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.

'Down And Out' was first published in 1933, an account of the poverty stricken streets of both Paris and London during the era. It bears little resemblance to today's homeless problems, but is an interesting study in older times where sweeping a sidewalk could make a difference between bread and no bread. A friend of mine told me that if I liked 'The Jungle' by Upton Sinclair that I should read 'Down And Out In Paris And London'. I found few similarities other than the filthy kitchens that Orwell describes, but I was glad this Orwell book was referred to me. All I've read by the author before are the standard 'Animal Farm' and '1984' that most people have read. (If you haven't read them, you should, they're great) Orwell's protagonist begins the story in the slums of Paris, occasionally teaching English classes for a bit of money. (One of the things I had a hard time translating is the foreign currency: a shilling, a franc, a sou, a pence, a crown, a pound, etc. But the prices are so out of date now in 2008 that it mattered very little) He's down and out on his luck, and running out of rent money. When he thinks he's at his lowest his friend Boris brings them a job at Hotel X, where the protagonist works as a plongeur (dishwasher/gopher/whatever). He works long, hot hours for little money, but can afford his rent. Boris has another dream though, that they both become employed at a 'yet to be opened' restaurant where Boris is promised a higher position. By the time our protagonist works at the new restaurant, he begins to believe that all the violations and harassments at Hotel X were superior. Becoming fed up with the harsh conditions and long hours, the protagonist writes to a friend in London for a position, which his friend promises. Worthy of note are the descriptions of the Hotel's and restaurant's kitchens. They are filthy beyond imagination, and the working conditions deplorable. Though the book is older and there are more inspections nowadays than there were back then, you'll still question the next meal that is served before you, even from a fancy restaurant. Our protagonist packs up and leaves Paris. Unfortunately, the position promised to him in London, that of looking after a feeble patron, isn't ready, so he's on the streets without lodging, food, or work to provide for himself. He spends time in the charity lodgings of London, meeting up with Paddy and Bozo and other characters. He quickly learns the ways of the street, and extrapolates on the cause and condition of the homeless society he finds himself in. The characters are fascinating. There's Boris - loud, lame, and strange. Charlie, who lives off a pittance from his family and will not work (and who loves the ladies - once portrayed in a horrible story he told). There's Paddy, resigned to his fate. There's Bozo, a screever (pavement artist), and a star-gazer who has an astonishingly bright outlook on street life. The concept of work vs idleness is explored, along with the concept of how hard the homeless actually "work" (panhandling, selling matches, selling herbs like lavender, getting up early and waiting in line for jobs, "screeving", pawning, even stealing) for the privilege of a bug ridden cot and watered down tea. The book is a study in poverty even though its outdated. The one thing I didn't like about it was the abrupt ending. The story could have used a little more conclusion, in my opinion. Overall, I'm glad I explored this addition to my Orwell collection, and highly recommend it. Enjoy!

I think this is one of his best books. I usually pass books along for others to read, but am keeping this one for me to read again. There are some introspective thoughts of Orwell’s character in this book that are relevant to people across the years.

Insightful and relatable , a good reading when you are out of work….

パリとロンドンで放浪生活をオーウェルがしてその体験を書いたものです。 大学の時読んだのですがとても面白かったです。

Awesome book, read it, you will like it and if not, try again I love mr Blair

This book is Orwell's autobiographical account of life in the Paris slums and amongst London tramps. Do not expect a happy story or happy endings for most of the characters - it will though, give you quite an insight of how poverty works and why it is so hard to shake it, once one falls on hard times. The book starts with the Paris section and at a time just before the author falls on hard times. While it sounded dire to start off with, the transition in some way makes it much worse very rapidly and soon thereafter while not out for good, the author finds himself in a situation that seems practically impossible to climb out of. The description of the situation and the challenges associated with poverty are some of the most eloquent statements for more tolerance towards the less fortunate in our society. The London bit points to some differences with Paris (harder to starve but conditions worse otherwise) but presents the same grim picture. There are a couple of chapters in the book, where Orwell tries to make sense out of why these conditions persist and why so little is don to end them. Some readers might find these very communist and be put off by them, on the other hand, Orwell does get some things right - namely the complete lack of understanding of people who have never been poor of what poverty really is like and how difficult it is to climb out of it once one finds oneself there (a message coming out much clearer from the chapters describing the situation than te summary ones analysing it). This is most certainly not a feelgood book and unlike with the Animal Farm: A Fairy Story or Nineteen Eighty-four there is no (black / hidden) humour to be found here. It is heartrending and at times depressing but it is a book worth reading and I would very much recommend it to people across the political spectrum.