"In America we have never had class distinctions"
Ho ho ho
Printable View
"In America we have never had class distinctions"
Ho ho ho
quite...Quote:
Originally Posted by Whifflingpin
I wouldnt say never Virgil as far as I know where ever there are people there will be class distinctions in one way or another. A good example would be the sterotype american high school.
:D
I'm talking about titles such as lord, lady duke, earl, even knight or gentry. Yes there are distinctions between rich and poor in America. But I'm referring to the specialized sub-cultures that developed because of class distinctions in England, which is different from money disparity. Arstocracy can be relatively poor, but the class and sub-culture distinction remained. Look I'm amazed at how many English novels have as either a prominant theme or a sub theme class issues. Even as late as 1928 D.H. Lawrence wrote Lady Chatterly's Lover. Just about every 19th century novel is about class distinction. Great Expectations is about Pip who is caught between two class worlds. And look at how the people of those two worlds speak differently. Now I would believe that in recent generations it has deminished in importance. But you still have Lady Diana and all the issues she brought, like dating someone who was not in her class once she divorced or even being picked to marry the Queen's son. We don't have anything like that in America. Those kind of things affect people's psyche and the way they think. I can't think of any American novel (I'm sure someone will now point one out, but it has to be rare) that turns on class distinction. Even Henry James's rich Americans are usually rich because of some family business. Mark Twain continuouly made fun of supposed aristocracy and deflated them to satire.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightshade
From Wikipedia, since you mentioned it:
Pygmalion is a fictional character from the Roman poet Ovid, found in the tenth book of his Metamorphoses. Pygmalion is a sculptor who falls in love with a statue he has made.
Pygmalion was a Cypriot sculptor who carved a woman out of ivory. According to Ovid he is 'not interested in women', but his statue is so realistic that he falls in love with it. He offers the statue presents and eventually prays to Venus. She takes pity on him and brings the statue to life. They marry and have a son, Paphos.
Ovid's mention of Paphos suggests he was drawing on the brief account of Pygmalion and Galatea in Bibliotheke, a Hellenistic encyclopedia of myth formerly attributed to Apollodorus.
No it was because she was dating/was pregnat by/ wanted to marry a muslim and she was the mother f the future head of church of E, a bit off dont you think??Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I read a book once about class in america there was this 'blueblood" mayflower family and another family who was actually jsut as old came across on the same boat and all but One was consider high class and the other not. The book was about the feud and realtions between these 2 familys and went on all the way to the 19 somthings when one of the families died out. Then you have things like ahh what was it called a 19th century Knight or somthing lke that by E.P> Roe which was about class distinction or actually so was his first novel 'the barriers burned away' which was ste around the chicago fire. HUmm without a home was again about class and how if you were homless and lost everything eventually you be just the same and pride would dissapear. :nod:
Not that Im saying you have class the same way but still class is class.
Perhpas the religion was a complicating factor, but don't you think a similar issue would have happened if the guy was a lower class bloke from a blue collar town?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightshade
Sounds like the Mayflower family you mention brought their English issues to America where they eventually got dissipated.Quote:
I read a book once about class in america there was this 'blueblood" mayflower family and another family who was actually jsut as old came across on the same boat and all but One was consider high class and the other not. The book was about the feud and realtions between these 2 familys and went on all the way to the 19 somthings when one of the families died out. Then you have things like ahh what was it called a 19th century Knight or somthing lke that by E.P> Roe which was about class distinction or actually so was his first novel 'the barriers burned away' which was ste around the chicago fire. HUmm without a home was again about class and how if you were homless and lost everything eventually you be just the same and pride would dissapear. :nod:
Yes there are distinctions between rich and poor, but they have not been institutionalized like that.Quote:
Not that Im saying you have class the same way but still class is class.
Let's bring this discussion back to Pygmalion. You don't see the class issues in there in Act I? "Gentleman" contrasted with "Flower girl"? in fact Liza's motivation is to try to move up ion class by changing the way she speaks.
"Let's bring this discussion back to Pygmalion. You don't see the class issues in there in Act I? "Gentleman" contrasted with "Flower girl"? in fact Liza's motivation is to try to move up ion class by changing the way she speaks."
Good, but, within the play, the matter is complex, (and I'll stick to Act 1 if I can, because the themes develop through the play)
For instance, wealth does not equal class. The fact that Higgins' profession is teaching the nouveau riche how to disguise their origins shows that acquisition of wealth is not sufficient to change someone's class.
