ŷ

Ted's Reviews > Homage to Catalonia

Homage to Catalonia by George Orwell
Rate this book
Clear rating

by
7213075
's review

liked it
bookshelves: history-20th-century, socialism-communism, reviews-liked, spain, have

3 ½ stars.

Now, after many false starts �

In my first attempt at reviewing this, I began by saying “This is a first rate source for information � on the Spanish Civil War.� Wrong!!! It really is a very poor source of information on the SCW. Because it is on a very personal level, and is mostly seen from a very limited and narrow point of view, this is really an almost useless book for learning anything historically significant about the war.

So, let’s start over.

Why is this book so famous?

The first reason should be obvious, its author. Orwell is one of my favorite authors, as he is for a great number of readers.

I believe the second reason is this. For many years Homage was one of the only English language, non-academic books available about the Spanish Civil War (with a famous author, no less). This book has been rated by over 17,000 readers here on GR. Among non-fiction books dealing with the war, I would venture that no others have been rated by even one-tenth that many readers.

What’s in the book.

The book is really two “books�. One “book�, the majority of the words, is about Orwell’s personal experiences in the war. A war memoir. The second “book� contains Orwell’s analysis of the machinations of the Soviet Government and the Communist Party during the war, specifically regarding the Spanish situation in that period.

There are two different layouts for the book.

The second of the above “books� was chapters V and XII of Homage to Catalonia as originally published. Orwell had second thoughts about this arrangement, and later suggested that these two chapters be moved to appendices. Some editions of the work have actually done this. Others have kept the original layout. It’s easy enough to tell about the book you read. If it has 14 chapters and no appendices, it’s the original layout; otherwise it will have 12 chapters and the two appendices. (The copy of the book I have is a paperback version of the first U.S. edition, in the original layout. It’s a Harvest Book, published by Harcourt Brace & World, with a copyright date of 1952. It contains an introduction by Lionel Trilling, which has been reprinted in many editions of the book since then.)

The first book - when. The 12 chapters of Orwell’s experiences in Spain take place from late in 1936 to about the middle of 1937. In Volume 1 of The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell, titled An Age Like This 1920-1940, entry 92 is a letter dated 15 December 1936, in which he says that he should be leaving for Spain “in about a week�. Entry 99, dated 8 June 1937, is another letter, written while Orwell was still hospitalized in Barcelona. From the last couple chapters of Homage is would appear that it was probably no more than a couple weeks after this letter that, having been discharged from hospital and met up with his wife, they had made it across the border into France. Entry 100, an article called Spilling the Spanish Beans, was written after he was back in England, and appeared in two installments in New English Weekly on 29 July and 2 September.

The first book, as a war memoir. Frankly, it really isn’t very exciting. Of course it’s well written, but Orwell’s experiences on the front on which he was stationed, in Catalonia, southwest of Barcelona, didn’t really see all that much action. There was enough action for Orwell to receive a bullet wound in the neck, which could easily have killed him, and did put him in hospital for much of the remaining time he was in Spain. The chief interest of this majority of the book is mainly of the “this is what being stationed on a pretty inactive front was like in the mid 1930s in Spain� sort.

We meet few other characters (none of them memorable, for me) in which we can become interested, or who played an important part in Orwell’s own experiences.

The second book. In the second “book� Orwell goes into details of how he came to be connected to the Catalonian Anarchist formation he ended up with, instead of with a Communist formation. (He had had a letter of Introduction from a Communist organization in England, but it had little effect on how he was assigned by the Republican recruiters who were dealing with foreign volunteers.)

Then he tells us of the various contingents of the Republican forces, and the political leanings that they each had. Now here’s the thing. At least as far as I know, Orwell did not speak Spanish. So, first, whatever information he got was either from the few Spaniards he met that may have spoken English, or else second or third hand from non-Spanish English speakers. Then, since he was connected to an Anarchist unit, naturally much, if not most, of this information came from Anarchist-leaning men.

