Daren
Orwell has been interviewed about this book and given slightly different explanation about the accuracy of this book, presented as autobiography. It is somewhere between 'all the events in the book happened' and 'most of the events are factually presented', which is ok for me. Dervla Murphy writes a very good introduction in my edition, where she explains this and other background.
When he originally tried to publish the Paris section of the book it was rejected, as too short, so he added the London section. The two work well together, but Orwell mentions nothing about his returning to his comfortable family home from Paris before setting out to live in the dosshouses of London. Again, that is fine. I would have ruined the flow of the narrative to have a holiday of luxury I expect. Ultimately Eric Blair decide he would publish under a pseudonym, choosing George Orwell - he was not sure how his family would feel about how he had been living, and wanted to offer separation to those who he wrote about (he changed their names too).
What to write about a book with over 8000 reviews on GR?
Well, I will keep it brief, and although when I read it I thought every second page was quotable, I noted down none, and spent 10 minutes looking for something only to come up short.
I loved this. 5 stars.
Well perhaps not that brief.
The two sections of the book both examine poverty. In the case of Paris, poverty of the hard workers at the bottom of the rung. The lowly dishwasher, or plongeur in a Parisian hotel. In the case of London, it is the tramps without jobs and without the prospect of a job, trapped as they are in the system of the boarding lodges, where they must have no money to stay, and they cannot stay in the same house more than once in a month, meaning perpetual moving from one area to another, removing the hope of finding work.
In Paris, teaching English and pursuing authorship, Eric Blair ends up without work and with very little money, in a poverty spiral. Being robbed of his cash, he ends up with great experiences to write of!
I thought the descriptions were excellent, my nose screwed up at the description of the smells; I cringed at stepping on the rubbish and waste he described on the floor; my skin itched as the bedbugs and other vermin were described. I felt sick for the guests of the hotel when Orwell described what the staff were doing, or even just their lack of hygiene. Some of the things described were foul beyond imagination, the lack of kitchen hygiene, safe handling of food, etc. Makes this reader reassured at the modern health inspectors, who notoriously do a poor job, but something is better than no checks and balances, right?
Orwell's whole relationship with the Boris the Russian refugee is hilarious and was inevitably a downward spiral based on the Russian's eternal optimism and Orwell's constant hunger and eking out of a few centimes to live on.
In London, having previously read the short essay The Spike I knew what was coming. This was a more leisurely telling of Orwell's experiences though, and again the descriptive writing was great. Orwell makes a great play at explaining the system traps those within it by its rules making it near impossible to ever fight their way back out of the system. More than in Paris, in London Orwell is voluntarily exploring life as a tramp. He has a a job lined up upon leaving Paris, as a caregiver for a mentally ill man, but the family go off on holiday for a month leaving Orwell at a loose end! Poverty tourism? Think of it as research I guess. He pawns his serviceable clothes for rags more in keeping with he fellow vagrants. A diet of bread and butter, shuffling from one spike to another, I think filling in days is the best description for his life for this period.
OK at risk of needing to go back and edit the bit about keeping it brief!
Orwell has been interviewed about this book and given slightly different explanation about the accuracy of this book, presented as autobiography. It is somewhere between 'all the events in the book happened' and 'most of the events are factually presented', which is ok for me. Dervla Murphy writes a very good introduction in my edition, where she explains this and other background.
When he originally tried to publish the Paris section of the book it was rejected, as too short, so he added the London section. The two work well together, but Orwell mentions nothing about his returning to his comfortable family home from Paris before setting out to live in the dosshouses of London. Again, that is fine. I would have ruined the flow of the narrative to have a holiday of luxury I expect. Ultimately Eric Blair decide he would publish under a pseudonym, choosing George Orwell - he was not sure how his family would feel about how he had been living, and wanted to offer separation to those who he wrote about (he changed their names too).
What to write about a book with over 8000 reviews on GR?
Well, I will keep it brief, and although when I read it I thought every second page was quotable, I noted down none, and spent 10 minutes looking for something only to come up short.
I loved this. 5 stars.
Well perhaps not that brief.
The two sections of the book both examine poverty. In the case of Paris, poverty of the hard workers at the bottom of the rung. The lowly dishwasher, or plongeur in a Parisian hotel. In the case of London, it is the tramps without jobs and without the prospect of a job, trapped as they are in the system of the boarding lodges, where they must have no money to stay, and they cannot stay in the same house more than once in a month, meaning perpetual moving from one area to another, removing the hope of finding work.
In Paris, teaching English and pursuing authorship, Eric Blair ends up without work and with very little money, in a poverty spiral. Being robbed of his cash, he ends up with great experiences to write of!
I thought the descriptions were excellent, my nose screwed up at the description of the smells; I cringed at stepping on the rubbish and waste he described on the floor; my skin itched as the bedbugs and other vermin were described. I felt sick for the guests of the hotel when Orwell described what the staff were doing, or even just their lack of hygiene. Some of the things described were foul beyond imagination, the lack of kitchen hygiene, safe handling of food, etc. Makes this reader reassured at the modern health inspectors, who notoriously do a poor job, but something is better than no checks and balances, right?
Orwell's whole relationship with the Boris the Russian refugee is hilarious and was inevitably a downward spiral based on the Russian's eternal optimism and Orwell's constant hunger and eking out of a few centimes to live on.
In London, having previously read the short essay The Spike I knew what was coming. This was a more leisurely telling of Orwell's experiences though, and again the descriptive writing was great. Orwell makes a great play at explaining the system traps those within it by its rules making it near impossible to ever fight their way back out of the system. More than in Paris, in London Orwell is voluntarily exploring life as a tramp. He has a a job lined up upon leaving Paris, as a caregiver for a mentally ill man, but the family go off on holiday for a month leaving Orwell at a loose end! Poverty tourism? Think of it as research I guess. He pawns his serviceable clothes for rags more in keeping with he fellow vagrants. A diet of bread and butter, shuffling from one spike to another, I think filling in days is the best description for his life for this period.
OK at risk of needing to go back and edit the bit about keeping it brief!