The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists - Robert Tressell

I have not finished reading this yet, but I was interested to see what other people thought of it. I started reading it years ago, but it is rather long and starts getting a bit repetitive, so I gave it up. I have started reading it again from the back so I can stop when I get to a bit I remember. It was a very influential book. My step-mother's father said that it persuaded him to join the Communist Party, and I believe it has been credited with winning the 1946 general election for Labour. It is set in about 1907 in a southern English town. It's about a group of painter-decorators. Unemployment is high, pay and conditions are very poor, and job security is non-existent. The main character is a man named Owen, who I reckon must be similar to the author. He is a painter-decorator with a side line in sign painting. He is a dedicated socialist, who constantly argues with his co-workers, trying to get them to see that they are being exploited by the capitalist system. He is exasperated by them because they continue to vote Liberal or Conservative and to defer to upper classes. Apart from the idle rich, the bosses and the foremen, he particularly despises the clergy, whom he considers are paid a lot for not doing very much. The main problems with the book in my opinion are that it is too long; the author lays on the social injustice a bit too thick, and it has a tendency to turn into a manifesto. It is still interesting though, because it is written by a working class author about working class people. The dialogue is very well written; so much so, that I wondered whether some were remembered conversations. It was written about hundred years ago just before socialist and communist revolutions started to take place, and also before Labour started to replace the Liberal Party as the main opposition to the Conservatives in Britain.

the novel is part of britain's social history and it was avidly read by many in the forces during the war, no doubt contributing to Labour's landslide victory. It has the tendency to turn into a manifesto, i think, cos it was written with a specifically didactic intention. I think Tressell was as much frustrated with the apparent stupidity of the workers as he was with 'the system' and this is reflected in the novel. It's primary aim is educational, one directed at the working class, but i m not really sure it stands up as a work of literature. And i agree it is very repetitive...

Despite its problems, I think it does stand up as literature. The characters are vivid and the dialogue is realistic. The events seem so real. I recently finished reading The Woodlanders by Thomas Hardy, written about twenty to thirty years earlier, also largely about working people, but that book seems slight and whimsical compared to the Philanthropists.

the dialogue can be very funny, though there is a contrast between the quite demotic dialogue of the workers on the one hand and then owen's speech and the more 'literary' style of narration on the other. This contrast between style of dialogue and narration was one i found in another working class novel i read recently, 'saturday night and sunday morning' by alan sillitoe. I wonder if this is a problem sometimes for so called 'working class literature' that with it's style of narration it can establish a sort of 'distance' from the characters and their world that it is seeking to represent.

I had to look up demotic, but it would have been strange if there had not been a contrast of style between dialogue and narration. Otherwise it would have been like Trainspotting by Irvine Welsh. Interesting that you referred to Saturday Night and Sunday Morning. I have had that book on my bookshelf waiting to be read for over a year. I must get around to it. I noticed that Alan Silitoe wrote the introduction to my copy of Philanthropists.

i read an interview with sillitoe and i think he said 'Ragged Trousered' was a book that really influenced him (as well as existentialist writers...whose influence is more obvious to me) It seems to me that there are certain issues over style with 'working class literature' (i haven't read 'trainspotting', a novel that does come to mind is 'brighton rock' by graham greene with the character pinkie) that wouldn't arise with say ian mcewan who is basically a middle class person writing about middle class people (with the odd exception) There isn't that 'clash' if that is the right word between the 'demotic' and the more 'refined'

I gather Robert Tressell was a self-educated man. I remember reading he could speak several languages. In 1911, if you, as an unknown author, wanted someone to publish your first book, you would narrate it in standard English, even if your characters spoke with regional accents. Dickens' characters often spoke working-class, although Dickens was lower-middle class himself. Actually, I have read that his main protagonists spoke RP English, even when they were brought up as working class children, like Pip or Oliver Twist. I think Dickens must have influenced Tressell because his less likable characters tend to have names like Crass, Slyme and Sir Graball d'Enclosedland (or was it Milton or Bunyan who gave their characters names like that?) Ian McEwan may generally write middle class characters, but Martin Amis writes working class characters a bit. There was certainly one in London Fields and his latest book is called Lionel Asbo. Come to think of it, Trainspotting was narrated entirely in some tough Edinburgh accent because each chapter was narrated by one of the characters. I think that would have been too avant-garde for 1911. Robert Tressell had trouble enough getting it published as it was. In fact, I don't think he lived to see it published. He died of tuberculosis on his way to Canada, a disappointed man. His daughter eventually succeeded in finding a publisher.

