Skip to main content

In Foxfire, whom does Legs deem "class enemies," and on what page of which chapter?

Your answer will depend upon which edition you have. What I have is the 1993 edition, so the term "class enemies" is on page 263 of Part Five, Chapter Three (which is titled "Windward").


After being released from Red Bank (the correctional facility for girls), Legs crafts a plan to abduct Mr. Whitney Kellogg (a multi-millionaire businessman) for ransom. She befriends Marianne Kellogg, Mr. Whitney's daughter, who invites her to the Kellogg family's Greek Revival mansion several times. Marianne is a participant in the Big Sister-Little Sister program of the United Churches of Hammond Auxiliaries; she first meets Legs at the Red Bank correctional facility during a visit. In Part Five, Chapter Two, Legs admits that she is only nice to Marianne because she hopes to profit from the acquaintance. Ruthlessly, she characterizes Marianne as a flightless bird and herself as a "bird-eating mammal" who is ready for the kill.


Meanwhile, the "Windward" chapter (Part Five, Chapter Three) describes Legs' first and second visits to the Kellogg mansion. During her first visit, she meets and engages in polite conversation with both Marianne and her mother, Mrs. Kellogg. Legs refers to them as "class enemies." To Legs, both Marianne and her mother represent a privileged class of women who have seemingly never suffered any deprivation in their pampered lives. Yet, even as she envies their lives of ease, Legs also rejects their condescension.


Despite her contempt for Marianne and her mother, Legs knows that she must act the part of the "reformed" girl. She does this admirably, pausing often to acknowledge and to praise the famous Kellogg charity. Privately, however, Legs deems the women "class enemies," who are "unknowing" and "unguessing" of her true thoughts regarding them. Again, in my edition, the "class enemies" reference is on page 263 of Part Five, Chapter Three.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more