SISTER CARRIE by Theodore Dreiser - capitalism, poverty, luck and loneliness

Opinions of twenty-five attendees were very polarized at the Houston Central Market Book Club July 14th lively discussion of SISTER CARRIE by Theodore Dreiser led by Connie. Connie's starting question asked how we thought the American Industrial Age and the Industrial Revolution played a part in the story (or something like this, I can't remember the question exactly, apologies to Connie.)

The first response dealt with the difference between this age where Carrie, the main protagonist who moved to Chicago in 1889 from a small rural town, could be somewhat relaxed about her reputation (though not totally) and earlier times where the woman's reputation was to be protected at all costs. The Industrial Age put the value of the dollar as more important over everything else. Class, education and family history were no where near as important as how much money one had. Not that this is different from current times but it certainly was different from times prior to the Industrial Age where though money could buy a lot, it could not buy everything. A comparison with MADAME BOVARY which we discussed a few months ago did come up several times. Some thought that perhaps Carrie was MADAME BOVARY in the Industrial Age. Others thought Carrie was vastly superior to Madame Bovary as a character (not necessarily the book).

It was noted that the author chose not to give us a lot of information about the history of the characters. We are introduced to Carrie's older sister and her husband who are struggling on the fringe of poverty but it seems even this relatively moral family made the choice to use Carrie as a "commodity" in a somewhat greedy manner leaving her with no money left after she pays them rent to be able to even afford car fair to her job, hence she gets sick in the cold weather and loses her job. And they are very quick to send her back home when she can't find work quickly enough. Some commented they would have liked to know more about Carrie's family back home and why was there no contact between Carrie and her family.

Also, there were questions about Hurstwood's background. Why didn't he have better skills at finding a job in New York? Why did he think of himself as above some of the jobs that would have helped pay the rent? We talked about how the author seemed intent on showing the characters as being impacted by circumstances of the current moment instead of as a result of good choices over time or as a result of family or background training. Their lives seemed to change so easily as a result of a moment's poor judgment or a moment's good or bad luck. That they had no control of any means of production seemed to be a theme. It was noted that the author became a Communist shortly before he died and some of his Communist opinions are apparent as themes in the story. Hurstwood had friends who owned banks or owned companies but he was only a manager. Drouet was a salesman so the same thing could be said about him and Carrie was an actress. She was beautiful now at the age of 23 (or so, we weren't sure exactly) but we questioned how successful she would be once her beauty deteriorated as a result of getting older.

Someone mentioned that the story did a good job of reflecting the sordidness of the Industrial Age. The depiction of Carrie roaming the streets at the beginning of the novel looking for work and her subsequent job in a shoe factory was very realistic and the depiction of Hurstwood's downfall from being a very wealthy upper middle class person (though not upper class person) with a fine home and a substantial income to a beggar on the street who is grumbling about finding someone to give him a quarter so he can have a bed to sleep on is also very realistic. As was the desperation he experienced trying to be a scab and fight the union strikers. Several people mentioned that their favorite part of the book were the realistic descriptions of Chicago and New York neighborhoods during this time.

Our disagreements in the discussion focused mainly on opinions of Hurstwood and Carrie. Did Hurstwood care about and/or love Carrie? Some said yes, some said no. How terrible was Hurstwood for being so obsessed with Carrie resulting in his kidnapping her and disregarding his own family? Some thought he should have been more concerned about his family, some thought his wife was a witch and it was very understandable that he had to leave her. How terrible was Hurstwood for stealing the money? Most thought it was basically bad luck. How terrible was Hurstwood for not taking less appealing offers of employment in New York at the same time he was allowing Carrie to handle the full load for their survival and he was lying to her about how much money he still had?

How insensitive was Carrie regarding Hurstwood? Was she totally selfish? Some thought yes, some thought no (with a lot of discussion about this, too much to include here.) Was Carrie a character that one cared about? Most thought yes. Some thought no. Did she care about Drouet (her lover before Hurstwood) or Hurstwood? We all acknowledged that the text says that she didn't love either of them, really, though she was impressed by what they could do for her. Though all thought she was superficial and only seemed to care about the accessories of wealth such as expensive clothing, fancy restaurants and luxurious living quarters, others thought that she had some decency towards Hurstwood, giving him the money in her purse and worrying somewhat. Some of us remembered that he had kidnapped her and felt she owed absolutely nothing to him. Others thought she could have been kinder. Others said she didn't fight too hard when she was kidnapped and could have gotten away. Using what money, I ask? And some thought surely it must have been obvious to her that her marriage to Hurstwood couldn't be legal since he wouldn't have had time to get a divorce. But she said nothing at the time since it wasn't in her interest to do so.

There was much discussion about the age difference between Carrie and Hurstwood. The fact that she was in her twenties with a basic optimistic type personality allowed her to have a more positive attitude toward the future. Because Hurstwood was in his forties not only hurt his employment chances which was a reflection of bad luck but it also caused him to more easily lose hope that he could ever have a bright future.

It was pointed out that one sign of Carrie's decency was her loyalty to Lola, the woman that helped her get started as an actress in New York. Without Lola, she probably wouldn't have made it and Carrie has no problem bringing Lola with her to her new fancy hotel residence once Carrie gets a huge raise. Carrie's interest in Ames was another sign that she perhaps wasn't as superficial as the story shows in the beginning. Their relationship was platonic. Ames was a male acquaintance Carrie met thru a rich girl friend and was the first person to demonstrate to her that money wasn't everything, that education and artistic sensitivity were values more important. But though interested and contemplative of these values, in the end it seems that she is unable to break out of the consumer cycle of "never having enough". She declares she is lonely and though she had opportunities, she didn't connect with men who were clamoring for her attention (rich men, by the way). Nor did she follow the advice of Ames and seek to be a dramatic actress. Someone mentioned that this would have required she have a plan that didn't involve the first opportunity that came along, something that would require her being in control instead of circumstance being in control of her.

It was noticed that she achieved financial success at the end of the story as an independent woman without needing a man to provide for her. Some believed that the reasons Dreiser had such difficulty getting the book published (took him ten years and lots of modifications) may have been more because of the feminist theme than because Carrie had affairs with men without being married and did not suffer major consequences for her immorality according to the standards of the time.

We had quite a bit of discussion on the topic of how happy was Carrie or what was her chance of happiness in the future? Most thought the book was pretty clear, especially in the final paragraph where the author writes: "Oh Carrie, Carrie! ... shall you dream such happiness as you may never feel". but some still thought because of her age that there was still hope for her to find happiness. And then of course the philosophical question that we have all heard before came up "What is happiness?" to which we all laughed.

Looking forward to our next discussion at 7pm in the Houston Central Market Community Room on August 11th of MRS. DALLOWAY by Virginia Woolf. More details at http://www.houstonbookclubs.org/CentralMarket/