Sayers || Nine Tailors: Everyone in His Place

[jweinstein]

On Social Class

In Sayers's world, the social order is paramount. Although there are relationships which cross lines, the deference to the aristocracy (in the form of Peter and the daughter of the local squire) is marked; and there is a distinct pecking order on display.

How seriously are we to take this portrait of the social hierarchy? Is it too idealized to be convincing?

Class was an important trope in Michael Cox's The Meaning of Night. Contrast the two novels in this regard.

-Jerry the Moderator

[Everyman]

From my reading in English history and literature, and with my family originating in England with significant Cambridge connections, I don't think that the class distinctions were overdone by Sayers given the period she was writing about (shortly after WWI). Certainly class distinctions were starting to be of diminishing importance in the cities by then, but in the country traditions die more slowly. I find the presentation realistic.

[LizzieAnn]

I didn't really feel like class distinctions were a part of the story as much as part of the details. In The Meaning of Night, the class distinction and heirarchy was essential to the core of the story - here that isn't the case.

Although it's there, it's not the thread around which the story is woven.

[Everyman]

For those who know their Wodehouse, here's a perhaps engaging question to discuss. Which would you rather have as your own personal servant, Jeeves or Bunter, and why?

[Laurel]

---

Everyman wrote:
For those who know their Wodehouse, here's a perhaps engaging question to discuss. Which would you rather have as your own personal servant, Jeeves or Bunter, and why?

---

"Both," said Pooh.

[Everyman]

---

Laurel wrote:

---

Everyman wrote:
For those who know their Wodehouse, here's a perhaps engaging question to discuss. Which would you rather have as your own personal servant, Jeeves or Bunter, and why?

---

"Both," said Pooh.

---

Cheater. You don't get them both.

Personally, I would prefer Bunter. I think he cares for LP more as a person that Jeeves does of Bertie. And he is much less manipulative.

However, Jeeves is the better cook, and also greets guests with much more style.

[Laurel]

---

Everyman wrote:

---

Laurel wrote:

---

Everyman wrote:
For those who know their Wodehouse, here's a perhaps engaging question to discuss. Which would you rather have as your own personal servant, Jeeves or Bunter, and why?

---

"Both," said Pooh.

---

Cheater. You don't get them both.

Personally, I would prefer Bunter. I think he cares for LP more as a person that Jeeves does of Bertie. And he is much less manipulative.

However, Jeeves is the better cook, and also greets guests with much more style.

---

We have microwaves now, and my cats do the greeting. I agree with you that Bunter would be preferable. Bunter is a man of many talents. Jeeves only knows how to get one out of jams, into which I do not get.

[ormondraz]

Oh, Bunter...hands down! Jeeves is too manipulative. Bunter doesn't come across as trying to run Lord Peter's life for him.

Yes, Bunter!

Raz