The Road To Wigan Pier

[INT21]

Many here will know George Orwell's classic '1984'.

But not as many, I suspect, know 'The Road to Wigan Pier'.

I've just finished it. And when I read a book for the first time I avoid the introductions etc at the front. I read the book, form my opinions, then look to what the critics, scholars have to say.

It's in two parts. And the first part is pretty descriptive of the Northern pit communities of the time. (1937) and describes his experiences trying to get into the minds of the folks in the area. and how they lived.

But the second part is more a reflection of his own views on the society of the day, He was a Communist, and appears to have swallowed the Communist ideal hook, line and sinker. In fact it's a bit 'all over the place'. Even the people in the introductions note this.

But he is ex-India. And, at least to me, he can never lose this. And it shows up clearly in part two of the book.

so, if you read it, what conclusions did you come to ? More about Orwell than about his depictions.

INT21.

 

[ramonmercado]

Many here will know George Orwell's classic '1984'.

But not as many, I suspect, know 'The Road to Wigan Pier'.

I've just finished it. And when I read a book for the first time I avoid the introductions etc at the front. I read the book, form my opinions, then look to what the critics, scholars have to say.

It's in two parts. And the first part is pretty descriptive of the Northern pit communities of the time. (1937) and describes his experiences trying to get into the minds of the folks in the area. and how they lived.

But the second part is more a reflection of his own views on the society of the day, He was a Communist, and appears to have swallowed the Communist ideal hook, line and sinker. In fact it's a bit 'all over the place'. Even the people in the introductions note this.

But he is ex-India. And, at least to me, he can never lose this. And it shows up clearly in part two of the book.

so, if you read it, what conclusions did you come to ? More about Orwell than about his depictions.

INT21.

Orwell was more Left Labour, he was a member of the Independent Labour Party. If he ever had any sympathy towards the Communist Party he lost it after his experiences in Spain. He went to fight on the Republican side and joined the militia of the POUM, sister party of the ILP in Spain. The Stalinists were gradually taking over the military apparatus of the Republican forces and smeared the POUM and Anarchists as Fasscists. As Orwell himself put it he was hunted through the streets of Barcelona like a dog.

I really recommend Homage To Catalonia, about his time in Spain.

An interesting article here:

The subsequent campaign of lies and distortion carried out by the Communist press,[73] in which the POUM was accused of collaborating with the fascists, had a dramatic effect on Orwell. Instead of joining the International Brigades as he had intended, he decided to return to the Aragon Front. Once the May fighting was over, he was approached by a Communist friend who asked if he still intended transferring to the International Brigades. Orwell expressed surprise that they should still want him, because according to the Communist press he was a fascist.[74] "No one who was in Barcelona then, or for months later, will forget the horrible atmosphere produced by fear, suspicion, hatred, censored newspapers, crammed jails, enormous food queues and prowling gangs of armed men."[75]

After his return to the front, he was wounded in the throat by a sniper's bullet. At 6 ft 2 in (1.88 m), Orwell was considerably taller than the Spanish fighters[76] and had been warned against standing against the trench parapet. Unable to speak, and with blood pouring from his mouth, Orwell was carried on a stretcher to Siétamo, loaded on an ambulance and after a bumpy journey via Barbastro arrived at the hospital at Lérida. He recovered sufficiently to get up and on 27 May 1937 was sent on to Tarragona and two days later to a POUM sanatorium in the suburbs of Barcelona. The bullet had missed his main artery by the barest margin and his voice was barely audible. It had been such a clean shot that the wound immediately went through the process of cauterisation. He received electrotherapy treatment and was declared medically unfit for service.[77]

By the middle of June the political situation in Barcelona had deteriorated and the POUM—painted by the pro-Soviet Communists as a Trotskyist organisation—was outlawed and under attack. The Communist line was that the POUM were "objectively" Fascist, hindering the Republican cause. "A particularly nasty poster appeared, showing a head with a POUM mask being ripped off to reveal a Swastika-covered face beneath."[78] Members, including Kopp, were arrested and others were in hiding. Orwell and his wife were under threat and had to lie low,[n 5] although they broke cover to try to help Kopp.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell

Orwell could be rather full of himself at times but his politics firmly developed into those of a Democratic Socialist.

