Keyword: MARRIAGE | “Wifedom: Mrs. Orwell’s Invisible Life”, by Anna Funder

Anna Funder was aiming to write a book about her favourite author: George Orwell. Yet, when doing the research, she literally found Eileen Blair, Orwell’s first wife. She was hidden between the lines of Orwell’s writings and in the passive voice of his six biographies, all of them written by men. From here, Anna Funder started to paint a picture of how men erase “wives” and how women are led to believe that their role in life is to support men in their pursuits, without any recognition. The shocking reality is so amazingly and clearly described that it makes you think about what is happening around you. It is so obvious, yet not many people seem to notice.

Eileen graduated in English studies, took a post-graduation in Psychology, which was going to be turned into a Master’s degree, and had several jobs throughout her life. After getting married, she alone was responsible for the couple’s farm, with chickens and sheep, and the store at the front of the house. The farm and the store were not very profitable and the couple would permanently struggle with money. On top of this, Eileen took care of the house (cleaning, cooking) and edited and typed her husband’s writings. Meanwhile, Orwell spent his time trying to write something worth to be published (and failing) and chasing women to have sex with them (whether they wanted or not so much). His biographers, based on the letters written by Orwell, stated that Eileen had given her consent, as they had an open marriage. Anna Funder has her doubts, seeing this as a way to “excuse” Orwell of his sexual wrongdoings (to say it nicely).

When the Spanish Civil War broke off, Orwell decided to enlist without consulting his wife. In his mind, she would be at home, taking care of their affairs and waiting for him. He was wrong. Shortly after, Eileen found a way to go to Spain too, where she found a job with the Workers’ Party of Marxist Unification (POUM). While there, she was fighting fascism and was persecuted by Stalinists. Compared to that, the life of Orwell at the front was a walk in the park.

Back home, Eileen had to find a job so the couple could have some money to live. She was employed by the Minister of Information, doing war censorship, which probably inspired Orwell for the writing of his book “1984”. By the way, the date was also inspired by a poem written by Eileen, when she was still single, entitled “End of the Century, 1984”. Yes, she wrote poetry as well. And she also co-wrote “Animal Farm”. Although her name does not appear on the cover of the book, it was her idea to write about farm animals as a metaphor to show how Stalinist regime really was (she would know about this very well). She also discussed every detail of the book with Orwell and typed it.

Wives helping their husbands writing fictional books, and being fundamental in their creative work, is nothing new. Iris Jamahl Dunkle wrote a book about Charmian Kittredge London, the wife of Jack London. Charmian was already a writer when she met Jack and helped him write some of his books while living many adventures with him. Despite her amazing life and her own published books, she is still known as the wife of Jack London. Iris Jamahl Dunkle also wrote a book about Sanora Babb, a force of nature who did in-depth research about the migrants in the USA during the Great Depression and wrote a book about it. However, John Steinbeck stole her notes and wrote “The Grapes of Wrath”. Sanora’s book was set to be published three weeks after, but it got cancelled because of Steinbeck. “Whose Names Are Unknown” was only published 65 years later.

The film “The Wife” is based on this reality. Although a total fictional story, we can see it could be a true one (maybe it is and we are still to discover it). Glenn Close plays the role of the wife of a man who has just been awarded the Nobel Prize of Literature. It turns out, as we learn at the end of the film, all his books were written by her. And yet, it was he who got published, who got famous, and who got recognition for high-quality books. Why did she accept that situation? She wanted to be published and read, but realized it was not going to happen because she was a woman.

Orwell’s wife got sick and endured that situation, bleeding profusely and in much pain, for five years. She had much to do: earning money to pay the bills and taking care of her husband so he could have all the conditions he needed to focus on his writing. Then, they adopted a baby boy and Orwell decided to go to continental Europe as a journalist. She was left alone, again. No one really knows why she took a drastic decision without telling anyone: to do an operation to solve her health issue with a medical doctor that was willing to operate her even though she was not fit for that. It was an especially risky operation, to which she indeed did not have the strength to endure, and she died on the operating table.

