"The Girls in Their Summer Dresses" – Irwin Shaw (1939)

https://www.classicshorts.com/stories/dresses.html

by bookofjoe • 3 years ago

151 71 3 years ago

classicshorts.com

bell-cot• 3 years ago

A nice short story.

Some things never change - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distracted_boyfriend

shagie• 3 years ago

Charlie Chaplin - Clip from Pay Day ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay_Day_(1922_film) ) https://youtu.be/evU2Hbs9JJM

dxbydt• 3 years ago

Huh! Did not expect to see Irwin Shaw on HN in a million years. Bread Upon the Waters is arguably his best work. Please give it a read if you have plenty of time to kill. Very long & engrossing. Basically, its a novel-length version of rayiner's rants, but way more entertaining. You realize why family-first is good, individualism bad, what happens if you substitute material success for family stability, etc. etc. - old fashioned moralizing in a convincing package. Cast your Bread Upon the Waters, for you will find it after many days. Not.

saagarjha• 3 years ago

Basically, its a novel-length version of rayiner's rants, but way more entertaining.

lmao

gottorf• 3 years ago

a novel-length version of rayiner's rants

Classic HN ;-)

Jun8• 3 years ago

A beautiful “battle of the sexes” themed story, all dialog, similar to “Hills Like White Elephants” (that one was published in 1927, maybe Shaw was influenced by it? Or it could be the influence of his theater background).

This being 1939, one shouldn’t visualize the women Michael was ogling similar to the Distracted Boyfriend meme, luckily there’s a movie called “The Fifth Avenue Girl” from 1939 that gives an idea what they were wearing at the time, https://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/1222/fifth-avenue-girl/#over....

I read this story for the first time; another story that he published in 1939, “Main Currents of American Thought” is widely anthologized (I personally found it dreadful).

Jensson• 3 years ago

Looked up clips from that movie, and they look like the distracted boyfriend girl but with longer sleeves, so I don't think it is such a big difference.

mcv• 3 years ago

Regardless of what the women of Fifth Avenue in 1939 looked like, this story is very much the distracted boyfriend meme. It would have been the perfect illustration for this.

Wistar• 3 years ago

Here is a great 1989 recording of "The Girls in Summer Dresses" read by Canadian actor Jonathan Frid who played the reluctant, guilt-ridden vampire Barnabas Collins on the TV soap opera "Dark Shadows."

https://youtu.be/qI2Fe1f3BGU?si=1xPO-ISTyGzIyhvb

kwhitefoot• 3 years ago

Wow. That was quite something.

I too looked at the pretty women. But in forty years of marriage I never once took it even half a step further. I think my wife was secure in the knowledge that I really was only looking.

arghwhat6• 3 years ago

Women also look at the pretty men.

all22• 3 years ago

Desire does run both ways. Ask any woman about Chris Hemsworth or Dwayne Johnson or any number of other affluent men.

wolverine87614• 3 years ago

Is that a comeback? I believe research finds that men are more visually attracted than women, and certainly our society emphasizes female beauty orders of magnitude beyond it's consideration for male beauty.

But all that is irrelevant. The question is never about general classes of billions of people, but about two specific individuals: Does person A look, and does person B care, and vice versa?

smackeyacky• 3 years ago

Reading this I thought it was a very elaborate version of this old joke:

A young married couple are lying in bed after making love. The young wife turns to her husband and says "Darling, if I died, would you marry again?"

The husband frowns and responds "Well, I've not thought about that, but I expect after a suitable period of mourning I may marry again".

The wife is less than pleased with his answer. "I see. Would you move into this house?"

"Why, probably. Yes"

Further incensed the young wife says "Oh! Would you let her sit in my favourite chair? Would you let her sleep on my side of the bed? WOULD YOU GIVE HER ALL MY THINGS, EVEN MY GOLF CLUBS?"

He replies "Not your golf clubs, she's left handed"

goethes_kind• 3 years ago

I cannot relate to this Michael. When I am in a relationship I have tunnel vision. Prettiest girl in the world could come up to me and I would walk right past her to go spend time with the girl of my obsession. Ironically I feel as though this attitude of mine tends to be detrimental during the dating phase. I give them way too much attention and they lose respect for me.

all22• 3 years ago

I've got tunnel vision as well. I cannot say I obsess, but I don't have eyes or desire for anyone but her.

I give them way too much attention and they lose respect for me.

I've done this. There's a balance in remaining an individual and committing fully to a relationship. I think there's a lie in the idea of being subsumed by a relationship. You have to maintain your heading and keep the winds of purpose at your back. Don't lose speed just because your heart is full. If she's game, she'll be more than capable of keeping up.

danenania• 3 years ago

How long of a relationship have you been in? I think your experience is common early on during the honeymoon phase but it’s rarer if you’re talking about multi-year, cohabiting long term relationships or marriages.

