Down and Out in Paris and London

I am a fan of Orwell. There is nothing that I've read of his that I did not like, although I have only read a few things. So I was predisposed to like this book. This story is odd. The "plot" is very repetitive; it consists of Orwell's more or less daily account of his seeking work in Paris and London in the 1930s Great Depression, mostly unsuccessfully, and the seeking of work is woven through with his description of near starvation in the process. Even though the book is repetitive in its accounting of these experiences, the writing is clear, insightfully detailed, and down to earth, and it does not get tiresome to read; I read the book in about two days. It's a close look at the underbelly of a few English settings, cities during the late 20s and perhaps early 30s of the 20th century. Furthermore, the narrative is punctuated with some wonderful character profiles of the (mostly) men that he buddies with along the way. It has significant good humor, despite the horrible conditions that Orwell experiences and describes; the characterizations of the handful of men he tramps with are especially humorous: Orwell was good, apparently, at picking out good mates in similar circumstances, men he could count on in a pinch. The first half of the book, set in Paris, is a bit more upbeat in tone than the second half, set in London. In the Paris section, much of the reportage is about Orwell's working as a dishwasher/busboy/gopher in a fancy hotel restaurant, and I found this reportage to be very accurate to what I know of current-day restaurants, which I know are still operated in the same chaotic way. The dining room is a different world from the kitchen. The second half of the book, the London section, is much more "down and out." I discovered from this book that during this time and probably in the Great Depression as well, England managed its tens of thousands of unemployed, homeless men (mostly men: 10:1 men to women) by providing them room and board, but the "tramps" could only stay one night, and were forced to march up to fifteen miles the next day to the next "accommodation"; these large institutional shelters were called "spikes." The accommodations were vermin-infested and the food was usually "tea and two slices": two pieces of bread with oil slathered on them and a cup of tea. To my mind, this book reminded me of a long New Yorker-like article in which the writer goes undercover to expose the horrors of a situation. Apparently, however, Orwell was not undercover but instead an unknown unemployed writer who was truly forced into this degraded, dangerous, unhealthy lifestyle. I knew that Orwell died before he was fifty, and after reading the book I wondered if these harrowing experiences did not somehow contribute to his early physical decline. This book is touted as a minor masterpiece. I don't know if I agree with that but it is essential reading for one who is studying Orwell. It certainly must have drawn on his socialist thinking, and he makes some astute recommendations for how England might better deal with the problem of massive unemployment.

Orwell offers an unflinching chronicle of day-to-day realities and hardships at society's lowest levels, written in his usual precise, unsentimental prose. At the baseline he performs an act of reportage---intended to expose and inform, to shake the reading public of the 1930s out of blithe assumptions about the origin and nature of poverty, of both working and destitute varieties. In this he succeeds. His accounts are visceral and direct. The impressions stay with you.In the process---never quite explicitly but always by unmistakable implication---he also makes a case for democratic socialism, one of his well-known lifelong causes. From the vantage of the 21st century his assumptions now ring rather simplistic and one-dimensional. But these shortcomings are forgivable, viewed in the context of the time.Where the book really falls short, however, is in a deceit that Orwell never quite admits. Unlike the real-life characters he depicts, he is in the end a visitor to these milieus, even a voyeur, able at any time to return to his middle-class life in rural England. His pretension to the contrary, regrettably, carries hints of dishonesty, albeit on the margins, and detracts from the power that the book might otherwise have had.Nevertheless a worthwhile read and one not one easily forgotten.

Orwell's first published book established a literary name for him and brought him some moderate success, which must have helped to escape the conditions that the book describes. It is a 'non-fiction' book with a lot of fictional spicing.Roughly, the book has two parts, as the title indicates: the Paris part is dominated by work as minimum salary helper in restaurant kitchens, then the London part is exclusively given to trampdom, caused by homelessness and joblessness.The two parts are oddly different in tone. The Paris adventures are, despite misery, darkly comical; the comedy aspect is clearly intended. The descriptions of lodging, eating, resp. not eating, working, partying are interjected with darkly funny tales about the types that populate the urban slums of the Paris of 1930. Some of them are quite disgusting, like the tales of drunken Charlie, who considers raping sex slaves as the ultimate in true love, while pitying them is base emotion. Or friend Boris, the ex captain of the White Russian army who considers Jews so far below a Russian officer, that they are not even worth his spittle. Less obnoxious is the tale of the miser who gets talked into investing some of his matress money into a load of cocain for transportation to England, gets arrested for possession, but freed when the police finds out it is 'face powder', whatever that is. The man dies of a broken heart.(The Orwell of the Paris half has a contemporary successor in Germany, an investigative journalist named Guenter Wallraff, who has made himself a name as undercover serf in the worst paid jobs in Germany, and is honestly dreaded by German employers.)The conditions in the two restaurants where Orwell works are so abominable that one would rather not eat in France any more. Of course that was nearly a century ago, and today everything is different. Right?Orwell then had enough and had hopes for a job in London, so he went back, but found his hopes frustrated. He runs out of cash fast and spends weeks with the homeless crowd, tramping from one asylum to the other and writing 'hotel reviews'. There are few jokes in this part. An intriguing quote from this part: a clergyman and his daughter came and stared silently at us for a while ('us' being a group of tramps waiting for the shelter to open).Orwell includes some theoretical chapters, like suggestions how to improve the legal situation, a typology of beggars, and a glossary on street language. This part lives mostly from his portraits of fellow tramps. The most impressive character is a pavement painter, who turns out to be a veritable philosopher. (An embittered atheist. He did not disbelieve in God as much as he disliked him.)The book is highly readable, despite its uneven character. Of course it stood in a broad literary tradition, and Orwell added to it.

Without doubt one of the most interesting and quirky books I’ve read in a long time. You have to take your hat off to George Orwell for writing about this difficult period and his many adventures in such a candid manner. If you’re a history buff I’d highly recommend!

Geroge Orwell, é por demais conhecido. Se conseguirmos lê-lo no original, é ainda mais interessante. Nos oferece uma apreciação de uma época pré a grande guerra.

This is a en excellent account of Orwell's own account of living in Paris and London in near destitution.The abject condition of the working poor in Paris and people out of work in London is an eye opener.How far we have progressed today in terms of improvement in quality of life becomes evident as one reads Orwell's account.This is a must read to understand the level of deprevation in two of the most richest cities in not too distant a past.

A real insight re living really rough in two of the most interesting cities in the world. An easy and quick read for travellers.

No me ha decepcionado. Libro que está en la línea de lo que esperaba de el. Por tanto yo lo recomendaría.