i think the key point is that Tressell (and for that matter sillitoe too) was self educated as you say. This is reflected in the central character owen as well as the narration. Owen is different than the other characters, even though he is of the same class, and this is reflected in the way he speaks. I guess in fact this style was necessary for the educational purposes of the novel, that if one's going to explain ideas it helps to talk 'proper.' Is this true? I think he does ape Dickens. In 'Hard Times' you have characters like Bounderby and Gradgrind. I think Dicken's attempt to replicate working class English in this novel is 'weird' and i can't think of a better word(!) and actually there seems relatively little depiction of working class life in it. Also it's not really political, just being about the pity of it all, whereas Ragged Trousered is very much based around political ideas...
by the way Tressell is buried near my neck of the woods in Liverpool and there were some events recently to celebrate the novel's centenary...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by russellb

by the way Tressell is buried near my neck of the woods in Liverpool and there were some events recently to celebrate the novel's centenary...

---

That's good to know. I guess if he were to be celebrated anywhere it would be Liverpool, although I think Mugsborough was based on Hastings. Hastings has the reputation of being one of the poorest towns in the south east. Actually there's a pub called The Ragged Trousers in Tunbridge Wells, which does not have a reputation for being poor. For a while I wondered whether the book was based there.

Hard Times is another book on my bookshelf waiting to be read. This was the only one of Dickens' books to be based in the north of England, which may explain the dodgy accents. I think I read Orwell say in his essay of Dickens, that he only had a vague idea what people had to do for work, and that work was never a central theme in his books. I don't know about that TBH. I have only read two of his books. Hardy always seemed to know what his characters did for work, but then country people worked out in the open where you could observe them and talk to them, not in factories or down pits.

tressell i believe was very much writing from personal experience, whereas i guess Hardy then would be an 'outsider' 'looking in.' Ragged Trousered Philanthropists i think reflects a particular working class environment, it's not factory based and maybe this explains why the men aren't unionised (?) Also one of the ideas is that 'the system' has subverted craftsmanship because everything is done on the cheap and this is something else that frustrates Owen. I suppose with mass production in factories craftsmanship is pretty much obliterated, although if one of the ideas of socialism is to provide plenty for all (tressell talks about the 'necessaries' which i think is a wider concept) then i guess (in some form) the factories stay

i guess you're right about Liverpool. I ve heard it said liverpool is 'in england but not of england.' Scousers are a law unto themselves!!

I was interested to read the descriptions of the shoddy work that was done in redecorating properties compared to how the author thought it should be done. A company of painter/decorators quoted us £12,000 to redecorate our block of flats hall and stairwell to a high standard, or £4000 for a more basic job. We decided to do the job ourselves, although so far that has just been me. My attempts at wall-papering are pretty poor TBH. But reading Tresell's descriptions of the proper way of hanging wall paper, or painting woodwork sounds extremely time-consuming. Using a pummice stone to rub down a coat of paint before applying another one, for example. Even Crass, the foreman's, shortcuts are a higher standard of craftsmanship than I would have patience to do.

It strikes me that Tressell was quite a cultured man, and quite unusual for a working class man at that time. He often writes about the fruits of civilisation that make life worth living. I get the impression he was the sort of person who would love to walk around stately homes, look at fine art and listen to classical music. I am more middle-brow myself and would find that boring. I suspect most of Tressell's fellow workers would be more low-brow, whose idea of a good time was going down the pub or watching the football on a Saturday, or watching some crap on the telly if they were around today. BTW Mugsborough does not seem to have a football team; otherwise surely many of the men would have spent their free Saturday afternoons watching it.

