’, ‘The Art of Donald McGill’, and those on Dali, Koestler, and P.G. Wodehouse.
2.Free French: those fighting with the Allies under General de Gaulle. Of some 100,000 French soldiers who were rescued from the beaches of Dunkirk with about a quarter of a million British, some 10,000 joined de Gaulle and about 90,000 returned to France.
3.Animal Farm.
4.The English People, belatedly published, with unauthorised changes, by Collins in 1947.
To Gleb Struve*
17 February 1944
10a Mortimer Crescent NW 6
Dear Mr Struve,
Please forgive me for not writing earlier to thank you for the very kind gift of 25 Years of Soviet Russian Literature with its still more kind inscription. I am afraid I know very little about Russian literature and I hope your book will fill up some of the many gaps in my knowledge. It has already roused my interest in Zamyatin’s We, which I had not heard of before. I am interested in that kind of book, and even keep making notes for one myself that may get written sooner or later.1 I wonder whether you can tell if there is an adequate translation of Blok?2 I saw some translated fragments about ten years ago in Life and Letters, but whether they were any good as a translation I do not know.
I am writing a little squib which might amuse you when it comes out, but it is so not O.K. politically that I don’t feel certain in advance that anyone will publish it. Perhaps that gives you a hint of its subject.3
Yours sincerely
Geo. Orwell
[XVI, 2421, p. 99; typewritten]
1.This would become Nineteen Eighty-Four.
2.Alexander Blok (1880–1921), lyric poet much influenced by Symbolism. Although he welcomed the 1917 Revolution he quite quickly became disillusioned.
3.Animal Farm.
To C. K. Ogden*
1 March 1944
Tribune
Dear Mr. Ogden
Very many thanks for the booklet. I was aware, of course, that you have much to put up with from the Esperanto people, and that that was why you drew attention to their very unfortunate choice for the verb ‘to be’ or whatever it is. We have had them on to us since mentioning Basic, but I have choked them off. Also the Ido 1 people.
As I told you when I was in the B.B.C. (I have left there now) there was great resistance against doing anything over the air about Basic, at any rate for India. I rather gathered that its chief enemies were the writers of English textbooks, but that all Indians whose English is good are hostile to the idea, for obvious reasons. At any rate it was with great difficulty that I got Miss Lockhart on to the air.2
I don’t know a great deal about G. M. Young.3 He is the ordinary silly-clever ‘intelligent’ conservative whose habitual manoeuvre is to deal with any new idea by pointing out that it has been said before. The only time I met him he struck me as ordinarily snobbish, talking about the terrible sacrifices the upper classes had made on account of the war etc. He was also trying to chase our little Indian Section of the B.B.C. for broadcasting ‘unsound’ ideas. I think he was a supporter of appeasement. That’s about all I know about him.
Hope to see you some time.
Yours sincerely,
Geo. Orwell,
Literary Editor
[XVI, 2427, pp. 108–9; typewritten]
1.An artificial language based on Esperanto.
2.Leonora Lockhart was an assistant to C.K. Ogden. Orwell arranged for her to speak to India on Basic English. Basic was developed in the 1920s and attempted to provide a readily learned ‘English’ based on a strictly limited number of words.
3.George Malcolm Young (1882–1959), historian and essayist specialising in Victorian England. His Charles I and Cromwell was published in 1936, and he contributed The Government of Britain to the Britain in Pictures series in 1941.
To Roy Fuller*
7 March 1944
10a Mortimer Crescent NW 6
Dear Mr Fuller,
Since receiving your letter I have procured a copy of the Little Reviews Anthology1 and read your story, ‘Fletcher’. I must say that I myself cannot see anything anti-semitic in it. I imagine that what Cedric Dover 2 meant was that the central character was a Jew and also a not very admirable character, and perhaps that counts as anti-semitism nowadays. I am sorry about this, but you will understand that as Literary Editor I cannot read all the books sent out for review and have to take the reviewers’ judgement for granted. Of course if he had made a bald-headed attack on you as an anti-semite I should have checked up on it before printing, but I think he only said ‘subtly anti-semitic’ or words to that effect.3 I am sorry that you should have had this annoyance. I must add, however, that by my own experience it is almost impossible to mention Jews in print, either favourably or unfavourably, without getting into trouble.
