I’ve been having a debate with Charles Reece and Mike Hunter over the misogyny, or lack thereof, in Raymond Chandler’s work. I thought I’d highlight one of my comments here for those who are interested:
I’m not using misogyny casually or dismissively. [The Big Sleep] is powered by disgust, and disgust and corruption are insistently associated with femininity. The most powerful image of the book is the mad Sternwood daughter, a vision of sexualized, feminized chaos from which the male soldiers recoil.
Again, the argument that men are killed and men are bad seems to really pretty much completely miss the point. Masculinity is absolutely an incredibly important issue in the novel — who is a man, who isn’t, what honorable men are like, how men keep themselves pure. You and Mike seem to have this idea that there you figure out misogyny by looking at the relative fates of the men and women in the book. But that’s silliness. The issue is that femininity is a corrupting influence — which affects men too. As Coates says, masculinity is built on a rejection of weakness which is nonetheless central to masculinity. Even the male body becomes feminized, because all bodies are feminized (so that, for example, the old man’s decadence, with all the hothouse flowers, is thematically linked to the way he’s living with his two united daughters…even old age becomes feminine.)
Misogyny is absolutely an ideology/passion which destroys men, and indeed promotes hatred of men (whether homosexuals, or the elderly, or anyone who doesn’t measure up to being a man, which is everyone.) One of the great things about Chandler’s novel is the way it demonstrates this so clearly and with such passion. It’s uncomfortable and probably evil, but the way it works through the permutations, and the vividness of its loathing for women and ultimately for itself, is fascinating and I think valuable. I like the Thin Man quite a bit, strong female character and lack of misogyny and all, but it doesn’t have anything like that insight or passion.
I think in part the issue is that you and Mike are only seeing misogyny as applying to female bodies? Misogyny is very frequently directed at female bodies…but it’s also, and very much, directed at femininity, which can be associated with female bodies, but which is also a trope which can be seen everywhere, in female bodies, male bodies, or decadence generally. The Big Sleep is actually a perfect example of how this works; the misogyny pervades the entire book, creating a world of corruption, decadence, perversion, and disorder, within which honorable men struggle for cleanness and honor and masculinity.
This has gotten me thinking a little bit too about why feminism is important for men. Not sure where or if I’ll write that up, but I think it’s worth thinking about — and I think Chandler is a useful way of getting at it.
i implicitly read marlowe as closeted, though take that as a grain of salt because i assign queerness to just about any character i can empathize with.
one thing that is maybe more clear to everyone is how marlowe is without question a bumbling violent goon. he solves all of his problems with punching, and most of those problems were created by a previous incident of him punching someone. he’s constantly getting incidental characters killed. if femininity represents chaos and disorder, then his pretense of masculinity creates just as much chaos as the system he’s reacting against.
It’s hard not to see Marlowe as closeted, I think. The books are so obsessed with masculinity and gender; the anxiety is just everywhere. I think it’s so prevalent, in fact, that it kind of proves Marlowe is not gay. As Eve Segwick argues, when it comes to anxiety around the closet, gay men have nothing on straight guys.
The point about Marlowe’s Neanderthal bumbling is great too. It also functions as a critique of the book’s clean, terrified masculinity. I don’t exactly think Chandler intended that, but one of the things that’s great about The Big Sleep is the way its neuroses are so blatant that it almost demands to be read against itself.
Have you read ‘The Long Goodbye’? I mean, there the queerness is practically overt.
Hey Alex. Haven’t yet; on the to-read list!
Part of what you’re doing here is making an argument against a masculinity that sees itself as opposed to a sort of feminine vulnerability. This feminine vulnerability presents itself in multiple ways, the Butlerian vulnerability of bodies being your prominent example here. The problem is thus that the evasion/”fear” of this vulnerability can result in misogyny, which you call an “evil” ideology.
One of the main things that troubles me here is my lack of the understanding of the position from which you’re criticizing Marlowe (and thus Chandler’s?) ethical self-constitution. I would agree that his misogyny and homophobia (and presumably Chandler’s?) are problematic, but you seem to have stitched them into an ethical web with a number of other values.
Is the valuation of strength, honor, and/or purity essentially problematic? When you use “evil” to describe Chandler’s work, you seem to be pointing at it from an ethical perspective. Can you elaborate on that?
I think purity is really problematic as an ethical virtue. It’s just almost impossible to disentangle it from loathing of others, and that in turn is generally tied to hatred of whatever group happens to be on the outs (very often women.)
I think we tend to overvalue strength. Being strong isn’t itself a virtue. There are different kinds of strength, of course…but strength is pretty closely tied to physical strength and endurance in Chandler, I think.
As for honor…I talk about it at greater length here.
I think the key element of Marlowe’s strength is “emotional fortitude” or “stoicism”. The notion of “masculine” emotional fortitude is clearly problematic when it is contrasted with “feminine” hysteria. Can “emotional fortitude” be virtuous outside of this gendered context? Do you think it’s possible to divest “stoicism” of its gendered content?
Not in pulp noir, I wouldn’t think it would be. I’m not thinking of any other examples where I’ve seen it done either…
————————-
Owen A says:
…Can “emotional fortitude” be virtuous outside of this gendered context? Do you think it’s possible to divest “stoicism” of its gendered content?
—————————
Well, certainly countless millions of women through all of “civilization” and before, have displayed emotional fortitude, stoicism and endurance through life’s tragedies.
From the great Kathe Kollwitz, a selection along that theme:
Two on “Widows and Orphans”: http://echostains.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/kollwitz-widows-and-orphans.jpg , http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/ARTkollwitz1.jpg
http://www.spaightwoodgalleries.com/Media/Kollwitz/Kollwitz_Wdct_SelfPortrait3.jpg
http://www.spaightwoodgalleries.com/Media/Kollwitz/Kollwitz_Wdct_SelfPortrait3.jpg
http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/family/kollwitzseed.jpg
http://images.metmuseum.org/CRDImages/dp/web-highlight/MM2201.jpg
http://www.1st-art-gallery.com/K%E3%A4the-Kollwitz/Frau-Mit-Totem-Kind.html
Not exactly stoic, just powerful: http://www.pasqualeart.com/kollwitz/art-addition/kollwitz_49669.jpg , http://philosophia.uncg.edu/sites/default/files/PHI301metivier/m2/mother%20with%20dead%20child.jpg
She certainly also depicted women in despair; but, no one more superbly depicted the strength of Woman — and not in the idiotic manboy fantasy version of figures like, say, Lara Croft — than Kollwitz. More about this magnificent artist at http://www.kaethe–kollwitz.com/ .
Owen asks…
“Can “emotional fortitude” be virtuous outside of this gendered context? Do you think it’s possible to divest “stoicism” of its gendered content?”
Isn’t this one of the things Morrison has been trying to do with Batman? Ever since he had the Joker grab Batman’s ass in Arkham Asylum it seems like he’s been trying to disentangle the sexual anxiety from the stoic badassery of the (very Chandleresque) Dark Knight Returns Batman, usually by associating Batman with some kind of faux-Zen equanimity and having him get laid a lot.