I wondered what an economist would make of Owen's theories. For instance, does the Money Trick hold up? I couldn't follow it myself. Owen railed that being forced to work so hard, so fast meant that they often worked themselves out of a job. That seems to contradict the productivity paradox that I believe a 19th century economist named Jevon had already drawn attention too. Increasing productivity increases demand by lowering prices, leading to more jobs not fewer. I suppose there's something to be said for this. For example, Thomas Hardy regretted mechanisation of such farming tasks such as harvesting and threshing, but I have seen some of the farm tools the farm hands had to use and they look like hard work. I suppose, one problem with painter-decorating was that it was actually quite difficult to increase productivity by very much. Power tools and vehicles would help later, I suppose. It seems to me that the workmen were exploited and that the clients should have been required to pay more for the work, but that this could have been allieviated by introducing legislation on minimum pay, maximum working hours and protection against unfair dismissal. Some of Owen's and Barraclough's ideas sounded like something Hugo Chavez might have said. OTOH, Barraclough did talk about introducing paper money in place of gold and silver, and that did happen. One great thing about Philanthropists is that Owen seems to know the prices and rates of pay everyone is getting. For example, he talks of one man who works a sixty hour week at 4d and hour. That works out at £1 a week with which he had to support a wife and three children. That corresponds with my previous estimate of the minimum living wage of £50 a year. In another example, he says how much a certain politician would earn as prime minister, which worked out as many times more than he would today. One good thing about basing currency on gold was that it kept inflation close to zero, making it easy to compare one work of 19th century literature with another.

I just finished a chapter which described how the citizens of Mugsborough attacked a Socialist march. There was another chapter which described the violence that broke out between Liberal and Conservative voters at around the time of a general election. Did this sort of thing happen a lot then? The attack on the Socialist march, when the citizens of Mugborough threw stones at the Socialists reminded me of newsreel of the civil rights marches in the southern states of America in the 60s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by russellb

Also one of the ideas is that 'the system' has subverted craftsmanship because everything is done on the cheap and this is something else that frustrates Owen. I suppose with mass production in factories craftsmanship is pretty much obliterated, although if one of the ideas of socialism is to provide plenty for all (tressell talks about the 'necessaries' which i think is a wider concept) then i guess (in some form) the factories stay

---

I read a book last year called From Empire to Europe about the history of British industry. It was quite interesting on the subject of craftsmanship. In Britain we had quite a good apprenticeship system, and as a result workers were highly skilled. For example, in shipbuilding, it was the foremen who directed the building of the ships. I wonder about the proportion of British workers who were in skilled jobs. How skilled were textile workers working in the cotton mills, for example? Anyway, Owen and the other painter-decorators seemed pretty skilled to me and yet they were dirt poor.

In America the situation was different to the UK. They did not have such a good apprenticeship system or as many skilled workers, but they solved that problem by setting up production lines so as to de-skill the work. This enabled someone like Henry Ford to lower prices enough so that within twenty or thirty years, even a family as poor as that described in The Grapes of Wrath were able to get hold of one of his cars. The US also had the advantage of larger internal market that they could mass produce to. In Germany, technical training was even better than in the UK, which enabled them to concentrate on high precision, high quality engineering; something they are still famous for today.

I wonder what Owen would have made of those factories owned by Quakers. Owen is an atheist who despises the clergy and those he sees as religious hypocrites. Nevertheless, the Quakers were famous for being good employers who looked after their workers. In Reading, Huntley and Palmer was a biscuit factory founded by a partnership of Quakers. I read a local history book about them. The workers used to complain about low wages, but in other ways they were looked after. For example, when an employee's age started to catch up with him, he might be given lighter tasks. H&P were reluctant to sack anyone. iirc they built an area of the town, called Newtown, for their workers. Quakers they did not approve of drinking. Owen defends the right of workers to drink beer within reason, although he is tea-total himself. H&P were patrician in their outlook, and they felt betrayed when attempts were made to unionise their workforce. Owen and his friends may have been better off working in a factory. Part of the problem working as a painter-decorator was that there was no job security. As jobs came to an end, they could all be laid off. Also they could be sacked on the spot for the most minor offence. The example of the Quaker factories makes me think Owen is right that in part it was the rich business owners' greed that made their lives so hard. Quakers were not supposed to live luxioriously. Apart from being better employers, they tended to donate more charitably to the establishment of parks, libraries, temperance houses and other good works. I have heard, however, that the grandchildren of the founders of Quaker industries often changed their religion to Church of England so that they could enjoy more of their wealth.

Chapter 41, the chapter in which the workers decide when and where to hold their annual party is hilarious. That had to have happened in real life. I expect the man who made the joke about the petrifying liquid was Tressell himself.

