After reading Robbins article, I could not help but view the
women in Smith’s Hotel World as being
parts of in their own “‘involuntary, palpitating’ world of labor” (Robbins 87).
On their own, Sara Wilby, Else, Lise, Penny, and Clare Wilby are all people in
Smith’s fictional setting, but they are also all different pieces in the labor
machine. They all fulfill a different role which is integral to the economic
system in which they live. Sara and Clare are representatives of new labors;
Sara having entered the working world shortly before her dead and Clare
following close behind. Lise helps run the hotel and keep things in order for
the real consumers like Penny, who is a guess.
However, Penny also helps facilitate the hotels revenue in
writing a publicity review for them. So in Penny’s case she is an interchangeable
part of the system. Just as all the other women are. When Sara dies it can be
assumed that another young woman took her position as chambermaid at the Global
Hotel branch. They hotel system, might have been inconvenienced for a while Sara’s
death was investigated, but afterwards it received an increase in business from
people wanting to view the scene of the young woman’s tragic death. So while
Sara is a part of the hotel’s labor machine, she is as easily replaced as
battery in a car. In today’s economic systems, when one piece of a whole stops
functioning, one simply replaces it with another and continues on with daily
life.
The same thing can be assumed when Lise falls ill. No one
from the hotel comes to check up on her and it can be assumed again that she
was probably replaced by some other receptionist from another branch of the
hotel parallelly similar to the Global Hotel in which Smith’s novel takes
place.
This all ties in with our class discussion on people no
longer being known by their personalities and physical traits/abilities but as
a set of skills on a piece of paper. It is this system of categorizing and
labeling people that makes people like Sara and Lise disposable in our consumerist
societies. This also relates back to one of Robbins first points about the electric
tea kettle quoting, “Would we all be better off boiling our own water in a pot
hung over an open fire?” Here in quoting the text, Robbins brings up the point
that, we may be better off just doing things ourselves instead of outsourcing
our abilities and adding to the economic sweatshop system. Mainly, Robbins
seems to want to open the eyes of his readers to the bigger picture. He wants
readers to become aware of their part in the “sweatshop sublime” and take umbrage
rather than sit idly by until being replaced themselves.
Your account of the ways in which Smith's character's form a labor network makes a lot of sense, and is really useful in connecting the novel to Robbins' article. What about Else? How do we account for bodies that don't "work" in waged labor? Or, similarly, Sammy?
ReplyDelete