"Şimdi bana öyle geliyor ki, yoksulluğun kıyısından köşesinden görülenden daha fazla bir şey görebilmiş değilim.

Yine de meteliksiz kalmanın bana kesinlikle öğrettiği bir iki şeyi gösterebilirim. Bir daha hiçbir zaman berduşların sarhoş birer ahlâksız olduğunu düşünmeyeceğim, bir peni verdim diye bir dilencinin bana minnet duymasını beklemeyeceğim, işsizler uyuşuksa buna şaşmayacağım, Selamet Ordusu'na para vermeyeceğim, giysilerimi rehine koymayacağım, sokakta birisinin uzattığı el ilanını geri çevirmeyeceğim, şık bir restoranda yediğim yemekten tat almayacağım. Bu, bir başlangıç" (s.255).

Aslında kitabı tam da bu son cümleleri özetliyor. Kitap boyunca George Orwell'ın Paris'te ve Londra'da bulabildiği oldukça kötü koşullu işlerde çalışmasını, bir iki dilim ekmek ve biraz şarap için kıyafetlerini bile rehine verişini, en sonunda da çalışmadan, aldığı borçlarla çeşitli "düşkünler evlerinde" kalışını okuyoruz. Bu yönlerden kitap bana Aspidistra'yı anımsattı.

Bazı yerlerden sonra tekrara düşüldüğünü hissettim ve bu durum beni biraz bunalttı. Bu sebeple diğer Orwell kitaplarına oranla biraz daha az tat aldım diyebilirim.

رواية عظيمة اخرى من الكاتب جورج اورويل, على رغم ان رواية سوف تأخذك الى اعماق التدني الانساني بشكل سوف تقزز منه او احتمال ان تكره ولكن الكاتب يقول لك بطريقة تجعلك ان تقراء او تسمع له للنهاية وبطريقة بها التقبل والحل لان كل شخص منا معرض لهذه الاشياء في الحياة.
في هذه الرواية يأخذنا جورج اوريل الى اعماق لندن وباريس الذين من اشهر المدن في العالم به الكثير من الفقر والتشرد ولكن متجاهل عليه, المدينتين الشهيرتين في العالم سوف تكتشفهم كثيرا في هذه الرواية ومن الممكن ان تكرهم في نفس الوقت, ولك�� الكاتب سرد لنا حياة المتشردين والفقراء والكثير من هذه الطبقة بطريقة تجعلك تفكر مرة اخرى بهم وبطريقة عيشهم, رواية تستحق ان تقراء وبراي الشخصي يجب ان تكون من الرويات العظيمة عبر التاريخ, من الشيء الجميل في الرواية على رغم كل الاحداث والسرد في اواخر الرواية الكاتب يشرح لنا اسباب هذه الظاهرة وما الحل معها.
في النهاية احب فقط اضيف هذه الشيء من الكتاب (في الوقت الحاضر أشعر أنني لم أعرف من البؤس إلا حافته . لكني قادر على الإشارة إلى أمر أو امرين تعلمتها جيداً في محنتي . لن افكر ثانية بأن كل المتشردين هو أوغاد سكيرون ولن أتوقع أن يكون متسول ممتناً حين أعطيه بنساً ، ولن يدهشني أن يكون العاطلون يفتقدون الطاقة على العمل ، وأن يشتركوا في جيش الخلاص ، وأن أرهن ملابسي ، وأنني لن أرفض إعلانا يدوياً ولن ألتذ بوجبة في مطعم فاخر إنها لبداية).


Another great novel by the writer George Orwell, although the novel will take you to the depths of human inferiority in a way that you will disgust him or the possibility that you hate but the writer tells you in a way that makes you to read or hear him to the end and the way of acceptance and solution because each of us is exposed to these things. Life.
In this novel, George O'Reilly takes us to the depths of London and Paris, one of the most famous cities in the world, with a lot of poverty and homelessness. But the two famous cities in the world will discover them a lot in this novel and can be hated at the same time. And a lot of this class in a way that makes you think again about them and their way of life, a novel worth reading and my personal opinion should be one of the great narratives throughout history, the beautiful thing in the novel despite all events and narration in the end of the novel the writer explains the reasons for this phenomenon and what is the solution with it .
In the end, I just like to add this thing to the book (for the time being I feel that I have only known misery but I am able to point to a thing or two that I have learned well in my trials.) I will not think again that all homeless people are cynics and I would not expect to be a grateful beggar When I give him Pence, I will not be surprised that the unemployed lack the energy to work, and participate in the Salvation Army, and to put on my clothes, and I will not reject a declaration manually and will not eat a meal in a luxury restaurant it is the beginning).

