There's some interesting stuff coming out of the 'Red Wind' thread, though I hope that traffic will not concentrate on commenting on my suggested reading to the neglect of other areas. Apologies too for the line wrap! Dunno what happened---I'll hit return more. That said, I'd like to respond to some points made in the last digest: On Thu, 29 May 1997, Jerry Silverman <silvrmn@enteract.com> wrote: [SNIP] >has "a string of pearls" always had an alternative masturbatory meaning? >Or is this relatively recent (or more recent than "Red Wind")? AFAIK, 'string of pearls' isn't a phrase used to describe masturbation. Roger Dowdy <dowdy@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >Sorry. Perhaps I have blinders on but I just not seeing it. This is how I read the closing scene {yes, it is quite subjective and interpretive, but hey---that's reading): Dalmas goes to sit on his rock and slips the pears off the string, then he recalls: 'I flipped her pearls out into the water one by one' The implied motion, of a hand and arm moving back and forth, tossing the pearls 'one by one', suggests a motion not dissimilar to that of solo male masturbation. The, uh, icing on the cake, so to speak, is the continuous plip-plip of the pearls arcing out of Dalmas's hand into the sea. The colour and trajectory of the pearls is, I would suggest, evocative of ejaculatory spurts of semen. While this symbolic 'wank' is taking place, Dalmas is, he tells us, thinking of Stan Phillips---he even utters his Phillip's name aloud as the 'pearls' begin to fly. Meanwhile, michael d sharp wrote: > What Chandler's stories demonstrate (duggan may have said this in >other words) is the homoerotics of conventional, heterosexual masculinity. I didn't <I wish I had though> --- but it's a point well made. I think I came across a similar point in reading about pornography: 'straight' males can 'check out' other in males in pornography, while their homerotic fears are allayed by the female presence. Though "H. Curtiss Leung" <hleung@prolifics.com> has me bang to rights: >OK...but this line of reasoning seems to simply replace "intention" >with "libido" within the same interpretative scheme; it still hypostatizes an >aspect of meaning. Indeedy --- but imo it's fun/rewarding/pleasantly polyvalent to 'open up' texts and look at a range of possible meanings. The meanings and interstices of meaning might tell us more about the *readers* than the text, but readings are negotiated, I would maintain, between the terms reader::text::context. So while I'm glad Curtiss agrees that : >There's no denying the erotic and homoerotic aspects of Chandler's prose [...] Sure, it's one way to read Chandler, albeit narrow, speculative and tending toward biographical/freudian > but they're not its "foundation." Well, I don't know about this 'foundation' stuff---that takes us back to intention. BTW, the suggestions to look to _TLG_ might be followed bearing in mind that this _TLG_ was written much later (1953) than the other novels; AFAIK, it wasn't 'cannibalised' and, by this time, RC was aware that there was some 'criticism' of Marlowe as being a bit 'faggy' [the term is mine] I don't have specific references to hand, but I think I can dig some out if anyone wants to follow it up. [Critics which *do* come to mind who have commented upon Marlowe's sexuality are Gershon Legmon <sp?> and Peter Wolfe. MacShane meanwhile is an avowed heterosexist reader of Chandler] But that's enough of that. There are *other ways* we might also look at 'Red Wind'---frinstance, someone has already mentioned 'canibalisation' {RC reworked his short stories, or bits of them, into novels). There is also *plot* --- generally not RC's strong point --- and language, which is often self-conscious, parodic and fun. Any takers? Eddie Duggan - # RARA-AVIS: To unsubscribe, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" # to majordomo@icomm.ca