I don’t remember (and I haven’t the book at hand as I write) if Orwell gives any indication that he was familiar with the decades-old animosity that had existed between Communist, socialist, and at least two different flavors of anarchist political movements in Catalonia.

For these reasons, Orwell’s book is little used as a reference for histories of the Spanish Civil war by academics. He just didn’t have that deep a knowledge of what was going on politically on the Republican side, especially as regards the tides of semi-allied eras these groups had gone through, interspersed with longer and very violent periods of conflict between them.

Now I’m not saying that the things he writes in the book are flat wrong, or are useless. But I don’t think they are a dependable source of information. Of some other books I’ve read on this era of Spanish history, two contain MUCH more, and I’m sure better, information than is found in Orwell’s second “book�. These are (a) The Spanish Civil War A Very Short Introduction, and (b) Gerald Brenan’s The Spanish Labyrinth. The first book, by English historian Helen Graham, is a modern, up-to-date compendium, dense with information, about the causes of the war, the major phases of the military conflict, the political and social forces driving the two sides, and the brutal way in which Franco spent years afterwards making sure that those who had opposed him paid for their crimes; it makes use of much primary material that has become available only with the demise of Franco and the beginnings of a democratic Spain.

The second book is a magnificent summary of Spanish social and political movements for the 60-70 years preceding the SCW, with a brief Afterward written after the war was over. It does not deal directly with the years in which the War was fought.


What is wrong with Orwell’s version. Orwell seems to imply (though I don't know how closely he comes to saying this outright) that the Republican cause was basically betrayed by Stalinist/Communist machinations which produced mass arrests and imprisonments (and worse) of long standing major figures in the socialist and anarchist forces fighting for the Republic.

In her book, Graham writes that this considerably overstates the effect of these very right wing Stalinist activities in Spain (which certainly did happen), and in no way is the reason that the Republican side lost the war.

Far more important were these facts. (1) While Franco's forces were being supplied with weapons, tanks, planes, etc by the fascist governments of both Hitler and Mussolini, the Republican side was dependent on a single source of arms, Russia. (And at some point in the war, Stalin decided to cut his losses in this regard.) (2) The Republicans desperately wanted to be able to buy arms from other sources, but couldn't. Why couldn't they? (3) The attitude of England, whose capitalist power brokers were much more concerned with the prospect of the leftist Republicans winning than they were with the conservative, right wing Franco winning, prevented it. How? (4) England, and to a somewhat lesser extent France, led a diplomatic initiative which formed a very effective arms embargo on all of Spain throughout the war. Of course Germany, Italy and the Soviet Union paid no attention to this embargo, but other "law-abiding" countries were for the most part quite content to observe the embargo.

The Republicans never really had a chance, certainly after the time at which Russia cut off their arms supply - and really not even before that happened.

I would recommend either of the above books, or better yet both of them, as a source of information for (a) the SCW, and (b) the state of Spanish society when the Civil War broke out. This would be a far more useful reading exercise for this knowledge than Homage to Catalonia.
61 likes · flag

Sign into ŷ to see if any of your friends have read Homage to Catalonia.
Sign In »

Reading Progress

Started Reading
September 1, 2009 – Finished Reading
July 12, 2015 – Shelved
July 12, 2015 – Shelved as: history-20th-century
July 12, 2015 – Shelved as: socialism-communism
July 21, 2015 – Shelved as: reviews-liked
August 9, 2015 – Shelved as: spain
August 9, 2015 – Shelved as: have

Comments Showing 1-28 of 28 (28 new)

dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Ted (new) - rated it 3 stars

Ted Well, I hope to have a review posted soon as to why. But if you want to see what I used to think, see /story/show/...


message 2: by Dolors (new)

Dolors Great dissection of this book, which is a classic in my country. Also very accurate enumeration of objective facts that were missing in Orwell's book. Oh, btw, he might have been spoken to mainly in Catalan, particularly in the Republican side, which is similar to French. A good book about the Spanish Civil War published in English would be The Battle for Spain: The Spanish Civil War 1936-1939.


