Devil on the Shoulder of Queenpin's Main Character

The main character in Queenpin is the perfect example of a "good girl gone bad". I think it's pretty safe to say that everyone does things that they know are bad for them, but I think the main character in Queenpin develops a habit of doing this to the extreme.  Maybe it was somewhat related to always doing what was expected of her, and having had her future essentially laid out in front of her-- a pretty dull/stereotypical future if you ask me. It seems that from the moment the main character accepted the opportunity to join Gloria in her escapades, she dived right into situations that she logically knew to steer clear from. Gloria was adamant on the idea of never mixing business with romance. Naturally, the main character immediately begins to lust for the exact type of dude Gloria advised her not to associate with. Not only that, but she then allows him to bash her face in as part of the plan to get the money to relieve his irresponsible financial burden. I don't even think that the main character was so obsessed (let alone, in love) with Vic as she was with what he stood for. It's possible that this was supposed to be the effect of the novel, but I'm led to believe that if the main character were a real person, she would eventually become capable of committing all the same brutal acts as guiltlessly as Gloria.

More noir?

I noticed while flipping through Queenpin today that Abbott borrows my favorite quote from Dashiell Hammett's The Thin Man in her dedication:

We found a table. Nora said: "She's pretty."
"If you like them like that."
She grinned at me. " You got types?"
"Only you, darling -- lanky brunettes with wicked jaws."

So, on that note, has anyone read any noir/hard-boiled novels outside of class that they enjoyed? The Hammett novels I've read don't really have the same psychological depth as most of the stuff we read in class, but are really gripping and fun nonetheless. And I just read Jim Thompson's The Killer Inside Me, which is Ripley-esque in that we experience the novel from inside the head of the murderous protagonist. Cool stuff! 

Savvy, cats?

For some post-semester reading I checked Raymond Chandler's The Big Sleep out of the library and found this little gem in the beginning:

We talked a lot about the campy overuse of "baby" in works like Double Indemnity, but the heavy slang really works to create an atmosphere of exclusion, separating outsiders from insiders. I think that works well with the claustrophobia that seems to come with a lot of noir stuff -- that narrow, inescapable hidden crime world with its own lingo and behaviors. Like, unless you can use "shatting on her uppers" in a sentence, you can't be in the hard-boiled club.

Here's a much longer list of "gangster slang" in case anyone was interested: http://sginc31.narod.ru/humor/slang.htm

Thoughts on "Cotton Comes to Harlem"

I just wanted to make a post commenting on some random thoughts I have on Cotton Comes to Harlem.

First off, holy Hard-boiled!  I mean if a crutch of noir is to have a hard-boiled protagonist, then this novel is the epitome.  Here, we have two huge, hardy men who kick ass and take names.  One of them even has vicious acid-burns on his face, so you know not to mess with him.  There names are even Gravedigger and Coffin Ed, can you get more intense than that?!  However, these two characters lack that inner struggle that we saw in our other works.  Mentally, they really seem stable to me, besides their violent outbursts.  Unlike Dix, I believe these men and their violent tendencies come from their environment, not their personal struggles.  They aren't affected by any femme fatale character, they aren't stuck in the past or anything; they are just two cops in a rough area, much different from the other works.

I also wanted to make a comment on that small scene that has jazz.  It's a short little bit, but an intriguing one.  In it, both Gravedigger and Coffin Ed try to interpret jazz, but they can't.  To me, that speaks a lot about Himes's view of Harlem and the black culture there.  To me, he seems rather negative toward it. He shows this by having a novel filled with unlikable, immoral, conniving people and depicting the environment in a harsh light.  In that scene, the jazz is indescribable and all over the place, the two men can't decide why they like it or even how to take it.  I sort of think this is Himes making a comment of the black culture of american at the time and how unstable it is. Anyone think so?

Women in Cotton comes to Harlem

In all of the pieces of literature and movies we have examined this semester (with the exception of Queenpin) the female characters and femme fatales have portrayed as relatively conservative in both their dress and behavior. Even though a greedy cheating housewife in the 1940s/50s was considered to be the opposite of cultural norms for women, their depictions are hardly as lewd and their behavior is hardly as aggressive than the women who are portrayed in Cotton Comes to Harlem. Himes' descriptions of (almost ) sex scene are much more vivid than anything  we have seen in previous novels or movies. Maybe this was done because Himes was trying to exaggerate stereotypes to make the story more unbelievable or he was just into that type of stuff. But no other piece of work used the phrase "jiggling buttocks" multiple times to describe the actions of their femalescharacters.

