Andrea

I like the cut of your jib man.

Dave

Andrea, your last comment reads as if you think that graduates, by definition, cannot be working class - interesting, but not my view. An author I admire enormously is Pat Barker. She is a fine example of a graduate author from a working class background. Her early, gritty writing, set in in her native North East, appealed to readers from council houses to castles. And she won the Booker Prize.

Btw, my latest hunch for alter egos/twins is now you and Sharon/Eyeball (what colour is your beard?)

Back to the coal face of literary endeavour.

Adele.

Andrea, your last comment reads as if you think that graduates, by definition, cannot be working class - interesting, but not my view. An author I admire enormously is Pat Barker. She is a fine example of a graduate author from a working class background. Her early, gritty writing, set in in her native North East, appealed to readers from council houses to castles. And she won the Booker Prize.


Adele,

No, no, no ... as the classic council estate/university educated girl myself, I'm well aware that graduates can have working class roots.

I mention "graduates" because, while I was posting, I was thinking "how on earth would you set your eligibility criterion for such a competition?". Off the top of my head, I decided graduate/not graduate would be a fair cut off point. While graduates can have working class roots, once they become graduates it would be difficult to make a case that they are still working class.

So Pat wouldn't, I'm afraid, qualify for the Andrea Award.

I did, incidentally, say "primarily ... graduates" as I'm aware that the odd bus-driver has won - but then I remember the headline being "bus driver wins Booker", which goes to show how rare it is. Of course, he could have been a graduate bus driver, but I'm not betting any money on it ...

Incidentally, my beard is purple. Any info on Sharon's?

Take care
Andrea




<Added>

Incidentally, Dave, I like the cut of your frock, girl ;)

Andrea, thanks for the clarification (especially on the beard point )

Adele.

Class distinction (especially in terms of the argument between working and middle classes) is little more than a discriminatory slur. Why people persist with such hateful and provocative barriers is truly beyond me.

I'm a human being, although sometimes I feel that I'm not even that (wishful thinking), but I despise the notion that everywhere there are people who know nothing about me putting me into little categories because of my current / past status, simply because it makes them feel better about themselves.

IB,

"Class distinction is little more than a discriminatory slur" - so it's just an attitude, and not an economic reality. Class doesn't affect life expectancy, educational achievement, employment opportunities, income, quality of housing, likelihood of being the victim of crime or of spending time in prison.

Really?

Are you thinking in terms of class, or environment and income?

How does one become middle class, for example? By earning a certain amount? By living in a certain aera? By following a certain profession?

It's all classification so that those that are down can look up, while those that are up can look down.

Being labelled working class never effected anybody's health. Lifestyle, environment, genetics, availablility of health care do these things. Being sneered at for falling into a particular class does not.

I'm thinking in terms of class, which is inextricably bound to environment and income.

You become middle class, for example, by reaching a certain level of education, which allows you to follow a certain profession, which leads you to earning a certain amount which allows you to live in a certain area and send your children to the better schools, which aids them in reaching a certain level of education, which allows them to follow ..... in case you really didn't know.

There are of course other ways, but that's the usual.

It's a classification because it's exists. Whether people then choose to use the classification to sneer is another matter, but neither middle nor working class has a monopoly in doing it.

Being labelled working class never effected anybody's health - quite true. But actually being working class does.

WOw this discussions moved on so I don't think anyone is going to be interested in my stunningly intelligent argument which won't fail to make you come round to my way of thinking...okay, maybe not...

Aren't prizes simply just a way to market books? Maybe I don'tget passionate about things...I just think that there is nothing wrong in something which is basically a tool to promote books.

I agree about prizes and the quality and what they mean, etc but they DO promote reading (speaking from a bookseller point of view here) and that's what all authors want to do...

I get your points about discrimination but I have middle class, white male complex - I've got it easy in comparison to most so I don't think I have much of a right to complain too much!

