 | |
| Anita Loos, author of Gentlemen Prefer Blondes |
I find Lorelei to be a compelling and memorable character, and judging from the reception the book enjoyed in the 20s, so do a lot of other people. The book isn't read as much today. Some of its humor is dated by the profuse use of period-specific slang and cultural references to fads and trends of the era. But once you make your way through the 20s-era ephemera, there is still Lorelei, and I've found that her personality is still recognizable and relevant to our generation, which makes me wonder why.
Lorelei is a practical young woman who internalized the materialism of the United States in the 1920s and therefore equated culture with cold cash and tangible assets. She is a kind of "everywoman" for her time--a distillation of her culture's values. Her story is, of course, a farce, but it is a farce with subtly and purpose, revealing the folly of men and the excesses of an era. Materialism is still a big factor in American lives, of course, but I think there is more to Lorelei's resilience as an interesting character than just that. Perhaps we can explore it more in class discussion tomorrow.
Here are some other questions to think about as you read the book:
--How smart or stupid is Lorelei? Dorothy?
--Is Lorelei using the men or are they using her?
--Why do you think Edith Wharton called it "the great American novel"? Do you think she was being serious?
--What does it mean to be a "great American novel"? What kind of qualities should such a novel embody, and what does it mean to describe this rather slight novel in such terms?
--What kind of feminist readings does this book suggest?
--What about Lorelei's background, coming from a fairly poor family in Arkansas? What economic class is she from, and how is this significant to the book?
--What is the book trying to tell us about Americans' attitudes toward money? Toward gender relations?
--What does it mean to be a "great American novel"? What kind of qualities should such a novel embody, and what does it mean to describe this rather slight novel in such terms?
--What kind of feminist readings does this book suggest?
--What about Lorelei's background, coming from a fairly poor family in Arkansas? What economic class is she from, and how is this significant to the book?
--What is the book trying to tell us about Americans' attitudes toward money? Toward gender relations?
I wholly agree that Lorelei is a distillation of American culture in the 1920s...she expemplifies the "freedom from restraint" that we discussed today. I wonder, though, if in today's time we have an archetypical "everyman/everywoman," someone who represents our times concisely and accurately?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think feminists could read this book in two ways: On the one hand many educated, established and successful men are all weakened by this one strong woman. Feminists would appreciate that even the strongest of men could be outwitted by a woman. But conversely feminists would disapprove of a female character who feels she needs to depend on men for her material "needs." A true feminist character would still proudly display her diamonds, but would acquire them by entering the workforce. Therefore her diamonds would have no strings attached.
ReplyDeleteAnd as for Helena's comment, I'm not sure there is only one archetype for today's woman but I am pondering it.
In regard to Kim's comment, that feminists feel they should work hard for their diamonds, it dawned on me that this book shows us the development of the definition of the phrase "high maintenance." In Lorelei's story, a woman is considered "high maintenance" when she is completely dependent on (and even demands from) her male suitor for all of her excessive materialistic needs. I think it is interesting that the modern definition of that term refers to a woman who is totally independent and self sufficient to the point that the men around her are intimidated. Dependent and independent: both "high maintenance," both frightening to men. Thoughts?
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Racheli's comment, the modern definition of "high maintenance" is not when a woman is dependent and self sufficient, it is the contrary. According to urbandictionary.com, "When describing a person, high-maintenance usually means that the individual is emotionally needy or prone to over-dramatizing a situation to gain attention". This, to me, sounds exactly like Lorelei. She emotionally needs the prettiest things and over-dramatizes her intelligence in order to receive the attention she needs to get what she wants.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Yael on that one. I think feminist would hate Lorelei. Although she may be considered independent, I think she makes a joke out of what feminist fought for, at the time particularly. Women had gained the right to vote and were joining the workforce. I think Lorelei would register to vote but never actually go to fill out a ballot, meanwhile she never works. She sleeps till noon, goes to dinner and a show all paid for by a man. I think she lives a luxurious life, one in some ways I have to admit I envy, but at the same time, at the end of the night, how does a woman like that, who lives that life, not feel empty and cheap? She actually seems a little sad to me in that way.
ReplyDeleteIn contrary to Kim's first point, i believe that feminist would not appreciate the way that Lorelei outwitted the men. Feminists believe that a women doesnt need a man to support her and buy her things but instead that a women could support herself. They believe that women are equal to men if not greater. So by reading this book, i think it would simply disgust feminists that Lorelei depends on men to buy her presents. With that in mind i agree with the second point that Kim made.
ReplyDeleteI would first like to comment on the many points that were made and agree with Yael and Aliyah that Lorelei is both high maintenance and would like to be considered independent (something she most certainly is not). I also agree that feminists would most likely find Lorelei to be a fake as she hardly does anything for herself or on her own. She is a frustrating character, for me, because I would like so much to see her actually be the independent woman that she could be. She seems stuck in between the old way that women acted and the new way. For example, she constantly says that Dorothy is unrefined and should act more ladylike while also enjoying the ‘riskay’ book that Gerry brought her (something a woman from the previous decade would never even pick up).
ReplyDeleteAlso, after class yesterday I took into consideration what (I think) Rachel said about Lorelei being smart/genius and went back and looked at her as more than a gold digging whiney blond. The first instance that struck me as Lorelei being smart, or rather inventive, is when she begins 'teaching' Sir Francis Beekman (aka Piggie) how to treat a woman. Between her charm and flirting she basically trains him to buy her flowers every day. The next instance that struck me was her plan to let Robber and Louie ‘steal’ her tiara while keeping the old one. Her plan was at the very least conniving at best a stroke of genius.
While Lorelei has not grown on me, I can admit that she is a clever character. She has her talents and has crafted them into an art form.
Good discussion here, but I would encourage you to keep in mind that Lorelei is a fictional representation in a farcical comedy. It seems to me that some are treating her like a real person! But the text is a satire, poking fun at a certain type of woman in the 20s. Loos did not intend for Lorelei to be an admirable character or a model for young women.
ReplyDeleteSo in response to a different question...Perhaps one aspect of a “ great American novel” is that it accurately portrays a specific era but still remains pertinent years later. Gentleman Prefer Blondes, although a commentary on the 1920’s, continues to have relevance to today’s society. For example, in a modern context Lorelei’s character can reflect the Hollywood scene. Women actresses often date top stars in order to benefit from their fame and fortune. Therefore, although Lorelei’s character is intended to reflect the “everywoman” of the twenties, Loos creates a character that stands the test of time, as readers spanning the decades continue to be able to identify with her. Hence, although Edith Wharton may have called it a “great American novel” with some slight sarcasm, there is truth to her words.
ReplyDeleteI believe Lorelei is fully aware of what she is doing and exactly how smart or stupid she appears to be acting at each moment. Her actions are precise and calculated. This idea is evidenced in the film when she admits to purposefully appearing stupid:
ReplyDeleteLorelei Lee: Don't you know that a man being rich is like a girl being pretty? You wouldn't marry a girl just because she's pretty, but my goodness, doesn't it help?
Mr. Esmond Sr.: Say, they told me you were stupid! You certainly don't seem stupid to me!
Lorelei Lee: I can be smart when it's important, but most men don't like it.
I agree with Avital. I believe that Lorelei is fully aware of what she is doing. She is using the men to get all the pretty jewelry she wants and somehow convinces the men to get it for her. I am not sure if the men realize she is using them for their money. If they do, they don't seem to mind. She might act dumb but in the end she knows exactly how to get the men and there money which is smart.
ReplyDelete