The comparison of Paris and London sections of George Orwell's Down and Out in Paris and London. Both reality and fiction play an important role in George Orwell's literary sociography, Down and Out in Paris and London. 1 However, instead of analysing these elements, I'd rather compare both metropolis, Paris and London, through the author's personal experience. I would like to focus on the dissimilarities that already appear in the name and both sections, the introductory descriptions of the towns and observe how he were able to earn a living, how he became penniless and his friends in both cities.
First and most important, I feel that it is inevitable to mention some relevant data about the author's life that donate to the easier understanding of his work. He proved helpful for the royal law enforcement officials in the 1920s when he was delivered to Burma where he woke up to the injustice of society that he thought rooted in the existence of social classes. As days and nights turned into weeks, his internal features were transformed in Burma; he became lazy, since he was accompanied by servants constantly who helped him even dressing. As he went back to his family, after departing this job, announced that he wanted to make a living from being truly a copy writer. However, his family strongly disapproved the idea, so he made up his mind to leave them and stand on his on toes. Therefore, he decided to uncover the world of the lower classes of modern culture and join them in expiation for his prior shallow lifestyle. He driven to write about the poor, that's the reason decked out as a homeless, he put in almost all of his amount of time in the company of tramps and beggars in London. 2 Nevertheless, perhaps Orwell experienced the deepest penury when his savings was taken in Burma. He might have perished of being hungry, if he previously not been able to get a job as a plongeur in the cellar of your hotel, but becoming sick and tired of it, he came back to the secure- job offering Britain. One can find out about this poverty, in which he previously first-hand experience, in Down and Out in Paris and London, as well. Since 1933, the publication of the e book, has he used his pseudonym George Orwell, in any other case his beginning name was Eric Arthur Blair. 3
I would like to examine the subject and composition of the task. The pinpoint effectively described picture of both metropolis appears as early as in the name, emphasising that only these towns are illustrated in the booklet. Now, one can only reckon that the tramp is the implied writer itself and the question comes up where town the fate of the homeless is more unfortunate. As for the composition, the first version the book only comprised the Paris section (Section I-XXIII. ) and the London section (Section XXIV-XXXVIII. ) was written later. 4 The partnership between the two sections is established by his friend called B, who looks only in Section XXI, still, however is not continuously, but till the finish of the book, he is within a way that he procures job for the protagonist and lends him money, therefore, saves his life.
I intend to go on with the introductory pictures of Paris and London. At the start of the task, the narrator provides thorough explanation of his living quarters in Paris, the Hotel des Trois Moineaux in Rue du Coq d' Or. On the main one hand, you can become familiar with the building itself which 'was a dark, rickety warren of five storeys, break up by wooden partitions into forty rooms. The rooms were small and inveterately filthy'5 and packed with 'innumerable bugs. ' Alternatively, one can become familiar with the lodgers, too, who 'were of each trade- cobblers, bricklayers, stonemasons, navvies, students, prostitutes, rag-pickers. '6 Furthermore, the implied publisher throws light on the life span of the slum the centre of which is a bistro, 'a very small brick-floored room, half underground, with wine-sodden dining tables' where 'red-sashed workmen carving sausage with big jack-knives' and Madame F. 