Yours truly
Geo. Orwell
[XVI, 2431, pp. 116–7; typewritten]
1.Little Reviews Anthology was edited by Denys Val Baker (1917–1984), novelist, short-story writer, and editor. Five numbers appeared, in 1943, 1945, 1946, 1947–48, and 1949. Cedric Dover reviewed Baker’s Little Reviews, 1914–1943 at the same time (‘a useful but pedestrian record’), Tribune, 18 February 1944. Orwell’s review of three of T. S. Eliot’s Four Quartets, which had first appeared in Poetry (London), October–November 1942, was included in the Anthology.
2.Cedric Dover (1904–51), born in Calcutta and educated there and at the University of Edinburgh. He wrote books and articles and listed his special subjects as ‘Race, Colour & Social Problems, India, Hybrids & Negro America’. He worked with Orwell at the BBC and it was he who had suggested to Orwell that it was racialist to print ‘Negro’ without a capital ‘N’ in Talking to India. See his ‘As I Please,’ 2, 10 December 1943 [XVI, 2391, pp. 23–24].
3.Dover had written: ‘Roy Fuller’s “Fletcher” is subtle and subtly anti-Semitic: a good example, in fact, of the growing anti-Semitism of which Alec° Comfort complains’—a reference to Alex ‘Comfort’s biting analysis of the “Social Conventions of the Anglo-American Film,”’ which Dover had just mentioned. It is very difficult to understand how the story can be regarded as anti-Semitic. The only reference to Fletcher direct or indirect as Jewish is the statement, ‘Fletcher, a middle-aged bachelor of Jewish ancestry and intellectual tastes. . . .’ He is shown as sensitive and alone. Fuller’s story is entirely from the point of view of those who attack the vulnerable, whether they be Jewish or women. (For further details see XVI, 2431, n. 4.)
To Leonard Moore*
19 March 1944
10a Mortimer Crescent NW 6
Dear Mr Moore,
I have finished my book 1 and will be sending you the Ms in a few days’ time. It is being typed now. I make it about 30,000 words. To avoid wasting time I think we ought to decide in advance what to do about showing it to Gollancz. According to our contract he has the first refusal of my fiction books, and this would come under the heading of fiction, as it is a sort of fairy story, really a fable with a political meaning. I think, however, Gollancz wouldn’t publish it, as it is strongly anti-Stalin in tendency. Nor is it any use wasting time on Warburg, who probably wouldn’t touch anything of this tendency and to my knowledge is very short of paper. I suggest therefore that we ought to tell Gollancz but let him know that the book is not likely to suit him, and say that we will only send it along if he very definitely wants to see it. I am going to write to him in this sense now. The point is that if Gollancz and his readers get hold of it, even if they end by not taking it, they will probably hang onto the M
s for weeks. So I will write to him, and then he will know about it before you get the Ms.
As to what publisher to approach, I think Nicholson and Watson might be the best.2 I told one of their men I had a book coming along and he seemed anxious to get hold of it. Or else Hutchinson, where I have a contact in Robert Neumann. Or anyone else who (a) has got some paper and (b) isn’t in the arms of Stalin. The latter is important. This book is murder from the Communist point of view, though no names are mentioned. Provided we can get over these difficulties I fancy the book should find a publisher, judging by the stuff they do print nowadays.
I am going to send two copies. I think we might have a try at an American publication as well. About a year ago the Dial Press wrote asking me to send them the next book I did, and I think they might like this one.3
I am contracted now to do a ‘Britain in Pictures’ book, which I suppose will take me 6–8 weeks. After that I am arranging to do two longish literary essays, one on No Orchids for Miss Blandish, and one on Salvador Dali, for two magazines. When I have done those two we shall have enough stuff for the book of reprinted essays.
