T.S. Eliot rejected Orwell's Animal Farm - "Trotskyite literature"

[Yazman]

Interesting:

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=795352


Eliot, working at British publishers Faber and Faber, sent a rejection letter to the young Orwell in 1944 dismissing the book, which went on to become a classic of modern English literature.

Animal Farm - which is generally seen as an allegory on Stalinist communism in Russia - was only published the following year, after the end of World War II.

Orwell's usual publisher Gollancz had refused to publish it, so the young writer tried his luck with Faber and Faber. But Eliot was not impressed, saying Orwell's view "which I take to be generally Trotskyite, is not convincing".

[brigadista]

weren't ts elliot and ezra pound good mates? so hardly surprising if you look at ezra pound's politics

[Angry Young Man]

How ironic that it's been abused as capitalist propaganda.

[ZeroNowhere]

“It is probably a good thing for Lenin’s reputation that he died so early. Trotsky, in exile, denounces the Russian dictatorship, but he is probably as much responsible for it as any man now living, and there is no certainty that as a dictator he would be preferable to Stalin, though undoubtedly he has a much more interesting mind. The essential act is the rejection of democracy – that is, of the underlying values of democracy; once you have decided upon that, Stalin – or at any rate someone like Stalin – is already on the way.”
-Orwell.

Then again, his views could have easily changed between that comment in 1939 and the writing of 'Animal Farm', which was after his face heel turn on the war.

[Sasha]

T.S. Eliot Was a Dick (http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/03/30/ts-eliot-was-a-dick)

Posted by Paul Constant (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/ArticleArchives?author=17693) on Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 11:22 AM

http://slog.thestranger.com/images/blogimages/2009/03/30/1238437195-animal_farm_propaganda_by_satansgoalie.jpg

Need proof? Read the rejection letter (http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article5993099.ece) he wrote for George Orwell's Animal Farm.

“We have no conviction that this is the right point of view from which to criticise the political situation at the current time,” wrote Eliot, adding that he thought its “view, which I take to be generally Trotskyite, is not convincing”. Eliot wrote: “After all, your pigs are far more intelligent than the other animals, and therefore the best qualified to run the farm — in fact there couldn’t have been an Animal Farm at all without them: so that what was needed (someone might argue) was not more communism but more public-spirited pigs.”



source: http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/03/30/ts-eliot-was-a-dick

[spritely]

I was told to read animal farm by the same people who told me to hide under the desk when the reds dropped a nuke on us and that communists kidnap children from their parents and arrest people for missing a day of work. Whatdoyathink?

[IcarusAngel]

Personally I think Aldous Huxley's dystopian novels were better at satirizing the power elite. Whereas orwell's books can be interpreted as mocking the state, totalitarianism, and propaganda, Huxley's was targeted against consumerism, corporate governance, education, the psychological effect of capitalism, etc.

Kurt Vonnegut also wrote a book in which society is not ruled by the government, but my corporate managers and engineers whereas everybody else are part of the lower class Reeks & Wrecks, a socioety where one's success is based on intelligence alone, which is just (holding my thumb and forefinger about 1/12th of an inch apart) this much better.

[Decolonize The Left]

Eliot was a far better poet than Orwell, while Orwell was a far superior novelist. When I read either of them I'm not terribly concerned with their politics (though often I find myself sympathizing with Orwell - read Homage to Catalonia), rather, with the style and quality of their prose and poetry.

I find this whole thread to be rather silly. Who really cares what Eliot thought of Orwell's novel? It's not like there's enough evidence to base an educated critique of either of their political positions in this thread.

- August

[black magick hustla]

fuck elliot, william carlos williams had a million times more talent than that pretentious schmuck.

[JimmyJazz]

I was told to read animal farm by the same people who told me to hide under the desk when the reds dropped a nuke on us and that communists kidnap children from their parents and arrest people for missing a day of work. Whatdoyathink?

