Discuss the presentation of poverty and deprivation in 'down and Out in Paris and London' and the plays 'Strife' and 'The Silver Box'.
Discuss the presentation of poverty and deprivation in 'down and Out in Paris and London' and the plays 'Strife' and 'The Silver Box'.
In 'Down and Out in Paris and London' Orwell describes and discusses poverty as he saw and experienced it. Orwell describes that poverty is not the way people expect it to be. People, who have never personally experienced poverty, believe that it must be terrible, Orwell tells us that it is not, he says that it is 'squalid' and 'boring'. He also says that poverty and therefore, hunger degrade a man to "a belly with some additional organs". Orwell has written 'Down and Out in Paris and London' so that it can be read and understood by all societies. This book gives the reader a new insight into the lives of the deprived and poverty stricken. This novel provides insight, intelligence and enlightenment to the society in which we live.
Orwell begins in Paris at the start of the novel; while Orwell is in Paris he both sees and lives in a terrible poverty. He has no money; this is not because he is lazy and does not work or because he is ill and unable to work, the fact of the matter is that the jobs simply do not pay enough money for people to live a good standard of life. The work available is hard, gruelling work and the hours last between fourteen to sixteen hours a day even with these long hard working conditions the money is so little that even working these atrocious hours life is still a struggle for the people in Paris at this time. The place where Orwell goes to live is dirty and squalid. There are little or no furnishings and his room is infected with bugs and rats. There is no bath for Orwell to use so instead most days he goes about his work unwashed and unshaven. The people in Paris can not afford to marry either, they are far too poor to be able to afford anything that could be considered a luxury, so the people of Paris are even poor in love as well as luxuries. Orwell had no experience of being poor so he often handled his money badly and went a day without food. Sometimes he smuggled out some clothes to take them to the pawnshop to get some money. The pawnshop reflects the total poverty people were living in because Orwell had to queue for a long time because so many people need to sell their belongings to be able to live.
There were many tramps in London at the time Orwell writes about and these tramps had to stay in the 'spikes'. The 'spikes' are dirty and very basic and the tramps only stay in one of the spikes in London for one night per month and only have two nights a month in the other spikes. There were problems with small pox, beatles and other bugs, urine, dirt and also there was a problem homosexuality which may have been caused due to the fact that these men were cut off from women because of the way they were forced to live. Orwell says that the world of poverty is primarily a man's world with less than ten percent of those 'on the bum' being women. The power of the law is very obvious to see, the tramps are not allowed to loiter, beg or smoke on or around the streets. The religious organisation Orwell talks about seems to abuse the tramps slightly because the tramps have to listen to prayers and hymns in order to get some food. This seems quite anti-Christian, almost blackmail. Bozo commented on the way that people seemed like they could preach to the tramps just because they were poor,
'It is curious how people take it for granted that they have a right to preach at you and pray over you as soon as your income falls below a certain level.'
Bozo's general notion is that a life as a tramp is just as normal as any other type of life and that straight working people feel superior to tramps, yet in most of their own work they produce little of any social value, and are little better than the tramp who produces nothing. Bozo gets angry with the beggars who give up on life and ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
'It is curious how people take it for granted that they have a right to preach at you and pray over you as soon as your income falls below a certain level.'
Bozo's general notion is that a life as a tramp is just as normal as any other type of life and that straight working people feel superior to tramps, yet in most of their own work they produce little of any social value, and are little better than the tramp who produces nothing. Bozo gets angry with the beggars who give up on life and allow themselves to fall into the stereotype that society places on them.
'Yet if one looks closely one sees that there is no essential difference between a beggar's livelihood and that of numberless respectable people.'
He goes on to say that,
'In practice nobody cares whether work is useful or useless, productive or parasitic; the sole thing demanded is that it shall be profitable.'
Orwell presents his ideas in a first person, prose narrative, autobiographical manner. He uses many very vivid anecdotes for example the story of the face powder which is sold as drugs or Yvonne and the twins. Orwell incorporates his own personal opinions and ideas throughout the novel and in that way he keeps a very personal input throughout. He portrays the effects of poverty with the use of very strong characters such as Boris so the reader knows how people felt during these years of complete poverty and desperation. In the section on poverty in England Orwell spends more time in analysis than description. Bozo is the character that allows Orwell to preach and philosophise about poverty. He talks for dignity of humans, even the 'down and out' beggars. Bozo struggles inside the world of desperate poverty to have some sense of dignity.
