In addition to writing about his time in East London in 1902, Jack London also captured a number of stunning "street" photos. As a recent coffee-table book of his photographs points out, London was an early adopter of one of the first hand-held cameras, a Kodak-Eastman folding "pocket" camera, one of the the first to use rolls of flexible film instead of heavy and expensive plates. I'll bring the book to class on Tuesday to share the images, but this is a fairly representative one, and might be nice to have in mind as you're reading this week. As per the usual routine, after you've read The People of the Abyss, post a question and your attempt to answer it here in the comments section.
The People of the Abyss by Jack London was an interesting read. I rather enjoyed it. The look at the real people of London in the places that the normal tourist would never dream of going. From the beginning, when he tried to get to the East End, people responded with incredulity.
ReplyDeleteThe question that came up for me was whether or not someone could truly bridge the gap between traveler and local or if there would always be a separation?
There were a couple of places that London addressed this in the book. For instance, when he was able to go back to a hotel, shower, shave, and sleep in a clean bed. Even then he thought of the 700 hundred people who couldn't do that. London did what he could to fit in with the people of East End by dressing in old clothes and going through the motions of what it would be like for them. In the end, London had someplace to go after it all ended. He was able to return to his world, but there is no place for the other people to go. That is there world.
And then at the end of the book, London talks about those people who try to help.
He said "They do not understand the West End, yet they come down to the East End as teachers and savants." People who don't understand their own lives try and change someone else's when they have no ability to say anything because they are just as ignorant.
So how does that apply to other people? How can someone go to a different country and try to help when there are people suffering in their own country?
This book was written in 1903, and yet the problem is the same perhaps even worse.
With all of that said, can the separation between traveler and local ever be overcome?
I bought a one-way ticket to Bangkok after I left a terrible marriage. I wanted to volunteer as a teacher. I had no idea what I was doing with my life, it was a mess. Along with the relationship, I also left a dead-end job. I had no college education and no course for my future. However, I knew that I wanted to help someone, somewhere, in a way that would be ethical and foster independence in those I was volunteering for. I chose to go abroad primarily because the cost of living was less expensive than most places, certainly anywhere in the US. I was able to live for 6 months on what it would cost for one month in many other places, including home. When I returned to Juneau, I began volunteering more in my own community. I hadn’t really ever volunteered extensively before that first time to Thailand. I liked helping others, and I decided it was important to find causes I felt strongly about at home. Then I went to Africa, which changed the game for me. I still didn’t have a true grasp of myself (do we ever?), but I went for some months, found the best place I’ve ever been to, and dedicated my future to it. I still actively volunteer for places like SEAGLA and Four A's here in Juneau, but I also run a non-profit for an orphanage in Kenya.
DeleteWhen we speak about the reasons for providing aid to foreign countries, it’s a touchy subject for me. I’ve been to places that are beyond description in their despondency. I know places like that exist in the US, or that there are people in all kinds of need here in SE Alaska. Domestic volunteering is important, I agree. However, I don’t think humanitarian efforts outside of our own community or country should be given a blanket label or wrong or inappropriate. A clothing drive I did at Gonzo this summer had been placed on some community Facebook page by an acquaintance of mine. There were several positive comments, “I’ve got a bag!” and so on, and then a woman replied how inappropriate it was to be collecting donations for another country when there are people in the USA that need help. My initial response was a mental tally of the kids these clothes would provide for – kids whose parents were murdered in front of them during the post-election violence, HIV positive kids, kids who’d been malnourished and repeatedly raped. I got very angry. Then I backed off, there are kids like that everywhere. So I messaged her – if she found an organization in the US that she felt strongly about, then I’d be happy to split the donations equally. She replied that was a great idea, and I never heard from her again.
I would just like to state that I wasn't trying to discount foreign humanitarian efforts. I also am aware that there are people outside the U.S. who may have it worse off than those in the U.S. What I was saying was that there are differences and the majority of people who go overseas can be unaware and then attempting to change something when they don't do the same in their own country. There is almost a deliberate ignorance, which not everyone has, but some people choose to avoid those places in their home country. Which is interesting in it's own aspect as well.
DeleteBut I can understand and agree that my original statement was a generalization.