Sakos• 3 years ago

I definitely can. Independent of how happy, in love and sexually satisfied I might be in a relationship, I seem to always have an eye out for pretty women. It feels like I could have this same exact conversation if I had a insecure partner, or a partner who is unable to accept that attraction to other people doesn't necessarily stop when in a relationship, or if I were a bit more of an uncaring dick like Michael. I've just never had the need/urge to act on it. Meanwhile I've been cheated on twice. I think there are far more important concerns in a relationship than whether I think some other girl is pretty.

wolverine87614• 3 years ago

I've just never had the need/urge to act on it.

Yes, I see many things in the world that I like/want, and don't act on it. If I see someone at the next table say something outrageous, I don't butt into their conversation.

neilv• 3 years ago

Ironically I feel as though this attitude of mine tends to be detrimental during the dating phase. I give them way too much attention and they lose respect for me.

Maybe think of it as reason for a confidence boost: that this awesome person seems to want to be with you? So try to be a little comfortable and more confident with that, so you're less likely to smother or come across as insecure?

Some people need to be told the opposite. They find someone and get too cocky, take the person for granted, or even lose interest because the great person was found too easily (and emotion-stupidity is implying to them, if it was too easy, then they could do better).

(Grain of salt: I've managed to lose more than my share of awesome gfs. Much less an expert, than a cautionary tale.)

stcredzero11• 3 years ago

(and emotion-stupidity is implying to them, if it was too easy, then they could do better)

It could be some kind of subconscious statistical sophistication. There's a mathematical argument somewhere, that you should date 7-10 times or so, then pick the best one that comes after that sample.

pmarreck• 3 years ago

That usually doesn't last.

Rarely though, it does, but it does require a woman to be... the type to want to stay in that type of relationship, because it can be a turn-off for many women.

There's a certain socially-conservative but possibly valid (when it comes to long-term familial integrity) train of thought that goes like this: Husband adores wife more than kids. Wife adores kids more than husband. Kids take adoration for granted until they experience loss, and no one really adores the husband... and somehow this may be a more stable arrangement than we give it credit for. The general sense is that men are happiest in families where they retain a romantic fascination with their wives (even over the love for their kids), and that this is becoming a rarer and rarer thing leading to more marital-security erosion.

kamikaz1k• 3 years ago

Instead of piling on I’ll instead link to a heartening clip from Malcolm in the Middle where Hal and Lois resolve the question of who loves whom more.

https://youtu.be/C3ouolMALIM

globular-toast• 3 years ago

What I love about this is how much is said between the lines. The red pill type folk want to talk about a lot of this stuff explicitly and that makes people feel uncomfortable. But it's clear from dialogue like this that the ideas are understood by many and perhaps can be discussed, even on children's TV.

This is one of the reasons I love comedy. It's the only way to tell the truth and find out what other people think. If someone laughs at something, then they believe it.

As for Malcolm in the Middle, I was far too young to understand dialogue like this when I watched it, but even as a child I could tell there was something "more" to it then there seemed. It's such a high quality show.

A big difference between American and British shows is the British ones seem clearly divided between for children and for adults. Stuff like Doctor Who, which is made for children, seem to have nothing to stimulate the adult brain. But perhaps that means stuff for adults, like Black Mirror, can be more efficient by ignoring the child demographic completely. I'm glad both approaches exist.

wolverine87614• 3 years ago

Ironically I feel as though this attitude of mine tends to be detrimental during the dating phase. I give them way too much attention and they lose respect for me.

Without knowing you or your partners at all ... I'd expect people to feel uncomfortable because you are not seeing them - you are acting on your "obsession" (to use your word), and not based on them and the attention need, want, when and how, who they are, etc. They could be anyone; it has little to do with them as a person, and that understanding for and compassion for the individual is the whole point of a (healthy, IMHO) relationship.

bawolff• 3 years ago

I give them way too much attention and they lose respect for me.

"Respect" seems like a bizarre lens to view this through. Are you sure you aren't misinterpreting the situation?

darkerside• 3 years ago

Respect doesn't mean fawning over somebody because you want to sleep with them, and confusing the two of them shows a lack of self awareness that makes it quite rational to avoid dating you.

You can't respect what you don't understand. Perhaps seek first to understand your potential partner, in a way that you can only arrive at through deep and personal conversation. Then you'll both know if she's truly deserving of your respect.

metadat• 3 years ago

This is classic codependent behavior.

DiggyJohnson• 3 years ago

I would walk right past her to go spend time with the girl of my obsession

It sounds like you're already aware of this, but that's got to be unsustainable (let alone un-reciprocated).

wolverine87614• 3 years ago

I love literature - there's something about the writing of a real writer compared with the rest of us slobs, it's like the difference between someone's functional diagram or photo and a painting by an artist. IME it's also by far the best way to explore many very human things (thus humanities), as Shaw gently and subtly - and so effortlessly and quickly - leads us deeply into these issues.

The unsaid tension between them, over commitment, devotion to each other - why not spend Sunday alone together? - and the fate of their marriage. I get the sense of people, or at least Michael, who is not really ready to commit fully, and the negotiated peace that Frances accepts.

