From: WHERESMYF*CKINGMONEY@HEE.COM   
      
   "Martha Bridegam"  wrote in message   
   news:09_af.9112$BZ5.3765@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...   
   > Martha Bridegam wrote:   
   > > Martha Bridegam wrote:   
   > >   
   > >> Joe Fineman wrote:   
   > >>   
   > >>> Martha Bridegam  writes:   
   > >>>   
   > >>>   
   > >>>> What bugs me is the implication that social status is an immutable   
   > >>>> characteristic.   
   > >>>   
   > >>>   
   > >>>   
   > >>>   
   > >>> That assumption seems to have been an important enough component of   
   > >>> English culture for Shaw to lampoon in it _Pygmalion_.   
   > >>   
   > >>   
   > >>   
   > >> Well, yeah, exactly. Hard in fact to think of any English literature   
   > >> that doesn't involve the tragedies of class stratification. What I'm   
   > >> wondering is whether Orwell accepted class as immutable and tried to   
   > >> make himself an exception to it, or whether he thought class   
   > >> differences could/should be made obsolete for everyone. That line   
   > >> about "We have nothing to lose but our aitches" in *Wigan Pier* sure   
   > >> sounds like he wanted to do away with class difference, but when it   
   > >> came to the visceral as opposed to the cerebral, did he really?   
   > >>   
   > >> /M   
   > >   
   > >   
   > > P.S. Yeah, before someone else says it first, what I'm asking is, did he   
   > > unbellyfeel his own idea of a *good* English socialism?   
   >   
   > P.P.S. If anyone is actually leaning toward the notion that   
   > faces betray something about the soul or conscience, take a   
   > look at this happy-go-lucky guy:   
   > http://talkleft.com/new_archives/012997.html   
      
      
   Does that blog cover the victims of crime? You know, the people on the   
   receiving end?   
      
   ROBBIE   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)