Scan barcode
A review by butcept
A Dog's Ransom by Patricia Highsmith
1.0
Well, after reading about the author's best summer reading memory:
"Alexander McCall Smith
One summer, over 20 years ago, my wife and I went to stay in a small cottage in France, on a farm in the Auvergne. Our children were small and needed an afternoon sleep, during which I sat on the veranda and readPatricia Highsmith novels, one after the other, and scared myself thoroughly. It started after I was a few chapters into"People Who Knock on the Door,” and by the time I had reached the end of"Deep Water,” I felt utterly uneasy."
I was hooked on reading anything by this author. I discovered that she was also the author of "The Talented Mr. Ripley" which I had only known as a movie...
Anyway, during my recent used book rampage, I discovered this paperback at Reader's Corner, which is a well known used book store near a local college here in Raleigh, NC. I was ecstatic. It looked old and a quick look on goodreads had it listed as an out of print book. I thought "goldmine!".
Ugh. Not even close. This book was a drone...and I thought about giving up but because it appeared to be "short" -- and it was but "short" doesn't mean a quick read when it's a slow, WTF story -- but at some point, there's a book where you have to finish it to just 1) torture yourself because you're mad enough at the book and 2) find out what the fuck happens anyway.
First: The book was apparently written (or just published?) in 1972. However, it read like some kind of 1940s book. I kept seeing people dressed in 40's clothing, talking like "see here, buster" (not that it was written that way, but that's what I kept hearing". The title character's name was Clarence Duhamell who gets called "Clare". That bothered me. And who, in 1972, gets called Clare? It just was so 1940s.
Also, curb was spelled "kerb". Again, is that a 1970s thing? The era was weird because there also was a great disdain for cops...where 'Clare's' girlfriend would call them "pigs"....which, well, was *very* 70s.
There were other odd spellings that I can no longer recall but "kerb" was used often.
Anyway, the story: Ed Reynolds is a publisher who lives in Manhattan and has a beloved black poodle, Lisa. He adores the dog because in the past year, he loses his 18 year old daughter to drugs.
He has been receiving anonymous letters from "anon" just talking about how he thinks he must be some big shot (Ed). One evening, as he walks Lisa to a nearby park, he throws a ball into some bushes and Lisa goes to retrieve it but never returns. After a search for his beloved poodle, he eventually receives a ransom note that the dog will be returned if he gives $1000. He does this but the dog is not returned.
After some time, he decides to report this to the police. The police take the info but are not as interested in the disappearance of a dog. But Clarence Duhamell overhears the conversation and takes it upon himself to visit Ed Reynolds on his own to take the details and keep an eye out on suspicious people. Sure enough, he finds the guy, a crazy guy Rowajinski. Turns out, Rowajinski had killed the dog that very night the dog went missing.
Where does this story go? Nowhere. It's on and on about Ed Reynolds looking for the dog. Paying the ransom and waiting for the dog. I mean: details and details - taking a cigarette out, waiting by post # 11. Waiting longer while wife goes away. 'I could care less about the money. I just want my dog back.' This goes on and on and on.
Then we go to Clarence and he goes on and on about why he's a cop and his disdain for his peers. How they take bribes and how he would not. How much he loves his girlfriend. And then how much he likes Ed and Greta Reynolds. How he wants to hang out with them as friends. And then his obsession of accusations against him (when Rowajinski sets him up to look like he took a bribe from him). My GOD the details that are incessantly unnecessary.
The dog became irrelevant and it became something about, I assume, Clarence going crazy? I don't know.
Clarence eventually kills Rowajinski. He tells his girlfriend and Ed and Greta Reynolds, but denies it to the cops. The cops don't believe him and in the end, do everything to try to beat him out of it. Literally. And the last thing that happens? One of the cops goes to his apartment and shoots him. The end. We don't know if he dies or what. That's it.
There was nothing thrilling. There was no psychological mindfuck. I know who stole the dog. I know who killed Rowajinski. I know who shot Clarence. I don't know what the fuck was the point of the book. I don't know what is creepy about Patricia Highsmith...and yet, I'm still intrigued about what the original point was to get me to buy this book.