I think it's like a one-hour investment of your time, you really don't need to screen it in that way

[Kernewek]

I was told to read animal farm by the same people who told me to hide under the desk when the reds dropped a nuke on us and that communists kidnap children from their parents and arrest people for missing a day of work. Whatdoyathink?
I think those people completely missed the point of the book

[Hit The North]

Eliot was a far better poet than Orwell, while Orwell was a far superior novelist.
- August

Did Orwell attempt to write any poetry? Eliot never attempted a novel.


I find this whole thread to be rather silly. Who really cares what Eliot thought of Orwell's novel? It's not like there's enough evidence to base an educated critique of either of their political positions in this thread.

Eliot, a radical when it came to poetry, was well known for his social conservatism. In his later years he converted to High Anglicism and extolled the absolute virtue of national tradition.

This is quite a good review of Eliot's politics if you want to know more: http://www.heritage.org/research/politicalphilosophy/hl182.cfm

He was anti-socialist and anti-communist but I don't think he was ever a fascist like Ezra Pound.

[Devrim]

Eliot, working at British publishers Faber and Faber, sent a rejection letter to the young Orwell in 1944 dismissing the book, which went on to become a classic of modern English literature.

An interesting definition of the word young. I wonder if I would get away with applying it to myself. He was about six years from death.


Eliot was a far better poet than Orwell, while Orwell was a far superior novelist. When I read either of them I'm not terribly concerned with their politics (though often I find myself sympathizing with Orwell - read Homage to Catalonia), rather, with the style and quality of their prose and poetry.

I don't think that Orwell was a very good novelist at all, but then that is only my personal opinion. 'Homage to Catalonia' isn't a novel. It is journalism, and he was a good journalist. The novels don't offer much in my opinion.

Devrim

[black magick hustla]

I think he is a good novelist. regardless of the political leanings of the guy he pioneered the dystopian novel and his 1984 world is surprisingly creative. animal farm is not really that great though.

[Cumannach]

Animal farm is crude puerile anti-communist pigshit. Orwell's a poor writer.

[Janine Melnitz]

I think he is a good novelist. regardless of the political leanings of the guy he pioneered the dystopian novel
Dystopias are fucking boring though

[Pogue]

“It is probably a good thing for Lenin’s reputation that he died so early. Trotsky, in exile, denounces the Russian dictatorship, but he is probably as much responsible for it as any man now living, and there is no certainty that as a dictator he would be preferable to Stalin, though undoubtedly he has a much more interesting mind. The essential act is the rejection of democracy – that is, of the underlying values of democracy; once you have decided upon that, Stalin – or at any rate someone like Stalin – is already on the way.”
-Orwell.

Then again, his views could have easily changed between that comment in 1939 and the writing of 'Animal Farm', which was after his face heel turn on the war.

What do you mean by the war comment?

[Pogue]

Animal farm is crude puerile anti-communist pigshit. Orwell's a poor writer.

No its not, thats not what he was saying and he himself as a socialist who said he thought anarcho-communism was worth defending. Get out of your bubble that the USSR was communism or worth defending because it wasnt on either count.

Your opinion on his quality of writing is worthless, and despite your childish whingings about someone who criticised your uncle Joe and his wonderful garden of Eden, he is valued and respected as one of the great British writers and general writers of the 20th century.

[IcarusAngel]

I think he is a good novelist. regardless of the political leanings of the guy he pioneered the dystopian novel and his 1984 world is surprisingly creative.

Are you nuts? Yevgeny Zamyatin's We was completed in 1921, which was 28 years before Orwell's was published (1949). Huxley's book - Brave New World - far more inventive and creative, was also written before Orwell's.

Jack London also wrote a book called Iron Heel, about the US morphing into fascist capitalism, that apparently had an influence on Orwell as well.

Orwell himself said of the book: "A truer prophesy of things to come than either Brave New World or The Shape of Things to Come." Also check out Huxley's book: BNW Revisited, which talks about how his prediction was more accurate than Orwell's.

There are a few other books that came out before Orwell's that could be considered "dystopian."



animal farm is not really that great though.

I agree that 1984 was creative in terms of the methods it used to critique totalitarianism, but it's a society and world that's hard to imagine ever existing. A lot of the points from the book are easily lost.

I can't remember Animal Farm that well so I can't really comment as to which was better.

