On Roles and Statuses

[miyako73]

If your story has characters with lower status in life such as janitor, mailman, garbage collector, are you going to write about them the way you write about your other characters with higher status such as lawyer, doctor, investment banker? Are you going to mimic the reality for the sake of authenticity?

[hillwalker]

How else would you suggest we portray them? As superior beings?
By all means have a menial worker rise above his/her status and perhaps show those bankers a thing or two about the dignity of labour or humanity or humility... but I don't see any benefit in some kind of literary 'positive discrimination' purely for 'political correctness' (an oxymoron if ever there was one).

H

[miyako73]

Thanks, Hill. I think my first post wasn't clear. The problem I currently have is how to give importance to characters with lower status. Because in reality, nobody really gives a damn about them. Should I describe them in details the way I do with characters of higher status? For example, when I write about the investment banker, I describe his suit, his manners, his educated speech. Should I describe the Latina cleaner in details too?

[AuntShecky]

It would depend on the specific story, wouldn't it?

How about Dickens, with Oliver Twist, David Copperfield, etc.-- a great deal of his works examine the abuse of poor people by those who were better off in England during the Industrial Revolution. The 20th century American author Steinbeck ennobled impoverished migrant workers in The Grapes of Wrath; some of his other novels-- Tortilla Flat, Cannery Row--examine the lives of poor and homeless people,though in the former, in which hoboes are forced to share a single pair of trousers, Steinbeck enters the realm of burlesque (or travesty.)

On the other hand, in Henry James's novels, we are most likely to read about people of affluence, living in what Mark Twain called "The Gilded Age." James hardly mentions how financially comfortable his characters are-- it's almost irrelevant. When minor characters, such as coachmen or valets,appear, they're usually part of the background, with not a lot of ink spent on how they are dressed and so forth. Yet to this day Henry James's themes are engrossing, even though modern readers might not identify with the opulence. Remember the line from the Greek philosopher: "Nothing human is alien to me."

On the other hand, Edith Wharton, a contemporary of Henry James, often shows the tension between characters of varying economic means, as in her novel, The Reef.

You're probably way too young to remember the PBS series, Upstairs Downstairs. In that classic show equal attention was paid to the lives of the upper-class family and their servants, showing both sides of the economic spectrum. In both cases the lives of the rich and the not-so-rich are evocative and life-affirming.

Another example: Say your chief character was inspired by writing the hotel magnate from years ago, Leona Helmsley, who famously derided the "little people" who actually paid taxes. Maybe one of the underlings, a janitor, for instance, might decide to stand up for the ordinary worker. In that case, it would be appropriate to elevate the status of a janitor, show him as a hero.

Again, the subject, not personal beliefs nor the desire to treat all humanity "fairly" determines how a writer treats characters of various social and economic status. Does this answer your question?

[hillwalker]

Not even sure describing the banker's suits, manners and educated speech makes him any more real or skimming over the cleaner's apparel makes him or her less believable.

H

[cacian]

I treat/write all characters as a human being regardless of titles. In fact the stronger the personality the better for the title.

[WolfLarsen]

Write about what you know. If you don't know about the gutter how are you going to write about it? I don't have any trouble writing about the gutter because I've lived in it. I've been homeless twice, I worked on commercial fishing boats (which is the most dangerous job in America), I also worked as a dockworker for 10 years, and I grew up in an environment on the Southside of Chicago where everything was handled with fists. (Now it's guns.) Write about what you know. If you don't know "the gutter" than don't write about it. That's my opinion.

[hillwalker]

Unfortunately this leaves no room for imagination.

"Only write what you know" is the worst advice to give any writer. We don't all have Hemingwayesque lifestyles.

H

[AuntShecky]

Unfortunately this leaves no room for imagination.

"Only write what you know" is the worst advice to give any writer. We don't all have Hemingwayesque lifestyles.

H

This is why the previous poster is one of the brightest LitNutters^^.

Needless to say, I thoroughly agree. It's not "write what you know"-- it's write what you WANT to know."

[miyako73]

I have to agree with Hill. I don't know about technology, but I do try to know and research about it so I can incorporate it in my story for the sake of timeline and contemporary tone. With that I have this question: Was there a laptop already in 2000? :)

[Delta40]

To be honest social status portrayals are a descriptor for me in writing because the character is always going to emerge in full force as the story unfolds. In this sense, I don't see how a difference in social status would require any change in your style of writing. Once I have the vision of who I'm writing about, the details serve as dressing. Besides, one only wants to lend just enough to the readers imagination and trust that they will do the rest.

Yes they had laptops in 2000. Look for Toshibas.

[xtianfriborg13]

I believe you should be 'fair' with writing about your characters whichever their statuses are. It would be really effective if you portrayed each one of your characters well.