Outis You are no doubt much better informed than Orwell about some things... yet not well-informed enough to make the kind of historical judgements you're making about a difficult topic, in no small part because of the all the stuff that went on covertly or informally. For instance Russia was of course not the sole arms supplier of the Republican side.
That said, I generally agree with your assessment of the book though I think you're kind of missing the point. Regardless of the book's value, it's important that people understand that no contemporary account (and certainly not one so limited as Orwell's) can replace the work of historians. It seems obvious but I've discovered it's not obvious to everyone.


message 4: by Lyn (new) - rated it 5 stars

Lyn Elliott Thanks Ted for a thoughtful review and pointers to further reading. And in my view, contemporary accounts are part of the raw materials that historians sift through to reach their own retrospective views.


message 5: by Howard (last edited Jul 13, 2015 06:37AM) (new)

Howard Ted, I agree with Lyn -- about your review as well as the importance of contemporary accounts.


message 6: by Ted (new) - rated it 3 stars

Ted Dolors wrote: "Great dissection of this book, which is a classic in my country. Also very accurate enumeration of objective facts that were missing in Orwell's book. Oh, btw, he might have been spoken to mainly i..."

Thanks for that recommendation, Dolors! Also for the comment about French, which is interesting and germane I think. 8)


message 7: by Ted (new) - rated it 3 stars

Ted Outis wrote: "You are no doubt much better informed than Orwell about some things... yet not well-informed enough to make the kind of historical judgements you're making about a difficult topic, in no small part..."

Thanks for your comment, Outis. Most of the "historical judgements" that might be in the review are really not my own, but sort of a summary of the judgements that are found in the (a) book I referenced. There's no doubt that the SCW is an enormously complex topic that makes simple judgements and/or summaries both difficult and dangerous (and are also still, decades later, very controversial among Spanish peoples, not unlike judgements about the American Civil War here in the States). And I agree with you entirely about contemporary accounts vs. detailed historical accounts.


message 8: by Ted (new) - rated it 3 stars

Ted Lyn wrote: "Thanks Ted for a thoughtful review and pointers to further reading. And in my view, contemporary accounts are part of the raw materials that historians sift through to reach their own retrospective..."

Yes - and thanks for your comment Lyn.


message 9: by Samadrita (new) - added it

Samadrita Oh no. I was hoping to rely on this as a legitimate objective account of the Civil war. Guess I'll treat it as a memoir then.
Excellently analysed as ever, Ted.

P.S.:-Adding that Dolors-recommended book to the tbr.


message 10: by Ted (new) - rated it 3 stars

Ted Samadrita wrote: "Oh no. I was hoping to rely on this as a legitimate objective account of the Civil war. Guess I'll treat it as a memoir then.
Excellently analysed as ever, Ted.

P.S.:-Adding that Dolors-recommende..."


Thanks Samadrita. It's well worth reading, but not as an overview of went on in Spain throughout (or of course after) the war.

It turns out I already had the book Dolors recommended on my tbr. Moved it to my "maybe" shelf, which is actually an upgrade, strange as that may seem. 8/


message 11: by Kim (new) - rated it 4 stars

Kim Great review, Ted. When I read this book I was aware that it wasn't an objective history of the Spanish Civil War, but I still love it as a memoir and for Orwell's writing and capacity for self-examination.


message 12: by Ted (last edited Jul 13, 2015 01:23PM) (new) - rated it 3 stars

Ted Kim wrote: "Great review, Ted. When I read this book I was aware that it wasn't an objective history of the Spanish Civil War, but I still love it as a memoir and for Orwell's writing and capacity for self-exa..."