Later, Orwell recognised himself that he had not treated her very well. Why she did not divorce him is not clear. She proved that she could have found financial independence and she had the opportunity to marry another man. Georges Kopp, who she had met in Spain, loved her until she died, but she did not love him back. She dedicated her life to a man who cheated on her repeatedly, abandoned her at least two times, and did not acknowledge her, not even in his non-fictional writings. She was ignored and erased, and she also cancelled herself.

Caroline Criado Perez showed how women are systematically ignored and erased through hard data. In daily life, in workplaces, in health care issues, in public life, everywhere there are numbers proving that women are discriminated against systematically, like they do not exist, like they are a kind of weird man. Adequately, the book is called “Invisible Women”.

Sources:

** YOUR WORDS AND IDEAS **

By Isabella Muir | On 25 February 2026 at 15:50
Absolutely fascinating article about women, literature, and bravery, with reminders throughout that perceptions and accepted ‘norms’ need to be constantly challenged and questioned! Roughly half the world’s population is female, and yet we are often squeezed into a forgotten corner.

By Words in Ideas | On 26 February 2026 at 12:40
Thank you, Isabella! Indeed, we should read more authors like these women to realise how much of such ‘norms’ are man-made. It’s really eye-opening!

This article is part of the THE INTREPID BOOK SOCIETY series

The Intrepid Book Society is a fictional book club. Every month, a book (or more) is recommended and/or discussed according to a keyword.

Keyword: MARRIAGE | Divorce as a change of course

Photo by Björn Austmar Þórsson – Retrieved from Pexels

“Divorce” comes from the Latin word divertere, meaning “to separate”. Back in the day, this word would be used in different contexts, for example, when a river would find a fork and would be separated in two, each branch finding its own new way. It is a beautiful metaphor: a married couple reaches a fork in life and each one decides to flow in different directions. A marriage, like a river, is born and runs down a path, overcoming all kinds of obstacles. Some reach the sea together, some are divided.

The process could run very smoothly if it were not for the law. At the beginning, in Roman times, for example, people would get married and get divorced very easily. Everything was valid, even marriages between brother and sister and between two men. In reality, women were not very well regarded and their main function was to give birth to children and take care of the household (slaves would do the heavy work, though). They were also used by men (their fathers or brothers) for making alliances. They were part of the family, “property” of the owner of the household. This idea has endured over time.

“Husband” comes from the Old Norse word husbondi, a combination between hus, meaning “house”, and bondi, meaning “dweller”. Together, these words would mean “master of the house”. Thus, men were the owners of the house, while the women married to those men were responsible for managing it. It was a team work… except, women were a kind of servants, who served without pay. Love was not important, what was important was for women to provide children.

Men were in charge of their household, and also the whole society. Thus, it is no wonder that the law was written to favour them. In terms of divorce, men were given the right to treat women as they would please (all kinds of violence included) and to divorce them whenever they pleased. If women wanted to divorce men… they would have to jump through a series of hoops, get humiliated and would lose the custody of their children. And it would take ages. One river branch was definitely bumpier than the other. The book “Anna Karenina”, by Leo Tolstoy, portraits exactly how dramatic the situation could become.

Nowadays, “divorce” refers to the legal separation of a couple, the dissolution of a marriage. Couples living together but not legally married do not get divorced, they breakup. Or split. The same for couples who were not living together, actually. “Go in different directions” is an expression often used in these situations, which matches the river metaphor. Is it easier to “breakup” than to “divorce”? Maybe not. The couple in question still have to divide their shared possessions and the custody of their children, if that is the case. It can get messy, even nowadays with more balanced (but not 100%) laws.

Life is very dynamic and, like the rivers, individuals craft their own valleys. Some rivers go alone to the sea, others get together with another river, and then they separate again. Sometimes, the intersection between the rivers creates a pattern the more entangled as they come closer to the sea. Other times, rivers change direction halfway and go alone to its final destination. It all depends on what the river finds in its way. They do not have a predefined route, just adapt and react to the obstacles they encounter.

