THE middle classes have rounded on Trainspotting not because of its description of drug culture but because of the class divide, author Irvine Welsh claimed yesterday.
He says middle-class critics have attacked his novel and its dramatisation because they can only have a voyeuristic relationship with it.
In an article for the Big Issue, he says: ``Where the shock has come from for the middle classes, be they of liberal or conservative hue, is in `these people' talking and interacting in ways they cannot immediately recognise.
``The attitude of the middle classes to any piece of art from a working-class culture has to be one of the outsider looking in, an essentially voyeuristuc relationship.''
Welsh says critics have a limited and culturally biased view of his work and claims working-class people are allowed to speak, but not think, in middle-class fiction.
``The classic assumption of such fiction holds true: working-class people speak funny so are in fiction only for the purposes of humour. They do not have an internal life, therefore you traditionally do not have a Renton or a Begbie or a Spud expressing themselves in the narrative of a book.''
Welsh accuses liberals rather than the right of most often attacking working-class art and expression and singles out the Observer for its ``childish'' criticism of him.
He rounds on those who accuse him of voyeurism, saying: ``The only place they can recognise voyeurism is in themselves. The simple answer is: `F... off and don't read/watch it then'.''
He says the book and film provide an accurate portrayal of working-class life without the patronising accompaniment of a middle-class voice.
He confesses to being ``totally scoobied'' at Trainspotting's success and also blames this success for backlash against the book and the film, saying that it received an unrealistically positive reception and that some critics are condemning the success of the book rather than the book itself.
Welsh denies that Trainspotting glamourises drugs use and calls these allegations ``general hysteria''.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article