ŷ������

Here is the thread to discuss Why I Write by George Orwell, which he wrote in 1946. We are reading and discussing this during November.

It is one of his most famous essays, so will probably be in any collection you might have. If not, it can be read on the George Orwell Foundation website. It is still under copyright.

Here is a link to the essay itself there:

So what do you think? The first thing that strikes me is that when George Orwell talks about "political" writing, he's really talking about his principles.

Orwell’s writing seems so much a reflection of, or influenced by the times in which he lived. And since those times are so different from mine I feel modestly disconnected from what he’s saying here. In my country today �� I think it’s interesting he repeatedly makes the distinction that journalism is a form of writing quite distinct from all others �� telling the truth, publically/politically, no longer has any aspirants at all. - )

Yes, he goes into this even more in another essay Politics and the English Language: An Essay on Writing - and gives many examples there of how terms can skew the meaning. That might be a good one to read and discuss later.

I didn't feel disconnected from Why I Write though, and found his early thoughts about his experience and writing interesting. Perhaps he believed that journalism was writing with a purpose, and was the 20th century's version of 19th century "persuasive" novels.

Yes, I agree, about reading Politics and the English Language. I thought his most interesting construction was the phrase designating ”the whole top crust of humanity.��

We'll definitely read that one in the new year Mark :)

Wow, there's so much to unpack here! I really enjoyed this one, just as I did the previous two group reads I read. This one was a little different, somewhat more personal/introspective than the other two essays, and more focused on Orwell's other work.

One line that particularly made me chuckle:

"Animal Farm was the first book in which I tried, with full consciousness of what I was doing, to fuse political purpose and artistic purpose into one whole. I have not written a novel for seven years, but I hope to write another fairly soon. It is bound to be a failure, every book is a failure, but I do know with some clarity what kind of book I want to write."

The essay was written the year after Animal Farm came out, and 3 years before 1984, which is presumably the book he is talking about here. It certainly wasn't a failure, and is probably his most famous book (Animal Farm being the only other contender there).

Jean, I think you are right that what he calls "political writing" is writing with a purpose, where his principles shine through. The last line suggests that Orwell thinks his books without political purpose were his worst, and although much of his work was certainly political, I think he may be referring to principles or even substance, without which a lot of writing fails.

As someone who has always wanted to write since a very young age, I can relate very much to Orwell's four motivations, and if being totally honest, can see myself to at least some extent in all of them. I often reflect on why I have this compulsion to write - I have a decent career that doesn't really involve writing, writing isn't always 'fun' and takes a lot of the limited spare time I have which could otherwise be spent relaxing or doing more 'fun' activities, but I just can't leave it alone. I think the writing bug is one that I'll never be able to shake. Which leads me on to the other quote that I can really relate to:

"Writing a book is a horrible, exhausting struggle, like a long bout of some painful illness. One would never undertake such a thing if one were not driven on by some demon whom one can neither resist or understand."

There's lots more I could say on this essay, but I'll leave it there for now. I look forward to seeing where this month's discussion takes us!

I found it really interesting that he said if he hadn't been angry or hadn't needed to expose lies, his books wouldn't get written.

This sort of ties in with Steve's thought that the urge to write is strong. What impels each person might be different, but the strength of the impulse is there.

Great post, thanks Steve :)

“Not-writing is a good deal worse than writing.��
�� Flannery O’Connor

Political Purpose--a few important quotes

This essay was written in 1946, eight years after Homage to Catalonia about the Spanish Civil War, and a year after the publication of Animal Farm. He writes about the motive of political purpose, stating that his "starting point is always a feeling of partisanship, a sense of injustice." Orwell was a strong critic of totalitarianism.

Orwell concludes his essay noting that political impulse was the most compelling reason for him to write:

"And looking back through my work, I see that it is invariably where I lacked a political purpose that I wrote lifeless books and was betrayed into purple passages, sentences without meaning, decorative adjectives and humbug generally."