I’m going to expound on Leesha’s post – because a similar line of thought kept popping up in my head as I read Abyss. My question is, because one wants to have a richer and more authentic experience, does that necessarily mean they are attempting to fully transcend being an outside observer, what we have been referring to as a “tourist”? London tries to appropriate the customs and appearance of the East End population, in order to at least appear on the same level so that he may fit in more while he’s there. Yet, he does have the comforts of a higher class economic status – a hotel, then home to California – to return to. However, I don’t think he actually ever wanted to be a West Ender. I think his purpose was his own, different from what one might automatically assume.
ReplyDeleteWhen we think of travel in regards to labor migrations or exodus because of war of famine, we look at populations whose hands (or feet) are forced. They move because they must, for the sake of their or their family’s wellbeing. When we flip that, for journalism, philanthropy, etc. we see much more vague reasons – ones that differ from person to person. London wanted to research and report on this area – he wanted a glimpse into the Abyss (as the novel is aptly titled). Leesha brought up an interesting inquiry at the end of her post, “People who don't understand their own lives try and change someone else's when they have no ability to say anything because they are just as ignorant.” This is a strong opinion, one that is very conflicting of what I know to be true. I believe that traveling for humanitarian reasons can enable people to find true growth in themselves, and to help them discover who they are or what matters to them. I think this can also be said of traveling in general, not wanting to lose your own identity, but still experience authentic culture (similar to London).
By now, it’s pretty clear that every piece I read in this class will remind me of that first piece “Stuff White People Like.” Some pieces contradict it or fight it, others embrace or try to validate it, and still others detail the history of travel writing from which it sprung; London’s book is no different. In some ways, this is the origin of “Stuff White People Like” – the traditional grand tour by wealthy young people to be entertained by other cultures. However, London’s purpose appears to be more admirable (or possibly self-aggrandizing, although I don’t think that’s actually the case), because he is trying to move out of the self-created realm in which many wealthy reside.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that people embarking on the grand tour have in common is that they remain the same; on their “tour,” they have the same amount of money and they live (dress, talk, walk experience, and even think) in the same ways they did at home. But for the scenery, nothing has changed. London realizes that not only are these grand ‘tourers’ ignoring realities abroad, they are as much a tourist in their own city – ignoring ugly or unappealing truths and using money to surround themselves with prettier things. The grand ‘tourer’ is, in a sense, always on that vacation from reality – oblivious to everything not explicitly created by him and for him. London hopes to wake wealthy people up to the fact that they have become tourists even while at home; in addition, their oblivion is the main factor keeping many people in deplorable conditions, and they must come back home (to reality) for anything to change.
I'm interested in London's consideration of "the progeny of prostitution--of the prostitution of men and women and children, of flesh and blood, and sparkle and spirit; in brief, the prostitution of labor" (99). I'm still trying to figure this out, but in what ways does his continual reference to labor relate to travel?
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that the people of the abyss are the product of the commodification of labor. I was asking myself how it becomes possible for humans-fellow humans-to allow this suffering to occur. I don't think it would be too far to suggest that places such as the East End are made possible by the commodification of labor and the abstraction of humanity behind its products. When all a body is good for is working or how much money you can get from them, the actual laborer becomes abstracted. London describes the relationship between the church-going people who "riot about on the rents and profits which come to them from the East End stained with the blood of the children" (97). There IS a relationship between the dying children of the East End and the wealthier people not living there, but London has to deconstruct the product to make it visible. The social relationship- the actual people behind whatever the wealthier people are consuming- is hidden. And that struck me as relevant to today, too. When I wear clothes that are made by sweatshop workers in another country, I have a relationship with that person; I just can't see the relationship because I'm relating through the commodity (my jeans). Is that how it connects to travel, maybe? Our consideration of these global relationships is on a larger scale than London's consideration of London (the city, haha) but I think we can relate. Mass migrations in history have commonly been caused by the commodification (or as London says, prostitution) of labor. Maybe it'll become more apparent to me in these 12 minutes, but I think there is probably a lot more to unearth in this relationship between abstraction, commodity, labor, and travel. (I know this is a blanket idea, just throwing it out there!) Travel and abstraction is an interesting relationship just by itself, for example, we could easily examine the way we can abstract a people or place into a over-arching concept or theme that can then be consumed (tourism).
It is obvious through London's use of word that he was an outsider in his experience. Even if he changed his clothes and tried to incorporate himself into the slums of london, he was still a well off American. No matter what projection of himself he created in the London slums his mind sight was always of an American traveller. How did this effect his experience? Was he ever truly able to understand what life was like for those people when he always knew that some day he would return to his nice slacks and high thread count sheets?
