What do you think?
Rate this book
All Art Is Propaganda: Critical Essays
As a critic, George Orwell cast a wide net. Equally at home discussing Charles Dickens and Charlie Chaplin, he moved back and forth across the porous borders between essay and journalism, high art and low. A frequent commentator on literature, language, film, and drama throughout his career, Orwell turned increasingly to the critical essay in the 1940s, when his most important experiences were behind him and some of his most incisive writing lay ahead.
All Art Is Propaganda follows Orwell as he demonstrates in piece after piece how intent analysis of a work or body of work gives rise to trenchant aesthetic and philosophical commentary. With masterpieces such as "Politics and the English Language" and "Rudyard Kipling" and gems such as "Good Bad Books," here is an unrivaled education in, as George Packer puts it, "how to be interesting, line after line."
Charles Dickens
Boys' Weeklies
Inside the Whale
Drama The Tempest, The Peaceful Inn
Film The Great Dictator
Wells, Hitler and the World State
The Art of Donald McGill
No, Not One
Rudyard Kipling
T.S. Eliot
Can Socialists Be Happy?
Benefit of Some Notes on Salvador Dali
Propaganda and Demotic Speech
Raffles and Miss Blandish
Good Bad Books
The Prevention of Literature
Politics and the English Language
Confessions of a Book Reviewer
Politics vs. An Examination of Gulliver's Travels
Lear, Tolstoy and the Fool
Writers and Leviathan
Review of The Heart of the Matter by Graham Greene
Reflections on Gandhi
374 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1941
544 people are currently reading
8006 people want to read
About the author
George Orwell
1,331 books51.6k followersEric Arthur Blair was an English novelist, poet, essayist, journalist and critic who wrote under the pen name of George Orwell. His work is characterised by lucid prose, social criticism, opposition to all totalitarianism (both fascism and stalinism), and support of democratic socialism.
Orwell is best known for his allegorical novella Animal Farm (1945) and the dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949), although his works also encompass literary criticism, poetry, fiction and polemical journalism. His non-fiction works, including The Road to Wigan Pier (1937), documenting his experience of working-class life in the industrial north of England, and Homage to Catalonia (1938), an account of his experiences soldiering for the Republican faction of the Spanish Civil War (1936–1939), are as critically respected as his essays on politics, literature, language and culture.
Orwell's work remains influential in popular culture and in political culture, and the adjective "Orwellian"—describing totalitarian and authoritarian social practices—is part of the English language, like many of his neologisms, such as "Big Brother", "Thought Police", "Room 101", "Newspeak", "memory hole", "doublethink", and "thoughtcrime". In 2008, The Times named Orwell the second-greatest British writer since 1945.
Orwell is best known for his allegorical novella Animal Farm (1945) and the dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949), although his works also encompass literary criticism, poetry, fiction and polemical journalism. His non-fiction works, including The Road to Wigan Pier (1937), documenting his experience of working-class life in the industrial north of England, and Homage to Catalonia (1938), an account of his experiences soldiering for the Republican faction of the Spanish Civil War (1936–1939), are as critically respected as his essays on politics, literature, language and culture.
Orwell's work remains influential in popular culture and in political culture, and the adjective "Orwellian"—describing totalitarian and authoritarian social practices—is part of the English language, like many of his neologisms, such as "Big Brother", "Thought Police", "Room 101", "Newspeak", "memory hole", "doublethink", and "thoughtcrime". In 2008, The Times named Orwell the second-greatest British writer since 1945.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 166 reviews
August 19, 2014
I exhort you to take a proper gander at All Art Is Propaganda.
I've read all of the essays but one, - Benefits of Clergy: Some Notes on Salvador Dali. I'm a bit essayed out after the two volumes, All Art Is Propaganda and Facing Unpleasant Facts: Narrative Essays.
All the essays I've read in these two volumes are brilliant.
I have a problem with getting around to typing up reviews, I have a backlog to do. I'm getting there.
Added to review
Lear, Tolstoy and the Fool
Orwell writes that Tolstoy said Shakespeare was mediocre, and 'aroused in him "an irresistible repulsion and tedium." '
Orwell astutely observes that Lear is very similar to Tolstoy in later life.
Wells, Hitler and the World State
Orwell, unlike H.G. Wells' well-intentioned dismissive about Hitler, sees the threat as "Creatures out of the Dark Ages have come marching into the present, and if they are ghosts they are at any rate ghosts which need a strong magic to lay them".
Review of The Heart of the Matter by Graham Greene
from 1948 covers several of Greene's novels, including 'Brighton Rock' which Orwell sees as not very successful, which I agree with. Orwell makes some deadpan funny observations on the whole premise of 'Catholic Novels.'
Another great Essay is on Charlie Chaplin's film: The Great Dictator.
Reflections On Gandhi
and
No, Not One
The essay 'Reflections On Gandhi', in which Orwell looks at Gandhi's pacifism. This raises a lively discussion contrasting Orwell's other essay, 'No, Not One', which states an irrefutable argument against pacifism in a time of war with the Nazis. Gandhi's pacifism was against British Rule. Orwell notes "There is reason to think that Gandhi, who after all was born in 1869, did not understand totalitarianism and saw everything in terms of his own struggle against the British Government."
Orwell also asks "Was Hitler sane?"
While reading these two essays, which both focus on 'Pacifism', I thought, what a discussion it would be to sit around with some GR friends, especially those who's reviews I admire.
In the essay No, Not One Orwell reviews a novel 'No Such Liberty' by Alex Comfort, which sounds very interesting but doesn't appear to be easy to find. I think it is long out of print. Alex Comfort is the author of a book on a very different subject that was a bestseller in the sixties or seventies The Joy of Sex.
Politics vs Literature: An Examination of Gulliver's Travels.'
Swift's writing and his political views, Orwell writes "From what I have written it may have seemed that I am against Swift, and that my objective is to refute him and even belittle him."
This paragraph, and indeed the entire essay, focusses on an important point. That one can admire a writer's genius at the same time disagreeing or disliking what he is saying. Orwell raises the question: what is the relationship between agreement with a writer's opinions, and enjoying his work? The essay ends on a strong statement - "The durability of Gulliver's Travels goes to show that, if the force of belief is behind it, a world-view which only just passes the test of sanity is sufficient to produce a great work of art."
I have always loved and believed in diversity and have always believed in doubt, which I think of as a positive, not a negative. Question everything.
I've read all of the essays but one, - Benefits of Clergy: Some Notes on Salvador Dali. I'm a bit essayed out after the two volumes, All Art Is Propaganda and Facing Unpleasant Facts: Narrative Essays.
All the essays I've read in these two volumes are brilliant.
I have a problem with getting around to typing up reviews, I have a backlog to do. I'm getting there.
Added to review
Lear, Tolstoy and the Fool
Orwell writes that Tolstoy said Shakespeare was mediocre, and 'aroused in him "an irresistible repulsion and tedium." '
Orwell astutely observes that Lear is very similar to Tolstoy in later life.
Wells, Hitler and the World State
Orwell, unlike H.G. Wells' well-intentioned dismissive about Hitler, sees the threat as "Creatures out of the Dark Ages have come marching into the present, and if they are ghosts they are at any rate ghosts which need a strong magic to lay them".
Review of The Heart of the Matter by Graham Greene
from 1948 covers several of Greene's novels, including 'Brighton Rock' which Orwell sees as not very successful, which I agree with. Orwell makes some deadpan funny observations on the whole premise of 'Catholic Novels.'
Another great Essay is on Charlie Chaplin's film: The Great Dictator.
Reflections On Gandhi
and
No, Not One
The essay 'Reflections On Gandhi', in which Orwell looks at Gandhi's pacifism. This raises a lively discussion contrasting Orwell's other essay, 'No, Not One', which states an irrefutable argument against pacifism in a time of war with the Nazis. Gandhi's pacifism was against British Rule. Orwell notes "There is reason to think that Gandhi, who after all was born in 1869, did not understand totalitarianism and saw everything in terms of his own struggle against the British Government."
Orwell also asks "Was Hitler sane?"
While reading these two essays, which both focus on 'Pacifism', I thought, what a discussion it would be to sit around with some GR friends, especially those who's reviews I admire.
In the essay No, Not One Orwell reviews a novel 'No Such Liberty' by Alex Comfort, which sounds very interesting but doesn't appear to be easy to find. I think it is long out of print. Alex Comfort is the author of a book on a very different subject that was a bestseller in the sixties or seventies The Joy of Sex.
Politics vs Literature: An Examination of Gulliver's Travels.'
Swift's writing and his political views, Orwell writes "From what I have written it may have seemed that I am against Swift, and that my objective is to refute him and even belittle him."
This paragraph, and indeed the entire essay, focusses on an important point. That one can admire a writer's genius at the same time disagreeing or disliking what he is saying. Orwell raises the question: what is the relationship between agreement with a writer's opinions, and enjoying his work? The essay ends on a strong statement - "The durability of Gulliver's Travels goes to show that, if the force of belief is behind it, a world-view which only just passes the test of sanity is sufficient to produce a great work of art."
I have always loved and believed in diversity and have always believed in doubt, which I think of as a positive, not a negative. Question everything.
June 3, 2023
”Orwell is not afraid to be boring, which means that he is never boring.”
