Theme and Relevance

When i started reading Down and Out in Paris and London I did not expect the narrator to express his thoughts very explicitly. I expected a more +neutral+ descriptive prose. In my first post in this blog (introduction), I wrote that my main reason for choosing this book was the author (Orwell). It was therefore a pleasant surprise to find some chapters dedicated exclusively to impressions and reflections. The first theme I can find is probably the notion of meaningless work. It is not just unproductive, but some of it «makes thought impossible». To me, this is the most interesting part of the book. Reading about the working conditions should perhaps make me ashamed to complain about a «heavy» workload. The connotation is perhaps physical. But I suppose there are several ways to constrict and limit thought. This is obviously a very broad theme, and how it is done today does not necessarily relate to absorbing and pointless work. The narrator seems to think that many workers really have the strength to improve their position, but a worker cannot do much with a «blank resourceless mind». Perhaps they are unable to see their own situation.

In London, the +problem+ of tramps is not adressed, it is merely moved somewhere else. The tramps can only stay at the same «spike» once a month (casual wards in London where the poor and homeless can get an insufficient meal and a place to «sleep», often on the floor with a thin blanket). They are not wanted in the spikes, they become burdens. The vagrancy laws described by the narrator force the tramps to constantly be on the move. Often they cannot even sit down; the police might arrest them. The laws are fairly absurd in my opinion. Outright begging is prohibited, so the +beggars+ must pretend to have a +profession+ of some kind. It tells us something about perception and respectability. Charity, and perhaps compassion is discouraged by these laws. Why tramps are «despised» is also discussed. According to the narrator, the tramps are not respected because not only are they poor, but they will stay poor. They have basically no chance, i. e. they cannot become rich and make alot of money. The circle cannot be broken. Tramps become docile and pathetic, they are not aggressive stereotypes, but miserable and weak. The author seems to criticize what might be called +capitalist values+, although somewhat implicitly. The relationship beetween status and +wealth+ (in the material sense) is not unknown in many western cultures. If the narrator is correct, there were atleast some fairly simple ways to improve (perhaps drastically) the living conditions of the poor in London in his time, but there seemed to be little political support. This idea is not exactly unfamiliar today. The narrator seems to think that the poor are not +different+ from the rich. He looks at the enviroment and how it affects behaviour. People are just people, tables can turn very quickly, gloating and arrogance becomes pointless.