There is so much more to Orwell than 1984 and Animal Farm…

This reminded me a bit of Thoreau's Walden in that you don't feel like Orwell had to go through with this. It's self-imposed deprivation. However, while Thoreau went on a camping trip to prove he was a hardy outdoorsman and that anybody could and should do it, Orwell put himself through his ordeal in order to investigate a situation. The same problem exists in both circumstances though. Both men could extract themselves at any time if they wished. In Orwell's situation, that means he was only experiencing the details of being poor, not fully feeling the all-but inescapable confinement of being destitute. Knowing you can't get out of a situation has a deleterious affect on one's outlook and actions.

Having said that, Orwell gets as close to the real thing as probably possible in Down and Out in Paris and London. Throughout much of the narrative, he's living hand to mouth with only the clothes on his back for possessions. The going is tough and made tougher by the prejudice people show towards a tramp.

But Orwell's a good storyteller with plenty of tales to tell. His characterizations of some quite colorful characters are a joy. So, while this topic can get heavy at times, there's enough lighthearted fun within these pages to make the reading fairly even.

Because parts of this book were admittedly embellished and other parts are clearly a factual account, it's hard to know how to shelve this and it's not always easy to trust what you're reading. I want to say that it's obvious what's real and what isn't, but seeing how some people fall hard for fake news these days, I'm hesitant to label anything "obvious".

Down and Out in Paris and London is a eulogy to poverty. Based on Orwell's experience, the book explores the theme from different viewpoints. Orwell resigned from the Imperial police to become a writer. It is this decision that led him to lead the life he describes in Down and Out in Paris and London. He lives the life of a destitute in Paris, working in and out as a dishwasher to earn his keep. In London, he lives the life of a vagrant. His lived-in experience in poverty enabled him to make a good account of poverty and its implications.

The main purpose of writing the book was to demolish the misconception of poverty and the poor. Society held the view that poverty was somehow a fault of the people. Either they were lazy or they lacked the ability to work themselves up. At no point did they consider that perhaps there were things that don't meet the eye. Orwell's book is an effort to enlighten what the eyes don't see. Orwell shows how even the educated people struggle to survive, laying their hands in all sorts of jobs just to make their ends. It is not the absence of will but the opportunity. Also, unforeseen circumstances like illness, accidents, theft, or sheer bad luck can reduce one to poverty. Poverty is not always the fault of the poor. Orwell then demonstrates how badly the poor are generally treated. The shabby clothes, the smell, the unwashed countenance, and the starved look are enough for the public to recoil from them in disgust. This works negatively in the poor's psyche as they withdraw more and more into themselves, demoralising them.

Poverty can, however, work contrarily to what is described above. George Orwell shows how poverty can work as inspiration and motivation. Rather than making poverty one's prison, he can turn his confinement into something that motivates and inspires him so he can break the prison door and step up to the world. Poverty is also a freedom, Orwell says; it helps one to act differently. From an artistic point of view, this freedom is valuable, as we can see from Orwell's life.

Having said that, I don't think the book is a memoir. It is more of what is now called an autobiografiction, partly autobiography and partly fiction. I can't help but think that the Paris and London living was his own choosing just to find the material for his writing. The first part of the book describes his life in Paris and the second, London. I enjoyed the first part more. It had more vibrant characters and a colourful story. The second part was monotonous. The story and the characters were dull and insipid. Down and Out in Paris and London is an important book in George Orwell's canon, although it may not be his best.

More of my reviews can be found at http://piyangiejay.com/

English version below

*****************

In diesen Memoiren der anderen Art beschreibt Orwell eine Phase in seinem Leben, die er nahezu ohne Geld und unter extrem prekären Bedingungen verbringen musste.

In Paris bringt er sich mehr oder weniger erfolgreich als Tellerwäscher durch, während er sich in London in die Landstreicherbrigade eingliedert.