Great quotations Connie :) It's interesting that he didn't write this essay in the heat of the moment, isn't it? As you say George Orwell was a strong opponent of totalitarianism ... he took up many causes and positions during his life, but this seems to be constant and and unwavering.

Even though he was English, and was not involved in Spanish life and culture, he felt passionately about the Spanish Civil war. He travelled to Spain to fight for the Republicans against Franco's Nationalists. Yet he waited 10 years to write this, so it's a carefully considered opinion, looking back over all his life up to that point.

This is why I believe that he is actually referring to what we would now call his underlying principles. The cause, or party may differ according to the time, country or context, but his sense of injustice remains constant.

It is pertinent, I think, that he also wrote Politics and the English Language in the same year, 1946, as this makes it clear how he deplored the hyperbole of political language, and how all the propaganda debased language, promulgating inaccuracies.

The political causes he joined, or even quite literally fought for, were therefore an outward expression of his inner principles. That is what he means by "political purpose" .

The quotation Steve picked up:

"Writing a book is a horrible, exhausting struggle, like a long bout of some painful illness. One would never undertake such a thing if one were not driven on by some demon whom one can neither resist or understand."

resonated with me, and probably quite a few here - writers themselves, or close to others who are writers - I think :) Were there other parts of Why I Write which you felt an immediate connection with?

One of the stand out impressions I felt from reading this was that Orwell was personally addressing me, he had a wonderful ability in this regard.

How he says 'good prose is like a window pane', I think this is the perfect sentence to describe what all writers, established or budding, try to achieve - which as many know is not at all the case. More like rolling around on the floor in agonies duelling with words.

Orwell, at times, seemed to have suffered from over modesty and chronic self doubt when discussing his writing, especially his novels. I think the world knows this was totally misplaced. He was a very talented man his writing was utterly precise and crystal clear. I wish he would have been born in a different era, I wish he did drift into the "purple passages, sentences without meaning, decorative adjectives and humbug generally" - Why not do that? I would've loved to ask him - Dickens did exactly that, constantly, and that worthy was responsible for, perhaps, some of the sharpest, wittiest, most beautiful, crystal clear prose that resulted in some of the most perfectly formed sentences ever put down on paper. Dicken's main M.O when writing was to expose inequalities and the plight of the poor, working classes exactly like Orwell. This just seemed rather an eccentric approach by Orwell.

I say more flowery prose! More purple passages! more decorative adjectives!

It was a great poem, too. The opposites of the pastoral themes overshadowed by the bleakness of the subject matter was really good.

I also liked the 4 points regarding the motivation to write. Orwell was writing with egoism in mind; after reading lots of his letters to friends and others I got the feeling that he was chomping at the bit to hear back from editors, reviewers etc. who had his manuscripts.

I think, sadly, he would have no idea the impact he has had on the world and posterity - Far too shy, and self doubting.

This might be of some interest: especially the last picture. Hope it comes through. - )

Really interesting article, Mark. thanks for sharing

Tom - I like these observations very much!

He does seem to address the reader personally, yes, and I'm sure that many who aspire to write will read this essay out of curiosity - and find it really rings a bell for them.

"Orwell, at times, seemed to have suffered from over modesty and chronic self doubt when discussing his writing, especially his novels."

Yes, that seems so odd, doesn't it? Especially when, as you say, he was so conscious of being precise with language. As you've remarked George Orwell and Charles Dickens had almost opposite approaches, but to the same end (though I might take exception to the description of Charles Dickens LOL! Every word was there for a purpose!)

George Orwell: "some of the sharpest, wittiest, most beautiful, crystal clear prose that resulted in some of the most perfectly formed sentences ever put down on paper."

Lovely epitaph :) I must read this again with your thoughts in mind.

Mark - Yes, the article link works fine thanks, and it may be of particular interest to Americans. I'm afraid it does fall outside the remit of this group to discuss current American politicians though, as you will know from our rules. But I'll leave it there out of interest.

Also, some of the statements therein to do with political language may well be useful in discussing future essays by George Orwell; those specific to language and politics (scheduled on our shelves) :)

Coming back to Why I Write, however, did you enjoy this essay? Or find anything particularly pertinent?