So, despite the one star, pissed as hell at this book attitude, I probably would give her books another try.
I'm sick like that.
"Alexander McCall Smith
One summer, over 20 years ago, my wife and I went to stay in a small cottage in France, on a farm in the Auvergne. Our children were small and needed an afternoon sleep, during which I sat on the veranda and readPatricia Highsmith novels, one after the other, and scared myself thoroughly. It started after I was a few chapters into"People Who Knock on the Door,” and by the time I had reached the end of"Deep Water,” I felt utterly uneasy."
I was hooked on reading anything by this author. I discovered that she was also the author of "The Talented Mr. Ripley" which I had only known as a movie...
Anyway, during my recent used book rampage, I discovered this paperback at Reader's Corner, which is a well known used book store near a local college here in Raleigh, NC. I was ecstatic. It looked old and a quick look on goodreads had it listed as an out of print book. I thought "goldmine!".
Ugh. Not even close. This book was a drone...and I thought about giving up but because it appeared to be "short" -- and it was but "short" doesn't mean a quick read when it's a slow, WTF story -- but at some point, there's a book where you have to finish it to just 1) torture yourself because you're mad enough at the book and 2) find out what the fuck happens anyway.
First: The book was apparently written (or just published?) in 1972. However, it read like some kind of 1940s book. I kept seeing people dressed in 40's clothing, talking like "see here, buster" (not that it was written that way, but that's what I kept hearing". The title character's name was Clarence Duhamell who gets called "Clare". That bothered me. And who, in 1972, gets called Clare? It just was so 1940s.
Also, curb was spelled "kerb". Again, is that a 1970s thing? The era was weird because there also was a great disdain for cops...where 'Clare's' girlfriend would call them "pigs"....which, well, was *very* 70s.
There were other odd spellings that I can no longer recall but "kerb" was used often.
Anyway, the story: Ed Reynolds is a publisher who lives in Manhattan and has a beloved black poodle, Lisa. He adores the dog because in the past year, he loses his 18 year old daughter to drugs.
He has been receiving anonymous letters from "anon" just talking about how he thinks he must be some big shot (Ed). One evening, as he walks Lisa to a nearby park, he throws a ball into some bushes and Lisa goes to retrieve it but never returns. After a search for his beloved poodle, he eventually receives a ransom note that the dog will be returned if he gives $1000. He does this but the dog is not returned.
After some time, he decides to report this to the police. The police take the info but are not as interested in the disappearance of a dog. But Clarence Duhamell overhears the conversation and takes it upon himself to visit Ed Reynolds on his own to take the details and keep an eye out on suspicious people. Sure enough, he finds the guy, a crazy guy Rowajinski. Turns out, Rowajinski had killed the dog that very night the dog went missing.
Where does this story go? Nowhere. It's on and on about Ed Reynolds looking for the dog. Paying the ransom and waiting for the dog. I mean: details and details - taking a cigarette out, waiting by post # 11. Waiting longer while wife goes away. 'I could care less about the money. I just want my dog back.' This goes on and on and on.
Then we go to Clarence and he goes on and on about why he's a cop and his disdain for his peers. How they take bribes and how he would not. How much he loves his girlfriend. And then how much he likes Ed and Greta Reynolds. How he wants to hang out with them as friends. And then his obsession of accusations against him (when Rowajinski sets him up to look like he took a bribe from him). My GOD the details that are incessantly unnecessary.
The dog became irrelevant and it became something about, I assume, Clarence going crazy? I don't know.
Clarence eventually kills Rowajinski. He tells his girlfriend and Ed and Greta Reynolds, but denies it to the cops. The cops don't believe him and in the end, do everything to try to beat him out of it. Literally. And the last thing that happens? One of the cops goes to his apartment and shoots him. The end. We don't know if he dies or what. That's it.
There was nothing thrilling. There was no psychological mindfuck. I know who stole the dog. I know who killed Rowajinski. I know who shot Clarence. I don't know what the fuck was the point of the book. I don't know what is creepy about Patricia Highsmith...and yet, I'm still intrigued about what the original point was to get me to buy this book.
So, despite the one star, pissed as hell at this book attitude, I probably would give her books another try.
I'm sick like that.