You could compare, for example, with the novel "Der Untertan." There, some soldiers brag about how during the 1870s war, they were burning down a house with people in it. And as the women were screaming 'please save my child', and the soldiers screamed back: just throw them, we'll catch themm! And then proceeded to 'catch' the children with their bayonets. A little bit later, the narrator adds that those stories were of course all lies.
So, I suspect that during the 19th century (and possible all of humanity up until quite recently), people routinely invented stories in which they were the villains. And I suspect that this phenomenon was so well-known to readers of the time, that they got what's going on rather easily, without much explanation on Orwell's part.
That's a really interesting idea. If stories of villainy were in vogue back then, beyond just the normal soldiers trying to puff up their viciousness in battle, I'd have to revaluate. I'm always interested in memes from the past, and how we're liable to misinterpret them. A favorite example is the popularity amongst medieval scribes of drawing snails in the margins of works. But I still feel like actually having done the thing better fits the characterization of Charlie that we're presented with. That could definitely change on my next reading though.
Hey, uh, also: thanks for the great review! I'd finished the book just weeks before you published your review, so it was all still top-of-mind for me. Really enjoyed it your review :).
I don't have anything to add about your response to people's comments, I'm just writing to say I thought your review was a really engaging read, and I'm looking forward to reading whatever else you publish in the future.
That said, after glimpsing some of the content of 'Down and Out', my brain felt grimy and cynical for the better part of a day. I'm not sure I want to read it!
I really appreciate it! More reviews are coming soon. As for 'Down and Out' I think I tended towards pulling out the grimmest passages and milking them for all the social and ethical interest they were worth, so the book taken as a whole is probably much lighter than my review makes it out to be. Weirdly, I think of it as in the category of 'comfy' reads (so far as memoirs go). The hotel scullion section in particular is something I return to a lot, just for the entertainment value. I really can't recommend D and O and 'Homage to Catalonia' enough.
I think I'd recommend "Homage to Catelonia" over "Down and Out", the latter is definitely grimy and cynical, although not universally so. "Homage to Catelonia" reminds me a lot of "Catch-22", in that it's mostly about the absurdity of war - Orwell spends most of the book doing nothing on a hillside, ends up in hospital after a small amount of action, then spends the most exciting part of the book fleeing from his own side for petty political reasons.
Hello! Thank you for introducing this Orwell book to people with your Book Review on ACX! (yay, essay contest.)
I had actually completely forgotten the story told by that eccentric drunk even happened!! (though at this point, I have my theory about what's up with it.)
But I ended up using one thing -I- found VERY memorable from that review in a Substack post I wrote a month ago. (not posting link b/c, as a first interaction, that's awkwardly spamminess-signalling!) Anyway, this image was unforgettable:
> "[Boris] ...tied his tie so that the holes did not show, and carefully stuffed the soles of his shoes with newspaper. Finally, when he was dressed, he produced an ink-bottle and inked the skin of his ankles where it showed through his socks."
The secrecy of poverty and the "net of lies" were SO relevant to my theme of, "People often have no INKLING of how differently their friends/colleagues/extended-family relate to money." So, thank you!
I usually use that image when I'm 'pitching' the book to my friends to read, just because it's so representative of what Orwell is trying to express in that section in the book, ie that poverty demands the completion of an endless number of tedious tasks if one wants to maintain appearances, some of which require quite as much cleverness and superficiality as navigating amongst the upper crust would.
Ahh yeah! I think that if I tried to press that point, (the resourcefulness of the poor) I'd usu. come up against resistance! (Unless you just mean you use "show not tell"--it's an amazing example.)
> "the completion of an endless number of tedious tasks if one wants to maintain appearances" <-- and yet I'd say it only really "works" if people don't really look at what they're seeing!
What to comment, really? He tells a short and strong story, most likely retelling it better than Charlie told it. Charle might have exaggerated or even made the whole thing up, so what? That someone d&o feels better about one's life by telling a comrade about how a real bad thing he did - you need to explain or discuss that? Spell it out? Add another 10 or 100 pages to pay due attention? As George Orwell in that book? Would be another task for, maybe, a psychiatrist. - Orwell did his book and the reader a service by not over-commenting this act. imho. - But abuse, rape and murder of prostitutes are/were not the rarest of crimes, I guess. Ted Bundy - new movie "No Man of God" about the FBI-interviews with him - did rape/kill at least 30 women. For real. Made him feel god-like, he said. Considered himself "sane" or at least "not mad".
I agree that it comes across like something out of "A Clockwork Orange". I guess what I found odd was the contrast between the passage and the rest of Orwell's book, it's clearly intended to be shocking since it's the only description of sex and violence in the whole work, which makes it strange how casually it's treated by the narrator. I think I'd also have commented on it in a review, if only as a fair warning to readers that might prefer to avoid that kind of content.
