The Same Man: George Orwell and Evelyn Waugh in Love and War

by David Lebedoff

One climbed to the very top of the social ladder, the other chose to live among tramps. One was a celebrity at twenty-three, the other virtually unknown until his dying days. One was right-wing and religious, the other a socialist and an atheist. Yet, as this ingenious and important new book reveals, at the heart of their lives and writing, Evelyn Waugh and George Orwell were essentially the same man.

Orwell is best known for Animal Farm and 1984 , Waugh for Brideshead Revisited and comic novels like Scoop and Vile Bodies . However different they may seem, these two towering figures of twentieth-century literature are linked for the first time in this engaging and unconventional biography, which goes beyond the story of their amazing lives to reach the core of their beliefs–a shared vision that was startlingly prescient about our own troubled times.

Both Waugh and Orwell were born in 1903, into the same comfortable stratum of England’s class-obsessed society. But at first glance they seem to have lived opposite lives. Waugh married into the high aristocracy, writing hilarious novels that captured the amoral time between the wars. He converted to Catholicism after his wife’s infidelity and their divorce. Orwell married a moneyless student of Tolkien’s who followed him to Barcelona, where he fought in the Spanish Civil War. She saved his life there–twice–but her own fate was tragic.

Waugh and Orwell would meet only once, as the latter lay dying of tuberculosis, yet as The Same Man brilliantly shows, in their life and work both writers rebelled against a modern world run by a privileged, sometimes brutal, few. Orwell and Waugh were almost alone among their peers in seeing what the future–our time–would bring, and they dedicated their lives to warning us against what was a world of material wealth but few values, an existence without tradition or community or common purpose, where lives are measured in dollars, not sense. They explained why, despite prosperity, so many people feel that our society is headed in the wrong direction. David Lebedoff believes that we need both Orwell and Waugh now more than ever.

Unique in its insights and filled with vivid scenes of these two fascinating men and their tumultuous times, The Same Man is an amazing story and an original work of literary biography.

Genres: Biography, Nonfiction, Biography Memoir, Literary Fiction, British Literature, History

288 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2008

Reviews

[TBV (on hiatus) · Rating 4 out of 5]

“ON A CLOUDLESS NIGHT IN JUNE 1930, AT THE HEIGHT OF a brilliant London season, the Duke and Duchess of Marlborough were giving a dinner party at their splendid house in town.”

A guest at this particular party was the successful twenty-six year old author Evelyn Waugh. That same night in Leeds another young man was working “alone in a small, shabby room” as an “unwelcome guest of his brother-in-law”. This was Eric Blair, now better known as George Orwell. “Waugh was hard and funny and elegant, while Blair seemed soft and quiet and shabby. Each had staked out opposite ends of the social ladder and already looked their parts. One resembled the embodiment of privilege, and the other its emaciated foe. Even their heights were a contrast; Blair was six foot three and Waugh just barely five foot six.” And so the scene is set for comparison in the Prologue of this nonfiction biographical work. Two men, both born in 1903, both destined to become great authors, but two very different men; different men who are ultimately the same according to David Lebedoff. He stresses the power of class distinction in England at that time, and he shows the impact of class distinction on the lives and works of these two men. One man embraced the system, the other rejected it. “Both Orwell and Waugh were products of a rigid class system. Orwell hated it, and Waugh bounded up its steps.”

George Orwell (1903-1950)

Eric Arthur Blair was born in India on 25th June, 1903. His parents then returned to England. Young Eric had a delightful childhood until he was sent away to school at the age of eight. He discovered a world of bullies where one was judged (amongst other things) by where one lived, where one went on vacation and most importantly which school one attended. The clever little Eric was admitted to St. Cyprian’s, but it was all too clear that he didn’t belong, and life became hell. He did well enough to later be admitted to Eton which would serve as an entrance to an Oxbridge eduction. However, he decided to opt out of pursuing a university degree. “The bullies at St. Cyprian’s had taught him that even with an Oxford degree he could never succeed in life.” He chose to opt out of the class system where “Virtue consisted in winning: it consisted in being bigger, stronger, handsomer, richer, more popular, more elegant, more unscrupulous than other people—in dominating them, bullying them.” It was already in these early years that his political thought took shape.

