3.There is no such discussion in the ‘As I Please’ columns.
To Rayner Heppenstall*
25 January 1947
27B Canonbury Square,
Islington N 1
Dear Rayner,
Thanks for your letter. Re. Animal Farm.1 I had a number of people here to listen to it on the first day, and they all seemed to think it was good, and Porteous,2 who had not read the book, grasped what was happening after a few minutes. I also had one or two fan letters and the press notices were good except on my native ground, ie. Tribune. As to what I thought myself, it’s hard to get a detached view, because whenever I write anything for the air I have the impression it has been spoiled, owing to its inevitably coming out different to one’s conception of it. I must say I don’t agree about there being too much narrator. If anything I thought there should have been more explanation. People are always yearning to get rid of the narrator, but it seems to me that until certain problems have been overcome you only get rid of the narrator at the expense of having to play a lot of stupid tricks in order to let people know what is happening. The thing is to make the narrator a good turn in himself. But that means writing serious prose, which people don’t, and making the actors stick to it instead of gagging and trying to make everything homey and naturalistic.
I can’t write or promise to write anything more at present, I am too busy. I’ve still got ideas about fairy stories. I wish they would dig up and re-b’cast my adaptation of the Emperor’s New Clothes. It was done on the Eastern and African services, but in those days I wasn’t well-connected enough to crash the Home. I expect the discs would have been scraped,° however. I had them illicitly re-recorded at a commercial studio, but that lot of discs got lost. I’ve often pondered over ‘Cinderella’, which of course is the tops so far as fairy stories go but on the face of it is too visual to be suitable for the air. But don’t you think one could make the godmother turn her into a wonderful singer who could sing a higher note than anyone else, or something of that kind? The best way would be if she had a wonderful voice but could not sing in tune, like Trilby, and the godmother cured this. One could make it quite comic with the wicked sisters singing in screeching voices. It might be worth talking over some time. Give my love to Margaret.
Yours
Eric 3
[XIX, 3163, pp. 32–3; typewritten]
1.Heppenstall had written on 24 January 1947 asking for Orwell’s conclusions about the broadcast of Animal Farm. He said that the opinion at the BBC, with which he agreed, was that ‘there were too many lengthy pieces of narration—that in fact the adaptation was not sufficiently ruthless and complete’. He asked also whether Orwell had further ideas for the Third Programme, for instance, ‘any Imaginary Conversation’ and whether he wanted more scripts of Animal Farm.
2.Hugh Gordon Porteous (1906–1993), literary and art critic and sinologist. In 1933 he remarked, ‘Verse will be worn longer this season and rather red,’ blaming Auden for being the reddening agent (Valentine Cunningham, British Writers of the Thirties, 1988, p. 27). He reviewed extensively, especially for T. S. Eliot in The Criterion in the thirties and The Listener in the sixties.
3.Heppenstall replied on 29 January 1947. He was anxious to convince Orwell ‘about this business of narration’. He did not agree that narration could be avoided only by resorting to ‘a lot of stupid tricks’. Narration involved ‘a very marked change of pace…straight reading and…dramatic presentation don’t mix’. He said he would never allow an actor to gag (ad lib). He thought the fairy stories should ‘follow Red Riding Hood to Children’s Hour’ unless Orwell had something more sophisticated in mind. His wife hoped Orwell would ‘presently come to supper’. He had seen Richard Rees for the first time since the outbreak of the war and remarked how greatly he had aged. The second page of this letter has not been traced.
To Leonard Moore*
21 February 1947
27B Canonbury Square
Islington N 1
Dear Moore,
With reference to your two letters of the 18th and the 19th.