[Kernewek]

No its not, thats not what he was saying and he himself as a socialist who said he thought anarcho-communism was worth defending. Get out of your bubble that the USSR was communism or worth defending because it wasnt on either count.


thank you, I don't get why so many people missunderstand animal farm, it seemed pretty clear to me

it's not an attack on communism it's an attack against the USSR and the idea the USSR was a communist state, which Orwell considered harmfull to the movement as a whole

[Random Precision]

I think that Orwell perfected the dystopia. We is too heavily stylized to be realistic, and Brave New World makes some sharp comments, but also doesn't come close to Orwell's highly realistic approach.

I think the key elements of the dystopia are the struggle for individuality against the state, the highly unstable rule of any potential dystopian state, and the critique of modern governments from Stalinist Russia to capitalist Britain. Orwell certainly does better than either Zamyatin or Huxley in pointing those things out.

[Devrim]

I think that Orwell perfected the dystopia. We is too heavily stylized to be realistic, and Brave New World makes some sharp comments, but also doesn't come close to Orwell's highly realistic approach.

I think the key elements of the dystopia are the struggle for individuality against the state, the highly unstable rule of any potential dystopian state, and the critique of modern governments from Stalinist Russia to capitalist Britain. Orwell certainly does better than either Zamyatin or Huxley in pointing those things out.

I don't think that Orwell even envisaged it as a dystopia. From what I have read, he envisaged it as a dark parody of life after the war, and indeed even wanted to call it 1948. It ended up with the title we all know because his publisher wouldn't allow him to and he changed it round.

Devrim

[ZeroNowhere]

thank you, I don't get why so many people missunderstand animal farm, it seemed pretty clear to me

it's not an attack on communism it's an attack against the USSR and the idea the USSR was a communist state, which Orwell considered harmfull to the movement as a whole
Well, technically, it was an attack on all of the superpowers (including the US), and, it would seem, the Cold War in general. Though it was also remarkably dull.

[Random Precision]

I don't think that Orwell even envisaged it as a dystopia. From what I have read, he envisaged it as a dark parody of life after the war, and indeed even wanted to call it 1948. It ended up with the title we all know because his publisher wouldn't allow him to and he changed it round.

I can't find anything that confirms this. In any case, parody is far from the only thing he does in the novel.

[Devrim]

I can't find anything that confirms this. In any case, parody is far from the only thing he does in the novel.

I remember reading an interview with him years ago where he talked about it. I have no idea if it is on the net or not.

Devrim

[Leo]

Anthony Burgess (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Burgess) claims in 1985 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_%28Anthony_Burgess_novel%29) that Orwell, being disillusioned by the onset of the Cold War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War), intended to name the book 1948.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four#Title

[Random Precision]

Leo, you can be sure that I checked the Wiki article. Without reading Burgess' book, of course I cannot know about how reliable his claim was.

But I don't really think it matters. 1984 is complex enough that it transcends mere parody, even if that was Orwell's only intention in writing it.

[Devrim]

Leo, you can be sure that I checked the Wiki article. Without reading Burgess' book, of course I cannot know about how reliable his claim was.

Although it doesn't effect this claim, Burgess' 1985 is a shockingly anti-working class reactionary book, which panders to the worst fears of the British middle classes when it was written in the late 1970s, the power of the working class, and the invasion of aliens:


The main trend to which he is referring is the expanding power of trade unions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_union). In the hypothetical 1985 envisioned in the book, the trade unions have become so powerful that they exert full control over society; unions exist for every imaginable occupation. Unions start strikes with little reason and a strike by one union usually turns into a general strike.
Another major theme of the novella is the rise of Islam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam) as a major cultural and political force in Britain, due to large-scale immigration from the Middle East (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East); London (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London) abounds with mosques (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosque) and rich Arabs.


I really wouldn't bother reading it.


But I don't really think it matters. 1984 is complex enough that it transcends mere parody, even if that was Orwell's only intention in writing it.

This brings up a different question; Of what relevance is the writers intent, and of what relevance is how something is perceived?

