I can't argue with anyone who can't enjoy this book because of these issues. I understand and respect that position fully.
Me too. I think books like this are useful for me to read for the perspective they give me on race issues in the 30s, but obviously other people don't need any additional perspective, in which case, "FUCK YOU, 1938" seems like an entirely appropriate attitude to take.
I think Stout regards Archie's less-progressive thinking not as a sign of bad moral character, but rather as a sign of his lack of sophistication and worldliness compared to Wolfe.
Otherwise know as: Archie, honey, your Ohio is showing. *g*
One of the things I like about this book is the way it shows racism as a culturally ingrained thing. You can't look at this book and see THE HEROIC GOOD PEOPLE vs. THE EVIL RACISTS. I don't like to see something as complicated as racism reduced to those terms.
It should be noted that Wolfe is, if not a locavore, at least acutely conscious of the role that the production of the ingredients plays in cooking. Your mouth waters when he reads his description of peanut-fed hams. In this, I think Stout is not so much incredibly forward-thinking as sophisticated for his time--I think it was WWII and its aftermath that saw the rise of full-scale industrial agriculture and all the culinary nastiness it entails.
Good point. I hadn't thought of it like that. I'm a vegetarian so the descriptions don't particularly make my mouth water. When I think of Wolfe's appetite the thing that springs to my mind is wanting to give him a kick during the story where Lily Rowan lures him out of the Brownstone with the promise of endangered Quails (?) raised on a diet of blueberries.
Yeah, that and the WWII story with the meat shortage. Archie offers to let Wolfe eat him. :D
no subject
Me too. I think books like this are useful for me to read for the perspective they give me on race issues in the 30s, but obviously other people don't need any additional perspective, in which case, "FUCK YOU, 1938" seems like an entirely appropriate attitude to take.
I think Stout regards Archie's less-progressive thinking not as a sign of bad moral character, but rather as a sign of his lack of sophistication and worldliness compared to Wolfe.
Otherwise know as: Archie, honey, your Ohio is showing. *g*
One of the things I like about this book is the way it shows racism as a culturally ingrained thing. You can't look at this book and see THE HEROIC GOOD PEOPLE vs. THE EVIL RACISTS. I don't like to see something as complicated as racism reduced to those terms.
It should be noted that Wolfe is, if not a locavore, at least acutely conscious of the role that the production of the ingredients plays in cooking. Your mouth waters when he reads his description of peanut-fed hams. In this, I think Stout is not so much incredibly forward-thinking as sophisticated for his time--I think it was WWII and its aftermath that saw the rise of full-scale industrial agriculture and all the culinary nastiness it entails.
Good point. I hadn't thought of it like that. I'm a vegetarian so the descriptions don't particularly make my mouth water. When I think of Wolfe's appetite the thing that springs to my mind is wanting to give him a kick during the story where Lily Rowan lures him out of the Brownstone with the promise of endangered Quails (?) raised on a diet of blueberries.
Yeah, that and the WWII story with the meat shortage. Archie offers to let Wolfe eat him. :D