Orwell: The New Life

by D.J. Taylor

A fresh examination of George Orwell by an award-winning Orwellian biographer and scholar, presenting the author anew to twenty-first-century readers.

We find ourselves in an era when the moment is ripe for a reevaluation of the life and the works of one of the twentieth century’s greatest authors. This is the first twenty-first-century biography on George Orwell, with special recognition to D. J. Taylor's stature as an award-winning biographer and Orwellian.

Using new sources that are now available for the first time, we are tantalizingly at the end of the lifespan of Orwell's last few contemporaries, whose final reflections are caught in this book. The way we look at a writer and his canon has changed even over the course of the last two decades; there is a post-millennial prism through which we must now look for such a biography to be fresh and relevant. This is what Orwell: The New Life achieves.

Genres: Biography, Nonfiction, Politics, History, British Literature, Literature, Biography Memoir

597 pages, Paperback

Published May 1, 2023

About the author

David John Taylor (born 1960) is a critic, novelist and biographer. After attending school in Norwich, he read Modern History at St John's College, Oxford, and has received the 2003 Whitbread Biography Award for his life of George Orwell.

He lives in Norwich and contributes to The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, The Independent, New Statesman and The Spectator among other publications.

He is married to the novelist Rachel Hore, and together they have three sons.

Reviews

[Graham Power · Rating 3 out of 5]

Disappointing, I thought. Despite the promise of ‘previously unseen material’ and ‘newly discovered letters’ there are no great revelations or fresh insights here. Worse, in certain important respects Taylor seems to me to get Orwell subtly wrong; or at least to place the emphases in the wrong places. Orwell was above all a political writer but this isn’t a very political book. He lived an extraordinary life which was plugged into history: the Old Etonian and Burmese imperial policeman who reinvented himself as plongeur and tramp in Paris and London; the eyewitness to Northern England during the Great Depression, and the Spanish Civil War militiaman; the radical socialist who became the darling of right-wing Cold War warriors. It’s almost impossible to make all this sound boring, but Taylor comes perilously close. The bigger picture is buried beneath an avalanche of mundane domestic details (‘Orwell cut the grass, weeded one of the flower beds, put manure on the hollyhocks, planted some dwarf Michaelmas daises and smashed a tray of eggs when they slipped from his grasp…’).

Still, it has its moments. Taylor’s account of Orwell’s heroic effort to write 1984 while desperately ill - an effort which, as Taylor observes, probably killed him - is vivid and moving. Also, the chronological biography is interspersed with a number of mini essays. Although riffing on familiar themes these are at least livelier than the main body of the narrative. For the most part, though, this is a diligently researched book which fails to take flight. Orwell himself never quite comes into full focus. Bernard Crick got closer to the man by foregrounding the politics and historical context.

[Steve Donoghue]

Here DJ Taylor revisits the author and career he first wrote about 20 years ago, and that's always a fascinating thing: it's not just a question of how the same author will sort and analyze all the new documentation and interpretation that's surrounded his subject over two decades but also a look at how that subject has been working on the same biographer in the intervening years. Taylor's insights here are unfailingly fascinating - you'll wish the book were twice as long. My full review is here: https://openlettersreview.com/posts/o...

[Jeff Bursey · Rating 4 out of 5]

A vast improvement on Bernard Crick's bio of some years ago. Taylor is judicious in the use of sources and in his judgements on Orwell's at times inexplicable actions and motivations. The sections where Taylor steps away from the chronology and addresses issues are handy summaries of content.

Orwell remains Orwell, and there's no improving that, a man with ill health, a taste for the hovel and the ridiculously difficult life, wayward in his affections, a semi-rebel but at heart a conservative, aesthetically, afraid of where adventurous prose would lead readers. Orwell's last two books seem so much better than their author, it's almost miraculous that they emerged from that nature. Highly recommended biography.