I thought I had read this. I can't believe I hadn't! Love all the thoughts here.

Like Steve describes so well above, I am someone who has always wanted to write, has always had a full life of other things, and never really understood why the urge to do something so surprisingly difficult, painful, and seemingly impossible, is so strong and so lifelong. So this essay resonated from beginning to end.

I thought this was very revealing:
"The great mass of human beings are not acutely selfish. After the age of about thirty they abandon individual ambition �� in many cases, indeed, they almost abandon the sense of being individuals at all �� and live chiefly for others, or are simply smothered under drudgery."

Orwell has been there, so he understands the abandon and the drudgery.

What I relate to here is the pull so many aspiring writers feel to that big other part of their life that seems the less-selfish, the more important, what is more expected of us. Taking the time necessary to write anything at all requires that selfishness Orwell describes, that egoism--but I prefer when he describes it as a need to express individuality. :-)

Dear Jean, I sincerely apologize for breaking the club’s rules. Personally I don’t have much interest in American politics either. It was the last picture in the article. The one with the large contingent of communist protesters: at the very back of the demonstrators on the left, standing a full head taller than all the rest is our 6�� 4�� hero Mr Orwell. I thought it was quite striking. That was my only purpose for posting the article. Again, my sincere apology.

I don’t know, I find these little pieces just a bit shelf laudatory. I did most like the line: “I suddenly discovered the joy of mere words, i.e. the sounds and associations...��

Laura Cort wrote: "Really interesting article, Mark. thanks for sharing"
Thank you, Laura. - )

I love seeing these photos of Orwell. Before I joined this group, I had no idea he was that tall!

Mark wrote: "Dear Jean, I sincerely apologize for breaking the club’s rules. Personally I don’t have much interest in American politics either. It was the last picture in the article. The one with the large con..."

Not to worry Mark, I'm sure it was innocently done :) Yes, wasn't he tall? And not in good health from what I understand, which makes all he achieved all the more remarkable.

I haven't personally picked up on any self-laudatory aspect ... but perhaps it's what I think is his musing to himself? If we are writing for ourselves in a journal, then we would not have any care as to how it appears to others, and sometimes I pick up that self-absorbed tone here. Oddly though, some journals seem almost designed to be read by others, as though their author has an eye to posterity (or publication).

In a way this links with Kathleen's core thought (triggered by this essay), that writing is not only considered to be a solitary activity, but often also a selfish one. I wonder how many here were told, "Oh you'll grow out of it when you have responsibilities/a family" etc. Perhaps it is even true up to a point, in that some people do sadly feel "smothered under drudgery", as George Orwell puts it, and forever feel vaguely frustrated that they never wrote the poetry which was so strongly in their minds when younger. Yet I think of the expression of these attitudes, as slightly ridiculous and vaguely insulting, much like those who cheerfully and tactlessly say, "I wish I had the time to write a novel".

Don't both these miss the point? Writing, or any creative form of expression (music, painting, sculpture etc.,) seem to me to be strong drives which can cause a lot of pain and exhaustion, and still the writer may never feel fully satisfied.

Laura Cort wrote: "I love seeing these photos of Orwell. Before I joined this group, I had no idea he was that tall!"
Nor did I before signing on here too. - )

Bionic Jean wrote: "Mark wrote: "Dear Jean, I sincerely apologize for breaking the club’s rules. Personally I don’t have much interest in American politics either. It was the last picture in the article. The one with ..."
Not worried. Thank you, Jean. I’m not sure ‘self-laudarory�� is the right word for what I’m trying to say. I’m not sure I know what I want.

Bionic Jean wrote: "Tom - I like these observations very much!

He does seem to address the reader personally, yes, and I'm sure that many who aspire to write will read this essay out of curiosity - and find it really..."

Jean I'm not sure if I explained it clearly enough.