ReplyDeleteI was also very interested in the last chapter in which London becomes curious about the effects of society on men. He compares inuit people to the people of london. The main difference London sees is that even in good times the poverty stricken people of London are always stuck in a place of suffering even in good times because they are always lacking in some area. Inuits may have times of famine, but in their primitive life style they always have resources of some means. It seams that society has grown and been "mismanaged" leaving people in the slums with no recognition. In this societal scene the average man is week and even though the man power of one man in society is higher then that of one inuit man, the happiness that the average man feels does not follow this. This is a very interesting though about the growing world and I wonder how the subject of travel can be incorporated into it. As we have come to conclude in discussion in class, people in all kinds of cultures and societies travel. The ways in which people travel in different walks of life are very different, but what do these different ways of traveling say about that culture? Does the definition of travel or view of what travel is in each culture say anything about the average man of that culture?
I found this novel extremely interesting and well fitting for our class, in regards to our previous class discussions. I couldn’t help but think of the comment made in the first class by Ishmael, when tourists ask where are spots that the locals in town go to? Where do the tourists not visit? Are people asking this to be in with the locals? It also fits with the “Stuff White People Like” excerpt we read as well, such as visiting a poorer country for a clearer understanding of the culture, and picking up on the things that locals do, maybe to have a new found appreciation for your higher class life. Can we differentiate travelers and locals if these travelers take on the persona of the locals? While London seemed to have his own views and preconceived notions of people who lived in a lower class, I found it extremely interesting that London took on the persona of one of the people in the slums. He took on the appearance of the locals by wearing a “disguise”. He wore a raggedy outfit and was able to speak with these people and dine with them. They seemed to be accepting of him. Does the fact that he did this create a “real, down and gritty” experience of travel? Have people traveled and taken on disguise to create a more authentic experience? I am reading a book called “Self-made man” in my sociology course, and it is about a woman who dresses as a man to create an authentic experience of what it is like to be a man. Though this isn’t about travel, I feel that it can be related because we have heard of journalists doing this as a way to get a more authentic story to write on while traveling, just as London has done with the People of the Abyss.
ReplyDeleteIn reading Jack London’s The People of the Abyss, I honestly found myself unable to believe at points that it was a work of nonfiction. What I had trouble with in this regard was not his descriptions of poverty and the living standards of the poor; those were easy to believe, since the often-glamorized landscape of 19th-century England was actually an awful place to live if you weren’t filthy rich (or, at the very least, moderately well-off). No, what I had a hard time wrapping my mind around was what seemed to me to be his offensively cavalier attitude about everything he was describing. Which led me to wonder: as a first-world traveler, do I and my fellow Americans all subconsciously have that same attitude when we travel?
ReplyDeleteRegarding my question, I feel like Jack London went to an extreme that most of us would not. Pretending to be poor so as to authentically observe their state of being is fine, I guess; but his style of writing made it seem more like he did it to satisfy his own personal interest rather than to write any kind of helpful dossier about it, and his attitude was constantly one of disgust - except when he was finally back in his own quarters, thankful that he didn’t have to put up with the squalor anymore. His style of writing, which came off to me as being rude and somewhat uncalled for, did get me thinking about the travel experiences of myself and other Americans, though. I was reminded of the statement in our first couple of classes regarding how people want “the authentic experience” when they travel - and while I’m angry about how London’s piece basically ran along the lines of “I heard there were poor people and yes, I can confirm, the people are definitely poor, not that I plan to do anything about it,” I’m also reminded of my own travel experience. When approached by people who were begging or trying to sell us their wares, our tour director told us not to make eye contact or even give them the time of day. At least Jack London directly associated with them before saying how thankful he was that he was actually secretly rich and didn’t have to live like that. Most people just pass them by and continue to enjoy themselves, while secretly thinking what London had the guts to write down and publish.
I guess my overall point is that I think everyone inherently has a desire to get the “authentic travel experience” while simultaneously thinking of themselves, consciously or not, as being better than the inhabitants of the locale they are visiting. I don’t know if that’s true or not, but as I continue to learn more about travel and its associated writing, hopefully my opinions will also change and grow to match my increased knowledge on the subject!
I could be way off track here, but my question for this week that I would like to explore is: In what ways does Jack London orientalize, or in this case "abyss-atize," the people of London's East End?