Instead he became a policeman and accepted a posting in Burma, but he found it stifling: “The same people, the same drinks, the same jokes, the same games at the same club every night. He would rather sit in bed under his mosquito netting and read the latest books from England.” Later he lived in absolute squalor in Paris (as described in Down and Out in Paris and London). Apparently he was addressed as “Sir” even when he lived as a tramp, as his Etonian education had left its mark on his speech. He had started writing, but destroyed one manuscript after it was rejected, and rewrote another. As far as marriage was concerned, “For him, an eligible woman was someone highly intelligent, well educated, good-looking, and sympathetic to his political views.” He married Eileen O’Shaughnessy in 1936. She died in 1945, and shortly before his own death he married Sonia Brownell in 1949.

Evelyn Waugh (1903-1966)

Evelyn Arthur St. John Waugh was born in London on the 28th October, 1903. Waugh attended a different school to Blair, but whereas Eric Blair was the bullied, Waugh was a bully at his school. He never forgot nor relented when he was thwarted, and could be unbelievably mean. Later in life “Waugh was a subtle and creative bully. He knew instinctively and with enormous skill exactly how to drive other people mad. His favorite weapon, the deadliest in his arsenal, was to concoct a story that clearly was not true and then to stick to that story tenaciously, regardless of the facts or expositions of others, to the point where each repetition of this chimera, like the Chinese water torture, caused increased agony to his wildly frustrated audience.”

Waugh did go on to Oxford, but did not complete his degree. Oxford meant a time to party and make social connections, pretty much like that of his characters in Brideshead Revisited. He was seen as a great wit and a source of entertainment and unpredictability. He imbibed - a lot - and continued to do so.

Waugh’s first job was to teach classics in Wales, far away from the social life he loved. So back to London to a new job (which he lost due to being inebriated), and back to social climbing where he started seriously looking for a suitable bride, i.e. someone near or at the top of the social ladder. He soon found her: Evelyn Gardner (known as she-Evelyn). She was part of the so-called Bright Young People set about which he wrote in Vile Bodies. The novel was a tremendous success. However, the marriage didn’t last, but Waugh managed to find someone with even better connections. He married Laura Herbert in 1937. At a young age he had found both fame and fortune… and also converted to Catholicism.

###
It is not my intention to provide full biographical sketches of these two men - for that you can read this book. My intention is simply to give you an inkling of how different Waugh and Orwell were to each other. There were many other differences: Orwell was an atheist, Waugh was a devout Catholic. Even their war experiences were quite different. Orwell and his wife were active in the Spanish Civil War and eventually fled Spain by the skin of their teeth (Orwell still giving assistance to others as they fled). They were members of POUM (the Workers’ Party of Marxist Unification - left-wing but anti-Stalin) which had been declared illegal, and their names were on a hit-list. During WWII Orwell was a member of the Home Guard which was voluntary, part-time and unpaid. Waugh, on the other hand, “was given a commission as second lieutenant in the Royal Marines”, one of his sponsors being Winston Churchill (at that time First Lord of the Admiralty). But these are the major differences according to Mr. Lebedoff: “This was the great fundamental difference between the two men: One was concerned entirely with this world and the other with the next.” “They were two highly moral men confronting evil in their world. They differed on what to do about it. It was to be or not to be. Orwell chose to be—to take action here and now. Waugh chose not to be in this life other than to live morally enough to be welcomed in the next.”

So what is it that makes them the “same”? “What they had most in common was a hatred of moral relativism. They both believed that morality is absolute, though they defined and applied it differently. But each believed with all his heart, brain, and soul that there were such things as moral right and moral wrong, and that these were not subject to changes in fashion. Moral relativism was, in fact, the gravest of sins. Everything else they believed in common flowed from this basic perception.” Both men feared the future and saw the present as a mere preface to what was to come. Both believed in individual freedom and freedom of speech. “Orwell came to see political correctness not as a nuisance but a danger, the substitute for law and morality in an increasingly permissive society.” “Orwell and Waugh defended not only the right but the willingness to say unpopular things.” Language mattered to them. In 1984 the dictionary’s vocabulary is pared; in our own time we have text speak. Limited language is limiting…

Mr Lebedoff explores their lives and their literature to expand his thesis that Orwell and Waugh were different but the same. Having recently read Brideshead Revisited and reread 1984, I found this work very interesting indeed.

[Kristen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Appropriately for a book about Orwell and Waugh, The Same Man is funny, snappy, clear, and full of interesting ideas. Lebedoff's premise is that Orwell and Waugh, born in the same year, opposites in so many ways, were united in their ability to speak unpopular opinions and their deep concern about the future of Western society.

