What do you think?
Rate this book
Ripley #3
El amigo americano
Nada al principio une a Jonathan Trevanny con Tom Ripley. Jonathan es un hombre honesto y pobre que lleva una existencia apacible y gris, junto a su mujer y su hijo. ¿Por qué Tom Ripley le pide que asesine a dos mafiosos? La razón es que Jonathan Trevanny no tiene nada que perder: enfermo de leucemia, le espera una muerte inminente.
256 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1974
479 people are currently reading
9324 people want to read
About the author
Patricia Highsmith
347 books5,067 followersPatricia Highsmith was an American novelist who is known mainly for her psychological crime thrillers which have led to more than two dozen film adaptations over the years.
She lived with her grandmother, mother and later step-father (her mother divorced her natural father six months before 'Patsy' was born and married Stanley Highsmith) in Fort Worth before moving with her parents to New York in 1927 but returned to live with her grandmother for a year in 1933. Returning to her parents in New York, she attended public schools in New York City and later graduated from Barnard College in 1942.
Shortly after graduation her short story 'The Heroine' was published in the Harper's Bazaar magazine and it was selected as one of the 22 best stories that appeared in American magazines in 1945 and it won the O Henry award for short stories in 1946. She continued to write short stories, many of them comic book stories, and regularly earned herself a weekly $55 pay-check. During this period of her life she lived variously in New York and Mexico.
Her first suspense novel 'Strangers on a Train' published in 1950 was an immediate success with public and critics alike. The novel has been adapted for the screen three times, most notably by Alfred Hitchcock in 1951.
In 1955 her anti-hero Tom Ripley appeared in the splendid 'The Talented Mr Ripley', a book that was awarded the Grand Prix de Litterature Policiere as the best foreign mystery novel translated into French in 1957. This book, too, has been the subject of a number of film versions. Ripley appeared again in 'Ripley Under Ground' in 1970, in 'Ripley's Game' in 1974, 'The boy who Followed Ripley' in 1980 and in 'Ripley Under Water' in 1991.
Along with her acclaimed series about Ripley, she wrote 22 novels and eight short story collections plus many other short stories, often macabre, satirical or tinged with black humour. She also wrote one novel, non-mystery, under the name Claire Morgan , plus a work of non-fiction 'Plotting and Writing Suspense Fiction' and a co-written book of children's verse, 'Miranda the Panda Is on the Veranda'.
She latterly lived in England and France and was more popular in England than in her native United States. Her novel 'Deep Water', 1957, was called by the Sunday Times one of the "most brilliant analyses of psychosis in America" and Julian Symons once wrote of her "Miss Highsmith is the writer who fuses character and plot most successfully ... the most important crime novelist at present in practice." In addition, Michael Dirda observed "Europeans honoured her as a psychological novelist, part of an existentialist tradition represented by her own favorite writers, in particular Dostoevsky, Conrad, Kafka, Gide, and Camus."
She died of leukemia in Locarno, Switzerland on 4 February 1995 and her last novel, 'Small g: a Summer Idyll', was published posthumously a month later.
Gerry Wolstenholme
July 2010
She lived with her grandmother, mother and later step-father (her mother divorced her natural father six months before 'Patsy' was born and married Stanley Highsmith) in Fort Worth before moving with her parents to New York in 1927 but returned to live with her grandmother for a year in 1933. Returning to her parents in New York, she attended public schools in New York City and later graduated from Barnard College in 1942.
Shortly after graduation her short story 'The Heroine' was published in the Harper's Bazaar magazine and it was selected as one of the 22 best stories that appeared in American magazines in 1945 and it won the O Henry award for short stories in 1946. She continued to write short stories, many of them comic book stories, and regularly earned herself a weekly $55 pay-check. During this period of her life she lived variously in New York and Mexico.
Her first suspense novel 'Strangers on a Train' published in 1950 was an immediate success with public and critics alike. The novel has been adapted for the screen three times, most notably by Alfred Hitchcock in 1951.
In 1955 her anti-hero Tom Ripley appeared in the splendid 'The Talented Mr Ripley', a book that was awarded the Grand Prix de Litterature Policiere as the best foreign mystery novel translated into French in 1957. This book, too, has been the subject of a number of film versions. Ripley appeared again in 'Ripley Under Ground' in 1970, in 'Ripley's Game' in 1974, 'The boy who Followed Ripley' in 1980 and in 'Ripley Under Water' in 1991.
Along with her acclaimed series about Ripley, she wrote 22 novels and eight short story collections plus many other short stories, often macabre, satirical or tinged with black humour. She also wrote one novel, non-mystery, under the name Claire Morgan , plus a work of non-fiction 'Plotting and Writing Suspense Fiction' and a co-written book of children's verse, 'Miranda the Panda Is on the Veranda'.
She latterly lived in England and France and was more popular in England than in her native United States. Her novel 'Deep Water', 1957, was called by the Sunday Times one of the "most brilliant analyses of psychosis in America" and Julian Symons once wrote of her "Miss Highsmith is the writer who fuses character and plot most successfully ... the most important crime novelist at present in practice." In addition, Michael Dirda observed "Europeans honoured her as a psychological novelist, part of an existentialist tradition represented by her own favorite writers, in particular Dostoevsky, Conrad, Kafka, Gide, and Camus."
She died of leukemia in Locarno, Switzerland on 4 February 1995 and her last novel, 'Small g: a Summer Idyll', was published posthumously a month later.
Gerry Wolstenholme
July 2010
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 757 reviews
March 12, 2022
GIOCO PER LA VITA
”L’amico americano”, regia di Wim Wenders, 1977.