You could compare, for example, with the novel "Der Untertan." There, some soldiers brag about how during the 1870s war, they were burning down a house with people in it. And as the women were screaming 'please save my child', and the soldiers screamed back: just throw them, we'll catch themm! And then proceeded to 'catch' the children with their bayonets. A little bit later, the narrator adds that those stories were of course all lies.
So, I suspect that during the 19th century (and possible all of humanity up until quite recently), people routinely invented stories in which they were the villains. And I suspect that this phenomenon was so well-known to readers of the time, that they got what's going on rather easily, without much explanation on Orwell's part.
That's a really interesting idea. If stories of villainy were in vogue back then, beyond just the normal soldiers trying to puff up their viciousness in battle, I'd have to revaluate. I'm always interested in memes from the past, and how we're liable to misinterpret them. A favorite example is the popularity amongst medieval scribes of drawing snails in the margins of works. But I still feel like actually having done the thing better fits the characterization of Charlie that we're presented with. That could definitely change on my next reading though.
Hey, uh, also: thanks for the great review! I'd finished the book just weeks before you published your review, so it was all still top-of-mind for me. Really enjoyed it your review :).
I don't have anything to add about your response to people's comments, I'm just writing to say I thought your review was a really engaging read, and I'm looking forward to reading whatever else you publish in the future.
That said, after glimpsing some of the content of 'Down and Out', my brain felt grimy and cynical for the better part of a day. I'm not sure I want to read it!
I had the same feelings
I really appreciate it! More reviews are coming soon. As for 'Down and Out' I think I tended towards pulling out the grimmest passages and milking them for all the social and ethical interest they were worth, so the book taken as a whole is probably much lighter than my review makes it out to be. Weirdly, I think of it as in the category of 'comfy' reads (so far as memoirs go). The hotel scullion section in particular is something I return to a lot, just for the entertainment value. I really can't recommend D and O and 'Homage to Catalonia' enough.
I think I'd recommend "Homage to Catelonia" over "Down and Out", the latter is definitely grimy and cynical, although not universally so. "Homage to Catelonia" reminds me a lot of "Catch-22", in that it's mostly about the absurdity of war - Orwell spends most of the book doing nothing on a hillside, ends up in hospital after a small amount of action, then spends the most exciting part of the book fleeing from his own side for petty political reasons.
Hello! Thank you for introducing this Orwell book to people with your Book Review on ACX! (yay, essay contest.)
I had actually completely forgotten the story told by that eccentric drunk even happened!! (though at this point, I have my theory about what's up with it.)
But I ended up using one thing -I- found VERY memorable from that review in a Substack post I wrote a month ago. (not posting link b/c, as a first interaction, that's awkwardly spamminess-signalling!) Anyway, this image was unforgettable:
> "[Boris] ...tied his tie so that the holes did not show, and carefully stuffed the soles of his shoes with newspaper. Finally, when he was dressed, he produced an ink-bottle and inked the skin of his ankles where it showed through his socks."
The secrecy of poverty and the "net of lies" were SO relevant to my theme of, "People often have no INKLING of how differently their friends/colleagues/extended-family relate to money." So, thank you!
I usually use that image when I'm 'pitching' the book to my friends to read, just because it's so representative of what Orwell is trying to express in that section in the book, ie that poverty demands the completion of an endless number of tedious tasks if one wants to maintain appearances, some of which require quite as much cleverness and superficiality as navigating amongst the upper crust would.
I'm glad the review was useful to you, I'll be checking out your post soon!
Ahh yeah! I think that if I tried to press that point, (the resourcefulness of the poor) I'd usu. come up against resistance! (Unless you just mean you use "show not tell"--it's an amazing example.)
> "the completion of an endless number of tedious tasks if one wants to maintain appearances" <-- and yet I'd say it only really "works" if people don't really look at what they're seeing!
What to comment, really? He tells a short and strong story, most likely retelling it better than Charlie told it. Charle might have exaggerated or even made the whole thing up, so what? That someone d&o feels better about one's life by telling a comrade about how a real bad thing he did - you need to explain or discuss that? Spell it out? Add another 10 or 100 pages to pay due attention? As George Orwell in that book? Would be another task for, maybe, a psychiatrist. - Orwell did his book and the reader a service by not over-commenting this act. imho. - But abuse, rape and murder of prostitutes are/were not the rarest of crimes, I guess. Ted Bundy - new movie "No Man of God" about the FBI-interviews with him - did rape/kill at least 30 women. For real. Made him feel god-like, he said. Considered himself "sane" or at least "not mad".
I agree that it comes across like something out of "A Clockwork Orange". I guess what I found odd was the contrast between the passage and the rest of Orwell's book, it's clearly intended to be shocking since it's the only description of sex and violence in the whole work, which makes it strange how casually it's treated by the narrator. I think I'd also have commented on it in a review, if only as a fair warning to readers that might prefer to avoid that kind of content.
Might I suggest a link to your review at the beginning of this piece? I had to backtrack through ACX to find it.
Why didn't I think of that? Added.