Take a photo of a barcode or cover
sociotom 's review for:
The Swimmer
by John Cheever
challenging
dark
reflective
sad
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
I've heard a lot about this short story, and I've seen the movie adaptation twice now, so I was familiar with the story. But I hadn't actually read it before, and wanted to give it a go.
I think Cheever crafted a good story, and I can see why it's analyzed so much. There is a mystery at the heart of the story that is never resolved, and so you come out of the story knowing more but understanding just as little as when you went in. Who is Ned? Who are all these people he encounters? Why do some love him and others hate him? And, most importantly: how much can you trust what's happening on the page?
The whole thing feels like an indictment of a world that doesn't really exist any longer, but its study of a man living in his own bubble in his head coming up against the sharp reality of the world is a timeless one. Cheever's writing pulls the reader along swiftly and surely, inviting us to contemplate but never really giving us a chance to actually stop and wonder until the end.
This all said, I might as well admit that personally, I think I prefer the movie adaptation. There's an additional character added that gives Ned's journey added depth, and the story plays expertly in a visual medium. (As an example, whereas in the written story there's talk about Ned getting cold and being confronted with a large group of people, in the movie we can watch as the light change and he begins to shiver, and you can see him have to wade his way through a crush of strangers who don't care he's even there.)
I think it's a case of a good thing being made that much more effective. Although your mileage may vary. After all, the obvious tradeoff is that the story takes about 20 minutes to read, but the movie is 90 minutes long. So although it won't overstay its welcome, it's still a different time commitment.
I would give this a shot. It's the first Cheever story I've ever read, and I'm happy to say I finally have read it.
I think Cheever crafted a good story, and I can see why it's analyzed so much. There is a mystery at the heart of the story that is never resolved, and so you come out of the story knowing more but understanding just as little as when you went in. Who is Ned? Who are all these people he encounters? Why do some love him and others hate him? And, most importantly: how much can you trust what's happening on the page?
The whole thing feels like an indictment of a world that doesn't really exist any longer, but its study of a man living in his own bubble in his head coming up against the sharp reality of the world is a timeless one. Cheever's writing pulls the reader along swiftly and surely, inviting us to contemplate but never really giving us a chance to actually stop and wonder until the end.
This all said, I might as well admit that personally, I think I prefer the movie adaptation. There's an additional character added that gives Ned's journey added depth, and the story plays expertly in a visual medium. (As an example, whereas in the written story there's talk about Ned getting cold and being confronted with a large group of people, in the movie we can watch as the light change and he begins to shiver, and you can see him have to wade his way through a crush of strangers who don't care he's even there.)
I think it's a case of a good thing being made that much more effective. Although your mileage may vary. After all, the obvious tradeoff is that the story takes about 20 minutes to read, but the movie is 90 minutes long. So although it won't overstay its welcome, it's still a different time commitment.
I would give this a shot. It's the first Cheever story I've ever read, and I'm happy to say I finally have read it.