Quote:
Originally Posted by gmw
I think the phrases of the Dowager Duchess near the end of chapter 3 were more damning, but again these are the words of a character and seemed to me to be a fairly reasonable portrayal of the times. It would have been entirely unrealistic for such a character to show no prejudice at all. There is also implicit sexism and class prejudice throughout the book - it would be odd if there weren't.
|
The Duchess's comments were in character; for me the worst example of classism was the cringe-inducing conversation between Lord Peter and Bunter, on the topic of Bunter's wages and whether the disparity in their incomes was unfair. The point is made that Bunter's annual salary essentially amounts to chump change for Peter, but when pressed on why he doesn't think it's unfair, Bunter responds:
Quote:
|
"Frankly, my lord, your lordship is paid a nobleman's income to take Lady Worthington in to dinner and refrain from exercising your lordship's undoubted powers of repartee."
|
And yet, Bunter is paid a valet's salary to put up with an effete aristocrat all the freaking time! And I don't think Sayers was being subversive, or having Bunter be subversive, with this comment - she just wasn't aware of the implications.
Peter wraps up the conversation by saying that Bunter is better off than he is and sends him back to work.
And yet, unlike with the anti-Semitic attitude she gives to the nasty Freke, we're supposed to think well of Peter. I think this is an instance where Sayers reveals her own prejudices, as with poor Mr. Thripps' accent (misspelling common words is always a tipoff, as Bookpossum suggests above) and the American who didn't understand courtesy titles for the younger sons of the nobility.