Owen somehow knows that a local clergyman earns £600 a year. He resents a collection being made for him by the children of the parish, but gives two pennies to his son anyway. Most the workmen, I guess, are struggling to get by on between £50 and £100 a year. This clears up something I often wondered about in Tess of the d'Urbervilles. Angel Clare always seems to have plenty of money. For example, he gives Tess £50 to keep herself while he is away. He is able to buy a return ticket to Brazil and keep himself there for several months. When he gets back, he pays the sexton the money he's owed for Tess's father's burial. Then he tracks down Joan Durbeyfield and asks her if they need money. He must have received quite a generous allowance from his father, a vicar who had two other sons to send through university.

I read a paper by Brian Mayne about the book. It was published in Twentieth Century Literature, Volume 13, Number 2, July 1967 (a month after I was born). He says among other things:

• The first full manuscript was not published until 1955.
• It was the first realistic novel of working class life written by a member of the working class. It was not the first working class book written by a working class author however. W. Overton published two novels in 1859 and 1879, but they were not much good.
• Several working-class novels were popular from the Victorian era, but only Hard Times by Dickens and Mary Barton by Mrs Gaskell have had enduring popularity.Dickens and Gaskell were the two authors who most successfully achieved verisimilitude in their depiction of working class life, but that, although sympathetic, they were a bit patronising and moralistic.
• Tressell was a member of the Hastings branch of the Social Democratic Federation, a Marxist organisation. However, Tressell did not support violent revolution by the proletariat. His ideas were closer to Fabianism than Marxism.
• Tressell may not have been of working class origin. There are two explanations of his origins, and in both he was born into a middle class family which fell into hard times.
• Tressell admired the works of Ruskin, Morris, Darwin and in particular, Swift.
• After Tressell's death, the manuscript only came to light when his daughter, mentioned it in passing to her employer. She was working as a children's nurse at the time.
• The book was published by Grant Richards, but underwent large scale editing by Jessie Pope, who cut it down to 40% of its original length.
• In addition to eliminating repetition, she bowdlerised the work, for example by cutting out the most bitter comments on religion, Slyme's affair with Mrs Easton, the corruption of the local council, by the removal of the character Barrington, and by changing the ending.

Interesting, for my money, I doubt the book would have been so influential if it had not been so heavily edited. It has 54 chapters and 587 pages. Workmen and servicemen would not have handed that around to each other if it had been so long. And it is repetitive. Personally I am not sure about the character of Barrington. He suddenly becomes important towards the end and is responsible for the uplifting ending. I don't like miserable endings, but the original ending is a tad unrealistic.

In one of the later chapters that reads like a manifesto, Barrington does not suggest violent revolution, but that the state gradually take over production, allowing private enterprise to wither by not being able to compete effectively. However, at one point in chapter 40, Owen thinks the only hope is that eventually things get so bad that the working class rise up and drown their oppressors in blood, although he despairs this will ever happen. Fabianism is a term I occasionally hear on the radio, but not one I ever took the trouble to find the meaning of.

I have wanted to read Mrs Gaskell's book, North and South, for a long time, but now it looks like I will have to add Mary Barton to the list too.

I found this article about the RTP on a trade union website. It is slightly ambivalent about the book. There are also some nice photographs of of Robert Tressell and his family. I read yesterday that his daughter was killed in a car crash after emigrating to Canada, but if she did, she was ninety-six at the time.

Some of the original book reviews are interesting too.

OK now you've finished it, I'll relate my experience with the book. It is one of the very few I could not finish, not for the usual reason (too boring or badly written) but because I became too involved with the injustice portrayed, I just couldn't stand it! Looking back now, I can see that it must've been well written for me to become so affected by the plight of fictional characters. At the time I was struggling to provide for a young family and I think the book was a reflection of my fears and worries about the future. Perhaps I was depressed at that time. Anyway, I think it may have helped to direct my political leanings, but still to this day I don't want to finish it.

The characters were fictional, but it seemed to me they were only semi-fictional. In particular, Owen seems to be pretty much to be Robert Tressell himself. The character Owen worries about what will become of his son Frankie if he dies, like I suppose Robert Tressell worried about his family, seeing that he was suffering from tuberculosis. Luckily, Tressell's daughter was a bit older than Owen's fictional son Frankie, so when Tressell died she was able to fend for herself.

I read that Tressell's original, uplifting ending was changed for a more downbeat ending in the abridged versions. The original ending is quite unlikely, but sometimes hope is the only thing that keeps you going, so perhaps it was wrong to change it. One problem with the original ending was that it depended on a character that was cut out of the book.