'He considers himself in a class above the ordinary run of beggars, who, he said, were an abject lot, without even the decency to be ungrateful.'
Orwell claims that what he writes is a true reflection of his time spent in London. Whereas in Paris Orwell depended on a lot on anecdotes and characters, in the London section he seems to use less of these in an attempt to portray more forcefully the reality of the 'spikes' and the poverty in London. There are far fewer characters in London. When Orwell is evicted from his apartment it becomes apparent to the reader that the hardships he faces they could only dream of. The brilliance of Orwell here is the fact that he manages to form a link between the reader and himself so that the reader cannot only understand his predicament but also feel sympathy and despair as Orwell is forced to work several poor paying jobs in an uptown Paris hotel. Orwell brings reality to the reader, when he arrives in London, his job has been postponed for a month and again through misfortunate circumstances and no fault of his own he is forced to become a tramp and again see everything he owns. Orwell is trying not only to explain how a persons luck can change so dramatically but also that nothing is certain and there is no limit to somebody's misfortune. When reading the book readers find themselves gripped; almost pleading with Orwell to provide the enthusiastic unfortunate 'star' of the book with some sort of relief, throughout the book, the story is clouded with a 'curtain of despair.' Orwell designed the book not to separate the reader form the emotions of the novel.
In Claus B. Storgaard's essay, On George Orwell's Political Development he seems to think that the real question that Orwell is trying to answer when he lives as a 'plongeur' in Paris is 'Why does this slavery continue?' People believe that all work has a purpose for example coal mining is hard, but necessary - we need coal. And working in the sewers is unpleasant, but someone has to keep the sewers in order. Orwell thinks the same as the job of a 'plongeur'. People eat in restaurants, therefore someone else has to wash dishes 80 hours a week. This is society and there is nothing more to it. The question tha Storgaard then goes on to ask is 'Is the work of a 'plongeur' necessary for civilisation? Storgaard thinks that these were the questions that Orwell was trying to address in his time as a plongeur. There may be a need for hotels, but is it necessary that they have hundreds of people toiling for them? Orwell tries to go beyond the immediate economic causes (which he does go deeper into) and he concludes that
"this instinct to perpetuate useless work is, at bottom, simply fear of the mob. The mob (the thought runs) are such low animals that they would be dangerous if they had leisure; it is safer to keep them too busy to think."
Storgaard goes on to say that in his book Orwell examines a lot of things, for example 'the class system and social economy; subjects that with a bit of thinking could show the connection between the social structure and the misery.' In that light it is rather strange that Orwell does not think he has learnt more. All Orwell claims to have learnt is;
"Still I can point to one or two things I have definitely learned by being hard up. I shall never again think that all tramps are drunken scoundrels, not expect a beggar to be grateful when I give him a penny, nor be surprised if men out of work lack energy, nor subscribe to the Salvation Army, nor pawn my clothes, nor refuse a handbill, not enjoy a meal at a smart restaurant. That is a beginning."
Storgaard seems to think that there is far more of use and interest in the novel that what Orwell manages to draw from it.
The personal involvement of the author is very strong indeed and he talks about himself a great deal. And in chapter 22 Orwell devotes the whole chapter to discussing his own views and opinions of the hard life of a 'plongeur'. Orwell is considered a socialist in the Paris section and could be considered to be a reformer; and he presents his ideas as a young socialist eager for change. In chapter 36 Orwell goes on to give his own views and opinions on the immature socialism of himself as a young man and he gives his solution to the problems in London at the time. He wants to get rid of the prejudice about the tramps and he gives a rather romantic impression a tramps lot in life. He says the 'tramp monster' is enshrined in the mind of people and he says that they are docile and emphasises the idea that tramps cannot afford to be drunkards. The Paris section was very entertaining and from my point of view I think it is presented well, a combination between social issues and the amusing anecdotes. It educated me about the struggling economies and helps me to appreciate the way people suffer when they live in such disgusting poverty. It helps me to feel sympathy for people still living in equal or perhaps even worse poverty in the world today. The London section gave me the impression that poverty was a genuine national problem and in terms of poverty I think London had much more serious problems than in Paris. Personally I think Paris was more entertaining because of the anecdotes and characters but London was more hard hitting and brings a true realisation to the reader of the hardships in the world of poverty.
The novel is written on the back of the Wall Street Crash which threw nearly all world economies into absolute 'meltdown' and also on the back of World War I which was fought on French soil in 1921. These historical events not only affected the country as a whole but the normal people as individuals.
