Amy has no such concerns and, indeed, is able to imagine that Joe’s family
is likely not to regard his marrying a divorced woman so positively: “They
may not see it that way. I understand they can be very tough about some
things.” Indeed, she is willing to accommodate Joe’s family: “When the time
comes, whatever they say I’ll do” (13). In order to underline Lois’s unques-
tioned assumptions about the superiority of her WASP identity and the way
her judgments of others are tied to those assumptions, O’Hara gives her the
final word about Catholics with a topical reference to John Fitzgerald Ken-
nedy: “I still can’t get used to the idea of having one in the White House” (13).
By marking this difference between Lois and Amy, O’Hara uses the conversa-
tional disclosures to shift our ethical judgments: the careless Amy is capable of
seeing at least some of her own flaws, whereas Lois remains within the tunnel
vision accompanying her class privilege. In addition, Lois’s casual assump-
tion about the superiority of the Ambrie family to Joe’s not only breaks the
intimacy between Lois and Amy but is sufficiently annoying to Amy that she
embarks on the final exchange in the story.
This exchange gives a further twist to rhetorical readers’ reconfigurations,
as it turns back to past events. In addition, it invites rhetorical readers to
revisit the first exchange in this scene. This final exchange begins with Amy’s
apology and then itself takes a sudden turn:
“I’m sorry I caused you and Father so much trouble. You especially. All those
lies you had to tell.”
“Oh, that’s all right. It’s over now. And it was really harder on your father.
He never knew why he didn’t like that man.”
“A n d you couldn’t tell him, could you, Mother?
“What?”
“Oh, Mother.”
Lois Ambrie looked at her daughter. “Is that another detective story
you’re reading? You mustn’t get carried away, Amy.” She smiled. “Goodnight,
dear,” she said, and closed the door. (13–14)The conversational disclosures are simultaneously rich in authorial dis-
closures that make this exchange a brilliant end to the progression. Amy’s
move from sincere apology to sly insinuation about Lois’s affair with Jack
adds another significant element to the gap between Howard’s knowledge and
everyone else’s, including the audience’s. At the same time, Lois’s nondenial
denial introduces an element of differential knowledge between Lois and the
audience on the one side and Amy on the other. Amy can have her suspicions,
but she does not have confirmation of them. I will take up the audience’s
CONVERSATIONAL AND AUTHORIAL DISCLOSURE IN DIALOgUE • 191