The above statement, taken from Keith Gessen’s introduction to this collection, is not strictly true. The first part is true — a collection that contains an essays on the cultural implications of boys’s weekly magazines, another on off-color postcards, and yet another on good bad books, proves it. (And no, none of them are boring.) Yet there were times when Orwell’s prolonged deep dives into his subject left me momentarily stupefied. Orwell sounds each subject to its deepest depths — an impressive display of erudition and insight — but sometimes I had my fill several pages before he concluded his essay. Despite this, the abundance of his clear-eyed brilliance far outweighed the moments of boredom.
Orwell covers much ground in these critical essays. His name has become nearly synonymous with his writings on totalitarianism, and there is plenty of that here, as in his essay Wells, Hitler, and the World State. Yet also collected here is his film review of Chaplin’s film The Great Dictator, and his scathing piece on Salvador Dali and his autobiography, an essay that was suppressed on the grounds of “obscenity.”
It is Orwell’s essays on writers that shine the brightest. He delves deep into classic icons of letters. Of Dickens he writes:
”Dickens seems to have succeeded in attacking everybody and antagonizing nobody.”
and,
”He is all fragments, all details — rotten architecture but wonderful gargoyles”
He launches into Kipling with this:
“Kipling is a jingo imperialist, he is morally insensitive and aesthetically disgusting. It is better to start by admitting that, and then to try to find out why it is that he survives while the refined people who have sniggered at him seem to wear so badly.”
And he dismisses Wells with:
”Wells is too sane to understand the modern world.”
Both Henry Miller and Jonathan Swift received Orwell’s critical examination as well.
The final writer who is brilliantly revealed in these essays is Orwell himself. He does not hide in his work. His approach is clear eyed, unsentimental, and direct. He uncovers truths that were hiding in plain sight, and doesn’t give a damn for the artificial dichotomy of party opinion or the officially sanctioned or proper philosophies. He bravely slays sacred cows of all factions with abandon. He writes:
”To write in plain, vigorous language one has to think fearlessly, and if one thinks fearlessly one cannot be politically orthodox.”
Yet despite these admirable qualities, he also reveals himself as a bit of a prig, a chauvinist, and a nasty homophobe, proving that even nonconformist heroes have blind spots and never fully escape the foibles of their age.
The above statement, taken from Keith Gessen’s introduction to this collection, is not strictly true. The first part is true — a collection that contains an essays on the cultural implications of boys’s weekly magazines, another on off-color postcards, and yet another on good bad books, proves it. (And no, none of them are boring.) Yet there were times when Orwell’s prolonged deep dives into his subject left me momentarily stupefied. Orwell sounds each subject to its deepest depths — an impressive display of erudition and insight — but sometimes I had my fill several pages before he concluded his essay. Despite this, the abundance of his clear-eyed brilliance far outweighed the moments of boredom.
Orwell covers much ground in these critical essays. His name has become nearly synonymous with his writings on totalitarianism, and there is plenty of that here, as in his essay Wells, Hitler, and the World State. Yet also collected here is his film review of Chaplin’s film The Great Dictator, and his scathing piece on Salvador Dali and his autobiography, an essay that was suppressed on the grounds of “obscenity.”
It is Orwell’s essays on writers that shine the brightest. He delves deep into classic icons of letters. Of Dickens he writes:
”Dickens seems to have succeeded in attacking everybody and antagonizing nobody.”
and,
”He is all fragments, all details — rotten architecture but wonderful gargoyles”
He launches into Kipling with this:
“Kipling is a jingo imperialist, he is morally insensitive and aesthetically disgusting. It is better to start by admitting that, and then to try to find out why it is that he survives while the refined people who have sniggered at him seem to wear so badly.”
And he dismisses Wells with:
”Wells is too sane to understand the modern world.”
Both Henry Miller and Jonathan Swift received Orwell’s critical examination as well.
The final writer who is brilliantly revealed in these essays is Orwell himself. He does not hide in his work. His approach is clear eyed, unsentimental, and direct. He uncovers truths that were hiding in plain sight, and doesn’t give a damn for the artificial dichotomy of party opinion or the officially sanctioned or proper philosophies. He bravely slays sacred cows of all factions with abandon. He writes:
”To write in plain, vigorous language one has to think fearlessly, and if one thinks fearlessly one cannot be politically orthodox.”
Yet despite these admirable qualities, he also reveals himself as a bit of a prig, a chauvinist, and a nasty homophobe, proving that even nonconformist heroes have blind spots and never fully escape the foibles of their age.
December 31, 2025
“From the totalitarian point of view history is something to be created rather than learned...(p. 259)”
Let’s start with the basic definition of the word “totalitarian”: “adj.) of or relating to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life. (dictionary.com)”
Arguably, the country I live in and love---the United States of America---has never been a democracy. It is technically a republic. True democracies don’t exist because true democracies would inevitably crumble and destroy themselves. Such is the nature of the human condition: we all, secretly, hate those with which we don’t agree and, secretly, wish to see them proven wrong and/or permanently silenced. Anyone who claims otherwise---egalitarian do-gooders who believe that “everyone deserves to have an equal voice”---is lying to you and themselves.
George Orwell knew this. He spent his life writing about totalitarianism and its polar opposite philosophy, democratic socialism. He abhorred the former, but he knew the latter was a fairy tale. Socialism, as it was practiced by people claiming to be socialists, was fascism in disguise.
All the so-called Socialist regimes---Nazis, Soviets, Cuba, China---were perversions of true socialism. They paid lip service to socialist ideals while openly engaging in fascistic atrocities. They were wolves in sheep’s clothing.
But people who strived for true democracy weren’t much better. They were, according to Orwell, often people who felt themselves to be morally and intellectually superior. They were judgmental and self-righteous. They were, ironically, dismissive or indifferent to whole segments of the population that they felt were beneath them: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. (from “Animal Farm”)”
So it was for the nearly 70 years since Orwell’s death. Then, in November 2016, something strange happened. A man with absolutely no credible qualifications for any profession, let alone politics, was elected to the highest political office in the land.
Now, totalitarianism is the hot new buzz word, and Orwell is back on the bestseller lists.
****
“A totalitarian state is in effect a theocracy, and its ruling caste, in order to keep its position, has to be thought of as infallible. But since, in practice, no one is infallible, it is frequently necessary to rearrange past events in order to show that this or that mistake was not made, or that this or that imaginary triumph actually happened...(p. 259)”
Donald Trump probably likes to think of himself as infallible. He certainly ran his campaign like he was infallible, often claiming that he knew more than military leaders, opponents, and his own advisors. He has yet to utter the three most important little words---”I was wrong”---in regards to anything.
So far, Trump has been wrong numerous times, but the journalists who have the audacity to fact-check him and suggest that he is less than factual in his assertions are written off as “fake news” and misleading the public. His antagonism towards the press is unprecedented, even when compared to Richard Nixon.
Thankfully, the press is putting up a pretty good fight against Trump, but it’s perhaps only a matter of time before Trump sets up his own Ministry of Propaganda.* I’m sure Steve Bannon and Kellyanne Conway are working on it right now.
The attack on journalism is only one small part of Trump’s totalitarian war against freedom and autonomous thought. Don’t forget that the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities are also being considered for federal de-funding.** Granted, the NEA and the NEH have been under attack by Republicans for decades, so there’s nothing really new there.
Still, it’s important to remember how important Art is to a culture’s health and stability, because Art is perhaps the most democratic of all endeavors. Freedom of expression is the bedrock of the foundation of this country. All other freedoms---of religion, of the press, of bearing arms---stem from this freedom.
Expression---of one’s feelings, opinions, criticisms---is where all Art comes from, which is perhaps why Orwell liked to repeat the phrase, “All Art is Propaganda”. Even the most innocuous and bland work of art is, essentially, political in that it is an expression, and extension, of the artist’s worldview. We can choose to dislike it, disagree with it, loathe it, but we can’t suppress it. Attempts to do so are what is called censorship.
****
“Then, again, every major change in policy demands a corresponding change of doctrine and a revaluation of prominent historical figures. This kind of thing happens everywhere, but clearly it is likelier to lead to outright falsification in societies where only one opinion is permissible at any given moment. Totalitarianism demands, in fact, the continuous alteration of the past, and in the long run probably demands a disbelief in the very existence of objective truth. (p. 259)”
“All Art is Propaganda” is Orwell’s collected critical essays, and they are perhaps as important today as they were when he wrote them, nearly 80 years ago.
Even the dated ones---the “current” book reviews of bestselling authors such as Henry Miller and Graham Greene or the movie review of Charlie Chaplin’s “The Great Dictator”*** ---have a contemporary resonance, illustrating how history isn’t that distant and the past isn’t always the past. Everything may change, but nothing ever changes.
Orwell was that rarest of intellectual writers, the one who secretly loathed intellectualism, at least the blatantly pretentious kind of intellectualism that he couldn’t stand among many of his contemporaries. His loathing wasn’t really much of a secret.
He wrote in a very succinct, straightforward manner, a trait most likely owing to his stint as a journalist. He never wasted five words when one word would suffice. Yet every word he wrote packed a wallop. Because every word he wrote came from a place that valued social justice and freedom of thought.
This is why it’s heartening to see Orwell back on the bestseller lists and popular again.
*12/31/2025 addendum: As of July 2025, Trump's media company Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG) initiated its own streaming service called Truth+, which features Trump-friendly conservative news and analysis.
** 12/31/2025 addendum: While not completely defunded, the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), under both Trump administrations, has been gutted with enough program and policy cuts as to be close to defunded.
