On January 6, 1969, The Times published a copy of Eliot's rejection letter, provided to them by Eliot's widow. Critics still aren't sure how to interpret Eliot's words.
The letter opened with some words of praise:
We (the publisher's board of directors) agree that it is a distinguished piece of writing; that the fable is skillfully handled, and that the narrative keeps one's interest....
Then comes the rejection:
On the other hand, we have no conviction...that this is the right point of view from which to criticise the political situation at this time....
Now I think my own dissatisfaction with this apologue is that the effect is simply one of negation. It ought to excite some sympathy with what the author wants, as well as sympathy with his objections to something....
I am very sorry, because whoever publishes this, will naturally have the opportunity of publishing your future work; and I have a regard for your work, because it is good writing of fundamental quality.
The question still remains as to whether Eliot really disliked Orwell's book or was simply facing political realities as he understood them. These days, hardly a week goes by when some political pundit doesn't cite either Animal Farm or 1984 (also by Orwell) as a significant literary and political work. In the long run, it has turned out that, even though Eliot's talent continues to be heralded in English literature classes, it is Orwell's political vision that continues to play a cautionary role in contemporary politics. If Eliot could reconsider the decision he made so many years ago, would he do it the same way twice?