When I was describing the employment of purple passages with flowery language full of decorative adjectives and so forth, while still being able to achieve the all time great knock out punch of a perfectly structured sentence, AND grapple with tough social issues - I was referring to Dickens - He was the absolute master in my opinion.
I felt that Orwell, being such a fan of Dickens, would've been aware that this is a perfectly acceptable and effective way to write and still get the point across. Maybe Orwell thought Dickens' writing style was antiquated/wonderfully anachronistic by the time he was pursuing his own serious writing career? Hmm, not entirely sure, but I know that if he had tried to, he would've been a great writer of purple passages.

Tom wrote: "I'm not sure if I explained it clearly enough ..."

Oh you did I think; it seemed very clear :) My only hiccough was at the words "purple prose" in the same sentence as Charles Dickens! I would agree that sometimes he plays to the gallery, and many other adjectives could be used to describe some of his paragraphs, (eg. melodramatic) but he didn't write "purple prose" - in my opinion. But it's a little off-topic, since we are considering what George Orwell means by "purple prose".

My problem is that I view "purple prose" as a pejorative term - like "pulp" - although perhaps that is my English perspective - and to me suggests writing which is amateurish and completely over the top ... the sort of book I would never finish, and probably throw across the room! But this is subjective, as well as judgmental, and I may be in the minority - here is the technical definition - which includes many aspects including melodrama.

Perhaps it's a question of balance. A little of this extravagance of description may be fine to heighten the moment. It's clear that George Orwell admired Charles Dickens's writing enormously, even though he considered that he was limited by being one of the bourgeoisie, and a little too Establishment. In fact I'd intended us to read his essay on him over December (you know, Charles Dickens and Christmas, sort of thing) but when I read it, it seemed too long for general interest, and focussed on the wrong writer for this group! That's also why I didn't say more in my previous comment.

However, I think we can both agree that George Orwell did not write purple prose - even though he thinks his first book was! Does anyone here think this, and can comment?

And I still think it interesting that although they both started with journalism, and both continued in it too, they both wrote so differently, and so well :)

I wonder what books/prose Orwell wrote that he thought were "lifeless" because they "lacked a POLITICAL purpose" which led him to write "purple passages - sentences without meaning, decorative adjectives and humbug generally." Perhaps his book, Homage to Catalonia as he mentions? I have not read that book so cannot judge. I know when I read a book with extraneous "purple passages" that distract from the focus of a book, I think of it as loaded with "fluff" to add to the page count of the book. Some degree of descriptive writing is acceptable and adds to the atmosphere of the book, but not excessively so. Orwell definitely writes succinctly and precisely to convey his message. He states he refers to political in its "widest possible sense" which leads me to believe, as Jean mentioned, that by political he means principles, justice, and truthfulness.

It is also interesting that, in a nod to Dickens, Orwell uses the Dickensian term HUMBUG

When he talked about his boyhood, he mentioned that he was a lonely child and created stories in his mind, but even then he was already thinking in how to describe his actions. I thought that was interesting and showed how his mind works. Even then, precision was important.
I've read all of his novels and can see the development of his ideas.
But I didn't find any purple prose in Burmese Days. His descriptions were necessary to create the atmosphere.

I'm glad this was this month's essay. I hadn't read it for a long time and now realize that it does some up his thoughts about writing in a concise manner. I enjoyed it a lot-and reading everyone's comments as well.

It was a wonderful essay and a quick read!

I liked these lines: "And the more one is conscious of one’s political bias, the more chance one has of acting politically without sacrificing one’s aesthetic and intellectual integrity."

I definitely think that's true. The awareness of why I feel a certain way, of what is happening internally, helps me to take a step back and have more objectivity and clarity. It's true with political bias, but it's also true with all inclinations really.

But I'm not so sure about this: "And yet it is also true that one can write nothing readable unless one constantly struggles to efface one’s own personality."

It's interesting. I remember Woolf saying something a bit similar in A Room of One's Own, just before launching into a criticism of several contemporaneous women writers. If I remember correctly, she then said something along the lines of: the situation women labored under in that era produced an attitude of "grievance" that distorted what their art would have been naturally and made their art no longer universal. Since it was no longer universal, it could not be art of the finest quality.