***12/31/2025 addendum: Not so dated anymore...
Let’s start with the basic definition of the word “totalitarian”: “adj.) of or relating to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life. (dictionary.com)”
Arguably, the country I live in and love---the United States of America---has never been a democracy. It is technically a republic. True democracies don’t exist because true democracies would inevitably crumble and destroy themselves. Such is the nature of the human condition: we all, secretly, hate those with which we don’t agree and, secretly, wish to see them proven wrong and/or permanently silenced. Anyone who claims otherwise---egalitarian do-gooders who believe that “everyone deserves to have an equal voice”---is lying to you and themselves.
George Orwell knew this. He spent his life writing about totalitarianism and its polar opposite philosophy, democratic socialism. He abhorred the former, but he knew the latter was a fairy tale. Socialism, as it was practiced by people claiming to be socialists, was fascism in disguise.
All the so-called Socialist regimes---Nazis, Soviets, Cuba, China---were perversions of true socialism. They paid lip service to socialist ideals while openly engaging in fascistic atrocities. They were wolves in sheep’s clothing.
But people who strived for true democracy weren’t much better. They were, according to Orwell, often people who felt themselves to be morally and intellectually superior. They were judgmental and self-righteous. They were, ironically, dismissive or indifferent to whole segments of the population that they felt were beneath them: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. (from “Animal Farm”)”
So it was for the nearly 70 years since Orwell’s death. Then, in November 2016, something strange happened. A man with absolutely no credible qualifications for any profession, let alone politics, was elected to the highest political office in the land.
Now, totalitarianism is the hot new buzz word, and Orwell is back on the bestseller lists.
****
“A totalitarian state is in effect a theocracy, and its ruling caste, in order to keep its position, has to be thought of as infallible. But since, in practice, no one is infallible, it is frequently necessary to rearrange past events in order to show that this or that mistake was not made, or that this or that imaginary triumph actually happened...(p. 259)”
Donald Trump probably likes to think of himself as infallible. He certainly ran his campaign like he was infallible, often claiming that he knew more than military leaders, opponents, and his own advisors. He has yet to utter the three most important little words---”I was wrong”---in regards to anything.
So far, Trump has been wrong numerous times, but the journalists who have the audacity to fact-check him and suggest that he is less than factual in his assertions are written off as “fake news” and misleading the public. His antagonism towards the press is unprecedented, even when compared to Richard Nixon.
Thankfully, the press is putting up a pretty good fight against Trump, but it’s perhaps only a matter of time before Trump sets up his own Ministry of Propaganda.* I’m sure Steve Bannon and Kellyanne Conway are working on it right now.
The attack on journalism is only one small part of Trump’s totalitarian war against freedom and autonomous thought. Don’t forget that the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities are also being considered for federal de-funding.** Granted, the NEA and the NEH have been under attack by Republicans for decades, so there’s nothing really new there.
Still, it’s important to remember how important Art is to a culture’s health and stability, because Art is perhaps the most democratic of all endeavors. Freedom of expression is the bedrock of the foundation of this country. All other freedoms---of religion, of the press, of bearing arms---stem from this freedom.
Expression---of one’s feelings, opinions, criticisms---is where all Art comes from, which is perhaps why Orwell liked to repeat the phrase, “All Art is Propaganda”. Even the most innocuous and bland work of art is, essentially, political in that it is an expression, and extension, of the artist’s worldview. We can choose to dislike it, disagree with it, loathe it, but we can’t suppress it. Attempts to do so are what is called censorship.
****
“Then, again, every major change in policy demands a corresponding change of doctrine and a revaluation of prominent historical figures. This kind of thing happens everywhere, but clearly it is likelier to lead to outright falsification in societies where only one opinion is permissible at any given moment. Totalitarianism demands, in fact, the continuous alteration of the past, and in the long run probably demands a disbelief in the very existence of objective truth. (p. 259)”
“All Art is Propaganda” is Orwell’s collected critical essays, and they are perhaps as important today as they were when he wrote them, nearly 80 years ago.
Even the dated ones---the “current” book reviews of bestselling authors such as Henry Miller and Graham Greene or the movie review of Charlie Chaplin’s “The Great Dictator”*** ---have a contemporary resonance, illustrating how history isn’t that distant and the past isn’t always the past. Everything may change, but nothing ever changes.
Orwell was that rarest of intellectual writers, the one who secretly loathed intellectualism, at least the blatantly pretentious kind of intellectualism that he couldn’t stand among many of his contemporaries. His loathing wasn’t really much of a secret.
He wrote in a very succinct, straightforward manner, a trait most likely owing to his stint as a journalist. He never wasted five words when one word would suffice. Yet every word he wrote packed a wallop. Because every word he wrote came from a place that valued social justice and freedom of thought.
This is why it’s heartening to see Orwell back on the bestseller lists and popular again.
*12/31/2025 addendum: As of July 2025, Trump's media company Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG) initiated its own streaming service called Truth+, which features Trump-friendly conservative news and analysis.
** 12/31/2025 addendum: While not completely defunded, the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), under both Trump administrations, has been gutted with enough program and policy cuts as to be close to defunded.
***12/31/2025 addendum: Not so dated anymore...
April 8, 2018
As a title, All Art is Propaganda has a portentous quality that doesn't do justice to the sheer delight of Orwell's essays. Reading his straightforward prose style is like talking to a friend who just happens to have thought deeply about all levels of art, ranging from Charles Dickens and Salvador Dali to dirty postcards and boys' adventure magazines. Orwell does often bring politics into his criticism, but his approach is a lot more engaging and less bleak than you might expect. And despite (or maybe because of) the simplicity of his style, he has an gift for unique and memorable turns of phrase. Contrasting the inconsistency of Dickens's plots with the richness of his detail, for example, Orwell writes "rotten architecture, but wonderful gargoyles."
I had previously read many essays in this book in other volumes, so I focused mainly those that were new to me, along with a few favorites. There were a few essays I found less interesting, particularly those that weren't about any particular work, but rather about general questions like "can literature flourish under a totalitarian regime?" (Spoiler alert, no.) There are definitely more consistent Orwell essay compilations that would serve as a better introduction for a new reader. But for the Orwell essay aficionado, All Art is Propaganda is a solid and engaging compilation of his critical writing.
I had previously read many essays in this book in other volumes, so I focused mainly those that were new to me, along with a few favorites. There were a few essays I found less interesting, particularly those that weren't about any particular work, but rather about general questions like "can literature flourish under a totalitarian regime?" (Spoiler alert, no.) There are definitely more consistent Orwell essay compilations that would serve as a better introduction for a new reader. But for the Orwell essay aficionado, All Art is Propaganda is a solid and engaging compilation of his critical writing.
December 8, 2014
This was really a provocative read. Orwell is such a clear writer, and independent thinker, that you find yourself fruitfully mulling over issues you have never really thought about before. This is a collection of essays and reviews, and is well worth every minute spent on it. Fantastic.
April 1, 2019
Charles Dickens - 4/5 stars
Boys' Weeklies (read before in Decline of the English Murder)
Inside the Whale - 2.5/5 stars
Drama reviews: The Tempest, The Peaceful Inn - 3.5/5 stars
Film review: The Great Dictator - 3/5 stars
Wells, Hitler and the World State - 4.5/5 stars
The Art of Donald McGill (read before in Decline of the English Murder)
No, Not One - 3/5 stars
Rudyard Kipling - 2/5 stars
T.S. Eliot - 2/5 stars
Can Socialists be Happy? - 3.5/5 stars
Benefit of Clergy: some notes on Salvador Dali - 1/5 stars
Propaganda and Demotic Speech - 2/5 stars
Raffles and Miss Blandish - 2/5 stars
Good Bad Books (read before in Decline of the English Murder)
The Prevention of Literature (read before in Books v. Cigarettes)
Politics and the English Language (read before in Why I Write)
Confessions of a Book Reviewer (read before in Books v. Cigarettes)
Politics vs Literature: an examination of Gulliver's Travels - DNF
Lear, Tolstoy and the Fool - 3/5 stars
Writers and Leviathan - 2/5 stars
Review of 'The Heart of the Matter' by Graham Greene - 3/5 stars
Reflections on Gandhi - 2.5/5 stars
Boys' Weeklies (read before in Decline of the English Murder)
Inside the Whale - 2.5/5 stars
Drama reviews: The Tempest, The Peaceful Inn - 3.5/5 stars
Film review: The Great Dictator - 3/5 stars
Wells, Hitler and the World State - 4.5/5 stars
The Art of Donald McGill (read before in Decline of the English Murder)
No, Not One - 3/5 stars
Rudyard Kipling - 2/5 stars
T.S. Eliot - 2/5 stars
Can Socialists be Happy? - 3.5/5 stars
Benefit of Clergy: some notes on Salvador Dali - 1/5 stars
Propaganda and Demotic Speech - 2/5 stars
Raffles and Miss Blandish - 2/5 stars
Good Bad Books (read before in Decline of the English Murder)
The Prevention of Literature (read before in Books v. Cigarettes)
Politics and the English Language (read before in Why I Write)
Confessions of a Book Reviewer (read before in Books v. Cigarettes)
Politics vs Literature: an examination of Gulliver's Travels - DNF
Lear, Tolstoy and the Fool - 3/5 stars
Writers and Leviathan - 2/5 stars
Review of 'The Heart of the Matter' by Graham Greene - 3/5 stars
Reflections on Gandhi - 2.5/5 stars
August 1, 2023
I gave an Orwell book three stars. What a strange thing to do. And yet I stand by it. Sort of. Probably four and I’m just mad. Who cares about stars.
