Rating: 
Summary: Among the poor
Review: "Down and Out in Paris and London" is Orwell's compulsively readable account of the time he spent among the poor and destitute in the late 1920s and early 1930s. In Paris, he sought work as a "plonguer", trying to stave off starvation, and encountered a range of characters of various nationalities who occupied what might be termed the basement of the Parisian working classes. The descriptions of what it is like to be without any means of support - particularly the tedium of it all - strike true, but the most stomach-churning sections were those devoted to life in the kitchens of the hotels and restaurants. In England, Orwell lived for a time among the "tramps" - dispossessed itinerants, who according to Orwell were forced into that way of life by the antiquated system of poor relief. One can contrast Orwell's experiences in France and England, and examine the differences (as indeed Orwell does himself), but in all, this book is a savage indictment of the exploitation of certain sections of society and the damaging effects of the lack of effective poor relief. Even if one takes the view that the poor will always be with us, Orwell's book is a warning that none of our lives are really unaffected by it.
Rating: 
Summary: Engaging, but Inconsistent Narrative Journalism
Review: George Orwell, though a scholarship student at Eton, was not born of means. His father was a petty civil servant in Burma and India. After Eton, Orwell (real name Eric Arthur Blair), decided not to go on to university, but instead to see some of the world, particularly its social fringes. Thus, the time he spent as an impoverished writer scrounging for a living in Paris, then London, was a conscious choice. Unlike the subjects of his writing, he had the resources to escape his predicament. This should be borne in mind as one reads his account, and of his identification with the people whom he encounters. Though there is some question as to how much Orwell fictionalized his account to craft a more compelling narrative, the book can be regarded, safely I think, as immersion journalism. Orwell escorts the reader into an alien social milieu and introduces him to a true rogue's gallery. The portraits of other laborers and tramps are among the most compelling aspects of the book. Orwell's descriptions of the punishing labor in the kitchens of Parisian hotels are sharp, vivid, and acutely observed. The book's narrative energy drops off when Orwell shifts to London, and near the end of the book he seems to run out of gas, inserting several chapters that read like summaries of notes that he hadn't used for his narrative chapters but couldn't bring himself to omit. The book sputters to a halt. As one might expect from Orwell, the language is direct, free of euphemism, and unornamented. A flawed, yet interesting volume of social history.
Rating:
Summary: Well worth reading...
Review: This 1933 book is an enjoyable, informative, humorous book, based on Orwell's actual experiences. The book portrays the pressures in the lives of impoverished people, oppressed by the systems existing in 1930s Europe, in the daily ordeal of trying to get by and survive, working long hours on low wages or unemployed, many of them going hungry. On page 5, Orwell sets out his mission statement for the book: 'Poverty is what I'm writing about.' ----- 1. (Chapters 1-8) The book portrays the lives of the poor in 1930s Paris, living in shabby bug-infested accommodation, desperately trying to find work and then eke out a living working long hours, to pay their rent and avoid starvation. (page 3) 'The Paris slums are a gathering-place for eccentric people - people who have fallen into solitary, half-mad grooves of life and given up trying to be normal or decent. Poverty frees them from ordinary standards of behaviour, just as money frees people from work. Some of the lodgers in our hotel lived lives that were curious beyond words.' (page 16) '...For, when you are approaching poverty, you make one discovery which outweighs some of the others. You discover boredom and mean complications and the beginnings of hunger, but you also discover the great redeeming feature of poverty: the fact that it annihilates the future. Within certain limits, it is actually true that the less money you have, the less you worry. ...' ----- 2. (Chapters 9-23) The book portrays aspects of life working in the hotel and restaurant business in Paris, where Orwell worked for a time as a plongeur alongside his friend Boris: first, a month in the foul kitchens of the up-market Hotel Lotti; second, a fortnight at the newly opened, badly run and down-market Auberge de Jehan Cottard in '....an atmosphere of muddle, petty spite and exasperation', a job he left with great relief. (page 78, on the Hotel X) 'Roughly speaking, the more one pays for food, the more sweat and spittle one is obliged to eat with it. ... Dirtiness is inherent in hotels and restaurants, because sound food is sacrificed to punctuality and smartness... The only food at the Hotel X which was ever prepared cleanly was the staff's...'