The book starts off with mainly with biography. Waugh and Orwell are both "lower upper middle class" (as I believe Orwell but it) and struggled to be accepted by those just above them on the social ladder. Orwell, bullied in his elite prep schools, turned against the class system entirely. Waugh, always lagging behind his Oxford peers, embraced it, relentlessly climbing the social ladder through literary success. But in the end, neither one can fully escape class. Waugh is always seen as an upstart, and Orwell is miffed when he tries to live as a tramp, and the other tramps call him "sir."

There are some funny stories, particularly, about Waugh, that also show off Lebedoff's capacity for humor. One of the best ones is about Waugh serving in Croatia in WWII with Winston Churchill's obnoxious son Randolph (even more obnoxious than Waugh, apparently). As a way to keep him quiet, Waugh and another guy bet him 100 pounds he can't read the whole Bible.

As it turned out, Randolph as less absorbed by the Bible than stimulated by it. They had counted neither on his capacity for amazement nor on the astonishing fact that he was reading this work for the first time. This was all new to him—and each battle, sin, or exodus opened a spigot of excited commentary.

As for Waugh and Orwell being "the same man," Lebedoff's premise centers around the fact that both were equally critical of Hitler and Stalin at a time when many of the upper class were supporting Hitler and the intellectuals supporting Stalin. This translated into a general hatred for authoritarianism more broadly, and a concern that the old ruling classes would simply be swapped for new ones—whether they be products of communism, fascism, or the the new meritocracy that was springing up at the time. I don't think the future has turned out as badly as either of them imagined, but there is something to the the idea that "Whichever class overthrew the upper class would become a new upper class itself, keeping everyone else in subservience."

On the whole, Lebedoff makes a pretty solid case for his thesis, though there are certainly points I could quibble with. But he deserves praise regardless for writing such an interesting and enjoyable book about a fairly esoteric topic.

[Craig · Rating 4 out of 5]

Let me say that the best way to appreciate Evelyn Waugh and George Orwell is to read them, and to not bother with biographies or criticism until you've done so. You don't need to read a biography of Eric Blair to understand or appreciate "Homage to Catalonia" for example.

And reading a biography of Waugh prior to reading books like "Decline and Fall" or "A Handful of Dust" could positively distract from the sense of wonder one gets from tackling them in ignorance. Waugh (and probably Orwell) had a rich and complicated inner life which manifested itself in often peculiar ways. Not to put to fine a point on it, Waugh could be an obnoxious little shit.(I think it was Daphne Dumaurier who said something like 'novelists should be read and neither seen nor heard.' Evelyn Arthur St. John Waugh was the poster child for that sentiment.) I've read just about everything Waugh wrote for publication, and I was able to work that out on my own. Pick up any Waugh novel and read it. If you like it, read the rest. Then read the biographies and criticism. Then read Waugh again.

Which brings me at last to Lebedoff's book. I liked it a lot. If you must read a biography of Waugh or Orwell this isn't a bad place to start. It's engaging and well written--the chapter about Randolph Churchill and Evelyn Waugh cooped up together in a house in Croatia is a hoot.

But I don't really buy his premise that Orwell and Waugh were the same man. A bit of a stretch that. What I think can be said, and which Lebedoff does effectively say, is that they shared certain misgivings about the future, that things were bad and bound to get worse. They each recognized the genius of the other. They certainly respected and probably genuinely liked one another. And that's enough.

[James · Rating 3 out of 5]

As I scanned through the shelves of the local libary, this book stood out to me. I picked it up, brought it home, and read it, as any jackass can assume. 'The Same Man' is a biography of Orwell and Waugh, two of the great literary laureates born during the Edwardian generation, as they through existence. Lebedoff shows the intense contrasts in their lives and character, but he ultimatly shows that they had a shared intellectual anxiety and contempt for hedonism, materialism, and the like, and how the world was progressing towards this souless fate. He is a great craftsman in the the way he leads up to this; Lebedoff carefully plans out his works and has admirable prose. George and Evelyn are accuratly painted as two of the most interesting members of a pecuiliar speices called people, much to my pleasure. 'The Same Man' is an all-around pleasure and abounds with fascinating, interesting insights, and and a general appeal.
However there's one thing Mr. Lededoff missed, a shared contempt for the state, future, ect. of the world that occurs in English writers of that time period. T.S. Eliot poetry focuses on the emptiness of modern life, and Aldous Huxley had the same concerns as the dual subjects of this non-fiction piece, as was actually pointed out by Lededoff. Although they weren't born during the Edwardian Era, both men were old enough to be the brother of Orwell and Waugh and lived, at some point, in Ol' Albion. Perhaps a better example is our friend Graham Greene. His work focuses on the moral ambivalence of the world; he was also a year younger then the names you'll see in the subtitle above. The 'Nancy Poets', were deeply intwined with their time.
Fuck... this is a huge-ass stretch but look at all of the writers who hail from the same stint of time as the Lededoff's subjects. D.H. Lawerence, Henry Miller, Louis-Ferdinad Celine, Raymond Chandler, and Scott Fitgerald all wrote about the touble condition of their era in an electic way. Orwell and Waugh may have been very similar in their vision of life, but most writers at the time had spectacles of the same sort.
Hence, the verdict is 3 out of 5 stars.