Thanks, Kim. I was certainly hesitant to give it a 3, I probably will not rate any of his books that low again. This is one of the main non-fiction books he wrote, along with The Road to Wigan Pier, which I've never read, but hope to. Wiki actually lists Down and Out in Paris and London, which I enjoyed immensely, as a non-fiction work, but I've always considered it sort of an autobiographical novel. I guess Orwell himself referred to it as a slightly fictionalized memoir. That's good enough for me.


message 13: by Ted (new) - rated it 3 stars

Ted Luís wrote: "You have to read the Newsinger's book about Orwell. I have it on my wanting shelve, but don't reminded the book's title."

Thanks!


message 14: by Kim (new) - rated it 4 stars

Kim Ted wrote: "This is one of the main non-fiction books he wrote, along with The Road to Wigan Pier, which I've never read, but hope to. Wiki actually lists Down and Out in Paris and London, which I enjoyed immensely, as a non-fiction work, but I've always considered it sort of an autobiographical novel...."

Ted, from what I understand, "Down and out in Paris and London" is definitely an autobiographical novel, albeit heavy on the autobiography and light on the novel.

"The Road to Wigan Pier" is definitely worth reading, even if though covers some of the same ground as the London bit of Down and Out. It contains a very entertaining (if mean) rant about socialists giving socialism a bad name and I would have been happy to read the book for that alone!


message 15: by Ted (new) - rated it 3 stars

Ted Kim wrote: "Ted wrote: "This is one of the main non-fiction books he wrote, along with The Road to Wigan Pier, which I've never read, but hope to. Wiki actually lists Down and Out in Paris and London, which I ..."

Thanks Kim. I certainly would like to read The Road ...


message 16: by [deleted user] (new)

A great disection of the book, Ted. I never thought of suspecting Orwell and was positively impressed by it, but yes there must be other side of coin. Thanks for showing me that.


message 17: by Ted (new) - rated it 3 stars

Ted Sidharth wrote: "A great disection of the book, Ted. I never thought of suspecting Orwell and was positively impressed by it, but yes there must be other side of coin. Thanks for showing me that."

Thanks for your comment, Sidharth. I guess, perhaps like you, I once thought the book was enough to satisfy some minimal knowledge about the Civil War in Spain. Further reading (which I'm lucky I did) convinced me that it's up to Orwell's usual standards as a piece of writing, but isn't much of a useful introduction to that conflict.


Aligroof Nice review, I've put both your recommendations in the to-read list. However, you mentioned that Orwell joined the Anarchists, thats not 100% correct. He joined the POUM militia, wich is an communist Organization opposed to the communist who were in power and loyal to the Regim in Russia, as Orwell describes in appendix 1.


message 19: by Ted (last edited Jan 06, 2016 06:25PM) (new) - rated it 3 stars

Ted Aligroof wrote: "Nice review, I've put both your recommendations in the to-read list. However, you mentioned that Orwell joined the Anarchists, thats not 100% correct. He joined the POUM militia, wich is an communi..."

Actually, I was a little uncertain about that, Aligroof, thanks for the correction. I suppose I should correct the review, when I get around to it I'll point to your comment.

Still haven't got around to it. Soon, soon!


Gunther Berghof Orwell's personal story from Spain made me only more interested in that bloody conflict.Funny how we react to the same input .


message 21: by Ted (new) - rated it 3 stars

Ted Gunther wrote: "Orwell's personal story from Spain made me only more interested in that bloody conflict.Funny how we react to the same input ."

Well, I thought it was a great book, and it increased my interest in the war a lot. But it did come down a couple notches when read more.


message 22: by Eric (new)

Eric Did you really say "very right wing Stalinist activities"? This is a pretty odd juxtaposition.


message 23: by Ted (new) - rated it 3 stars

Ted Eric wrote: "Did you really say "very right wing Stalinist activities"? This is a pretty odd juxtaposition."

