RE: Notes from the university bottom

I have re-read this whole thing, what exactly, John O. are the
qualifications that I am required to have before I can criticize? John O,
this demand for qualifications, where does it come from, are the pros
worried about the amateurs? Of course you would think Vonnegut is classy,
he shares your values. But if classy is so important then it sure blunts
some of what he has done. So, John, is mere intelligence the primary
distinction of modern class? A genetic one? Some believe that criticism
can be cutting as long as it is clever and clothed in intelligence but the
uncouth mouth could make the same point with the same reasons on a different
object yet class in Jim's character sense would not apply? Not all
roughness is forthright but neither is all smoothness.
 
Jim, I agree. Thanks for keeping us clear.
 
Daniel

 
I think Scottie's definition of "class" should be attended to a bit more.
"Class" here is associated with long-time social/economic standing --
"class" refers to a group of people, a "class" of people, with a certain
social standing, a leftover of the aristocracy and landed nobility. Members
of this class identify one another by paying close attention to specific
verbal and eating habits, clothing styles, and body language. This is the
primary definition of "class." It has nothing to do with personal
character. A person can be a member of this class and be a sub-human piece
of crap so far as character goes, but will always be a member of this class.

If you think long enough, you'll see this type of thinking reflected in
quite a bit of fiction in English. A truly worthy villain can't be from the
lower classes. He has to be intelligent, educated, articulate. Even Lord
Voldemort went to the same school as Harry Potter.

As time went on those verbal and eating habits, clothing styles, and body
language became identified with social etiquette (the middle class aping the
habits of people with real money) and, by extension, with specific character
traits. Having "class" now has to do with consideration, respect, or at the
least a certain amount of style. This is the American defnition of class --
being painfully democratic and not wanting to acknowledge social and
economic distinctions between people, we now imagine "class" to be something
internal rather than inherited by birth.

Of course the old definition of class is still alive and well in US society.
People with class just know better than to flout it.

Jim

Yocum Daniel GS 21 CES/CEOE wrote:

John O., Class is nothing more than treating people with respect but it can
be taken to far to mean station in life the difference just amounting to
material possessions and how one earns his bread. Many of those who think
they have class try to parlay it into social leverage while those they think
have no class usually are those who are intimate with the labors that result
in the sweat of the brow. Those who think they have class usually just have
ornamentation. Now Vonnegut can be quite the ass which as far as I know is
the opposite to class but hey who says that the popular notion of class
really matters John O. the defender?
Daniel

And Daniel, who feels qualified to announce that Vonnegut has no class
(which should convince anyone who had doubts that Vonnegut is as classy and
responsible a writer as they come), also writes:

"Class is like chalking your hands for a better grip but unchalked hands
aren't that much less tacky just maybe more sweaty."

And once again I feel compelled to point out that I have no idea what this
means, but I suspect it is simply incoherent.

--John

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Wed Jul 9 11:54:31 2003