Cotton Comes to Harlem

I must admit, this was my least favorite book that we've read so far.  I felt like it wasn't so much about the mystery, but more about racial differences.  There were also too many sexual undertones for my liking.  In fact, some of the novel had blatantly sexual comments from the women, which led me to feel disgusted.  I'm not sure if Chester Himes was purposely playing this up to exaggerate the differences between the races or social classes, but I found it tasteless.  From the start of the novel, I figured that the stolen money had been stashed in the bale of cotton, so it didn't seem like much of a mystery.  In the other noir novels we've read, the characters haven't been as in your face with their sexuality.  In general, this was a difficult novel for me to get through.  Did anyone else have that same reaction?  I felt as if Himes were shoving racial inequality and class differences down my throat.  I understand that during the time period there was racial unrest, but in my opinion, this was a poorly concealed race plot hidden within a somewhat noir plot.

Also, on another note.  I found an amusing article about Patricia Highsmith http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jesse-kornbluth/the-talented-miss-highsmi_b_382551.html

What's the Deal Aunt Dot?!

In The Talented Mr. Ripley, I believe Highsmith was very effective in constructing fascinating characters, in addition to Tom Ripley, that one feels compelled to psychoanalyze. While reading the novel and writing my paper, I found myself really trying to understand what Aunt Dottie's deal was.  Is she really just some cold-hearted, bitter woman who targets her anger on her innocent, young nephew? Consequently, does she resent having to care for Tom? Is the portrayal of Aunt Dottie biased, given that you only really learn about her during Tom's reflections upon the past?

It could very well be possible that Tom only ruminates on the times when Aunt Dottie was cruel to him, and does not give her credit for the good that she has done for him. Tom has such a passionate hatred for Aunt Dottie, but it can also be argued that has a completely unjustified hatred for Dickie as well. Are these two different kinds of hatred? One might even conclude that Highsmith doesn't provide enough information concerning Aunt Dottie to make any solid inferences. Regardless, I feel as though it is worthwhile to put some thought into the mentality of not only Tom, but also Aunt Dottie, given that she played a significant role in Tom's upbringing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k29jna3p1gE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k29jna3p1gE

"Trying to Get It Funny": Humor in Chester Himes

I've suggested that Himes conveys a grim worldview, one in which oppression messes people up all around. But if the Harlem novels work as satirical, it's gotta be in part 'cause they're funny. What did you find memorably amusing in Cotton Comes to Harlem?

Tom is the creepiest

I find that out of all the characters we have encountered that Tom Ripley is by far the weirdest. Like he is the strangest. I can understand every other character's motive for committing the crimes that they did, even though they were irrational they make sense. What adds to his mysteriousness is that fact that he is sexually ambiguous, and is strangely attracted to Dickie in a nonsexual kind of way. I think Patricia Highsmith was able to create such a peculiar character because she is a woman. In The Postman Always Rings Twice Cora said something to Frank about Nick that made me come to this conclusion. She stated that a man can never really know what it feels like to be in the presence of someone who is greasy, because a man could never understand the awkward feeling of someone making your skin crawl and stomach turn. I feel like female writers would be better at creating creepy characters because they know exactly what makes a man's personality and mannerisms particularly queer and unattractive. A guy writer can't really capture a creep in all his creepiness because he might not be able to capture and describe a disposition that turns people completely off.

Importance of Materialistic Drive

After class discussion on Friday, I was really struck by the importance of materialistic wants.  I understood that Ripley was a psychopath and enjoyed material possessions but I guess I had never completely comprehended that his want for the material possessions may have been the driving factor for Dickie's murder. I always believed that Ripley had enjoyed the social status change, but that the money and materials came second to being treated much differently.  Instead, class clarified that his desire to have better things, his materialistic desire, was what drove his actions.  His impression of the rich and their belongings was what drove him to act.

I found this surprising since I had believed that he had murdered Dickie because he felt rejected, but the materialistic reasoning also made sense.  Even without reading Strangers on a Train, Dr. Lukin's article was very informative and I found many similarities between Tom and Guy in terms of their material wants.  Who knew that envy of material possessions could drive someone to murder?