IB and others might disagree, but I don't mind that. I'll even buy you a beer

James,

You've teased us enough - spit it out. What is the stunningly intelligent argument? I feel myself being swayed already ...

If you have white, male middle class complex then you've to lug around eternally the burden of never possessing the High Moral Ground. For which you have my sympathy.

I agree that prizes are marketing tools - do they promote reading? Not sure.

But hey, you said you'd buy us all a beer, so I'm not going to pick a fight with you.

Take care
Andrea

You become middle class, for example, by reaching a certain level of education, which allows you to follow a certain profession, which leads you to earning a certain amount which allows you to live in a certain area and send your children to the better schools, which aids them in reaching a certain level of education, which allows them to follow ..... in case you really didn't know.

Poppycock.

Education hasn't bought me my wealth thankyou very much. Education has nothing to do with my environment, or my income. So your entire premise of what allows what in this world is completely child-like as far as I can see. All you know is what you've read from somewhere else. Your incredible ignorance in this matter is absolutely stunning. People cannot so easily be put in little boxes.

Class? Fuck off. I'm an accountant, but I'm not so arrogant as to believe that just because I am so, I am suddenly more or less a person than somebody who was educated to be so in the first place, rather than, as myself, fell into the role.

Bill Gates dropped out of college. He's the richest man in the world. One of the men continually bidding to buy a stake in Liverpool football club got his millions working up from laying bricks. Are these people working class because they didn;t get education?

There are rich people who live like vagabonds, people with degrees that can't get work, highyl skilled professionals that work in charity, the list goes on. Your pathetic classes mean nothing anywhere outside the statistical world. And as we should all know, there are lies, damn lies and statistics. Don't try to make out that you know so much when it's clear to me that you know nothing.

If you're looking for variables on which to judge human beings, education is probably the most worthless, because it is not a limiting factor on profession choice, which is not a limiting factor on income, which is not necessarily a limiting factor on where you can live. Capiche?

All I can say is that prizes make people buy books - that's a certainty because as a bookseller all you need to do is look at sales figures for shortlisted books for high-profile prizes against those that don't get listed. The difference is huge.

Of course, none of these factors in the Bridget Jones/ High Fidelity/ Harry Potter factor. Word of mouth seems to be the best marketing tool. Booksellers choices are great too. I had one book that had sold no copies that I had loved, chose it, reviewed it, and it sold 11 copies (that/s very good by the way - normally they only order about 6 copies of new titles by unknown authors and return 4!).

Weird, by pursuasive argument has deserted me now! Oh well, just the beer then!

A beer will do just fine James. But please can we go somewhere a bit nicer than this tawdry pub with its noisy rabble of paupers and poets? I don't mean to be rude, but lesser mortals do tend to smell so, and granny simply can't take the crowds these days...

JB (lower middle class with upper middle pretensions)

IB,

As ever, your idea of debate is to insult. There we go.

"All you know is what you read from somewhere else." This observation might have some credence if you knew the course of my life, but of course you don't.

"Education has nothing to do with my environment, or my income." What? You say you are an accountant, which you couldn't be if you hadn't gained at least GCSEs, and being an accountant you will earn a certain salary. So your income - and therefore where you can choose to live - is directly linked to your education.

"I'm an accountant, but I'm not so arrogant as to believe that just because I am so, I am suddenly more or less a person than somebody who was educated to be so in the first place, rather than, as myself, fell into the role." What is the point of that statement in the context of this discussion? Who said you were or were not?

Re Bill Gates etc - as ever, read what I actually said. "There are of course other ways, but that's the usual."

"Are these people working class because they didn;t get education?" Again, read what I actually said. Education is the usual route out of the working class, but not the only route.

"Your pathetic classes mean nothing anywhere outside the statistical world." Step onto any sink estate and you'll find that class has very real consequences in the very real world.

