Friday, June 29, 2007
blog query week four
Ins and Outs of the down-and-outs in London. Of the vagabonds, tramps, street performers, etc. that George Orwell meets in London, who is the most well off and who is the worst? And what specifically is stated about these two characters that allows you to know this? Are any of these characters members of the working class? (Specific examples please.) Last blog entry
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I have not yet finished the entire book, but it seems to me that the worst off of the vagabonds are the elderly. Though though do have several shillings to live on each week from the government, they are not able-bodied enough to work. They are also more prone to disease and malnutrition, which it sounds like there is plenty even among the young. Disease hits the old the hardest, such as the man with the horribly bent spine in one lodging-house that sleeps across from Orwell. The old-age pensioner in Pennyfields lodging house in chapter 25 is reduced to tears and hysterics when his bread and margarine go missing. Living as a tramp would be hard enough. being in terrible physical condition would make it even harder.
There are multiple areas on which to determine who is the worst off. Paddy Jacques, for example, seems most humiliated with his place as a vagabond. And Orwell, though bad off, seems to be better educated and more intelligent than many of his comrades. Those that can't read are bad off too. You can't read help-wanted signs if you're illiterate. So, there are so many physical, spiritual, psychological, and economic factors that go into determining who is the most "hard up," it is a difficult decision.
From the reading, the better off of the "beggars" are the street performers and screevers. Especially those who have a "nobber," an assistant to beg money (donations in todays language) from those persons standing around watching the "performer" work: "They don't know he's the nobber. Then suddenly he pulls his cap off, and you got them between two fires like" (162). I say the street performers and screever are the best off because when we first meet the character Bozo he describes his method of gaining funds: " I take about three quid between Friday and Sunday--people get their wages Fridays, you see," [...] "Boat Race day and Cup Final day, I've took as much as four pounds."(162) Street performers and Organ-grinders, for Orwell, are "the most prosperous beggars" and "a street acrobat will often earn five pounds a week" (169). While these three types of "beggars" luck does vary with the seasons, in comparison to the tramps and old-age pensioners they are "better-class beggars" (169). Old-age pensioners live on nothing but their allotment of ten shillings a week. An example of the destitute state the old-age pensioners live in is the argument (near fist-a-cuffs) between “the stevedore” and “the old-age pensioner.” “The last night … One of the old-age pensioners, a man of about seventy, naked to the waist, was violently abusing a short, thickset stevedore, […] I could see the old man’s face in the light of the fire, and he was almost crying with grief and rage. […] The old man had lost his store of bread and margarine, and so would have nothing to eat for the next three days, except what the others gave him in charity,” (136-137).
Towards the end of the novel, Orwell fights for the existence of begging as a “job.” While many people see the beggars and tramps as vastly different than “working men,” many of them have a trade. While it may not produce substantial means (they may not own a house or be able to support a family)but, many are bringing in some form of an income. “If one could earn even ten pounds a week at begging, it would become a respectable profession immediately. A beggar, looked at realistically, is simply a business man, getting his living like other business men, in the way that come to hand,” (174). One of my favourite lines (and there are not many) is “It is a trade like any other; quite useless, of course—but, then, many reputable trades are quite useless,” (173). Many have the opinion that my line of work is rather useless in the grand scheme of life; however, I do work.
While I might not put all beggars and tramps in a working class category, those that gain an income via something are working. Those that live merely off the "tea-and-two-slices" cards might have a hard time fitting into the catagory. In the end, it simply does depend on your definition of work.
Well according to Orwell, from what he describes after his discussion with Bozo, people who are stuck being chanters or street singers are the worst off with those who are stuck selling boot laces and matches and other useless objects. These are as close to a straight beggar as there could have been then in London due to the laws, and they usually made the least amount of money. Those with actual talents that did street theatre or acrobats were able to make a decent living and even have a good run of luck where they could be well off for a couple of weeks. I would have to agree with Eric though, that the absolute worst off were the elderly or disabled. They were given 10 shillings a week and had to make due off of that. They were never able to giet out of a rut, they just had to make due with tea and two slices and being able to sleep and wake up everyday.
As far as being part of the working class, I would seem to place them just below working class. While Orwell makes the argument in chapter 31, that there is nothing about a beggar that sets him in a different class from other people, I do think that their living situations were a little less than those who worked in factories or did manual labor and were considered part of the working class. Most of those in a factory could afford adleast a small place of their own and could have some variety of food outside of tea and bread and margarine. While it neither are a great living situation, the working class seems to have more opportunity to create a living.
Orwell, in his own experiences as well as the reporting of his fellow tramps, put together a loose hierarchy of tramps as classified by Bozo. Now, seeing as Bozo is a screever and sees himself as having something better than say someone who sells cigarette tabacco from the butts found on the floor like the "Old Grandpa" tramp described in chapter 31. However, it seems that screevers, musicians, acrobats, and other street performers are seen as "worthy" of the money they beg for because they do a sort of service. While, in the case of the photographer scam artist they aren't doing much of anything but a con...they are still doing something that can be seen as "work".
Which seems to be the defining character between what breed of poor Orwell and Bozo are, and what people refer to as "beggars". Orwell argues this in chapter 31: "Working men 'work', beggars do not 'work'; they are parasites, worthless in their very nature. It is taken for granted that a beggar does not 'earn' his living, as a bricklayer or a literary critic 'earns' his. He is a mere social excrescence, tolerated because we live in a humane age, but essentially despicable." (Orwell, p. 185) Orwell's arguement is really one on the nature of what working really is. Because this question of the earning of money has a social stigma of a trade or steady job, the tramps who do something, (whether it is someone like Bozo or Shorty the organ player) they are seen as worthy of getting the money they are "earning".