[Darcy · Rating 3 out of 5]

D.J. Taylor is no Mr Casaubon. Unlike the pedantic scholar from George Eliot’s nineteenth century novel, Middlemarch, Mr Taylor’s output - fiction and nonfiction: biographies, short stories, novels, journalism, feature articles, essays, introductions, prefaces, interviews, panel and podcast appearances - is phenomenal.
Mr Taylor writes more elegantly than any of Orwell’s (many) previous biographers and has a deep, extensive knowledge of British literature, especially that written during the 1930s and 40s, which is put to good use in this biography. However, despite the publicity, it is not a “new” look at Orwell’s life and work but a second crack at the author he calls, “my writer”. There is little that has changed in his view of Orwell’s work or life. Basically, it is a revised, much longer biography of Orwell that most readers will enjoy.
The book is divided into six major chronological sections. Part I (1903-1927) and Part II (1927-1933) are seriously marred by out-of-date research, factual errors and what appears to be a lack of genuine interest in the period prior to Eric Blair assuming his famous pseudonym. Part III (1934-1936) and Part IV (1936-1939) are extremely accomplished and contain some new information and interesting insights into Orwell’s character. Part V (1939-1945) is excellent. Part VI (1945-1950) contains little not repeated ad nauseum for nearly half-a-century. The “mini-chapters” - Orwell in Time, Orwell’s Face, Orwell’s Voice etc. - are mostly jarring intrusions which spoil the chronological flow. Rehashed, mostly intact from the 2003 biography, it is hard to understand why they are included (although the one about Gissing is absolutely wonderful).
It is apparent from the opening pages that the supremely confident Mr Taylor is writing a conventional biography of Orwell. He acknowledges that it is “perfectly possible, and sometimes desirable, to inspect him through the prism of colonialism, or the Me Too movement or even, given the source of the original family fortune, Black Lives Matter” while suggesting there is “very little novelty in these interrogations: after all, feminist scholars such as Daphne Patai were busy deconstructing Orwell’s patriarchal tendencies nearly forty years ago…”. Mr Taylor recounts sitting next to feminist critic Beatrix Campbell on a literary festival panel “as she lamented The Road to Wigan Pier’s sexual bias” saying “the effect was like watching a small child trying to bring down an elephant with a pea-shooter”.
The Australian feminist academic, Germaine Greer, wrote perceptively many years ago about this genre, suggesting that once “a biographer has mastered his subject, sucked it dry as an ant does an aphid and stored its own juice in his own book, the rest of us need no longer bother our heads about inconvenient notions the biographer's subject may have offered for our consideration”. Mr Taylor’s conventional view of Orwell consistently endeavours to dispel any “inconvenient notions” that have arisen in the last 20 years since his last outing.
The notes section is not professionally compiled and will frustrate anyone genuinely interested in sources. This reader found the notes lacking intellectual generosity. There are many errors and typos which the publisher will need to sort out for the paperback or next edition.

[Derek Baldwin · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the third Orwell biography I have read, and I’ve read all his works at least once, so there were no real surprises.

Although at times pedestrian, and I am not a fan of the short thematic chapters (least of all Orwell And The Jew), I liked it a lot.

Taylor does a very competent job but is no Bernard Crick. The final few pages are very poignant but i recall being very upset by the raw facts of Orwell’s last days as related by Crick.

A generous 4.5/5 rounded up, mainly out of admiration for George himself, a wonderful but tragically flawed man who in some ways wasted his life away. Imagine writing the same biography twice though…!

[Robert Webber · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fascinating study of one of the great writers of the 20th century. Often heralded as a man of the left, the brutal satirisation of socialism in his most famous works of course dispel this notion. One is rather left with the impression of Orwell as an atheist in search of a secular morality. An interesting and absorbing analysis of a great literary figure. Recommended.

[Bill Baar · Rating 4 out of 5]

Taylor persuaded me Orwell's not someone I would enjoy meeting in person; but his book did drive me to googling the many writers in Orwell's orbit. All familiar names, although their books were ones I had never read.

For me, Taylor's insight was Orwell wrote in reaction to British class structures and Imperialism, and not in reaction to Soviet Communism. Stalin's a thread for Orwell, but England and Empire the fabrics wrapping Orwell's mind; the BBC was Orwell's Big Brother; not the NKVD.

[Ryan · Rating 2 out of 5]

Taylor writes very good Victorian pastiche, middling criticism, and naff biographies.

This is his second attempt at an Orwell biography.

[Socraticgadfly · Rating 2 out of 5]

Probably 3.5 if I'm generous, but I just can't do that.

UPDATE: Dropped to two stars; see below.

First, riffing on another reviewer, this is less a new bio than a revision of the author's previous. I'll take that person's word for it.

Now, my thought.

A prediliction for physiognomy present in older English (sic, not “British”) historians still seems to abound with Taylor. What ARE stereotypically Gallic features? Fortunately, unlike them, the author doesn’t seem to venture into physiognomic essentialism.

