Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.82 AVERAGE
3.82 AVERAGE
Orwell’s study of the lives of the English working-class is a well-intentioned one, if not thorough. His patchwork descriptions and interests give the readers a view into the world of the miners and their families during the industrial revolution, but it is a window of stained glass. Coloured by the perceptions and biases of Orwell’s upbringing, and changed by his, at-times, unstudied conjecture, the book is not exactly a first-class primary source for the time. However, Orwell’s narrative and descriptions allow for the readers to view the working-class of the north through the eyes of an educated, middle-class southerner, which holds its own interest outside of objectivity. His easy acceptance of certain problems faced by the working class is as interesting as the ones he finds abhorrence in. Perhaps the most fascinating, and confusing, section is the ruminations on the beauty and ugliness of industrialization and her children. The first part ends on an odd note as Orwell, just finished describing the horrors of poverty brought by industrialization and capitalism, envisages an idyllic far future, where no shortages, of food or work, need be considered
As we move into the second section, Orwell cannot seem to make up his mind which mindset he endorses, or perhaps he cannot come to terms with either. He is vehemently against feminism, vegetarianism, and Russian Marxism. His essays are confused and repetitive, as Orwell struggles to justify his ‘lower-upper-middle-class’ mindset to his fellow socialists and readers. His attempts at unifying the working class, in terms of income, are rather insulting, for all parties. The disparaging introduction, written by the man who commissioned the book, makes quite a bit of sense, in contrast to Orwell’s writing, which often doesn’t.
As we move into the second section, Orwell cannot seem to make up his mind which mindset he endorses, or perhaps he cannot come to terms with either. He is vehemently against feminism, vegetarianism, and Russian Marxism. His essays are confused and repetitive, as Orwell struggles to justify his ‘lower-upper-middle-class’ mindset to his fellow socialists and readers. His attempts at unifying the working class, in terms of income, are rather insulting, for all parties. The disparaging introduction, written by the man who commissioned the book, makes quite a bit of sense, in contrast to Orwell’s writing, which often doesn’t.
I'm not the first person to say this, I'm sure, but this is a book of many parts, some of which work and some of which don't. The best stuff are maybe three chapters closest to memoir in the second half where Orwell develops the material that probably makes up the bulk of _Down and Out in London and Paris_ or whatever that book is called. The first half, which is mostly factual reporting, is awkward-- the writing is good, a lot of it is interesting, but it's also curiously absent of purpose; if this is journalism, it seems to be unaware of the story it's telling. The weird body worship of the coal miners is also strange and a little uncomfortable from this distance of time-- there is a romanticization of working class bodies going on here that we've seen elsewhere and that usually isn't great.
The argument or purpose of the book surfaces in part two, which we are warned will be difficult, where Orwell takes on the question of what to do about/ with/ in conjunction to the working class, and here the argument to me has a lot of flaws: in the first place, Orwell seems to think you have to want to be working class, and to accept the conditions of that lifestyle, to be in sympathy with it. It reminds me of the charge people made in high school, that I, we, they, wanted to be black because that was somehow more authentic or nourishing an experience. Orwell makes, essentially, the same mistake here, and it's a little silly.
Later in the book, he makes another mistake, about who the people are who support socialism, and why it's okay to ignore socialism because you dislike some of the people who are part of it-- this is an ad hominem attack, and doesn't even seem to make sense to me. But what do I know; Orwell is pretty young when he writes this-- 33, I think-- and it shows in his thinking.
Still, for the most part he writes really well, and that by itself makes a case for a kind of political speech shy of cant and humbug, as he'd say. And that remains powerful, even/ especially now.
The argument or purpose of the book surfaces in part two, which we are warned will be difficult, where Orwell takes on the question of what to do about/ with/ in conjunction to the working class, and here the argument to me has a lot of flaws: in the first place, Orwell seems to think you have to want to be working class, and to accept the conditions of that lifestyle, to be in sympathy with it. It reminds me of the charge people made in high school, that I, we, they, wanted to be black because that was somehow more authentic or nourishing an experience. Orwell makes, essentially, the same mistake here, and it's a little silly.