Yours sincerely
Eric Blair
[XVI, 2436, pp. 126–7; typewritten]
1.Animal Farm. Paper was in desperately short supply (except, of course, for government bureaucracy).
2.At the top of this letter to Moore someone has written the names of two more publishers: Eyre & Spottiswoode and Hollis & Carter.
3.In Partisan Review, 63 (1996), William Phillips claimed he was the first person in America to read Animal Farm; he then recommended it to the Dial Press.
To Leonard Moore*
23 March 1944
10a Mortimer Crescent NW 6
Dear Mr Moore,
Thanks for your letter. I sent off two copies of the Ms of the book yesterday and hope they reached you safely. I haven’t heard from Gollancz and I dare say he will write direct to you.
We must on no account take this book to either Eyre & Spottiswoode or Hollis & Carter. They are both Catholic publishers and Hollis, in particular, has published some most poisonous stuff since he set up in business. It would do me permanent harm to be published by either of these. I don’t know what the objections to Hutchinson’s and N. & W. 1 are, but perhaps you could let me know. I should think Cape is another possibility. Or Fabers°. I have a contact in Faber’s and a slight one at Cape’s.2 But let me know whom you are going to take it to. I should like it settled as early as possible.
Yours sincerely
Eric Blair
[XVI, 2440, pp. 130–1; typewritten]
1.Nicholson & Watson.
2.T.S. Eliot at Faber & Faber and Miss C. V. Wedgwood at Cape. Daniel George (who reviewed novels for Tribune) was chief reader at Cape.
To Leonard Moore*
15 April 1944
10a Mortimer Crescent NW 6
Dear Mr Moore,
Nicholson & Watson refuse to print Animal Farm, giving much the same reason as Gollancz, ie. that it is bad taste to attack the head of an allied government in that manner etc.1 I knew we should have a lot of trouble with this book, at any rate in this country. Meanwhile I have taken the copy I had round to Cape’s, as Miss Wedgwood 2 there had often asked me to let them see something, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they made the same answer. I think Faber’s is just possible, and Routledges rather more so if they have the paper. While Cape’s have it I’ll sound both Eliot and Herbert Read.3 I saw recently a book published by Eyre and Spottiswoode and I think they must be all right—perhaps, as you say, I was mixing them up with Burns, Oates and Washburne. Failing all else I will try to get one of the small highbrow presses to do it, in fact I shouldn’t wonder if that is the likeliest bet. I know of one which has just started up and has a certain amount of money to dispose of. Naturally I want this book printed because I think what it says wants saying, unfashionable though it is nowadays.
I hope the copy went off to the USA? I suppose you still have one copy, so perhaps you might send it me to show to Read if I can contact him.
How do my copyrights with Gollancz stand? When I have done the necessary stuff I want to compile that book of essays and I am anxious to include the Dickens essay which was printed by Gollancz. I suppose if I fixed up with some other publisher, eg. Cape, to do Animal Farm they might ask for my next book, which would be the essays. Have I the right to reprint the Dickens essay, since the book is out of print?
Your sincerely
Eric Blair
[XVI, 2453, pp. 155–6; typewritten]
1.In a letter to The Observer, 23 November 1980, Andre Deutsch, who was working for Nicholson & Watson in 1944, told how, having been introduced to Orwell in 1943 by George Mikes, he had occasionally been commissioned to write reviews for Tribune for a fee of £1. About Whitsun 1944, Orwell let him read the typescript of Animal Farm, and he was convinced that Nicholson & Watson would be keen to publish Orwell’s book. Unfortunately, though they did not share Gollancz’s political reservations, they lectured Orwell on what they perceived to be errors in Animal Farm. Orwell was calm but depressed; Deutsch, deeply embarrassed. Deutsch was even then hoping to start publishing in his own right, but though Orwell twice offered him Animal Farm, and he would dearly have loved to publish it, he felt himself still a novice and not yet able to start his own firm.
2.Veronica Wedgwood (1910–1997; DBE, 1968), the historian, was then working for Cape.