But, he does flirt with presentism. He notes that Orwell called Spender a “pansy,” and then says, OK, that’s bookmarked, move on. Ditto on talking about a feminist author in modern times attack Orwell for misogyny and compare it to shooting an elephant with a pea-shooter. Seeing all this predisposed me to be less than enthusiastic.

That said, he insinuates that the “How I Shot an Elephant,” as well as “A Hanging in Burma,” may not be factual. Says the latter has clear ties to a similar Thackaray piece. But, while insinuating, takes no stand.

As for big issues? Taylor doesn't fully tackle the issue, beyond the above, as to how good of a non-communist leftist Orwell was, or was not.

The bio itself is in a vignette style. It’s interesting, but doesn’t always flow well.

Also, misses chances at psychological takes. Was the adoption of Orwell as literary pseudonym also that of a literary persona? Why the one foot back in Edwardian times? What was up with the one foot in the Church of England from the early 1930s to the end of his life? Per one bit of cynicism, did he have jealousy as well that he had not gone from Eton to Oxford himself? Regret?

Add in that I hit my library's timewall, and that I've long thought Brave New World was more prescient than 1984 (and a better read, as is Darkness at Noon) and, the book just petered out on me.

Orwell's List a VERY controversial, it seems, and totally new to me, compilation of names of writers and other creatives for the British government's Foreign Office by Orwell (see a quote from the Wiki page below), basically a list of people who in the US in the McCarthyist 1950s would have been called "Comms and Comm symps," is "addressed" in less than two full pages by Taylor.

Nut graf:

"(W)hat came to be known as 'Orwell's List' has occasionally been used as a stick with which to beat his supposed [emphasis added by me] intolerance.

From Wiki:

Typical comments were: Stephen Spender – "Sentimental sympathiser... Tendency towards homosexuality"; Richard Crossman – "Too dishonest to be outright F. T."; Kingsley Martin –"Decayed liberal. Very dishonest";[9] and Paul Robeson – "very anti-white. [Henry] Wallace supporter"

From Wiki, comment by Alex Cockburn:

Cockburn attacked Orwell's description of Paul Robeson as "anti-white", pointing out Robeson had campaigned to help Welsh coal miners. Cockburn also said the list revealed Orwell as a bigot: "There seems to be general agreement by Orwell's fans, left and right, to skate gently over Orwell's suspicions of Jews, homosexuals and blacks".

Taylor doesn't even mention Robeson being on the list, let alone why.

Folks, this confirms my sneaking suspicion that this book was hagiography.

And, I disagree with people at that Wiki link claiming that this was not McCarthyist. He gave it to the Information Research Department at the Foreign Office, at least his "finalized" list. And, had he lived longer, he might have submitted more names from his personal list. (Robeson was on there; so were George Bernard Shaw, Katharine Hepburn, Orson Welles, and John Steinbeck, among others; aside from Orwell being an informant, this leads to questions of his general judgment.) I also disagree that he would have broken with the IRD had he realized, with living longer, what it was up to. Claims that he would have are an argument from silence.)

In that case, these defenders are saying that, either due to late-life health problems, or general causes, Orwell had a high naivete level. You want to stand on that ground? Even a writer for Socialist Review makes that claim. Note: Now that I know why Orwell "wrote up" some of these people, Alan Turing was lucky not to be "outed" until 3 years later, I guess. And, the idea that tuberculosis can make you "ga-ga" in late stages is painting with a humongously broad brush.

[Alec Birri · Rating 1 out of 5]

Never Meet Your Heroes

A deeply researched and engagingly written portrait of arguably the twentieth century’s most iconic literary figure. Yet by the end, one is left with a troubling impression: George Orwell, the great defender of truth and decency, wasn’t a particularly decent man himself. D. J. Taylor does not avoid this reality, but for this reader the conclusion was unavoidable: Orwell is a hero I’m glad I didn’t meet.

What emerges most clearly from Taylor’s portrait is Orwell’s almost sociopathic tendency for fitting people into categories. Whether aristocrats, intellectuals, or working-class comrades, Orwell had a penchant for reducing individuals to ‘types’, often accompanied by a withering judgment. Which suggests a man more interested in ideas than in people, a contradiction that makes Orwell’s social commentary paradoxically astute and emotionally distant.

