Do Some Damage discussion

In the opening of the book, we're clearly meant to feel anger towards Stanley and to side with Corrine.

As the book story moves along, do you feel more or less sympathy for Corrine?

I actually never feel sympathy for Corrine and I'm much more on Stanley's side right from the jump. Corrine as manipulator and malcontent makes me think she needs a fall.

While Stanley's behavior toward Corrine and the marriage was despicable, the more I learned about her the more repulsive I found her. Right or wrong Stanley was just trying to protect his son - and his instincts weren't too far off after all - but Corrine was just a manipulative, conniving bitch.

Conversely, I feel sympathy for Corrine. Her tactics are questionable (um, understatement), but she's struggling to secure stability in her life.

Alison wrote: "Conversely, I feel sympathy for Corrine. Her tactics are questionable (um, understatement), but she's struggling to secure stability in her life."

Yeah, but that's a real fast gray area trending towards dark for me. Manipulation and straight up treachery are not the only avenues available to somebody to work towards stability. In fact, I'd say that it's rather shortsighted and doesn't actually lead to any real stability, only a teetering mess that will fall even harder, later.

I should probably add that I also feel sorry for Lady Macbeth when she can't get her damn hands clean, so that's just the kind of permissive reader I am, I guess.

Also, I see a clear rise of a second Corrine-character by the end of the book [this is hard without spoilers, yo], and I feel sympathy for that character, too.

Suppose I'm rather heartless, but I'm with Ben on this. I cut her no slack because of her past, and any change in character toward the end I see as being the result of things being royally f'ed up, not any true change of heart.

The more I think about it, too, especially after engaging the super pretentious side of my brain, I'd further say that stability in life is always an illusion for everybody. Corrine's problem is one of coveting. It's this business of wanting that gets people in trouble. That's in the Tao. That's in the New Testament. That's Socrates. Corrine is a fine example of what happens to serial wanters.

And perhaps it's just because patriarchy irks me, but I was very pro-Corrinne throughout the work. The more we learned about her past, the more I wanted her to achieve her aims.

My reason being, from the beginning, Corrinne was just a toy to the men in her life. Stanley delighted in having her as a bird on a wire - a creature he could mock, deprecate and damn to a future of being rejected. He had so much fun with his power to rid her of a better future. Whereas there is something to be said for a Taoist perspective of accepting the instabilities in life, Stanley inflicted that instability as a weapon. It's hard to find your footing when someone has the power to pull the ground from under you for their own amusement, and to debase you in the process.

So, I was not sad to see him go. Things only got worse for Corrinne from there. Her association with Balen summons figures and forces from her past that only degrade her further into their cat's paw, their whore and their toy.

For me, Corrinne's plot seemed someone struggling to be better than a Barbie doll for sadists. She was flawed and foolish, but I did want her to revenge herself on these men who thought they could abuse and exploit without consequence.

Was she "deserving" of such exploitation? I didn't feel so. I felt her to be someone born into degradation and agony who was surrounded by people who found used those things as tools and toys.

Perhaps she would have been better off ridding herself of attachments and committing herself to a humble existence. Perhaps she could have forced Buddy to choose between her and Stanley, and won some measure of protection from the Pop Patriarch's abuse. But regardless of her murderous choice, I felt deeply for someone so injured and humiliated throughout her life. I wanted the victim to have her revenge.

After a certain point, you only continue to be a victim if you think of and carry yourself that way. She had long gotten out from under her rocky beginnings and was already living a life most would find quite splendorous. Ben's right; she got greedy and wanted more, instead of just being happy with how far she'd come and how good she did have it in comparison.

Crime fiction is filled to the brim with, at worst, sexist portrayals of female characters and, at best, female characters that are slaves to the perceptions of the men around them (empty vessels to be filled and shaped by the men around them) which include not only the male characters but the male authors as well.

Lynn Kostoff said that he set out to make sure Corrine wasn't a "cut-out femme fatale" and I think that, once again, Kostoff succeeded in creating another great character.

On the surface he gives us this character that seems familiar; that seems to still be a blank slate for the men around her. Then Kostoff slyly subverts this notion with her in depth characterization and her actions and she winds up transcending this character type as if she's revolting against the very patriarchy that she's existing in. She not only wants to remodel herself but the very crime fiction universe in which she exists in.

I'd be more comfortable on board with the "greedy and wanted more" perspective if Stanley didn't belittle and threaten her so elaborately. It seemed to me that her splendorous life was doomed so long as he was around - that he would make good on his threat to break up she and Buddy, and would make her life unpleasant in the meanwhile.