3.T.S. Eliot was working for Faber & Faber, and Herbert Read for Routledge.
To Noel Willmett
18 May 1944
10a Mortimer Crescent NW 6
Dear Mr Willmett,
Many thanks for your letter. You ask whether totalitarianism, leader-worship etc. are really on the up-grade and instance the fact that they are not apparently growing in this country and the USA.
I must say I believe, or fear, that taking the world as a whole these things are on the increase. Hitler, no doubt, will soon disappear, but only at the expense of strengthening (a) Stalin, (b) the Anglo-American millionaires and (c) all sorts of petty fuhrers° of the type of de Gaulle. All the national movements everywhere, even those that originate in resistance to German domination, seem to take non-democratic forms, to group themselves round some superhuman fuhrer (Hitler, Stalin, Salazar, Franco, Gandhi, De Valera are all varying examples) and to adopt the theory that the end justifies the means. Everywhere the world movement seems to be in the direction of centralised economies which can be made to ‘work’ in an economic sense but which are not democratically organised and which tend to establish a caste system. With this go the horrors of emotional nationalism and a tendency to disbelieve in the existence of objective truth because all the facts have to fit in with the words and prophecies of some infallible fuhrer. Already history has in a sense ceased to exist, ie. there is no such thing as a history of our own times which could be universally accepted, and the exact sciences are endangered as soon as military necessity ceases to keep people up to the mark. Hitler can say that the Jews started the war, and if he survives that will become official history. He can’t say that two and two are five, because for the purposes of, say, ballistics they have to make four. But if the sort of world that I am afraid of arrives, a world of two or three great superstates which are unable to conquer one another, two and two could become five if the fuhrer wished it.1 That, so far as I can see, is the direction in which we are actually moving, though, of course, the process is reversible.
As to the comparative immunity of Britain and the USA. Whatever the pacifists etc. may say, we have not gone totalitarian yet and this is a very hopeful symptom. I believe very deeply, as I explained in my book The Lion and the Unicorn, in the English people and in their capacity to centralise their economy without destroying freedom in doing so. But one must remember that Britain and the USA haven’t been really tried, they haven’t known defeat or severe suffering, and there are some bad symptoms to balance the good ones. To begin with there is the general
indifference to the decay of democracy. Do you realise, for instance, that no one in England under 26 now has a vote and that so far as one can see the great mass of people of that age don’t give a damn for this? Secondly there is the fact that the intellectuals are more totalitarian in outlook than the common people. On the whole the English intelligentsia have opposed Hitler, but only at the price of accepting Stalin. Most of them are perfectly ready for dictatorial methods, secret police, systematic falsification of history2 etc. so long as they feel that it is on ‘our’ side. Indeed the statement that we haven’t a Fascist movement in England largely means that the young, at this moment, look for their fuhrer elsewhere. One can’t be sure that that won’t change, nor can one be sure that the common people won’t think ten years hence as the intellectuals do now. I hope 3 they won’t, I even trust they won’t, but if so it will be at the cost of a struggle. If one simply proclaims that all is for the best and doesn’t point to the sinister symptoms, one is merely helping to bring totalitarianism nearer.
You also ask, if I think the world tendency is towards Fascism, why do I support the war. It is a choice of evils—I fancy nearly every war is that. I know enough of British imperialism not to like it, but I would support it against Nazism or Japanese imperialism, as the lesser evil. Similarly I would support the USSR against Germany because I think the USSR cannot altogether escape its past and retains enough of the original ideas of the Revolution to make it a more hopeful phenomenon than Nazi Germany. I think, and have thought ever since the war began, in 1936 or thereabouts, that our cause is the better, but we have to keep on making it the better, which involves constant criticism.
Yours sincerely,
Geo. Orwell
[XVI, 2471, pp. 190–2; typewritten]
1.and 2.Foreshadowings of Nineteen Eighty-Four.
3.Compare Nineteen Eighty-Four, p. 72, ‘If there is hope, wrote Winston, it lies in the proles’.
To Leonard Moore*
8 June 1944
10a Mortimer Crescent NW 6