Historically speaking, there were never very many working class authors. D.H. Lawrence was a notable exception. Jack London was another. I suppose the reasons for this are obvious. Working-class people did not have the education, and probably not the encouragement or self-belief to think they could write a book that could be published. I was going to say they might not have the time neither, but I suppose that depends on whether they were in work or not. I have read that the few working-class writers that were around tended to be very political. The class system is not was it was these days, but the only working class author I can think of now is Andy McNab, who writes war stories. The problem with working class lack of articulacy is that you get a distorted view of society from reading literature.

Thinking about historical authors I have read recently who were sympathetic to the working class: Dickens came from a lower middle class background, and spent some time working in a blacking factory when his father was sent to debtors' prison, an experience that marked him deeply. Hardy received a middle class education but came from a working class background. His father was a mason and a builder, while his mother has been a domestic servant. George Gissing came from a middle class background - his father was a pharmacist - but he spent a month in prison as a youth, married a prostitute and later another working class girl.

I never got to the end.


Beryl Bainbridge is another author(ess) who was inspired by Tressell. She wrote the forward in my copy of RTP, and described how he had semi legendary status among the working class of Liverpool, and particularly with her family. (her family were bankrupt middle class socialists).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kev67

Thinking about historical authors I have read recently who were sympathetic to the working class: Dickens came from a lower middle class background, and spent some time working in a blacking factory when his father was sent to debtors' prison, an experience that marked him deeply. Hardy received a middle class education but came from a working class background. His father was a mason and a builder, while his mother has been a domestic servant. George Gissing came from a middle class background - his father was a pharmacist - but he spent a month in prison as a youth, married a prostitute and later another working class girl.

---

Blake was from quite a humble background (London lower middle/ tradesman class) as was Keats I believe. Shakespeare was a middle class grammar school boy from a small town in the midlands who would certainly have been uncomfortable among aristocrats like Byron and Shelley. In fact, it's surprising how many of the great names in English literature weren't educated at Oxford or Cambridge: Shakespeare, Blake, Dickens, Hardy, Lawrence...

I definitely think novels like this need to be kept alive. The world that people like Orwell wrote about may no longer exist (factory workers, Jarrow marchers etc), but there will always be one group of humans exploiting another group. In the future we may find it's the Chinese doing the exploiting (and we may well be among its victims).

there are skilled workers in factories but is it true that the work of a pre industrial craftsman was far more rounded? One of the advantages of factory production, isn't it, is that it is the basis for a division of labour? This was recognized by Adam Smith as both the basis of increased productivity and decreased spiritual health.

"Spiritual health" is interesting, I believe it is important for the individual ONLY after the spectre of starvation has been avoided. And then I don't know if an uneducated man doing hard labour all the daylight hours would be too bothered. It was starvation and destitution in the countryside around the time of the enclosures of the common land that made people move into the manufactories. The pre industrial craftsman was a small percentage of the population and a few rungs up the social ladder from the labourer. Their trades continued, and even expanded into the industrial revolution like the painter and decorating firm of RTP. The problem for the poor was the price of becoming a skilled worker -usually through apprenticeships- was too high.

would i be right in thinking that the industrial revolution saw the demise of craftsmen who produced, rather than sold services which many individual people can still do today of course, those who have served apprenticeships...plumbers , electricians etc. On the other hand Smith compares a group of individuals each undertaking all the tasks necessary to produce a pin which is much less productive than a group of individuals dividing up tasks (or rather them being divided for them)...and this seems to me to correspond to factory production.

I agree that when people were forced into factories poverty was the main concern. I think Smith simply thought that the freemarket was the best way to maximize prosperity. However socialists do worry about the division of labour and i think that marx talks about there being a fluidity of roles, when someone might be say a fisherman in the afternoon and a critic in the evening

I think you would be right - but my knowlege of the consequences of those times comes from those contemporary writers like Hardy and Dickens and from some modern writers, Glyn Hughes in particular. In other words from works of fiction. I doubt there is a single published contempory writer from the turn -of -the- century slums of Manchester. Their voice could only seep through via the Social Reformers of the time. And they did effect people like Engels and Marx and perhaps Smith.

thinking about it smith was writing really before the industrial revolution and may even have been appalled at the subsistence wages (he argued i think that the market would flourish with high wages). I have not read much of Hardy or Dickens but what i have read did not strike me politically the way tressell obviously engages the reader

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kev67

I have not finished reading this yet, but I was interested to see what other people thought of it. I started reading it years ago, but it is rather long and starts getting a bit repetitive, so I gave it up.