In beiden Fällen beschreibt er präzise die Mangelernährung, die grauenhaften hygienischen Zustände, die brutale Arbeit und die Verachtung der Gesellschaft. Aber wir erfahren auch von der oftmals erstaunlichen Hilfsbereitschaft in den jeweiligen Communities.
Speziell in Teil über London macht Orwell sich stark für die Obdachlosen und Bettler und verurteilt massiv wie der Rest der Bevölkerung mit mit ihnen umgeht.

Ein interessanter Bericht über eine für die meisten von uns ungewohnte Lebensrealität, die vor allem auch als historisches Dokument lesenswert ist.

----------------

In this memoir of a different kind, Orwell describes a phase in his life that he had to spend with almost no money and under extremely precarious conditions.

In Paris he gets by more or less successfully as a dishwasher, while in London he joins the vagrant brigade.

In both cases, he describes precisely the malnutrition, the horrible hygienic conditions, the brutal work and the contempt of society. But we also learn about the often astonishing willingness to help in the respective communities.
Especially in the part about London, Orwell makes a strong case for the homeless and beggars and massively condemns how the rest of the population treats them.

An interesting report about a reality of life that is unfamiliar to most of us, which is also worth reading as a historical document.

طعم تلخ فقر..بهترین جمله ایه که میشه باهاش این کتابو توصیف کرد ..این کتابو پیشنهاد میکنم به همه دوستان...به امید اینکه ما هم مثه نویسنده این داستان در اخر کتاب دیدگاهمون نسبت به ظرفشورها و خانه بدوشان عوض بشه...

Nitko bješe Orveliću Đorđe.

Međutim, kada, s rukom na srcu, onkraj ovih autobiografskih zapisa prizna da: "Sada mi se samo čini da sam video ivicu bede.", otvoriće sasvim osobito polje problema: ontologiju pisanja o bedi.

Nije reč o tome da bi trebalo posumnjati u autentičnost/iskrenost bilo čega odavde - bože me sačuvaj! - niti o tome kako bi čitati "Nikoga i ničega" kao autofikciju bilo blasfemija po sebi. Tek da ne započinjem s tiradom o tome da autofikciju sve više doživljavam kao žanrovsko-tržišni ćiribu da se sve podvede romanu. Žanr prodaje je, naravski, antipod orvelovskom duhu. [Pod prozorom senke duge, izdali smo jedni druge!]

Ne, jer Orvel piše istinonosno-proživljeno i o šljakerima, o glodanju prekovremenim radom: "To je ponos crnčenja - ponos čoveka koji prihvata ma koju količinu posla.", kao što to istovetno čini i sa beskućništvom i bedom: "Otkrivaš da čovek koji samo nedelju dana živi na hlebu i margarinu nije više čovek, već samo stomak s nekoliko pomoćnih organa" ili "Fatalno je izgledati kao da si gladan. To u ljudima budi želju da te šutnu."

Već je, čini mi se, ponajpre reč o implicitnom priznanju da su zapisi ispisani sa bezbednog mesta. Pa ipak ni tu nema razloga za bilo šta postidno. Jer, da se prevalio preko ruba i promatrao iz centra, povratak u pisanje bio bi nemoguć.

Disgustato dalla realtà coloniale in Birmania, dove era arruolato nella Polizia Imperiale, Orwell si dimette e se ne va a Parigi.
L’intento di osservare la miseria ricalca quello che fece vent’anni prima Jack London quando travestito da operaio visse nei bassifondi londinesi raccontando, poi, la sua esperienza ne
"Il popolo dell'abisso"

Forse la scelta del venticinquenne Eric Arthur Blair (il vero nome di Orwell) fu una forma di intenzionale contrappasso.
Da rappresentante di un potere oppressore a volontario tra i reietti metropolitani.
Parigi prima, Londra poi.
Le descrizioni della fame così come dei lavori sfiancanti (farà lo sguattero in hotel e in un ristorante) non sono propriamente accurate nella forma (” Vorrei essere Zola per un momento” ) quanto nella sostanza. Dal paese dei bistrot a quello delle teiere la miseria fa lo stesso rumore, quello di uno stomaco vuoto.

