Talk:Breakfast at Tiffany's (novella)

Creation

I created this page to disambiguate it from the page about the movie. The information about the novella (scant as it is) was cut and pasted from the movie page. I added a few comments to distinguish the novella from the movie. --Sp3lly 15:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Holly query

Good work creating the article. I put on the following: The novella and the movie, both parts of popular American culture, are best handled as separate entities: fans of the film who read the novella encounter a different Holly Golightly than the one famously portrayed by Audrey Hepburn. Reason is it seems like opinion, so I feel it should have a reference. It stood out to me because, as someone who has seen the film many times and then read the book, I felt that the two Hollys were very similar: Holly in the film is very close to Holly in the book. The big changes in the film are a total rewrite of the Paul character and the addition of his status of gigolo or kept man (NOT in the book!) and the invention in the book of Patricia Neal's character 2E, the wealthy woman who had hired/keeps Paul. Other key story elements are changed too. Asa01 19:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The Holly of the film: does not get pregnant, does not claim to have at least 11 lovers, does not have Mag Wildwood as a roommate, does not live with Jose, does not go horse riding with the novella's narrator ("Paul" in the movie), does not throw parties whose only guests are males, does not say she would settle for Greta Garbo as a partner, does not go on a vacation with Rusty, Jose, and Mag.

The Holly of the novella herself retrieves Cat after throwing him out of the cab. But mostly the Holly of the novella talks openly of the following: patriotism, whores, "dykes", bestiality, death & the after life, and so forth. Moreover, the Holly of the novella does not "find herself", find "the right man", and settle down.

Yes, one can claim that the Holly of the film is just a "toned down" Holly. But she is so "toned down" as to make her a separate entity, a different person. Sp3lly (talk) 08:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Title

Can someone explain what the title means? Tiffany's sells jewlery, right? Not eggs and bacon.

Supposedly comes from a friend of Capote's, when asked where he would like to get breakfast, suggested, "Let's get breakfast at Tiffany's." KP Botany 21:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

According to Gerald Clarke on Page 314 of his biography of Truman Capote: Capote had heard an anecdote of a marine who was visiting New York and was asked to name "the fanciest, most expensive place in town" to go eat breakfast. The marine answered Tiffany's, which was the only fancy and expensive place in the city he had heard of. Capote filed the story away until he found the proper place to use it. Sp3lly (talk) 07:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Article's purpose

I find that there is a MAJOR flaw in this article. Supposedly, it is about the novella by Truman Capote, but instead the majority of text is in regards to the later film made out of the movie, which has a complete page of its own. I propose that most of the text about the film be moved to the film's page (comparisons to book, etc.) and change the focus of this page to influences and historical notes about the novella itself. Also, critical reactions should probably be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by G.hoogers (talk • contribs) 19:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree, although since I haven't read the book I'm not qualified to do so myself. Dlabtot (talk) 06:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I also agree. And now that I am finishing reading the novella for the sixth time, maybe I can help contribute. Sp3lly (talk) 07:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Holly Golightly is NOT a prostitute, hooker, escort, or call girl. So says Capote.

Although Holly is generally regarded to be a prostitute, call girl, hooker, etc., it is inadvisable and incorrect to define Holly's "career" as one of these professions -- despite the popular tendency to do so. Just as Holly's character is carefully nuanced, so is her way of making a living. To simply define, label, or call her a call girl (if by that we mean someone who receives money for sexual acts), prostitute, etc., is simplistic and fails to see the intricacies of Holly and the way Capote has written her to be.

During much of the time frame of the novella's story, Holly is supported by Rusty Trawler and, later, by Jose Yberra-Jaegar. As such, during the bulk of the novella she is not supporting herself by providing quid-pro-quo sexual services for money. One might also question if she ever supported herself in this manner. As a youth she was dependent on Doc Golightly; then she ran away to California and shacked up with a horse jockey. O.J. Berman discovered her and groomed her to be an actress; she received marriage proposal from her shrink; no where in her life story do we see her supporting herself as a call girl.

She made her living off of sex, yes, but she wasn't a prostitute[/call girl], says Gerald Clarke in his biography of Capote. That is a paraphrase, as I do not have the biography in front of me, but it captures the essence of Mr Clarke's statement.

All this is not to say that Holly was not sexually promiscuous (or not, I guess it might depend on one's definition of promiscuous) -- in the novella Holly states that she has had a limited (11? 13?, I can't recall) number of lovers. She compares this implied low number with the much higher number of men that Mag Wildwood has slept with (yet Mag Wildwood is not a call girl).

What (profession) was Holly in New York? I have tried to show that before her move to New York, Holly was not (never was) a prostitute. She always relied on men, older men, to support her. Yes, she gave herself sexually to at least some of these men, but she was not a prostitute (call girl, hooker, whore, etc.). Why would she become one in NYC? An easy but erroneous answer would be because that is how she had to support herself. Well, this answer is unsatisfactory on many counts. First, she never had in the past had to support herself in this way. Second, she is not depicted or described by Capote as a prostitute (call girl, hooker, whore, etc.). Third, Capote flatly denies that Holly is any of those things.