I don’t think the offer to dramatise Animal Farm sounds very promising, in fact I don’t see what we get out of it except that there would then be a dramatic version existing, which I suppose would make it slightly more likely to reach the stage. But we would also be tied down to that particular adaptor, at least for a year, and somebody else might make a more inviting offer in the mean time, though I am bound to say I do not think it is a suitable book to adapt for stage production. One doesn’t, of course, know what sort of version he and his collaborator would make, but from the fact of his referring to the book as ‘The’ Animal Farm I assume he has not read it very attentively. I don’t think I should close with him.1
I have meanwhile received a cable from some people in New York enquiring about film rights. I hope I shall have got you on the phone before this letter reaches you, but if not I will send the cable on with another letter.
As to Warburg. I want Warburg to become my regular publisher, because, although he may not sell the books so largely, I can trust him to publish whatever I write. At the same time we must settle this business about the uniform edition, as I don’t see much point in simply re-issuing, in different formats, various books which have already appeared and therefore can’t be expected to sell large numbers straight off. I had understood that what was intended was to produce all the books involved as paper became available in a uniform binding and at rather a low price—though I suppose not always the same price as some are much longer than others. But as to the variation in length, it is in most cases only between about 80,000 and about 50,000. The exception is Animal Farm (30,000), but I suppose he wouldn’t work round to this till last, and one might put something else with it to bring it up to the right length. As to your query about cheap editions, I am not quite sure what is involved there. Is it a question of whether Warburg has all rights for cheap editions as well? I imagine the only reprint firm likely to do any of my books is the Penguin Library, which has already done two. I presume Warburg wouldn’t object to a book being Penguinised, as I shouldn’t think this cuts across ordinary sales much.
Do you think you could get this fixed up with Warburg as soon as possible[?] Tell him that I am fully ready for him to be my regular publisher, but that I want the following conditions:
(i) That though he may, if he wishes, issue ordinary editions of any books, he will also undertake to do a uniform edition which will include the six books we have agreed on and any suitable future books.
(ii) That though I will give him first refusal of all full-length books, I can if I choose do odd jobs for other publishers, such as introductions, contributions to miscellanies, etc.
Even if we can’t draw up a full agreement immediately, I would like some settlement to be made as soon as possible about Coming Up for Air. Warburg proposed to do this as the first of the re-issues, and he says that if the matter can be settled quickly he might get it onto his March paper quota. I would like this to happen, because I shall not have anything ready to be published before 1948 and it would not be a bad idea to have something appearing this year. Also I think that book was rather sunk by appearing just before the outbreak of war, and it is now very completely out of print.2
Yours sincerely
Eric Blair
[XIX, 3173, pp. 47–9; typewritten]
1.Details of this proposal have not been traced. A dramatised version, with music and lyrics, directed by Peter Hall, was given with great success at the National Theatre on 25 April 1984. In 1985 it toured nine cities.
2.Moore wrote to Warburg on 27 February 1947 quoting much of this letter. Moore concludes with a reminder that Gollancz has an option on Orwell’s next two novels: ‘It may be, however, we can make some arrangement regarding this.’ This was eventually agreed.
To Dwight Macdonald*
26 February 1947
27B Canonbury Square
Islington N 1
Dear Dwight,
Thanks awfully for sending the shoes which arrived today. I trust they have sent you the money for them—I wrote to my agent to remind him to do this and he said he had done so. I am sorry to say they were too small after all, however it doesn’t matter because I recently managed to get another pair owing to somebody who takes the same size ordering a pair about a year ago and not wanting them when done. I shall send this pair on to Germany where doubtless they will be appreciated.
I wanted to ask, when you print the excerpt from the Tolstoy article,1 if you’re paying for it, could you pay the money to my American agents, Mcintosh & Otis. I’m trying to let any money I earn in the USA pile up over there in case I ever make a visit there. I don’t know whether I shall do so, but even if I don’t, I’m not short of money at present and might as well let it lie there as pay British income tax on it.