ReplyDeleteBy shedding light on a part of London that most people would rather ignore, Jack London is trying to bring awareness to the struggles East End Londoners go through day by day. But despite Jack London's attempts to understand and sympathize with the people he encounters while disguising himself in ragged clothing and living in London, some of his observations are phrased in such a way that they paint an uncivilized and even "animalistic" image of them, such as this description of the men at the Salvation Army barracks or "the peg": "...the poor creatures were aghast!" (London 47). Maybe his intentions were to dramatize the poor conditions these people were living in so as to convict his wealthier readers and prompt them to action, but in doing so he falls into the language of "othering" when describing the people living in East End. In a sense, through the use of this language of difference— unintentionally or not—London dehumanizes these people. Even the title of this book, "The People of Abyss" suggests that they are something "otherworldly." I wonder then if this is book was more harmful than it was helpful in calling people to action to aid the poor in London?
This book is clearly more about poverty than travel - and the poverty is portrayed so hopelessly and heartwrenchingly that it’s hard for me to think of questions about any other topic. London experiences (or maybe just glimpses) the reality of these destitute men, women, and children - he sleeps on the streets and goes hungry with them, he attempts to find work and housing with them, he converses and connects with them, he photographs them. It’s a lot for the reader to take in, and I can’t hardly imagine what it was like for London himself to take in. What are the ethical dilemmas a traveler is faced with when visiting an impoverished country? Since a traveler is often wealthy and privileged enough to be able to afford travel, is there any responsibility on the part of the traveler to help those in need who live in the places we travel to?
ReplyDeleteIn the chapter ‘The Carter and the Carpenter,’ London briefly bonds with two men, spends a period of time getting to know them, and by the end of it he can’t stand their forlorn state and makes sure that when they part ways the men have full bellies and money to buy a place to sleep. However, other than this, London pretty much maintains his guise of a fellow pauper, not sharing his secret wealth. This is understandable, of course, because the problem is so big, so much bigger than any one person can fix. But as the forward states, “by 1913 [London] was the most famous, best-paid, and the most-translated writer in the world.” How could London live his affluent life without constantly thinking of all the people he saw and met? Was London’s later suicide in any way a result of the moral struggles that undoubtedly accompanied a trip such as this?
I’m reminded of Kevin Carter, the photojournalist who took the picture of a vulture next to a starving child in Sudan. Carter committed suicide shortly after he won a Pulitzer prize for the photograph.
I've had similar questions to some of the other students in regards to whether London's experiment was successful in representing the "people of the abyss", or whether he was subjective in his portrayals as an outsider. I think my answer is that he did not himself become a person of the abyss, he could not understand and further, write what it meant to be born into those circumstances; however, I would argue that he was instead an intermediary between the east end and the rest of London; Jack London, I believe, plants himself in the east end to be a bricoleur; I believe his project was similar to those of Engels and Marx, to demystify the separation of classes, social relations, and commodity exchange. I don't think it's right to criticize London for posing as a pauper and call his experience authentic or subjective, because he was really engaging in a dialectic to recover the connection of multiple geographic locations. I think it doesn't matter that London could go back to a hotel if he pleased at the end of a day, it doesn't make his experience inauthentic; he's not trying to authenticate his experience as a pauper, that is to say, "the local"; and he's not making some call to action, he's not trying to convince anyone to be an activist for the east end. Instead, I would argue he is merely, as a bricoleur, identifying the east end society and issues, and their connection to the rest of the city.
ReplyDeleteI hugely enjoyed the book. It was very noble. It's kind of hard to wrap my mind around Jack London as a racist--he wrote many racists about all types, particularly black people--and as a leading colonizer in his writings associated with Alaska and the Yukon. Here is an article that examines his racism:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2005-08-19/article/22124
Still, this book in particular shows that he had a soft spot for the common folk and the oppressed, particularly if they were white, I guess. The book is delightfully written, and written with great compassion. The reporting is hugely engrossing, drawing us in the to the daily, sordid, horrific grind of poor Londoners at the turn of the 20th century. He could be a bit patronizing about the "animalistic" nature of the people, as Chrystal nicely explains, but the mere brutal facts of his journalism was worth pouring over every page. This *is* a world that few understand. I can't say that I understand it very much. I was reminded of the projects and ghettos of the US, and the hip hop culture, gangs, and struggles that came out of those projects. There is great misunderstanding there even if people romanticize it and listen to gangsta rap.
Mostly, I enjoy reading about how regular people struggle to get by. I'm not drawn in to the poverty, like "poverty porn", but more interested in how people survive against dehumanizing systems. I have less of a feeling for "saving" them and more for struggling against the system. I think London struck a good tone at the end when he explored the underlying reasons for the misery, the dreadful facts of capitalism and urbanization and his call for better management, and for heeding the cries of anguish from our fellow human beings.