She supported herself in NYC by attaching herself to rich men. Period. This does not equate her as being a call girl (in the way that that word is generally defined and used). She is a cafe society girl, a socialite, indeed a social climber. Look at the real life women that Capote modeled Holly after. None of them were prostitutes or call girls!

Capote, in a 1968 interview for Playboy magazine flatly states that Holly is not a prostitute:

Playboy: Would you elaborate on your comment that Holly was the prototype of today's liberated female and representative of a "whole breed of girls who live off men but are not prostitutes. They're our version of the geisha girl."? [emphasis mine]

Capote: Holly Golightly was not precisely a callgirl. She had no job, but accompanied expense-account men to the best restaurants and night clubs, with the understanding that her escort was obligated to give her some sort of gift, perhaps jewelry or a check ... if she felt like it, she might take her escort home for the night. So these girls are the authentic American geishas, and they're much more prevalent now than in 1943 or 1944, which was Holly's era.

This question and answer excerpt from Playboy can be found reprinted in this 2009 New Yorker article.

So I think it best that we not use the word call girl (hooker, escort, prostitute, whore, woman of the night, et al.) in any description of Holly. First, people will associate the common understanding of those terns as applying to Holly, which they do not. Second, even in a more nuanced way, (she made money from sex, but she was not exactly a prostitute), there is still the use of the word prostitute. I would aim to use something much more faithful to Capote's Holly, which he says is a sort of American geisha girl. A potential problem with this is that most Western readers do not know what a geisha is, and so that adds another problem and another area of potential confusion. Included in this is that many Westerners think that geisha girls are indeed prostitutes.

Holly was a socialite, a gold digger, surviving off of rich men's pay checks. When the story of the narcotics scandal broke in New York, she realized she had to flee NYC or else she might have to become a "whore" (her words). She does not do this, but we see her down in South America running after rich men again -- she is not a call girl.

I have used the term "gold digger" (or a short equivalent phrase) before in this article, but it has been replaced by companion, with a link to call girl, which is misleading and false, and not faithful to Holly Golightly that Capote creates in his novella. I suggest usage of a word that does NOT link to nor lead readers to think of call girl/hooker/prostitute or even escort (if by that we INSIST that it mean she MUST provide sexual services). None of these words are right. They are all professions. And while geisha girl is a profession in Japan, Capote did not use it as such (as a profession) but as a life style. "She had no job," says Capote, I.e., she was not a professional call girl or even an escort. She "live[s] off men but is not a prostitute."

Any link to call girl, escort should not be used when describing Holly. Nor should companion be used with a link to call girl. I think that companion could be used, if it is unlinked to call girl and perhaps if it referenced by Capote's words in the Playboy article. Otherwise, substitute something like "American-style geisha" with a link to Geisha and a quote from the Playboy article. The problem is that, just as Holly is a finely nuanced character, it is hard to find one word that describes how she supported herself. Sp3lly (talk) 13:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

You wouldn't have made your argument worse by failing to repeat it again and again.--2001:A61:20D4:3001:6502:1556:C5A9:8692 (talk) 12:14, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

To be precise, Capote says that Holly was "not precisely a call-girl". Maikel (talk) 12:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Sources of the character of Holly Golightly

I am seeking reliable sources for Maeve Brennan, Doris Lilly, Suzy Parker, etc. http://thelicentiate.blogspot.com/2011_02_01_archive.html?m=1 --Design (talk) 06:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Good question. I have a sneaking suspicion that she could be mainly Isherwood's Sally Bowles, transplanted to contemporary New York. PatGallacher (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Reliable source for characters section

The section for Characters states that Fred is gay, based on "coded language." The source for this is one website (apparently written anonymously) which gives a synopsis. Without getting into a long and contentious fight over whether the character is gay, I submit that the website is not a reliable source and the phrase should be removed. Did Capote himself say the character was gay? Does any published review say so? If not, a website alone is not sufficient to let the claim stand, IMHO.Purplethree (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Fred is clearly gay. No source is needed for this. It's hilarious you can't see it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.14.120 (talk) 22:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, his veneration of a lovely lady fond of him but out of his reach love-wise is decidedly heterosexual.--2001:A61:20D4:3001:6502:1556:C5A9:8692 (talk) 12:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Twice

"A November 2020 obituary in The New York Times states that the main inspiration for Holly was socialite Marguerite Littman.[10]" repeated in the next paragraph.Xx236 (talk) 08:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. Maikel (talk) 12:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

1950

My print copy of the book mentions 1950 as the original year of copyright of the story. Copyright 1950, 1951, 1956, 1958 by Truman Capote. Copyright renewed 1978, 1979, 1984 by Truman Capote. Copyright renewed 1986 by Alan U. Schwartz Maikel (talk) 11:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)