I don't know. I suppose I will leave that up to who determines quality. But as a reader, it's those very unique preoccupations that I often find the most fascinating. I enjoy living within a different personality for a while, not only within the perspective of the characters but also within the unique preoccupations and personality of the writers themselves. Some of my favorite writers are absolutely not effaced in their work, and it doesn't bother me.
But Orwell does say they must "struggle to" do it, not that they must accomplish it. Maybe that's the distinction?

I also don't know if I think good prose is always a "windowpane." I think much good prose is. But for me, there are so many ways for different types of prose to be good, and there are so many ways for different pieces to be experienced.

I remember once the poet Muriel Rukeyser saying that her poetry shouldn't be understood intellectually first. It should be experienced first, letting the stanzas wash over like waves, and they would build to something. But it was in the act of first releasing the need to understand that the experience could happen, and then the understanding could follow . . . I understood her to mean, as an intuitive response first that you could then use to return to the text to confirm and build upon.

For sure clarity is good, but maybe not every type of story or every sort of meaning is best understood directly? Maybe there are types of meaning you need to use other ways to get to?

Anyway, I loved the insight into Orwell's formation as a writer. I really enjoyed the essay.

What struck me most in this essay ties into what Greg mentioned above that its not necessarily true that "Good prose is like a windowpane". I had a college professor (oh so many years ago now) who posed the question: Does an author's life experiences necessarily have any relevance to the reader's experience of the book. For example, does one need to know about Charles Dickens relationship with his father in order to fully appreciate Mr. Micawber in David Copperfield? In true Socratic method, my professor never actually answered that question. So I've been wrestling with it, on and off, ever since. This essay gave me another angle to try out in searching for an answer.

Here is a giant of literature seeming to say, what is personal to the author is indeed important to the art:

I give all this background information because I do not think one can assess a writer's motives without knowing something of his early development ... before he ever beings to write he will have acquired an emotional attitude from which he will never completely escape

It felt very reassuring to know that when I take a piece of information about an author's personal life, and use that to reflect on his/her work; at least George Orwell might have thought I'm on the right track. Even if my college professor would have disagreed with him.

But alas, the dilemna of that question continues for me, because I also agree with Greg, that not all prose is a windowpane to the author. Sometimes, maybe, its just a good made-up story.

One more thing that struck me with this essay was the line "at least its true in tumultuous, revolutionary ages like our own"

While I agree that the aftermath of WWII was indeed "tumultuous" and even "revolutionary", I also hear those words used to describe today and I wonder, was there ever a time or people who felt their era was not tumultuous and revolutionary?

Bridget wrote: "While I agree that the aftermath of WWII was indeed "tumultuous" and even "revolutionary", I also hear those words used to describe today and I wonder, was there ever a time or people who felt their era was not tumultuous and revolutionary?..."

Love this Bridget!

I was having a conversation about this with my mom the other day. She's really down about what she thinks is wrong with the world these days.

But when aren't there a lot of things wrong and a lot of things right too!

Greg, I enjoy your comments about how everything is going these days. Both of you are right about how things are going good or bad. This is the way of the world.

Bridget, I enjoy reading your comments about literature and how things have been before and are now. There are always problems. About literature, art, all these are a reflection of reality.

Josephine wrote: "Greg, I enjoy your comments about how everything is going these days. Both of you are right about how things are going good or bad. This is the way of the world."

Thanks Josephine :)

I believe George Orwell felt he needed to write. It was in him to write.

Josephine wrote: "I believe George Orwell felt he needed to write. It was in him to write."

That definitely comes across in the essay, I agree!

There's so much of substance here; I'm really enjoying everyone's insights, and we still have a few days on this essay. So if you haven't yet read it, please do! It will be worth it - it's quite short and linked in the first comment. I'd love to hear more reactions, perhaps also from those who read it earlier this month :)

For those who are interested, here's a link to my review. I gave it ⭐⭐⭐⭐

Elizabeth - yes, I agree with you about the prose style. George Orwell never seems to include unnecessary passages (although I wasn't entirely sure about the poem) and certainly nothing purple! "Humbug" made me laugh too :) He never minces his words, does he.

