book discussion

So my Junior English class insists on characterizing Curley's wife as a "whore." I have defended her to the point of exhaustion. Anyone want to give me a hand with this? Or am I being too easy on her?

She's kind of a floozy.

she actually depresses me a bit - she's a sad character...but its sort of a chicken-or-the-egg type thing. you don't know if her promiscuity is owing to her angry husband and the resulting loneliness or vice versa....she's obviously very unfulfilled and insecure so she's reaching out for others to fill the gap that Curley doesn't fill.

"Coquette" is a more accurate word than "whore."

I agree with Sawsan. She's unfulfilled, yet a bit on the "wild side" rebelling against the tyranny of her husband in that way.

I wouldn't necessarily say 'whore'. She's just desperate for attention from anyone.

I think whore is a little harsh. She definitely is a little loose but I think she is a product of her environment. Each of the characters are lonely or isolated from each other in one way. A mentally challenged man, his caretaker, the boss's son, and the only woman, even the old man and his dog. They are all looking for a connection to someone else. She uses the only way she knows, the only she is allowed.

You are not the only one who sympathizes with this character. At first I did not, but when I watched one of the more recent movie versions; I really began to understand how annoying and 'watchful' Curley must have been, constantly keeping an unnecessary reign on his wife. She must have felt so caged and bored and wished he would show a little more love and less possessiveness.

What would help this debate is if we clarify what we mean by the term "whore." If it is a woman who sleeps around with many men, then no, she isn't. Based on the text, she is never depicted as having slept with someone other than Curley. However, if we take whore to mean a married woman who looks for company in the arms of other men, then yes, she is a whore.

Personally, I do not agree with the second definition. If a woman is abused or ignored by her husband, then the husband is not owning up to his end of the marriage. The wife has every right to seek out personal happiness, even if it leads to a separation or divorce. Like Edna Pontellier in The Awakening, Curley's Wife has a tragic sense of what she is missing out on. And, like Edna Pontellier, when Curley's Wife pursues her right to personal fulfillment, it leads to her demise.

Curley's Wife is not a whore. She's desperate for attention because she married the first guy she could in order to get away from her controlling mother. That guy just happened to be the wrong guy, and now she knows it.

I would compare her character to that of Madame Bovary, a character that has also been debated as being a "whore". I think in assessing these characters it is so important to keep in mind the context of their situations.

These women were working within the confines of very restrictive societies. They didn't have choices. They either stay at home caring for others or leave their contemptible familiarities to be with men, whom they may or may not love, as their only form of escape.

Furthermore, both women have seen their modest life's ambitions dashed. Curley's wife makes reference to having wanted to be in "pitures". Her reality is that of an ill-treated piece of property.

The respect issue is a crucial one. Whether Curley's wife cheats on him or not she still is treated without respect. She is Curley's sex object, nothing more.

In both instances, these women make bad choices, but considering that there are no good choices available to them, it's hard to consider them treacherous. They are desperate, they are sad, as so many people have mentioned, they want attention. Above all else, they want escape from these miserable lives that afford them no choices and no respect. I think perhaps the Junior lit. students need to consider how they would feel in such a position. Lay out "a day in the life" of Curley's wife: she gets up, she has nothing to do, she is treated like chattel, she waits for her husband to come home to dinner. And then one day a kind person treats her with sympathy and respect, can we really blame her for the choice to respond the way she did?

I find that Curley's wife isn't so much of a whore as a person desperate for attention that she isn't recieving from anyone else - her dreams of becoming a star was struck down, and she settles for the life of a farmer's wife. It wasn't what she wanted for herself, so she must feel robbed of the future that she could have had.

While discussing the book in class, this point was continually bought up, each time that Curley's wife appeared in the story. We came to the conclusion that, in the majority's opinion, Curley's wife wasn't necessarily looking for sex from anyone. Yes, she was a sensual character, but that doesn't mean that its all she was after. She tells Lenny that no one ever talks to her - and is notably upset while she talks about it.

While I agree with much that has been discussed thus far, there is something everyone seems to be missing. George warns Lenny to avoid her. She is well-known for coming on to the men that work for her husband. If Curley were to even think that something may be going on between his wife and one of the men there would be trouble. Would he kill the man? Run him out of town? It seems unlikely he'd simply fire a guy. It is for this reason that no one will talk to her.
Is she a whore? She is a flirt for cetain. And how about some clarification - a whore is a prostitute. Therefore, no she is not. I understand that this definition has been blurred; often defining a promiscous woman, a woman who will throw herself at any man, a woman who flirts, or simply a woman who dresses provocatively. It is a mistake to label this character so. Call her inappropriate, for regardless of circumstance she is - though I can hardly blame her, in ways she has been driven to it through isolation, popped dreams, and general cruelty.