Anyway, I’m not a feminist running around seeking opportunities to grow outraged at the erasure of women writers, and I expect it when reading male authors of the 1940s. But I began this book on the day I finished reading Gaskell’s “North and South,” which is a Victorian novel that looks deep into England’s urban working class, cotton mill workers. Gaskell was a Marxist and wrote a searing and complex account of labor rights, unions, the proletariat and the ruling class.
The first essay in Orwell’s book states that there is “no English novel” that writes of England’s urban working class. He specifically cites cotton mills. In the context of critiquing Dickens for not being Marxist enough, Orwell argues that NOBODY writes those sorts of novels, almost as an excuse for Dickens.
Hence the three stars. It’s flat out ignorant if not wholly misogynistic. Either way, unimpressed.
This entire book on art straight erases female artists. They are non entities. Nothings. All men all day all the time. Of the two women writers he mentions in passing, one was so he could assert that he hopes Virginia Woolf’s work fades into oblivion.
I am writing my own essay in response to this book. It’s called “Turns out Orwell is something of a dick.”
Working title.
In other news, never read the nonfiction of your male novelist heroes from the past, apparently. Especially if you’re a woman writer. I’ll admit it. It stings. What these women went through to write those books, and they were just—erased.
This quote, though? Brilliance:
“It seems that in every attack Dickens makes upon society he is always pointing to a change of spirit rather than a change of structure. It is hopeless to try and pin him down to any definite remedy, still more to any political doctrine. His approach is always along the moral plane...
A “change of heart” is in fact the alibi of people who do not wish to endanger the status quo.”
HELLO, CENTRISTS. Same old shit with a better polish. Work out predatory capitalism on a moral plane. You know, nice guy up front serving the ruling elite.
Four stars. Just mad. Ya dick.
.
Anyway, I’m not a feminist running around seeking opportunities to grow outraged at the erasure of women writers, and I expect it when reading male authors of the 1940s. But I began this book on the day I finished reading Gaskell’s “North and South,” which is a Victorian novel that looks deep into England’s urban working class, cotton mill workers. Gaskell was a Marxist and wrote a searing and complex account of labor rights, unions, the proletariat and the ruling class.
The first essay in Orwell’s book states that there is “no English novel” that writes of England’s urban working class. He specifically cites cotton mills. In the context of critiquing Dickens for not being Marxist enough, Orwell argues that NOBODY writes those sorts of novels, almost as an excuse for Dickens.
Hence the three stars. It’s flat out ignorant if not wholly misogynistic. Either way, unimpressed.
This entire book on art straight erases female artists. They are non entities. Nothings. All men all day all the time. Of the two women writers he mentions in passing, one was so he could assert that he hopes Virginia Woolf’s work fades into oblivion.
I am writing my own essay in response to this book. It’s called “Turns out Orwell is something of a dick.”
Working title.
In other news, never read the nonfiction of your male novelist heroes from the past, apparently. Especially if you’re a woman writer. I’ll admit it. It stings. What these women went through to write those books, and they were just—erased.
This quote, though? Brilliance:
“It seems that in every attack Dickens makes upon society he is always pointing to a change of spirit rather than a change of structure. It is hopeless to try and pin him down to any definite remedy, still more to any political doctrine. His approach is always along the moral plane...
A “change of heart” is in fact the alibi of people who do not wish to endanger the status quo.”
HELLO, CENTRISTS. Same old shit with a better polish. Work out predatory capitalism on a moral plane. You know, nice guy up front serving the ruling elite.
Four stars. Just mad. Ya dick.
.
June 21, 2018
Reading George Orwell's essays and reviews is not so much that I agree or disagree with him, but the fact that I admire his prose writing. In an odd way, he reminds me at times of Roland Barthes. Perhaps for the reason that I have been reading Barthes time-to-time the past twenty years or so. Barthes is a poetic and textural reader, and I feel that I'm dipping into a murky pool of different ingredients. Orwell looks at his subject matter in a similar vein as Barthes but is very much in defining what he sees in a clear and non-heady manner. It may just come down that one is British and the other is French. Still, Orwell's approach and thinking about the English language is very thoughtful, and especially in these times (like always) it's good to remind us how flexible language is, and it depends on how one uses the English language and for what purposes.
October 15, 2021
I can't seem to get enough of Orwell's essays. That only leaves one collection to go.
Probably the greatest - certaintly British - essayist I've read and ever will. Some of those here I'd come across before in other volumes, and read two or three times already, so only focused on the essays I hadn't read - which was about two-thirds of the book. Such a wide array of topics here so things never became boring. He is simply one of those writers - whether fiction or non-fiction - that everyone should read.
Probably the greatest - certaintly British - essayist I've read and ever will. Some of those here I'd come across before in other volumes, and read two or three times already, so only focused on the essays I hadn't read - which was about two-thirds of the book. Such a wide array of topics here so things never became boring. He is simply one of those writers - whether fiction or non-fiction - that everyone should read.
December 28, 2013
تصبح الكتابة عملاً شاقاً حين تنتقد أحد أعمال كُتابك المفضلين. خاصةً وأن هذا العمل تحديداً موجهاً لجعلك أكثر وعياً بالأخطاء المرتكبة أثناء الكتابة النقدية. وهذا ما لا يعرفه الكثير عن أورويل, أنه إلى جانب كونه روائي بارع, فهو أيضاً ناقد وكاتب مقالات عبقري يتنقل في موضوعاته بين السياسة والسينما والفن والأدب. ويتسم بالكثير من الواقعية, التي قد تصل به إلى مرحلة السوداوية أحياناً, لكنه يعي رغم ذلك أهمية الحقيقة, ويعي قبل ذلك, أهمية اللغة في نقلها إلينا. ولأن أورويل يدرك أن الأدب الروائي هو نوع الأدب المفضل لدى العامة, صُممت رواياته لتناسب الفكرة التي تمحورت حولها مقالاته, أقتبس هذا النص من روايته 1984:
"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? ... Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller."
في نهاية الأمر, أتمنى أن تتلقى مقالات أورويل ذات الإهتمام الذي تلقته أعماله الروائية؛ لأنه يحمل رسالة تستحق النشر, ولأنه أحد الكتاب القلة الذين حين تقرأ لهم لا تملك سوا أن تتفق معهم.
"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? ... Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller."
في نهاية الأمر, أتمنى أن تتلقى مقالات أورويل ذات الإهتمام الذي تلقته أعماله الروائية؛ لأنه يحمل رسالة تستحق النشر, ولأنه أحد الكتاب القلة الذين حين تقرأ لهم لا تملك سوا أن تتفق معهم.
June 20, 2024
This collection of essays by George Orwell is unique in the sense that all of the essays were published in the 1940s and about two thirds of them are reviews of the works of other writers, or of plays, films, weekly magazines, art and comic postcards. The remainder touch on subjects such as: popular speech and literature, politics and language, the writing of reviews and the socialist concept of happiness. All of the essays are written in Orwell's conversational style with his usual insightful comments and well formulated arguments. The essays that most appealed to me were: "Can Socialists Be Happy?", "Propaganda and Demotic Speech", "Politics and the English Language" and the autobiographical and whimsical "Confessions of a Book Reviewer" which, in a quirky way, reveals Orwell's views on the business of reviewing and the writer's financial struggles to make ends meet. Lots here to like and I think most readers will find a number of essays that appeal to them.
Read
April 2, 2025"Politics and the English Langauge" is included in this collection, and I still think it's genuinely good advice. But after reading 370 pages of Orwell essays I am slightly less enamoured by it, because despite his other qualities Orwell surely is not a great stylist, and after a while all those concrete sentences harden into a homogenous grey slab.
Orwell tells you all his opinions, uniformly confident in all of them. He is very widely read, and can list a hundred major works across half a century only to dismiss them in a sentence, but the reasons for dismissal often seem arbitrary. E.g. he writes off Rupert Brooke's The Old Vicarage, Grantchester as "nature poetry", which supposedly was in vogue because the bourgieousie was newly removed away from, and therefore romantized, rural life. That analysis seems to not connect at all with the poem itself, which is very tounge-in-cheek, ironic, and explicitly sets itself up as describing an excursion by a classics student, not an idealized farmer. And it has exactly the light ironic touch which is missing in Orwell's own English Language.
Orwell's Politics are also not inspiring, at least when it comes to literary criticism. Although he frequently stresses that he is a Socialist, his tastes are little-c conservative. He condems the "cruelty and sexual perversion" of pulp detective novels and hopes they are a temporary phenomenon created by the "boredom and brutality of war". Salavador Dali's art is "diseased and disgusting", "digusting and degrading", liked by "mentality diseased" people and a product of the "corrupt world of the nineteen-twenties, when ... every European capital swarmed with aristocrats and rentiers who had ... taken to patronising the arts". This sentiment feels like it would fit in well with the contemporary screeds against degenerate art on the other side of the English Channel, and indeed in a different essay Orwell remarks that "there is a very strong case for the Nazis, through not many people in this country have the courage to utter it". (He does not explain the case further).
Orwell's principal political view is skepticism towards idealism and radical utopianism. After acknowledging that the Nazis are bad, he spends more words complaining about British Communists. Although "all sensible men" would agree that a peaceful socialist world state would be a good thing in theory, in practice what we need is "the atavistic emotion of patriotism, the ingrained feeling of the English-speaking peoples that they are superior to foreigners", and if the left-wing intellectuals had succeeded in breaking it, London would have been overrun by the Germans. Although in principle the aristocrats are bad, at least they had an appreciation of style and morals, and their "snobbishness ... from a social point of view has been underrated". Orwell keeps coming back to how the good old British worker would dismiss intellectual socialism as nonsense, and "one has to take into account the fact that nearly all English people dislike anything that sounds high-flown". This feels like a quite conservative outlook, and I think it maybe is related to his fondness for simple words and spoken-language cadences.