 

[Ermintruder]

I've read '1984' (extensively) and also 'Down & Out...' but >not< 'The Road To Wigan Pier'.

I'll read it, thank-you for the reminder about its existence. One of the many classics I've not yet read.

But he is ex-India. And, at least to me, he can never lose this

As was my grandfather. And he, too, never entirely-lost that conflicted/complex aspect of his makeup.

 

[IbisNibs]

Homage to Catalonia is a marvelous book.
Down and out in Paris and London also.
Nothing beats first hand accounts by brilliant and engaged individuals. Thanks for the tip on The Road to Wigan Pier. If I can find it here, I'll read it.

 

[stu neville]

I admire and have studied Orwell in depth, and all of his works are well worth a read. The core nine novels and non-fiction books are all well known, but I highly recommend his entire output (and there's a great deal of it - the complete works runs to twenty volumes.) The essays are marvellous - for example Politics & The English Language and The Prevention of Literature both examine how language and literature are twisted, edited, misconstrued, promoted and discouraged in line with agendas and dogma. As a result, whilst 1984 is feted as his most prophetic and important work (discuss), the ideas explored in his journalism and essays, especially those post-Spanish Civil War, contain the details and exposition that found their literary expression in his last novel, and in fact in context of our present context chime* even more than Winston Smith's world.

Nothing beats first hand accounts by brilliant and engaged individuals. Thanks for the tip on The Road to Wigan Pier. If I can find it here, I'll read it.

Most of his major works are also available on Audible, and I have Wigan Pier and Down and Out, both unabridged and brilliantly read by Jeremy Northam, if that's an option for you. Nothing wrong with audiobooks .

*but not thirteen.

 

[Ermintruder]

whilst 1984 is feted as his most prophetic and important work (discuss),

My bound facsimile edition (a pre-edit 'director's version' compound of the main original double-spaced typed MS, plus much of the handwritten opening lines, addenda/score-outs/superscriptions) is more than Doubleplusgood.

I've owned a copy since, well, a little before the mid 1980s. Hopefully The Party will allow a reprint in 2034.

 

[gordonrutter]

My bound facsimile edition (a pre-edit 'director's version' compound of the main original double-spaced typed MS, plus much of the handwritten opening lines, addenda/score-outs/superscriptions) is more than Doubleplusgood.

I've owned a copy since, well, a little before the mid 1980s. Hopefully The Party will allow a reprint in 2034.

Ooh I have a version of 1984 like that, super large format as well

 

[escargot]

Down and out in Paris and London.

Je pisse!

 

[INT21]

'Down and out in Paris and London' was my introduction to Orwell (About the same time that 'On the Road' introduced me to Kerauac).

I'm surprised to see that he is described as a Socialist. In Wigan Pier he states that working men will vote Socialist, or Communist if he can. so he is clearly showing a preference for Communism.

One thing I do find a bit annoying is how he glorifies the 'working man' while denigrating everyone who doesn't come home covered in coal dust every night. And one can clearly see that he has become biased in his view. Essentially claiming that to be a 'real man' you have to have no knowledge of the arts etc.

But this is his own background; and it shows in his frequent use of Latin phrase. and remarks like 'not knowing the right kind of wine' etc
Basically he despises his own class.

Orwell's working class heroes best stick to their flat caps and ferrets.

INT21.

 

[stu neville]

One thing I do find a bit annoying is how he glorifies the 'working man' while denigrating everyone who doesn't come home covered in coal dust every night. And one can clearly see that he has become biased in his view. Essentially claiming that to be a 'real man'

Have to disagree there. What he was doing was bringing attention to the privations that the working class had to endure. The popular view among many between the wars was one of the low intrinsic value of manual workers, expendable, cheap, much as foot soldiers had been in the Great War. The ambitious were seen as the heroes, the rich as the valuable. Orwell despised this view, and sought to redress the balance, and having lived among them, worked down a mine, etc fought hard to express his admiration.