However, it also shows that there is mobility between the classes to a greater extent than non-English people may realise. (To use a crude measure - a cursory glance through my 1907 edition of "Burke's Peerage" shows a great number of first generation peerages, as well as a handful that go back to the eleventh century.)
Moreover, within "society," (a nebulous term in itself) there is/was the question as to what makes a gentleman. This was a fascinating subject to Victorian and Edwardian writers. In the play (Act 1 at least) Pickering and Higgins are of the same class, but Pickering behaves as a gentleman would be expected to, while Higgins does not - maybe, there are some hints, e.g. that in spite of himself, he does give money to Eliza.
The speech issue is also not as simple as may be expected. Higgins may teach people to speak like those with whom they want to associate - but he says that shop assistants speak better English than duchesses.
So, let's not be too dogmatic, please.
:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Whifflingpin
I think class distinctions exist in every society - even though they are based on different criterias. In the UK, owing to its centuries old past, it was mainly based on aristocracy. In the US, this has taken a different turn; money, rather than family ties, became the main determining factor when it came to determination of classes (not to mention class disctions based on race, for example).Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightshade
However, not to go off topic, I think, yes, the play deals and questions the class issues; not emphasising the importance of those but rather showing how vain these are since they can be overcome by education and training. A flower girl can pass as a member of a royal family with the proper 'intervention' so these so-called distinctions are baseless since anyone can be 'taught' to behave like someone from upper classes.If my memory serves me right, he becomes disappointed with women on his island because they have no sense of shame and morally 'loose'.Quote:
Originally Posted by William Forrest
I agree completely with this. In fact that was what I as trying to say. I think of class as an aristocratic concept, titles and such. And I did say that in America we distinguish between income, and yes that is a form of class distinction. Look i'm no sociologist, but I do know literature. I'm amazed at how almost every english novelist prior to 1930's has some form a class conscousness as part of its theme. The characters seemed defined and locked in by their class. Perhaps only Joseph Conrad doesn't, and he wasn't a native englishman. On the other hand American consciousness is defined by an almost infinite land mass where one moves on to, re-establishes oneself anew. Huck Finn I think (I'm going by memory) says "lighting for the territories." And certainly we have never had titles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
I believe that is Shaw's central theme, the freeing capability from this class prison. And yes that is about class.Quote:
A flower girl can pass as a member of a royal family with the proper 'intervention' so these so-called distinctions are baseless since anyone can be 'taught' to behave like someone from upper classes.
SO what its a continuing of the edwardian theme of what makes a gentleman? Like when they thnik hes a 'tec' only one of the bystanders says look at his boots?
Ah well - that's an interesting example. There is no definitive answer, but I think the boots in this case (being externals) denote class, rather than being a 'gentleman.' (In different context, perhaps, having clean though shabby boots might symbolise being still a gentleman, albeit in reduced circumstances.)
Pickering's instant defence of the poor and helpless woman against the forces of authority - "Really sir ... Anybody could see that the girl meant no harm." That is the behaviour of a 'gentleman.'
Higgin's rudeness - "Never you mind, they did," "Ha Ha! What a devil of a name!" etc., is in contrast. But..
Higgin's behaviour is shown to be unclassifiable. Pickering, a gentleman, thinks he might be a music hall performer. A bystander says he has come from Hanwell, a lunatic asylum on the outskirts of London.
Since you agree with my previous post, Virgil, we can conclude that class distinction is not necessarily based on aristocracy and in the US as well there are similar incidents and books dealing with this issue:The Great Gatsby :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
My fair lady was based on this wasnt it? Well actually I know it was but I just want to say it :p So are we still discussing Act1 then?
not the most patiant of people.....:p
But while we are on act1 everyone but Higgins is described in detail why is that?
We dont have an age for him, althou we know Freddy is 20 and Eliza is 18...:goof:
Possibly. Certainly Fitgerald is trying to create an old money versus new money distinction. I don't know what it was like in the 1920's but I've never noticed any distinctions between when one acquired wealth. Of course I don't really know many (if any) really wealthy people. :p Yes i would agree with you Scher. I wonder though if Fizgerald is striving to immitate English novels, which he studied well, or he really knew that distinction. Good point, Scher.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
Go a head Night. I've just started Act II, but you don't have to wait. Actually what you say may prod me to read faster. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Nightshade