"Down and out in Paris and London - a tramp's diary or a fictinal novel?

In our previous lesson we read an excerpt of Down and Out in Paris and London written by George Orwell in 1933. It is a novel about the rough life of the tramps in London. Considering the time this novel was published I assume the poverty portrayed is due to the post WW1 economical recession. Loads of people in Europe and the United States lost their wages. Banks and businesses got bankrupt and people comsumes less and less. This was both because the crisis at the stock market in New York in 1929 and the general post war economical challenges. Down and Out in Paris and London deal with the consequences of this era in London.Through the eyes of a newly became tramp he explains how it is like living in a lodging house. The tramps eats only a meal a day of toast and margarine.
It is difficult defining what type of genre the story is. Considering George Orwell lived in Paris under sordid conditions while writing it seems to be a bit biograohical. Still, through style of writing and literary devices it appears as more of a short story, rather than a diary or recall. In The New Yorker Ligaya Mishan dwells on how we can categorize Down and Out in London and Paris. According to her article the difficulties of labelling the story is reflected by Orwell’s pickiness about the title. Before publishing it had various titles such as “Days in London and Paris,” “Lady Poverty,” and “Confessions of a Dishwasher” before the publisher and Orwell landed on “Down and Out in Paris and London”
I must say that when I first read the extract of Down and Out in Paris and London I got the impression that I was reading a historical novel. With its litertary devices such as symbols, dialogues and description of events the story appears as a fictional novel. Here is an example of which: “One morning we tried for a job as sandwich men. We went at five to an alley-way behind some offices, but there was already a queue of thirty or forty men waiting, and after two hours, we were told that there was no job for us” At the same time I suppose it is written with a personal view. Orwell writes from a first person narrative point of view. Additionally he resembles the life of the tramps so well and with a curiousity so vivid it feels like a diary. I do not believe Orwell could write such a realistic novel without adding a touch of his personal experience. I therefore conclude that Down and Out in Paris and London ia a fictional novel spiced up with personal experiences.

Who to travel with?

As travelling is one of my favourite parts of life I have done some thinking about whom to travel with and why. Here are my results of resonation:

A travel contains many aspects which make them vary a lot and provide different experiences, knowledge and memories. In my opinion your travel companions is the most decisive of all factors. You can go as a group, a couple, with your friends, your family or by yourself.

Travelling alone does for many people sound like a lonesome experience. If you go to a country where they do not speak your own language it can be difficult to socialize and you could end up quite lonely and be eager to speak to someone. I think travelling alone requires you to be mature and independent; then you can get a good relaxation or have an educational experience.

When you are travelling with your friends you probably have other intentions, often primarily having fun. If you fancy getting to know people travelling with friends will make that a lot easier. You could do activities and meet new people together and go out at nights. The disadvantage of going on a holiday with a big group of friends is that you can find it difficult agreeing on how to spend your time.

When you are travelling to unsecured destinations or to get an instructive experience I think the best companions you can take with you are your family members. It is safe to travel with your family and you can get to learn a lot because family holidays are often recognized to contain a lot of museums and cultural experiences. What might not be so good about it is that it requires a lot of compromising because in a family there is most likely to be different ages and needs to be satisfied.

Does it matter by Siegfried Sassoon (1886-1967)

DOES it matter?--losing your legs?...

For people will always be kind,

And you need not show that you mind

When the others come in after hunting

To gobble their muffins and eggs.

Does it matter?--losing your sight?...

There's such splendid work for the blind;

And people will always be kind,

As you sit on the terrace remembering

And turning your face to the light.

Do they matter?--those dreams from the pit?...

You can drink and forget and be glad,

And people won't say that you're mad;

For they'll know you've fought for your country

And no one will worry a bit.

Why does the poem appeal to us?
“Does it matter” appeals more to us than "The soldier" by Rupert Brooke (which was also in our book) because it is easier to understand the content. We manage to put ourselves in the position of the soldier spoken of, whereas in the other poem they speak more of England and the effort and consequently the lives given for the sake of England by the soldiers.


What three effects of the war on a soldier does this poem touch on?
Three effects of the war are mentioned in the poem:
- Getting hurt physically (losing your legs)
- Losing one of your senses (losing your sight)
- The dreams and thoughts you gain from being a soldier in which you will never escape (those dreams of the pit)


It is often argued that the two great wars were fought by working-class men on both sides and that the people they were fighting for, were often more the enemy than the people they were fighting against. Does this poem reflect this attitude? Explain!
This poem reflects the attitude that whom you fight for are more the enemy than the people you fight against. It does so by explaining how war can destroy you both physically and mentally and afterwards saying that “no one will worry a bit.” The people you fight against are often more your friends if you do not consider they are fighting for your enemy. All soldiers are in the same situation even if they fight for different teams.


This poem has enjoyed a bit of revival if late. What reasons do you think there might be for its newfound popularity?
The poem has experienced a revival of late. The reason is because of the glorification of war has been condemned in the previous decades. We now care more about how terrible it is being a civilian in a war. Additionally wars are still happening making this topic relevant.

Me and my hometown.

My name is Ingrid and I am 18 years old. I am Norwegian and I live just outside Oslo in Norway with my parents and two younger brothers. I am currently doing my final year of a three year course at Sandvika college. Last year I did my second year at York college in England. It was a good year and I have learned to love England. I am most definately going back there for uni. I spend a lot of my sparetime being with friends and family, doing homework and working in an old people's home.

The place where I live is called Bærum. It is considered to be the snobbiest place in Norway even though this is mainly an exaggerated reputation. Norway is, nevertheless, a country in which the inhabitants are very rich in comparison with other countries. People around here are always dressed nicely and quite posh. Most people live in big detached houses with gardens. Bærum is a suburb outside Oslo. There are loads of local centers, one near me called Bekkestua. Bekkestua has loads of shops, services and a very cute red Mc Donalds. I really like it here but I am sure I will move somewhere a bit more interesting as soon as I get the chance!