[Patrick McCoy · Rating 5 out of 5]

The fact that two of my favorite modern English writers are George Orwell and Evelyn Waugh (along with Graham Greene) led me to David Lebedoff's book, The Same Man: George Orwell & Evelyn Waugh in Love and War (2008). It isn't a true biography (it isn't thorough enough for that), but Lebedoff does an excellent of drawing parallel portraits of two of my favorite authors. Throughout the book the author follows each man's progress through life as writers and in their private lives, while addressing certain aspects of their reputation that may not be fully warranted, but also pointing out the personal faults of both men. I am sorry to say I learned much that was disagreeable about both men. But was also fascinated about how they came from similar backgrounds at the same age and were both largely inspired by the British class system. Orwell rejected it and went his own way-the hard way, while Waugh embraced it and climbed the social ladder to get the position of privileged that he sought. But the author points out:

They saw an end to common sense and common purpose. they saw the futility of life without roots or faith. They saw the emptiness of an existence whose only point was material consumption. And in their greatest work of their lives, which was to warn us of what was to come, they came to be, improbably enough, in many ways the same man.

It was interesting to see that the men only met late in Orwells' short life. And it turns out that Orwell was planning on writing an appreciation of Waugh's work when he fell ill and eventually succumbed to tuberculosis in 1950 at age 46. Lebedoff pulls his theory together in the Epilogue and adds sums it up by saying: "Evelyn Waugh rowed against the tide as steadfastly as did George Orwell, and in their wake is our path. "The book also has some interesting material for further investigations into the two great writer's lives in the Appendixes, Works, Bibliography and Notes.

[Tara · Rating 1 out of 5]

It was pleasant enough to read, and I acknowledge the premise is interesting. I applaud his attempt to throw out a bold hypothesis. He did, though, succeed in lessening my opinion of both men, which I'm sure he did not intend. His statement that the two men are the best writers of the English language...ever.. was absurd, and I disagree intensely with him. Finally, I suspect Mr. Lebedoff and I share vastly different values and outlooks, so his thinly-veiled adoration of the wealthy aristocrats came across as mere snobbishness to me. Much of his analysis seemed an attempt to justify his own worldview; an impoverished thinking process.

[Mark Glidden · Rating 3 out of 5]

A fine at-a-glance look at the lives of two of the greatest authors of the 20th century, and how their very different characters somehow coincided to a very similar worldview. The book would have benefitted by being a bit more padded out, particularly when discussing the later years of Evelyn Waugh instead of ending the biographical section in 1950 with the death of Orwell. Another aspect which could have been improved upon was HOW exactly these two luminaries came to have almost exactly the same worldview, particularly in the final chapter, as well as offering more samples from their respective works to back these up.
All in all, the book is a good read and well worth picking up.

[Self · Rating 3 out of 5]

I admit I skipped some of this book as it was dense at times. I did learn more about history and politics than I would have imagined even wanting to learn.
Interesting men, George (eric blair) seemed fascinating and I want to read his essays now that I know how thoughtful he was about so many varied subjects. Evelyn...sorry bud I have no desire to read your drivel.

[Barbara · Rating 5 out of 5]

I truly enjoyed this slim dual biography, though the parts about Orwell’s life and ideas shone brightest for me. The last chapter, which sums up the similarities between the two British authors, can be read and enjoyed on its own. Both men decried what they thought the future held: perversion of language and moral relativism.

[Anna Alexander · Rating 3 out of 5]

I appreciated this book in that I learned a lot about both men. That being said, the author had a good idea but couldn't follow through. It fell apart in the middle and I cared more about Orwell then I did about Waugh. I just need to read more Waugh. :)

[Veronique · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a bit inconvincing in the way of arguments, but depicted 2 of the most influential 20C British writerss and made me want to read more of their books and learn more about them. Very interesting.

[Ed · Rating 5 out of 5]

Really interesting take on two politically contrasting authors!

[Justin Griffiths-Bell · Rating 4 out of 5]

A plodding sort of biography, and I'm not altogether sure there is any other sort, rescued and made brilliant by a scintillating final essay.

