Talk:Farewell, My Lovely

Image placement
Just a brief explanation why I moved around the images again: If your web browser has a sidebar (in addition to the Wikipedia sidebar) a Wikipedia article will take up roughly two thirds of your screen. In that case, the table comparing the three movie versions should not be next to an image. Try it out, it looks awful.  11:24, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Plot rewrite
I completely rewrote the outline of the novel to better reflect what actually occurs, to give a more balanced representation of the characters (e.g. Anne Riordan - who pops up throughout the novel) and to correct certain errors (e.g., Malloy kills the boss of the club not the bouncer at the beginning of the novel - Marling's longer essay contains the same error). This is my first Wikipedia entry so please feel free to give feedback. --HRWest 23:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I rewrote the plot because it was a bit overwritten and wordy in parts. I just followed the book and added explanations of the plot when the book does. Most Chandler books explain everything at the end so that's how I structured it. I didn't give a blow-by-blow account of the book since it wasn't needed to cover the overview of the story. Dojoarigato (talk) 00:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks fine, joints
Maybe needs a little editing, but looks fine to me. It's been awhile since I read it, but the details sound right. One must be careful, for joints links to a site about say, the elbow, not a marijuana cigerette, spliff.

dino 04:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Plot Summary Errors?
There seem to be a few errors and things in the plot that I didn't necessarily think were accurate, but I thought I might post about them before changing anything:

(1) Marlowe doesn't take the marijuana cigarettes off of Marriot. Riordan took them and gave them to Marlowe, correct? He didn't tell the police about them in order to protect her (theoretically, at least) and the police only find out about them because she says she took them.

(2) I didn't think the plot implied that Marriott was killed for not killing Marlowe. My take on it was that Marriott thought he was supposed to being killing Marlowe and instead, it was set up so that Marriott was killed. Marlowe was merely knocked out (though I was always somewhat confused about how) and he was never meant to be killed - that was just a set-up for killing Marriott.

(3) Mrs. Grayle does commit suicide, but the way it's worded in the article seems a bit imprecise. She committs suicide because she thinks she's backed into a corner after the police officer in Baltimore recognizes her and she kills him. And it's not clear that "the police" know about her; just one officer and we're left in the dark (as is Marlowe) as to whether the officer was crooked or not.

So that's my take on it. If anyone disagrees with any of this, just let me know. --Jakob Huneycutt 15:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Jakob, thanks for your comments.

(1) You're right; careless reading on my part. Marlowe finds the embroidered silk/tortoiseshell frame cigarette case which holds the oversized Russian cigarettes, but it's Anne Riordan who lifts them from the case apparently without Marlowe's knowledge (remember that Marlowe had to "bit[e] hard on his teeth" and struggle to keep a tired look on his face when Randall looks into the case and finds it empty). She later verifies that they are indeed "jujus" and gives them to Marlowe in his office.

(2) At the penultimate scene where Marlowe talks to Mrs. Grayle before Moose emerges, Marlowe does a bit of extemporaneous theorizing about Marriott's murder. To Mrs. Grayle, Marlowe first likens Marriott to the Second Murderer in Richard III who has "dregs of conscience" about having to do murder and, when push comes to shove, is unable to. Marlowe says that, "Such murderers are very dangerous" and "have to removed--sometimes with blackjacks." The clear implication being that Marriott is murdered because he wouldn't murder Marlowe. Marlowe states that the motive for murdering himself was weak. Marlowe then, however, takes a different slant on Marriott while discussing, in bare bones, his theory of the case. That slant is that Marriott is a weak link connecting Velma-Jessie Florian--Marriott and that Malloy or Marlowe or both would eventually get to him and crack the story out of him. Therefore he has to go. A fuller and better appraisal by Marlowe should be that murdering Marriott but not himself was a mistake (rather than there being a weak motive for it), because allowing Marlowe to live enables Marlowe to eventually crack the case and (by happenstance) bring Velma/Mrs. Grayle and Malloy together. In sum, I take your point about this also.