Later in the book, he makes another mistake, about who the people are who support socialism, and why it's okay to ignore socialism because you dislike some of the people who are part of it-- this is an ad hominem attack, and doesn't even seem to make sense to me. But what do I know; Orwell is pretty young when he writes this-- 33, I think-- and it shows in his thinking.
Still, for the most part he writes really well, and that by itself makes a case for a kind of political speech shy of cant and humbug, as he'd say. And that remains powerful, even/ especially now.
Stunning. When you think that this book was written in 1937, it’s truly mind blowing. We haven’t progressed much as a society in terms of class difference and how we interact with people ideologically dissimilar to ourselves. This will be a “read every couple of years” book for me from now on. Lots to digest!
Part 1 of this book describes life in the slum dwellings of industrialised towns in the 1930s, and the typical life of a mining community, and is quite an education - miners usually ended up with blue scars because coal dust would get into their cuts before they healed - who knew?!
Part 2 is a lengthy essay in why Orwell believed we should all become socialists and why he thought we weren’t. It’s interesting, particularly with the benefit of over 80 years of hindsight, to see how things have changed since the book was written, but also how some things haven’t changed at all. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
I did have some issues with the book; there is some blatant racism towards the indigenous populations of some of the former British Colonies (India and Burma in particular); while Orwell, who considered himself middle-class, did not consider himself better than the working-classes, he very much considered himself to be better than a Burmese. And even towards the “working classes”, he can sound very condescending.
Part 2 is a lengthy essay in why Orwell believed we should all become socialists and why he thought we weren’t. It’s interesting, particularly with the benefit of over 80 years of hindsight, to see how things have changed since the book was written, but also how some things haven’t changed at all. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
I did have some issues with the book; there is some blatant racism towards the indigenous populations of some of the former British Colonies (India and Burma in particular); while Orwell, who considered himself middle-class, did not consider himself better than the working-classes, he very much considered himself to be better than a Burmese. And even towards the “working classes”, he can sound very condescending.
Всички казват, че тази книга била "сърцераздирателно описание на бедността и ужасите на Голямата депресия", но ако я смятат само за това, пропускат голяма част от написаното в нея.
Наистина, първите няколко глави описват живота на бедната работническа класа в индустриалните градове на Великобритания по времето, когато Голямата депресия е в разгара си. Макар за никой, който има баба и дядо, отраснали на село, да не е никаква изненада, че големи семейства тогава е трябвало да се свират в малки къщички и да оцеляват с малко пари, съвсем вярно си е, че в Англия и Шотландия по онова време мизерията е доста голяма и то не само благодарение на общата икономическа рецесия, която намалява световния пазар на въглищата им и остава много миньорски семейства без поминък.
Ако човек има очи да забележи, макар Оруел да не му обръща внимание, нито едно от тези семейства няма земя, не притежава къща, а живее под наем. За мен, като българин, който е виждал безброй хора да си строят сами къщите остава загадка как така нито един от тия работници, вместо да плащат половината си заплата за наем на така картинно описаните от автора мизерни къщици, не си построи сам къща. Всъщност не е никаква загадка, защото знам - законите там по това време изключват както свободната продажба на земя, така и свободният строеж, така че бедните не само не могат да си позволят да си купят земя и да я обработват или да си построят къща на нея, ами и ако си богат къща се строи трудно, така че няма достатъчно къщи и поради това наемите са високи.
Голяма част от книгата е отделена на описание на междукласовите отношения в британското общество и може да се каже, че точно те показват най-големи паралели със съвременния свят и политически климат. Оруеловото описание на образованата средна класа, която се прави на солидарна с работниците и гласува за социалистите и даже за комунистите, но всъщност не питае нищо друго, освен отвращение от работническата класа и нейните интереси и начин на живот може да се види ясно и днес както в САЩ и Великобритания, така и у нас.