[Margaret · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was so well written. I didn't even know I was interested in the subject but he drew me in.

[Simon · Rating 2 out of 5]

3 stars for the comparative biography, 1 star for that final chapter.

As a comparative biography of Eric Blair and Evelyn Waugh, Lebedoff's book is pretty fascinating and entertaining, but couldn't be said to be authoritative on either author. When Lebedoff lapses into literary review, his efforts become mediocre. And when in the final chapter he makes the ultimate leap to cement his over-arching argument, his prose falls apart. His politico-cultural critique is both unoriginal to the point of staleness and eye-rolling, not just because it was written a little over a decade ago. Though it's also shocking how dated something written so recently can sound - only highlighted by the enduring prescience of the writers he idolizes. If he could have just kept himself to a comparative biography of Orwell and Waugh, this would have been a pretty good book - not the last word on these authors, but an interesting spin on interpreting them - instead of one which left me with a bad taste in my mouth.

[Donn Headley · Rating 4 out of 5]

Most previous Goodreads reviewers are accurate. The title is highly misleading, but "Similar Men" neither has the same ring to it, nor would it be likely to sell as many books. So ignore the "same man" thesis. Lebedoff's strength lies mainly in the discussion (in the last chapters) of the moral compass of the two men, as each allowed that compass to guide their writings, albeit in radically different ways. This author also provides many useful services: insights into why the men wrote, how each practiced their craft (again, not the same), and their legacy. He is correct to remind us that Orwell's essays are every bit as important as his novels and that Waugh has been deliberately misunderstood by recent generations exactly because his satire was so scathing. But the previous reviewers are also correct: one should read each man's writings before reading this book.

[Laura Leilani · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was amazing. At first I was dubious that Orwell and Waugh could be compared and contrasted in any meaningful way. They were such different people. I won’t spoil the book by explaining how, but the author manages to pull it off in spades.

The first three fourths of the book focuses on marvelous biographies of the two gentlemen.

The last fourth discusses our current political, social and cultural crisis and relates it back to what Orwell, Huxley and others saw coming. In some ways it’s almost a playbook.

[James E. Panyard · Rating 5 out of 5]

A masterwork for fans of Orwell and/or Waugh

This is an extremely well written and analyzed interpretation of why a man of the left (Orwell) and a man of the right (Waugh) foresaw the same fate for Western Civilization. It is a combination of a dual biography along with what made these men tick. Even the assumptions are based on strong logic and fact. A truly absorbing book.

[Emerald · Rating 4 out of 5]

The author was being as strongly opinionated as the two writers he's written about in the last chapter. Other than that, brilliantly researched, structured and written, enormously witty and funny.

[James Henderson · Rating 2 out of 5]

Lebedoff takes the reader on a well researched, quick but sufficient journey through the lives and ideas of his two subjects, and in its biographical endeavors, the book succeeds admirably. However, Lebedoff's analysis lacks depth. The last chapter contains a list of comparisons between the two. The greatest enemy they saw was, as Waugh put it, "the Modern Age in arms." They hated totalitarianism with a passion but saw that even if totalitarianism was defeated, civilization as they knew it would remain in danger. Lebedoff writes: "What both believed—their core, who they were—was that individual freedom mattered more than anything else on earth and reliance on tradition was the best way to maintain it." But reliance on tradition and a belief in objective reality and objective truth was in decline. They also shared a trust in the common sense of the common man against the condescension of an upper-middle class. He ends his catalogue of ideological similarities: "It was in the freedom and courage to choose one's own life that Orwell and Waugh were most nearly the same". That their lives were deliberately chosen is the most valuable legacy that both offer to us now, in our own so-busy time."biographical endeavors, the book succeeds admirably.
Both writers saw the need for man to believe in a moral code, but Orwell thought he could have morality without religion . He wrote to Waugh that he liked Brideshead except for "hideous faults on the surface," one of these being the book's Catholic themes. But Waugh did not believe that morality would last without faith. For him, the days of spending Christianity's cultural and moral capital without embracing its creeds were coming to a swift end.
David Lebedoff's The Same Man is strongest when it tells the story of Waugh's and Orwell's lives, and useful when it shows the similarity of their critiques of modern society. Though exactly opposite in their beliefs about the root of the matter—Orwell chose this world, Waugh the next—the two men respected one another highly, perhaps in part because of their striking similarities. Both had willed themselves into being as writers and had consciously constructed personas. Orwell was the socialist proletarian whose Etonian accent and manner always gave him away, and Waugh was the country squire, whom few would ever mistake for a real aristocrat. Lebedoff’s project in his book is to explore this seeming paradox: Despite standing in the starkest opposition to each other in some respects, Evelyn Waugh and George Orwell were in other respects the same man.