. (page 114, on the state of the kitchen at the newly opened Auberge) 'Looking round that filthy room, with raw meat lying among the refuse on the floor, and cold, clotted saucepans sprawling everywhere, and the sink blocked and coated with grease, I used to wonder whether there could be a restaurant in the world as bad as ours. But the other three all said they had been in dirtier places.' ----- 3. (Chapters 24-38 - chapters apparently written much later than the Paris material, after a shorter book on the Paris material alone had been rejected by several publishers) The focus of the book switches to England. Orwell gives up his job at the Auberge and returns to London, only to find that a new job promised him through a friend, of caring for an imbecile, was delayed a month. Almost penniless, and rather than seeking out alternative work for that month, the Orwell in the book (the chronology has been altered in fact) decides to adopt the life of a tramp for a month. He lives in 'spikes' (one night accommodation for tramps) and in lodging houses, among the poor and the down-and-outs of southern England, trudging from place to place mainly in the company of an Irish tramp, Paddy. Orwell observes in detail the lives of English tramps in the 1930s ('...the most docile, broken-spirited creatures imaginable...'). He continues this impoverished life for that long month, until Orwell's carer job finally materialises. (page 149, the morning after Orwell is let out of his first tramps' accommodation, or 'spike') 'How sweet the air does smell - even the air of a back-street in the suburbs - after the shut-in, subfaecal stench of the spike!' (page 152, on Paddy the tramp, Orwell's pal) 'He had two subjects of conversation, the shame and come-down of being a tramp, and the best way of getting a free meal.' (page 158) 'Paddy and I had scarcely a wink of sleep, for there was a man near us who had some nervous trouble, shell-shock perhaps, which made him cry out 'Pip!' at irregular intervals. It was a loud, startling noise, something like the toot of a small motor-horn. You never knew when it was coming, and it was a sure preventer of sleep. ...he must have kept ten or twenty people awake every night. He was an example of the kind of thing that prevents one from ever getting enough sleep when men are herded as they are in these lodging houses.' (p.168) '[Bozo] avoided religious charities, however, for he said that it stuck in his throat to sing hymns for buns...'. (p.215, end) 'My story ends here. It is a fairly trivial story, and I can only hope that it has been interesting in the same way as a trivial diary is interesting. ...At present I do not feel I have seen more than the fringe of poverty.
'Still, I can point to one or two things I have definitely learned by being hard up. I shall never again think that all tramps are drunken scoundrels, nor expect a beggar to be grateful when I give him a penny, nor be surprised if men out of work lack energy, nor subscribe to the Salvation Army, nor pawn my clothes, nor refuse a handbill, nor enjoy a meal at a smart restaurant. That is a beginning.' ----- Generally: This is a simple and straightforward, interesting and informative book to read, with short chapters. The book is not quite perfect (e.g. weak humour in some places, and a partly illogical rant in Chapter 22), but the book is well worth reading. It might put the reader off eating in cafes and restaurants, however. If you enjoyed this book, you might wish to read Orwell's observations on the lives of ordinary working people in north England in the 1930s, written in a similar style, 'The Road to Wigan Pier.' (1937).
Rating: 
Summary: All too realistic
Review: Orwell's foray into two separate worlds of utter poverty is definitely fascinating. In Paris, he writes clearly of restaurant scutwork and the lives that are wasted in such brutal conditions. The pettiness and sweat that comprise the days are remarkable for their constancy, and Orwell does an excellent job conveying the mind-numbing exhaustion that accompanies 18-hour days. Alternating such long days with periods of job searches, this section provides a still-relevant look at those who live a single paycheck from homelessness.
London has a different pace, as Orwell spends a month tramping about while waiting for a job to come through. His happiness at being back in England is obvious, and regular comments about the friendliness and pure spirit of the English people get a little repetitive, but he uses those feelings to make an important point. Closing the chapter is a short address that speaks of poverty and English laws that made it extremely difficult to establish any sort of regular life; he brings the still-present plight of the homeless into sharp relief. His points about certain institutions "stinking of charity" are fantastic food for thought for anyone employed in the social services.
