Semester+2+Study+Guide

Exam Preparation
On Monday 23rd May you will have eighty minutes to write an essay about Orwell's writing: both his essays and '__Down and Out in Paris and London'.__ Below you will find:

1. An essay on the memoir 2. A list of suggested topics for review, with notes 3. A selection of insights from previous students

Critical Essay
I very highly recommend reading this essay about the memoir, it's interesting and helps develop a deeper understanding of Orwell's themes and how they are conveyed, particularly through the persona of the narrator. It's __The Rhetoric of Down and Out in Paris and London__ by John P. Frazee, chapter 5 from the Greenwood Press book on George Orwell.



Topics
Review should include but is not limited to:

//In Frazee's essay this idea is explored in detail - for example, he shares with us that Orwell was a tramp in London before going to Paris; therefore the placing of the Paris section first is a deliberate act of creating the story in order to convince the reader of his points. This doesn't mean what Orwell writes is untrue, but it does mean that it is crafted; we are not just reading his diary here. The persona of the narrator is important - he is detached, observant, often unemotional. At times he steps out of the narrative and tells you directly what he thinks of the poverty he has observed. In this way he cleverly distances himself from the action at the same time as being a part of it, creating both authenticity and objectivity. Read the essay to find out more if this topic interests you!!//
 * **Orwell's writing style**: shared features in both the essays and the novel. Consider how Orwell places himself within or outside of the narratives. Also consider whether, as non-fiction, the stories are suspenseful in the way novels are or if they are more descriptive/reflective, like journalism. Specific literary techniques could include diction, the use of anecdotes, characterisation, point of view, irony, and symbolism.
 * **Orwell's political views**: as a democratic socialist Orwell believed in a moderate version of socialism which combined the social ideals of communism with the free speech ideals of democracy. Basically, he believed wealth should be distributed among men equally and the g overnment should regulate society, for example by providing free health care and education for all. However, he did not like the practical application of communism which stripped away personal freedom and replaced democracy with tyranny. How do his essays and the book promote these views and critique capitalist society? Do you find his views convincing or not? Do you see any parallels between the society he describes and Shanghai today?
 * **The similarities and differences between the Paris and London** sections: There are plenty of poor people in both cities; the lower class are treated poorly by the upper classes and have fewer rights and enjoyments; both Parisians and Londoners judge others by their appearances, yet Orwell shows poor people of great intelligence and integrity; Orwell uses colloquial language and anecdotes in both to convey his views; in both Paris and London he makes friends through whom he can develop the themes of the book; in both cities religion is portrayed negatively. Differences between Paris and London include: there seem to be more tramps in London than Paris (why?); the poor people in Paris are not as idle, they actively seek for jobs instead of walking from one spike to another (probably becasue there is less social care); London actually has places for penniless people to sleep; people in Paris just sleep on the streets when they run out of money; Parisians value art and romance and wine more than London; London is cleaner and more orderly and has more tea and bread; the tramps in London are in a worse condition because they don’t have jobs or prospects and are forced to travel from one spike to another; there are more “charitable” organizations in London than in Paris. In Paris life seems more vibrant - men and women drink and swear together, in London everyone is more polite but also "dreary". //In the essay above, Frazee comments "However bad the lot of the Paris plongeur was, he at least ate decently and had a kind of pride in his work. The English system denies even these minimal concessions to its poor." Do you agree with this? Read the essay to find out why Frazee thinks this is true!//
 * **Poverty**: what does Orwell say about poverty, and how? Consider how Orwell develops ideas such as: the difficulty of escaping poverty in both Paris and London - how do society's rules and customs keep an underclass down?; refuting stereotypes of poverty - are poor people shown to be lazy and constantly drunk or generally hard working, intelligent and human?; in the two chapters in which Orwell muses directly on the life of a plongeur and a tramp, what views about society does he make clear? Try not to be superficial or general in your comments about poverty; if you would like to write about it have details prepared.
 * **Racism:** In both his essays and memoir Orwell uses racist language. From a modern day perspective it is offensive and shows that he shared the prejudices of people in the 1920s and 1930s, when open racism was considered more socially acceptable although it was of course still wrong. To what extent do you think the racist language used detracts from Orwell's political message about inequality?
 * **Religion:** Consider the theme of religion in the memoir. What does it mean when Valenti thinks he's praying to a saint but it turns out to be a whore? When the men are forced to pray for food, clearly against their will? Is Orwell supporting atheism through his book? If so, what do you think of this?
 * **Characters:** Consider the characters of Boris, Paddy & Bozo and make connections between them - how are they similar/ different? What themes do they develop and how?
 * **Truth:** The essays and memoir are all based on Orwell's experiences and marketed as non-fiction - does that mean that everything in them is true? How does Orwell filter everything through his own perspective in order to create his own truth? Do you think he made any of it up, and if he did, does it matter?

