Peter Gill, the playwright and director whose work placed working-class lives at the centre of theatrical attention, has died aged 86. The legacy identified by Barney Norris rests on a proposition about whose experiences deserve the stage: working people’s stories need not be peripheral to the larger concerns of drama. In Norris’s assessment, Gill completed the revolution associated with DH Lawrence in spotlighting those stories.

Gill’s death brings attention to both parts of his professional identity, as a writer of plays and as a director. His death at 86 is the occasion for an assessment that characterises his importance through the attention he gave working people’s stories. Read alongside Norris’s headline about anywhere becoming the centre of the world, that emphasis suggests a broader proposition about theatre: a working-class setting need not be considered marginal.

Norris places Gill in relation to Lawrence, describing his achievement as the fulfilment of a change Lawrence had begun in bringing working people’s stories into prominence. That is a substantial critical judgment, not simply a comparison between two names. It can be read as presenting Gill’s work as part of an argument about what theatre considers important. On that reading, the connection concerns the standing accorded to its subjects: whose experiences receive dramatic attention.

Read more: Japan ranked world’s best country for fourth consecutive year

The distinction matters because a story can include working people without making their lives its organising concern. Norris’s description of a revolution in spotlighting their stories suggests something more fundamental than inclusion. One implication is that these lives deserve attention in their own right. Read together, the emphasis on working people and the claim that anywhere could be the centre of the world invite a reconsideration of which subjects and settings are treated as consequential. This is an interpretation of Gill’s artistic importance, rather than a claim about any individual production.

The geographical dimension of Norris’s headline offers another way into the same idea. It presents Gill as an artist who showed theatre audiences that anywhere could be the centre of the world. Under that interpretation, place is not merely scenery, and a setting outside an assumed cultural centre need not be considered secondary. The suggestion is that dramatic attention can make an apparently peripheral place central. It is a way of understanding the relationship between the working-class focus highlighted in the assessment and the broader reach suggested by its headline.

There are distinct ways to read that legacy. One emphasises the people brought into view: working-class lives given dramatic importance. Another emphasises a possible artistic principle behind that focus: no place has an exclusive claim on being the setting for a meaningful story. These readings are complementary, but they are not interchangeable. The first keeps class in the foreground; the second considers what Gill’s example might suggest about theatrical attention. Holding both together avoids dissolving the source’s social focus into a general celebration of storytelling.

Read more: Deadly Houthi attacks hit Riyadh airport as oil rises

Gill’s combined identity as playwright and director also provides a useful frame for considering that achievement. Writing and directing are different forms of responsibility for a dramatic work, and his career encompassed both. The supplied assessment does not divide the significance of his contribution between them. Its emphasis on working people’s stories nevertheless invites consideration of a theatrical outlook that takes those subjects seriously. That offers a way to discuss the legacy without assigning the achievement exclusively to either professional role.

The comparison with Lawrence should nevertheless be understood as Norris’s critical interpretation. To describe one artist as completing a transformation begun by another is to make an argument about continuity and achievement, rather than to establish a measurable result. One question that judgment opens is how fully theatre can shift its attention towards working people’s stories. Norris’s assessment places Gill’s contribution within that transformation, with working lives at its heart.

Further consideration of Gill’s legacy can therefore proceed along two connected lines: the particular importance of its working-class subjects and the wider implications of treating those subjects as dramatically central. A useful approach would preserve the specificity of the first while exploring the reach of the second. A broad claim about the worth of every place should not obscure the emphasis on working people that gives Norris’s assessment its social substance.

Gill’s death at 86 closes the life of a playwright and director; the assessment of his work remains an interpretive task. The legacy identified by Norris offers a clear starting point. His description of a revolution in spotlighting working people’s stories suggests more than their occasional appearance as theatrical subjects. Read alongside his headline, that judgment connects the social focus of Gill’s work with a broader argument about where theatre directs its attention.