So, I do see what you're saying - Corrine's victimhood informs the insecurities that go far to screw her up - but I'm not sure if she was out from under those rocky beginnings. I think the first chapter was composed to convey just how rocky things were and to establish that, at least in Corrine's mind, she could be dashed on those rocks again.

I'm totally ok with subverting and killing the patriarchy at any point possible (and yes, I realize that means that my own chest is not immune to swords), and I'm willing to concede that Corrine was, in some way, victimized in her past (even if she thought she was in control)...

But I don't see Stanley as a victimizer. I see him more as understanding what Corrine's scheme is and calling her out on her bullshit for it. Holding people accountable for their actions isn't, at its core, unjust.

There isn't really any ambiguity in the realm of Corrine's intentions for USING Buddy (there is no genuine love there) as a means to get Stanley's cash. Seeing Corrine in that light, my capacity for sympathy is very very limited.

Shit, if I would have known how fun a book club could be, I would have joined one earlier. Thank you everybody for this discussion.!

Matthew--can you give an example of a threat that Stanley delivers? I didn't see any (which isn't to say they don't exist), and I want to better understand your reading. For me, Stanley's approach to Corrine was more, "Yeah, you can fool the boy, but I don't buy your bullshit. I see what you're doing, and I'm not afraid to call you out on it."

I can't shake my view of Stanley as a victimizer. I feel we have little to cast him otherwise, even: We know he's overbearing, we know he calls her a hooker, we know he's threatened to destroy their marriage and we know he's got this whole Greco-centric thing going on. The man makes a nice soft drink, but other than that, his good qualities are limited.

That having been said, I'm with you on the "lack of love" thing. We know Corrine is smitten with the stability and material satisfaction Buddy provides, but we hear very little of her feelings towards him as a person. Given that, yeah, she comes off as a gold-digger.

Still, I end up loathing Corrine's manipulators so thoroughly that I crave her revenge against them. Maybe I'm just a sucker for a sob story, but I was on her side.

Also, I see a clear rise of a second Corrine-character by the end of the book [this is hard without spoilers, yo], and I feel sympathy for that character, too.

Allison you HAVE to start this as a topic. Just note the spoilerificness of it. It's a great topic.

Ben - Sadly, I can't at this time. One of the drawbacks of a virtual book club being that I don't have the volume on hand. But when I get back home, I'll fish 'em out.

Matthew wrote: "I can't shake my view of Stanley as a victimizer. I feel we have little to cast him otherwise, even: We know he's overbearing, we know he calls her a hooker, we know he's threatened to destroy thei..."

IMO, there isn't really a marriage to destroy. Corrine isn't in a marriage. She's quarterbacking a plot to get something from Stanley by manipulating Buddy. If Stanley is aware of that (and he seems to be) and he doesn't actively work to stop it, he's letting Buddy, and by extension, himself be exploited. There is nothing for him to get from Corrine. She isn't making him money, he doesn't appear interested in her physically. Could he be nicer in the way he calls her out as a conniver? Sure. But chivalry kinda goes out my door when dealing with people like Corrine.

Matthew wrote: "Ben - Sadly, I can't at this time. One of the drawbacks of a virtual book club being that I don't have the volume on hand. But when I get back home, I'll fish 'em out."

Good. Thanks. I'm with you. I don't have the book in front of me and it could be that you'll be able to pull out three or four things and I'll say, "God, Stanley was such a dick. Good thing he's dead."

Matthew wrote: "I can't shake my view of Stanley as a victimizer. I feel we have little to cast him otherwise, even: We know he's overbearing, we know he calls her a hooker..."

Ah, but we don't know he said that. The passage reads:

"He pointed his fork and, around a mouthful of food, delivered a follow-up that Corrine almost missed."

Corrine then goes on to claim he called her a hooker, but Kostoff very cleverly never actually puts the word in Stanley's mouth.

So, did he really say it, or is Corrine's reaction (a) an example of her insecurity and paranoia, or (b) a deliberate action on her part to stir shit by claiming Stanley said something he really didn't?

Even if he DID call her a hooker--she is setting herself up for the role. If nothing else, she's an emotional hooker. She's having fake relations with Buddy in exchange for an expected cash payoff.

It is what it is.

Agreed. And if forced to call it I'd say Stanley probably did say it. I just love that Kostoff was deliberately vague about it. He could easily have directly attributed it if he'd wanted, and it would have removed all doubt, so I have to presume not doing so was deliberate as well. And brilliant IMO.

So, did he really say it, or is Corrine's reaction (a) an example of her insecurity and paranoia, or (b) a deliberate action on her part to stir shit by claiming Stanley said something he really didn't?

