nanvdand's review against another edition
4.0
I have mixed feelings about this book. It’s a bit like Lolita in that the protagonist is not a good person and yet you find yourself being a bit sympathetic toward him. I frequently felt uncomfortable reading certain scenes but overall I found it fascinating and a great study of sociopathic behavior. It’s definitely worth the read.
leic01's review against another edition
4.0
In The Talented Mr. Ripley, Patricia Highsmith exercises an immense talent for making the reader immersed in the inner world of cold and insecure psychopath, making Tom Ripley one of the literature's most famous antiheroes. In very clear, similar to Heminway’s, straightforward, ”no word being wasted prose”, she builds a bit of unrealistic, but engaging story of a troubled criminal very subtly, making you relate with someone who is deeply psychologically disturbed. More than one reviewer from my friends connected Ripley to [b:Lolita|7604|Lolita|Vladimir Nabokov|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1377756377l/7604._SY75_.jpg|1268631]'s Humbert and even though Highsmith’s language is not so rich and beautiful, Nabokov's influence could be observed in inducing peculiar and complex feelings in a reader towards the morally corrupt main character, and a sense one can both see humanity and get close to characters that openly and consciously make evil choices, which is a great accomplishment that only brilliant writers achieve, as Dostoevsky in [b:Crime and Punishment|7144|Crime and Punishment|Fyodor Dostoevsky|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1382846449l/7144._SY75_.jpg|3393917], Raskolnikov being also a very good parallel of Tom Ripley.
Ripley is so alluring as he is not a boring one-dimensional sadistic villain, but kind of familiar and ordinary even in his distinct psychopathology. He is paranoid, and a bit anxious, even though mundane life and relation with other people bore him to death, he goes through life with his gifts of being intelligent and reading people's expectations and preferences, relating to other people in a way he always knows a right thing to say, being superficially charming, always building a false narrative about his life, adjusting it by what he thinks it will look best in front of another person, impersonating other people whose stories he hijacks and makes them his own.
“His stories were good because he imagined them intensely, so intensely that he came to believe them.”
From the socio-economical aspect, also connecting him to Raskolnikov, he is a part of the lower social class, and he has no money and no belongings which intensifies his feeling of inferiority and makes him even more passionate to build that false persona in order to be accepted into the society of people who has much more riches then him, but also a sense of entitlement to take what life has robbed him of.
“He remembered that right after that, he had stolen a loaf of bread from a delicatessen counter and had taken it home and devoured it, feeling that the world owed a loaf of bread to him, and more.”
So his own origin story is a bit blurry, and not a lot of this is being said about his childhood, except him being without his parents, raised by his evil and dismissive Aunt Dottie, always making him feel guilty for having to take care of him, calling him "sissy", emotionally abusing him into feelings of inferiority and worthlessness, destroying his feeling of self-worth. He is a person who has nothing, and was given nothing by the world, both financially and even worse, emotionally, which why he does not has a solid and stable sense of self, escaping from pain into lies that are in core defence mechanism of fantasy and dissociation, hiding from the others in masks of various persona, inherently being addicted to other’s acceptance. As a result of psychological trauma, there is an eerie feeling of not being comfortable in his own skin is something that haunts Tom, no matter what identity he is presented to others, which is why he cannot tolerate company or other people for long before getting extremely irritated.
As in [b:The Stranger|49552|The Stranger|Albert Camus|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1590930002l/49552._SY75_.jpg|3324344], the existential aspect of Ripley’s suffering is also prominent, his sense of emptiness, alienation and not belonging to this world, a sense of being not a real human person, but an imposter that is not connecting to anything other people usually connect to, not even connected to his own self.
"They didn't know each other. It struck Tom like a horrible truth, true for all time, true for the people he had known in the past and for those he would know in the future: each had stood and would stand before him, and he would know time and time again that he would never know them, and the worst was that there would always be the illusion, for a time, that he did know them, and that he and they were completely in harmony and alike."
Tom anticipating being rejected and abandoned by Dickie Greenleaf, makes him commit a terrible, heartless, premeditated crime only to steal Dickie's identity. Dickie Greenleaf in a way is a symbol of everything that Tom never had, his symbolic value to Ripley is mirrored also in his name. Being born in great wealth, never to be bothered about the money, even not really working for a day in his life, being adored and acclaimed for what he is, never having a need to be fake, and most importantly, being so loved and missed by his parents that they would give anything to get him back home. Dickie was dealt so much better hand than Tom in life, in many more profound ways than wealth and social aspect, which seems like the most prominent one at first glance, even Tom convincing himself that access to Dickie’s wealth is the main reason for the murder.
“He loved possessions, not masses of them, but a select few that he did not part with. They gave a man self-respect. Not ostentation but quality, and the love that cherished the quality. Possessions reminded him that he existed, and made him enjoy his existence. It was as simple as that. And wasn't that worth something? He existed.”
