Talk:Down and Out in Paris and London

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Hotel X

Does anyone know the identity of Hotel X? (Sasquatchuk 20:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

In the Fawlty Towers episode "Basil the Rat", there is a reference to "George Orwell's experiences at Maxim's in Paris" as an excuse for the filth in the kitchen. Since, however, Maxim's is not a hotel, this doesn't really make sense. Back to square one.--Humphrey20020 14:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the description of it and its surroundings, i'm pretty sure it is the Hôtel Crillon. RCS 11:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Letter from Dude

Hello,

I read "Down and Out in Paris and London" a few years ago and naturally thought it was a piece of non-fiction. However, after visting my local library, I found the book, only this publisher said it was a work of fiction! After a few searches on the Internet, I see that others also say it's a work of fiction.

To say the least, I'm a bit confused. For some reason, I'm also a bit unsettled. Have the realities of Orwell's book on poverty been an object of debate? If it is non-fiction, why are there publishers out there who say it's fiction?

Thank-you.

Dude............................

My Penguin editions of The Road to Wigan Pier and Homage to Catalonia are labeled autobiography but down and out is labeled fiction literature. The book was originally written with a diary like structure but was rewritten more like a story so as to get published. People who new Orwell have reported that he was not as down and out as he made out and that he received help from friends and relations. In the introduction he wrote for a french edition he says that he has not exagerated, that the order is not strictly chronological and that the characters are representatives of types. MeltBanana 16:40, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Both The Road to Wigan Pier and Homage to Catalonia were written with the help of journals Orwell kept during his experiences, journals that he kept specifically with the idea of writing a book. Down and Out... was written from memory, several years after the fact. Orwell did not always remember the real names of everyone he wrote about, and in other cases couldn't use them because of libel laws. He says several times in letters to friends that everything he wrote was true, but he moved events around to make a better narrative; also, his poverty at this time was not uninterrupted, since he occasionally had relief from various friends, but he left those times out because they would have hurt the flow of the story. The book does not really belong to any category. It's not fiction, because everything in it really happened; but it was written from memory, which is unreliable, so it doesn't really meet the standards for history. However, publishers have to put something on the book spine, so editors just pick something at press time and that's what goes on the cover. Fumblebruschi 16:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's narrative nonfiction. Orwell uses fiction techniques to tell a true story. I'm writing an essay on it right now explaining how he uses fictional rhetorical strategies to relay his story. Bleh!
But one of those techniques was smoothing over certain details to make a better story than actually happened; we should make this clear, and do not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Does plongeur mean "dishwasher"? Thanks --198.59.190.201 19:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • German Wikipedia says it means "a kind of dishwasher" and Esperanto says "general kitchen assistant." --198.59.190.201 19:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did he Esperanto article (translated from English), and puzzled over plongeur. Not knowing French, I did a little Google-ing and noticed that Plongeur is also the name of a submarine, which I think hints the dishwasher interpretation. However, I read the book a dozen years ago and if memory serves, Orwell as a plongeur had to do everything that was too menial for anybody else. So, after noticing your question and the answer above, I changed the Esperanto to dishwasher and kitchen flunky. (I hadn't been able to think of the word flunky before:-) I expect I may reread the novel again in a few months. But if someone else has read it recently, perhaps that person would be so kind as to confirm or modify that interpretation. O'RyanW (☺ ₪) 01:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The job is known in English as "Kitchen Porter" (as in "KP duty") . I was one for a couple of weeks in the 1970s, but things had improved a bit since Orwell's time!

20:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Chapter XX begins "the patron had engaged me as kitchen plongeur; that is, my job was to wash up, keep the kitchen clean,prepare vegetables,make tea,coffee and sandwiches, do the simpler cooking, and run errands."Sayerslle (talk) 22:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mentions of antisemitism and racsism in the lead