Orwell tells you all his opinions, uniformly confident in all of them. He is very widely read, and can list a hundred major works across half a century only to dismiss them in a sentence, but the reasons for dismissal often seem arbitrary. E.g. he writes off Rupert Brooke's The Old Vicarage, Grantchester as "nature poetry", which supposedly was in vogue because the bourgieousie was newly removed away from, and therefore romantized, rural life. That analysis seems to not connect at all with the poem itself, which is very tounge-in-cheek, ironic, and explicitly sets itself up as describing an excursion by a classics student, not an idealized farmer. And it has exactly the light ironic touch which is missing in Orwell's own English Language.
Orwell's Politics are also not inspiring, at least when it comes to literary criticism. Although he frequently stresses that he is a Socialist, his tastes are little-c conservative. He condems the "cruelty and sexual perversion" of pulp detective novels and hopes they are a temporary phenomenon created by the "boredom and brutality of war". Salavador Dali's art is "diseased and disgusting", "digusting and degrading", liked by "mentality diseased" people and a product of the "corrupt world of the nineteen-twenties, when ... every European capital swarmed with aristocrats and rentiers who had ... taken to patronising the arts". This sentiment feels like it would fit in well with the contemporary screeds against degenerate art on the other side of the English Channel, and indeed in a different essay Orwell remarks that "there is a very strong case for the Nazis, through not many people in this country have the courage to utter it". (He does not explain the case further).
Orwell's principal political view is skepticism towards idealism and radical utopianism. After acknowledging that the Nazis are bad, he spends more words complaining about British Communists. Although "all sensible men" would agree that a peaceful socialist world state would be a good thing in theory, in practice what we need is "the atavistic emotion of patriotism, the ingrained feeling of the English-speaking peoples that they are superior to foreigners", and if the left-wing intellectuals had succeeded in breaking it, London would have been overrun by the Germans. Although in principle the aristocrats are bad, at least they had an appreciation of style and morals, and their "snobbishness ... from a social point of view has been underrated". Orwell keeps coming back to how the good old British worker would dismiss intellectual socialism as nonsense, and "one has to take into account the fact that nearly all English people dislike anything that sounds high-flown". This feels like a quite conservative outlook, and I think it maybe is related to his fondness for simple words and spoken-language cadences.
December 22, 2018
منذ قرائتي لروايتيه 1984 ومزرعة الحيوان، أعجبت بأسلوبه في الكتابة وقدرته على جمع بين الأدب والسياسة، لأجد هذا الكتاب وهو عبارة عن مجموعة مقالات نقدية تناولت مواضيع مختلفة مثل الكتابة واللغة والسياسة والدين والحياة والفن والموت وأكثر من ذلك بكثير.
تظهر هذه المقالات معرفة أورويل الواسعة بالأدب، فهنا ستجد نقد عميق لجميع مستويات الفن بدءا من تشارلز ديكنز وسلفادور دالي إلى البطاقات البريدية التافهة ومجلات المغامرات الخاصة بالأولاد. غالبا ما يجلب أورويل السياسة إلى نقده، لكن مقاربته أكثر جاذبية وأقل قتامة مما قد تتوقعه. يرى أورويل أنه لا يمكن فصل الأدب عن السياسة وينتقد بشكل شرس ميل الكتاب إلى النزعة السلمية، فهي مجرد قبول واستمرار للظلم والثورة ضرورية دائما للمجتمع من أجل التقدم والتحسن، ليس بالضرورة ستؤدي إلى السعادة لكن إلى نظام أفضل.
https://m7raby.wordpress.com/2018/12/...
ما أعجبني في مقالاته هو انتقاده لنفسه وكونه يساهم أيضا في نشر البروباغندا، وقراءة أسلوبه النثري المباشر يشبه التحدث إلى أحد الأصدقاء، وبالرغم من بساطة أسلوبه، إلا أنه يمتلك قدرة على تحويل الكلمات إلى جمل فريدة لا تنسى. إن مجموعة الأفكار التي يشرحها أورويل في هذا الكتاب تتخطى الزمن.
تظهر هذه المقالات معرفة أورويل الواسعة بالأدب، فهنا ستجد نقد عميق لجميع مستويات الفن بدءا من تشارلز ديكنز وسلفادور دالي إلى البطاقات البريدية التافهة ومجلات المغامرات الخاصة بالأولاد. غالبا ما يجلب أورويل السياسة إلى نقده، لكن مقاربته أكثر جاذبية وأقل قتامة مما قد تتوقعه. يرى أورويل أنه لا يمكن فصل الأدب عن السياسة وينتقد بشكل شرس ميل الكتاب إلى النزعة السلمية، فهي مجرد قبول واستمرار للظلم والثورة ضرورية دائما للمجتمع من أجل التقدم والتحسن، ليس بالضرورة ستؤدي إلى السعادة لكن إلى نظام أفضل.
https://m7raby.wordpress.com/2018/12/...
ما أعجبني في مقالاته هو انتقاده لنفسه وكونه يساهم أيضا في نشر البروباغندا، وقراءة أسلوبه النثري المباشر يشبه التحدث إلى أحد الأصدقاء، وبالرغم من بساطة أسلوبه، إلا أنه يمتلك قدرة على تحويل الكلمات إلى جمل فريدة لا تنسى. إن مجموعة الأفكار التي يشرحها أورويل في هذا الكتاب تتخطى الزمن.
October 27, 2016
I NEVER THOUGHT I'D LOVE ESSAYS SO MUCH AND I WISH I COULD WRITE ESSAYS ABOUT THESE ESSAYS AS GOOD AS THESE ESSAYS BUT I CANNOT. I JUST CANNOT.
March 4, 2009
Orwell: All Art is Propaganda: Critical Essays
In a column on the most famous essay included in this new volume, 'Politics and the English Language' (1946) Robert Fulford drops the rather original suggestion that Orwell's failure to notice Churchill's splendid wartime speeches--in an essay eplicitly devoted to rigorous analysis of double talk and obfuscation in the political rhetoric of his day--was a proof of Orwell's reverse snobbery. Que?
Truth is you could make a pretty good case for Orwell as both a snob and a reverse snob on the basis of any number of things he actually wrote. (Perhaps he was simply being narrowly self-consistent--his upbringing was shabby-genteel, either lower-upper or upper-lower class depending your pov--which afforded ample room to despise the true lower and true upper classes both.) But to argue he was expressing contempt for Churchill by not winkling him into an essay he couldn't have fit into logically--what possibly is the point? He wrote enough words actually about Churchill--admiring and critical both--if that's your litmus test for his response to the upper classes. What would he have accomplished by heaping praise on Churchill as a master political rhetorician in an essay otherwise completely taken up with negative examples? taken it down a blind alley for a paragraph or two before it to its proper course? And how could he possibly have praised Chruchill fulsomely enough to satisfy Rob, 63 years later?
'Most important, the English language had just given the greatest political performance in its history, turning away from England's shores the most formidable of all military machines, Germany's.
' In the hands [sic:] of Winston Churchill, language ralllied the British, sustained them through desperate years and led them to victory. It was the supreme political accomplishment of Britain in modern times.
'How could Orwell, writing at precisely that moment, have ignored this central fact of England's existence?'
--Robert Fulford, NatPost Mar 3, 2009
If this hyperbolic gush acknowledges Churchill's role in defeating Hitler, it's hard to imagine what Orwell or anyone, writing at the time with nothing but facts to go on, could have written that wouldn't have struck Fulford as grossly inadequate recognition? Did Churchill's speeches galvanize? yes. Was it the sole force that did? no, though it was a key focal one. At the base level what galvanized the British was simple recognition that Nazism was anti-human and a danger to life and alll human liberty. Was British resistance to Hitler crucial? yes. Was it sufficient? no, anymore than Churchill's language was sufficient in itself to defeat Germany's war machine. Troops moving over air, sea and land were also required, and support troops supplying them in a thousand areas. And they were galvanized, not hypnotically and zombifically driven, by Churchill's powerful rhetoric, and obliged to make complex decisions day by day, hour by hour, that Churchill's speeches could give them no specific guidance on. Some of the credit for their actions--my mother's and father's among the rest--belongs to them as free agents; they weren't simply windup dolls driven forward by a master rhetorician's impulsion. Churchill would have been repulsed by that suggestion, and so should every free citizen.
In one of his essays or columns during the war Orwell spoke of a most-probably-apocryphal story going round about one of Churchill's most famous speeches: ". . . we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender!” It was widely rumoured that when he went off mike he added, "We'll throw bottles at the bastards, we've got nothing else." Orwell thought, rightly I'd say, that for such a story to circulate was a strong indication the depth and breadth of affection there was for Churchill, across all class lines. Even more interesting is how stark a topper it is, and what ferocity of resistance it utters. Churchill felt that impulse and fed it, but he didn't originate it: it came from a wider place than any individual, great or small, could occupy alone.
July 9, 2018
Though Orwell is famous for writing about political issues, every writer should read this book, because it’s not only about politics, this book is a lot about what writers think of other writers’ work.
George Packer’s fascinating introduction reveals that Orwell also reviewed books which I didn’t know. His thoughts are fascinating. Certainly, Orwell has a tendency to look at the world from a political point but he also notices when other writers or society itself ignores politics.