---

I've just finished reading this and thought it was a great read. I would think that anyone who likes Dickens or Steinbeck should like this. It does get kind of repetitive, but I did read it to the finish, without feeling bored at any stage. Tressell was trying to get his socialist message across, and it's the "lectures on Socialism" that make up most of the repetition. There is some excuse for this - it saves you having to revise the Socialist principles if he keeps on repeating them! The characters are very well drawn, and I found that the incidents maintained their novelty, interest, humour and pathos throughout.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kev67

... the author lays on the social injustice a bit too thick, and it has a tendency to turn into a manifesto.

---

I think the Victorian novels, that we both admire, have not devoted enough space to social injustice and it's possible solutions. The Edwardian era needed someone, like Tressell, to lay it on a bit thick, and in several coats. One wonders if we we would have had the NHS, and state pension, in the UK without Tressell. This novel has in fact persuaded me that novels shouldn't be all about pleasure, they should also speak truth to power. (Although there is enough pleasure in Tressell to enable it to stand beside novels that are purely about pleasure.)

Quote:

---

The dialogue is very well written; so much so, that I wondered whether some were remembered conversations.

---

That struck me as well, he really captures the working class voice, and the voice of talented Socialist intellectuals speaking to the working class. (Are there any Socialist intellectuals who can speak to the common man in this way today?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by russellb

tressell i believe was very much writing from personal experience, whereas i guess Hardy then would be an 'outsider' 'looking in.'

---

Thomas Hardy was born in a village hamlet, where his father Thomas worked as a stonemason and builder. So he was inside a working class experience, but one that was much less traumatic than the average working class experience in large towns and cities like Hastings or Liverpool. In early works, like "Under the Greenwood Tree" he gives a picture of an idyllic working class life in which the bosses (mostly farmers), and even vicars, are part of a largely positive, mutually supportive environment (Although the vicar is usually a figure of fun...) This work feels just as "real" as Tressell's, it's just that Hardy's characters were lucky to be born in such an oasis! Later works get much darker, of course, and are more reminiscent of Tressell - Jude the Obscure is about a stone mason who tries to better himself in the "big city" and it all goes very badly. It's not a socialist work but compares well with Tressell for depth of ideas, although Hardy's ideas owe more to Schopenhauer than Socialism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prendrelemick

I never got to the end.

---

Persevere!

It's got to be more interesting than a World Cup match between two minor sides.

There are some really interesting incidents near the end - from a punch up between Liberals & Tories at a General Election (we can but dream!), to a scene where the rich socialist hero sees the poor kids looking longingly into a toy shop, and he buys out the toy shop (shades of Dickens' at his most sentimental here, but after all the Socialist lectures we need a scene like this...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

I think the Victorian novels, that we both admire, have not devoted enough space to social injustice and it's possible solutions. The Edwardian era needed someone, like Tressell, to lay it on a bit thick, and in several coats. One wonders if we we would have had the NHS, and state pension, in the UK without Tressell. This novel has in fact persuaded me that novels shouldn't be all about pleasure, they should also speak truth to power. (Although there is enough pleasure in Tressell to enable it to stand beside novels that are purely about pleasure.)

---

State pension, yes. I am pretty sure Lloyd George introduced this before Ragged Trousers was published. I may be wrong, but I think Germany and New Zealand introduced it before us. However, Tressell may have had a hand in the NHS. I have read that Ragged Trousered was passed around the soldiers, who were the ones who voted in Labour in 1945. That, however, was the abridged version of the book. If it had been the unabridged version, I doubt it would have been as effective.

It was said, in the early 20th century, of the engine sheds at Derby, that you could walk in at one end uncommitted & emerge at the other end as a lifelong socialist. I think the same benchmark could be applied to the RTP. I agree with most of your review of the book. It is one of the few books I`ve read that I would describe as life changing. I have owned a number of copies & given them all away. It is a book that I feel the need to prosletytize. I rather doubt your assertion that the book won the 1945 election for Attlee. That was more likely down to the khaki vote & the desire for change after five years of war. I would also add that Ibeleive that the book stands on its own merits as a work of literature as well as a political tract. I would rank it along side Zola`s Germinal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kev67

State pension, yes. I am pretty sure Lloyd George introduced this before Ragged Trousers was published...