[Emilia P · Rating 3 out of 5]

If you wanted an explanation of my relationship with one Errol P., I could basically hand you this book and ask you who was who. I am the cute chubby one, is the answer. But seriously, the basic idea of this book, that Orwell and Waugh both celebrated rootedness and tradition for the soul it gave to their people, had a strong sense of and respect for, moral objectivity, and loathed and feared the coming ruling meritocracy (oh hey, my generation) which was just the inescapable class system in new, and even snoobbier, clothes. It is a great idea, and a great comparison and it was lovely and powerful to read.

Unfortunately he doesn't really get to that to the end of the book. The only reason I've giving this book only 3http://www.goodreads.com/review/edit/... stars is because, um, it wasn't academic enough. The first 7 chapters or so just alternated what felt like a simplified, slight rosefied biography of each of them, pushed together a little too much to fit the comparative format. Nonetheless, I learned a fair amount about each of them, and it made me want to learn more, and to go back and read or re-read some of each of their work...Brideshead of course, maybe Burma Days + Wigan Pier. And of course the long unfinished Sword of Honour trilogy.

Now why is this my relationship with Errol P.? Well, for one, I love Waugh and he loves Orwell. Secondly, Waugh is a great big stern cynical but loving pompous hypocrite who knows the world is crazy and resigns himself to it without accepting it. Such a thing I aspire to. Orwell (or Blair) sees the craziness of said world and hopes to fix it with a real and rigid moral code, and in following that himself, he wears himself out pretty quick. It's the story of two men who love people and The People very much but hate society and the way it destroys their souls.

Of course, the acuteness of their disdain for the others spiritual values is amazing -- to quote the book "Orwell thought Waugh was about as good as a novelist could be while holding “untenable” beliefs. “One cannot really be Catholic & grown up,” he wrote."... While Waugh was critical (as was I, a bit, when reading 1984), of the fact that Winston's "revolt should simply be fucking in the style of Lady Chatterley -- finding reality through a sort of mystical union with the Proles in the sexual act."

Both are totally right, and totally insufferable jerks, and it is awesome. Hooray.

[Stephen Hero · Rating 5 out of 5]

Here's the first two paragraphs of a John G. Rodwan Jr. review:

Coincidences can give a fleeting sense of meaningful connections between events or people, but such superficialities do not necessarily offer evidence of anything more than that. It can be no coincidence that David Lebedoff, who aims to show that the socialist atheist George Orwell and the social-striver Catholic Evelyn Waugh had so much in common with each other that their obvious differences fade into nothingness, resorts to something less than forthrightness in order to keep himself from looking silly. He fails. The Same Man: George Orwell & Evelyn Waugh in Love and War amounts to no more than an ill-conceived and embarrassingly executed oddity.

The problems with the double biography can be grouped into three overlapping areas: (1) a faulty premise; (2) an inability to articulate a coherent case to support it; and (3) terrible writing. The third weakness contributes cripplingly to the first two. Lebedoff's consistent inattention to the meaning of the words he chooses gives the impression that he has some vague sense of what he wants to say but lacks the wherewithal to do much more than fawn over two celebrated, but very different, writers. Given that he believes of Orwell and Waugh that "no one wrote better in the twentieth century, or ever," the irony is a sad one.


If you enjoyed these first two paragraphs here's some more John G. Rodwan Jr. that you might be interested in:


Seger Unsettled: Midwest Rock icon Bob Seger's former tour manager gives us a behind the scenes look at old time rock & roll; John G. Rodwan, Jr. turns the page.

Late to the Movies: Movies notoriously fail when they try to depict interiority. So why not just restrict ourselves to books? For a million reasons and more.

"'A Drink-Man Among Drink-Men: "Write while I'm sober?" legendary pint-puller Brendan Behan once growled, "What arse would want to read that?" His opinion has been shared by literary men through the ages, but perhaps none with more fidelity than Kingsley Amis; John G. Rodwan, Jr. bellies up to the bar and spends time with some of the 20th century’s most tippling typers.