“... The Russian Revolution, for instance, all but vanishes from the English consciousness between the death of Lenin and the Ukraine famine—about ten years. Throughout those years Russia means Tolstoy, Dostoievski and exiled counts driving taxi-cabs...”
Reading Orwell’s words made me wonder what he write about today’s authors. How would he react to “50 shades” being a bestseller? What would he think of “The Handmaid’s Tale”? Would he like today’s review system?
Two essay’s amazed me:
In “Lear, Tolstoy, and the Fool” Orwell elaborates about Shakespeare. Even though I studied “Arts of Theater” I did not know that Tolstoy could not stand Shakespeare’s work. Hmm?!? I should have known about this but I didn’t.
Orwell points out there is no evidence or argument by which one can show that Shakespeare or any other writer is good.
Is it a damning or a comforting argument?
But, Orwell being Orwell doesn’t care. He wonders WHY Tolstoy did not like Shakespeare work.
I believe this is an important thought to ponder, especially for authors of this decade. These days, authors seem to group readers and reviewers only into two groups: “loved my work” or “is a troll.”
As a book reviewer myself, I was also riveted by Orwell’s essay “Confessions of a Book Reviewer”,
“... In a cold but stuffy bed-sitting room littered with cigarette ends and half-empty cups of tea, a man in amoth-eatem dressing gown sits at a rickety table...
Needless to say this person is a writer. He might be a poet, a novelist, or a writer of film scripts or radio features, for all literary people are very much alike, but let us say that he is a book reviewer...”
Orwell goes on to describe a shipment of five volumes and that the reviewer’s review of about 800 words is “expected to be in” by mid-day tomorrow. Today’s reviewers will grin at finding out how Orwell’s reviewer is expected to write the stale old phrases about books “no one should miss” and that the process is exceptionally thankless, irritating and exhausting.
Orwell proves foresight when he notes that books on specialized subjects ought to be dealt with by experts, and “especially novels” could be reviewed by amateurs.
Well, here we are. Amateurs review famous writers’ AND amateurs’ books. What would Orwell have thought about that? His “1984” has been reviewed more than 6,000 times, his “Animal Farm” close to 4,000 times, on Amazon.
Orwell writes that Tolstoy spent a lot of time denunciating Shakespeare, yet if he hadn’t also written “Anna Karenina” and “War and Peace,” nobody would care, and his pamphlet about Shakespeare would be forgotten.
Which is a comforting thought. A master of writing, reading and studying others’ work, as well as reviewing the work, Orwell assures us that, in the end, it’s not about reviews and denunciations but about the quality of work.
Other fabulous essays that impressed me: “Inside the Whale”, “Wells, Hitler and the World, State”, T.S. Eliot”, “The Prevention of Literature”< and “reflections on Gandhi.”
I rented this book from the library but will buy it because following Orwell’s example I will study his work again, and again.
5 stars,
Gisela Hausmann, author & blogger
George Packer’s fascinating introduction reveals that Orwell also reviewed books which I didn’t know. His thoughts are fascinating. Certainly, Orwell has a tendency to look at the world from a political point but he also notices when other writers or society itself ignores politics.
“... The Russian Revolution, for instance, all but vanishes from the English consciousness between the death of Lenin and the Ukraine famine—about ten years. Throughout those years Russia means Tolstoy, Dostoievski and exiled counts driving taxi-cabs...”
Reading Orwell’s words made me wonder what he write about today’s authors. How would he react to “50 shades” being a bestseller? What would he think of “The Handmaid’s Tale”? Would he like today’s review system?
Two essay’s amazed me:
In “Lear, Tolstoy, and the Fool” Orwell elaborates about Shakespeare. Even though I studied “Arts of Theater” I did not know that Tolstoy could not stand Shakespeare’s work. Hmm?!? I should have known about this but I didn’t.
Orwell points out there is no evidence or argument by which one can show that Shakespeare or any other writer is good.
Is it a damning or a comforting argument?
But, Orwell being Orwell doesn’t care. He wonders WHY Tolstoy did not like Shakespeare work.
I believe this is an important thought to ponder, especially for authors of this decade. These days, authors seem to group readers and reviewers only into two groups: “loved my work” or “is a troll.”
As a book reviewer myself, I was also riveted by Orwell’s essay “Confessions of a Book Reviewer”,
“... In a cold but stuffy bed-sitting room littered with cigarette ends and half-empty cups of tea, a man in amoth-eatem dressing gown sits at a rickety table...
Needless to say this person is a writer. He might be a poet, a novelist, or a writer of film scripts or radio features, for all literary people are very much alike, but let us say that he is a book reviewer...”
Orwell goes on to describe a shipment of five volumes and that the reviewer’s review of about 800 words is “expected to be in” by mid-day tomorrow. Today’s reviewers will grin at finding out how Orwell’s reviewer is expected to write the stale old phrases about books “no one should miss” and that the process is exceptionally thankless, irritating and exhausting.
Orwell proves foresight when he notes that books on specialized subjects ought to be dealt with by experts, and “especially novels” could be reviewed by amateurs.
Well, here we are. Amateurs review famous writers’ AND amateurs’ books. What would Orwell have thought about that? His “1984” has been reviewed more than 6,000 times, his “Animal Farm” close to 4,000 times, on Amazon.
Orwell writes that Tolstoy spent a lot of time denunciating Shakespeare, yet if he hadn’t also written “Anna Karenina” and “War and Peace,” nobody would care, and his pamphlet about Shakespeare would be forgotten.
Which is a comforting thought. A master of writing, reading and studying others’ work, as well as reviewing the work, Orwell assures us that, in the end, it’s not about reviews and denunciations but about the quality of work.
Other fabulous essays that impressed me: “Inside the Whale”, “Wells, Hitler and the World, State”, T.S. Eliot”, “The Prevention of Literature”< and “reflections on Gandhi.”
I rented this book from the library but will buy it because following Orwell’s example I will study his work again, and again.
5 stars,
Gisela Hausmann, author & blogger
January 27, 2013
Critical essays from Geroge orwell depict his vast knowledge of literature, as well as his understanding of it perversion for "totalitarian" as well as other ends of repression. He is unflinching and severe in his critique of Fascism, Communist Russia and Left wing orthodox writers, Catholicism. His main concern is the abuse of power, which is concomitant with all systems of governance that is not liberal , and yet he understands that pacifism is not the way ahead for society, for it tolerates injustices, that violence is not alien to human condition but part of civilisation which necessitates it, in one form of other. The way ahead, he says is not a Yogic renunciation like that of Tolstoy or Gandhi, nor is it intellectual theorisation of kind say Communism as whole, but rather that of struggle, to the ideal of kind of Social democracy, and a liberal commitment to literature and its propagation.
His critical appraisal of Dickens, Kipling , Graham Greene gives a deep insight into his understanding of way literature is not separated from politics and any writer that tends to promote conservative pacifism over socialist democracy is merely accepting the injustices of world. HIs critical comment of lack of ability of Dickens to look beyond surface appearance is scathing attack on a figure as tall as Dickens, yet vey aptly reveals the problem with Dickensian literature. Speaking against Dickens he continues, "No one interested in landscape ever seen landscape. " With Dickens it is profusion of the surface description, but none about what is behind that surface appearance. Orwell's stand is that pacifism is merely continuation of injustice, revolution is always necessary for a Society to progress and improve, not necessarily to happiness, but to a better order. "All writing is propaganda, and a writer is always imposing his thought, politically ", is a strong theme that runs through all essays.
However, Orwell himself does not get over it, and as a writer he too is propagating a propagada, although cloaked in a liberal outlook. Yet, he doesn't deny that and is in debate with himself over the issue.Orwell in his essays is crisp, lucid and direct . He does not prevaricate , not does his dilly dally with unnecessary phrase ( an essay is dedicated to that art used by propagandist , especially Fascist and Communist). Not to be missed.
His critical appraisal of Dickens, Kipling , Graham Greene gives a deep insight into his understanding of way literature is not separated from politics and any writer that tends to promote conservative pacifism over socialist democracy is merely accepting the injustices of world. HIs critical comment of lack of ability of Dickens to look beyond surface appearance is scathing attack on a figure as tall as Dickens, yet vey aptly reveals the problem with Dickensian literature. Speaking against Dickens he continues, "No one interested in landscape ever seen landscape. " With Dickens it is profusion of the surface description, but none about what is behind that surface appearance. Orwell's stand is that pacifism is merely continuation of injustice, revolution is always necessary for a Society to progress and improve, not necessarily to happiness, but to a better order. "All writing is propaganda, and a writer is always imposing his thought, politically ", is a strong theme that runs through all essays.
However, Orwell himself does not get over it, and as a writer he too is propagating a propagada, although cloaked in a liberal outlook. Yet, he doesn't deny that and is in debate with himself over the issue.Orwell in his essays is crisp, lucid and direct . He does not prevaricate , not does his dilly dally with unnecessary phrase ( an essay is dedicated to that art used by propagandist , especially Fascist and Communist). Not to be missed.
March 5, 2017
George Orwell perfected his plain style in the thirties, a style that resembles someone speaking honestly without pretense, writes Keith Gessen in the introduction.
All Art is Propaganda, this volume, includes essays where Orwell holds something up for critical scrutiny. Facing Unpleasant Facts: Narrative Essays, the twin companion to this one, collects essays that build meaning by telling a story. These two books, one of narrative the other of analysis, include four dozen essays.
