Posted by Peter H on May 18, 2003 at 12:54:38 from 213.122.78.57 user Peter_H.
In Reply to: Re: Regular topics/not furious: mostly curious posted by andy bolger on May 18, 2003 at 12:07:32:
Apologies, first to 'beardbiter' for presuming that because he is in TARS Midland Region he lives in the Midlands. A rash presumption, as anyone who is familiar with TARS 'geography' will know.
'Flat earthism' - I was not propounding any sort of 'ism' - I was merely stating a personal feeling. I was certainly not saying that a class approach to AR is in any way 'illegitimate' - far from it. Fine, if people wish to take such an approach, as long as they don't expect me to read their findings. Andy is giving my views too much importance.
However, rising to the bait like a guddled trout - I find 'class in AR' studies personally 'distasteful' because of the baggage that inevitably comes with a 'class' approach. Once you decide that one character is 'middle class' and another is 'working class', then built-in value judgments come into play. In intellectual circles in the UK, it has seemed for the last 40 or so years that middle class = bad, and working class = good. So the middle class characters in AR will be regarded as 'privileged', and the working class characters exploited and patronised. The next inevitable step is that someone somewhere will pronounce that AR is not suitable reading matter for 'kids' in 'today's society' (I'm sure this has been said already). I don't personally want to have to consider whether, say, Robin Tyson is in the same class or socio-economic grouping as Sammy Lewthwaite. I don't see any point. Is Mary Swainson a Catholic? I don't know and I don't care.
Not sure whether this makes me a 'flat-earther' but I'll admit to being a sociological 'pict'.