'drinking alcohol Malaga all day long. ' 7 In spite of the fact that the environment radiates poverty and neediness, he will not render it to be monochrome or grey, but everything is within movement, as 'variegated chorus of yells', 'cries of road hawkers' and 'the shouts of children chasing orange-peel in the cobbles'8 can be noticed as soon as seven each day. Also, everything is colourful as well as the worker's red scarves or Charlie's 'mouth too much red and wet, like cherries' and down the road almost anything is red in his information such as 'red globes flooded the cellar with a red light', 'red newspaper on the walls, red plush on the chair, even the roof red, just about everywhere red' and the lady 'dressed up in frock of red velvet. '9 Besides, everybody can find their own joy as it is stated in the booklet 'I wish you can find a pub in London a quarter as cherry' and 'Ah, mais la vie est belle- you mustn't be sad. Be more homosexual, I beseech you! Ah, que la vie est belle!'10 As opposed to this, London as a job-provider turns up already as the protagonist is within Paris and the idea of going there comes true only once he writes a letter to his good friend, B. requesting him to help him search employment in London. Two more chapters are enjoyed in Paris after the implied author obtains an optimistic answer, when he calls for the plunge and leave for London. On his trip to his homeland, he is full of hopes, as it seems to him 'a sort of Paradise' and 'the local climate, the surroundings, the skill, the books, the regulations- everything in Great britain is perfect. '11 Furthermore, he evidently remarks that 'Paris is vulgar- fifty percent grandiosity and fifty percent slums. But London. . . ' 12 However, when he happens, his wonderful image lapses into obscurity, because the hotel along Tilbury pier 'stares from the British coastline like idiot staring over an asylum wall membrane'13 and he attracts look of the eastern slums that later on provide him as a full time income quarter. In comparison with the meticulously detailed long description of Paris, here he superficially portrays the surroundings which is understandable for some reasons. On the one hand, he will not know London as well as Paris, on the other side he spends his nights in several places. The reader has learned little about his first lodgings that it was 'a family hotel, where in fact the demand was seven and sixpence. '14 One might sense the changes of colours, as well, since now the red headscarf becomes colourless and worn by the narrator itself whose cover is darkish, trousers are dark-colored and he never ever used such shoddy clothes. Even his face is pale and filthy, too. The hustle and bustle of Rue du Coq d' Or is vanished and the shabby protagonist activities that women make an effort to keep away from tramps.
Countless differences between the pictures of the cities can be traced after already in the benefits. For instance, in Paris the audience can bump into folks from several countries, as the lodgings are scattered with Arab, Polish and Italian people, a Bulgarian student, a Russian woman with her child, an Englishman called R. and the 'Roumanian' Monsieur Jules. These civilizations imply multi-colourness and variety. But one can find that nationalities are present in the whole Paris section along with the Italian young boy moving into the hotel; Russian Boris, his friends and the director of Hotel 'Auberge de Jehan Cottard'; American guests; the Italian waiter, Valenti and his plongeur, Mario and the Hungarian plongeur coming from Transylvania; Armenian doorman who claimed himself to be Greek; a Serbian plongeur; Arab employees who work all day long and drink themselves to fatality at night; Marinette, the girl from Corsica; the Spanish Manuel Jules and the Hungarian waiter of the Hotel. Besides, the German land is described and cheered Vive I' Allemange! Although there are folks from various civilizations in London, as well, it bears no comparability with the total amount shown in Paris. The audience may get to know the Romanian few during the quest to London; meet the busy people from the East in the 1 / 4 of Limehouse or some Irish like Paddy, the tramp with whom the implied author became firm friends. In addition, the globe outside European countries first looks here, because the narrator not only mentions it, but also matches Indian people. This isn't accidental, for he was born in India. As a result, you can conclude from the list that London society is much more homogeneous and clear of swarming and divergences brought on by the coincidence of several culture.
I would like to keep on analysing how life is at both Paris and London. The top features of both cities stated earlier own an imprint on city life till the end of the booklet.