For the most part, Orwell lived in London and reviewed books. But, unlike other intellectual writers of the time, he experienced real life before he began thinking through a typewriter keyboard. He served in Burma, washed dishes in a Paris hotel and fought in the Spanish civil war. Over six feet tall, Orwell stood in a trench telling his fellow soldiers about brothels he visited in Paris when a bullet hit his throat, missing his esophagus.
The lesson of these essays: Look around you. Describe what you see. And tell the truth.
— Propaganda and Demotic Speech, summer 1944. Speeches and writing aimed at a large public needs to take ignorance of the masses into account, laments Orwell.
— The Prevention of Literature, January 1946. Orwell writes here about “the organized lying practiced by the totalitarian state.” Totalitarian states, he continues, demand a disbelief in objective truth. Those thoughts foreshadow the unrelenting tone and propaganda erupting from the new administration. Fortunately, only a third of the country believes it.
— Politics and the English Language, April 1946. Orwell bemoans the “catalog of swindles and perversion” committed against good, clear English. This essay crystallized his thoughts for “Nineteen Eighty-Four,” which he began writing a few months later.
Other worthwhile essays in here include “Good Bad Books” and “Confessions of a Book Reviewer.”
All Art is Propaganda, this volume, includes essays where Orwell holds something up for critical scrutiny. Facing Unpleasant Facts: Narrative Essays, the twin companion to this one, collects essays that build meaning by telling a story. These two books, one of narrative the other of analysis, include four dozen essays.
For the most part, Orwell lived in London and reviewed books. But, unlike other intellectual writers of the time, he experienced real life before he began thinking through a typewriter keyboard. He served in Burma, washed dishes in a Paris hotel and fought in the Spanish civil war. Over six feet tall, Orwell stood in a trench telling his fellow soldiers about brothels he visited in Paris when a bullet hit his throat, missing his esophagus.
The lesson of these essays: Look around you. Describe what you see. And tell the truth.
— Propaganda and Demotic Speech, summer 1944. Speeches and writing aimed at a large public needs to take ignorance of the masses into account, laments Orwell.
— The Prevention of Literature, January 1946. Orwell writes here about “the organized lying practiced by the totalitarian state.” Totalitarian states, he continues, demand a disbelief in objective truth. Those thoughts foreshadow the unrelenting tone and propaganda erupting from the new administration. Fortunately, only a third of the country believes it.
— Politics and the English Language, April 1946. Orwell bemoans the “catalog of swindles and perversion” committed against good, clear English. This essay crystallized his thoughts for “Nineteen Eighty-Four,” which he began writing a few months later.
Other worthwhile essays in here include “Good Bad Books” and “Confessions of a Book Reviewer.”
March 3, 2025
NOTE: You don't need this book. Orwell is in public domain. You can read these essays anywhere. Besides, I am suspicious of anyone who condemns the Iraq War but does not mention Afghanistan. This is what the writer of the introduction does. This omission is significant and signals cowardice, and going with the flow of whatever 'intellectual' America believes today. Quite contrary to Orwell, but I digress.
I bought this because I was in a bookshop and I just felt like buying something, and the title intrigued me. "All Art is Propaganda". I was not expecting it to be mainly Orwell's reviews about other things: books, movies, magazines, writers. Before reading, I thought I was not interested in what Orwell thought of Dickens, for example. And I only read Dickens long ago when I was in school, and they were reading assignments and I was more interested in reading fiction than non-fiction.
But as I read it I realized how wrong I was. What Orwell has to say about Dickens, first, shed light on things that seemingly were completely fine and I never questioned them e.g. Dickens never questions structures of power, only wishes that there should be a person with a good heart in control. I did not realize how anti-revolution Dickens was, until I read this. And it is not just limited to Dickens, you read what Orwell has to say about Dickens, and you can apply it to many different forms of art and today: movies, media, essays, TV shows, and so on. You'll begin to see how TV shows ignore the working class.
As Orwell writes about a certain things that are probably not much relevant today, or at least are not relevant at all to you, as he explains his praise or criticism, he brings in bits of social, cultural and political commentary. This commentary or critique has few words but carries a lot of weight, and I am willing to bet you will not find these unique gems elsewhere where the case is such concisely and such logically built.
I would highly reading whatever Orwell, even if it is about "Art of Donald McGill" - it will contain things that are applicable today - as in the case of this essay, which reminds me about how comedy works in Pakistani shows today.
I bought this because I was in a bookshop and I just felt like buying something, and the title intrigued me. "All Art is Propaganda". I was not expecting it to be mainly Orwell's reviews about other things: books, movies, magazines, writers. Before reading, I thought I was not interested in what Orwell thought of Dickens, for example. And I only read Dickens long ago when I was in school, and they were reading assignments and I was more interested in reading fiction than non-fiction.
But as I read it I realized how wrong I was. What Orwell has to say about Dickens, first, shed light on things that seemingly were completely fine and I never questioned them e.g. Dickens never questions structures of power, only wishes that there should be a person with a good heart in control. I did not realize how anti-revolution Dickens was, until I read this. And it is not just limited to Dickens, you read what Orwell has to say about Dickens, and you can apply it to many different forms of art and today: movies, media, essays, TV shows, and so on. You'll begin to see how TV shows ignore the working class.
As Orwell writes about a certain things that are probably not much relevant today, or at least are not relevant at all to you, as he explains his praise or criticism, he brings in bits of social, cultural and political commentary. This commentary or critique has few words but carries a lot of weight, and I am willing to bet you will not find these unique gems elsewhere where the case is such concisely and such logically built.
I would highly reading whatever Orwell, even if it is about "Art of Donald McGill" - it will contain things that are applicable today - as in the case of this essay, which reminds me about how comedy works in Pakistani shows today.
May 27, 2015
One of the most insightful books I have ever read. It ranges in its scope from the literature of Charles Dickens to the art and life of Salvador Dali. Orwell touches on the subjects of writing, language, politics, religion, life, art, death and so much more in between. Coming away from reading this book, I am increased in my admiration for George Orwell. I admire Orwell's staple books such as 1984 and Animal Farm (art in themselves) for the great books that they are, but after reading this book I admire George Orwell (the man) for the thinking and analytic human being that he was. The range of ideas that Orwell dissects in this book allows this book to transcend time, and speaks to me as directly as if he were in front of my face today. Overall an exceptionally engrossing read, and one I highly recommend for any writer or thinker.
September 27, 2018
'In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenceless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them. Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, "I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so." Probably, therefore, he will say something like this:
"While freely conceding that the Soviet régime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigours which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement."
The inflated style is itself a kind of euphemism. A mass of Latin words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outlines and covering up all the details. The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish squirting out ink. In our age there is no such thing as "keeping out of politics." All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia.'
This is a remarkable book, It's vivid, crisp and very persuasive.
"While freely conceding that the Soviet régime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigours which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement."
The inflated style is itself a kind of euphemism. A mass of Latin words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outlines and covering up all the details. The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish squirting out ink. In our age there is no such thing as "keeping out of politics." All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia.'
This is a remarkable book, It's vivid, crisp and very persuasive.
August 19, 2020
During WW2, Orwell was paid to write essays, many of which were literary criticism and book reviews. This is the second volume of essays edited by George Packer and it focuses on his critical essays. Given that I have been hanging around Goodreads for a while, the question occasionally arises of “how does one go about writing book reviews?”. These essays provide some insight into how Orwell did it.
What a great idea for a book of essays. Anything that Orwell writes is interesting and well written. Now to have essays that display his approach to criticism. This of course is linked to Orwell’s regular concerns - politics is at the heart of modern literature - in the 1940s for sure — and as Orwell maintains, all art is propaganda. Political context goes with interpretation and criticism.
While the overall effect of the volume is great, there are some essays that were less effective, at least for my needs. I could have done without the essay on Dali and the one on postcards did not have much of an effect. The lead off essay on Dickens is really good and even enlightening, especially given that so much of Dickens is continually presented such that one almost takes it for granted. Some other essays are less effective, in part because I am not as well versed in the literature of the time as Orwell. The essay on Henry Miller (Inside the Whale) took some time to sort through, especially given the ranges of books and others that were in play. Some of the authors I knew of but had not read. Others are not as known now as they were when Orwell wrote. I have had false starts on Tropic of Cancer before but will likely try it again. I enjoyed the essay on Swift and Gulliver’s Travels. There are some essays on particular writers (Eliot, Kipling, Wells, Dali) as well as some general essays on writing (Politics and Language, Propaganda and Demotic Speech) that remain appropriate to writing in today’s political environment. One of my favorite shorter essays was “Can Socialists Be Happy?”
I have long admired Orwell’s work. This is only strengthened by the book, which helps me understand more about how he analyzed his targets and motivated his results.
What a great idea for a book of essays. Anything that Orwell writes is interesting and well written. Now to have essays that display his approach to criticism. This of course is linked to Orwell’s regular concerns - politics is at the heart of modern literature - in the 1940s for sure — and as Orwell maintains, all art is propaganda. Political context goes with interpretation and criticism.
While the overall effect of the volume is great, there are some essays that were less effective, at least for my needs. I could have done without the essay on Dali and the one on postcards did not have much of an effect. The lead off essay on Dickens is really good and even enlightening, especially given that so much of Dickens is continually presented such that one almost takes it for granted. Some other essays are less effective, in part because I am not as well versed in the literature of the time as Orwell. The essay on Henry Miller (Inside the Whale) took some time to sort through, especially given the ranges of books and others that were in play. Some of the authors I knew of but had not read. Others are not as known now as they were when Orwell wrote. I have had false starts on Tropic of Cancer before but will likely try it again. I enjoyed the essay on Swift and Gulliver’s Travels. There are some essays on particular writers (Eliot, Kipling, Wells, Dali) as well as some general essays on writing (Politics and Language, Propaganda and Demotic Speech) that remain appropriate to writing in today’s political environment. One of my favorite shorter essays was “Can Socialists Be Happy?”