(3) Summaries are always imprecise because they leave off the necessary sinew that connect the bones of the story. I think your sentence neatly sums up her suicide. I propose: "At the end of the novel, Marlowe relates that Mrs. Grayle committs suicide in Baltimore when she's cornered after killing a police officer who recognized her."

Note: Above comment unsigned.


 * I corrected point (1). Akb4 09:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Two articles?

 * "It has been suggested that some sections of this article be split into a new article entitled Farewell, My Lovely (film). (Discuss)."

But there is no discussion here, is there?

I think it would be disastrous to do that. Casual users would add novel details to the film article and, even more likely, the other way round, and then both articles would have to be watched for inconsistencies. Also, anyone interested in a comparison between the novel and its film adaptations would find it inconvenient having to switch from one text to the other and back.

I know that similar suggestions have been made as long as Wikipedia exists (for Mildred Pierce, for example), but I don't think this text is too long so that a split would be justified. &lt;KF&gt; 22:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that at present the article is predominantly about the film and the book itself deserves separate treatment particularly as with all film adaptations it differs to some extent from that most are familiar with from the "big screen". :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page) / (Desk)  07:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think I understand this fully. The fact that the film version differs from the novel would suggest a section where the two are compared. And where would that go? In the novel or in the film article? &lt;KF&gt; 19:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

In this case in the "film" article as that is the adaptation, the book is the primary work. :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page) / (Desk)  21:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

If/when the article gets expanded, it will need to be split. It's got almost no analyses or trivia on any of the four works, and few production details on the films. If that stuff gets added, the article will be too big. I think to be as comprehensive as possible, we want to add more info; if splitting now into smaller bits would make it easier to fill out, then split now. Adding a page specifically to compare the movies and book would probably help with the consistency aspects. Akb4 08:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