Ripley Gets Bored Easily

I was reviewing a couple chapters in the The Talented Mr. Ripley when I noticed a trend in his behavior. When Tom's facades and costumes become of Dickie become so believable, he becomes bored with the people he is interacting with. This can seen in several instances in particular when Tom is being interrogated by the police and has exchanges with hotel employees. When the American detective is questioning him about Dickie, Tom becomes bored because he can not only predict the questions McCarron is going to ask him, but Tom has to remind himself to convey expressions of remorse, confusion, and naivete. I think his boredom also adds to his fascination with acting and trying to pretend to be others. Tom seems like the type of individual, because of his constant moving around from providence to providence, that cannot only stay in one place for an extended period of time, but remain the same person for an extended period of time. Once his costume has become so effective that acting like Dickie has become second nature, he expresses feelings of solemness and gloom. As a result he tries to shake things up by continuing to take greater risks, like forging signatures and flipping back and forth between identities even while interacting the same people.

Gender in Queenpin

When I began reading Queenpin, I thought to myself, "the author is going to beat the hell out of the idea that a woman will do this." Therefore, I assumed I was going to read a book where a woman struggles to do things because she is a woman.  However, I was pleasantly surprised.  This novel didn't really focus on the fact that the protagonist was a woman.  Yes, it was obviously made it known and few comments were made on it, but I honestly believe this novel would be almost the same if the protagonist was a man.

The only real focus I can think of that stressed the fact our narrator was a woman, was the focus on her looks.  In order to be in the business, she had to look the part, dressing sexy and sophisticated all the time.  I could be wrong, but I don't exactly remember another instance in the works we studied where our male protagonist needed to dress a specific way (except for perhaps Tom Ripley).  Other than that, the male and female protagonists we studied in class really aren't that different.  They all struggle in their ways and have their pressures.  Hell, the narrator in Queenpin even had her own "femme fatale" in Vic.  The narrator could have been a male and Vic could have been Victoria and I really don't see anything happening differently.  This is an interesting choice for the author to make, but It made me enjoy the novel more.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZnfM2-4lPg

Does Gloria Really Want to Test the Narrator?

After reading Queenpin, one of the plot details that stuck with me is how Gloria keeps the narrator’s bloody dress after Vic’s murder. We mentioned this detail in class, but I wanted to further explore this plot point since I think it reveals a lot about the role perspective plays in the novel. As soon as the narrator discovers the dress, I just knew that Gloria would validate keeping the dress through an excuse, but I honestly thought she was going to plant the dress on Regina and frame her for Vic’s murder.

Once the narrator calls out Gloria for keeping the dress, Gloria justifies this by saying she was just holding onto it to make sure the narrator “had her head on straight” (158). Gloria then says, “What do you think I could be scared of? Nothing you could throw my way, junior… If I found out you really tangled with me, kid… I think you’d know what I’d do. I take care of my own business. Right?” (159). Through this explanation, it really does seem to be a credible excuse for Gloria to keep the dress to test the narrator, but a few of the plot details invalidate this claim. Initially, if Gloria wanted to test the narrator, why wouldn’t she leave more pieces of evidence for the narrator to find? Gloria doesn’t leave any evidence that could pin the murder on herself; she only leaves the dress as the one piece of evidence that could incriminate the narrator. Also, once Gloria is aware that the dress is missing, why does she leave the closet open for the narrator to see that the dress is gone? The only purpose this serves is to threaten the narrator to show her that Gloria knows she took the dress. The final piece of evidence going against Gloria is that she doesn’t tell the narrator that she knows that the dress is missing. If she was really testing her, she should have congratulated the narrator for passing her test and discovering the dress.

Through this justification, it seems to me that Gloria held onto the dress as a way to blackmail the narrator, but to counter this assertion, Gloria does seem to be too methodical in her planning to leave the dress in a spot where the narrator could easily find it, like the back of a closet. And also, at the novel’s end, Gloria seems to be too appreciative of the narrator through giving her a new letter opener to want to blackmail her.

