John O’Hara’s “Straight Pool” (Part 5)
In my last two posts I outlined my interpretation of “Straight Pool” by John O’Hara.
You may be wondering what my students have had to say about this interpretation over the years.
The truth is, they haven’t said very much — partly because they haven’t really had time to say much. Over the years I’ve spent a lot of time listening to student theories and reviewing evidence relating to the first three questions (questions 1, 2, and 3, discussed in the previous posts), but I’ve only occasionally had enough class time to fight my way through to question 4.
On those few occasions when I have been able to address the fourth question and set out my theory, it has been met with general incredulity and/or puzzlement. The students mostly sit in puzzled silence. They tilt their heads. Their faces seem to say: Professor is weird. How long till class ends?
Perhaps my theory is too much to take in all at once, especially at the end of class. Or perhaps the students don’t want to run the risk of offending their professor by disagreeing. Or perhaps my theory really is bonkers.
In any case, the students’ reactions don’t really surprise me. After all, Mae seems to be saying that she does not want her husband to go to the pool hall and talk with Jack McMorrow, and usually people say what they mean. Mae cries, and usually when people do that it’s because they are genuinely upset. It takes a pretty complicated theory to explain why Mae might be fake-crying and not saying what she really means, and I have never had the time to set out my theory in detail.
Recently a bright student wrote an excellent paper arguing for the sexual assault theory. After giving her an A, I tapped out an outline of my rival theory. She replied, via email, that her theory seems more plausible overall. It seems implausible (she said) that Mae is crying as a strategy, and it seems even more implausible that she would send a husband-gram to her lover.
I didn’t reply, but if I had I would say that she’s right about one thing for sure: her interpretation is more consistent with typical human behavior. However, it’s possible what O’Hara was looking to describe something other than run-of-the-mill human behavior. It’s possible that he was thinking like an author, and looking for a story that would have a lot of dramatic punch and ironic hot sauce. My interpretation is (admittedly) unlikely as a description of everyday human behavior, but it may be a likely interpretation for a sly and ironic writer like O’Hara.
It could be that my theory is just not plausible, and that’s why none of my students go for it. But I think there may be another reason why students don’t ever seem to come up with this theory on their own — and tend to be very skeptical when I present it. I believe I am having trouble selling my theory partly because I am teaching the cellphone generation.
Let me explain.
My students have grown up with cell phones. They have grown up with direct messaging, Snapchat, Instagram, and probably a half dozen other platforms for instantaneous communication that I am not even aware of. If a young lady wants to send a message to a man she’s interested in, she needs only two thumbs, his “digits,” and five seconds of typing time.
What could be easier? The sexual revolution allows and encourages such directness, and cell phones make it practicable, almost effortless. From my discussions with students, I know that texting is in fact the usual method for arranging hook-ups and communicating with a “side guy” or “side chick.” It is an ideal medium for regular communication without detection. In short, the cell phone is the cheater’s best friend.
But here’s the thing: Mae didn’t have a cell phone.
Get Matthew Davis’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
In the 1920s and 30s there were no cell phones — and only a small portion of Americans even had private land lines.
I remember talking to my mother, who grew up in the 1940s. Her family was fairly well off, and they had a telephone in the house, However the line they had was a “shared line.” This meant that when they picked up the phone, they sometimes heard a dial tone, but they sometimes heard other people from some neighboring household talking on the shared line. At that point they were supposed to hang up; however, being human beings, they sometimes stayed on the line to try to figure out what the neighbors might be talking about.
People had different ideas about appropriate female conduct in those days, too. It was unusual for a married woman to go out at night without her husband. Some husbands would not have allowed this, and many wives would not have been comfortable doing it. They knew if they did such a thing, eyebrows would be raised. This old way of thinking about gender roles is not quite dead, even today. Some older couples I know still operate on the old expectations; the wives are not comfortable going anywhere in the evening without their spouse.
“Straight Pool” was written in the early 1930s, and I think it is likely that Mae is dealing with some of these old-fashioned societal expectations — and also with some old-fashioned communication problems.
Her husband doesn’t want to leave her in her distress (or seeming distress) — because that’s not what good husbands do.
She can’t just run down to the pool hall to see Jack — because that’s not what good wives do (and it would be very risky as far as visibility is concerned).
She certainly can’t text Jack McMorrow, and she may not be able to telephone him either.
If she doesn’t have a phone, or Jack doesn’t have a phone, or if her husband is with her all through the evening, how on earth will she be able to communicate with the fellow she fancies? Mae could have a serious communication problem — but it’s not a problem that the Instagram youth of 2026 are equipped to understand. Communication is so easy for them that they struggle to understand how difficult it could be in earlier eras.
To understand “Straight Pool,” we may need to think ourselves back into the 1930’s. How can Mae, languishing in the cellphone-less 1930s, establish contact with Jack? How can she get a message to him?
Well, I think the story shows us. In fact, it shows not just how she might do it, but how she actually does it. Clever lass: she sends her boyfriend a husband-gram. At least that’s my theory.
But none of my students agree with me, so maybe I’m barking up the wrong tree.
What do you think, reader?
Works Cited
O’Hara, John. “Straight Pool.” Points of View, ed. James Moffett and Kenneth R. McElhaney. Revised edition. New York: Mentor, 1995.
Note: An earlier, shorter version of these posts was published online in 2021 on the website of the John O’Hara Society, under the title “Generation Gap.”