Devrim

[black magick hustla]

I think it is not correct to judge literature on the grounds of politics. Doztoyevsky was a good writer and he was a full blown reactionary. The message in 1984 is really anti-working class but its a very good novel by itself. Lovecraft was the equivalent of a fantasy geek gone KKK in the 20s but he wrote some fairly original stuff, etc

edit: nevermind, i thought you folks were talking about clockwork orange. that 1985 shit looks awful

[Devrim]

I think it is not correct to judge literature on the grounds of politics. Doztoyevsky was a good writer and he was a full blown reactionary. The message in 1984 is really anti-working class but its a very good novel by itself. Lovecraft was the equivalent of a fantasy geek gone KKK in the 20s but he wrote some fairly original stuff, etc

I am not judging it on the politics though actually Winston does conclude that "if there is hope, it lies with the proles". I just don't think it is that good a book.


edit: nevermind, i thought you folks were talking about clockwork orange. that 1985 shit looks awful

Clockwork orange was a good book. 1985 was awful. It is not the politics in itself, it was the fact that it read like a Sun writers nightmare.

Devrim

[black magick hustla]

[QUOTE=Devrim;1401280]I am not judging it on the politics though actually Winston does conclude that "if there is hope, it lies with the proles". I just don't think it is that good a book.{/quote]

That is also true but also there were some dubious implications like the prole being astoundingly stupid and the only "smart folks" being party hacks.

Its a shame moscow destroyed the literary and artistic vitality associated with the early communist movement with that really boring socialist realist thing. We had the dadaists and the surrealists. Thankfully a lot of spanish speaking poets survived the socialist realist assault - like my favorite poet Neruda.

[Dimentio]

I think that Orwell perfected the dystopia. We is too heavily stylized to be realistic, and Brave New World makes some sharp comments, but also doesn't come close to Orwell's highly realistic approach.

I think the key elements of the dystopia are the struggle for individuality against the state, the highly unstable rule of any potential dystopian state, and the critique of modern governments from Stalinist Russia to capitalist Britain. Orwell certainly does better than either Zamyatin or Huxley in pointing those things out.

I think that there are potential regimes which would make 1984 and the Animal Farm to truly look like paradises.

[Invader Zim]

This brings up a different question; Of what relevance is the writers intent, and of what relevance is how something is perceived?

What the author intended matters a great deal, because there is interpetation and misinterpretation. Personally I reject Barthes.

[Random Precision]

What the author intended matters a great deal, because there is interpetation and misinterpretation. Personally I reject Barthes.

I agree, but I don't think the author's intention necessarily has to exclude interpretations of their work that have strong support otherwise.


I think that there are potential regimes which would make 1984 and the Animal Farm to truly look like paradises.Elaborate.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I don't know for sure, but Orwell may have been Trotskyist. If not he was definitely left-leaning and by far one of my favorite writers. Animal Farm and 1984 are both brilliant works. Some of my friends just recently started reading 1984 for school. One of them came to the conclusion within the first few chapters that Big Brother=Stalin and Goldstein=Trotsky. The Stalin/Trotsky conflict seems to be a re-occuring theme in Orwellian literature so it's another reason to think he was a Trotskyist.

[Devrim]

I don't know for sure, but Orwell may have been Trotskyist. If not he was definitely left-leaning and by far one of my favorite writers. Animal Farm and 1984 are both brilliant works. Some of my friends just recently started reading 1984 for school. One of them came to the conclusion within the first few chapters that Big Brother=Stalin and Goldstein=Trotsky. The Stalin/Trotsky conflict seems to be a re-occuring theme in Orwellian literature so it's another reason to think he was a Trotskyist.

Orwell wasn't a Trotskyist. He was at one point a member of the militia of a party, which was considered by many, but not the Trotskyists themselves, to be Trotskyist.