” E tuttavia ci sono alcune cose che, campando senza soldi, ho imparato bene: non penserò mai più che tutti i vagabondi siano furfanti ubriaconi, non mi aspetterò gratitudine da un mendicante quando gli faccio l'elemosina, non mi sorprenderò se i disoccupati mancano di energia, non aderirò all'Esercito della Salvezza, non impegnerò i miei abiti, non rifiuterò un volantino, non gusterò un pranzo in un ristorante di lusso.
Questo tanto per cominciare.”

Много хора въобще не знаят, какво е да си истински беден. Други са успели да забравят, а на трети им предстои да разберат.

Мизерията, оскотяването и безсилието вървят дружно ръка за ръка, без значение дали това става из Лондон, Париж, Калкута или Перник.

На дъното се живее тегаво и трудно, често безпаметно, но има и нюанси, в това как обществото е уредило преживяването на пропадналите по една или друга причина там.

В Париж, плонжорите и като цяло обслужващия персонал робуват за мизерни надници безбройни часове, докато в Лондон бедните са принудени да скитат непрестанно, за да оцелеят.

За стотина години почти нищо не се е променило. Преди двайсетина години работех на круизен кораб 5* и бях потресен от ниското ниво на хигиена в кухните на ресторантите му, както и от мърлявите готвачи и кухненски персонал.

Дебютната и автобиографична книга на Оруел е добра, макар и да ми изглежда недовършена. Вижда се и талантът му, който ще избуи през годините и ще ни даде много поводи за размисъл!

Цитати:

"Има само един начин да изкараш пари с писане, и той е да се ожениш за дъщерята на издател."

"На практика никой не се интересува полезен ли е един труд или е безполезен, градивен ли е, или паразитен; единственото изискване е да носи печалба."

This is a fascinating account of poverty and survival on the fringes of society in two European capitals of prosperity, Paris and London, during the depression era of the early 1930's. Written in the style of a memoir, George Orwell takes readers down the rabbit hole of living constantly on the edge of being down to one's last centime. Starting in Paris, where readers find him eking out an uncertain existence living on a few francs per day, under continual threat of being evicted from his squalid, verminous lodgings and often foregoing meals for days on end. The depression and hopelessness of his situation is palpable as he pawns his last possessions and desperately seeks work, day after day, abetted by his conniving, equally impoverished, Russian friend, Boris, with no reasonable prospects in sight. Even after his fortunes change and he finds employment as a lowly 'plongeur' in a hotel, his existence remains tenuous. Orwell finds himself a slave to his mind-numbing job and hardly better off than when he was on the breadline. Later, after a string of small misfortunes he decides to leave Paris to pursue a job prospect in London, arranged with the help of a friend. Yet in London, his situation hardly improves as his promised work opportunity fails to materialize immediately. Orwell then turns to a life of vagrancy as he bides his time for his fortunes to change once more. This leads to a series of demoralizing experiences tramping around London from one workhouse (i.e., poorhouse) to the next. During this time he makes the acquaintance of several colorful characters who teach him important life lessons. Overall, Down and Out in Paris and London is a gripping, brutally honest and authentic account of poverty and survival in 1930’s Europe. My main critique of the novel has to do with its occasional racist viewpoint towards Jews and Blacks, which I found at time off-putting. Admittedly, Orwell was writing in a different time when such slurs were socially accepted and pervasive. Yet I can imagine that this might be offensive to some readers and perhaps is good to know before choosing to read this novel.

George Orwell described ‘Down and Out in Paris and London’ as a “fairly trivial story” with the hope that it is interesting “in the same way as a travel diary is interesting”. What Orwell provides us with is certainly much more than the “trivial story” to which he refers. What we have is a very descriptive, readable and engaging (whilst depressing and at times repulsive) account of his time as a ‘Plongeur’ (employed to carry our menial kitchen work) in Paris coupled with a similarly compelling account of the time he spent as a ‘Tramp’ amongst the ‘Tramping community’ of London. In addition there is in and amongst (albeit a limited amount of) very valid and pertinent social commentary and sociological analysis of the social systems supporting and surrounding these two particular existences and the wider social position and standing of ‘the poor’ in general in societ(ies).