Aha! That is an excellent point I had forgotten.

And whether "a" or "b" or Stanley's fault, one thing is for certain: Corrine was a hot mess.

Still, as they say in Repo Man, "I blame society!" I sympathized enough with her plight that I wanted better than a bullet for her.

Okay, but here's my thing: Stanley's abusing Buddy, too, so him calling Corrine out for her use/abuse of Buddy is like pot and kettle.

Stanley's relationship with Buddy is described with such words as "Stanley's plans," "force," and "duty," and Buddy's marriage to Corrine is described as his "first and only real rebellion against his Uncle Stanley's influence and plans for him." Granted, this is from a Corrine POV chapter, but I trust her enough to assess another user when she sees one.

Buddy is easy prey, and neither Corrine nor Stanley are blameless in the let's-forward-our-own-agendas-at-the-expense-of-whatever-Buddy's-wishes-are game.

And I don't know enough about Stanley backstory-wise to sympathize with him the way I do with Corrine. So though I don't really think I'd want to emulate Corrine at all, I can't hate her all that hard.

Matthew wrote: "...one thing is for certain: Corrine was a hot mess."

Game. Set. Match.

What is Stanley's reward for manipulating Buddy?

Alison wrote: "Buddy is easy prey, and neither Corrine nor Stanley are blameless in the let's-forward-our-own-agendas-at-the-expense-of-whatever-Buddy's-wishes-are game."

But Buddy's "agenda" is not self-gain in the literal sense. He sees his actions as protecting family from an outsider up to no good (and he was right). He honestly believes he's acting in Buddy's best interests, while Corrine is clearly acting solely in her own self-interest, with Buddy merely being a tool to accomplish her goals.

Elizabeth wrote: "But Buddy's "agenda" is not self-gain in the literal sense. He sees his actions as protecting family from an outsider up to no good (and he was right). He honestly believes he's acting in Buddy's b..."

I don't think it's all that altruistic. He comes across as a classist and a racist to me - wanting Buddy to marry Greek and someone from the moneyed class around town.

As Alison notes, we don't know enough about Stanley to know he wouldn't have been just as opposed to Buddy hitching a "hooker with a heart of gold" - namely, any girl who came from "low class" world. We only know how he treats the woman his dear Buddy married, which is with contempt. Is she deserving of contempt? Ultimately, yes, but initially?

Besides, Paige's motives aren't "self-gain in the literal sense" either. They still lead her to some morally questionable deeds.

Ben wrote: "What is Stanley's reward for manipulating Buddy?"

Control. He gets the kind of family he thinks Buddy should have - Greek and wealthy.

I read Stanley's motivations as totally Old Skool: Family, Blood, Duty, Legacy

He's got in Buddy a dutiful "son" who will do what he say an ensure that his legacy, a soft drink, will not sell to to corporate interests who will likely change his business model. He can (without Corrine in the picture) marry Buddy off into the Greek community and enjoy the sense of patriarchal control he has over the budding family. Head of the family, his wishes are honored and never questioned, his routine is never disrupted nor challenged, etc.

(And I'm not saying that him wanting to defend his company from corporate interests or keep his line workers employed is a bad thing, it's just beside the point, for me, a product of his more base motivations and not the base motivations themselves.)

Stanley's threatened by a world order that's different from what he grew up with -- I believe that if Buddy had married a woman of his own choosing who DID genuinely love him, Stanley would still be an asshat bully about it.

Actually, maybe that's where we're disagreeing? Do you guys think that it was Corrine and her obvious agenda *specifically* that Stanley was objecting to, or the role of un-approved wife (demonstrating Buddy's decisions and desires outside of his uncle's plan) that Stanley objected to?

I think it's the latter, but if you think it's the former I can better understand your Corrine-hate.

Matthew wrote: "I don't think it's all that altruistic. He comes across as a classist and a racist to me - wanting Buddy to marry Greek and someone from the moneyed class around town."

Stanley wanting Buddy to marry a Greek / someone from their community is still something he wants for Buddy's benefit. He's not trying to manipulate Buddy to get something from Buddy that will equal a gain for himself (Stanley), which is the only thing Corrine wants. She couldn't care less about Buddy, that much you certainly can't disagree with.

The wealth is already his.

The Greek might be a part of maintaining tradition.

I think Stanley would be much better with things if Buddy married outside of his demographic (rich, Greek), but married somebody that wasn't so outwardly a gold digger. I would have no problem believing Stanley wouldn't care if Buddy grew up a bachelor for his whole life.