Perhaps the most important lesson Orwell preaches is that the lives of the 'down and out' are little more than the constant struggle to eat and find a safe place to sleep. Life is little more than the pursuit of these things. Orwell describes poverty as he saw and experienced it. It is 'brutal, debilitating, full of suffering and demeaning to the core of one's being.'
In Galsworthy's play 'Strife' and 'The Silver Box' the presentation of poverty and deprivation is very obvious to see. In 'The Silver Box' Mrs Jones is struggling to pay the rent in her tiny, dirty flat yet she works in a huge house belonging to the Barthwicks. She has only one room. The poor cannot always afford to feed their children and they often have nothing but still spend money. For example Jock is addicted to alcohol but he cannot afford this vice. The poor people want to work but there is no work available to them so they cannot make a life for themselves. Even when the people can find work the pay is poor, 1/2 crown for four days work. The upper classes are not willing to help the poor because they are not their problem. In 'Strife' the problems are similar. John Anthony, the president does not want to make even the slightest concession even though the men have been 'out' for six months and are in a condition of semi-starvation. The strikers are worn and weary with the terrible struggle, driven and tortured by the awful sight of poverty at home. The appalling state of the strikers is demonstrated by the women. Anna Roberts, sick with heart trouble and slowly dying for want of warmth ad nourishment. Roberts has given
"All brain, heart and blood. Sacrificed even his wife to the cause."
Mrs Rous so accustomed to privation that her present poverty seems easy compared with the misery of her whole life. Enid does not know the life of Anna Roberts' class; that it is all a gamble from the "time 'e 's born to the time 'e dies". The presidents daughter, like many women believes that a little sympathy can bridge the gap between the classes, or as her father says,
"You think with your gloved hands you can cure the troubles of the century."
In 'Modern Dramatists' Ashley Dukes claims that 'The Silver Box', is the most one-sided of his plays. The Liberal member of Parliament means well. If he does not understand Jones' unemployment, after all he has never been in Jones' situation and so therefore can not, at least he is always prepared to "ask a question in the House." He is willing to help the people out in the best way he can. His wife is unscrupulous, but only in defense of her son, this can not really be criticised because surely that is a mother's duty, to defend her son. The son has a rudimentary notion of playing the game. Jones did not steal the silver box; he "took it" while he was drunk. The police-court trial is as fair as it can humanly be considering the balance of interests. Jones is sent to prison, it is true, in order to prevent a newspaper scandal. Ashley Dukes says 'But "one law for the rich and another for the poor" is not merely a propagandist cry; it is a platitude'. Dukes goes on to say that the trial scene is as 'mechanically inevitable as all the forces which move Mr. Galsworthy's characters'. Through this Galsworthy shows that in a social crisis the common man is helpless. He must accept his fate for 'good or evil'. Dukes says that 'The Silver Box' is an 'indictment of society', although not one of its characters would accept it as such. It is more than an indictment--a complete trial, in which, according to Dukes, Mr. Galsworthy appears both for the prosecution and the defense.
Galworthy's aim was to 'create such an illusion of actual life passing on the stage as to compel the spectator to pass through an experience of his own, to think and talk and move with the people he sees thinking and talking and moving in front of him'. Just as important as the enjoyment of the play for Galsworthy was to give the audience something to think and talk about, a social problem or a question of conscience. When Galsworthy wrote 'The Silver Box' he was thinking of life, not the theatre. He never allowed himself to sacrifice the truth for mere stage effect. Galsworthy was always more artist than reformer, however, and was rather aggrieved if his plays were valued more highly as propaganda than drama. Galsworthy is not a propagandist or a moralist. His source if life, "that palpitating life," which is the root of all sorrow and joy. 'The Silver Box' was a 'play of ideas'. Galsworthy said that he will not 'write plays detached from the movements and problems of his times'. Galsworthy's only ambition was to present the truth as he sees it. The Daily Graphic complained that 'Strife' was "an argument rather than entertainment". Galsworthy said that he simply used the strike in 'Strife' to provide material for his theme: 'the waste and tragedy which comes when fanatics clash'. Some people found 'Strife' prejudiced, others found it cold bloodedly detached. Galsworthy stressed that when people watch 'Strife' they should not expect to see a 'photographic reproduction of an industrial struggle....They should go to 'Strife' to see human nature in the thick of a fight'.