Il gioco di Ripley è il titolo originale, L’amico americano è come viene chiamato grazie (o, a causa) del film di Wim Wenders del 1977, uno dei suoi più belli, forse il suo più bello, quando ancora Wenders faceva bei film prima di perdersi nei meandri dei suoi capelli.
C’è poi stato un secondo adattamento cinematografico, più recente (2002), firmata dalla regista italiana Liliana Cavani, con un cast internazionale sul quale spiccava il nome (solo quello) di John Malkovich: si tratta di un film di rara bruttezza e insulsaggine, del quale probabilmente l’unica cosa che merita di dire è che grande attore è stato John Malkovich finché è stato John Malkovich: quando poi ha cominciato a interpretare John Malkovich s’è perso nella spianata della sua calvizie.
Dennis Hopper è Tom Ripley.
È la terza avventura di Tom Ripley e si svolge qualche mese dopo Ripley Underground – Il sepolto vivo.
Il che consente al personaggio di non invecchiare: perché, altrimenti, Tom che è letterariamente apparso nel 1955, ma la cui nascita è collocabile nel 1930, anno più anno meno, a questo punto di anni ne avrebbe 44: perché questo romanzo uscì nel 1974.
Seguiranno altre due avventure, il ciclo è composto da cinque titoli.
È anche la storia di Ripley più sanguinosa e col più alto numero di morti.
Bruno Ganz è Jonathan il corniciao, che da Trevanny diventa Zimmermann.
Il ‘gioco’ di Ripley è quello di suggerire al suo losco partner Reeves Minot il nome di un suo conoscente, un corniciaio, che durante una festa lo ha insultato: Minot ha bisogno di qualcuno insospettabile disposto a commettere due omicidi in cambio di denaro – Ripley sa che il corniciaio Jonathan Trevanny è malato di leucemia, che i soldi gli faranno comodo per assicurare un futuro alla sua famiglia, e per vendicarsi dell’insulto, lo tira in ballo e lo incastra. Un gesto vendicativo, maligno.
Salvo poi mostrare per Jonathan solidarietà, perfino affetto.
Un’altra tipica storia alla Highsmith dove due uomini inizialmente sconosciuti l’uno all’altro diventano affascinati l’uno dall’altro in modo intenso e bizzarro.
Lisa Kreuzer è Marianne Zimmermann, la moglie del corniciaio (nel romano Simone Trevanny).
E anche un’altra storia dove Highsmith alterna i punti di vista, come in Strangers on a Train – Sconosciuti in treno, The Blunderer – Vicolo cieco, The Two Faces of January – I due volti di gennaio: qui, nonostante Ripley sia il protagonista e il titolare della serie, per diverse decine di pagina lascia campo e azione a Jonathan.
Se è vero che Tom corrompe (contamina) Jonathan portandolo a fare cose che mai avrebbe lontanamente immaginato di fare, è anche vero che Ripley regala vita e vitalità al corniciaio ammalato.
Mi risulta praticamente impossibile parlare del libro senza incrociarlo col film, che ho visto prima di leggere il romanzo, e ho rivisto, mentre ho letto ma non ho riletto. Wenders rese un servizio eccellente alla Highsmith perché il suo film è di quelli che restano nella memoria, e anche sotto la pelle.
Nicholas Ray. Dopo aver affidato Ripley a Hopper, attore ma anche regista, Wenders decise di affidare a suoi colleghi amici i ruoli dei gangster: qui, appunto, Nick Ray, poi Samuel Fuller e Gérad Blain.
Anedotto o leggenda vuole che Wenders cercasse in tutti i modi di garantirsi i diritti di un qualche titolo firmato dalla Highsmith, ma che fossero già tutti opzionati o ceduti. Allora l’andò a trovare in Svizzera e fu un bell’incontro: fino al punto che Patricia dette a Wim un romanzo inedito, ancora neppure mandato al suo editore. Si trattava proprio di questo.
Quando poi vide il film ne rimase particolarmente delusa e disse a Wenders che il suo Ripley non aveva niente a che vedere col suo. Wim rimase affranto. Ma qualche mese dopo Patricia lo chiamò per dirgli che avevo rivisto il film, e le era piaciuto molto, e in particolare Dennis Hopper nella parte di Ripley l’aveva colpita e convinta. Gran sollievo per il regista tedesco che ama raccontare quanto Bruno Ganz e Dennis Hopper si siano detestati sul set finché non c’è scappata una scazzottata alla fine della quale sono diventati inseparabili. Aneddoto che suona un po’ costruito ad arte.
Sullo schermo sono una strana coppia che funziona alla perfezione.
La moglie del corniciaio è interpretata da Lisa Kreuzer, all’epoca sposata con Wenders: anche quindici anni dopo, conoscerla è stato per me un bel batticuore.
”L’amico americano”, regia di Wim Wenders, 1977.
Il gioco di Ripley è il titolo originale, L’amico americano è come viene chiamato grazie (o, a causa) del film di Wim Wenders del 1977, uno dei suoi più belli, forse il suo più bello, quando ancora Wenders faceva bei film prima di perdersi nei meandri dei suoi capelli.
C’è poi stato un secondo adattamento cinematografico, più recente (2002), firmata dalla regista italiana Liliana Cavani, con un cast internazionale sul quale spiccava il nome (solo quello) di John Malkovich: si tratta di un film di rara bruttezza e insulsaggine, del quale probabilmente l’unica cosa che merita di dire è che grande attore è stato John Malkovich finché è stato John Malkovich: quando poi ha cominciato a interpretare John Malkovich s’è perso nella spianata della sua calvizie.
Dennis Hopper è Tom Ripley.
È la terza avventura di Tom Ripley e si svolge qualche mese dopo Ripley Underground – Il sepolto vivo.