Leading on from that point, you are saying then that class has no bearing on life expectancy etc? So those who've made it their profession to study class and its consequences are wrong? And this you would know how? Your own extensive personal research? Perhaps you'd outline how much research you've done and how and why it's more valid than those who've spent their working lives studying class and it's effects, as opposed to accountancy?

"Don't try to make out that you know so much when it's clear to me that you know nothing." Ignoring the cheapness of the insult, it just doesn't make sense. It would be impossible to live in the world and know nothing of it. But again, I'd like to know the basis of the expertise necessary to make a claim such as "it's clear to me you know nothing" with any credibility.

And "I just look around me, and I see" won't do. You inhabit a very small world, as do I, so you cannot possibly know the reality of everyone else's life. As you dismiss the conclusions of those who have at least tried to see beyond their own little worlds, I'm assuming you have a third way of knowing?

Education "is not a limiting factor on profession choice" - look in any job classifieds and you'll see what tosh that is. "Profession is not a limiting factor on income" - so barristers don't earn more than cleaners? "which is not necessarily a limiting factor on where you can live." So a cleaner can afford to live in Chelsea?

No, I don't "capiche".

As ever, your idea of debate is to insult. There we go.

If you're insulted by my words, that is not a problem I feel I need to address. My words are my opinion, if you dislike those words, unlucky.

"All you know is what you read from somewhere else." This observation might have some credence if you knew the course of my life, but of course you don't.

A valid point, were it not for the fact that this is how you come across. With your poor attempt to define the crossing from one 'class' to another, I can only assume such. Your arguments do nothing to make me see otherwise, and your staunch refusal to believe in anything else only further strengthens my case.

"Education has nothing to do with my environment, or my income." What? You say you are an accountant, which you couldn't be if you hadn't gained at least GCSEs, and being an accountant you will earn a certain salary. So your income - and therefore where you can choose to live - is directly linked to your education.

Maybe it's just me, but last time I looked, working class people not only had access to, but indeed regularly acquired GCSEs in great number. Hence, qualifications themselves, at least at this level, are not an indicator of class. Therefore your argument is poor. Thousands of degree students every year go on to struggle for work, and thousands of people who drop out of school with few or no qualifications whatsoever go on to do great things. This is my point, not looking for tenuous ways to dissolve other people's perfectly valid reasoning.

"I'm an accountant, but I'm not so arrogant as to believe that just because I am so, I am suddenly more or less a person than somebody who was educated to be so in the first place, rather than, as myself, fell into the role." What is the point of that statement in the context of this discussion? Who said you were or were not?

Oh come now. My entire point is that this form of classification is an invalid measure of any human being. I live in Surrey, in a nice area with very good schools, should I decide to raise my children here, I earn plenty of honest cash thanks to skills I taught myself and I do not consider myself middle class, working class or anything else. Some others may fool themselves into thinking they can put me into such a box, but I can guarantee you that I will never behave in any manner which such people might predict.

Re Bill Gates etc - as ever, read what I actually said. "There are of course other ways, but that's the usual."

That's it, defend your argument with the old "exceptions to every rule" nonsense. There are no rules that govern human behaviour which cannot frequently be defied. This is why we are a diverse (if dumb) species.

"Are these people working class because they didn;t get education?" Again, read what I actually said. Education is the usual route out of the working class, but not the only route.

Oh, I'm reading what you wrote, and it doesn't say 'usual' anywhere. In fact, it doesn't point to any alternatives whatsoever. Education, earning potential, location. None of these are necessarily present in what I think you're looking to define.

"Your pathetic classes mean nothing anywhere outside the statistical world." Step onto any sink estate and you'll find that class has very real consequences in the very real world.

Having grown up in poverty, I know only too well what you're talking about. Having broken free of it through sheer determination not to be swallowed by it, I know only too well how it can be sidestepped. As do thousands of others who have done it. And consider your words. Economic environment alone does not dictate behaviour. And I'll have words with anyone stupid enough to imply otherwise. Ultimately, what do you think you're saying? That poor people are desperate? Or that poor people living on poor estates where there are no schools should be classed seperately from everyone else? Personally, the very thought sickens me.

