George Orwell vs Aldous Huxley

[WICKES]

These two Englishmen are my literary gods, but I'd be interested to know who you think is the better writer. I'm not talking about what they had to say or who was the more accurate in his predictions etc. I just mean which of the two wrote the best prose.

[Seasider]

I go for Orwell. His prose is clear, concise and without any unnecessary ornament. But it is never dull or ironically enough, prosaic. He is a passionate man as well as a rational man and his writing is generated by both brain and heart. "Shooting an Elephant" and " How the Poor Die" are superb pieces of observation and reflection. One piece of advice he gave was always to use the Active Voice rather than the Passive. It ensures direct involvement rather than at one remove.

I was a fan of Aldous Huxley in my twenties. I think my favourite was Point Counterpoint. But when I reread it a couple of years ago it seemed dated and many of the characters were stereotypes rather than fully human. He was a good writer but not in the same league as Orwell, in my opinion. Of that generation I think Waugh and Anthony Powell will last longer.

[WICKES]

I was a fan of Aldous Huxley in my twenties. I think my favourite was Point Counterpoint. But when I reread it a couple of years ago it seemed dated and many of the characters were stereotypes rather than fully human. He was a good writer but not in the same league as Orwell, in my opinion. Of that generation I think Waugh and Anthony Powell will last longer.

I agree about Waugh. His best prose is as close to perfection as I ever expect to read.

[Dark Muse]

I have not read much by either author, but based on what I have read I have to say that I enjoyed 1984 a good deal more than I did Brave New World. I favor Orwell's prose over Huxley. I found Brave New World had a tendecy to get a bit dull at times, while 1984 I felt was much more captivating to read.

[dfloyd]

They both wrote books which every literate person should read. Huxley is probably a little harder to read, so many may prefer Orwell.

[Mr.lucifer]

Huxley wasn't harder to read for me. I didn't find anything difficult with his prose. I enjoyed 1984 more, but I also found parts of it dull like. I prefer orwell because I found the story more captivating and the debate between the hero and villain more interesting than the one in brave new world.

The world government was more inventive than the ingsoc party but I found the ingsoc party more frightening abd memorable in the way they planned to take over the minds of their people.

[WICKES]

They both wrote books which every literate person should read. Huxley is probably a little harder to read, so many may prefer Orwell.

I agree that Huxley is more difficult to read. I think he was, temperamentally, more a philosopher and intellectual than a novelist. Orwell's writing is simpler and less demanding. On balance I think Huxley wrote the more beautiful prose.

[YORK]

Both have had their moments with me. I spent night after night savouring Huxley's 'Eyeless in Gaza', as I did Orwell's '1984'.

I've always held Orwell's prose very highly because of what Seasider mentioned above. The clarity is fantastic. Nothing unnecessary or prolix.

Whether he's better than Huxley or vice versa? Unfortunately, that is a question I'm not yet competent to answer.

[Rores28]

To echo other posters the clarity and accessibility of Orwell is one of the things that makes him great. He's talking about serious stuff and complex stuff, but he's not going to mire it in literary pyrotechnics to only be enjoyed by the literary elite. He wants to make these concepts as digestible as possible for the "lay reader" because he wants his writing to "do" something beyond offering aesthetic pleasure.

I've only read Brave New World by Huxley and it was slightly more difficult stylistically than Orwell but still I think accessible to most. Though I think it's Shakespearean allusions do more to gratify the "literary" crowd.

[Mr.lucifer]

I don't remember finding brave new world harder than 1984. I think just about any person could read it.

[Heteronym]

I enjoyed 1984 more than Brave New World. But Huxley's world seems more terrifying because it's more familiar. Orwell was preaching against totalitarian states. But Huxley's world is ours. It's a world where dictators of democracy don't need armies - they have TV and mass media at their disposal. They don't have to forbid books; they just know people, distracted by other endless diversions, will not read them. They don't have to censor anyone because a) people, brainwshed by political correcteness, censor themselves, and b) it'll get lost amidst all the information available. They don't have to take peoples' rights away, people will just give them away: labor rights are sacrificed to help economy; freedom is sacrificed to the illusion of security. People will grow used to anything. They don't have to fear organised resistance because the cult of individualism has managed to break everyone apart; people live for themselves, for instant gratification, thinking they're different and special, when in fact they're all the same under the people who rule them.

Orwell made a great description of what a totalitarian state was like. But Huxley predicted our times.

[brave new tony]

Orwell's style is captivating. Aldous Huxley , however, has such a sexual energy in his prose. Between the two I suppose I like Orwell's style a little better because he cuts down to the core of human submission. He has a pattern of violent excited writing followed by passive near melancholy much like his book "1984". The pure shock value at the end of that novel struck me in the same manner as my favorite poem "Richard Cory" Therefore I can safely say I value Orwell over Huxley, which is funny because I like "Brave New World" better than "1984".