Il che consente al personaggio di non invecchiare: perché, altrimenti, Tom che è letterariamente apparso nel 1955, ma la cui nascita è collocabile nel 1930, anno più anno meno, a questo punto di anni ne avrebbe 44: perché questo romanzo uscì nel 1974.
Seguiranno altre due avventure, il ciclo è composto da cinque titoli.
È anche la storia di Ripley più sanguinosa e col più alto numero di morti.
Bruno Ganz è Jonathan il corniciao, che da Trevanny diventa Zimmermann.
Il ‘gioco’ di Ripley è quello di suggerire al suo losco partner Reeves Minot il nome di un suo conoscente, un corniciaio, che durante una festa lo ha insultato: Minot ha bisogno di qualcuno insospettabile disposto a commettere due omicidi in cambio di denaro – Ripley sa che il corniciaio Jonathan Trevanny è malato di leucemia, che i soldi gli faranno comodo per assicurare un futuro alla sua famiglia, e per vendicarsi dell’insulto, lo tira in ballo e lo incastra. Un gesto vendicativo, maligno.
Salvo poi mostrare per Jonathan solidarietà, perfino affetto.
Un’altra tipica storia alla Highsmith dove due uomini inizialmente sconosciuti l’uno all’altro diventano affascinati l’uno dall’altro in modo intenso e bizzarro.
Lisa Kreuzer è Marianne Zimmermann, la moglie del corniciaio (nel romano Simone Trevanny).
E anche un’altra storia dove Highsmith alterna i punti di vista, come in Strangers on a Train – Sconosciuti in treno, The Blunderer – Vicolo cieco, The Two Faces of January – I due volti di gennaio: qui, nonostante Ripley sia il protagonista e il titolare della serie, per diverse decine di pagina lascia campo e azione a Jonathan.
Se è vero che Tom corrompe (contamina) Jonathan portandolo a fare cose che mai avrebbe lontanamente immaginato di fare, è anche vero che Ripley regala vita e vitalità al corniciaio ammalato.
Mi risulta praticamente impossibile parlare del libro senza incrociarlo col film, che ho visto prima di leggere il romanzo, e ho rivisto, mentre ho letto ma non ho riletto. Wenders rese un servizio eccellente alla Highsmith perché il suo film è di quelli che restano nella memoria, e anche sotto la pelle.
Nicholas Ray. Dopo aver affidato Ripley a Hopper, attore ma anche regista, Wenders decise di affidare a suoi colleghi amici i ruoli dei gangster: qui, appunto, Nick Ray, poi Samuel Fuller e Gérad Blain.
Anedotto o leggenda vuole che Wenders cercasse in tutti i modi di garantirsi i diritti di un qualche titolo firmato dalla Highsmith, ma che fossero già tutti opzionati o ceduti. Allora l’andò a trovare in Svizzera e fu un bell’incontro: fino al punto che Patricia dette a Wim un romanzo inedito, ancora neppure mandato al suo editore. Si trattava proprio di questo.
Quando poi vide il film ne rimase particolarmente delusa e disse a Wenders che il suo Ripley non aveva niente a che vedere col suo. Wim rimase affranto. Ma qualche mese dopo Patricia lo chiamò per dirgli che avevo rivisto il film, e le era piaciuto molto, e in particolare Dennis Hopper nella parte di Ripley l’aveva colpita e convinta. Gran sollievo per il regista tedesco che ama raccontare quanto Bruno Ganz e Dennis Hopper si siano detestati sul set finché non c’è scappata una scazzottata alla fine della quale sono diventati inseparabili. Aneddoto che suona un po’ costruito ad arte.
Sullo schermo sono una strana coppia che funziona alla perfezione.
La moglie del corniciaio è interpretata da Lisa Kreuzer, all’epoca sposata con Wenders: anche quindici anni dopo, conoscerla è stato per me un bel batticuore.
July 23, 2018
WHY WOULD A CLASS EVER ASSIGN ME TO READ THE THIRD BOOK IN A SERIES WITHOUT HAVING READ THE FIRST TWO. WHY.
Even if they work as standalones. I am still a bookworm at heart and I have a moral compass for god's sake.
Anyway this was fine. I had to force myself to read it in less than 24 hours (because I did not plan this well) and that was less than ideal and included a binge reading session from 11 p.m. to 4 a.m. and the font was smaller than I would have liked but I didn't hate it.
Also I didn't really like it?? Probably closer to dislike if I had to choose my side.
Wow my brain is dead when did I lose my ability to not need sleep I cannot form sentences so now seems like a good time to type up some assigned homework sentences about this book am I right. Oh man my brain feels like a marshmallow.
Bottom line: I have basically zero opinions on this. So. Dope that it's for class and I'll have to spend the next 1.5 weeks making some up.
Even if they work as standalones. I am still a bookworm at heart and I have a moral compass for god's sake.
Anyway this was fine. I had to force myself to read it in less than 24 hours (because I did not plan this well) and that was less than ideal and included a binge reading session from 11 p.m. to 4 a.m. and the font was smaller than I would have liked but I didn't hate it.
Also I didn't really like it?? Probably closer to dislike if I had to choose my side.
Wow my brain is dead when did I lose my ability to not need sleep I cannot form sentences so now seems like a good time to type up some assigned homework sentences about this book am I right. Oh man my brain feels like a marshmallow.
Bottom line: I have basically zero opinions on this. So. Dope that it's for class and I'll have to spend the next 1.5 weeks making some up.
May 27, 2021
DNF. I just can’t take anymore of this sociopath. If it doesn’t bring me joy, it’s not worth my time, right? I did leave 2 stars because I have the utmost respect for Patricia Highsmith and she writes incredibly well, but this series is just a bit dark for MY tastes.
