[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]

improvements of the blue-collar worker. Warshawski is the accomplished proletariat who is in
full control of her political power and voice. She is an example of overcoming class oppression
and continuing the battle to liberate other oppressed individuals from that class.
Warshawski s claim to that blue-collar voice is precarious. Even though she is the only
child of a police officer and an Italian immigrant, her lifestyle and income opportunities allow
her to leave her working-class origins behind. While her business is small, she does employ an
assistant. She has a strong legal background and the opportunity to expand her pool of clients, as
her assistant, Mary Louise Neely, points out:  You [Warshawski] gnash your teeth over how
you are always hard up for money, but you ve got the contacts and the skills to build a big
agency. It s just there s something in you that doesn t want to go corporate (Paretsky, Hard
147). Warshawski falls into the perilous trap of romanticizing poverty. While her financial
means are not grand, she does drive a comfortable car and have enough income to retain a good
lawyer, an assistant, and access to an expensive professional database. Warshawski could
definitely rise to a higher economic class. She chooses not to. She takes cases that position her
politically against large corporations and other organizations that provide the economic benefits
for mainstream society. Warshawski s complaints are hollow on the one hand, because she
chose this life, yet on the other hand they underscore her dedication to her background and
political convictions, which give her the same noble--yet poor--aura that Chandler s Marlowe
has. This martyr status is underscored in the text in frequent mocking references to Warshawski
in religious tones, as expressed by her lawyer, Freeman,  As you wish, Donna Victoria of the
77
Rueful Countenance (Paretsky, Hard 364). That characters mock her nobility reinforces to the
reader the great lengths she goes to so she can maintain her blue-collar association.
Warshawski s critical assessment of others political beliefs often leads to confrontation.
In part, her way of defending her beliefs and the rights of the blue-collar workers she identifies
with it can also be read as her fear of  selling out as she grows older. In Hard Time, Murray
Ryerson, a newspaper reporter and longtime friend of Warshawski, makes a move to expand his
column into a television show for the entertainment corporation that recently purchased the
newspaper. Warshawski, predictably, responds negatively to Murray s drive. Her reaction
accentuates the socioeconomic gap between them. For Warshawski, Alex was never on  her
side of the blue-collar battle, but Murray was someone she could count on to help her
disseminate the truth and help the oppressed. He was a kind of partner. Warshawski sees
Murray s defection from political partner to corporate opponent as a personal danger she must
avoid. The crux of the conflict lies in the fact that both Warshawski and Murray have valid
arguments. Warshawski sees Murray s association with the multi-conglomerate entertainment
corporation, Global, biasing him and keeping him from discovering the truth. Murray sees
himself adapting to the times and working to ensure his economic future, as he grows older.
The reader is inclined to agree with Warshawski, because it is from her point of view that
the reader experiences the conflict. The reader follows her logic and reasoning and sees the
same danger signs that spur her into action. This reader empathy does not mean that Murray s
criticism of Warshawski as having an  omnipotent self-righteousness is any less valid than
Warshawski s criticism of him (Paretsky, Hard 269). Warshawski s ideals are harsh and
unbending. Murray justly finds Warshawski s unwavering political and professional convictions
alienating. Warshawski can be a crusader in the best and worst senses of the term. She is to be
78
commended for her proletarian and feminist zeal, but her narrow definition of political right and
wrong makes her intolerant to the needs of others who are trying to survive as well.
Warshawski sees one road out of oppression: crusade against large organizations and
using the system to help the oppressed. This constricted vision dictates whose rights she fights
for--the blue-collar class, the elderly, and the immigrant population of Chicago--and how she
views the motivations of those outside of that class, namely with distrust. She has taken pains to
remain connected to her blue-collar background regardless of numerous opportunities to expand
her business. The benefits she seeks to obtain for her clients have the potential to provide them
with a lifestyle beyond blue-collar means. This shift in socioeconomic group threatens to place
them into groups Warshawski distrusts. The political line that Warshawski creates is thin and
dependent upon individuals remaining connected to an oppressed class Warshawski is trying to
help. While her cause is just, her ties to her blue-collar roots and her political causes can create
the same bias she sees in Murray, creating a potential conflict of interest for Warshawski as a
detective.
Warshawski may be prejudiced against large organizations, but her bias against criminal
acts keeps her from taking her preconceived notions about large organizations to an irrational
level that would blind her to the events that unfold in a case. Even when those she identifies
with politically or socially are involved in crime, Warshawski is able to distance herself from
them enough to realize that they must be stopped. When her office is vandalized in Hard Time,
her first thoughts about who could have done it focus on local criminal elements in her area:
 Street vandals. Druggies who d seen I was away and taken advantage (206). She is able to [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]