Firstly, why don't we examine London! WHEN I stated it above, the protagonist possessed far-fetched image of London before his appearance there, but as soon as he realises that there is no job for him in London, neither, this beautiful 'created' image fades away. Until he gets a job, he has nothing else to do to make it through than to borrow funds from his good friend, B. and visit pawnshops and sell his clothes even at very low price. The pauper and unemployed Orwell starts off pondering and finally, discovers that an illiterate man needs more a job than money. Yet, London is the world of legislation and order that will be a drawback for the homeless, since 'under the Vagrancy Action tramps can be prosecuted for smoking in the spike. ' 15 What is more, the most severe thing about this city is the fact that one is obliged to pay if he would like to sit back on public places, unlike in Paris where 'if you had no money and could not find a general public bench, you'll take a seat on the pavement. Heaven has learned what sitting down on the pavement would lead to in London- prison, probably. '16 There is no such rule in Paris where people are allowed to sleeping even under the bridges of the Seine. Furthermore, after having lived in the noisy, noisy and 'outrageous' Paris, the narrator observed that everything is a lot clearer, calmer plus more tiresome in London. As he explained 'One overlooked the scream of the trams, and the noisy, festering life of the trunk pavements, and the equipped men clattering through the squares. The crowds were better dressed and the faces comelier and milder plus more as well, without that fierce personality and malice of the People from france. There was less drunkenness, and less dirt and grime, and less quarrelling, and much more idling. Knots of men stood at all the corners, marginally underfed, but placed going by the tea-and-two-slices which the Londoner swallows every two hours. One seemed to inhale and exhale a less feverish air than in Paris. It had been the land of the tea urn and the Labour Exchange, as Paris is the land of the bistro and the sweatshop. '17
So, why don't we continue with the analyses of life in Paris. With this city after seeking job for a long period, the implied creator and his friend, Boris needed to work hard (especially when working at Hotel X. , they were very often on the last hip and legs or when working at Auberge, they hardly found period to have their haircut)so that they will make ends meet. Therefore, one might note that the author acquired an exceptionally exhausting, durable and even soul-scarping job in Paris, unlike in London where he only helped at poorhouses and in exchange he was presented with food that was not so exhausting. The offered job in London by the end of the reserve is considered to be always a prospective 'slumber' by the writer, regardless of the actual fact that it was again a plongeur 'post' in Lower Binfield, so he cannot get rid of the kind of lifestyle. One more thing that one can notice in Paris is that men have a tendency to use four-letter words together with women, which phenomenon never occurs in London.
More to the point, there are similarities between the two towns, as well. For example, there are people who endeavour to cheat the homeless. First of all, the plongeur Orwell was given less pay by the doorman in Hotel X. in Paris, second of all, he acquired a six cent worth food voucher from a priest under the Charing Mix bridge in London, but later, he was served only four cent worth food in a restaurant. 'Large tea and two pieces' in London equals 'the eternal coup de rouge'18 in Paris. Another example of similarities is, that he must use money sparingly in both places. In my view, life in Paris with most of its troubles appealed more to the author, than that in London. Perhaps it is because of the actual fact that everything is colourful and manifold in the previous town and therefore, he is able to be cheerful, while in London one without money is only 'fit for little or nothing'19
I believe that it is interesting to identify how he became pauper and the type of friendships he previously. The narrator first of all becomes penniless in the Paris section when 1 day he wakes up to the fact that he has just 500 and fifty francs remaining and he can only just expect thirty-six per week by giving British lessons. And why is matters worse, later he's robbed of his money by the Italian fellow-resident in the lodgings. This robbery took place in reality, too, but in this case it was a harlot from a cafeteria. 20 So, he gets even closer to poverty and suggests that 'from the start it tangles you in a net of lays, and even with the lies you can scarcely manage it. '21 When suddenly his British lessons stop, he claims that 'this put an end to all pretence to be in cash. '22 Instead of this, he occurs in London already being a tramp and here pretence is out of the question. That is metropolis that helps him stand on his foot, stops his problems and the work offered in London helps him escape penury. For his friendships, we get to know a lot of things relating to his friends' present and earlier in both Paris and London. He had only Boris as a supporter in Paris, but in London he was in romantic relationship with an private old Irish man, the Irish Paddy, Adam and Bozo. Taking the amount of his friends into consideration, one might conclude that in the previous city he had not been lost, but in the last mentioned he was a lot more reliant.
In the finish, I would like to examine both sections on basic terms. Without previously reading the reserve or knowing anything about the circumstances of the introduction from it, the differences between the two sections capture the eye; as if the reader read totally different works. Therefore, one may as well analyse them independently and the variations and the comparability of the two cities might derive from this. He gets there in London as an unemployed man, therefore the 'Down and Out' expression from the title gains content in this section. On the contrary, Paris is about accommodation and job seeking. For the vocabulary and design of the book, I did not make a distinction between your two portions.
To sum up, I endeavoured showing that Orwell's work especially its composition encourages the audience to comparison. With the differences of both Paris and London parts, the author's public sensitivity and his useful tips about how exactly to handle poverty can be discovered. Lastly, i want to understand the gist of the task with Dervla Murphy's phrases matching to whom 'It is the white-hot result of a very sensitive, observant, compassionate young man to poverty, injustice and the callousness of the wealthy. It offers insights, somewhat than solutions; but always insights have to precede solutions. '23