Elizabeth wrote: "Stanley wanting Buddy to marry a Greek / someone from their community is still something he wants for Buddy's benefit. He's not trying to manipulate Buddy to get something from Buddy..."

I do disagree - I don't see anything objectively better about Greeks.

Better or worse, Buddy hitched Corrine. The truly caring, selfless thing, for me, would have been for Stanley to support Buddy's decision. Instead of trying to make her fit, he tries to hedge her out. That's not selfless in my eyes.

Without any evidence of Buddy and Corrine not getting along - heck, Buddy thinks she loves him, so she must be doing something right - then Stanley's just going on his own assumptions.

Stanley was right about Corrine and Paige was probably right about Ben and her mom, but it doesn't make them self-sacrificing.

Alison, I am of the opinion it was the former. I think Ben phrased it well when he said Stanley saw Corrine for who she was - her specifically, not simply her being "low class" - and was more than willing to "call bullshit" on her. Remember, almost all the supposed motivations for Stanley's behavior we have come from Corrine, whose opinion on the matter is hardly unbiased.

Matt, I don't see anything objectively better about Greeks either.

Stanley, however, supposedly did. At least according to Corrine. But you know what? If her not being Greek / from the community wasn't his motivation for being upset with the marriage that only strengthens my belief that his distaste for Corrine was because of her as a person, nothing else.

Either he dislikes her for not being Greek and wants better for Buddy, which is not a self-interest on his part per se, or he correctly saw through Corrine and wanted her manipulating ass as far away from his family and company as possible, which is (was) smart as things turned out.

Either way I don't see how his behavior can be anywhere near equated with Corrine's.

Yeah, to Alison's point, I thought it was the latter.

I saw LATE RAIN on the whole as a story of people's blueprints, and how their flaws cause them to combust, with mercy - the rain - coming too late.

Paige, Corrine, Stanley, Ben, Jack - they all have plans that are unraveling or conflicting to some degree. Granted, we only hear about "the real Stanley" from Corrine, but I was disposed to see him as controlling. Maybe I just have a bias against boot-strapping, ethnocentric soft drink moguls.

I don't disagree that he was controlling. I'm just looking at the shades of grey that comprise the motivations for their respective behaviors, and I see Corrine's as being much closer to black than Stanley's is all.

That's true, but we don't have the benefit of Stanley or Buddy's POVs, and I think Lynn did that for a reason (um, besides making the work sprawling and uncontrollable with a million POVs). All we know of Stanley is filtered and even with that in mind ...

I read Stanley as equaling hegemony, It's not about specific self-interest for him, with specific, minor, tangible gains, it's about maintaining the status quo and power dynamic to which he is accustomed.

I don't think he genuinely cares for Buddy. If he did, wanting better for his "son" and recognizing that Corrine is a Golddigger (she ain't messin' with no broke, broke), he would also understand that Buddy does feel love for her (however misguided), and Stanley's "protective" tactics would need to be respectful of Buddy's emotions in order to help him see that Corrine is not in love with him.

But to your latest point: Yeah, Corrine is all kinds of darkly shaded. I think I'm just predisposed to cut the character more slack if I see him/her as working outside the system, man, and opposing the old guard, man.

I'm all for characters working outside of / bucking the system, but I have to respect them...or at the very least their goals. I had neither with Corrine.

p.s. Elizabeth, even though we have different reactions to Corrine, I'm sure enjoying talking about her with you (and everyone else).

Agreed! Quite the lively discussion, and both "sides" being represented so strongly means Kostoff did a damn fine job.

Damn, I saw the post early this morning, thought I'd revisit it later, but I did not expect such a robust conversation.

Someone early on mentioned Corrine acted in hopes of stability. Not one thing in this story suggested any hopes of stability. Corrine was a runner, from start to finish. She looked behind her and didn't like what she saw.

Do I feel sympathetic because her mother left her and her grandparents were uncaring or that she discovered early on that she could manipulate men sexually?

No.

Even with hard beginnings a person has choices. Corrine chose the easy choices. She discovered she could manipulate and ply men with sex and sexuality. And so she did and it made her hate herself, self conscious and worried the past was going to crush down on her.

Buddy was a ticket and Stanley was the only thing standing in the way of cashing in. Once she did, Corrine would have ran, and never stopped running.

Ben wrote: "I actually never feel sympathy for Corrine and I'm much more on Stanley's side right from the jump. Corrine as manipulator and malcontent makes me think she needs a fall."

Just getting into it, but I agree. I see Corrine as the unsympathetic character from the get go. She wants things without working for them, and her shrewish behavior sets her in an unfavorable light immediately. Stanley, though he may be old fashioned and uncharitable toward Corrine, seems all right.