Rosemarie - I think many of these essays stand up to rereading at different times of our lives, and from your comment I think you do too :) Thank you for confirming that Burmese Days is not overwritten! I hadn't really thought it would be. I suspect it is just that George Orwell was like many writers, and never satisfied with the quality, when looking back to his early works.

Greg - My goodness, you packed a lot into that comment. I love your first quotation :) In fact it is so apt, that I am going to add it on to the end of my review (hope you don't mind!) as a separate comment. It is such a neat, ironic but incisive bon mot.

The idea of effacing one's personality when writing seems to jar with a few of us. Like you, I find I really enjoy reading some writers such as Charles Dickens, who I can quickly identify by reading a short passage. It's odd to think by George Orwell's lights this would be a fault in their writing. (He did actually have a love-hate relationship with "the Inimitable"'s works.)

I feel here that George Orwell may have his journalist's hat on. When I read a factual account in a newspaper, I don't want lots of hyperbole or a fancy style. I just want a neutral view. Of course we never really get that, because the newspapers we choose to read are the ones which conform to our own moral and ethical standpoints! So many concepts are taken as a given, and the concerns and conclusions of their articles feel neutral to us. But that is the broad aim of most of us, I think, when reading newspapers. We are seeking information, not to be entertained.

Your comments about Virginia Woolf's criticisms of some fellow (female) writers was another good illustration of how the function of writing can make a variation of style - and the revealing of an author's personality - acceptable, and even necessary. She seemed to be against the idea. In general, I too would say I do not want to read a book if I can tell the gender of the author. So often I have found that genre books will fit into these moulds - home and family sagas, soppy love stories, gang stories with lots of violence etc. are easy to assign, and invariably bore me to tears. I'm afraid some of the top names fit here.

But there are exceptions. There are some books where the "female identity" is a core part of the book. Perhaps Virginia Woolf would view their "grievances" as irrelevant to her sort of writing, but it is not irrelevant to that author, or probably to the experience of her readers. This perhaps does make it not "universal". On the other hand though, I think a novel has the potential to be lifted out of that genre, and become a classic.

We cannot deny that every single one of Jane Austen's novels is a fluffy romantic tale of a young woman from a very narrow sphere (impoverished English gentility on the cusp of the 19th century) in search of love, and marriage to an eligible bachelor (equally specific). But the wit and insights: the aesthetic style, as George Orwell would describe it, lift them into some of the best novels in the English language - despite their narrow focus. What would they be without Jane Austen's waspish sarcasm? And surely these are read by all sexes and cultures. The book I have just finished is by Nguyễn Phan Qu�� Mai. Parts of it are like reading poetry, yet technically it could be called a family saga, or a historical novel by a female author. There's no way I would have read it, if it had been assigned to that category! It is more than that.

For authors to stipulate and prescribe a neutral view is, I believe, outside their remit. They are really just talking about what works for them. I think you have hit on the truth Greg, when you say:

"for me, there are so many ways for different types of prose to be good, and there are so many ways for different pieces to be experienced."

I'd better stop there and give someone else a chance!

Bridget - I think you came to the same conclusion, although you think it is a conundrum, and I just accept it really. I believe simply that we have different styles of writing for different purposes. Even in a novel there can be a perceivable difference between the omniscient narrator and the author's personal voice. Or even of the voice they choose to have for that novel - such as Victorians with a persuasive intent.

Perhaps your college professor was equally challenged: feeling that there must be an answer. For most classic or worthy works, I do at some point feel the urge to discover more about them and their lives. So often, it is relevant, such as the example you give with Mr. Micawber :)

But having said that, we can find out things that we might wish we had not known - aspects which make us respect an author less, perhaps, because of their personal beliefs or actions. In this case, I suspect we push this aside, and view their works separately from the author. There are some attitudes George Orwell had, and insulting slang he used, which I really wish he hadn't :( He was a man of his time ... but most of his work should be looked at for itself, I believe. He matters.