So what Orwell (from his relatively privileged position and social standing) could quite easily be accused of here, in what could be described as his apparent holidaying with ‘the poor’ – is perhaps a significant condescension to, or patronising of the group of people he was living and working with, or on a wider scale the generic ‘poor’ as a whole? However, it seems to me that what Orwell is doing here and what he is giving us, is born out of an eagerness and moral imperative to understand the lives of such as the French ‘Plongeur’ and the English ‘Tramp’ – moreover to understand why and how such existences are (or were at that time) seemingly perpetuated and supported by societal systems. Presenting us with very vivid accounts of lives lived under such circumstances – very much raising questions for society to answer.

Dependant on which source you read – the events that are described in Orwell’s book either happened to him, he witnessed or were recounted to him as true events - the never ending drudgery of the kitchen ‘Plongeur’ in Paris, the perpetual street walking in search of food and shelter of the London tramp both recounted and portrayed here vividly by Orwell. Both seemingly surviving on (what would seem to most of us from our privileged standpoint) absurdly small amounts of money and food – and the appallingly fundamental existence that goes with that. What is described with both (particularly so with the ‘Tramps’) is the perpetual search for money, for food, for shelter, for survival. Such a very basic existence on the most basic of food, sleeping and living in the most unsanitary of conditions – the never ending hours of work (the ‘Plongeur’) the never ending hours of enforced drifting (the ‘Tramp’).

There are clear parallels between the very poorly paid then and their modern day contemporaries (in the UK) on zero-hours contracts, minimum wages, very much at the mercy of their employers. Likewise, between the ‘Tramps’ of the pre-welfare state London and the homeless ‘underclass’ of 21st century UK – who despite the best efforts of the welfare state and many charitable organisations, are still very much (more than ever) with us today.

Along with the description of the utterly miserable and difficult existence led by both ‘Plongeur’ and ‘Tramp’ – we have (what may be considered all too brief) sociological analysis and look at the following:

A.tThe fear and loathing of the poor by the more privileged in society
B.tThe control and perpetuation of ‘The Poor’ by way of societal systems
C.tThe considered futility and meaningless of both existences
D.tThe maintenance of societies status quo

I approached this book by Orwell with some trepidation – the only other Orwell books I had read having been the near perfect ‘1984’ and ‘Animal Farm’ – both amongst some of the greatest short novels ever written in the English language. Clearly though, ‘Down and Out’ is a very different kind of book – it does not, nor should not bear comparison. I was also concerned about the potential for romanticising the poor, in the way of the ‘noble’ and ‘honourably’ destitute. Nevertheless, Orwell’s book (which is at the very least semi-autobiographical) Orwell gives his account – very vivid, very much ‘warts and all’ of the acutely hard life of those he was living with – to an extent holding that mirror up to society and challenging us to look at what is in front of us – abject poverty and futile existences in the heart of rich countries such as France and the UK.

Orwell asks or infers here many, many questions about ‘the poor’ in society and doesn’t in any way shy away from the degradation and abject poverty of their existence and to that extent his book is successful.

What the 21st century reader should perhaps be considering here – is which of the questions that Orwell raises, still remain unanswered so many years later?

As an appendix – a few further thoughts on ‘Down and Out’ after writing my initial review:

What Orwell does here is provide an ostensibly almost journalistic account of his time amongst the poor of Paris and London – by doing so he is challenging the reader to consider (from their probably privileged perspective) the truly awful way in which many at that time lived (and many still do) in abject poverty and squalor and by doing so to raise the questions that society should be asking itself.

Whilst it is clearly true that the 21st century societies of Paris and London may well be very different from those at the time of Orwell’s writing (it’s now almost a hundred years ago) and we should therefore consider the following:

-tWe may define ‘poverty’ now differently
-tSome of the underlying causes of that poverty may have changed
-tThe modern day experience of poverty may well also be different
-tThe way that contemporary poverty manifests itself may have changed

The above notwithstanding however, are not the questions perhaps suggested or prompted by Orwell throughout ‘Down and Out’ still just as pertinent and relevant today as they were in the 1920’s when Orwell was writing? If so, then why is that?

-tThere still such disparities in wealth?
-tThere such a social divide?
-tThe ‘poor’ continue to be demonised by the privileged?
-tIn ‘civilised’ and cash rich societies such as the UK and France, the ‘poor’ still exist?
-tSuch abject poverty not been consigned to history?

Above all else:

-tWhy do we still need to ask ourselves these questions?