One thing both Tom and Dickie share is a complex relationship with their own sexuality. Both seem to be closeted homosexuals, or at best sexually confused, not having the courage to explore that question, rigid in denying it, even to themselves, and deeply embedded in shame and guilt characteristic of that era, but being present in a modern-day also. Some critiqued the book for making the main villain character closeted homosexual, but I don’t think that the portrait is unfair, as both the victim of the crime is in the same position as our protagonist antihero.
Perplexing Tom’s relationship to his own sexuality adds layers to his complexity as a character and his internal motivation for the crime. The victim of his crime is someone he did and wanted to identify with, someone he looked up to, envied, lusted for, adored, and hated at the same time. Love ties its bond close to hate again, as acts of aggression are often most passionate to the objects of adoration, both wanting to destroy and own them in the final act of death and mutilation.
“Tom envied him with a heartbreaking surge of envy and self-pity.”
The main motive behind Tom’s crime is not access to Dickie's wealth to his essence, the core of his self, that he wanted to possess, to be him and to be with him forever mirroring also the psychological complexity of homosexuality, but really, sexuality in general.
The philosophical question of changing one’s identity which changes the person is interestingly posed in this novel, reminding me of Pirandello’s [b:Late Mattia Pascal|12116|The Late Mattia Pascal|Luigi Pirandello|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1657551524l/12116._SY75_.jpg|3102727] with the core notion of being caged in your own self. It was almost heartbreaking seeing how egodystonic it was for Tom to get back into his own self, to Tom Ripley again after he taste the (even very limited but psychologically real) freedom of being someone else.
“This was the end of Dickie Greenleaf, he knew. He hated becoming Thomas Ripley again, hated being nobody, hated putting on his old set of habits again, and feeling that people looked down on him and were bored with him unless he put on an act for them like a clown, feeling incompetent and incapable of doing anything with himself except entertaining people for minutes at a time.”
Thanks to Highsmith we can observe and experience on the reader’s level how psychologically, emotionally, socially and existentially distressed a person with psychopathic tendencies really can be in a dark labyrinth of own inner web of lies and false narrative, making us relate, or even root for them. But one thing is certain, occasional feeling of uneasiness in own existence is universal.
Ripley is so alluring as he is not a boring one-dimensional sadistic villain, but kind of familiar and ordinary even in his distinct psychopathology. He is paranoid, and a bit anxious, even though mundane life and relation with other people bore him to death, he goes through life with his gifts of being intelligent and reading people's expectations and preferences, relating to other people in a way he always knows a right thing to say, being superficially charming, always building a false narrative about his life, adjusting it by what he thinks it will look best in front of another person, impersonating other people whose stories he hijacks and makes them his own.
“His stories were good because he imagined them intensely, so intensely that he came to believe them.”
From the socio-economical aspect, also connecting him to Raskolnikov, he is a part of the lower social class, and he has no money and no belongings which intensifies his feeling of inferiority and makes him even more passionate to build that false persona in order to be accepted into the society of people who has much more riches then him, but also a sense of entitlement to take what life has robbed him of.
“He remembered that right after that, he had stolen a loaf of bread from a delicatessen counter and had taken it home and devoured it, feeling that the world owed a loaf of bread to him, and more.”
So his own origin story is a bit blurry, and not a lot of this is being said about his childhood, except him being without his parents, raised by his evil and dismissive Aunt Dottie, always making him feel guilty for having to take care of him, calling him "sissy", emotionally abusing him into feelings of inferiority and worthlessness, destroying his feeling of self-worth. He is a person who has nothing, and was given nothing by the world, both financially and even worse, emotionally, which why he does not has a solid and stable sense of self, escaping from pain into lies that are in core defence mechanism of fantasy and dissociation, hiding from the others in masks of various persona, inherently being addicted to other’s acceptance. As a result of psychological trauma, there is an eerie feeling of not being comfortable in his own skin is something that haunts Tom, no matter what identity he is presented to others, which is why he cannot tolerate company or other people for long before getting extremely irritated.
As in [b:The Stranger|49552|The Stranger|Albert Camus|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1590930002l/49552._SY75_.jpg|3324344], the existential aspect of Ripley’s suffering is also prominent, his sense of emptiness, alienation and not belonging to this world, a sense of being not a real human person, but an imposter that is not connecting to anything other people usually connect to, not even connected to his own self.
"They didn't know each other. It struck Tom like a horrible truth, true for all time, true for the people he had known in the past and for those he would know in the future: each had stood and would stand before him, and he would know time and time again that he would never know them, and the worst was that there would always be the illusion, for a time, that he did know them, and that he and they were completely in harmony and alike."
Tom anticipating being rejected and abandoned by Dickie Greenleaf, makes him commit a terrible, heartless, premeditated crime only to steal Dickie's identity. Dickie Greenleaf in a way is a symbol of everything that Tom never had, his symbolic value to Ripley is mirrored also in his name. Being born in great wealth, never to be bothered about the money, even not really working for a day in his life, being adored and acclaimed for what he is, never having a need to be fake, and most importantly, being so loved and missed by his parents that they would give anything to get him back home. Dickie was dealt so much better hand than Tom in life, in many more profound ways than wealth and social aspect, which seems like the most prominent one at first glance, even Tom convincing himself that access to Dickie’s wealth is the main reason for the murder.
