Holly Golightly: Whore or Connoisseur?

I didn't know Holly Golightly was a hooker until I read a review of a book about the movie "Breakfast at Tiffany's". I never saw the movie and my reading of Capote is spotty, but I did eat at La Côte Basque years ago. The theme of the book is that Holly was a harbinger of the feminist liberation and personified sex without moral trappings. I found this in today's WSJ.

As a counterpoint to this notion of liberated women a few days earlier the same rag proffered this definition of connoisseur: "A critical judge of excellence in the arts, food, drink and women."

I am bothered by the overt sexism of the definition. Does this mean a woman can never be a connoisseur unless she has slept with scores of men? I think other descriptives would come to the fore if this were the case. What do you call an accomplished woman who knows her way around the bedroom? Is there any polite term for a sexually seasoned but elegant woman? Is Holly Golightly really that icon?

Maybe you folks can sort this out for me? It may help to know that the definition was used by a woman.

I didn't know Holly Golightly was a hooker until I read a review of a book about the movie "Breakfast at Tiffany's". I never saw the movie and my reading of Capote is spotty, but I did eat at La Côte Basque years ago. The theme of the book is that Holly was a harbinger of the feminist liberation and personified sex without moral trappings. I found this in today's WSJ.

As a counterpoint to this notion of liberated women a few days earlier the same rag proffered this definition of connoisseur: "A critical judge of excellence in the arts, food, drink and women."

I am bothered by the overt sexism of the definition. Does this mean a woman can never be a connoisseur unless she has slept with scores of men? I think other descriptives would come to the fore if this were the case. What do you call an accomplished woman who knows her way around the bedroom? Is there any polite term for a sexually seasoned but elegant woman? Is Holly Golightly really that icon?

Maybe you folks can sort this out for me? It may help to know that the definition was used by a woman. Originally Posted by awl4knot

Ahhh...Audrey. I don't think Capote inferred she was a working girl, merely a free spirit who was using the men to support her free lifestyle. I may step on some toes here, but I don't see how that similarity could be supported. Seeing as he was gay, I don't see him trying to fashion Holly into a marker for the feminist movement either. She was merely a country girl who wanted to experience life. I've read many different reviews of the movie and book and I don't feel the sex was the mainstay of who she was. The movie condenses a lot as films do. I didn't read that article but it sounds interesting.

Also, I see a difference of a connoisseur having knowledge of 'women' or and their ways vs a guy that has just fucked a lot of them. Conversely, why would a woman have had to slept with lots of men to reach that definition. Quantity doesn't always equal quality. Maybe you should expand on what further what their definition of each one of those points might be. I'm sure many of the fine providers here would definitely fit the bill of sexually seasoned and elegant women.

Audrey Hepburn, what a woman. I wish I wish I wish....

Yes, MA I agree. And A4K, at least watch the movie; although like most times, the book is better.

I didn't know Holly Golightly was a hooker until I read a review of a book about the movie "Breakfast at Tiffany's". Originally Posted by awl4knot

I've always seen her referred to as a "golddigger", myself. That doesn't imply "hooker" in my mind (unless one broadens the definition of "working girl" to include any lady supported by one or more sugardaddies instead of marketing herself more widely).

You've reminded me that I've got both the novella and the movie on my "to read/watch" queues. Off to Netflix to bump that one up, and then to the library this afternoon, maybe...

Cheers,

bcg

Ahhh...Audrey. I don't think Capote inferred she was a working girl, merely a free spirit who was using the men to support her free lifestyle. I may step on some toes here, but I don't see how that similarity could be supported. Seeing as he was gay, I don't see him trying to fashion Holly into a marker for the feminist movement either. She was merely a country girl who wanted to experience life. I've read many different reviews of the movie and book and I don't feel the sex was the mainstay of who she was. The movie condenses a lot as films do. I didn't read that article but it sounds interesting. Originally Posted by Sa_artman

Yes, MA I agree. And A4K, at least watch the movie; although like most times, the book is better. Originally Posted by oden

I've always seen her referred to as a "golddigger", myself. That doesn't imply "hooker" in my mind (unless one broadens the definition of "working girl" to include any lady supported by one or more sugardaddies instead of marketing herself more widely).

You've reminded me that I've got both the novella and the movie on my "to read/watch" queues. Off to Netflix to bump that one up, and then to the library this afternoon, maybe...

Cheers,

bcg Originally Posted by bluffcityguy

I am more interested in reading the novella than seeing the movie, but the article pointed out that the two are very different and that Capote was disappointed in the film. He wanted Marilyn Monroe to play Holly, but her acting gurus, the Strasbergs, warned her about portraying a lady of the evening. AH didn't want to play a hooker but she was told that the role was about an inspirational woman and she bought into that.