December 6, 2015
“If blood can produce money through rituals or the so-called human sacrifice, then it is the basis on which we live, so it is very essential to save and protect it from the fiendish eyes of blood sucking predators.”
― Michael Bassey Johnson
While this is probably my favorite Highsmith/Ripley novel so far, it is also the most unsettling. She manages - by introducing a new counter-Narrator (Jonathan) - to make Ripley's amorality seem even more fragile and desolate. Jonathan's wife Simone also stands as an interesting counter-spouse to Heloise. Throughout the novel the twisting and sometimes converging tales of Ripley and Jonathan seem like spinning endless mirrors. Each narrator reflecting the existential, blood-splattered flatness of the other. It was brilliant and disconcerting at the same time.
― Michael Bassey Johnson
While this is probably my favorite Highsmith/Ripley novel so far, it is also the most unsettling. She manages - by introducing a new counter-Narrator (Jonathan) - to make Ripley's amorality seem even more fragile and desolate. Jonathan's wife Simone also stands as an interesting counter-spouse to Heloise. Throughout the novel the twisting and sometimes converging tales of Ripley and Jonathan seem like spinning endless mirrors. Each narrator reflecting the existential, blood-splattered flatness of the other. It was brilliant and disconcerting at the same time.
December 27, 2022
On re-reading, this jumped up to 5 stars, currently top banana in the Ripliad. It's interesting to see my original review (below) where I was disconcerted by Ripley being off-stage for so much of the first half. Maybe because I expected that absence this time around, I was more ready to invest in Jonathan - another would-be Ripley, in some ways, who goes from 'normal' man to killer: and though his motives are slightly different there are fascinating parallels between the two men.
Once again, the most important relationship is between Ripley and another (handsome) man and, once again, the visceral killing (taking place in a train toilet, no less!) is suggestive of gay sex, still illegal when Highsmith was writing. If murder itself is up close and personal, the aftermath between Jonathan and Ripley is even more so: bound together by their covert actions, the secrecy, the way Jonathan's wife is jealous and a bit scared of Ripley whose friendship, she claims, has changed her husband, has made him a man she no longer recognises can all be read in queer and doubled ways.
If the violence is all the more violent in this book, so the humour is also ramped up - Tom tends to fall into silent laughter at the most inopportune moments and I wanted to join in with him in a disconcerting way. There's also that wonderful scene where Tom - yes, Tom Ripley! - goes to Jonathan's house to act like a marriage guidance counsellor to his wife: Highsmith is hilarious!
But this is also a wonderfully dark book where conventional morality is both evoked (it's ok to kill mafia hoods because they're murderers themselves, no? no?) and questioned, and where we're drawn even closer into the seemingly rational thought-world of Ripley... and we have to force ourselves to remember that that's not the way most people think. Or live.
Straight onto Ripley #4 for me.
-------------------------
3.5 stars
Tom Ripley strikes up yet another of his shadily ambiguous relationships with handsome men in this book but this time it's Jonathan who is seduced into murder... It feels deeply significant that Ripley helps him kill, a stand-in for quite a different kind of intimacy?
There's more action in this mafia-inflected story as well as a Strangers on a Train vibe. But with Ripley off-stage for much of the first section and Jonathan just not being as fascinating a character, this takes a bit too long to really get going. Once it does, and if we read between the lines, it tells us perhaps more than we've so far about Ripley's inner emotional life.
Once again, the most important relationship is between Ripley and another (handsome) man and, once again, the visceral killing (taking place in a train toilet, no less!) is suggestive of gay sex, still illegal when Highsmith was writing. If murder itself is up close and personal, the aftermath between Jonathan and Ripley is even more so: bound together by their covert actions, the secrecy, the way Jonathan's wife is jealous and a bit scared of Ripley whose friendship, she claims, has changed her husband, has made him a man she no longer recognises can all be read in queer and doubled ways.
If the violence is all the more violent in this book, so the humour is also ramped up - Tom tends to fall into silent laughter at the most inopportune moments and I wanted to join in with him in a disconcerting way. There's also that wonderful scene where Tom - yes, Tom Ripley! - goes to Jonathan's house to act like a marriage guidance counsellor to his wife: Highsmith is hilarious!
But this is also a wonderfully dark book where conventional morality is both evoked (it's ok to kill mafia hoods because they're murderers themselves, no? no?) and questioned, and where we're drawn even closer into the seemingly rational thought-world of Ripley... and we have to force ourselves to remember that that's not the way most people think. Or live.
Straight onto Ripley #4 for me.
-------------------------
3.5 stars
Tom Ripley strikes up yet another of his shadily ambiguous relationships with handsome men in this book but this time it's Jonathan who is seduced into murder... It feels deeply significant that Ripley helps him kill, a stand-in for quite a different kind of intimacy?
There's more action in this mafia-inflected story as well as a Strangers on a Train vibe. But with Ripley off-stage for much of the first section and Jonathan just not being as fascinating a character, this takes a bit too long to really get going. Once it does, and if we read between the lines, it tells us perhaps more than we've so far about Ripley's inner emotional life.
August 5, 2024
Junto a «El talento de Tom Ripley», las únicas novelas de la saga que alcanzan el nivel que se le supone a la autora. Una vuelta al mantra de Highsmith de que cualquiera puede ser un asesino… aunque no todos pueden soportar la presión de haberlo sido.
July 5, 2022
“‘I've thought of a wonderful way to start a forest fire,' Tom said musingly as they were having coffee.”
“There's no such thing as a perfect murder,” Tom said to Reeves. “That's just a parlor game, trying to dream one up.”