He did resent his own class, or at least its intrinsic ignorance and sense of superiority. As a good journalist, he wanted to raise awareness, and this he did. Orwell regarded all as equal, but this isn't to be conflated with support of Communism. He was ultimately a pragmatist, and was under no illusion of the practical pitfalls of pure Marxism and as such settled upon Socialism as the most truly equitable as it still enables freedom of choice.

 

[Lizard King]

Have to disagree there. What he was doing was bringing attention to the privations that the working class had to endure. The popular view among many between the wars was one of the low intrinsic value of manual workers, expendable, cheap, much as foot soldiers had been in the Great War. The ambitious were seen as the heroes, the rich as the valuable. Orwell despised this view, and sought to redress the balance, and having lived among them, worked down a mine, etc fought hard to express his admiration.

He did resent his own class, or at least its intrinsic ignorance and sense of superiority. As a good journalist, he wanted to raise awareness, and this he did. Orwell regarded all as equal, but this isn't to be conflated with support of Communism. He was ultimately a pragmatist, and was under no illusion of the practical pitfalls of pure Marxism and as such settled upon Socialism as the most truly equitable as it still enables freedom of choice.

As a big fan of Orwell I totally agree with your comments.I read The Road to Wigan Pier years ago.What I can remember, Orwell pretty much nails the description of how the situation for the working class was at the time.Orwell's varied life experiences make his work authentic and I believe balanced.We have so many Poverty Porn type channel 5 documentaries now which come nowhere near to the insight as The Road to Wigan Pier gives.I think to give such a view, he had to come from a different background to live the experiences he did, to be able to show the contrast.He has to be one of the most important writers of any generation.

 

[INT21]

Did he actually work down a mine ? I understand that he indeed went down a few, but the fact that he was so tall would have made it very difficult to spend much time working at the face.
I have no wish to take from his journalism. But it does tend towards hero worship at times.

He was right in something that is relevant today. And something I have brought up here. He knew that people needed to 'do something'. And that the situation at the time would not change 'Unless there is another war'. And, of course there was. We have lots of people with nothing to do. And we live in potentially volatile times.
He did appear to have an almost Utopian vision of the future under Socialism. Not from the full blown view of Utopia as Huxley showed in Brave New World. But, as you allude to, more 'equitable'. In this he seems to miss the point that the people he despises are actually the ones creating the work, no matter how unfairly. His mines were, to him, what the Dark Satanic Mills were to others. One has to remember that these same mills did provide an option to the old pastoral life. which in itself was drudgery for little pay.

 

[stu neville]

Did he actually work down a mine ?

No, that's true, he didn't physically dig coal, but he did journey to the coal face and witness a whole shift, and the living conditions the miners endured.

In this he seems to miss the point that the people he despises are actually the ones creating the work, no matter how unfairly.

No, that's the whole point- he knew damn well. He wanted them to acknowledge the conditions under which their workers laboured.

 

[INT21]

I suppose we can agree on the owners not really giving a toss about the conditions as there were always others to take the place of any worker who got 'uppity'. In a climate of high unemployment one need only pay a worker enough to ensure that, should he stop work, he is easily replaced. And the worker knows it. And that this attitude is still prevalent amongst may owners. Titus salt was one of the more enlightened owners. And I fear they even have a pub in Saltaire now. I don't think there were many Titus Salts in the mining areas.
He certainly divided up the working class into workers who did 'real work', and those who he considered to be orange juice drinking sandal wearing vegetarians.

He did have a very great dislikes to the future machine world. And apparently hated Wells for his portrayal of it. Wells himself found the notion of mechanized war reprehensible , but in an quaint 'old school' way. See 'The land Ironclads'

This was always the Communist grievance that the bosses owned the means of production. But when they, quite literally, killed of the bosses they found they could do no better themselves. In fact things got worst.