It’s been a lousy winter here what with the fuel breakdown and this unheard-of weather. I suppose conditions here are now what would be normal postwar winter conditions in, say, Paris. Polemic were very pleased with the long note you gave them in Politics. I think the paper is now taking shape a bit, and it is doing fairly well from the point of view of circulation, though hampered by the usual organisational difficulties. I have now joined the editorial board, but I probably shan’t do much on it as I am going back to Scotland in April and shall go on with a novel which I am doing and hope to finish by the end of 1947. While in London I have been snowed up with hackwork as usual. This two-weeks’ closure of the weeklies 2 has meant an awful lot of nuisance and incidentally lost Tribune a lot of money it can ill afford.
Yours
George
[XIX, 3175, pp.49–50; typewritten]
1.Macdonald did not print an excerpt from ‘Lear, Tolstoy and the Fool’.
2.Because of massive electricity power cuts.
To Fredric Warburg*
28 February 1947
27B Canonbury Square
Islington N 1
Dear Fred,
I said I would write to you following on our telephone conversation. I wrote to Moore some days back, asking him to expedite the business of Coming Up for Air and if possible to get the whole contract settled. I told him that I wanted you to be my regular publisher and to have first refusal of all my books, but there were some conditions, none of which I imagine are of a kind you would object to. One was that you should publish a uniform edition. The second was that I should have the right to do odd jobs for other publishers such as, for instance, introductions or contributions to miscellaneous publications, and the other was that you would not object to certain classes of cheap editions being done elsewhere, for instance, Penguins. Some of my books have been done as Penguins, and I suppose this might arise again.
Moore has just written again raising the point about my previous contract with Gollancz. Gollancz is still supposed to have an option on two works of fiction, though in my opinion it should be only one as he refused Animal Farm and then claimed that it was not a work of fiction of standard length. Moore is anxious to get this settled. I must say I was inclined to leave it hanging, because actually I can think of ways to evade the contract with Gollancz. However, if it must be settled it would probably be better if I saw Gollancz personally.1 But meanwhile, need we let this hold up the republication of Coming Up for Air, the copyright of which is, I suppose, my own? 2
Yours sincerely,
Geo. Orwell
[XIX, 3179, p. 53; typewritten]
1.This sentence had been annotated in the left-hand margin in Warburg’s office: ‘Go & see VG.’
2.The rights had reverted to Orwell on 22 November 1946 because the book had been allowed to go out of print for an agreed period of time.
On 7 March 1947, Ihor Szewczenko wrote to Orwell seeking a preface to Animal Farm. The Ukrainian translation had been given to the publisher in the early autumn of 1946. On 19 February 1947, the publisher requested a preface, regarding it as essential to the satisfactory reception of the book in Ukrainian. Szewczenko explained that delays had arisen because he had moved from Munich to Belgium (where the book was being printed), although he still worked in Germany, and because of difficulties in sending letters to Germany. Although the printer and publisher of Animal Farm had been licensed by the occupying powers, Szewczenko did not know whether a licence to publish Animal Farm had been applied for by them. If Orwell could not send a preface, he was asked to provide biographical notes.
Szewczenko then set out the political background of the publishers. They were, in the main, Soviet Ukrainians, many of them former members of the Bolshevik Party, but afterwards inmates of Siberian camps and who were ‘genuinely interested’ in the story. He reassured Orwell that ‘AF is not being published by Ukrainian Joneses’ – a reference to the farmer in Animal Farm.
To Ihor Szewczenko*
13 March 1947
27B Canonbury Square
Islington N 1
Dear Mr Szewczenko,
Many thanks for your letter of the 7th, which I received today.
I am frightfully busy, but I will try to send you a short introduction to A. F. and to despatch it not more than a week from hence. I gather that you want it to contain some biographical material, and also, I suppose, an account of how the book came to be written. I assume that the book will be produced in a very simple style with no illustrations on the cover, but just in case it should be wanted I will send a photograph as well.
