Orwell: The Life

I can't agree with TS. To me, a life-long Orwell fan, I found the book sympathetic and engaging BECAUSE it wasn't showing the "magesterial' side we are all aware of. Its unconventional way of exploring the subjectivity and unreliability of biography itself recommends the book rather than detracts from it. Needless to say I'm a fan of this book. ( )

To be quite frank, I did not enjoy this book.

Not only did I not like the way it's written, but I didn't like what I was reading either.

Firstly, his research is impeccable, but it was so hard to know who anybody was in this book, he just pops up random characters left and right, and he'll just casually mention cousins and neighbours and you are expected to remember them all.

I think it's because he spent so long researching the stuff that he just has everybody memorized, but for a reader remembering casual friends and stuff like that by last name when they haven't been mentioned for 150 pages is hard.

He also mentions Orwell's father's death as an afterthought.
He has chapters about the most mundane stuff, and he mentions Orwell's father being sick many times.
But then he changes the subject and you are wondering whatever happened to his father.
Then you read another 20 pages and he mentions it while talking about something else.

Furthermore, after reading nearly 500 pages on this man's life, you begin to view the book as written for the purpose of revealing his dark nature.
Orwell's eccentricity and lack of social tact are basically what the book is about.

The back of the book jacket reads, "Taylor's magisterial assessment cuts through Orwell's iconic status to reveal a bitter critic who concealed a profound totalitarian streak and whose progress through the literary world of the 30s and 40s was characterized by the myths he built around himself."

Taylor writes the book to convince us that Orwell was a creepy poor man with an unhappy marriage, a womanizer and pitifully helpless father.
Then you remember the magisterial books that the man produced, and you realize that nothing in this portrayal of the man gives any indication of greatness or of the material he ended up producing.
The sole convincing argument was that 1984 was so gloomy because of the tortuous state the author himself was in when he wrote it.
I would give it 2 stars if I felt that the research was poor, but the author does display his knowledge of Orwell's works several times.
Towards the end he even mentions a few specific scenes and passages from the 1984 that appeared in Orwell's earlier writing. He has clearly pored over the hordes of work Orwell produced.

Pros:

Very well researched.
The photographs included are a great help in visualizing the people in his life.

Cons:

Disjointed, disorganized, haphazard writing. More than once he is making an argument, only to digress and be sidetracked for several pages. Then he continues his argument out of the blue and you are reminded, "Ah, that's what he was talking about."

Seems to write for the purpose of debunking Orwell's mythological status, which would be fine, but it makes for a very poor first read into the man's life.

So, if you are not an Orwell fan, and would like to read a dissertation on the man's darker side, then this book is for you.
However, if you are looking for your first biography on the man who produced utter genius like 1984 and Animal Farm, then I would suggest you start with something else.

B- ( )