Ripley’s Game, the third (of five) in Patricia Highsmith's series featuring the talented sociopath Tom Ripley, seemed a little familiar to me as I proceeded through it, though I knew it was my first time reading the book. I looked up films based on it and realized Wim Wenders’ The American Friend was an adaptation of it, a great and noir-ish film I had seen and liked when it came out in the seventies, featuring Dennis Hopper as Ripley. Then I saw that it was adapted into a film featuring John Malkovich, a film Roger Ebert loved, and one I’ll see soon. I like Matt Damon as Ripley best, I think, as Damon has that boyish innocence about him, and so in the first book and film you are surprised by his turn into a killer. In all later books his character and motivation are well established, so we expect his behavior and get it.
A couple familiar things about the story include that it is a sort of 1974 version of Breaking Bad, as one of the two main characters, Jonathan, has leukemia, and gets involved--thanks to the game-playing of Ripley-- in a kill-for-hire scheme in order to make a lot of money for his beloved wife Sophie and his son George before he dies. In addition, there’s a Dexter connection in that Ripley and his puppet Jonathan take on an Italian mafia family.
One unusual thing about this book is that Ripley is not part of the story for almost sixty pages, as Jonathan Trevanny, an art framer, takes center stage. Like Ripley himself, and Bernard Tufts, the forger in book two, (and so many of Highsmith's characters) Jonathan woulld seem to be an "ordinary" good guy who makes a bad but on some level reasonable decision, gets quickly in over his head, drawn into “evil” like a drug; it’s a dark view of nature that doesn't assume economically disadvantaged and "insane" people commit crimes. Everyone is a potential member of the Depravity Club.
What I don’t like: the loss of that surprise we had in the first book; now we know he is a sociopath, and that he’ll do anything to satisfy his need. I also liked the ambivalence of the first book where Ripley is clearly bisexual; we see he likes Dickie Greenleaf, and we sense the tension in him about this and the sense of rejection Tom feels when Dickie seems to choose his girlfriend over Tom.
In the second and third books the more explicit references to bisexuality seem to be gone--Tom is happily but shallowly married to Heloise--though I can see how his close connections with men, including to Jonathan in this book, might be interpreted as bisexual attractions, though Highsmith denied Ripley was gay, and there is nothing explicit in this text to necessarily suggest sexual tension between them. Jonathan and Tom are very close at various points, though, and Jonathan’s wife Sophie increasingly resents their destructive relationship. I still like the nuanced psychological view of a damaging friendship between Tom and Jonathan.
*I don’t like the assumption that Tom and Jonathan can defend themselves from an attack by an old Italian mafia family. Hey, seen The Godfather?! But okay, I let it go.
*I like how for the first time someone in these Ripley books--Sophie, Jonathan’s wife-- believes not a word Ripley says, isn’t having any of his smooth lies.
*I like the references in the second and third books to previous incidents such as the death of Dickie Greenleaf and the paintings of Derwatt. The threats from the past--revelations of possible guilt--are always part of the suspense.
This is a very well-written book, over all, where the middle-aged Rip draws a good younger man into his cabal.
“There's no such thing as a perfect murder,” Tom said to Reeves. “That's just a parlor game, trying to dream one up.”
Ripley’s Game, the third (of five) in Patricia Highsmith's series featuring the talented sociopath Tom Ripley, seemed a little familiar to me as I proceeded through it, though I knew it was my first time reading the book. I looked up films based on it and realized Wim Wenders’ The American Friend was an adaptation of it, a great and noir-ish film I had seen and liked when it came out in the seventies, featuring Dennis Hopper as Ripley. Then I saw that it was adapted into a film featuring John Malkovich, a film Roger Ebert loved, and one I’ll see soon. I like Matt Damon as Ripley best, I think, as Damon has that boyish innocence about him, and so in the first book and film you are surprised by his turn into a killer. In all later books his character and motivation are well established, so we expect his behavior and get it.
A couple familiar things about the story include that it is a sort of 1974 version of Breaking Bad, as one of the two main characters, Jonathan, has leukemia, and gets involved--thanks to the game-playing of Ripley-- in a kill-for-hire scheme in order to make a lot of money for his beloved wife Sophie and his son George before he dies. In addition, there’s a Dexter connection in that Ripley and his puppet Jonathan take on an Italian mafia family.
One unusual thing about this book is that Ripley is not part of the story for almost sixty pages, as Jonathan Trevanny, an art framer, takes center stage. Like Ripley himself, and Bernard Tufts, the forger in book two, (and so many of Highsmith's characters) Jonathan woulld seem to be an "ordinary" good guy who makes a bad but on some level reasonable decision, gets quickly in over his head, drawn into “evil” like a drug; it’s a dark view of nature that doesn't assume economically disadvantaged and "insane" people commit crimes. Everyone is a potential member of the Depravity Club.
What I don’t like: the loss of that surprise we had in the first book; now we know he is a sociopath, and that he’ll do anything to satisfy his need. I also liked the ambivalence of the first book where Ripley is clearly bisexual; we see he likes Dickie Greenleaf, and we sense the tension in him about this and the sense of rejection Tom feels when Dickie seems to choose his girlfriend over Tom.
In the second and third books the more explicit references to bisexuality seem to be gone--Tom is happily but shallowly married to Heloise--though I can see how his close connections with men, including to Jonathan in this book, might be interpreted as bisexual attractions, though Highsmith denied Ripley was gay, and there is nothing explicit in this text to necessarily suggest sexual tension between them. Jonathan and Tom are very close at various points, though, and Jonathan’s wife Sophie increasingly resents their destructive relationship. I still like the nuanced psychological view of a damaging friendship between Tom and Jonathan.
*I don’t like the assumption that Tom and Jonathan can defend themselves from an attack by an old Italian mafia family. Hey, seen The Godfather?! But okay, I let it go.
