Sunday, December 2, 2012
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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I was thinking the same thing. I am not sure what makes the narrator so easily persuaded and motivated. She seems so naive and innocent at first, and it's hard to be convinced that she falls for this losing gambler even though she knows he's bad news? She seems like someone who grew up too fast without actually being fully educated. I do like that we're reading a book where the lead characters are women, but I almost can't find this book as raw and hard-boiled as the others.
ReplyDeleteI think it is interesting though at how quickly the main character is sucked into Gloria, it makes it more realistic I think. She gets sucked into Gloria's work very quickly and can't escape so it only seems to make sense that she would fall for Vic so fast and feel like she couldn't escape. I feel like the mob has such a hold on her that she just loses all control of anything that Gloria doesn't instruct her. She is just a mini Gloria and that confuses her the entire time that's why I feel like we never get her name.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was interesting that Gloria got "hysterical" because she decides to kill someone even though she seems she doesn't want to. I think I find this more bizarre than some person just going on a random killing spree for no purpose or just because he or she can because one person knows right from wrong and just chooses to ignore their beliefs while another person doesn't either know right from wrong or sees them as meaningless constuctions. I think you have to give credit to Abbott though for rebelling against the tradition of noir though by writing a crime novel centered around female characters who are do not conform to gender stereotypes. Gloria rebels by not using her sexuality and by the simple fact that she is a crime boss and the narrator rebels by engaging in a stigmatizing violent sexual relationship freely and deciding to become a criminal in the first place when she doesn't have to. I think its interesting that the narrator must engage in a violent relationship and violent criminal activity to free herself; choosing to be violent is probably one of the most rebellious things a woman can do according to Gilligan.
ReplyDelete