“He loved possessions, not masses of them, but a select few that he did not part with. They gave a man self-respect. Not ostentation but quality, and the love that cherished the quality. Possessions reminded him that he existed, and made him enjoy his existence. It was as simple as that. And wasn't that worth something? He existed.”
One thing both Tom and Dickie share is a complex relationship with their own sexuality. Both seem to be closeted homosexuals, or at best sexually confused, not having the courage to explore that question, rigid in denying it, even to themselves, and deeply embedded in shame and guilt characteristic of that era, but being present in a modern-day also. Some critiqued the book for making the main villain character closeted homosexual, but I don’t think that the portrait is unfair, as both the victim of the crime is in the same position as our protagonist antihero.
Perplexing Tom’s relationship to his own sexuality adds layers to his complexity as a character and his internal motivation for the crime. The victim of his crime is someone he did and wanted to identify with, someone he looked up to, envied, lusted for, adored, and hated at the same time. Love ties its bond close to hate again, as acts of aggression are often most passionate to the objects of adoration, both wanting to destroy and own them in the final act of death and mutilation.
“Tom envied him with a heartbreaking surge of envy and self-pity.”
The main motive behind Tom’s crime is not access to Dickie's wealth to his essence, the core of his self, that he wanted to possess, to be him and to be with him forever mirroring also the psychological complexity of homosexuality, but really, sexuality in general.
The philosophical question of changing one’s identity which changes the person is interestingly posed in this novel, reminding me of Pirandello’s [b:Late Mattia Pascal|12116|The Late Mattia Pascal|Luigi Pirandello|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1657551524l/12116._SY75_.jpg|3102727] with the core notion of being caged in your own self. It was almost heartbreaking seeing how egodystonic it was for Tom to get back into his own self, to Tom Ripley again after he taste the (even very limited but psychologically real) freedom of being someone else.
“This was the end of Dickie Greenleaf, he knew. He hated becoming Thomas Ripley again, hated being nobody, hated putting on his old set of habits again, and feeling that people looked down on him and were bored with him unless he put on an act for them like a clown, feeling incompetent and incapable of doing anything with himself except entertaining people for minutes at a time.”
Thanks to Highsmith we can observe and experience on the reader’s level how psychologically, emotionally, socially and existentially distressed a person with psychopathic tendencies really can be in a dark labyrinth of own inner web of lies and false narrative, making us relate, or even root for them. But one thing is certain, occasional feeling of uneasiness in own existence is universal.
812129's review against another edition
adventurous
dark
mysterious
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
3.25
aoutramafalda's review
5.0
4,5*
Simplesmente delicioso - entrar na cabeça de Mr Ripley e nos seus esquemas. Ansiosa para continuar a ler.
Simplesmente delicioso - entrar na cabeça de Mr Ripley e nos seus esquemas. Ansiosa para continuar a ler.
nottodaysatan's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
dark
mysterious
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? N/A
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
katdid's review against another edition
4.0
One of the best things about travelling solo is that you can shuck off the constraints of home and become another version of yourself. Everyone's a stranger and so you can become anyone because there are zero expectations as to who you are and how you are. I could kind of see this idea reflected in Tom Ripley although he goes the extra mile to become someone else. I'd read that one of Highsmith's great tricks here is that she gets you to feel empathy for Tom, although I don't think that's exactly true. It's kinda hard to feel a kinship with someone so completely dedicated to their own comforts and who only feels remorse for their misdeeds when it looks like they might be punished for them. I think rather the trick lies in that you don't particularly want Tom to get caught because it's so entertaining watching (reading) him shamelessly living the high life and avoiding detection.
lazygal's review
4.0
Definitely old-school from the pacing to the plot. We have Tom Ripley, amateur con man, who is sought out by Herbert Greenleaf, father of Dickie. Dickie has escaped the family and gone to Italy and his father (and mother) want him back home, would Tom go over and convince him to return? Tom takes on the job and turns into a SWF (ok, SWM)-stalker, imitating Dickie's walk, talk and life. And then it's not about imitating, it's actually inhabiting Dickie's life, avoiding friends and living off Dickie's money until Freddie Miles comes and Tom's life as Dickie starts to unravel.
Except it doesn't completely, as Tom miraculously manages to evade detection as a double murderer. As I read I kept thinking how much a period-piece this was: fingerprinting is primitive, ditto police methods. Could someone take on another's entire personality and life in this day and age? That didn't lessen my enjoyment of the book, but it did occasionally run through my mind.
Except it doesn't completely, as Tom miraculously manages to evade detection as a double murderer. As I read I kept thinking how much a period-piece this was: fingerprinting is primitive, ditto police methods. Could someone take on another's entire personality and life in this day and age? That didn't lessen my enjoyment of the book, but it did occasionally run through my mind.
andrea_mtz27's review against another edition
dark
reflective
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
mazza57's review
4.0
apart from periods where the storyline appears to stall slightly this is another beautifully written classic