Leading on from that point, you are saying then that class has no bearing on life expectancy etc? So those who've made it their profession to study class and its consequences are wrong? And this you would know how? Your own extensive personal research? Perhaps you'd outline how much research you've done and how and why it's more valid than those who've spent their working lives studying class and it's effects, as opposed to accountancy?

Oh, sidestepping to research about which you personally likely know very little of anyway. Clever. We're talking here about a subject which is entirely subjective, and a matter of preference. Like economics, philosophy and many other such sciences you can swing one way or another, depending on how you feel. And you're stepping on very dangerous territory by assuming that of those who make their profession the research of classes, their definition and socio-economic impacts, there are none who would share my views. Just because you have an opinion, it doesn't mean that you are, by default, correct.

My point is that humans are more complex than a simple grouping based ultimately on availability of quality education. What is yours?

"Don't try to make out that you know so much when it's clear to me that you know nothing." Ignoring the cheapness of the insult, it just doesn't make sense. It would be impossible to live in the world and know nothing of it. But again, I'd like to know the basis of the expertise necessary to make a claim such as "it's clear to me you know nothing" with any credibility.

Why do I care about how credible you find me? I'm just pointing out to you that your model of the world is simplistic and inherently flawed. If you want to know better the facts, go look for them yourself. Looking for me to give you the key to the univere is selfish and lazy. As for my 'insult', I think I've proved enough that you're being ridiculously over-simplistic in your views, and my comment is thusly justified. Your riposte has done little to convince me that you have any stronger knowledge on the scientific basis of social classification than I have myself, and indeed you sound more and more like a GNVQ textbook with every passing sentence.

And "I just look around me, and I see" won't do. You inhabit a very small world, as do I, so you cannot possibly know the reality of everyone else's life. As you dismiss the conclusions of those who have at least tried to see beyond their own little worlds, I'm assuming you have a third way of knowing?

The irony. I can't possibly know the reality of everyone's life. Of course I can't, and I don't pretend to. However, classification, by it's very nature, attempts to do this. How can anyone understand everyone? It's impossible.

Education "is not a limiting factor on profession choice" - look in any job classifieds and you'll see what tosh that is. "Profession is not a limiting factor on income" - so barristers don't earn more than cleaners? "which is not necessarily a limiting factor on where you can live." So a cleaner can afford to live in Chelsea?

I didn't get my job from classifieds, and neither do a lot of other people. And one thing you may be ignoring in clasifieds is 'experience'. And as for all those with qualifications that cannot get jobs regardless of how many classifieds they flick through? It should also be noted that 'education' by which I mean school, college and university, does not open the door to hundreds of professions, for which one requires specific qualifications, which may or may not be available to people depending on location. I could walk into Web development tomorrow. I know this because I've done it before. Do I have qualifications, or education to that regard? No. I taught myself. I'll not fool myself by thinking that I'm pushing the barriers here and am alone in having done so. I could walk into application support for Excel or Access, or even windows itself. Again, self-learned and not exactly difficult knowledge to obtain anywhere in the country. This isn't education dictating my earning potential, it's experience.

As for your other remarkably ignorant remarks:

Some barristers do earn a lot of money, others earn little at all. Some can't get jobs. I don;t know if cleaners live in Chelsea, I've never been there. But it sounds like a dumb question. I do, however expect that there are people living in Chelsea with poor education, no working income whatsoever, no outright profession, no children to care of, or a combination of the above.

I don't know why I'm even bothering to dignify your riposte with a further response. I anticipate I'm only likely to be replied by the same arguments repeated as though that somehow makes your point more valid. So, assuming you won;t even read this due to its epic length, I'll now walk away, wondering what the point of me bringing up my as always irreconcilable viewpoint with someone who doesn't see life in the same light as I do.

No, I don't "capiche".

That is quite obvious.