**Extra resources**

 * Do you agree or disagree with these comments by previous students?**

Stereotypes and challenges of poverty can be seen throughout the book. Boris make himself look decent even when there are holes in his suit and socks and even shoes. He would tied his tie so that the holes did not show, stuff the soles of his shoes with newspaper and ink the skin of his ankles where it showed through this socks. This shows how important appearance is even for the poor people. Otherwise, it is very obvious that they are poor. This has become a stereotype of the poor, their appearance. It is quite easy to spot out holes in their clothes and socks or a torned pair of shoes. Also in London, when he dresses poorly, the ladies think he is disgusting and try to stay away. This shows the stereotype of a poor person based on their appearance. Other stereotypes would be people thinking that poor people are lazy and they only sit around a beg for money. This was proved wrong in the book. A plongeur seemed to work a thousand times as hard as those rich people who just sits there and eat in the restaurant. A plongeur sleeps 6 hours a day and have no time to even wash themselves. Also, many people believe that poor people are drunks or drug addicts. In fact, they only drink for fun and to spend the extra 30 Francs they have on the only thing they are free to do. As for drugs, they are too poor to even buy drugs, how can they be a drug addict? Orwell clearly wanted to show us how stereotypes of poor people are really unrealistic.

Henry Chan, 2009 graduate

Poverty in economics is an important issue. One of the United Nation’s Millennium Development Goals is to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger. This is because poverty, a central issue in the world and the central theme of Orwell’s //Down and Out in Paris and London,// is a barrier that must be overcome in order for countries and economies to develop, or in other words, improve themselves and increase their people’s standards of living. Economic theory suggests that poverty often causes countries to fall into cycles in which the economy cannot develop; these cycles are called poverty cycles or poverty traps. Poverty cycles suggest that poverty, which generally means that one has no or low income, leads to other negative consequences. For instance, it leads to low education and health levels in the poor people, which then makes them unskilled workers, meaning that they cannot be productive. After all this, these people in poverty again make no or low income, which then again starts the cycle. Therefore, poor people in the countries cannot improve their standards of living, and thus economic development for the country does not occur. In relation to the novel, Orwell also makes some similar points within the story. One of the most significant ones is the discussion on the life and nature of a plongeur. In chapter 22, where Orwell explicitly gives us his insight to the life and necessity of a plongeur in society, he indicates that plongeurs are “slaves of the modern world”. He also says that “he is paid just enough to keep him alive”, thus corresponding to one phase of the poverty cycle (low income). Furthermore, Orwell also says that plonguers’ lives rarely improve, but rather most people spend the majority of their lives scrubbing dishes; this coincides with the concept of the poverty cycle that development does not occur unless the cycle is broken, which is very difficult in this case. “[t]hey have simply been trapped by a routine which makes thought impossible.” From this quote, we can relate the words “trap”, “routine”, and “impossible” to the poverty cycle. In essence, the life of a plongeur is like the many traps of the economic poverty cycle; if a plongeur does not overcome the challenges, with the odds that he probably won’t, they will be forever trapped in the cycle of a horrible life. Thus it can be seen that Orwell’s points has some truth to it, even in the field of economics.

Ka-Wai To, 2009 graduate

The Great Depression was a devastating worldwide economic crisis that originated in the United States on October 29, 1929, known as the Black Tuesday. A sudden crash in the stock market had triggered the Great Depression, which eventually spread around the world, affecting all countries regardless of the rich or poor. Food prices roughly fell 60 percent, construction was stopped in countries under development, and industries based on farming, mining and logging suffered the most. After the collapse of the world economy, countries slowly began to recover and eventually ended at different times in different areas, in the 1930s to the early 1940s.  The industrialization-based European economy was a huge victim of the Great Depression. Among these European countries, France and the Great Britain had struggled to recover from the damage of World War I, which allowed them to stay in a relatively more stable economy during the depression. This resulted in a more self-sufficient economy in both countries; while unemployment sharply rose in the United States, there were hardly any in these countries. This was due to the lack of human resources; however, they gained confidence from such relatively more stable economic conditions compared to other Europeans nations, which led them to a faster recovery from the depression after years.  The impact of the Great Depression on __Down and Out in Paris and London__ helps the readers understand the theme of “poverty” or “the rich versus poor.” The readers realize that Orwell uses simple but clear descriptions to deliver Orwell’s realizations while he had lived in Paris and London. During the 1930s, Europe was hit by the depression and the countries were undergoing recovery. The struggle for survival of the poor, the inferior conditions of the environment and the huge contrast between the rich and the poor are all events which had occurred during the depression. These aspects are reflected in Orwell’s novel in a way that the readers may understand the society of the 1930s. Thus, the novel portrays the depression by means of factual descriptions and allows the readers to feel the impact of the depression on the era.