*I like how for the first time someone in these Ripley books--Sophie, Jonathan’s wife-- believes not a word Ripley says, isn’t having any of his smooth lies.
*I like the references in the second and third books to previous incidents such as the death of Dickie Greenleaf and the paintings of Derwatt. The threats from the past--revelations of possible guilt--are always part of the suspense.
This is a very well-written book, over all, where the middle-aged Rip draws a good younger man into his cabal.
June 12, 2018
Great Closet Cases in Literature
- Claggart from Billy Budd
- Nick Carraway from Great Gatsby
- David from Giovanni's Room
- Javert (thanks Wendy)
- Ripley
Patricia Highsmith insisted that Ripley wasn't gay, but he certainly was in Talented Mr. Ripley, and his interest in Bernard Tufts in Ripley Under Ground and Jonathan Trevanny in this book is difficult to explain otherwise. He's settling into a pattern where, in each book, he becomes obsessed with a different guy.
What Ripley's Game doesn't share with its two predecessors is Ripley's shadowy games with identity, the maneuvering and confusion about who he is, who he's killed, who's dead. I miss it. Instead, he spends much of the book insisting that he's not even a bad guy: the victims this time around are Mafia, bad guys themselves, so he's pulling a Dexter.
He seems incapable of settling down: he keeps finding excuses to murder people. But now he's coming up with a heroic self-image in his head to justify it. (Of course, you're aware that the Mafia guys were all casualties on his way to his real target, That's still interesting.)
It's still a fun and entertaining book. He always makes me want to bring up hypotheticals to my wife: "If I suddenly came into $200,000, how could I explain it believably?" We couldn't think of a way. "If I murdered a guy but then bought you a harpsichord, would that be cool?" She said that sounds nice. She's probably kidding. I don't think she wants me to murder anyone. Maybe she does.
But I don't love the whitewashing. In Talented Mr. Ripley he was a void, a great screaming abyss of amoral loneliness; as he gains confidence he loses some of his interest.
I'm getting diminishing returns as I read through the Ripley series. Only the first was what I'd call a great book; the next two are just fun reads. Nothing wrong with a fun read though.
PS If you have any other good examples of closet cases in literature, I'd like to hear 'em. My list is shorter than I feel like it ought to be. ...See below for a list from some dude named Seth, it's an excellent list.
- Claggart from Billy Budd
- Nick Carraway from Great Gatsby
- David from Giovanni's Room
- Javert (thanks Wendy)
- Ripley
Patricia Highsmith insisted that Ripley wasn't gay, but he certainly was in Talented Mr. Ripley, and his interest in Bernard Tufts in Ripley Under Ground and Jonathan Trevanny in this book is difficult to explain otherwise. He's settling into a pattern where, in each book, he becomes obsessed with a different guy.
What Ripley's Game doesn't share with its two predecessors is Ripley's shadowy games with identity, the maneuvering and confusion about who he is, who he's killed, who's dead. I miss it. Instead, he spends much of the book insisting that he's not even a bad guy: the victims this time around are Mafia, bad guys themselves, so he's pulling a Dexter.
He seems incapable of settling down: he keeps finding excuses to murder people. But now he's coming up with a heroic self-image in his head to justify it. (Of course, you're aware that the Mafia guys were all casualties on his way to his real target, That's still interesting.)
It's still a fun and entertaining book. He always makes me want to bring up hypotheticals to my wife: "If I suddenly came into $200,000, how could I explain it believably?" We couldn't think of a way. "If I murdered a guy but then bought you a harpsichord, would that be cool?" She said that sounds nice. She's probably kidding. I don't think she wants me to murder anyone. Maybe she does.
But I don't love the whitewashing. In Talented Mr. Ripley he was a void, a great screaming abyss of amoral loneliness; as he gains confidence he loses some of his interest.
I'm getting diminishing returns as I read through the Ripley series. Only the first was what I'd call a great book; the next two are just fun reads. Nothing wrong with a fun read though.
PS If you have any other good examples of closet cases in literature, I'd like to hear 'em. My list is shorter than I feel like it ought to be. ...See below for a list from some dude named Seth, it's an excellent list.
February 24, 2022
“There's no such thing as a perfect murder,” Tom said to Reeves. “That's just a parlor game, trying to dream one up. Of course, you could say there are a lot of unsolved murders. That's different.”
Ripley’s Game is the third book in the 1970s Ripley Series about Tom Ripley, an ambiguous criminal and sociopath.
Ripley’s Game takes place about 15+ years after book two, Ripley Under Ground. Tom’s (50ish) and still married to Heloise, the heiress. They live in the same small Parisian town, same house as before, Belle Ombre. Tom’s lavish life has been quite for years now. He paints, gardens, and wants to learn the harpsichord. He still maintains old contacts but does little work for the fence, Reeves Minot.
It is Reeves that starts the ball rolling in this third book. He has expanded his business affairs to include gambling and two outside mafia families are encroaching on his area. He calls asking Tom if he could do a simple murder or two and some theft. Tom says no to this, yet he promises to give Reeves a name of someone that might do the tasks.
That is how Jonathan Trevanny gets on Reeves’ radar. It is Tom who gives Reeves the name of a man he met at a party who Tom felt was rude to him. Tom does this as a little game of revenge and convinces Reeves that he should press this man into doing it since Trevanny needed money and was in poor health.
Ripley’s Game was well-written but lacks the tension and suspense book two delivered. And I was disappointed that up to a third of this book was not focused on Tom. It was on Trevanny, and he was a boring character. And neither book two nor three came anywhere close to being the fascinating mind-trip that was The Talented Mr. Ripley.