I have long admired Orwell’s work. This is only strengthened by the book, which helps me understand more about how he analyzed his targets and motivated his results.
January 5, 2026
bro would have loved substack
"One ought to be able to hold in one's head simultaneously the two facts that Dali is a good draughtsman and a disgusting human being. The one does not invalidate, or, in a sense, affect the other. The first thing that we demand of a wall is that it shall stand up. If it stands up it is a good wall, and the question of what purpose it serves is separable from that. And yet even the best wall in the world deserves to be pulled down if it surrounds a concentration camp."
"The inflated style is itself a kind of euphemism. A mass of Latin words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outlines and covering up the details. The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish squirting out ink. In our age there is no such thing as "keeping out of politics." All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia. When the general atmosphere is bad, language must suffer. I should expect to find—this is a guess which I have not sufficient knowledge to verify—that the German, Russian and Italian languages have all deteriorated in the last ten or fifteen years, as a result of dictatorship."
"One ought to be able to hold in one's head simultaneously the two facts that Dali is a good draughtsman and a disgusting human being. The one does not invalidate, or, in a sense, affect the other. The first thing that we demand of a wall is that it shall stand up. If it stands up it is a good wall, and the question of what purpose it serves is separable from that. And yet even the best wall in the world deserves to be pulled down if it surrounds a concentration camp."
"The inflated style is itself a kind of euphemism. A mass of Latin words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outlines and covering up the details. The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish squirting out ink. In our age there is no such thing as "keeping out of politics." All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia. When the general atmosphere is bad, language must suffer. I should expect to find—this is a guess which I have not sufficient knowledge to verify—that the German, Russian and Italian languages have all deteriorated in the last ten or fifteen years, as a result of dictatorship."
March 4, 2024
When Orwell started going into how poor quality political institutions have the potential to worsen the quality of a nation's written language, I was like :0 BUT THEN when he argued that the detoriation of language can ALSO worsen the quality of our political institutions, I was like :000!!!
February 1, 2021
Orwell is thought provoking, interesting, and worth reading, even when you disagree with him.
July 15, 2023
Keenly smart and convincing-- an example of precise literary review, although it was also highly reflective of the age Orwell was writing in. The introduction was helpful in being able to look past his persuasive dialogue and notice his internal contradictions.
January 26, 2021
I loved the essay on Dickens..and there is the famous quote:
"I have been discussing Dickens simply in terms of his “message,” and almost ignoring his literary qualities. But every writer, especially every novelist, has a “message,” whether he admits it or not, and the minutest details of his work are influenced by it. All art is propaganda. Neither Dickens himself nor the majority of Victorian novelists would have thought of denying this. On the other hand, not all propaganda is art. As I said earlier, Dickens is one of those writers who are felt to be worth stealing..."
"I have been discussing Dickens simply in terms of his “message,” and almost ignoring his literary qualities. But every writer, especially every novelist, has a “message,” whether he admits it or not, and the minutest details of his work are influenced by it. All art is propaganda. Neither Dickens himself nor the majority of Victorian novelists would have thought of denying this. On the other hand, not all propaganda is art. As I said earlier, Dickens is one of those writers who are felt to be worth stealing..."
December 10, 2023
This is a book to read once a year. Some of the essays more often.
May 28, 2024
Orwell is questionably a master of prose. He cannot sculpt beauty with his pen in the same way as Joyce or Nabokov. Yet, his metaphors are sharp and refreshing; and his meaning is clear.
His reflections on the state of writing are mature as much as they unveil the immaturity of my prose. Jargon, long words, hackneyed metaphors, overly latin-ized language, to Orwell, are symptoms of a poor writing and a weak mind. It is unclear, however, whether Orwell prescribes these rules merely to essay writing or if he also believes that poetic writing should not abuse language. To me, poetry is the abuse of language. Its goal is to inflate language like a balloon until it is on its popping point. What fun is there if we do not explore the hinterlands of language -- exploring language is ultimately the exploration of our own minds.
The essay on Tolstoy and Lear's egoism is simply genius.
Essays Read:
Charles Dickens
Can Socialists be Happy?
Good Bad Books
The Prevention of Literature
Politics and the English Language
Lear, Tolstoy, and the Fool
Reflections on Gandhi
His reflections on the state of writing are mature as much as they unveil the immaturity of my prose. Jargon, long words, hackneyed metaphors, overly latin-ized language, to Orwell, are symptoms of a poor writing and a weak mind. It is unclear, however, whether Orwell prescribes these rules merely to essay writing or if he also believes that poetic writing should not abuse language. To me, poetry is the abuse of language. Its goal is to inflate language like a balloon until it is on its popping point. What fun is there if we do not explore the hinterlands of language -- exploring language is ultimately the exploration of our own minds.
The essay on Tolstoy and Lear's egoism is simply genius.
Essays Read:
Charles Dickens
Can Socialists be Happy?
Good Bad Books
The Prevention of Literature
Politics and the English Language
Lear, Tolstoy, and the Fool
Reflections on Gandhi
Read
June 5, 2025UPDATED REVIEW: Monday, June 2, 2025 (no rating)
For Orwell, artists are the ideal hero-types. They have a responsibility to tell the truth and represent the world as they see it. If they do anything short of that, they can't call themselves artists.
For Orwell, the connection between politics and prose is inextricable because the art of prose needs fertile soil to grow. Bad political environments make bad art, and artists above all need friend.
About this, in the essay "The Prevention of Literature," Orwell writes,
Much of the fun of the book, however, is not the return to this thesis time and time again as a theme but rather the exploration of what (free) artists look like. Orwell especially loves those artists with whom he finds much disagreement. They provide the most fruit for him.
For instance, as savage as he is to Tolstoy (in "Lear, Tolstoy and the Fool") for thinking Shakespeare a hack, of course he loves the author of War and Peace and Anna Karenina. And as naive as Orwell thinks Dickens is in his politics, he nevertheless regards Dickens as the Shakespeare of the novel.
What we see here over and over is a mind genuinely wrestling with a topic in each essay, and that is what is most rewarding. And it's a brilliant mind wrestling at that.
ORIGINAL REVIEW: October 12, 2013 (five stars)
George Orwell's book All Art Is Propaganda is one of my new favorite books. Published posthumously (I think), and mostly a collection of book reviews, Orwell is able to present his perspective on what he reads or thinks about in a deceptively transparent way. For example, one of the essays in the book is about Henry Miller's Tropic of Cancer, and this essay's and much of the other essays' argument structure seems to be:
For Orwell, artists are the ideal hero-types. They have a responsibility to tell the truth and represent the world as they see it. If they do anything short of that, they can't call themselves artists.
For Orwell, the connection between politics and prose is inextricable because the art of prose needs fertile soil to grow. Bad political environments make bad art, and artists above all need friend.
About this, in the essay "The Prevention of Literature," Orwell writes,
Literature is doomed if liberty of thought perishes. Not only is it doomed in any country which retains a totalitarian structure; but any writer who adopts the totalitarian outlook, who find excuses for persecution and the falsification of reality, thereby destroys himself as a writer. There is no way out of this. No tirades against "individualism" and "the ivory tower," no pious platitudes to the effect that "true individuality is only attained through identification with the community," can get over the fact that a bought mind is a spoiled mind.This essay appears late in this collection, but it serves as the thesis to the whole book.
Much of the fun of the book, however, is not the return to this thesis time and time again as a theme but rather the exploration of what (free) artists look like. Orwell especially loves those artists with whom he finds much disagreement. They provide the most fruit for him.
For instance, as savage as he is to Tolstoy (in "Lear, Tolstoy and the Fool") for thinking Shakespeare a hack, of course he loves the author of War and Peace and Anna Karenina. And as naive as Orwell thinks Dickens is in his politics, he nevertheless regards Dickens as the Shakespeare of the novel.
What we see here over and over is a mind genuinely wrestling with a topic in each essay, and that is what is most rewarding. And it's a brilliant mind wrestling at that.
ORIGINAL REVIEW: October 12, 2013 (five stars)
George Orwell's book All Art Is Propaganda is one of my new favorite books. Published posthumously (I think), and mostly a collection of book reviews, Orwell is able to present his perspective on what he reads or thinks about in a deceptively transparent way. For example, one of the essays in the book is about Henry Miller's Tropic of Cancer, and this essay's and much of the other essays' argument structure seems to be:
X is true for the following reasons: A, B, C. However, D, E, F. Yet when we consider G, H, I, we are led to believe A, B, C, and furthermore, J, K, L.When reading Orwell's essays in this collection, one gets the sense that he is bending over backwards to both express his opinion as thoroughly as possible and yet be as charitable as he can be regarding the subjects he is writing about. Also, I felt when reading this that the writings seems astonishingly (for the most part) modern. But the truth is it's just plain good writing. Although many of the issues are preoccupied with the predominant issues of his epoch, namely, totalitarianism and freedom from such regimes, there is a kind of timelessness about the writing, topics such as the human struggle to be free, to realize a certain vision of politics, to choose this world or the next. This review doesn't do enough justice to the book, but definitely this will be one I will re-read later.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 166 reviews