Matthew Kweon, 2009 graduate

**Man vs Society in Down and Out in Paris and London (Ka-Wai) ** Man versus society is a conflict in which a character is oppressed by or victimized by society. Whenever a character feels this discomfort in an effort to avoid receiving punishment by society, we can be sure that such an instance is a man versus society conflict.  Man versus society is a conflict that Orwell believes to be a major theme depicting normal life for the characters under poverty. He demonstrates this conflict by pitting Orwell and his friends against society through the following examples: employers, governments, and religion.  Both French and British governments’ policies are extremely unfavorable for those under poverty. In London, beggars are not allowed to stay for more than one night at a spike. In order to avoid getting in trouble, beggars must walk long and far every day to get to a different spike.  Employers in the novel are unreasonable towards the characters. In Paris, workers are expected to work long hours every day in filthy conditions, as well as a below-average standard of living.  Hungry beggars who seek for food are also victimized by proponents of religion. In London, the beggars are forced to pray against their own will, but have no choice lest the food be taken from them.

Ka-Wai To, 2009 graduate

A New Yorker Review: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/bookclub/down-and-out-in


 * Is Orwell Racist?**

 Is Orwell Racist?  In //<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: start; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Down and Out in Paris and London, // Orwell commonly refers to anecdotes to help convey certain messages and themes. However, one certain subject seemed to stick out and strike readers as controversial: the Jewish people. Orwell on many separate occasions tells stories of Jewish people and makes somewhat negative remarks about them. <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: start; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> The first instance of Orwell’s racism is when he introduces the “Jew” who lives with Boris in the Paris section of the book. He is described stereotypically with a “big nose” and Orwell depicts him as a somewhat shady character. For example, he is rarely interacted with in the book (only through Boris’s words do we hear of his actions). When he does turn up, he is said to be cheating Boris of his 2 francs a day. Also, Charlie tells the story of how a Jew was “willing to sell his own daughter for money”. This anecdote implies how low this Jewish person would go to make money and survive. Though implicitly, it also tries to say that all Jews are like that: distrustful, low, lacking in morals. Lastly in the London section, Paddy tells the story of how a rich man who invested his money with a Jew and a Pole was cheated of tens of thousands of pounds as the Jew double-crossed both the investor and his Polish partner. Orwell tells these anecdotes with an attitude that is at best indifferent and at worst a bit biased. From these facts, one can reasonably wonder whether or not Orwell is racist. <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: start; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> However, despite these facts, there are reasons for why Orwell is not racist as well. For example, Orwell’s indifferent attitude may indicate his neutrality regarding the story and as a result, he isn’t racist. Orwell also never really makes any bigoted statements regarding Jewish people himself: all we can gather about Orwell’s opinions towards the Jewish community is through stories of other people from Paris and London who are no doubt racist towards the Jewish. Instead, Orwell may just be choosing the retell the most interesting stories he’s heard through his life as a tramp and plongeur, and they just happen to be centered around Jews. Maybe the fact that the villains are all Jewish people is because people from Paris and London during that time found the Jewish as a scapegoat for their economic and social problems. <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: start; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> Yet looking at these facts, it is hard to say that Orwell isn’t racist. Why did he only choose anecdotes about the Jews to tell the readers? Were there really no other interesting stories involving people of other ethnicities? I don’t think so, and the way that his anecdotes put the Jewish people in a negative light really points to a prejudice towards Jewish people. After all, Orwell is just like any other normal person. He is prone to scapegoating and adhering to the popular beliefs of his people at the time. Just because we would like to believe that such a respected and educated writer would be well aware of the follies of racism doesn’t mean that the reality conforms to our wants.