In Ripley’s Game, Tom isn’t calculating. He doesn’t try to justify his actions. He’s not out for any gain. He never juggles situations that seem like he could be caught at any moment. Instead, he has this idea that he is doing a good service. I never quite understood Tom’s motivation for his actions in this book. Just like the ending of book two, Tom’s actions here were not plausible enough and that’s why this book was such a letdown.
And while I am grumbling, let me add that there was no further mention of Dickie Greenleaf’s cousin, who had stayed with Tom for several days in book two. There was build up about why this cousin may want to meet Tom, yet in book two, it was not answered. The cousin, Chris, dropped hints about knowing some of Tom's secrets going on in book two, but Chris left Tom's house by the two-thirds mark in the book and his purpose for being in the story wasn't followed up. I assumed it must be a teaser for action that would occur in this book. Nada.
The ending in Ripley’s Game just fizzled.
My advice: read The Talented Mr. Ripley. It is on Boxall’s 1001 Books to Read list for a reason. It is an excellent book where you are privy to Tom’s thoughts (deliciously creepy), and it builds tension to a fevered pitch and that suspense continues to the last paragraph. Then, skip the rest of the books in the Ripley Series.
Ripley’s Game is the third book in the 1970s Ripley Series about Tom Ripley, an ambiguous criminal and sociopath.
Ripley’s Game takes place about 15+ years after book two, Ripley Under Ground. Tom’s (50ish) and still married to Heloise, the heiress. They live in the same small Parisian town, same house as before, Belle Ombre. Tom’s lavish life has been quite for years now. He paints, gardens, and wants to learn the harpsichord. He still maintains old contacts but does little work for the fence, Reeves Minot.
It is Reeves that starts the ball rolling in this third book. He has expanded his business affairs to include gambling and two outside mafia families are encroaching on his area. He calls asking Tom if he could do a simple murder or two and some theft. Tom says no to this, yet he promises to give Reeves a name of someone that might do the tasks.
That is how Jonathan Trevanny gets on Reeves’ radar. It is Tom who gives Reeves the name of a man he met at a party who Tom felt was rude to him. Tom does this as a little game of revenge and convinces Reeves that he should press this man into doing it since Trevanny needed money and was in poor health.
Ripley’s Game was well-written but lacks the tension and suspense book two delivered. And I was disappointed that up to a third of this book was not focused on Tom. It was on Trevanny, and he was a boring character. And neither book two nor three came anywhere close to being the fascinating mind-trip that was The Talented Mr. Ripley.
In Ripley’s Game, Tom isn’t calculating. He doesn’t try to justify his actions. He’s not out for any gain. He never juggles situations that seem like he could be caught at any moment. Instead, he has this idea that he is doing a good service. I never quite understood Tom’s motivation for his actions in this book. Just like the ending of book two, Tom’s actions here were not plausible enough and that’s why this book was such a letdown.
And while I am grumbling, let me add that there was no further mention of Dickie Greenleaf’s cousin, who had stayed with Tom for several days in book two. There was build up about why this cousin may want to meet Tom, yet in book two, it was not answered. The cousin, Chris, dropped hints about knowing some of Tom's secrets going on in book two, but Chris left Tom's house by the two-thirds mark in the book and his purpose for being in the story wasn't followed up. I assumed it must be a teaser for action that would occur in this book. Nada.
The ending in Ripley’s Game just fizzled.
My advice: read The Talented Mr. Ripley. It is on Boxall’s 1001 Books to Read list for a reason. It is an excellent book where you are privy to Tom’s thoughts (deliciously creepy), and it builds tension to a fevered pitch and that suspense continues to the last paragraph. Then, skip the rest of the books in the Ripley Series.
December 22, 2022
Ripley's Game (Ripley #3) is the third instalment in the Ripliad:
The Talented Mr. Ripley (1955)
Ripley Under Ground (1970)
Ripley's Game (1974)
The Boy Who Followed Ripley (1980)
Ripley Under Water (1991)
Having thoroughly enjoyed the first two novels, I am now totally invested in the series and the character of Tom Ripley.
Tom, as you probably know, was intitally an ambitious young American from a poor background who, having developed a taste for the trappings of wealth has no compunction in doing whatever is necessary to acquire and maintain his lifestyle.
Actually, by the second novel his lifestyle is all but assured, however he seems irresistably drawn by involvement in murder and intrigue.
Just like the previous Ripley novels, the plot centres around a relationship between Tom and another man, and specifically the psychological relationship between the two men. Whilst appearing to be antagonists they become inevitably, increasingly and inextricably bound together by a perverse logic. The up-close and personal Grand Guignol violent set pieces probably a surrogate for something more intimate.
Whatever may or may not be going on in the subtext, Ripley's Game is another engrossing and blackly comedic novel about murder, deception and, in this instance, the Mafia, who here are hellbent on vengeance.
If you know Tom Ripley then you know this, like its predecessors, is tremendous fun, especially if, like Tom and Patricia Highsmith, you can enjoy Tom finding inappropriate and sporadic humour in death, dead bodies and danger more generally. Now I know Tom Ripley better, I find myself shaking my head and chuckling as he thinks about, or does, something appalling.
Another Ripley winner. Roll on The Boy Who Followed Ripley (1980).
4/5
Ripley's Game (1974)....
Living on his posh French estate with his elegant heiress wife, Tom Ripley, on the cusp of middle age, is no longer the striving comer of The Talented Mr. Ripley. Having accrued considerable wealth through a long career of crime—forgery, extortion, serial murder—Ripley still finds his appetite unquenched and longs to get back in the game.