The worst off is definitely Paddy. He had been in the army and then worked in a metal factory only to lose his job. He has been a part of the working class (those who provide a service to others, who are useful to society)when he leaves that sphere of society and moves to the life of a tramp he feels useless and defeated. You never hear of Paddy talking of how great things are going (of course he wouldn't hes a tramp)buthe is always complaining about something. As Bozo later said, he picks up cigarette ends from the ground which means he has no intentions of ever looking for another life besides the one he has. He is stuck in his current position with no intentions of leaving.
Orwell is definitely the best off...stating the obvious, he can go to B. and get money any time he wants. Past that though, he doesn't even see himself as a tramp. When he sells his clothes in London and later sees himself in the mirror he doesn't recognize himself. Orwell doesn't see himself as a tramp, therefore his mentality puts him above Paddy. Beyond that, tobacco seems to be a reoccuring necessity throughout the world of tramps, Orwell never picks up ends, he always buys his own tobacco. Someone with a tin of tobaccy is going to be perceived within the tramp world as being much above the others.
As far as being members of the working class, Paddy was obviously part of the working class prior to losing his job. Orwell was a plongeur in Paris which puts him in the working class, but he doesn't really do anything for society during his stay in London. I suppose if Bozo had access to the funds that Orwell could so easily attain I might have put him above Orwell, b/c Bozo was at least a part of the working class in my eyes. After all, he offered street paintings which I'm sure were magnificent!!!
I would have to say that Paddy is the worst off while Orwell is the best off. First, Orwell places himself above everyone else through the entire book. If not in attitude, in education. He always knows that he has an out if he needs one and that he will not wander the streets for the rest of his life. Orwell also knows he has an education to fall back on, unlike most of the other tramps he encounters.
Orwell also continually looks for work or has a job. He really doesn't spend that much time in between jobs as opposed to some of the others; namely Paddy and Bozo.
He has a job in Paris even though it is not ideal by any means and only waits a month in London without a job. Even in between he finds ways to acquire money. When he pawns things, he gets them back in the end so he only needs it for a quick fix.
On the other hand, Paddy is in another situation. He lost his job which seems to be the downfall of his life. He can't get over the fact that he isn't working, but can't bring himself to find a job. He would need money for decent cloths to get one and isnt able to even do that. Paddy also does not have an education to fall back on.
Paddy has also been out of work for 2 years while Orwell only for a month. Paddy has been living the life of a tramp for quite some time and has no new situation to look forward to. He can't even buy his own tobacco, he resorts to pickin up cigarette ends from the ground. No one else respects Paddy while at least Bozo gets some and Orwell is respected by many of the other tramps. All in all, Paddy is living the life of a tramp while Orwell is simply visiting.
Bewteen Paddy and Bozo, it appears that Paddy is the one who is worse off. Paddy, who had had a job but lost it, now hates those who do have jobs. This loathing would make any sort of upward mobility next to impossible, because that would mean that he would willingly have to become something that he hates and despises, which doesn't seem likely or even possible.
Bozo on the other hand is much better off than Paddy is. Bozo can at least make money buy doing some of his street art, and does pick up ciggarette butts to smoke the way that Paddy, the symbol of complete downfall does.
Neither one of these men are what I would consider the working class, because they don't really have jobs, which would place them within the working class. Thus they are left below the level of the working class, and are what Marxist would call the lumen proletariat. They are both in the truest sence bums, but there different positions within society, even the outside society of bums, shows that there seems to be more of a chain heirarchy than the two or three level one, in which neither of these men would find a deffinate and secure position within one of the classes, due to the gradation of their positions.
Orwell is better off than either one because he is merely a temporary bum, and has an end to his poverty in sight. This is further proof of a chain class system, in which there is a lot of slack for mobility, even if Paddy and Bozo seem to be locked in to the lowest levels.
The most well off character in this book of the vagabonds, tramps, street performers, etc. would be the street performers. It tells how they are able to actually able to perform and work for their money in any condition, and can make up to five pounds a week. “A street acrobat will often earn five pounds a week" (169). The worse off of all of them would be the working class who no longer have jobs and become beggars. Orwell then goes on to talk about how they need work, not for the money, but for something to do, since they were so used to having a purpose. Of the characters we read about, I would only consider one to be of working class, and that would be Bozo. He is a screever, and day after day he sets out to draw with chalk to earn a living. He not only earns a living for himself by doing this, but it is also for his wife and family that he mentioned. Screevers and street performers are considered workers since they provide a skill (whether it be gymnastics or art) to make their money.
I think that the worst off in the book are the individuals that fall into the same category as Paddy. The individuals that become professional homeless people. He wants to work, but Bozo talks about how he never will, and how the fact that he picks up cigarette butts off the ground shows that he has reached the lowest form of being homeless. Paddy has a chip on his shoulder over the fact that older and younger people work but for some reason he doesn't. He is the worst off because he complains but he is relatively content being homeless.
For the best off of the homeless, and this might be a stretch, but I would go with Bozo. I would not define him as working class, because they can support themselves, but rather as a homeless person that accepts it, but refuses to be put down by it. He does work also being a screever. it doesn't have a consistent income, which also fails to make him working class, but it does provide him with a little something that he spends freely. He warns Orwell of letting being homeless identify him, rather than it just being how he is at this point. He tells him to let his mind remain free.
Post a Comment