SS Rex
Will someone who knows this movie and California history write a blurb about what it says in this article on Santa Monica's history, that Farewell My Love is a "thinly veiled" historical reference to the contemporary gambling ships run by Tony Cornero & Fred Grange? --Mrcolj 23:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Humorous quote
All that is said about the quote in the article is that it is humorous. It's also implicitly racist -- as is much of the fiction of the era (which I read and enjoy and respect regardless of its sociological ignorance, or I wouldn't be commenting on the article.) This passage certainly made me laugh when reading the novel, but when I'm reading a novel, I accept the narrator's world at face value. Fine for enjoyment value, but not very encyclopedic. I move that we should introduce the quote with some kind of acknowledgement of its content. A. J. Luxton 15:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. Akb4 09:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Lit Crit
I just finished reading this book. There's a bunch of key qualities not mentioned in the article, and those qualities have left me a bit confused about the work. I'm sure there's been reams of literary criticism done on it; without going overboard, I think it would be good if some were summarized here. Akb4 08:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What "key qualities"? Give us at least some idea please! &lt;KF&gt; 01:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * When I see the term "hard-boiled detective story", I expect something realistic, perhaps overly-so, like a film shot in real time. This book is surrealistic; utterly bizarre. The dialog is sometimes like something out of a dream, vague or without key bits of elucidation, yet everyone understands everyone else. Everything to do with the characters of Riordan and Red is deus ex machina; the plot couldn't happen without the fact that frequently when Marlowe needs something, a person magically turns up and hands it to him for no reason, with no real reward. Is this laziness and incompetance by the writer, deliberate surrealism, or some combination? Marlowe himself is also more a mechanism than a character; he doesn't ever seem to want anything, or have any motivation, he just does stuff, following the trail, drinking, and getting knocked unconcious. Then there's the whole homosexual undercurrent, the loving details in the descriptions of male characters (even the villians) while the few female characters consist of a lying funny-talking foreigner, a cheating floozy who'll murder to keep secrets, an old drunk who tries to be sexy, a judgemental lying elderly busybody, and Riordan, who is more a plot mechanism (albeit wrapped with a few female cliches) than a character. Not that the male characters are great guys, but they are seen as more human, and more intimate, and have passages devoted to their eyes, their hands, their hair, their career issues and fears. Blurbs and plot summaries make this book sound like "Maltese Falcon" or something by Elmore Leonard; it's a lot more like JG Ballard or Nathanael West. -- Akb4 22:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This book is not surrealistic, nor is it missing any key parts of explanation. The plot is perfectly understandable, perhaps upon repeated re-reading, but that's a stylistic decision about complex plotting. Riordan a deus ex machina? How, exactly? Also, I don't think that any male characters are given more detail than she is, except perhaps Red - Chandler goes into great detail about her eyes, hair, the angle of her hat, her face, etc. Your summing up of the female characters doesn't go unappreciated, I assure you, but I would point out that similar four-word summaries can be attempted for any character in any kind of fiction ever written, so while creative, they're somewhat pointless. Chandler is often labelled a repressed homosexual, so the undercurrent you mention is not a new observation; however, I hardly think our opinions on the author's sexuality have anything to do with the novel. Also, criticism of the Marlowe character should go under discussion on Marlowe's own page, presumably (however nonsensical they may be). 86.40.198.74 19:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've read other critics who say Marlowe is gay, as if its just obvious. I have to say that I really don't get that analysis. The fact that most of the action in the novels is done by men just reflects the male dominated culture of the time IMO. As for the fact that Chandler goes into great detail describing the physical features of the men, that was just his stle of writing, he was as detailed about the women, the buildings, and landscape as well. Finally, I strongly disagree that Marlowe is "more a mechanism than a charecter" IMO what makes Marlowe so much like Hammett's protaganists, despite their very different ways of writing, is that in both cases the detective has his own values and his own view of justice and is dedicated to seeing that through even if it contradicts with societies view or the legal interpretation. That's also what made both Hammett and Chandler so admired by some existential philosophers. Just my 2 cents. I think one problem with including any of these thoughts in the articles is unlike science and engineering there are no clear ways to establish a consensus. Mdebellis (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

film infobox
Removed request for infobox request until there is a discussion if there should be 1, 2 or 3 separate articles made for the 3 separate films. The table appears to be sufficient for this article. SkierRMH 23:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Plot Summary Error? (why Marlowe gets involved initially)
The current plot summary says that " Marlowe decides on a lark to follow the case, despite police warnings to stay out" I'm pretty sure that's not correct. The Moose Malloy killing was of a black man and due to the racism of the time was viewed as unimportant and given to a lazy detective named "Nulty". Marlowe tells Nulty that the obvious thing to do is to track down Malloy's old girl friend, find her and you find Malloy. Nulty is too lazy to do this. He prefers to just rely on the fact that Malloy is such a huge man and so flashily dressed that he is bound to be spotted. But he encourages Marlowe to work on the girl angle as a way to build up good will in the LA police department. He actually pushed Marlowe to do so. I have to admit this is all from memory, I don't have access to the book right now but I've read this book many times and I'm 99% certain. I'll have access to the book in about a week and will double check and if no one takes issue here I'll change the plot summary appropriately. Mdebellis (talk) 13:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I double checked with the book and I was correct. I fixed the error.Mdebellis (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Indian?
The current summary says "Native American" but I read "Indian" in the novel as meaning a character who actually hails from India. Am I right or did I miss something crucial in the description? 86.157.214.205 (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The first few times I read the novel, I thought the character was from South Asia. But after my most recent reading, I realized he is supposed to be Native American. Although a rather inexcusable stereotypical portrayal of Native Americans (e.g., all Native Americans I have met or interacted with speak grammatically correct English, not all akin to the "Ugh, me big warrior. Me kill lots pale faces" patois). My misconception must be due to the association of mysticism & supernatural skills to the culture of India, which was prevalent at the time. -- llywrch (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)