Readers are introduced to two distinctive yet similar characters in Down and Out in Paris and London by George Orwell and in A Day in the Life of Salaryman by John Burgess, “George” and salaryman. Society has become accustomed to the idea that slavery is only dealt with the property of a person. Though there are other factors that need to be taken into consideration, such as treatment and condition, a slave is nonetheless one who is not only treated harshly, but is also seen as a subject of labor. While slaves are disregarded for human consideration and do not have a choice in how they wish to be handled, “George” and salaryman are somewhat respected as individuals and furthermore have the option of being treated poorly or not by dismissing themselves from their positions at their careers. Therefore, though “George” and salaryman are different in terms of personality, lifestyle, and precedence, they are both not slaves and have the option of not being treated as them.

In George Orwell’s Down and Out in Paris and London, “George,” the narrator, has been succumbed from poverty by successfully getting hired for a job as a “plongeur,” or dishwasher. He, at first, is grateful for his rather steady career and increase in and guaranteed salary. He is inured to his lifestyle, which is mainly comprised of receiving francs and being well-fed, along with a deprivation of sleep. Nonetheless, he is content with matters until he embarks on a new job, similar position, with harsher conditions. “George” claims that “people have a way of taking [work] for granted that all work is done for a sound purpose.” He maintains and asserts his belief of a plongeur being a slave by questioning its reason for “[necessity] to civilization” and whether it is an essential job at all. While mentioning this, “George” seems to overlook his initial reason for having this position at this job, which is to receive a wage for himself to comply with his daily accommodations. His transition from one career to another is the cause for his emotional climb, which in turn lead him to rebuke the position of a plongeur and align and identify it with the position of a slave. Though he states he is trapped in the life of a plongeur and in a forbidden mindset, he neglects the fact that he had the choice of working following his employment, and he has the same choice of resigning. As a slave is owned by an individual, he, the slave, does not have access to a lifestyle that most have, nor does he have the opportunity to “quit” being a slave. In contrast, “George” can very well choose to suspend his “useless” position as a plongeur. A slave has not chosen the life that he had coming for him, while “George” has, which substantiates his title as a victim of strain, but not a victim of slavery.

John Burgess labels the typical hard-working man in Tokyo as a “salaryman” in A Day in the Life of Salaryman. In this work, Burgess focuses on a specific salaryman who “devotes himself body and soul” to his steady career at a strong company with a trivial position (253). The foremost major dilemma in his life is a contemplation of which car to bargain for. Though one’s work at a career may often be uncared for, this does not mean the work is not needed and is insignificant. Therefore, salaryman’s role in his job is needed for his knowledge, while a slave’s work is needed for merely work to be done. Similarly, a slave’s work can be done by anyone, as salaryman’s work, or an employer’s work for that matter, is needed to be done by the salaryman or employer himself. With that being said, a salaryman is important and essential to a business, rendering him as an individual and not a slave.

While “George” and salaryman share an important similarity, their remaining similarities are outweighed by their differences. Though the two characters are treated humanely with fairly reasonable respect from others, their distinctions between qualities of character are seemingly evident and overshadow one comparison. Salaryman has a stabilized life, which includes a family, a secure career, and long-terms plans for the future. “George’s” character is relatively inconsistent with is life, as he transitions from affluence to poverty, which facilitates one again afterward. These works demonstrate how two individuals, one from an urban lifestyle, salaryman, and another from the slums, “George,” do not necessarily need to have similar personalities or reasons for success to be treated equally by others from each side. Some would assume they are slaves merely for the lack of appreciation in salaryman and “George’s” efforts and work in their careers. As both these characters are treated similarly, they are yet very different among their personalities and goals.

Throughout history, lives have been emotionally impaired due to slavery. Metaphorically describing an activity and comparing it with slavery does not denote that the act is in fact a form or condition of slavery. One who is owned by another human being whilst being atrociously treated under cruel conditions is a slave. "George" and salaryman have homes, choices, and potential in life, which evidently separate them as individuals from slaves.