Макар от икономическите виждания и разбирания на Оруел да има доста още какво да се желае, неговата най-голяма сила са социалните и междучовешки отношения и там книгата блести дори в последните глави, където той разглежда социализма и фашизма (две много модерни тогава системи за държавно устройство - не забравяйте, че по това време Хитлер в Германия осъществява икономически чудо, а пропагандната информация, идваща от СССР я прави да изглежда просперираща и незасегната от кризата държава).
Наистина, първите няколко глави описват живота на бедната работническа класа в индустриалните градове на Великобритания по времето, когато Голямата депресия е в разгара си. Макар за никой, който има баба и дядо, отраснали на село, да не е никаква изненада, че големи семейства тогава е трябвало да се свират в малки къщички и да оцеляват с малко пари, съвсем вярно си е, че в Англия и Шотландия по онова време мизерията е доста голяма и то не само благодарение на общата икономическа рецесия, която намалява световния пазар на въглищата им и остава много миньорски семейства без поминък.
Ако човек има очи да забележи, макар Оруел да не му обръща внимание, нито едно от тези семейства няма земя, не притежава къща, а живее под наем. За мен, като българин, който е виждал безброй хора да си строят сами къщите остава загадка как така нито един от тия работници, вместо да плащат половината си заплата за наем на така картинно описаните от автора мизерни къщици, не си построи сам къща. Всъщност не е никаква загадка, защото знам - законите там по това време изключват както свободната продажба на земя, така и свободният строеж, така че бедните не само не могат да си позволят да си купят земя и да я обработват или да си построят къща на нея, ами и ако си богат къща се строи трудно, така че няма достатъчно къщи и поради това наемите са високи.
Голяма част от книгата е отделена на описание на междукласовите отношения в британското общество и може да се каже, че точно те показват най-големи паралели със съвременния свят и политически климат. Оруеловото описание на образованата средна класа, която се прави на солидарна с работниците и гласува за социалистите и даже за комунистите, но всъщност не питае нищо друго, освен отвращение от работническата класа и нейните интереси и начин на живот може да се види ясно и днес както в САЩ и Великобритания, така и у нас.
Макар от икономическите виждания и разбирания на Оруел да има доста още какво да се желае, неговата най-голяма сила са социалните и междучовешки отношения и там книгата блести дори в последните глави, където той разглежда социализма и фашизма (две много модерни тогава системи за държавно устройство - не забравяйте, че по това време Хитлер в Германия осъществява икономически чудо, а пропагандната информация, идваща от СССР я прави да изглежда просперираща и незасегната от кризата държава).
Disappointing. The first half is descriptive and evocative of a vanished way of life. Orwell writes in such a way that the reader is immersed in the subject, his description of down the mine being particularly strong. However the second half is for the main part a repetitive, rambling rant about pet subjects. True, he warned obliquely about the coming Fascist-led War but his point is almost lost in verbosity. The last two pages of the book could replace the whole of Part 2. Socialist sensitivity was obviously offended and the commissioners got more than what they bargained for but I can't help but feel that if Orwell had been less vitriolic he may well have been more successful in his call to Socialist arms.
Really interesting take from the 1940s on socialism. Unfortunately to many took from it a tools for creating fascists.
It's funny and quite typical to find the Jordan Peterson has recommended this book to his followers, which I'm sure they liked.
Orwell's 30s account is a mixed bag of honesty, and doesn't promote 'class reductionism' as much as some chapters seem to tell.
Orwell's 30s account is a mixed bag of honesty, and doesn't promote 'class reductionism' as much as some chapters seem to tell.
Maybe the best and most accurate depiction of poverty in the north of England. As always, Orwell's descriptions are unrivalled, but, behind the glorioous prose is the staggering and at times shocking conditions in which these people survive. Reading it today in 2015 one knows that on the surface things have changed, but, then one reflects, by how much?