Great reflection, Joel. Orwell’s inexcusable entitlement aside, I feel there’s often an unsettling cost to the production of profound art which bizarrely surfaces in counterpoint ugliness.
Good reading. Thank you for the review. This piece reminds me strongly of Ruth Franklin's riveting biography of Shirley Jackson. The bitter irony is that the excuse is that the wife is being sacrificed to (the husband's) Art, when in fact the wife was (in the case of Jackson) or may well have been (in the case of Blair) the greater talent, capable of a higher art. But as you/Ms. Funder point out, the problem isnt just Orwell (or Hyman), but his editors, his biographers, the whole societal view of the sexes and marriage, and probably of Art and of paid work and homemaking too.
I don’t know much about Jackson except her short story, “The Lottery.” I think you’re right about the problem of paid work and homemaking. The default view is that home is a woman’s responsibility. In the case of Orwell, he just presumed she’d handle all of that—including mucking out the overflowing toilet and septic system. That presumption held even while she was working full time. So, she functionally maintained two jobs while he wrote. She rarely had time for her own interests.
Then her diminished status is preserved for all time because the biographers, intent on fleshing out Orwell’s life, edge her out of the picture. So she’s marginalized in her own life and then for all time—until someone like Funder comes along to excavate her life.
I wonder how different Orwell's conduct was from a lot of other men of his generation. Not to make excuses for his caddishness, but I read a book about Orwell and the broader literary circle that he was on the margins of, and it seemed like between postwar disillusionment and a lack of so many other things to do that different characters were always getting together for "a walk in the woods" and so forth. Grisly wars often make participants more macho/callous than they might otherwise have been, might have been partially a generational thing that's hard for us moderns to understand.
While I agree that a book or any work of art or achievement is separate from the artist, it certainly is easier for me to admire the art when I can admire the artist.
A writer like Orwell, living an unbalanced and thus morally questionable life, reminds me of politicians who do the same. There's an entitlement there that is ugly.
A thought provoking essay that goes beyond the specific case of Orwell and gets to larger questions of balance in life. Thank you.
You’re welcome! I think you’re also right about our ability to admire being undermined by such revelations. The hard thing to reckon with is that we often admire an act—a role an author, artist, or politician is playing in public. It’s disappointing to realize.
I read an almost parallel essay about Edward Hopper and his wife Josephine in "Rembreant is in the Wind". This is beginning to sound like a story as old as time. As I was reading, I was hearing the phrase "I must decrease so that he must increase" and smiled when I saw it at the end. Of course Orwell is no Jesus. Also, I have heard great things about Claire Dederer's book Monster and hope to start listening to it this week. Thanks Joel for another interesting and illuminating piece.
Thanks for reading, Shayne! I’ve heard good things about Rembrandt Is in the Wind. Funny that you picked up on that decrease-increase motif and quote; it hit me as I was nearing the end. Along with Dederer’s book, there’s Erich Hatala Matthes‘s great book Drawing the Line. I recommend that one for sure. https://www.millersbookreview.com/p/erich-hatala-matthes-drawing-line-roald-dahl
Thanks for the background on Orwell. While I’m not about canceling anyone, I do prefer an author I could respect as a person. Orwell isn’t in that category.
This reminds me of two books we have talked about. The Gambler's Wife, about Dostoyevsky and Fair Play. Of course, this is because it's a common theme. There's even a borderline cliche, "behind every succesful man________" fill in the blank as you wish. Bill Burr has a stand up routine about how Steve Jobs never really did anything but tell a bunch of scientists what to do. All of that gets to the kick off point, we don't create on our own really. Great work as always, man. You are really knocking them out of the park.
Life is a multiplayer game, that’s for sure. “The Gambler Wife” is such a great book. There’s totally an overlap between these two stories. Dostoevsky was, however, not quite as piggish as Orwell could be.
Interesting. Ive seen good and bad reviews of this book. Some say Funder projects herself into it too much. I have it on my to read pile and am looking forward to seeing how I feel about it.
I get that criticism. I think most of that projection is Funder trying to set the themes and context for the story. I didn’t mind it. The harder thing to get over are the fictional scenes. They’re well done and easily set off in the book, so they’re effective and there’s no confusing them for the nonfiction. But it’s an atypical approach, for sure.
Thanks for this fascinating piece. Before we judge Orwell too harshly, it's important to remember that traditional monogamous marriages were eschewed by most leftists of that era. Whether or not Eileen actually wanted an open marriage, she might have been assured by her peers that it was "bourgeois" to care about fidelity, just as women in later decades were told that they weren't "liberated" if they wanted a monogamous relationship.
The more I learn about Orwell as a person, the more despicable an image builds before my eyes. Anti-semite, racist, misogynist, traitor to the left. The list goes on.
And yes, I agree, as the author said, that a person is not their work, and it is necessary to acknowledge the value of works created by horrible people. But the thing is, Orwell was a worse writer than he was a human being. Shoddy, sloppy prose, false notions about writing that have unfortunately infected generations after him and most importantly, riddled with political immaturity. His supposed critique of authority is wholly uninformed, and he would have died forgotten had the US not larped on the opportunity of lefitst infighting. The world is not Orwellian, there is no "literally 1984" state of affairs and his books have done far more harm to the world than good.
Great reflection, Joel. Orwell’s inexcusable entitlement aside, I feel there’s often an unsettling cost to the production of profound art which bizarrely surfaces in counterpoint ugliness.
Yeah, I think there’s some truth to that. The cost of great achievements tend to be heavier than we might hope for.