 

[stu neville]

He did have a very great dislikes to the future machine world.

Again, his fear was the impact of dehumanisation - a persistent theme of his - and specifically the working class as their means of employment would be gone (whilst the business owners would profit all the more, inclining the more ruthless to embrace mechanisation.) It wasn't fear of machines, but of their impact.

 

[INT21]

Again, his fear was the impact of dehumanisation - a persistent theme of his - and specifically the working class as their means of employment would be gone (whilst the business owners would profit all the more, inclining the more ruthless to embrace mechanisation.) It wasn't fear of machines, but of their impact.

Quite, what he didn't address was a solution to this conundrum. That is, unless he really thought Socialism would fix it.

Seems like he knew there was no real answer, except that war would solve the unemployment problem. But that it would also accelerate the mechanisation of industry. So he really was on a hiding to nothing.

He did see that Hitler was likely to bring about war. And seemed to understand how it would happen.

The aftermath of WWII seems in many ways similar to his day. But rebuild of the country kept many in employment.

 

[Lizard King]

I don't think Orwell had a Utopian vision of Socialism, especially after his experiences in the Spanish Civil War. I think he was in a position to observe first hand how the Fascists, Communists, Socialists and Anarchists operated and drew his own conclusions. which you can see in his works there after.One line about the working class which stands out for me in 19 4 is when he talks about the Proles, please excuse the mis quote.The answer lies with the Proles but they are too distracted by alcohol, sport and pornography or something similar. I can't help but think how pertinent that is today. The people have so much power but do not realise, appreciate or understand as we are distracted by sport, material things, reality Tv etc. People are more concerned by the Kardashians than the Putins, Trumps and Johnsons. I know its an over generalisation but you get the picture.

 

[INT21]

You are quite right about that quoted line.

And indeed the basic problem is that the proles these days not only really don't care, they have little need to.

But if you try to suggest that what is needed is a little discipline (tough love ?) to make them aware. Well, best get fitted out with jack boots as that is how people will perceive you.
I wouldn't completely agree that the people have much power. To have power you need to be aware.

Referring to Orwell's proles, maybe that is the way it will have to be. There will be too many people and not much to do.

Orwell was clearly aware of that.

I suppose today the future could be Wall-E.

 

[INT21]

..Keep a man buys mending boots and he is less likely to read The Daily Worker.Also there is a nasty YMCA atmosphere about these places which you can feel as soon as you go in. The unemployed men who frequent them are mostly of the cap-touching kind. The type who tell you oilily that he is Temperance and votes Conservative....

So, only men who drink beer, get dirty at work and have magnificent bodies (always wondered about Orwell's fascination with miner's bodies) are real men. The others are 'YMCA Cocao-drunkards'.

Yes, George certainly despised his own.

 

[stu neville]

The answer lies with the Proles but they are too distracted by alcohol, sport and pornography or something similar.

..all of which of course is where Huxley comes in. Not a society oppressed so much as a society fed so much soporific junk they fall into their own state of apathy.

So, only men who drink beer, get dirty at work and have magnificent bodies (always wondered about Orwell's fascination with miner's bodies) are real men

Again, I think you are missing the point. He's not actually saying that at all: what he's highlighting is that people who live on comparatively little money, have limited options for leisure and most of all daily exert themselves for cripplingly long shifts and hazardous conditions see no long-term benefit from it, whereas others who have never been near a colliery live on the profits. Orwell was too worldly for black and white dislike, and tried hard to project that his anger was with attitudes and complacency more than heritage, as these are more obstructive to progress.

 

[INT21]

Orwell's anger at complacency seems to hide him from the fact that the machine world was being created, yes to enrich the owners, but also in doing this to make the life of everyone easier. One does get the feeling from his writing that the worst thing that can happen is a fully mechanised pit with no risk to miners. This would, of course, provide little work for the miners themselves. They would have to join the ranks of the unemployed. But at least there would be work in other fields.
Sounds similar to today's approach to mass automation.