Orwell’s treatment of women is especially unsettling. His first wife, Eileen, is largely absent from his letters until her health declined, a silence that suggests emotional detachment rather than oversight. Even during their courtship, Orwell frequently misspelled her name – a small but telling sign of inattentiveness. Taylor subtly underscores this pattern, and the portrait that emerges is of a man either unable or unwilling to engage with the emotional reality of those closest to him.

More troubling still are repeated references to Orwell’s inappropriate sexual advances. Taylor recounts episodes where Orwell would often “jump” on unsuspecting female acquaintances, and his coy suggestions to “go for a walk in the woods” present little ambiguity. These incidents are disturbing not only in themselves, but because they stand in stark contrast to Orwell’s public posture as a principled critic of coercion and abuse of power.

Then there are the ideological inconsistencies. Orwell, the avowed pacifist “enjoying the fighting” during the Spanish Civil War; Orwell, the brilliant diagnostician of totalitarianism, predicting that the British Home Guard would rise up against its own government; Britain falling to the same working-class after WWII was won. Orwell’s dystopian imagination might have been unmatched, but his real-life foresight was clearly a miss.

And yet, despite these contradictions – perhaps even because of them – Orwell: The New Life is a compelling read. Taylor’s prose is elegant, if occasionally too clever for its own good. Words like “sedulous”, “amanuensis”, and “querulous” cropped up often enough to send this reader scrambling for a dictionary. It’s a curious stylistic choice, considering Orwell’s own disdain for obscure or pretentious language. As a biographer and admirer of Orwell, Taylor’s departure from that principle feels oddly inconsistent.

The book also reads like a literary Who’s Who of early twentieth-century Britain. Taylor name-drops nearly every major writer and critic of the period, reminding us that despite cultivating the image of a down-at-heel outsider, Orwell benefited from an elite connection well in keeping with his Old Etonian pedigree. It’s fair to ask whether Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four would have achieved such cultural permanence without the well-placed support of this rarefied circle.

Ultimately, Taylor succeeds in humanising Orwell, but at a cost. The more vivid and intimate the portrait becomes, the harder it is to ignore the great dystopian author’s flaws. You may come away from this book with a deeper understanding of George Orwell the writer, but continuing to admire Eric Blair the man is a different matter.

[Anne Bergsma · Rating 5 out of 5]

Een mooie biografie van een van mijn favoriete Britse schrijvers van de twintigste eeuw. Het betreft een vrij radicale omwerking en uitbreiding van Taylor’s vorige biografie over Orwell. Zaken die me weer opvielen: Orwell werd pas tegen het einde van zijn leven een schrijver voor velen, eigenlijk pas vanaf Animal Farm, dus na 1945. Hij heeft het doorslaande succes van 1984 nog net mee kunnen maken. Taylor maakt veel werk van de vrouwen in het leven van de schrijver en ook van diens wat onhandige wijze van omgang met hen. Een aantal van Orwell’s vriendschappen komt ook goed uit de verf, bijvoorbeeld die met Malcolm Muggaridge, Anthony Powell, Lucian Freud en Arthur Koestler. De laatste koos bij wijze van daad van vriendschap, een aangrijpende perikoop uit de Prediker, die gelezen werd tijdens de uitvaartdienst.

Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh, when thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them;

While the sun, or the light, or the moon, or the stars, be not darkened, nor the clouds return after the rain:

In the day when the keepers of the house shall tremble, and the strong men shall bow themselves, and the grinders cease because they are few, and those that look out of the windows be darkened,

And the doors shall be shut in the streets, when the sound of the grinding is low, and he shall rise up at the voice of the bird, and all the daughters of musick shall be brought low;

Also when they shall be afraid of that which is high, and fears shall be in the way, and the almond tree shall flourish, and the grasshopper shall be a burden, and desire shall fail: because man goeth to his long home, and the mourners go about the streets:

Or ever the silver cord be loosed, or the golden bowl be broken, or the pitcher be broken at the fountain, or the wheel broken at the cistern.

Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

Helaas lijkt Taylor wel het slachtoffer te zijn van een zekere hedendaagse politiek-correcte mode. De ‘tussenhoofdstukjes’ “Orwell and the Jews” en “Orwell and the ‘Nancy Boys’” ontsieren het boek een beetje. Voor 1945 gebruikten vele lieden die geen anti-semieten waren het woord ‘jood’ vrijmoediger dan ze daarna zouden doen. Na 1945 werd iedere ironische verwijzing naar jodendom verdacht. Een biograaf zou zich daarvan niet van de wijs moeten brengen. Hetzelfde geldt voor het feit dat Orwell zich niet geestdriftig toonde voor verschillende amoureuze voorkeuren. Zoals in ieder tijdsgewricht wordt ook thans door de mode voorgeschreven welke voorkeuren en aberraties we moeten omarmen en welke we moeten afkeuren. Over een paar decennia heerst een nieuwe mode. Een biograaf (ja, iedere historicus) doet er verstandig aan zich dit te realiseren. En er niet direct van in de war te raken.

Zoals zo vaak blijken anachronismen moeilijk te verwijden valkuilen.

[Jade P · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was pleasantly surprised with how the author, D.J Taylor, manages to portray the life of such a complex thinking and politically challenged individual in a way that is easy to process and follow along with. Despite the countless biographies written and detailed deep dives into his character, Taylor's portrayal of the individual manages to remain insightful and stands out from its predecessors. The novel manages to slowly ease the reader into the journey of Orwell, without bombarding them with information not yet relevant allowing for a consistent flow in the books progression. I also appreciate how the author slowly eased into the political side of events, as well as avoiding personal bias influencing how the topic was discussed. I do feel some of the extraordinarily small chapters such as Orwell's feelings towards 'nancies' (this was simply the first I thought of and has nothing to do with the topic in particular) were lack luster in there information and lack as clear of a structure, becoming quite repetitive in language and what is being conveyed. I found myself enjoying the first two thirds of the book, reading detailed descriptions of Orwell's unique and unorthodox approaches for progression in his career and creative endeavors. Alongside this were some intriguing approaches by Talor responding to Orwell's desire to disassociate himself with upper an higher middle class society, and how these attempts were weaved into his writing in several different ways. There are certainly some elements of this book that make it a potential three star, although the ease of access for readers, focus on interesting but less explored areas of the writers life, and intriguing approach to discussing several topics make it a fruitful Orwell biography for the most modern era of writing.

[Thomas · Rating 4 out of 5]

D. J. Taylor wrote a major biography of George Orwell in 2003, but, he says, as soon as it was published, new information began to pour in. So, twenty years later, we have Orwell: The New Life. It may be significant that Taylor does not call it a second edition.
Taylor says that Orwell stage-managed his life, adjusting his manner to fit his audience and the social role he was playing at the moment. As a scholarship boy at his prep school and later at Eton, he was always aware that his family did not have the money or social status of other students. As a policeman in British India, he was acutely aware of class distinctions.
Orwell disappointed his family when he abandoned his secure government job to become a writer. His emerging leftist politics encouraged him to explore the underclasses in England and France. He spent time with unemployed English migrants and worked as a dishwasher in Paris, but his Etonian accent often undermined his efforts to fit into the working class. He fought with the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War but made enemies on both sides.
For most of his career, he was better known as an essayist and reviewer than a novelist. That changed in the last decade of his life when he published Animal Farm. By then, he was a critic of totalitarian regimes right and left and worked to promote his version of democratic socialism. 1984 came out the year before he died.
Taylor gives us a detailed account of Orwell’s professional and private life, but he does not engage in much literary analysis or assessment.

[Smiley III · Rating 5 out of 5]

Terrific, and pointing-out the predilections of this perpetually-AILING author (he died while becoming, err, "rich and FAMOUS" for his horror novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four , which keep several readers UP nights after finishing the diabolical ending ... 😬 #eeeeYIKES ), who worried that with the "vanishing of religion from the cultural mind" it would be replaced with the specter — and temptation — of Totalitarianism. (see Year Zero , The Slip , The Body, The Blood, The Machine and A Song Called Youth for more on our current predicament.) Worrying over the death of his wife, Eileen, with whom he narrowly escaped the purges of the (end of) the Spanish Civil War and was able to enjoy a soggy, dispirited (subsequent) holiday in France because they were alive ( 🙄 ), she too became the victim of apparently an ill-advised and simply-BELATED operation (hysterectomy), yet another casualty of this world in which things simply aren't added up right.

So.

