
We’ve writÂten recentÂly about that most comÂmon occurÂrence in the life of every artist—the rejecÂtion letÂter. Most rejecÂtions are uncomÂpliÂcatÂed affairs, ostenÂsiÂbly reflectÂing matÂters of taste among ediÂtors, proÂducÂers, and curaÂtors. In 1944, in his capacÂiÂty as an ediÂtoÂrÂiÂal direcÂtor at Faber & Faber, T.S. Eliot wrote a letÂter to George Orwell rejectÂing the latter’s satirÂiÂcal alleÂgoÂry AniÂmal Farm. The letÂter is remarkÂable for its canÂdid admisÂsion of the polÂiÂtics involved in the deciÂsion.
From the very start of the letÂter, Eliot betrays a perÂsonÂal familÂiarÂiÂty with Orwell, in the inforÂmal saluÂtaÂtion “Dear Orwell.” The two were in fact acquaintÂed, and Orwell two years earÂliÂer had pubÂlished a penÂeÂtratÂing review of the first three of Eliot’s Four QuarÂtets, writÂing “I know a respectable quanÂtiÂty of Eliot’s earÂliÂer work by heart. I did not sit down and learn it, it simÂply stuck in my mind as any pasÂsage of verse is liable to do when it has realÂly rung the bell.”
Eliot’s apoloÂgetic rejecÂtion of Orwell’s fable begins with simÂiÂlarÂly high praise for its author, comÂparÂing the book to “GulÂlivÂer” in what may have been to Orwell a flatÂterÂing refÂerÂence to Jonathan Swift. A mutuÂal admiÂraÂtion for each othÂer’s artistry may have been the only thing Eliot and Orwell had in comÂmon. “On the othÂer hand,” begins the secÂond paraÂgraph, and then cites the reaÂsons for Faber & Faber’s passÂing on the novÂel, the prinÂciÂple one being a disÂmissal of Orwell’s “unconÂvincÂing” “TrotÂskyite” views. The rejecÂtion also may have stemmed from someÂthing a litÂtle more craven—the desire to appease a wartime ally. As the EncyÂclopaeÂdia BritÂtanÂiÂca blog puts it:
Eliot, that Tory of Tories, did not want to upset the SoviÂets in those fraught years of World War II. Besides, he opined, the pigs, being the smartest of the critÂters on the farm in quesÂtion, were best qualÂiÂfied to run the place.
The deciÂsion was probÂaÂbly not Eliot’s alone, and Eliot parÂenÂthetÂiÂcalÂly disÂowns the opinÂions perÂsonÂalÂly, writÂing “what was needÂed, (someÂone might argue), was not more comÂmuÂnism but more pubÂlic-spirÂitÂed pigs.” Indeed. The full text of Eliot’s letÂter is below.
13 July 1944
Dear Orwell,
I know that you wantÂed a quick deciÂsion about AniÂmal Farm: but minÂiÂmum is two direcÂtors’ opinÂions, and that can’t be done under a week. But for the imporÂtance of speed, I should have asked the ChairÂman to look at it as well. But the othÂer direcÂtor is in agreeÂment with me on the main points. We agree that it is a disÂtinÂguished piece of writÂing; that the fable is very skilÂfulÂly hanÂdled, and that the narÂraÂtive keeps one’s interÂest on its own plane—and that is someÂthing very few authors have achieved since GulÂlivÂer.
On the othÂer hand, we have no conÂvicÂtion (and I am sure none of othÂer direcÂtors would have) that this is the right point of view from which to critÂiÂcise the politÂiÂcal sitÂuÂaÂtion at the present time. It is cerÂtainÂly the duty of any pubÂlishÂing firm which preÂtends to othÂer interÂests and motives than mere comÂmerÂcial prosÂperÂiÂty, to pubÂlish books which go against curÂrent of the moment: but in each instance that demands that at least one memÂber of the firm should have the conÂvicÂtion that this is the thing that needs sayÂing at the moment. I can’t see any reaÂson of pruÂdence or cauÂtion to preÂvent anyÂbody from pubÂlishÂing this book—if he believed in what it stands for.
Now I think my own disÂsatÂisÂfacÂtion with this apoÂlogue is that the effect is simÂply one of negaÂtion. It ought to excite some symÂpaÂthy with what the author wants, as well as symÂpaÂthy with his objecÂtions to someÂthing: and the posÂiÂtive point of view, which I take to be genÂerÂalÂly TrotÂskyite, is not conÂvincÂing. I think you split your vote, withÂout getÂting any comÂpenÂsatÂing stronger adheÂsion from either party—i.e. those who critÂiÂcise RussÂian tenÂdenÂcies from the point of view of a purÂer comÂmuÂnism, and those who, from a very difÂferÂent point of view, are alarmed about the future of small nations. And after all, your pigs are far more intelÂliÂgent than the othÂer aniÂmals, and thereÂfore the best qualÂiÂfied to run the farm—in fact, there couldn’t have been an AniÂmal Farm at all withÂout them: so that what was needÂed, (someÂone might argue), was not more comÂmuÂnism but more pubÂlic-spirÂitÂed pigs.
I am very sorÂry, because whoÂevÂer pubÂlishÂes this, will natÂuÂralÂly have the opporÂtuÂniÂty of pubÂlishÂing your future work: and I have a regard for your work, because it is good writÂing of funÂdaÂmenÂtal integriÂty.
Miss ShelÂdon will be sendÂing you the script under sepÂaÂrate covÂer.
Yours sinÂcereÂly,
T. S. Eliot
After four rejecÂtions in total, Orwell’s novÂel evenÂtuÂalÂly saw pubÂliÂcaÂtion in 1945. Five years latÂer, a RussÂian Ă©miÂgrĂ© in West GerÂmany, Vladimir Gorachek, pubÂlished a small print run of the novÂel in RussÂian for free disÂtriÂbÂuÂtion to readÂers behind the Iron CurÂtain. And in 1954, the CIA fundÂed the aniÂmatÂed adapÂtaÂtion of AniÂmal Farm by John Halas and Joy BatchÂeÂlor (see the full film here). Yet anothÂer strange twist in the life of a book that could make disÂcernÂing anti-comÂmuÂnists as uncomÂfortÂable as it could the staunchest defendÂers of the SoviÂet sysÂtem. You can find AniÂmal Farm listÂed in our Free Audio Books and Free eBooks colÂlecÂtions.
RelatÂed ConÂtent:
Read RejecÂtion LetÂters Sent to Three Famous Artists: Sylvia Plath, Kurt VonÂnegut & Andy Warhol
Gertrude Stein Gets a Snarky RejecÂtion LetÂter from PubÂlishÂer (1912)
No Women Need Apply: A DisÂheartÂenÂing 1938 RejecÂtion LetÂter from DisÂney AniÂmaÂtion
DownÂload George Orwell’s AniÂmal Farm for Free
Josh Jones is a writer and musiÂcian based in Durham, NC. FolÂlow him at @jdmagness










