I'll start with what seems the most pressing question: How did you feel about Mrs. Stone's "surrender" — complete with waving white handkerchief — at the end of the book? And did it feel like an actual surrender (an acceptance of terms) or something else?
(I'll post some questions/observations to get the discussion started, but please jump in with your own posts.)
(Also, going in alphabetical order, the next pick is Leslie's.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I found the whole “stalker” framing device to be rather odd. The man was very attractive, but completely destitute. So the motivations are puzzling each way. Why did such a hungry man commit to such a long pursuit when he had such immediate needs? And why would somebody with such dirty and torn clothes believe he would succeed particularly given the uncouth methods of his “seduction”? Likewise, why would Mrs. Stone pick this street hustler instead of just buying a gigolo on the usual terms—the sort of terms she had previously rejected? Opting for an encounter that could be nothing beyond sex seems like too big a break with a lifetime of habits. I would expect her instead of have picked someone who would display the right sort of social graces to give her a sense of familiarity.
ReplyDeleteThis seems to be a rather symbolic element that I find to be an awkward fit to an otherwise rather realistically told story.
Yes, good questions. I know the answer to the first — Why did such a hungry man commit to such a long pursuit when he had such immediate needs? — because I found the passage very striking. When the American tourist man is about to offer him a cigarette and pick him up at the very beginning of the book, the stalker considers the offer briefly because it would lead to other offers, "dispelling hunger for days to come." But then he rejects the scenario and turns back toward Mrs. Stone's palazzo, concluding that "when a man has an appointment with grandeur, he dares not stoop to comfort." (I loved that line!)
ReplyDeleteDid that scene romanticize him in a way, even though he's a creepy flasher? I mean, were we supposed to think there was something special about him, that he behaved so brazenly because he could see into her soul or something? He seems kind of specter-like at times, like he's no mere male, even though he conducts himself in such a basely male way. Can the stalking be interpreted as faith?
Does his intention of holding out for grandeur indicate that he will become something more to her than a kept gigolo?
Yes, I think he only works if taken as some sort of abstraction, and I have trouble fitting that to the rest of the story.
ReplyDeleteI also found that to be a memorable line and it created a mysterious and potent opening scene. But perhaps also Williams wrote that scene and then said what the hell do I do with that?
The “grandeur” is very much a sense of conquering the heights. Consider how much is made of the imposing elevation of Mrs. Stone’s abode.
I thought, too, that the opening bit about that guy set up an expectation that wasn't really met. I couldn't believe it when he turned out to be so creepy.
ReplyDeleteAs for Mrs. Stone's "surrender," she just seemed so desperate. She really seemed to be losing it. And she happened to know this guy was readily available and willing.
Yeah, she seemed terribly desperate. And she was either not thinking clearly or thinking all too clearly. There was some reference at the end, when she was going off on the Italians, that she was in the kind of panic that sends you headlong into the danger to be avoided — the walking-into-the-line-of-fire "defense." I'm trying to ponder what will happen when the stalker takes up the key and enters the apartment. It's deliberately open-ended. Does he come up there and humiliate her and take what he wants and leave when he wants? Or does he become her kept lover who will be content to stay with her? One possible advantage to her would be that it's just the two of them. There's no contessa/pimp to be factored in. Maybe he will be more malleable as a lover than Paolo?
ReplyDeleteOne reason that Meg Bishop’s warning about social approbation seems so pointless is that Mrs. Stone cared about social engagement only so long as she was seen to be on top. When people came to see her as a has-been, she started avoiding them. So really Paolo with his strutting and fake title and the contessa and her dubious friends have a lot of baggage that doesn’t appeal to Mrs. Stone. Taking on the unknown street hustler would let her disconnect from society entirely. But the stalker seems to have a drive and ambition that might not fit with been a malleable toy. Maybe he will marry her and take all her money.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I wondered, too, if this might be a little different because she could set up her own terms for the relationship. And this guy, too, seems to need her so much more than Paolo ever did.
ReplyDeleteAnd saying that makes me think of the description of her marriage and the kind of mother-child relationship they had and how that worked for them.
Those are both fantastic points:
ReplyDeleteRick's point about the social disconnection that will let her break from society and live according to new terms. Is that the "Roman Spring" of Mrs. Stone? A new beginning at an age when we would expect her to be sliding into her "autumnal" years?
And Erin's point about need. I had forgotten that the success of her marriage was premised on its being a mother-child relationship! That is such a key part of her personality. "Through his inadequacy Mr. Stone had allowed them both to discover what both really wanted, she an adult child and he a living and young and adorable mother."