This uncertainty about Gloria’s intentions is one of the details that I really love about the book. As a reader, I doubted whether or not Gloria was trustworthy throughout the entirety of the novel. This uncertainty and doubt can be attributed to Abbott’s writing style since she leaves most of the interpretation about the characters open to the reader. Any analysis of plot details is subjective through the narrator’s perspective, and I think that a lot of scenarios in the novel could be analyzed in different ways.

I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts about Gloria keeping the dress, or if someone could argue that Gloria really meant to keep the dress as a test for the narrator.  

Gloria's Toughness

We kind of touched on it the other day in class, that Gloria and the protagonist have to be much more tough than the men that surround them. They have to go above and beyond in order to prove themselves. I definitely understood why Gloria acted the way she did and was the way she was. For example, when she kills Vic and the men come in to clean up they are shocked. The narrator mentions that the look on Gloria's face is one of satisfaction. I felt like this was the ultimate example of Gloria trying to be bigger and better than the boys because she was so proud that these men who have seen it all, couldn't believe what they walked into, and that a woman did it.
I also have to say I really liked Gloria. I know that she is a criminal and yada yada yada but in the context of the novel, she was pretty badass. Even in the ending, when she realizes what's going on, she's so calm about it and then just slits her throat. \m/

Lastly, I couldn't help but feel that the narrator took Gloria down too soon. I guess it was circumstantial but I kind of felt like she wasn't really ready for the crime world on her own. Up until the end, she was still making mistakes. I think she handled herself with the cops/Regina pretty well but she didn't realize that Vic had pulled one over on her until Gloria lays it out. Maybe the intuition that Gloria has will come with time and experience.

The Role of Femme Fatales

I liked how Queenpin reversed the stereotypical role of women in noir by making a man into the "femme fatale" (known as the "homme fatale") character of the story. It was refreshing to see at least one female character (Gloria) who was empowered and did not have to rely on her sexuality to manipulate others to get ahead. It seems that Abbott used the Vic character to counteract all the misogynistic portrayals of women in previous noir by making him into a general loser; however, his sexual power over the unnamed narrator complicates this notion. Since the narrator is the one who wins at the end of the novel, I wonder what commentary Abbott is making about how the quest for power for females is different than it is for males. It seems to me that Abbott is showing the ugly reality of how women must serve their own self interests and align themselves with men in order to become more powerful and wealthy. Gloria's attempt to create a feminist/"girl power" loyalty between her and the narrator ultimately failed, and even though the narrator felt bad about betraying Gloria, she ultimately decided to anyways. I think it would be useful for the exam  to compare the role of Vic in the novel compared to the typical role of the femme fatale in noir and how he is written differently, so if anyone cares to elaborate, go ahead...

Dialogue In Queenpin

As we've seen throughout the semester, the noir style uses action and fast-paced dialogue to advance the plot, and Queenpin is no exception to this characteristic. I found the novel to be a speedy read due to the clever dialogue and fast paced interactions between the characters. 

So, I have to ask, what particular scenes or interactions did you find clever or amusing within the novel? I particularly liked this exchange between the narrator and the man that is hired to test her loyalty at the racetrack:

“That’s a nice hat you have, miss,” he said, standing in the row behind me.

“Thanks,” I said, turning slightly, tucking my purse tight under my arm. “I’ll tell it you said so.”

"Double Indemnity" at Happy Hour

Ok, so I know everybody is stressing out right now as classes are abruptly coming to an end and, if your anything like me and my friends, some happy hour/going out to eat action can really recharge the batteries. So tonight while I was attempting to reboot a bit before continuing work, it seems that a Temple student during finals can't truly escape their fate of looming finals. As we sat down, the bar was playing, as the title suggests, "Double Indemnity". I literally just had to laugh. I have to admit that "Double Indemnity" is still one of my favorite things that we have looked at so far this semester and, I know that I've seen a couple of polls about who liked what, but I figure I'll ask again. What was everybody's favorite film/book/character/whatever that we looked at with Lukin this semester?

Random and not very educational, I know, but don't worry guys, the semester is almost over.

Christy Wampole's Irony- What's the problem?

I'd like to know, what do people find so wrong with Wampole's article "How to Live Without Irony"?

Overall I find it to be pretty true and similar to my own views.
I can understand that maybe her publication has been scrutinized so thoroughly that the essence of her point has been overlooked.. but honestly I don't see what the big turn-off is in her writing.

