September 1 2022, Coeur de Lion.
A lot was said this evening, even though only five made it to the table on the night – others provided notes. This summary will inevitably miss out some good stuff – apologies in advance!
SC, whose choice this was, explained that he thought he’d read this book a long time ago, but recently revisited Orwell’s ‘Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters: Volume 1’ (which he first read in his 20s) and remembered that it includes the original Wigan Pier diaries. So in fact he’d never read the book itself, but the diaries instead. The diaries are interesting as Orwell’s thoughts aren’t filtered for publication, (though they also prove how little he had changed when the book was first published in 1936) but the following comments relate only to the book.
Everyone commented upon Orwell’s shocking descriptions of poverty and deprivation in England in the 1930s. It’s extraordinary to reflect on how much our day-to-day lives have changed in the 90-odd years since, in many ways because of the demise of manufacturing in this country. And yet, how divided the nation still is as the haves continue to out-earn the have-nots (CB).
One quote from SC gives us a clear view of Orwell’s standpoint: “You cannot disregard them if you accept the civilisation that produced them. For this is part at least of what industrialism has done for us. Columbus sailed the Atlantic, the first steam engines tottered into motion, the British squares stood firm under the French guns at Waterloo, the one-eyed scoundrels of the nineteenth century praised God and filled their pockets; and this is where it all led – to labyrinthine slums and dark back kitchens with sickly, ageing people creeping round and round them like black beetles.”
The book is presented in two halves: firstly as a diary of visits to various deprived areas in the north Midlands and the North, which he made as an assignment for his publishers (and as RV mentions, the story of how Victor Gollancz felt he had to write a rather apologetic foreword to the first edition – in Orwell’s absence – is an example in itself of how twisted up the British could become about class and the ‘right way of doing things’, whatever the motive and subject matter). The second section is a heartfelt, if at times rambling and less coherent hymn to socialism, explaining to his readers why that is the only way forward to equality and fairness for all.
All clubbers felt that the first half was the more accessible, in many ways more powerful part. Arguably little more needed to be said beyond his eloquently grim descriptions of deprivation and hardship. JH felt that Orwell gets bogged down in his own arguments in the second half but writes with an easy, highly personal style, describing the staggering stench of the rooms he stayed in: “You did not notice it when you got up, but if you went out of the room and came back, the smell hit you in the face with a smack.” He used his eloquence to criticise: “first condemn a family to live on thirty shillings a week, and then have the impertinence to tell them how they are to spend their money”. AA compared it to Priestley’s ‘English Journey’, which preceded Wigan Pier by a few years (also commissioned by Gollancz) – with Priestley being perhaps slightly less stiff and didactic, more of an observer.
WM pointed out how Orwell begins his eulogy for socialism at a human and impactful level, bemoaning humankind’s preference for ‘some slick machine-made article’ and our constant race to improve and replace what we already have – very fitting for today. However GO then gets too personal about forgotten figures of the time and repeats himself.
CW appreciated that Orwell was pioneering a form of journalism that still influences much of our news today: on the ground ‘real-life experience’. Much of it is unforgettable – Orwell’s gift for understatement amplifies the effect. CW said the book’s importance couldn’t be understated: MPs of the day read it on publication and it was a huge influence on the development of the Welfare State. Imagine a single book having that effect today…
RV appreciated the detail of the mundanity of lives and homes: the detailed of budgets gave us a clear way to connect and compare with our own lifestyles today. But he also pointed out that Orwe’ll was describing ‘relative poverty’, and how some things really haven’t changed: “And that is the central fact about housing in the industrial areas: not that the houses are poky and ugly, and insanitary and comfortless, or that they are distributed in incredibly filthy slums round belching foundries and stinking canals and slag heaps that deluge them with sulphurous smoke—though all this is perfectly true —but simply that there are not enough houses to go round.”
This book isn’t just about poverty and deprivation though – it’s also about how society changed as a result of WW1 (and how, as Orwell says, if another war didn’t come along, many of the unemployed would probably never find a job again). He showed he can be a compelling and compassionate writer if he needs to be: “Where are the monstrous men with chests like barrels and moustaches like the wings of eagles who strode across my childhood’s gaze twenty or thirty years ago?” (RV’s quote)
There are so many connections with our lives today; AA pointed out that William Morris was using ‘Levelling Up’ long before our current shower of politicians (though Orwell didn’t necessarily approve of the phrase). AA also made some detailed specific points relating to health issues:
- How the shockingly cavalier attitude to miners’ health and welfare is mirrored by many aspects of the way our health system is being strangulated today, making it increasingly difficult to access care unless you pay for it.
- How poverty is inextricably linked to the low-wage economy (and still is)
- How poor housing conditions continue to affect health, creating a potential humanitarian crisis in the very near future.
Orwell’s observations on class as shaped by British colonialism were also interesting as they offered an insight into his own upbringing – not just the awfully constricted ‘lower-upper-middle class’ that his parents uncomfortably inhabited along with many others, but also his dreadful and formative experiences in the Burma police, and how that affected him on his return.
As well as being struck by the discussion of class, CB also commented on the polarised nature of Orwell’s examination of Socialism vs Fascism – very much all or nothing in each respect, with no recognition that there might be a ‘middle way’. Orwell was off to fight in the Spanish Civil War on completing this book so perhaps he wasn’t in the best frame of mind for an even-handed discussion of those options.
MT loved the first part – the vivid descriptions of how awful things were, and yet noting that some people didn’t know they were poor until told they were, because they never knew any different. Couldn’t happen today! But while some of the descriptions in the second half were engaging and to a certain extent entertaining (the threat to socialism from its loudest supporters, the fruit drinkers, nudists, sandal wearers, sex maniacs, Quakers…), it lost its momentum to a modern reader.
So in summary, everyone agreed it was an interesting book; despite the naivety of his views in some respects (hindsight is a wonderful thing), there was also a strong sense of the book’s historical significance. Most agreed Orwell’s writing was powerful – he could turn the charm or the anger on very effectively. In the introduction to one edition, by Richard Hoggart, “he [Orwell] was a good hater”. You wouldn’t have wanted to be on the wrong side of him in an argument.
For a number of us it was a revisit to a book read many years ago, and in that context it underlined for us what had changed, not only since publication but since first reading – and what has yet to improve.
Scores: JH 7.5; MT 6.5; RV 8.75; SC 7.75; WM 7.5; CB 7.0; CW 7.75; AA 8.5; MW 6.5
Average 7.5