One user seems to want to add comments about the supposed antisemitism and racism of this book into the lead, I and at least one other editor think that although these facts are of sufficient notability to be included, they are not of sufficient weight to be included in the lead. CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is not negotiable. However given the desperately low amount of news coverage picking on it outside one main important Israeli paper and some tasteless debate on yahoo answers I agree with you in that it should not stay in the lead section for the article's sake. I feel that incorporating the content with the Background section would be more appropriate even though its current form is like a quinessential Reactions paragraph and that the part with the parody or that Orwell used a diary/memoir format although with features not commonly found in memoirs or biographical works (as in, fiction) should not be omitted. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 21:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ItsAlwaysLupus, First, this is a consensus driven community, saying things like "That is not negotiable." Is an incredibly bad idea. It does not make people think you want to work with them but are instead demanding that it be your way.
Second, You really need to improve your grammar, most of what you type on talk pages requires me to read it at least 4 times to understand it, somethign that also makes people less inclined to work with you.
If you agree, and it seems (your grammar is awful enough I cant quite tell) that you do, that there is not enough coverage of whatever point you are trying to make (something else I cannot understand), why do you continue to add it to the lead?
Finally, What is not negotiable? "That" can mean many things. CombatWombat42 (talk) 02:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
yes, that is certainly my opinion, - the material is worth including in the article but is not of sufficient weight , to be in the lead. there is really much about poverty, and very little about anti-Semitism in the book. the RS I have seen mention the books interest much more for what it reveals of orwell , and the poor and marginal and tramp figures etc in paris and London of the early 1930s than for what it has to say about anti-Semitism and Jews. there is scattered material in the book that has attracted some comment in the RS but not too much. the section on this as it stands, though it could do with some re-wording , ( my fault as I hacked at it a bit) but imo it is in an appropriate enough section of the article and with the about right amount of emphasis. Sayerslle (talk) 16:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I advise you not to smash "revert" until we are "done" here as you do every time you see my edit as the latest or something. The revision you keep pushing here is also outdated and by these hasty actions you are only making it worse ("my fault as I hacked at it a bit") (Yes).
  2. Is this a source you pulled out from under your magical POV hat, the source that declares this article is describing an autobiographical book from the category non-fiction? I provided enough evidence already to say that is not the case but it's like as if you were resistant to it and instead you present book summary written by Penguin as a reliable source which brings us to the next paragraph.
Bonus 1. Penguin is not a living person or it cannot talk in human speak because it is a corporation and you are parroting words of a corporation instead of trying to disprove my other references which are not Penguin. Ha'aretz is also a more relevant source than Penguin or any other book publishing company in this matter writing synapses to books. Seems like you really like your 2001 Penguin "Down and Out in Paris and London" synopsis, don't you? This is what pre-1972 book synapsis reads: "This unusual fictional account, in good part autobiographical, narrates without self-pity and often with humor the adventures of a penniless British writer among the down-and-out of two great cities. In the tales of both cities we learn some sobering Orwellian truths about poverty and society." ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 21:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
this is George Orwell himself ' - "I think I can say that I have exaggerated nothing except in so far as all writers exaggerate by selecting. I did not feel that I had to describe events in the exact order in which they happened, but everything I have described did take place at one time or another." - I don't know where you get 'this unusual fictional account ' from, but anyway orwell I presume is good enough for you to listen to about this - its not that I even didn't say to you I thought it was good adding a bit about the anti-semitic sentiments scattered in the book - why you are so bloody annoyed at me I honestly don't get - I myself have been reverted 1000s of times and it is annoying sometimes - , but bloody hell, its not life and death - stop slagging me off over a difference of opinion - - maybe watchlists aren't such a great idea as they do tend to slightly own - ership toubles but I honestly think it does not belong all the stuff you wanted to put in the lead - it is undue imo - o.k? - I am allowed to disagree with you over this. ffs.Sayerslle (talk) 21:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wont edit it but 'the book is notorious[32] to portray highly offensive prejudices against Jews, featuring British Union of Fascists-like caricatures and graphic stereotypes and in a particularly vivid matter.' - does that mean 'manner'? 'the book is notorious to..' - its just slipshod written - and the ref for 'part fiction' is not a proper ref in the infobox and I clicked on it and it led to no such book, - but anyway, I give up. Sayerslle (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article is MUCH too heavy on the plot summary

Plot summaries are the worst thing about Wikipedia. Really. Background and critical reception, that's all. 91.66.82.175 (talk) 14:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you are complaining about but I'm guessing WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:SPOILERS might apply?CombatWombat42 (talk)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Down and Out in Paris and London/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The introduction/overview of the article is quite poor. The first sentence should not refer to Orwell as having "lived in both cities" but should name both cities by name. The summary of his time in Paris is oversimplistic, and I don't really think that it's extremely important that he got free wine, he mentions it at most twice, and it is only a passing reference each time. There are also glaring errors, Orwell did not in fact work as a bookshop assistant, or a tutor while in London. In fact the entire second half of the book is a recount of living as a tramp in the London area while waiting for a job caring for an "imbecile" opens up. Also the summary should be in present tense, not past. And although it remains a point of contention whether or not this book is fictional or completely true, the main character should be referred to just as that, the main character, as Orwell never says specifically that the main character is in fact him.

Last edited at 21:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 13:46, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Down and Out in Paris and London. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Down_and_Out_in_Paris_and_London"