useful than I am at present.
I do not know how much notice of resignation I am supposed to give. 2 The Observer have again raised the project of my going to North Africa. This has to be approved by the War Office and may well fall through again, but I mention it in case I should have to leave at shorter notice than would otherwise be the case. I will in any case see to it that the programmes are arranged for some time ahead.
Yours sincerely
Eric Blair
[XV, 2283, pp. 250–1; typewritten]
1 . Rushbrook Williams signed his name over this misspelling of his name, without hyphen and ‘e’; both errors were Orwell’s.
2 . On 29 September, Sir Guy Williams, Overseas Services Establishment Officer, wrote to Orwell, accepting his resignation ‘with much regret’. Whilst recognising that he should normally work his two months’ notice, Sir Guy wrote: ‘if, as you say, you may have to leave at shorter notice, the Corporation would be prepared to allow you to do so’; Orwell’s resignation would take effect from 24 November 1943 ‘unless you inform me that you wish to leave at an earlier date’. On 7 October 1943, Brown wrote to Orwell saying he had heard he would be free at the end of November and he would be glad if he could come over to see him at The Observer to discuss the amount of reviewing and other writing he could do for that paper. He mentioned also that he much appreciated Orwell’s review ‘of Laski’ (of Reflections on the Revolution of Our Time ), 10 October 1943 (XV, 2309, pp. 270–2).
To S. Moos
16 November 1943
10a Mortimer Crescent NW 6
Dear Mr. Moos,
I hope you will forgive my long delay in commenting on and returning the enclosed manuscript, but I have been in poor health in recent weeks, and I am also very busy, as you can perhaps imagine.
I find what you say very interesting, but I have two criticisms of a general nature to make. The first is that I think you are concerned with ‘what’ a little too much to the exclusion of ‘how’. It is comparatively easy to see the evils of modern industrialised society, and it is only one more step beyond that to see the inadequacy of the solutions put forward by Socialists etc. The real trouble begins when one wants to communicate these ideas to a large enough number of people to make some actual change in the trend of society. We certainly have to decide what kind of world we want, but I suggest that the greatest problem before intellectuals now is the conquest of power. You speak of forming a ‘new elite’ (which I think there probably must be, though I am inclined to shrink from the idea). But how to start forming that elite, how one can do such things inside the powerful modern state which is controlled by people whose interest is to prevent any such thing—that is another question. If you have seen anything of the innumerable attempts during the past 20 years to start new political parties, you will know what I mean.
Secondly, I think you overestimate the danger of a ‘Brave New World’— i.e. a completely materialistic vulgar civilisation based on hedonism. I would say that the danger of that kind of thing is past, and that we are in danger of quite a different kind of world, the centralised slave state, ruled over by a small clique who are in effect a new ruling class, though they might be adoptive rather than hereditary. Such a state would not be hedonistic, on the contrary its dynamic would come from some kind of rabid nationalism and leader-worship kept going by literally continuous war, and its average standard of living would probably be low. I don’t expect to see mass unemployment again, except through temporary maladjustments; I believe that we are in much greater danger of forced labour and actual slavery. And at present I see no safeguard against this except (a) the war-weariness and distaste for authoritarianism which may follow the present war, and (b) the survival of democratic values among the intelligentsia.
I
I do not know how much notice of resignation I am supposed to give. 2 The Observer have again raised the project of my going to North Africa. This has to be approved by the War Office and may well fall through again, but I mention it in case I should have to leave at shorter notice than would otherwise be the case. I will in any case see to it that the programmes are arranged for some time ahead.
Yours sincerely
Eric Blair
[XV, 2283, pp. 250–1; typewritten]
1 . Rushbrook Williams signed his name over this misspelling of his name, without hyphen and ‘e’; both errors were Orwell’s.
2 . On 29 September, Sir Guy Williams, Overseas Services Establishment Officer, wrote to Orwell, accepting his resignation ‘with much regret’. Whilst recognising that he should normally work his two months’ notice, Sir Guy wrote: ‘if, as you say, you may have to leave at shorter notice, the Corporation would be prepared to allow you to do so’; Orwell’s resignation would take effect from 24 November 1943 ‘unless you inform me that you wish to leave at an earlier date’. On 7 October 1943, Brown wrote to Orwell saying he had heard he would be free at the end of November and he would be glad if he could come over to see him at The Observer to discuss the amount of reviewing and other writing he could do for that paper. He mentioned also that he much appreciated Orwell’s review ‘of Laski’ (of Reflections on the Revolution of Our Time ), 10 October 1943 (XV, 2309, pp. 270–2).
To S. Moos
16 November 1943
10a Mortimer Crescent NW 6
Dear Mr. Moos,
I hope you will forgive my long delay in commenting on and returning the enclosed manuscript, but I have been in poor health in recent weeks, and I am also very busy, as you can perhaps imagine.
I find what you say very interesting, but I have two criticisms of a general nature to make. The first is that I think you are concerned with ‘what’ a little too much to the exclusion of ‘how’. It is comparatively easy to see the evils of modern industrialised society, and it is only one more step beyond that to see the inadequacy of the solutions put forward by Socialists etc. The real trouble begins when one wants to communicate these ideas to a large enough number of people to make some actual change in the trend of society. We certainly have to decide what kind of world we want, but I suggest that the greatest problem before intellectuals now is the conquest of power. You speak of forming a ‘new elite’ (which I think there probably must be, though I am inclined to shrink from the idea). But how to start forming that elite, how one can do such things inside the powerful modern state which is controlled by people whose interest is to prevent any such thing—that is another question. If you have seen anything of the innumerable attempts during the past 20 years to start new political parties, you will know what I mean.
Secondly, I think you overestimate the danger of a ‘Brave New World’— i.e. a completely materialistic vulgar civilisation based on hedonism. I would say that the danger of that kind of thing is past, and that we are in danger of quite a different kind of world, the centralised slave state, ruled over by a small clique who are in effect a new ruling class, though they might be adoptive rather than hereditary. Such a state would not be hedonistic, on the contrary its dynamic would come from some kind of rabid nationalism and leader-worship kept going by literally continuous war, and its average standard of living would probably be low. I don’t expect to see mass unemployment again, except through temporary maladjustments; I believe that we are in much greater danger of forced labour and actual slavery. And at present I see no safeguard against this except (a) the war-weariness and distaste for authoritarianism which may follow the present war, and (b) the survival of democratic values among the intelligentsia.
I
Similar Books