---

I was previously under the impression that a proper state pension only came in with the Attlee government after WWII, and after a quick trawl through Wikipedia I'm still under that impression! There was some provision pre-Ragged Trousers, but I don't think it would have been enough to assuage the worries of the older characters presented in Ragged Trousers.

Any other recommendations for novels that present the Socialist cause in an inspiring light? I've just finished Hemingway's For Whom the Bell Tolls, and his hero is a believable socialist, who is prepared to give his life for the cause. But Hemingway doesn't shy away from presenting the idiocy and excessive violence of some of the hero's comrades. It's a very thought provoking book on the problems and pitfalls of putting idealism into practice. It's also a very exciting war story. Makes me feel he deserved his Nobel prize.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

Any other recommendations for novels that present the Socialist cause in an inspiring light? I've just finished Hemingway's For Whom the Bell Tolls, and his hero is a believable socialist, who is prepared to give his life for the cause. But Hemingway doesn't shy away from presenting the idiocy and excessive violence of some of the hero's comrades. It's a very thought provoking book on the problems and pitfalls of putting idealism into practice. It's also a very exciting war story. Makes me feel he deserved his Nobel prize.

---

We read For Whom the Bell Tolls in the book club. I was not very struck with the Socialist aspect to it. It was pretty grisly in places. I recently read A Moment of War by Laurie Lee in which he relates his experiences in the Spanish Civil War. The book is quite controversial because some readers think he was lying. I wouldn't say Laurie Lee was any great political radical, more an adventurer.

It is a problem that historically (maybe even today) that working class people just did not write much. Currently I am reading Humphrey Clinker written in the late 18th century. To read that, you would think Britain was largely composed of gentry, going on extended trips to Bath and London, attending the opera and visiting exhibitions. You get little impression of how harsh life must have been for the majority of the population. In Humphry Clinker, several of the letters were written by a female servant. They are full of spelling mistakes. I doubt a working class author could have been taken seriously by any publisher. They would have need a sponsor.

I have just finished reading about H.G. Wells. He was from a working class background. His father was a professional cricketer and his mother was a domestic servant. H.G. Wells started out as a draper's assisant, but escaped. His views were generally Socialist, although he also believed in eugenics.

I have read somewhere that Jack London was from a woking class background and a socialist too. He wrote a dystopian book called The Iron Heel, which apparently converted Alexei Sayle's father to Communism. I read a book of his called The People of the Abyss, which was a report into the living conditions of the working class living in the East End of London.

Somebody in this thread asked about other novels that present socialism in an inspiring manner. I suggest two books, long out of print, but possibly available on Amazon. The books are "We Live" & "Cwmardy" by Lewis Jones. He was an active socialist in wales during the Depression. He died tragically young after haven spoken at thirty meetings in a single day in support of international opposition to Franco`s fascist takeover in Spain.

I have been reading How Green Is My Valley, which I am not really enjoying very much. I don't really like narrator, Huw Morgan, and his family of arrogant, violent ****s. However, I was struck by the difference in living standards between the Welsh coal miners of 1897 and painter-decorators living in south-east England about 1910. The miners seemed to have plenty of money. It probably helped that the narrator's family included several grown up sons, all drawing a wage. The work seemed pretty regular, until they went on strike. It didn't stop them being unhappy about pay, but they were a lot better off than many. They had plenty of food. All the children in the family reached adulthood. They even had the money to order a tailored suit for a boy who would soon grow out of it. I am not sure how well Richard Llewelyn knew for sure about the economic living standards of Welsh miners. I think I read on Wikipedia that he gathered his information from talking to Welash miners.

Try The Road to Wigan Pier.

I currently reading London Labour and London Poor by Henry Mayhew, which is huge work of social research during the 1850's. I believe it was originally published as a magazine. While The Condition of the Working Class in England by Friedrich Engels reminded me of Mary Barton and North and South by Elizabeth Gaskell, London Labour and London Poor reminds me very much of The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists, even though the Philanthropists was written about fifty years later. Mayhew discussed how the common practice of hiring casual labour caused great poverty. He discusses the various means used to create overwork yet underemployment and underpay. Unskilled and cheap workers were used to supplant skilled workers, while the work was rushed and scamped . Robert Owen in the Philanthropists complains about the poor standard of work that he, a trained craftsman, has to rush out, in addition to the over-work, periods of unemployment, poverty and fear he and his colleagues have to endure.