[Anna · Rating 4 out of 5]

I don’t read a lot of biography, especially of writers; something about knowing too much about an author can leach the genius right out of his work. But David Lebedoff sucked me right in with his gutsy premise—that George Orwell and Evelyn Waugh, two men with lives nearly opposite to each other, shared a vision of their time and ours that made them two sides of the same coin.
Both men were born in 1903, to roughly equivalent levels in the complex British class system of the early 20th century, for while Waugh’s family had more money, his father, being a publisher, was “in trade,” while Orwell’s held a more gentlemanly position in the civil service, as an opium agent in the government of the Raj in India. Both spent time at public school, where Orwell was bullied and Waugh a bully. While Waugh enjoyed the idyllic debauchery of Oxford (a time he would later document lyrically in “Brideshead Revisited”), Orwell skipped college to become a Burmese imperial policeman. Waugh was a social climber; Orwell hung out with tramps. The former was an apolitical Tory, the latter an impassioned socialist. Their literary lives, too, were totally different: while Waugh enjoyed early and sustained celebrity, Orwell struggled even to publish. “Animal Farm” went through several publishers before it found a home, as both Left and Right in England were wary of publishing such a virulently anti-Stalin manuscript in delicate postwar times. Despite all this, the two respected each other, exchanging letters and novels though only meeting once, while Orwell was dying of tuberculosis.
Lebedoff makes a good case that Orwell and Waugh had in common a horror of modernity, a fear that totalitarianism, while it had to be overthrown, could only be overthrown by abandoning much of what made life worthwhile: common sense, common purpose, faith. They saw the triumph of materialism and the rise of a cliqueish intellectualism that, instead of looking down on the poor, dismisses people for “pedestrian” beliefs. Their solutions to these imminent nightmares were as far apart as anarchy from order, rebellion from orthodoxy: but through their literary gifts, both left not only warnings for the future but a record of what they found in the past worth keeping.

[Ronnie · Rating 5 out of 5]

I first saw this book on Martha's Vineyard.....I decided to wait until we got home to Leominster and buy it at B&N..Malheursement....il ya va na pas de ce livre.....Mais A BIG SHOUT OUT TO THE LEOMINSTER PUBLIC LIBRARY...they had it ....so I took it out....This book...about these two authors which I have was introduced to when I was in Army are two of the most different writers.....yet they were much alike.. they abhorred totalitarianism..... from both sides of right and left.......fascism and Nazism....Hitler....Stalin...Lenin....I read these guys when I was but 19 years old....in the military and trying to figure and make sense of the political chaos that surrounded me....Reading Orwell..Waugh..Russell..Lippmann
was for me like deciphering the scrambled mess that was part of my life. These writers formed the basis of the rest of my life.
'twas an awakening that was not blissful nor was it painless...I was forced to reevaluate everything that had been part of my life....develop an understanding or an attempt to somehow have a better grasp of moments and events occurring. In the book the Lebedoff writes that American soldiers of WWII loved George and sought out his writings....I can also write that American soldiers of Vietnam time also loved him because of his writings...especially the part where he wrote " why are nineteen year olders more expandable that older men" I distinctly remember being called " cannon fodder" not by angry protesting civilians but by my own Sergeant who were training at Folk Polk...Fort Rucker..and Fort Sam Houston......at Fort Bragg....where I was finally stationed we were always admonished that we would be " straightened out once somebody decided to get things right!" The beginnings of my antiwar sentiments were sparked by distinctly foolish military personnel
that I had the unfortunate chance of meeting . The oxymoron Military Intelligence was seen....magnified and felt daily....Anyway.....please read this book.....It is an adventure with loads of anecdotes that are not only laugh out funny...and sometime despairingly sad... One last quote....from Lebedoff ....."Bullies tend to grow up conservatives......those that have been bullied grow up to be Liberals...., Please .....read this book....RJH

[Michelle · Rating 3 out of 5]

I can't review this book without first addressing the title. It is inane: Orwell and Waugh were not the same man. What Lebedoff is trying to say is that their world views were more similar than anyone thinks. But this is not what the title says, and I take issue with such misleading word use. Making a case for similarities between the world views of Orwell and Waugh would have been a hard enough task without a title that implies that startling new discoveries have brought forth evidence that the two disparate authors were in fact the same person. And that's not even mentioning the horrible cadence of the title, the words just not fitting together no matter how many ways you say it.

(On the other hand, it did intrigue me, and I read the book with a tiny hope that Lebedoff had a dark horse that he was going to pull out and wow me with, suddenly adequately explaining the title. He did not.)