With such insight into poverty, his casual rascism is jolting. Easy and frequent references to Jews, Irish, Russians, and pretty much everyone who isn't a native Englishman are abysmally in key with the times the book was written, and it gets tiresome. Ultimately, it is disappointing that a writer can be so passionate about overthrowing the stereotype of the "tramp monster", and yet so thoughtlessly perpetuate the idea that all Jews have large noses, wiry black hair, and cheat everyone they have dealings with. These attitudes will lessen the overall value of this work for some readers, but there is still much to gain from giving it a try.
Rating:
Summary: Down and Out: Orwell's greatness
Review: If your looking for a basic start, middle, end story then down and out is not for you. However, if you are looking for an honest insight in to the conditions of both Paris and London in the early 1900s then you have the right book. One can understand Orwell's plight and dedication in this book because of the fact that he has came from a wealthy middle class family and chooses to live like this. The book starts in Paris where the levels of poverty for the majority of people are shocking, unrecognisable by todays standards. Yet through Orwell's imagery and attention to detail even a teenager of the 21st century can imagine the filth and insanitary conditions of both towns. My favourite part of the book was the part in Paris. this is because the friendships he makes and the job he ends up with despite being horrific make the reader feel warm and that despite this hardship he is happy. The conditions in London and the description of the tramps and their way of life is sad and really makes you realise how lucky you are. A frank account.
Rating:
Summary: Revealing Look at the Poor
Review: _Down and Out in Paris and London_ is a book about the life of poverty in London and Paris. In the first half of the book the main character is in Paris where he goes several days without food. He finally gets a job in a hotel restaurant. The story is a first person account of trying to make ends meet in a tough world. The description of the working conditions and filth in the restaurants in Paris makes one think twice before eating out. The second half of the book is in London. The main character is promised a job in London but must hold out for a few months before he can start.
Orwell points out some interesting points and misconceptions about poverty. Even though this book was published in 1933 many of the misconceptions of poverty pointed out in this book are still widely believed. For example many people in London believed that tramps were much more dangerous then regular people. In Orwell's experience tramps being more dangerous doesn't seem to be true. Orwell also explains why people that are down and out aren't happy about accepting charity. When the poor do get jobs they usually had to work at least twelve hours a day. In London there were public lodging houses but they were often dirty and cramped. The tramps were also forced to move around constantly because many of the public houses didn't let the same person stay for more then one day or weekend a month. Orwell also talks about the malnourishment that many of the poor suffer.
This book is a very good study of the worst off in society of the 1920's and 30's London and Paris. Many of the observations that are made in this book are probably very true today especially the misconceptions that many people have today about the homeless. This book also is a very good look at the personal ideals of George Orwell. Most people know about _1984_ but that book doesn't do justice to what was Orwell's personal theories on politics and life. This book sheds some light on Orwell's thoughts and feelings about the way society treats the poor.
Rating:
Summary: How would We react to this life?