Jack London’s People of the Abyss looks into the ugly side of a civilization by traveling to what he calls the Abyss of London. Though, even within his adventure into revealing the people often treated horribly, he comes off with an air of privilege and superiority. It’s not on purpose or perhaps it is in London’s jab at the grand tour and the coming of age journey. So the question is: Is London trying to spread the idea of traveling to the poorer regions and helping as better form of traveling? Or is he trying to just show the idiocy behind the idea of the Grand Tour?
ReplyDeletePerhaps it’s both. London does give an allowance for both with in his writing, criticizing much of civilization while pretending to be a member of the lower class, but still recognizes that he could leave at any time. Would he feel bad about it? Most likely from the way he paints the picture, though he really, even in his pretending he never truly does anything to better the situation. All there is to this is a commentary but no steps to fix it. It comes with his natural imperial eye, unable to stop himself from creating an idea of what the impoverished look like. London does paint a harsh truth, the idea of the grand tour and how it blinds most people from the reality happening around them. So, supposing that London is actually showing that you can help others in a sort of sarcastic and slightly demeaning manner, is it actually helpful? Is it conducive to the betterment of the places being traveled to and the people being romanticized? With poverty and homelessness at a high during the time that London traveled, one can only imagine how many were ignored for the ‘authenticity’ of English travel.
Jessika (Bambi) Caudy
ReplyDeleteDuring our “choose your own adventure” exercise last week I stumbled upon the idea of authenticity of travel. This claims that all opinions and experience of travel come from one’s social and personal background. The travel life is phony while one’s average life is real. This is one topic I kept circling back to while reading Jack London’s book.
I did some research and found out that Jack London also came from a working class family and, although never suffered the squalors that the people of his book did, never had the “middle class easy” life. My question is “Did Jack London’s status as a writer make his experience in London more romanticized or was he able to relate to the people more because of his past?”
I use the term “romanticized” somewhat loosely. The only reason I consider this an option is because of his attitude in the beginning of the book were he pities the lives of those around him and buys lunch for two newly made friends, making him a kind of hero of the poor.
At several points in the book he claims that no sane person would allow their wives and children to live in such a state of squalor that the lower class of London lives. This clearly demonstrates that Jack had never had to deal with these conditions himself or be affected by them in his own life. His background made it more difficult for him to truly understand the mental conditions of those he was surrounded by.
What amazed me was the fact that while he described each situation as destitute and deplorable, he described people’s attitude as being accepting of the situation.
When a person only ever knows homelessness and hunger and the life of the poor, they normalize the situation and accept it as their own authentic reality. Jack London could not be able to achieve this mentality, as every rotten piece of food and tattered piece of clothing was something to be astonished by.
Now while I have painted a picture of shock and incomprehension on Jack London’s part, I would like to say that through his trials, he was able to blend into his surroundings and take part in the culture without much difficulty. This clearly dictates Jack’s understanding of the situations in which people are forced into. I believe this comes from his past, living in a lower class American family with his mother. He was better able to understand that when people are put into situation in which there is no escape, survival tactics and acceptance are bound.
So to answer my own question, I believe Jack’s adult life and status as a writer led his experience to be inauthentic, however (disregarding his seemingly romantic moments), his childhood and comprehension of the poor allowed him to relate better to the people of his study.
People travel places for various reasons, but many seem to do so in order to observe culture and different aspects of life. London presents that these people did not dare to venture into the East End of London, which was a large part of the culture and showed a tremendous parallel between life in one half of the city versus the other. Why do travelers and/or tourists want to go someplace new, but not observe it for what it is? They almost seem to create an idea of what a place is like, solely based upon the good parts that they see. I admire London for daring to do what no one at the time was doing, but did he even truly understand the city as a whole? Can you experience all of a place as a traveler? To me, he tried to remain an observer and participator. He dressed as the people dressed, ate as they did, worked as they did, and comments in his book about their life and the absolute depth of misery present, but does he really truly understand how they live? I’m not sure. After a hard day, he returns to his wealth and sleeps off the wretchedness, while the Londoners continue on or die trying. I don’t expect him to give up all his belongings and wealth, but how can he possibly understand the life that the people in the abyss live? He only gains a taste of what it was like. A brave and lonely sole in his endeavors, he tries to experience London as it is, without changing it. I think that most people wouldn’t dare to, because they might be changed in the process. They might realize how blessed they are, and how wrong their picture of London is.