Here's a link
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/17/how-to-live-without-irony/

Highsmith and Gloria

Highsmith interested me a lot while writing my third paper and I couldn't help relating her to Gloria while I was reading Queenpin. Highsmith felt unattached to people and was similar to Gloria in that she never wanted a relationship with anyone. The difference is that she had sex and affairs with everyone, while Gloria refrains from it all. Highsmith had a love for destroying other relationships and loved to be the other women. She found some satisfaction in breaking love as the way Gloria reacts when killing Vic I think, a strong need to destroy. In an biography written about her there was a quote taken from Highsmith where she says, “I learned to live with a grievous and murderous hatred very early on. And learned to stifle also my more positive emotions.” I think this is the way the mobsters work, they all have the same mentality. Gloria is training her new girl so that she can learn to live with murderous hatred and stifle her positive emotions to become more successful. 

Here's the interesting article on the review of her biography: Highsmith

Women in Cotten and Queenpin

The portrayal of women in Queenpin and Cotton Comes to Harlem is something I've been thinking about lately. In Cotton the women are used so vulgarly as sexual beings, while some of them tend to have strong personalities it seems whenever a women is discussed sex must be mentioned. Then when it comes to Queenpin sex is used again in a vulgar manor as our main character can't get enough of it and it drives her insane. Yet the whole time Gloria is trying to teach her "how to keep her legs closed" while in cotton women use their sexuality as a tool. So which is more effective? The women who use their celibacy as a weapon or the women who use their bodies as a tool? I think refraining from sex is what helps them the most, sex for women makes them seem weaker and uncontrollable even though it works to their advantage at times. When it boils down to it women cannot be respected by men if sex is put on the table I think in these two novels.

Immaturity with Tom and Dix

I know we stopped talking about Tom Ripley and Dixon Steele, but I just thought I'd throw this idea out for you.  Are Dix and Tom immature?  The more I think about it, they kind of are.  Tom does rather childish things, such as wanting to travel to Paris in coffins.  And then when Dickie understandably turns down the idea, he gets upset, like a child would.  There is no denying that Tom is definitely confused mentally, however I would argue that many of his tendencies come from his immaturity.

Dix on the other hand may not look immature on the surface, but I really think he is.  He is so quick to act with violence, it's like he is a bully in high school.  The second you step to him, he resorts to violence.  In addition, his work ethic is even immature.  He refuses to read the book he has to adapt, he gets a girl to read it for him, and when he does finally decide to do work, he acts like he is the only person in the world.  To me, that is very childish.  As a grown adult, you have to live by certain standards and jumping to violence and being a needy worker are not those standards.  I know there are so many readings of Tom and Dix, but I just think the immaturity aspect is certainly plausible.

Who's Your Favorite?

Just curious. I think we've got a wide enough range of characters with a wide enough range of personalities and motivations that there could potentially be a lot of different answers. For me, my favorite has gotta be the talented Tom Ripley, issues and all.

Weakness in "Queenpin"

This was an entertaining but, overall, disappointing read- our nameless narrator is a wet noodle, displaying almost no agency and just generally getting swept along. The bulk of the plot centers on her heedless manipulation by an alcoholic/gambler on an endless losing streak. Then, even after realizing that she'd been played both sexually and financially, the narrator is still unable to pull the trigger, and Gloria has to kill Vic herself. In the end, it really just seems that Queenpin's narrator is a lens from which to view Gloria, and not necessarily a strong character herself.

This is why I find it laughable when reviews say things like "Queenpin is a story about crossed loyalties and personal rebellion" (James Winter, http://januarymagazine.com/crfiction/queenpin.html). Where is the rebellion? The narrator is a conformist trying, and failing, to become a clone of Gloria Denton. Her relationship with Vic certainly does not constitute a rebellion precisely because she does not initiate it- she is played, and simply swept along. Nearly everything that she does professionally is the result of some direction by Gloria- the narrator merely follows orders.

I suppose that Gloria is a more compelling character, but it still feels like she's trying to be hardboiled and just not cutting it. Maybe at first she was passably so, but when she kills Vic by needling him a thousand times she loses that credibility. It just doesn't seem to work when a character talks sharp and hard but then gets all hyper and hysterical when the knives come out- it's not cold-blooded or as deliberate, and this is what made Frank Chambers and Johnny Marr so interesting.