George Orwell’s Breakthrough in America: Dickens, Dali and Others

Eighty years ago, George Orwell made his first impact on American letters, interestingly enough, not with his bombshell attack on the Russian Revolution, Animal Farm, but with a small collection of his essays, Dickens, Dali and Others, which appeared in April 1946 to positive reviews. Edmund Wilson, doyen of American reviewers, gave the volume a boost in The New Yorker, calling Orwell a master of sociological criticism, while complimenting him on “a readiness to think for himself” and for “a prose style that is both downright and disciplined.” (RELATED: Is Orwell Heading to the Memory Hole?)

Orwell’s collection of essays was reviewed by the leading journals of opinion, an indication that the success of Animal Farm in England had spread his reputation in America. The reviews were overwhelmingly positive. The Atlantic praised Orwell’s skill in analyzing the role of popular culture, calling him a literary detective. Diana Trilling in Nation also admired Orwell’s approach to popular culture as “something fresh and new.” (Nation would not be so admiring of Animal Farm and Orwell’s skewering of the Russian Revolution when it appeared four months later.) Commonweal’s reviewer, Charles Brady, praised the essays and pointed out that Orwell was someone Catholics should admire.

Until the appearance of this small collection of essays and the massive follow-up success of Animal Farm four months later, Orwell had little following in America. Two of his early novels, Burmese Days and A Clergyman’s Daughter, had received positive notice in the Catholic intellectual journal, Commonweal, which also was among the first to recognize the importance of the Dickens, Dali volume.

Orwell’s first significant appearance in America came early in World War II, when the left-wing journal Partisan Review negotiated a deal with him for periodic reports on the war’s impact in Britain. Fifteen of these “London Letters” appeared between 1941 and 1946 and were typical of Orwell — insightful, sometimes wrong-headed about the course of the war, but always interesting and opinionated. Orwell also formed a friendship with a former Partisan Review stalwart, the critic Dwight Macdonald, and even contributed cultural pieces to his idiosyncratic journal, Politics. Although disagreeing with Macdonald’s pacifist views regarding the war, the two men shared a sharply negative opinion of Communism.

Despite the success of Animal Farm (which sold half a million copies in the United States and made Orwell rich for the first time) and even more so, Nineteen Eighty-Four, I believe a case can be made for the significance of his mastery of the essay form. Quite simply, he was the greatest essayist of the 20th century, something first recognized in America. What made Orwell a success at the essay form was his skill as a literary critic as well as his insight into what we would call popular culture.

The Dickens, Dali volume was the first attempt to study popular cultural themes, seemingly frivolous examples of art and literature, and what they tell us about contemporary society. No one had attempted that before, and the format was one that suited Orwell’s plain literary style, one that was clear, concise, and could be appreciated by the general reader as well as the scholar. The concept can be found in both scholarly and popular journals today.

There were 10 essays in the volume that discussed serious literary topics such as the significance of his early literary idols, Kipling and especially Charles Dickens as well as distinctive pieces on insignificant topics, an approach that Orwell first developed and which became and remains popular today: the serious essay or analysis of seemingly frivolous literature such as “The Art of Donlad McGill,” dealt with crude, semi-obscene postcard drawings. Orwell argued that they reflected the resilient strength of the English working classes and should be taken seriously. He also found revealing cultural differences between American and English society in the detective story, contrasting the behavior of the English gentleman thief, Raffles, with what he called the American sadism of No Orchids for Miss Blandish.  No one had done this before, and the American literary world was impressed. Time’s critic, James Agee, found Orwell’s prose vigorous and his observation of life “with an eye that is usually more sharp than bloodshot.” While the historian Arthur Schlesinger believed that Orwell’s prose was characterized by “deadly simplicity.”

The main essays in the book are on provocative themes and are developed with flair and originality. The most influential piece deals with one of Orwell’s idols, Charles Dickens. Orwell’s ‘take’ on Dickens as possessing a “free intelligence” and as a man of strong moral sense reflected some of his own strengths as a writer. Orwell described Dickens as honest and, in a phrase that describes himself, as “generously angry” at war with the world’s “smelly little orthodoxies.” He believed that Dickens was a type of 19th-century liberal, a free intelligence not found in the England of his time. The essay influenced by Darwin scholars can still be found in the college canon today.

Orwell found Kipling fascinating, characterizing him as a mix of imperialist and talented writer. He believed that Kipling was “the only English writer of our time who added phrases to the language.” While disapproving of Kipling’s “jingoism,” Orwell admitted that at times his verse reached poetic levels, quoting the lines from “Mandalay”:

For the wind is in the palm-trees and the temple-bells they say;

“Come you back, you British soldier, come you back to Mandalay

It is clear that Orwell is half in love with Kipling despite criticism of his political philosophy. In a comment that has pertinence today, Orwell strongly rejected calling Kipling a fascist, a term that he argued has become entirely meaningless.

The remaining essays in the volume, while always worth a read, are not of the same quality. His take on Salvador Dali opens with an example of Orwell’s provocative way of challenging the reader: “Autobiography is only to be trusted when it reveals something disgraceful. A Man who gives a good account of himself is probably lying.” But Orwell has little of interest to say about Dali.

“In Defense of P.G. Wodehouse” reflects Orwell’s disgust at the persecution of a writer whom he loved as a young man. In the midst of defending Wodehouse — a stance he shared with other conservative authors such as Evelyn Waugh — Orwell makes a serious point that Wodehouse’s best work really reflected the pre-World War I and not the 1920s.

Dickens, Dali and Others introduced America to Orwell as an essayist, but his best essays wouldn’t be seen in America until after his death. In 1952 Anchor Books, trying to reach educated readers with quality paperbacks, published A Collection of Essays which along with reprinting titles from his first volume included some of Orwell’s most important work: “Shooting an Elephant,” “Politics and the English Language,” “Why I Write,” as well as his highly personal piece on his early education, “Such, Such Were the Joys.” This volume was widely reviewed now that Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four had made him famous, and exposed the reading public, including college students who found it in required reading English courses, to Orwell’s unique skill as a writer of provocative essays.

Orwell achieved fame with Animal Farm and especially Nineteen Eighty–Four, but his official biographer, Bernard Crick, believed that his essays “may well constitute his lasting claim to greatness as a writer.” A little strong, but he may have a point.

READ MORE from John P. Rossi:

Churchill as Hero of World War II

Graham Greene’s The End of the Affair: A Reflection

Is Orwell Heading to the Memory Hole?

John P. Rossi is Professor Emeritus of History at La Salle University in Philadelphia.