Review: I don't recall what possessed me to buy George Orwell's Down and Out in Paris and London after reading no Orwell since 1984 (which I read in 1987). It was probably one of the online recommendations, and if so, a very good one it was. As a young man, educated but out of work, Orwell found himself in Paris with frightfully little money. Thus began his adventures through the Paris slums and the shady underside of life there. This was not, apparently, an attempt on Orwell's part to go out and discover how the other half lives. It is not discipline but rather simple helplessness that sometimes forced him to go days without food, to pawn virtually everything he owned for a paltry few coins, and to live in desperation. Likewise, when work came, it was by necessity that he worked the hideously long hours at menial work in order to earn a living. So it was with at least in part the eye of the truly poor that he put to print what he experienced there. In true Orwell style, he manages to find the story in everyone he meets, and his powers of observation are exceptional. When he manages to make it back to London, the book enters its second half. I found the London portion less insightful and entertaining. Learning that his waiting job is postponed a month, Orwell becomes a tramp, and travels through the various lodging houses and what passed for shelters in 1930's London. It was here that the text also becomes a bit dated and colloquial. Whereas in the Paris portion, presumably the dialogues have been translated from French into Standard English, in the London portion Orwell mimics street talk: "Want a kip? That'll be a 'og, guv'nor." I've always thought this sort of thing just slows down the reading, does nothing for the story, and contributes to the inferiority of traditional English literature (American too, I'm not being a snob here). I also found the London bit more depressing and the characters less colorful and less sympathetic. Actually, this is a point on which Orwell's future political leanings start to show. If his portrayals of some of these characters are correct, then I wouldn't want half of them working for me, either. A little professionalism, or just lack of criminal intent, can go a long way. Nonetheless, this book is meant more as a travelogue to the slums than as a deep analysis of societal problems. As entertainment, it is first rate, and as a look at a real aspect of life for many, it is a bit dated, but still first rate.
Rating:
Summary: A Must Read!
Review: The story begins in Paris, with a British writer, who loses all of his money, sells almost all of his clothes, nearly starves, and is about to be evicted from his apartment. He decides that he has no alternative, except to find work. After long of struggle he finds a job working as a dishwasher in the basement of a posh Paris hotel, he describes the filth of the kitchens, and the sad plight of those working in the kitchens. While there he works all day, often running around trying to do ten jobs at once, anyone who has worked at a place like McDonald's around lunch time knows what this is like, he then goes home, sleeps and comes back the next day. He can feel the work eating away at his life. He eventually moves to a new Russian restaurant and is worked half to death there also. He gives up there also and writes to a friend back in London about work. His friend tells him of a job as a translator that pays a decent salary, and the writer leaves for England. When he arrives in England he finds that his job opening has been postponed for a month. He accepts his fate and decides to become a tramp for the next month. He sells everything he has except for one pair of clothes, and buys some cheap tramp clothes. The nice clothes he saved he stores at the train station so that he can wear them when his job opens, then he spends the month wandering around looking for a bite to eat and a place to sleep. He begins to understand the ways of being a tramp, and while he doesn't live a life of luxury, he discovers that the tramps around him are people too. George Orwell tells the experiences of being down and out in Paris and London in a sometimes humorous, and always straightforward way. My favorite quote from the book is: "It is a feeling of relief, almost of pleasure, at knowing yourself at last genuinely down and out. You have talked so often of going to the dogs-and well, here are the dogs, and you have reached them, and you can stand it. It takes off a lot of anxiety." This is a great book. One I heartily recommend along with three other titles, Post Office by Bukowski, Tropic of Cancer by Miller, The Losers' Club by Richard Perez
Rating:
Summary: Classic Orwell
Review: Great Read! This book follows the aimless journeys of an unemployed journalist in Paris and London. Orwell presents a clear and honest view into the 'underworld' of these great metropolises.
In traditional Orwellian style, this book flows; the writing style makes reading the book effortless. The anecdotes are entertaining and keep you reading for more. I think some of his longer expostulations into the evils of urban poverty were a bit overwrought, but it wouldn't have been Orwell without them. This book is heartily recommended.
Rating: 
Summary: How down? How out?
Review: Something my fellow reviewers do NOT seem to have noticed is that this is a work of FICTION. Look for the word on the binding of your copy of the book. I have no doubt that Eric Blair, who changed his name to George Orwell when he wrote this book in order not to be discovered by his parents and friends, did have some brushes with the sort of life he describes. But how much of this are we to believe actually happened? The problem with Mr. Blair's work is that it is tendentious. There are any number of novels out there that include heart-rending accounts of the life of the poor during this era, try Somerset Maugham's Of Human bondage, for instance. But the polemic chapters at the end on word usage and societal change reveal the raison d'etre for this book. I wish Mr. Blair could have written a straightforward essay instead of this not very gripping account of slumming it around Dickens' two cities. In doing so, he exhibits the trait that he censures other writers for so severely in his later years, pretentious rot.
|