A divorce is not seen as something positive, even if only for the emotional suffering that is implied. And it is not just couples who get divorced. Today, as in the past, this word can be used when there is a separation of something that used to be together or should be together. For example: the government has divorced from its country’s reality. Here, it is implied that the government has taken a different path from its country’s population, which it shouldn’t. In this case, the situation can be dramatic.

Sources:

This article is part of the WORD CHRONICLES series

Word Chronicles are articles where the meaning of words, concepts, and perceptions are discussed.

Keyword: FAMILY | It takes a village

If someone asked someone else what family was, that person would probably answer: the father, the mother, and their children (adopted or not). Or two mothers and their children, or two fathers and their children. This is what is called the “nuclear family”. “Extensive family” would include aunts, uncles, cousins, godparents, grandparents, maybe even family friends. If that someone wanted to go even further, he or she could talk about the “distant family”, which are second cousins, third cousins, great uncles, great aunts, and the like. People that you probably never met in your life.

The historian James Casey wrote the book “The History of the Family”, published in 1989, advancing the studies of Friedrich Engels, whose book “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State” was published in 1884. These studies were developed from different perspectives: while James Casey aimed to write the history of what is considered “family”, Friedrich Engels aimed to explain how the State came to be, as a result of an evolution of the primitive blood-related organizations.

James Casey began his book by defining what “family” actually is. His conclusion was: there is no clear definition. Etymologically, “family” comes from the Latin word familia, that used to mean the assets of a household: the man, the woman (each one with their own role) and everyone else who lived in that house, including the slaves. It was more like an enterprise than a “nuclear family” as we understand it today. Yet, this was not the first kind of family that existed. Primitive peoples had complicated structures that included all blood-related members under the same tribe or clan, although it was possible to “adopt” some outsiders.

There are a few traits we still keep from those primitive times, like loyalty towards our blood relatives. Back then, being part of a tribe or a clan would imply the duty to avenge a member who was attacked or killed by a member of another tribe. This is still important in some “tribes”, especially families, but also groups of friends acting as alternative families. Bloodline would also determine each person’s place in society and it is still very influential today, especially in some cultures or in certain circles.

These primitive peoples were matriarchies, meaning that bloodlines were defined by mothers. However, children were raised by the community. According to Engels, this changed when men became the owners of the agricultural equipment, which they wished to pass on to their children (in other words, heritage). This became even more important as men acquired more property. So, men decided that bloodline would stop being defined by mothers and became defined by fathers. To ensure that children born to their wives were theirs, women became their property, together with houses, equipment, slaves, and servants. Hence, the familia.

Engels proved that society was structured by the way families would relate between themselves and would exercise power socially and politically. In the feudal regime, each family would belong to a caste (the main castes were nobility and commoners) and their hierarchy would depend on their possessions. The concept of family as we know today (the nuclear family) is a product of the changes that took place from the 17th century onwards (during the Industrial Revolution) with the decline of the feudal regime. The private sphere detached from the public sphere and children started to go to school in order to become professionals. From an early age, children would learn about individual responsibilities and would acquire the skills to compete with others for a job and a position in society. By losing their central role, “extensive families” lost their power to influence social and political matters. As the individual became the social unit, his “family” became smaller: only his wife and their children, living in a domestic home. However, some things did not change: men remained the heads of the household.

Under this new society structure, people could marry whoever they wanted and were not obliged to have their parents’ consent (due to heritage purposes). Love turned into the main reason for marriage and divorce started to rise. Individuals were liberated from the bonds and duties of belonging to blood-related communities, but they also lost their benefits. For example, raising children is now the sole responsibility of parents when it was a community task. Social life was more spontaneous because the houses were open to everyone and several nuclear families lived in each house. Today, individuals are more alone and with more responsibility on their shoulders.

Yet, the concept of family is changing again. Men are losing their permanent position as heads of the household. Domestic roles are shifting and both adults are taking on equally household chores and raising the children. As divorces increase, people create new nuclear families that cross over with the nuclear families previously created. Grandparents are living longer, but they keep their independent lives after retirement. On the other hand, professional careers are getting more demanding, the internet is leading to isolation, and people are feeling lost. How will families adapt to these new times?