That's what I wrote, yes. Referring to the violent in-fighting between Communist and socialist/anarchist forces, all on the Republican side. You're right, of course, it is an odd juxtaposition, and depending what one takes"right wing" to mean, perhaps not accurate.

All I really meant was that the communists, in some of this old score-settling and socialist discrediting, where acting as if they could have been on Franco's right wing side, instead of supposedly aligned against him.

This is similar, actually, to what Orwell himself says in the book, and what he tried to get across to those in England when he got back there.


message 24: by Eric (new)

Eric That's a pretty convoluted explanation, I must say. So were Stalin's purges in the 1930s in Russia also "right wing?" Because the phrase is so odd and the explanation is so tortured, part of me suspects that this is really just left wing apologetics. Isn't this all just part and parcel of any totalitarian vision, regardless of wings?


message 25: by Ted (last edited Mar 06, 2016 08:39PM) (new) - rated it 3 stars

Ted Yes, totalitarian for sure. I don't know, Eric, are you just objecting to "right wing" because that's where you live? I'm using the phrase as it was used back in the 1930s (I think - I could be wrong), not as it's used now.


message 26: by Eric (new)

Eric Ted wrote: "Yes, totalitarian for sure. I don't know, Eric, are you just objecting to "right wing" because that's where you live? I'm using the phrase as it was used back in the 1930s (I think - I could be wro..."

I have no idea what you mean by "how the phrase was used in the 1930s," unless you simply mean fascism. And I don't think that you are suggesting that Stalin's thugs were trying to create a corporatist state with the help of the military.

I suspect the Stalinists were simply making omelets, which, as any left winger knows, requires breaking eggs. Many omelets were made in the 1930s, and in sheer numbers, the left-wing far excelled the right wingers in breaking eggs. Orwell, or course, famously lost his taste for omelets.

So I still fail to see how juxtaposing "Stalin" and "right wing" makes any sense whatsoever. And so far you have not shed any light on the matter.


message 27: by Ted (last edited Mar 06, 2016 09:04PM) (new) - rated it 3 stars

Ted Eric wrote: "Ted wrote: "Yes, totalitarian for sure. I don't know, Eric, are you just objecting to "right wing" because that's where you live? I'm using the phrase as it was used back in the 1930s (I think - I ..."

Then I'll give up, sorry to disappoint you - if you are disappointed. By the way, if you must have the last word, go ahead and reply. I'll not do so.


Outis I'll shed some light then, Eric.
The Stalinists were briefly right-wing in the Spanish Republic's political spectrum for the simple reason that they positionned themselves politically as the moderate opposition to the left-wing government and allied with non-Stalinist politicians who were also to the right of the government in order to bring it down.
The reason why they did that is again simple. Many of the politicians who used to constitute the right-wing abandonned the Republic, leaving the left-wingers and centrists to form a new political spectrum among themselves. As you must be aware, Stalin didn't stand for the extreme left to begin with and had gotten rid of quite a few people to his left in his country. Furthermore, it suited Stalin's foreign policy at the time to moderate the Spanish left and be seen internationally as a somewhat respectable partner in an alliance against Hitler.

That said, your characterization of the Stalinists is hostile and unfair, Ted. Obviously Orwell had like many others had a score to settle with them. Hopefully, we don't since it's all history now.
The Stalinists had a reasonable strategy to fight Hitler and Franco which differed from the one which Orwell's associates favored. One might argue it didn't just fail but was doomed from the start. But it's not clear that any other strategy would have succeded. There were people of goodwill who were on Stalin's side on this one.
Yes, this is complicated by the fact that the Stalinists had their own agenda when it came to the dissident Marxist party Orwell nominally fought for. Evidently they didn't prioritize the fight against Franco when it came to kidnapping or arresting some of the anti-fascists they opposed. That was of course a big deal when for Orwell but it's not obvious it made much difference to the big picture in the end and it's hard to argue it outweighed the objective contributions of both the Stalinists and the USSR to the fight against Franco.


back to top