I find it curious that no one is commenting on the craven, cowardly and intellectually dishonest nature of the rejection itself. "It wouldn't do to publish this." "I'm not sure if that is the thing that needs saying now." "It might upset our Russian friends."
Pick up the complete set of Orwell's essays ($20 or so) and enjoy his masterful flames (yes, he reads stylistically like classic Usenet or the best of modern blogging) where he obliterates the castrated, sniveling, power-worshiping pseudointellectuals of his day.
Nineteen Eighty-Four is not exactly sunshine and roses. It is forgivable to surmise the author would not be a happy camper. I was glad to know Orwell shared some happiness with his tyke in his final years.
(On the other hand, the great spreader of sweetness and light, P.G. Wodehouse, who I also like, seems to have been pretty quiet and unadventurous in person.)
The popular linguistics blog "Language Log" had some interesting commentary on "Politics and the English Language" written in a calmly analytical style (interspersed with some judicious jibes) that I think many YC.HN readers will find rather agreeable:
I think all the things criticized were intentional. It's hard not to think that a writer of Orwell's caliber would say something without meaning exactly what he said. A careful read becomes: "these are good general rules, and in describing them I'll also show you how to break them when appropriate". It would be fitting with Orwell's style in his fiction writing.
I just read that today. It's fantastic. I submitted it thinking there must be some number of people (ducks) who haven't read it. I would have done better to just upvote you.
The U. Adelaide guy has been doing a great job for quite a few years. I confess I hadn't visited recently - they have redecorated (with blog instead of "what's new" page, etc.)
A strong advocate of social reform, he received particular praise as one of the few Parliamentary defenders of the Luddites: specifically, he was against a death penalty for Luddite "frame breakers" in Nottinghamshire, who destroyed textile machines that were putting them out of work. His first speech before the Lords was loaded with sarcastic references to the "benefits" of automation, which he saw as producing inferior material as well as putting people out of work.
Other than the death penalty thing, support of the Luddites seems hardly defensible.
What's your beef with the "Luddites?" Byron was supporting the original Luddites, not the knee-jerk technophobes the term has come to represent.
I don't condone their use of violence, but I don't find it any more morally appalling than a society that is happy to reap the benefits of progress while washing its hands of the very real harm that progress can inflict on a minority of its members, particularly in a society with limited economic and social mobility.
Pick up the complete set of Orwell's essays ($20 or so) and enjoy his masterful flames (yes, he reads stylistically like classic Usenet or the best of modern blogging) where he obliterates the castrated, sniveling, power-worshiping pseudointellectuals of his day.