ReplyDeleteGood golly Ms. Molly..... Is this a travel piece, yes. Is London a white, affluent, product of his times, yes. Do I want to interpret this as travel literature, nope. Was this an unnerving, crass, and base visual account of the disenfranchised poverty stricken masses of a first world, newly industrialized suck hole? Yepper. This offers me as good a reason as any to agree with Plato and kick all the poets out of his beautiful (no, not really) Republic. Not only is London LITERALLY taking the food from the homeless, but offers only literary effort in trying to help them. Let's take the example of the Americore volunteer. They enter into these environments not pretending to be among the masses and simply offer an anthropological assessment of the down right disaster they encounter, but rather to seek to help. Though london's work represented here offers insight into "the abyss" and through this insight we can find holes and gaps in the system which could then lead to the fixing of them, he comes at it with such a deplorable disdain for these Cretans that it takes the empathy of the reader to burn through his sickening elitist attitude. Had he been working for a university in our day and age and tried to have obtained IRB permission to carry own this project, there would be NO WAY they would have allowed him to continue. As a lover of history I understand that no, through historical relativism we cannot say that he is racist; and furthermore if it comes up in class I'll defend that idea, no problem. But good god Mr. London, take the sliver spoon out of your mouth, lower your nose so that it is at least parallel with the earth, and understand that there are ways of interpreting the world around you that don't include being a d**k.
ReplyDeleteSide question: Why did he travel all the way to England to get a look at systemic poverty? 1901 USA had it in spades Jack, spades.
Like others I had a hard time seeing this piece as travel writing, though I did find it interesting. I do see how it relates back to the idea of the grand tour we have been touching on all semester. London Seems to have a little checklist that he is using as a guide to evaluate the experience of the East Enders. He wears their clothes, check. Walks the streets for a night, check. Looks at possible lodging options were he to try to support a family in the East End, check. Picks Hops for a day, check. I found it interesting that he made sure to always have a home base to go back to and disconnect himself to the experiences that he just had. At first I was slightly put off by this but I am glad that he didn’t put himself in direct competition, with the people of the East End for who this really was their life, for food, jobs, and a bed for his entire experiment. I did think it was interesting that he acted shocked when the man at the Salvation Army accused him of stealing another persons meal, he didn’t in that instance but there was at least one instance in the book that he prevented at one truly hungry and homeless man from and meal and a place to sleep for the night. While I understand he was trying to compare the different options for the poor and show that they are not treated like any person should be I was slightly put off by that instance. This reading made me think of the discussion last week about how travel may never be authentic for the traveler. While London was going for an as authentic experience as he could he could not escape his personal biases and always had a clean room to go to.
ReplyDeleteAs I read through Jack London's account of his experiences in the East End, or the "Abyss," I started wondering which of his impressions were more dominant - that of admiration or condescension toward these people. And even more troublesome is whether either of those attitudes would have ever been acceptable to the individuals with whom he came into contact for the purpose of his experiment.
ReplyDeleteRight away, London remarks in the preface that the character of the inhabitants of East End are not to blame for their station in life. The primary culprit, he states, is the gross mishandling of their circumstances by the politicians and powers that be. From that point, however, he goes on to speak exceptionally negatively about many of the people he encounters. In my mind, considering that the author seemed assuredly to be significantly wealthier than everyone he came in contact with, his criticisms of almost everyone's handling of money was in bad taste at best. He voluntarily put himself into bad conditions in order to satisfy his own curiosities, and views those who are trapped in the same conditions as foolish and careless.
The only times I felt that London held a degree of respect for the people of the Abyss were, for example, when he was speaking of the homeless on the streets at night. He described the grueling, freezing, unbearable conditions that, he remarked, would certainly break the invariably well-off reader to pieces. I found that section to carry a certain degree of admiration for the men and women, some over 70 years old, who repeatedly survived those nights on the street.
The people of the Abyss was an interesting read, Jack London gave an interesting perspective of the impoverished people of London. I'm not sure he did much to help them except to raise awareness about the miserable living conditions that some people had to endure. London was able to document suffering in a way that was compassionate but also he was able to get to the dirty core of society and expose all the unsightly pain and suffering. I'm not sure what the result of this book was on society awareness but the travel is a very different form that I would imagine without reading this book I would never of thought of this book as travel.
ReplyDelete