His comments on Trotsky have already been quoted on this thread:


It is probably a good thing for Lenin’s reputation that he died so early. Trotsky, in exile, denounces the Russian dictatorship, but he is probably as much responsible for it as any man now living, and there is no certainty that as a dictator he would be preferable to Stalin, though undoubtedly he has a much more interesting mind. The essential act is the rejection of democracy – that is, of the underlying values of democracy; once you have decided upon that, Stalin – or at any rate someone like Stalin – is already on the way

Devrim

[RHIZOMES]

I think he is a good novelist. regardless of the political leanings of the guy he pioneered the dystopian novel and his 1984 world is surprisingly creative. animal farm is not really that great though.

yeah dystopian fiction never existed before Orwell.


No its not, thats not what he was saying and he himself as a socialist who said he thought anarcho-communism was worth defending.

That's why George Orwell was a supporter of the Labour Party and handed over a list of communists to Her Majesty's Secret Service. Gotcha.

[Random Precision]

That's why George Orwell was a supporter of the Labour Party

The Communist Party of Great Britain tried to affiliate to Labour twice in that same period.


and handed over a list of communists to Her Majesty's Secret Service. Gotcha.

He gave a list of *well-known* communists and communist sympathizers to a personal friend who asked him who might be unsuitable for work in an anti-Soviet propaganda group under the direction of the Foreign Office. Not quite the same thing.

[Angry Young Man]

Well then he shouldn't have been so bloody daft, and me knowing that he wasn't so bloody daft, I keep the suspicion open.

And furthering the conversation on dystopia, A Clockwork Orange is best because everything is awful. There are equal damnations of all political systems. You don't often get liberal capitalism blasted, especially by a bourgeois writer.

[RHIZOMES]

The Communist Party of Great Britain tried to affiliate to Labour twice in that same period.

Yep if the Communist Party did it it's fine then.


He gave a list of *well-known* communists and communist sympathizers to a personal friend who asked him who might be unsuitable for work in an anti-Soviet propaganda group under the direction of the Foreign Office. Not quite the same thing.

Thanks for clarifying, that makes it so much better even though he was still aiding the British capitalist state.

[Random Precision]

Yep if the Communist Party did it it's fine then.

I didn't say that. During the time you're talking about, Labour had massive amounts of leftists supporting it- and not without reason. Singling out Orwell is a bit silly.


Thanks for clarifying, that makes it so much better even though he was still aiding the British capitalist state.

He was aiding a personal friend. None of the people he "named" suffered anything on account of him.

[Kernewek]

Well, technically, it was an attack on all of the superpowers (including the US), and, it would seem, the Cold War in general. Though it was also remarkably dull.
didn't really get that impression from animal farm, it's pretty critical of capitalism in general but didn't catch anything aimed at the us


That's why George Orwell was a supporter of the Labour Party

the labour party was much further left in those days, many of it's members wanted to see an end to capitalism




handed over a list of communists to Her Majesty's Secret Service. Gotcha.
the guy spent his entire career exposing the injustices suffered by the poor, even risked his life fighting along side the anarchists and socialists in the Spanish civil war

let's not demonise him for a list of people he considered unsuitable for a job given to a friend whilst he was suffering from TB and hod gone, to quote one of his friends who was on the list, "partly ga-ga"

[PeaderO'Donnell]

weren't ts elliot and ezra pound good mates? so hardly surprising if you look at ezra pound's politics

T.S. Elliot was a traditionalist conservative with shades of "Action Francaise" (who had proto-fascist elements) and Southern Agarianism.

Ezra Pound was a straight down the line Italian fascist (not the same as German Nazi) it would seem. He was also mad. Elliot wasnt. And Elliot supported the Allies in WWII.

Big enough differences.

[Invader Zim]

Thanks for clarifying, that makes it so much better even though he was still aiding the British capitalist state.

He wasn't aiding the British capitalist state. A friend asked him his opinion on the suitability of writers at the time to write for an anti-soviet propaganda department, he wasn't running the FO's recruitment department. He wasn't constructing a black list and he didn't make anything other than guesses based on information publically available.

You guys act like Orwell was some kind of spook, collecting information to have undesirable authors sent to the camps. Five minutes of research would soon cure you of these delusions.

[ZeroNowhere]

didn't really get that impression from animal farm, it's pretty critical of capitalism in general but didn't catch anything aimed at the us
When the pigs become tyrants, what do they turn into?