uhhlexiconic's review against another edition
challenging
funny
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.5
Following a first person who simply isn't there for a good chunk of the novel, and given more to descriptions of scenes rather than scenes themselves, The Deer Park still works with bursts of insight into Hollywood and men in relationships. The humor in some of the scenes, particularly the ones where Mailer allows the characters to be present, is what I wish the whole novel had to offer. The women don't receive nearly the same craft as the men.
kingfan1993's review against another edition
challenging
dark
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.5
nicoleiovino's review against another edition
2.0
I'm glad I read this, because now I will never, ever feel obligated to read anything by Norman Mailer ever again.
j_m_alexander's review against another edition
2.75
Sum it up in one quote:
There is a no man's land between sex and love, and it alters in the night. We go to sleep convinced we are in one state, we awaken in the other, and murderous emotions patrol the ever-changing border.
Setting:
Palm Springs(y) area of California [Desert D'Or] in the era of the House Un-American Activities Committee; sort of a classy but trashy refuge for the amoral Hollywood set to get out of town [the Capital] and do what those with no real personality, but plenty of money do.
Primary Characters:
(1) Sergius O'Shaughnessy, a fighter pilot fresh out of the Air Force with an sudden influx of cash and no real direction crash lands (figuratively) in this resort town of drinks and debauchery. Maybe he'll write??? [portions of book are written from his first-person perspective]
(2) Charles "Charley" Eitle, a blacklisted major director that refused to name names who has his standards, his pride, a last refuge at his vacation home, and a budding screenplay. Likable enough, but perhaps willing to knuckle under to get his career back.
(3) Women, don't worry about them, none have much personality or depth, mostly needy, dependent and willing to participate in musical chairs of physical coupling. (yes, this book is rather misogynistic - product of the time? maybe. Still reads gross and degrading? yes.)
Final Impressions:
An evisceration of the Hollywood culture at the time written by a clearly great writer, but I don't know if it sticks, because I find even the best of characters to be somewhat amorphous, unlikable drifters just trying to get theirs. A big sweaty, sticky train-wreck of a bleh. Perhaps if it had a little more of a sense-of-humor and little less of a liquor-drenched cleverness. Falls into the category of I can appreciate it more than like it.
leucocrystal's review against another edition
4.0
Wonderful. Marked so many passages throughout to return to later. Definitely among my favorites I've read from Mailer (so far). All the manner of ways in which we screwed up people are kidding ourselves.
abbimorrison's review against another edition
challenging
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
3.0
eleanorefrances's review against another edition
4.0
3.5 stars rounded up to 4 for gorgeous contemplative ideas.
A raucous, reckless romp through 1950s Hollywood. I can’t help but feel it could have done with a serious edit (in his Appendix, Mailer explains he did a lot of this himself after several rejections of the manuscript).
It’s a very confusing, frustrating and altogether appallingly beautiful book. I just can’t hack the sentences that go on for what seems like an eternity. That is a stylistic preference, though, and not too much about the content, which is deeply intelligent. It’s the best holding-up-of-a-mirror to the vacuous moral black hole that is fame and fortune that I can ever remember reading.
A raucous, reckless romp through 1950s Hollywood. I can’t help but feel it could have done with a serious edit (in his Appendix, Mailer explains he did a lot of this himself after several rejections of the manuscript).
It’s a very confusing, frustrating and altogether appallingly beautiful book. I just can’t hack the sentences that go on for what seems like an eternity. That is a stylistic preference, though, and not too much about the content, which is deeply intelligent. It’s the best holding-up-of-a-mirror to the vacuous moral black hole that is fame and fortune that I can ever remember reading.
michaelstearns's review
1.0
A real teeth-gritter, this may be the longest 375-page novel I have ever read. And I am a Mailer fan.
The novel is initially somewhat interesting. It is set in a thinly disguised Palm Springs that is populated with characters out of early fifties Hollywood. These folks are coping with the fallout from House Un-American Activities hearings (most significantly a character who seems to be modeled on Elia Kazan); with having too much money and time and no real moral compass to guide them as they dispense with both; with the need to be in control of their publicity and image while indulging in the worst behaviors.
I suppose my biggest problem (among many) is that the characters never become more interesting. This despite frequently hopping from one bed to another, or engaging the services of a drunken high-end pimp, or selling out their integrity to Hollywood's schlock machine, or what-have-you. Somehow, despite all the ostensibly shocking goings on in the book, it only ever feels politely sordid. Yes, there may be dirty things taking place, but the novel remains at a sterile distance.
And that's because of a kind of overwriting Mailer commits. The characters' every consideration about any issue is exhaustively considered in a way that feels false because it is so overdeliberated. He may have been trying for some sort of verisimilitude with how we experience moral complication, but I don't know that I believe. Instead, I think he was trying to freight the tawdry material with a higher purpose, a philosophical dimension that he perhaps figured might elevate the novel. But at this stage in his career, he didn't have the chops to pull it off. (Indeed, even later he wobbled on those bits of his novels. The more "philosophical" passages of The Executioner's Song and Harlot's Ghost are the weakest, most embarrassing parts of those terrific books.)
Maybe he was forced into such contortions by the mores of the time. His first publisher canceled the novel in galleys, calling it "obscene," though from today's perspective it is very tame at best. Even from the perspective of ten years and Mailer's fourth novel, the reveling-in-obscenity An American Dream, this earlier book is weirdly prudish and judgmental.
Finally, as is abundantly clear from much of Mailer's work but is especially foregrounded by this book: He doesn't understand women whatsoever and is unable to see them outside of the sexual roles he wants them to play. The portrayal of women in this book is offensive, but because the book is such an overworked, dated mess, it's hard to care very much or for very long.
The novel is initially somewhat interesting. It is set in a thinly disguised Palm Springs that is populated with characters out of early fifties Hollywood. These folks are coping with the fallout from House Un-American Activities hearings (most significantly a character who seems to be modeled on Elia Kazan); with having too much money and time and no real moral compass to guide them as they dispense with both; with the need to be in control of their publicity and image while indulging in the worst behaviors.
I suppose my biggest problem (among many) is that the characters never become more interesting. This despite frequently hopping from one bed to another, or engaging the services of a drunken high-end pimp, or selling out their integrity to Hollywood's schlock machine, or what-have-you. Somehow, despite all the ostensibly shocking goings on in the book, it only ever feels politely sordid. Yes, there may be dirty things taking place, but the novel remains at a sterile distance.
And that's because of a kind of overwriting Mailer commits. The characters' every consideration about any issue is exhaustively considered in a way that feels false because it is so overdeliberated. He may have been trying for some sort of verisimilitude with how we experience moral complication, but I don't know that I believe. Instead, I think he was trying to freight the tawdry material with a higher purpose, a philosophical dimension that he perhaps figured might elevate the novel. But at this stage in his career, he didn't have the chops to pull it off. (Indeed, even later he wobbled on those bits of his novels. The more "philosophical" passages of The Executioner's Song and Harlot's Ghost are the weakest, most embarrassing parts of those terrific books.)
Maybe he was forced into such contortions by the mores of the time. His first publisher canceled the novel in galleys, calling it "obscene," though from today's perspective it is very tame at best. Even from the perspective of ten years and Mailer's fourth novel, the reveling-in-obscenity An American Dream, this earlier book is weirdly prudish and judgmental.
Finally, as is abundantly clear from much of Mailer's work but is especially foregrounded by this book: He doesn't understand women whatsoever and is unable to see them outside of the sexual roles he wants them to play. The portrayal of women in this book is offensive, but because the book is such an overworked, dated mess, it's hard to care very much or for very long.