I was very interested to hear about the people responsible for translating A.F.,1 and encouraged to learn that that type of opposition exists in the USSR. I do hope it will not all end by the Displaced persons° being shipped back to the USSR or else mostly absorbed by Argentina. I think our desperate labour shortage may compel us to encourage a good many D.Ps to settle in this country, but at present the government is only talking of letting them in as servants etc., because there is still working-class resistance against letting in foreign workers, owing to fear of unemployment, and the Communists and ‘sympathisers’ are able to play on this.
I have noted your new address and presume you will be there till further notice. I shall be at the above address until April 10th, and after that at the Scottish address. I think you have this, but in case you have not I will give it you:
Barnhill Isle of Jura Argyllshire scotland.
Yours sincerely
Geo. Orwell
[XIX, 3187, 3188, pp. 72–4; typewritten]
1.This seems to be a slight misunderstanding. Szewczenko was undertaking the translation (it appeared under the pen-name Ivan Cherniatync’kyi).
To Victor Gollancz
14 March 1947
27B Canonbury Square,
Islington N 1
Dear Gollancz,
I believe Leonard Moore has already spoken to you about the contract which I still have with you and about my wish to be released from it. I believe that the contract that still subsists between us is the one made for Keep the Aspidistra Flying in 1937, which provided that I would give you the first refusal of my next three novels. Coming Up for Air worked off one of these, but you did not accept Animal Farm, which you saw and refused in 1944, as working off another. So that by the terms of the contract I still owe you the refusal of two other novels.
I know that I am asking you a very great favour in asking that you should cancel the contract, but various circumstances have changed in the ten years since it was made, and I believe that it might be to your advantage, as it certainly would be to mine, to bring it to an end. The position is that since then you have published three books of mine1 but you have also refused two others on political grounds,2 and there was also another which you did not refuse but which it seemed natural to take to another publisher.3 The crucial case was Animal Farm. At the time when this book was finished, it was very hard indeed to get it published, and I determined then that if possible I would take all my future output to the publishers who would produce it, because I knew that anyone who would risk this book would ri
sk anything. Secker & Warburg were not only ready to publish Animal Farm but are willing, when paper becomes available, to do a uniform edition of such of my books as I think worth reprinting, including some which are at present very completely out of print. They are also anxious to reprint my novel Coming Up for Air in an ordinary edition this year, but, not unnaturally, they are only willing to do all this if they can have a comprehensive contract giving them control of anything I write.
From my own point of view it is clearly very unsatisfactory to have to take my novels to one publisher and at the same time to be obliged, at any rate in some cases, to take non-fiction books elsewhere. I recognise, of course, that your political position is not now exactly what it was when you refused Animal Farm, and in any case I respect your unwillingness to publish books which go directly counter to your political principles. But it seems to me that this difficulty is likely to arise again in some form or other, and that it would be better if you are willing to bring the whole thing to an end.
If you wish to see me personally about this, I am at your disposal. I shall be at this address until about April 10th.
Yours sincerely,
Geo. Orwell
[XIX, 3191, pp. 77–9; typewritten]
1.The contract was not actually made ‘for’ Keep the Aspidistra Flying (which had been published on 20 April 1936), but it referred to it. The first clause of the draft contract (all that survives) states ‘EB grants to G exclusive right to publish in English next 3 “new and original full-length novels” after Keep the A.’ This was signed on Orwell’s behalf – he was in Spain – by Eileen, who was empowered so to do. The three books published since then were The Road to Wigan Pier, Coming Up for Air, and Inside the Whale. Only the second is a novel, of course. Orwell could, perhaps, have mentioned that he had also collaborated with Gollancz on The Betrayal of the Left.
2.The two refused on political grounds were Homage to Catalonia and Animal Farm. Although there was no doubt that Animal Farm was refused on political grounds, Gollancz had a point that – whatever Orwell may have felt, it was hardly ‘a work of fiction of standard length’. The contract – if it repeated the wording of the draft – did specifically refer to ‘full-length novels’.
George Orwell: A Life in Letters Page 44