Talk:George Orwell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Cscr-former.svg George Orwell is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
September 24, 2009 Featured article candidate Not promoted

Have sold more copies than any two books by any other 20th-century author.[edit]

If you look at the list of best selling books in the world, Nineteen Eighty-Four is the only George Orwell book on the list, at about 25 million copies.

The top seller is "A Tale of Two Cities" by Charles Dickens with about 200 million copies, but that is from 1859, so it doesn't really count. Number two, however, is "The Lord of the Rings" by J.R.R. Tolkien with 150 million copies, and that one certainly counts as a 20th century book (being published in 1954-1955), and "The Hobbit" comes in at number 4 with 100 million copies. Okay, so Tolkien was born in 1892 and not in the 20th century like George Orwell (born in 1903).

Antoine de Saint-Exupéry was born in 1900 and sold 140 million copies of "Le Petit Prince (The Little Prince)". We'll skip Dan Brown's "Da Vinci Code", as it was published in the 21st century (2003). Next on the list, if we demand the author be born in the 20th century, and the book be published in the 20th century, is J. D. Salinger's "The Catcher in the Rye" with 65 million.

So ... multiple books from multiple authors published in the 20th century, that each sold more than twice Orwell's best selling book.

In other words, that claim is apparently specious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.201.207 (talk) 22:48, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

It is sourced to the Cambridge Companion to George Orwell, -I don't know if it is accurate or not - but it is RS sourced at least. Sayerslle (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

If the statement is false, it should not be there, whether there is a printed source or not. I've removed it. If you disagree and revert my edit, then at least the false statement should be qualified and stated to be controversial; though as far as I can determine, it isn't controversial at all, just plain wrong. Sayitclearly (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Removed paragraph with a reference from a blog Revisited...[edit]

I have no idea how this should be quoted from the archive, so apologies in advance.

From archive: [Have removed the following paragraph:

Conversely, there has been speculation about the extent of Orwell's links to Britain's secret service, MI5, and some have even claimed that he was in the service's employ.(Inline citation:"Orwell and the secret state: close encounters of a strange kind?", by Richard Keeble, Media Lens, Monday, 10 October 2005.) The evidence for this claim is contested.

Apart from the reference being from a blog, which is a Wikipedia no-no, the actual link to the article on said blog is broken. If anyone out there can fix it and reference the info from any other source, please do so and stick it back in the article. Cheers!--Technopat (talk) 09:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice work. A claim like that needs a very strong citation. Nick-D (talk) 11:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)]

The claim was made in a book titled 'The Larger Evils: Nineteen Eighty Four – the Truth behind the Satire,' published in 1992. The blog was, I believe, referencing the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.118.209.242 (talk) 05:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)