'Flirt' is a better term. And there's nothing wrong with a flirt who has her boundaries...which shows a little self respect.

I hate how Curley's wife is portrayed. Everyone else in the book has a name, but she's just "the wife". It's so sexist!

I definitely did not see her as a "whore". Mostly I saw her as a woman who went to extreme means to try to get attention from her husband. Was she really rolling in the hay with others? I don't think so, I think she was just acting the way she did to spark a little fire in her honey do.

Wow, I am amazed how many people can miss the whole point. Even after seventy years the basic idea of what is strength and is strength a virtue is important to understanding humanity. But, I think people get so caught up in idiosycratic details they miss the point.

Curley's wife has a kind of strength. She is beautiful, but that strength is a obstacle to her happiness. Men shun her because of her beauty. It is worth noting that she never did anything to earn the title "tart" or "floozy" or "whore". She is characterized as such because men fear her because they fear their own weakness, their inability to fraternize with her without sexual advances.

Her character fits in seemlessly with the others. Curley, strength of a boxer but incredibly insecure. Slim, strength lies in his wisdom and skill with a jerk line, but he is horribly lonely. Crooks, strength is in his tenure at the ranch and his specialized knowlege, but weak due to his race and his vulnerability. Lenny, strength is in his physical prowess but he is weak due to his inability to comprehend humanity. George, strength lies in his comprehension of humanity, especially Lenny, but he is weak because he can not actually take the steps necessary to accomplish the dream.

In the end George becomes weakened by the loss of Lenny, he loses the dream all together.

'Whore' wouldn't be the word I'd use. Maybe 'attention-starved' or something along that line.

I kinda agree with Dangyankee on the idea that her strength was also her weakness.

Well you can't really blame her for hanging out with other guys. She said she didn't like Curley. She must have been so emotionally upset after losing acting opportunities to marry Curley.
And I agree with Dangyankee. That was really good.

i think the use of the term wife for her was on purpose as an archetype
the point is that she is merely an object in the man's world
it's speaks of the dehumaizing existence she leads
they all are humiliated by their human condition
curley is not exactly a manly man's name
lenny is easily marganalized even though he may be a superior man
george is the largest and smallest all in one

it's really a beautiful study of humanity

that steinbeck

A sexual experience does not have to do necessarily with penetration. it's a matter of getting off. She gets off on the idea of men looking at her and wanting her, so in a strange way, through abstraction, she is a whore. She is selling herself for the attention she needs to survive in a place where she does not belong and where she is so starved for the attention she needs that she must doll herself up and go out floozying or whatever just so that she doesn't well up and become a pillar of salt.

I like the comment by Hannah that's talking about how everyone is just isolated and that is probably the most comprehensive theme in the book.

She's a whore. But whores aren't bad people. Whores are sad people. She's a sad, sad, sad person, who only needs to fulfill her needs. A whore never needs a client to be considered a whore, just as a lawyer is a lawyer not after he gets his first client but after he passes the bar. Once she makes the decision to become a person who is merely an actress, a player in the game of sensual affairs she becomes that whore. Sad as hell.

i like your comment Dangyankee

Jason - All this talk about Happy and Sad, Good and Bad, I don't think that Steinbeck would agree that all this judgementalism belongs in the discussion. All the characters in this book are archetypal misfits. Bindle-stiffs, failed Boxers (boxers in general are generally distained in 'polite' society), wannabe movie-stars, ranch hands, cripples, elderly poor, blacks. They are all avoided, distained by the middle class (what Andy Capp called the Uppish-Class). The dynamic of the interaction between them makes them real. As an author Steinbeck had the opportunity to have spent time among them and then used that opportunity to speak of their lives, but what he was really talking about was all of our lives (we may be lacking the self-awareness to recognize it).

She's a hooker.

Dangyankee claims that Curley's wife "never did anything to earn the title "tart" or "floozy" or "whore". Well, maybe he should re-read the scene with her and Lenny while "the guys got a horseshoe tenement goin' on". In addition to her 'come-on' appearance - "red ostrich feathers...face made up...little sausage curls...all in place" - she enters "very quietly", comes "quite near to him" and later "move[s] closer" and speaks "soothingly".

Given the context of the novel, her actions are entirely consistent with those of a "tart" or "floozy" though to call her a "whore" may be a bit unfair.

Jason, a whore DOES need a client to be considered a whore. If there were a bar exam for whores, your comparison would be valid; what most distinguishes a whore from a 'loose' or 'easy' woman is that she takes men on as clients and not as casual lovers or flings.

Curley's wife never solicits men for the purpose of earning cash on the side or any other material benefit; she may be lonely and on the prowl for some male company, but she mainly seeks attention. Try asking a whore if all she wants in life is a bit more attention!