Learn more about Orwell ... !!! It's great —

😀 👍👍👍

#fourSTARS

[Diogenes Grief · Rating 4 out of 5]

I think it’s fairly well known that the lives of most all authors of great literary works are rarely more interesting than the products they produced. Maybe the wonderful folks at LitHub and likeminded sites would disagree, but that’s purely my take on things. This isn’t a Taylor-problem, or an Orwell-problem. It’s completely a me-problem. Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four will be held high within the English literary canon, most likely forever (unless a future Ministry of Truth and their Thought Police snuff such things out), but wading through the tedium of the author’s life will hopefully not. His late-life work is far more important than whatever influences percolated within his grey-matter to forge them. Still, Taylor is a talented writer in his own right and if one wishes to dive into such things for pleasure or research, this is the perfect book begin with.

[J William · Rating 5 out of 5]

Though he insisted that no biography of his life be written, George Orwell often told his readers who he thought he was. I do not write ‘who he was’, because the myth of Saint George has one primary author, and that is the saint himself. One rarely reads a page where a small detail of his life isn’t to be found, like a sprinkle of breadcrumbs for would-be biographers. It is a trail that seems to lead in circles, for the origins of saints and their myth’s remain elusive. But as he wrote of Gandhi, ‘saints should be judged guilty until they are proved innocent’. It is this guilt or innocence which D.J. Taylor has once again set about proving in a fresh study, Orwell: The New Life..

My full review published in Aporia magazine and crossposted on my Substack here, narrated for a long listen - https://justwilliam.substack.com/cp/1...

[Rahardian Suryo · Rating 4 out of 5]

I liked that DJ Taylor wrote this book detail oriented, with personal letters that exposed what Orwell endured. And DJ Taylor has done a good job narrating Orwell's life stories and the background / what really happened behind every book he wrote.In my opinions, the minus of this book are: 1. DJ Taylor did not elaborate deeply on the books that Orwell wrote, what I read was the event that Orwell experiences while writing the book; 2. DJ Taylor did not elaborate deeply on the social-political background that happened during the time Orwell wrote the books. I personally have to google some events (like, the spain civil war) to understand the social-political issues that drive Orwell to write the books. Overall this book is good for you who want to know the timeline / events that Orwell endured, but not the best book for you who want to know the philosophy of Orwell's books.

[R.R. Scott · Rating 5 out of 5]

I always like a good bio about writers. I enjoy reading about what made them tick, and what life experiences they took, turned and twisted to create words on the page. Orwell is one of my favourite writers, if not my favourite, and his short life was filled with enough successes and failures to make the reader glad yet envious that it happened to someone else. The foreseeable ending of Orwell’s life was painful to read about, especially given that he had truly just struck success and the level of financial comfort to write as he pleased, to say nothing of the fact that he had to say goodbye to the four year old boy he had taken on as his own son. A wonderful and inspiring read that makes one eager to dip back into orwell’s work.

[Hayes · Rating 4 out of 5]

Opted for the 4d experience of Orwell's biography by reading it whilst catching covid and a subsequent chest concern. Really helped to break the 4th wall and provide thought provoking insight on the tribulations of trying to produce a masterpiece whilst dying a slow death.

All in all, thorough and well researched. Taylor outlines the different schools of thought on Orwell's actions, ultimately always trying to defend him whilst acknowledging he is an odd fish - which is interesting off the back of some of the recent feminist riffs on both his work and his biography.

[Sean Auraist · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Auraist substack is a recommendation service that identifies the best-written books from prize shortlists, end-of-year lists, and major reviews. Orwell: the New Life was one of our picks for the best-written nonfiction books of the summer. Read an extract at https://auraist.substack.com/p/nonfic.... Subscriptions are currently free.

[Robert Stevenson · Rating 1 out of 5]

A very long and non compelling biography. If you like Ron Chernow or David McCullough as I do and then read this, you will know what I mean. This is a work that tries to tie together other Orwell biographies and interpretations instead of creating a single narrative work. Ultimately, the one thing after another minutiae just bores you. Very disappointing.

[Linda Gaines · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very thorough biography of Orwell based on lots of research. I almost learned more than I wanted to know. He was a great writer but a difficult man. I thought there would be more about Animal Farm and 1984.

[James Thompson · Rating 3 out of 5]

I found this to be a thorough and well-researched work, perhaps the definitive biography on a fascinating man. It is not a particularly easy read; I often found myself going back over sentences and paragraphs to make sure I understood their meaning.

[Just James · Rating 3 out of 5]

Too many details about Orwell's life with little insight into his writing habits

[Dan]

Too detailed about his life for my needs.