Good reading. Thank you for the review. This piece reminds me strongly of Ruth Franklin's riveting biography of Shirley Jackson. The bitter irony is that the excuse is that the wife is being sacrificed to (the husband's) Art, when in fact the wife was (in the case of Jackson) or may well have been (in the case of Blair) the greater talent, capable of a higher art. But as you/Ms. Funder point out, the problem isnt just Orwell (or Hyman), but his editors, his biographers, the whole societal view of the sexes and marriage, and probably of Art and of paid work and homemaking too.
I don’t know much about Jackson except her short story, “The Lottery.” I think you’re right about the problem of paid work and homemaking. The default view is that home is a woman’s responsibility. In the case of Orwell, he just presumed she’d handle all of that—including mucking out the overflowing toilet and septic system. That presumption held even while she was working full time. So, she functionally maintained two jobs while he wrote. She rarely had time for her own interests.
Then her diminished status is preserved for all time because the biographers, intent on fleshing out Orwell’s life, edge her out of the picture. So she’s marginalized in her own life and then for all time—until someone like Funder comes along to excavate her life.
Yes, that makes sense!
I wonder how different Orwell's conduct was from a lot of other men of his generation. Not to make excuses for his caddishness, but I read a book about Orwell and the broader literary circle that he was on the margins of, and it seemed like between postwar disillusionment and a lack of so many other things to do that different characters were always getting together for "a walk in the woods" and so forth. Grisly wars often make participants more macho/callous than they might otherwise have been, might have been partially a generational thing that's hard for us moderns to understand.
I believe that. The 20th century was a meat grinder and chewed up a lot of people.
While I agree that a book or any work of art or achievement is separate from the artist, it certainly is easier for me to admire the art when I can admire the artist.
A writer like Orwell, living an unbalanced and thus morally questionable life, reminds me of politicians who do the same. There's an entitlement there that is ugly.
A thought provoking essay that goes beyond the specific case of Orwell and gets to larger questions of balance in life. Thank you.
You’re welcome! I think you’re also right about our ability to admire being undermined by such revelations. The hard thing to reckon with is that we often admire an act—a role an author, artist, or politician is playing in public. It’s disappointing to realize.
I read an almost parallel essay about Edward Hopper and his wife Josephine in "Rembreant is in the Wind". This is beginning to sound like a story as old as time. As I was reading, I was hearing the phrase "I must decrease so that he must increase" and smiled when I saw it at the end. Of course Orwell is no Jesus. Also, I have heard great things about Claire Dederer's book Monster and hope to start listening to it this week. Thanks Joel for another interesting and illuminating piece.
Thanks for reading, Shayne! I’ve heard good things about Rembrandt Is in the Wind. Funny that you picked up on that decrease-increase motif and quote; it hit me as I was nearing the end. Along with Dederer’s book, there’s Erich Hatala Matthes‘s great book Drawing the Line. I recommend that one for sure. https://www.millersbookreview.com/p/erich-hatala-matthes-drawing-line-roald-dahl
Thanks for the background on Orwell. While I’m not about canceling anyone, I do prefer an author I could respect as a person. Orwell isn’t in that category.
Yeah, he did his legacy no favors. I’ll still read and appreciate his work. But it’s hard to overlook some aspects of his character.
Yes it is. For similar reasons, I refuse to read Karl Barth.
This sheds a lot of light on an interesting aspect of Orwell’s life. Great essay.
Many thanks! I found Funder’s book riveting.
Fascinating!
Thanks, John! I thought so, too.
Great piece, Joel.
Thanks, Shawn!
This book was serialised by the UK’s BBC Radio 4 and is well worth a listen. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001pmbl
Thanks, I’ll check it out!
This reminds me of two books we have talked about. The Gambler's Wife, about Dostoyevsky and Fair Play. Of course, this is because it's a common theme. There's even a borderline cliche, "behind every succesful man________" fill in the blank as you wish. Bill Burr has a stand up routine about how Steve Jobs never really did anything but tell a bunch of scientists what to do. All of that gets to the kick off point, we don't create on our own really. Great work as always, man. You are really knocking them out of the park.
Life is a multiplayer game, that’s for sure. “The Gambler Wife” is such a great book. There’s totally an overlap between these two stories. Dostoevsky was, however, not quite as piggish as Orwell could be.
Interesting. Ive seen good and bad reviews of this book. Some say Funder projects herself into it too much. I have it on my to read pile and am looking forward to seeing how I feel about it.
I get that criticism. I think most of that projection is Funder trying to set the themes and context for the story. I didn’t mind it. The harder thing to get over are the fictional scenes. They’re well done and easily set off in the book, so they’re effective and there’s no confusing them for the nonfiction. But it’s an atypical approach, for sure.
Great post. Thanks for sharing!
My pleasure! Glad you enjoyed it.
Wow! Powerful and thought-provoking read. Thank you for sharing this.
Thanks for reading! Glad it connected.
Thanks for this fascinating piece. Before we judge Orwell too harshly, it's important to remember that traditional monogamous marriages were eschewed by most leftists of that era. Whether or not Eileen actually wanted an open marriage, she might have been assured by her peers that it was "bourgeois" to care about fidelity, just as women in later decades were told that they weren't "liberated" if they wanted a monogamous relationship.
The more I learn about Orwell as a person, the more despicable an image builds before my eyes. Anti-semite, racist, misogynist, traitor to the left. The list goes on.
And yes, I agree, as the author said, that a person is not their work, and it is necessary to acknowledge the value of works created by horrible people. But the thing is, Orwell was a worse writer than he was a human being. Shoddy, sloppy prose, false notions about writing that have unfortunately infected generations after him and most importantly, riddled with political immaturity. His supposed critique of authority is wholly uninformed, and he would have died forgotten had the US not larped on the opportunity of lefitst infighting. The world is not Orwellian, there is no "literally 1984" state of affairs and his books have done far more harm to the world than good.