But on to the book itself. With a title like that, I expected mediocre writing at best, but Lebedoff tells a nicely organized and engaging story. He paints a fair picture of both authors, and their stories make a nice contrast. They were born in the same year, 1903, and they came from the same social class--lower upper middle, Lebedoff calls it. From there, though, their stories diverge. Orwell had a traumatizing experience at boarding school, where he was ridiculed by the wealthier students. Waugh, older at the time and more socially adept, was the one traumatizing other students.

Orwell comes across as a bit of loser, and Waugh as a bit of a cad. Lebedoff is fair to both, however, and I came out with a respect for Orwell's sense of fairness and honesty and an appreciation for Waugh's determination to get what he wanted.

Unfortunately the last chapter is spent trying feebly to prove the thesis. So both Orwell and Waugh thought the hedonistic modern world lacked the meaning humanity needs for happiness. That doesn't come anywhere close to making them the same man. Had Lebedoff not chosen to include this weak premise, this would have been a more respectable book; as it is, it's still an interesting read.

[Paul · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoy dual biographies. Las year I read one on Twain and Grant and their relationship at the ends of their lives.
Blair (Orwell)and Waugh were born within months of each other. Class structure in England meant everything before the wars. Blair tried to erase his but as soon as he opened his mouth, people knew he was from the educated class. Waugh began climbing up the social ladder almost from birth.

The author tried too hard to make these two major writers of the 20th century "The Same Man" at times but they were similar. The concluding chapter is really an essay that sums up some of their similarities. Both despised the class system of their times,both saw Musollini and Hitler and later Stalin for the fiends and totalitarian monsters that they were. Both men were formed by war. The Spanish Civil War Blair enlisted in, Waugh was assigned overseas during WWII, but Blair, due to health (tuburculosis) was assinged to the Home Guard along with the too young and too old. Each author wrote masterpieces, Brideshead Revisited and Animal Farm and 1984 remain in the Western canon.

Both authors knew the power of words, most effectively used in the future world of 1984. The writer points out that Huxley's Brave New World still startles only because the cautionary tale of 1984 pointed out so much that could go wrong with the future that much of it was avoided, like the totalitarian states of Germany and the USSR.

[Jukka]

The Same Man - David Lebedoff (local author)
Just another comparative biography!
This book is both biography and comparison between the writing of Waugh and Orwell, showing their significance to our world and lives today. Largely i agree with his ideas. With the biographies for whatever reason i found Blair's story more compelling.
If you're in a hurry just read the last chapter, though i enjoyed the whole book. Some of the ideas in the last chapter are also explored in another of Lebedoff's books The Uncivil War if you seek a different treatment.
For our Huxley Brave New World discussion the last chapter also has specifc material that will enhance both your read and our discussion. One thing he says (in paraphrase), "1984 - Better novel, Brave New World - Better prophecy." I agree. BNW is still a great novel and i'm glad we chose it.

For another odd-ball comparative biography see my review of For Your Eyes Only.

[Errol · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this immediately following Brideshead Revisited, and was mostly grateful for the deeper insight into Evelyn Waugh's world and philosophy. It led me (I think) to a better understanding of BR and what he was trying to say.

There was also some new insight, along with old favorite stories, concering my number one literary crush George Orwell. The book is about the times in which the two authors lived and wrote, and the similarities in how the two viewed society and morality. While they are indeed not THE SAME MAN, there is a lot in common, and this book is great for taking a step back and thinking about how one views their own world. Recommended for fans of either author or both (but probably you should be familar with their major works before starting).

[Brent Wilson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Short dual biography of two British writers of the 30s and 40s, one a likable progressive and the other less likable social climber, Catholic convert after other options are exhausted. The author Lebedoff shows how both responded to the British class system in different ways, yet saw the corruption and emptiness at its core.
My sympathies go more toward Orwell's political and this-worldly engagement, whereas I sense the author's deep mistrust of current progressive thought. The book has prompted reflection about how to get past the current ideological divide and respond in a fresh way to current thinking. Orwell was famous for seeing Fascism and Stalinism as two side of the same totalitarian coin. I'd like to know how to respond to both Left and Right now, in a similar way.

[Sarah · Rating 4 out of 5]

I wasn't crazy about the last section that strayed (for reasons of which I'm only dimly aware) into the dangers of political correctness and meritocracy and email(??). But aside from that, this is a perfect example of the kind of biography that I want to read and am constantly on the lookout for; vibrant, lively and ultra-readable, with a focus on fabulous writing and storytelling rather than on giving every last detail of a life, no matter how uninteresting that detail. Bonus points for avoiding the turgid, bloated quality that plagues so many biographies, and it doesn't hurt that Waugh and Orwell are such naturally interesting subjects to begin with.