Also, I didn't get the sense that Capote saw Holly as a feminist leader. He was more interested in doing a character study of those on the fringes of "Society" in Manhattan. The way Holly was portrayed in the movie as a blithe free spirit unfettered by social norms appealed to the burgeoning feminist movement and avoided the darker tone of Capote's work.

My point is that despite the almost 50 years that have passed, social norms may not have changed that much and that "liberated" women still face different standards than males. It isn't a great revelation, but these two articles brought it in sharper focus for me.

But if there is an Audrey Hepburn look-alike who feels that she is a connoisseur of fine men, she can send me a PM. I want to be finely appreciated.

You need a new dictionary.

Main Entry: con·nois·seur
Pronunciation: \ˌkä-nə-ˈsər also -ˈsu̇r\
Function: noun
Etymology: obsolete French (now connaisseur), from Old French connoisseor, from connoistre to know, from Latin cognoscere — more at cognition
Date: 1714
1 : expert; especially : one who understands the details, technique, or principles of an art and is competent to act as a critical judge
2 : one who enjoys with discrimination and appreciation of subtleties <a connoisseur of fine wines>
— con·nois·seur·ship \-ˌship\ noun


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/connoisseur


As to the question about Holly, the answer is "it depends." Are you talking about the movie or the story. In the story, it is clear that she is a hooker. In the movie, it is very clearly left up to the viewer to determine based on very sketchy facts. In point of fact, the studio wouldn't let them portray her in that way so the ambiguity was quite intentional, and for all the wrong reasons.

You need a new dictionary. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Reread my post. It's not my definition; it's one offered on the WSJ. My dictionaries are fine, thank you very much. I do worry about my Roget's. It is old, tattered and frail but I would hate to put it down.

Tex, I thought he was merely pointing out how a particular writing defined connoisseur.

a4k, I think its always been obvious that a man may be considered a connoisseur (though most aren't and its a lofty aspiration, as I see it) and a woman is simply considered whatever negative adjective fits the situation. A guy who gets the panties in high school is "sowing his wild oats", while a young lady who does the same - is no lady at all. People still seek out women to be their secretaries and men to make heavy decisions. Women still push toward sharing the same standards as men in most areas, and the saga continues.

I personally don't see a huge difference between Holly being a gold digger or a "working girl". I see them both as a woman trying to take control of her existence in a man's world. If she uses sex to do it...then so be it. We use the tools that are most effective, yes? That, IMO, is simply the product of the times.

Women can be connoisseurs of all sorts of things, including men. I enjoy them to the fullest and appreciate everything that makes them what they are. My entry into a world where that appreciation to the highest degree is more acceptable.

a4k, I think its always been obvious that a man may be considered a connoisseur (though most aren't and its a lofty aspiration, as I see it) and a woman is simply considered whatever negative adjective fits the situation. A guy who gets the panties in high school is "sowing his wild oats", while a young lady who does the same - is no lady at all. Originally Posted by Nina Rae

IOW, "stud" has a much more complimentary meaning than "slut" does, even though the (objective) behaviors described aren't any different.

Hopefully that attitude's changing, though I despair if it happening in my lifetime.

Cheers,

bcg

Nina,

In some ways the acceptance of the term "cougar" may indicate a woman can enjoy a sensual life without undue recriminations and sidelong glances. It's certainly better than being deemed a "horn-dog."

There certainly are women who are "connoisseurs" of men. They study us, they understand us, and some even find us interesting. The hard part is finding them in the right places.

Thanks for supporting my rather obvious point.

A4K

I used to have a client that referred to me as his very own "holly-go-lightly" - I had never read the story or had seen the movie and thought it was a compliment (duh!). I mean, she's so pretty and the name was kind of adorable...

Then I saw Breakfast @ Tiffany's, I was sort of disappointed because I didn't think she was very sweet - and I don't look a thing like her, so I didn't get the connection on any level. I'm kind of living this great life and at that point in my life had a plethra (yeah, I said it: a damn plethra) of boys, so maybe that was the connection.

The Mata Hari nickname was also a nickname he gave me. All I knew was some vague idea that she committed treason for spying during WWII and AGAIN, I just didn't get the connection. It turns out, Mata Hari was likely not guilty of spying (but killed nonetheless). She was, however, a renowned courtesan with amazing story telling abilities (read: she could bullshit with the best of 'em) - she was also known for her exotic/erotic ways with men. Also not a classic beauty, such as myself. So that information made more sense. I really like that I've gotten to learn things I never would have come across in "real" life. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mata_Hari

Sorry I missed the part about the WSJ. They need a new owner, new writers, new editorial policy, new political bias, AND a new dictionary.

Sorry I missed the part about the WSJ. They need a new owner, new writers, new editorial policy, new political bias, AND a new dictionary. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

yet strangely, they are one of the very few papers that are financially healthy. Imagine that.

"No one ever lost a dime underestimating the taste of the American people."

H.L. Mencken