Oh yes, I'm with you on the tumultuous times! I wonder what George Orwell would have thought about us all discussing his works world-wide, with instant access, and especially that we are all in a world plague.

Yes there are a lot of different literary theories about how to approach literature analysis, and some do believe that once the piece of literature is 'out in the world', it no longer is owned by the author, and should be viewed in its own right. Whereas, normally in literature education before university, we are taught to view the context of the writer and the time when it was written. For me, I love learning about the writer themselves and the historical period in which they were writing, which is probably because I love history, so I would use this approach with Orwell because he is such an interesting person.

The Death of the Author by Roland Barthes is an interesting read when thinking about the author being disconnected from their work.

Bionic Jean wrote: "Greg - My goodness, you packed a lot into that comment. I love your first quotation :) In fact it is so apt, that I am going to add it on to the end of my review (hope you don't mind!) as a separat..."

Love all of this Jean! The journalist's hat makes sense of course, as does the fact that authors are describing what works for them.

I completely know what you mean by rigidly gender-focused genre books.

It's as side issue to Orwell; so I don't want to flood the thread with this, but as far as women authors writing from their "grievance," I was originally thinking of novels such as The House of Mirth or The Awakening, which I really loved both in terms of style and content. But as I think about it more, Tess of the D'Urbervilles shares some of the same concerns and appeals to me for many of the same reasons, and this was written by a man!

So, I guess maybe Woolf is only right about this in the case that the "grievance" clouds the ability to see the mechanisms clearly? If a writer maintains the ability to see with a clear mind, maybe those "grievances" she talks about are universal, in that everyone at some point in their lives encounters unfairness, social constraints, and the complex tug of social mores, for good or ill? And everyone is both constrained and enriched by their culture, though to varying degrees of course, and can feel the truth of that tradeoff. Even though the actual details of what is being faced is not the same, we can relate to the larger forces behind it, the sociological or psychological mechanisms by which it acts. And maybe that's why I, who can certainly have no real idea what it is to live as a woman within Victorian culture, can still feel so powerfully affected by and invested in what's being experienced in these wonderful books?

Anyway, sorry for my meandering. Back to Orwell!

In reading Orwell, I definitely do enjoy the clarity of his style. It's the perfect vehicle for his work!

I thoroughly enjoyed this essay. I'm way behind in this read and so many good comments have been made. I don't have a lot to add.

Jean & Steve, I agree with you both that when Orwell says "political writing" he means a set of principles. I understand him as saying that an author has a responsibility, or a selfish agenda, of pointing something out to the rest of the World to help keep us honest, aware and working towards a better society. Something like that, anyway. There's a responsibility of an author to keep society responsible to staying aware and responsible for the world.
"As long as I remain alive and well I shall continue....to love the surface of the earth...."
Since the "surface of the earth" is us & our world, Orwell may be saying that to live (politically) well and (democratically) accepting of others shows a love for our Earth. That's quite timely in our current world, too.

"One could never undertake such a thing (writing a book) if one were not driven on by some demon whom one can neither resist nor understand"
I think this is something that every artist, in any field, can understand. There's a drive that comes from within that demands to create, be it writing, painting, sculpture or any other medium. It's a need in some people. Thank goodness for that need. With it comes our literature, music, art.

I thoroughly enjoyed his poem. Lines from it that stuck out for me are:
"It is forbidden to dream again;
We maim our joys or hide them;"

and

"I wasn't born for an age like this;
Was Smith? Was Jones? Were you?"

Orwell lived through very traumatic and turbulent times. That it maimed people's outlook shows in the first quote. Squashed dreams close one's world to a small, dark bubble of existence.

A deep wish or dream for Peace and tranquillity seems to be showing in the final quote......but if dreams are squashed and Peace is forbidden to be dreamt of, can we attain it? I believe that Orwell believed that we could and that his writings would help us find a way in that direction.

We need writers like Orwell right now.