whom Hitchens has crossed swords in previous polemics. He persuasively demonstrates that Williams was willing to suspend academic impartiality when writing about Orwell, and suggests why that might have been. Other opponents - Claude Simon, Edward Said, E. P. Thompson - are similarly tossed and gored. Whether Orwell needs such protection is debatable, but Hitchens clearly has fun nailing the doubters, and it is fun to read too. Other chapters deal with Orwell and England, Orwell and feminism, that "blacklist", Orwell's novels and Orwell's fate at the hands of postmodernists. Orwell as literary critic is somewhat underrepresented, which may be related to the only serious criticism Hitchens has to make of his subject. This occurs when two of the planets in Hitchens's heavens collide: Orwell and W. H. Auden. Both have permanent spots in the Hitchens literary pantheon, but Orwell tactlessly starts a domestic squabble by taking exception to Auden's reference to the "necessary murder" in his poem "Spain", published in 1937. It is an ugly concept that Orwell was right to comment on; but Hitchens reacts by rushing to Auden's defence with the sort of biased critical language (Orwell "took venomous aim" and "sneered") for which he has previously censured Williams. Why would Orwell suddenly abandon the standards of fairness cherished by Hitchens just to have a pop at Hitchens's favourite poet? It is the partiality of Hitchens, not Orwell, that is in question, but it does not seriously mar an entertaining book that overflows with thorough argument and