Subject: Muriel, the girl for me
From: Scottie Bowman (rbowman@indigo.ie)
Date: Wed Oct 11 2000 - 13:50:13 GMT
Well, Cecilia, to my eyes the way those last three
actions are run together without a break suggests
a sequence of causative links.
Also, Muriel is introduced with a kind of pseudo-
sophisticated snigger inviting complicity with the sort
of people who read the New Yorker in the 1950s.
In those days - whatever about now - we all fancied
ourselves as would-be Parkers or Benchleys with permanent
reservations at the Algonquin & an inbuilt disdain for
the airheads who took a lot of new calfskin luggage
when they went on holiday to a Florida hotel filled
with advertising men - surely the ultimate absence of
intellectual chic. For that readership, Muriel &
her embarrassing Mum & Dad were simply designed
to be mocked - while giving a warm glow of superior
taste & insight to the mockers.
This is the reason I dislike the flavour of the story.
I feel I've been conned by a subtle flattery of my own
pretentiousness.
_________________________
And no, Otto, a reading that sees Muriel referring
to some previous visit to the hotel by her family
is too tortuous for me. 'We couldn't get the
ROOM we had before the war....' Surely mother,
father, Muriel & Freddy (not to mention any other
sibs we haven't heard of) weren't all packed into
the one single room?
Scottie B.
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Wed Nov 08 2000 - 17:43:40 GMT