Not the point of the story itself (which IMHO is to explore real humanity, not give pat, perfect answers), but I don't understand other people:

If something will make your partner happy, why not do it? Imagine how overjoyed Frances would feel, how special she would feel, if Michael responded - 'hey, if it bothers you, it won't happen again', and maybe, with a wicked smile 'but I'm going to need to look at you a lot more.'

And imagine how not respecting her feelings makes her feel - and it's every effing time you leave the house together, for the rest of your lives. Is it really worth it to cop some brief stares?

Is there anything better in the world than seeing your partner happy? Even omitting the feeling of seeing that joy, purely selfishly, what would make Michael's life better. I guess, in my reading, he's not ready to try it and find out.

(And any general statement must make many assumptions about the relationship. I think every relationship is unique and they cover an inconceivably - I mean, we really can't conceive of them all - wide range. It's all a bespoke arrangement between two people. Some are open, some closed, some long distance, some together every moment for decades, some passionate, some practical, some angry or sad or joyful or whatever. IME we almost shouldn't be using this same word for each one; it's like saying everything with a processor is a 'computer'.)

polishdude20• 3 years ago

What I noticed when reading this was just how well he's able to write realistic dialogue. I could never write a real conversation between people. It's hard enough to be one of the partners and answer with my own words let alone conceive of what the other partner would say.

stcredzero11• 3 years ago

Is it really worth it to cop some brief stares?

There's a reason why the most authoritarian regimes in history had you avert your gaze. That said, I'd somewhat agree, then just buy a pair of sunglasses and not crane my neck. (This is basically the state of my marriage. Except, I would refuse any come-on. My wife knows this. It's not a sacrifice, unless it really is a sacrifice.)

wolverine87614• 3 years ago

There's a reason why the most authoritarian regimes in history had you avert your gaze.

You're comparing keeping your eyes to yourself with your partner to authoritarian dictatorships?

acjohnson552• 3 years ago

If something will make your partner happy, why not do it? Imagine how overjoyed Frances would feel, how special she would feel, if Michael responded - 'hey, if it bothers you, it won't happen again', and maybe, with a wicked smile 'but I'm going to need to look at you a lot more.'

I think he knows he won't keep that commitment. He doesn't want to lie to her, even though it would score immediate points. I can respect that on some level.

But constantly gawking at random women for long enough durations to be obvious to the wife is both strange and cruel. Not to mention how it probably feels to the women. 1939 might have predated women's studies and ideas like the male gaze becoming mainstream, but I think we underestimate the extent that people one basic right and wrong in these situations without the benefit of academic analysis. I think most guys notice attractive women around them but have the decency and discipline to not gawk.

disambiguation2• 3 years ago

If something will make your partner happy, why not do it?

Good practical advice, but my take is that the point of the story is to play on the irony that they were both making the same error.

They were both acting out of incompatible irrational instinct, the man and his lust, and the woman and her possessiveness, neither willing to sacrifice it for the sake of the other. Even going as far as to win the other over, the man through rational argument, the woman through emotional appeal.

It's a very elaborate and realistic tension.

wolverine87614• 3 years ago

As I said, the practical advice wasn't the point of the story itself.

Regarding the story, I don't know that I quite see it like you do: Michael confirms to Frances that he will cheat on her someday. Frances suspected that, and connects the oggling to it; it's not especially possessive to object.

acjohnson552• 3 years ago

I like how they dance around whether they're going to "talk about the thing" but they eventually work their way all the way to Mike admitting he might one day actually physically cheat, which, aside from his open gawking, seems to be the deep tension in their relationship.

And then they end by going back to their coping mechanism of a busy social calendar that distracts them from having to fully be present in their own relationship.

acommasplice• 3 years ago

Will be singing this song all day: https://youtu.be/l_ownVNxioc

kyledrake• 3 years ago

It's always been fascinating to me personally how much literature flirts with the concept of polyamory but just never quite gets there (obviously non-monogamous relationships have existed since time immortal, but polyamory as a word and defined concept didn't really come around until the 1990s).

On an abstract level (I read it quickly so apologies if I missed cues), it feels like they have at least a somewhat functional relationship outside of the usual concerns of insecure attachment, freedom and jealousy. Perhaps if they had a better framework available for dealing with those concerns, they would have had a relationship that worked better for them.

Log_out_• 3 years ago

Polyamory is just thinly veiled male cheating. Woman of course cheat too, but it's more strategic, if I get a second child from figure b, my social support network would stabilize. It's less about gene spreading, more about keeping already walking genes alive.

jhbadger• 3 years ago

English-language literature maybe. But for example it was quite common until recent decades for upper-class French men (even politicians) to have mistresses quite openly and a lot of French literature deals with this.

PlunderBunny• 3 years ago

Perhaps I'm not reading it correctly (I'm not very good at these things), but I enjoyed what I perceived to be a movement of power in the relationship - at the beginning of the story, the wife appears to be the boss, but by the end of it she's reduced to begging to keep the relationship - the power balance has shifted (or been revealed for what it really was).

"The Girls in Their Summer Dresses" – Irwin Shaw (1939)

Related Stories