I did some googling for the origin of the word “heel”, and came up with this explanation:
“HEEL began its life in the U.S. underworld 1) meaning a sneak thief, perhaps a) from the idea that a heel was as low as one could get on the human anatomy, and this type of petty criminality was considered one of the lowest forms of criminal – close to the bottom of the barrel – among criminals themselves. b) because it describes an informer, which was considered to be the lowest of the low. c) it is a euphemistic shortening of the underworld expression ‘shitheel,’ but others have said that ‘shitheel’ was formed later as an intensive of ‘heel.’ d) Jonathon Green of Cassell’s Dictionary of Slang suggests that it might have derived from the expression DOWN-AT-THE-HEEL, a phrase describing someone so hard pressed for money their shoes are run down at the heels, and thus a poor destitute, slovenly and shabby low unwanted person, who might be continually AT one’s heels. e) Eric Partridge in his Dictionary of the Underworld suggested that it might be a shortened form of ‘heeler’ (from verb ‘heel’ as a dog) a criminal’s unskilled accomplice, a follower at another’s heels. 2) anyone who was contemptible or despicable, and this usage very quickly moved into the general population.”
Apparently, it’s also used in wrestling.
Hope that helps! In case anyone is interested in film noir slang, there’s another good site here.
On to The Glass Key.
I think the main reason everyone in class had completely different impressions of the characters is probably Hammett’s writing style. He doesn’t give you much to work with, so the most anyone can do is conjecture about motivations and psychological processes. So I don’t think my analysis can be any better or more accurate than anyone else’s, but I’m going to take a shot at it anyway.
The strongest piece of evidence that Ned loves Janet (or at least feels some degree of conventional romantic emotion for her) is the fact that he allows her to go with him at the end, knowing that it would hurt Paul. There seemed to be a general consensus in class that the only person Ned truly cares for is himself. However, I think he feels very strongly about Paul. Yes, he owes him a lot, but given Ned’s character, that in itself wouldn’t be a sufficient reason for him to be as open with Paul as he is. He’s developed close, affectionate relationships with Paul’s mother and daughter, and appears to value these very highly despite Opal’s misconduct. Even after his fight with Paul, Ned still speaks with Mrs. Madvig affectionately, attempting to assuage her worries. What possible motivation could he have for this, since he and Paul were apparently ‘finished’?
So if we take these things as signs that Ned continues to care about Paul regardless of conflict, then it’s saying quite a lot that he’s willing to sacrifice his most valuable friendship for Janet. Remember, it’s not really Ned’s style to express affection. His behavior is the only guide we have. He could very easily have refused to take Janet with him. If he doesn’t love her, then what does he gain from allowing her to accompany him? Ned, always a gambler, would never do something unless there were a potential benefit for him, whether material or emotional.
Why does Ned allow himself to become emotionally attached to Janet when he’s usually so careful about such things? Is it because she’s a challenge, an equal in intellect and artifice?
And on a completely different note, I adore Jeff. I think I laughed out loud at nearly everything that came out of his mouth. Lots of weird looks from people in the Wash Room.
Jeff laughed delightedly and addressed the company again:
“You see, he likes it. He’s a–” he hesitated, frowning, wet his lips “–a God-damned massacrist, that’s what he is.” He leered at Ned Beaumont. “You know what a massacrist is?”
“Yes.”
Jeff seemed disappointed.