In Ripley's Game, first published in 1974, Patricia Highsmith's classic chameleon relishes the opportunity to simultaneously repay an insult and help a friend commit a crime—and escape the doldrums of his idyllic retirement. This third novel in Highsmith's series is one of her most psychologically nuanced—particularly memorable for its dark, absurd humor—and was hailed by critics for its ability to manipulate the tropes of the genre. With the creation of Ripley, one of literature's most seductive sociopaths, Highsmith anticipated the likes of Norman Bates and Hannibal Lecter years before their appearance.
The Talented Mr. Ripley (1955)
Ripley Under Ground (1970)
Ripley's Game (1974)
The Boy Who Followed Ripley (1980)
Ripley Under Water (1991)
Having thoroughly enjoyed the first two novels, I am now totally invested in the series and the character of Tom Ripley.
Tom, as you probably know, was intitally an ambitious young American from a poor background who, having developed a taste for the trappings of wealth has no compunction in doing whatever is necessary to acquire and maintain his lifestyle.
Actually, by the second novel his lifestyle is all but assured, however he seems irresistably drawn by involvement in murder and intrigue.
Just like the previous Ripley novels, the plot centres around a relationship between Tom and another man, and specifically the psychological relationship between the two men. Whilst appearing to be antagonists they become inevitably, increasingly and inextricably bound together by a perverse logic. The up-close and personal Grand Guignol violent set pieces probably a surrogate for something more intimate.
Whatever may or may not be going on in the subtext, Ripley's Game is another engrossing and blackly comedic novel about murder, deception and, in this instance, the Mafia, who here are hellbent on vengeance.
If you know Tom Ripley then you know this, like its predecessors, is tremendous fun, especially if, like Tom and Patricia Highsmith, you can enjoy Tom finding inappropriate and sporadic humour in death, dead bodies and danger more generally. Now I know Tom Ripley better, I find myself shaking my head and chuckling as he thinks about, or does, something appalling.
Another Ripley winner. Roll on The Boy Who Followed Ripley (1980).
4/5
Ripley's Game (1974)....
Living on his posh French estate with his elegant heiress wife, Tom Ripley, on the cusp of middle age, is no longer the striving comer of The Talented Mr. Ripley. Having accrued considerable wealth through a long career of crime—forgery, extortion, serial murder—Ripley still finds his appetite unquenched and longs to get back in the game.
In Ripley's Game, first published in 1974, Patricia Highsmith's classic chameleon relishes the opportunity to simultaneously repay an insult and help a friend commit a crime—and escape the doldrums of his idyllic retirement. This third novel in Highsmith's series is one of her most psychologically nuanced—particularly memorable for its dark, absurd humor—and was hailed by critics for its ability to manipulate the tropes of the genre. With the creation of Ripley, one of literature's most seductive sociopaths, Highsmith anticipated the likes of Norman Bates and Hannibal Lecter years before their appearance.
October 11, 2019
Having read "The Talented Mr. Ripley", I had high hopes for the sequels. Unfortunately, I didn't enjoy this as much as the original. I found the characters rather flat with the exception of Tom Ripley, who's always full of surprises. I don't think I'll bother with the other sequel as a result.
August 2, 2024
"The serial liar" or "Easy killing, easy confessing" would be proper titles for such a strange book.
The start is promising and somehow classy (we are talking about art, aren't we?), but after the first third all seems to lose any kind of logic, starting with Murchinson's burial and culminating with the gruesome scenes of burning Bernard's corpse into ashes?!? So four stars goes into two and there it stays...
The start is promising and somehow classy (we are talking about art, aren't we?), but after the first third all seems to lose any kind of logic, starting with Murchinson's burial and culminating with the gruesome scenes of burning Bernard's corpse into ashes?!? So four stars goes into two and there it stays...
October 14, 2014
Few novels or writers make you want to read them even after you realize partway through the story that you've read the book before, years ago. Patricia Highsmith does it for me every time. It's all about Tom Ripley's twisted and yet oddly endearing point of view. Maybe it's because when, as the mafia are bearing down on him hard for gruesome deeds he himself set in motion, Tom relieves his stress by heading to Paris to pick out just the right antique harpsichord for his always loyal and charming wife Heloise.
Here Monsieur Ripley has the same drive that made him act out so horribly in the first novel in the series, The Talented Mr. Ripley, but he's mellowed. He wishes to help others as he strives to preserve his comfy expat way, even though he senses they will always hate him for it. He does his best to aid the ailing English art framer Jonathan, even though Jon despises him, and Jon's French wife Simone, and ... sometimes the whole village of Fountainbleau, it seems. But this will not stop Tom Ripley and as a reader you hope it never does no matter what or who makes Tom have to kill them, usually brutally and always neatly.
Let's call it a 4.5, though I'm not a big fan of star ratings in general.
Here Monsieur Ripley has the same drive that made him act out so horribly in the first novel in the series, The Talented Mr. Ripley, but he's mellowed. He wishes to help others as he strives to preserve his comfy expat way, even though he senses they will always hate him for it. He does his best to aid the ailing English art framer Jonathan, even though Jon despises him, and Jon's French wife Simone, and ... sometimes the whole village of Fountainbleau, it seems. But this will not stop Tom Ripley and as a reader you hope it never does no matter what or who makes Tom have to kill them, usually brutally and always neatly.
Let's call it a 4.5, though I'm not a big fan of star ratings in general.
June 26, 2016
‘Ripley’s Game’ refers to the plan that Tom Ripley concocts to get the most unlikely person to commit murder and so realize the perfect crime. As always with Highsmith, things don’t always go to plan and we are suddenly in the middle of an exciting thriller. Highsmith has an incredible talent for laying the characters before us and letting us, the readers, make judgements about their actions. A great Sunday afternoon read.
October 17, 2025
ماجرایی جنایی از کشاندن پای انسانی در ورطه مرگ به دنیای جنایت و مافیا،در این مورد بسیار پرداخته شده که انسانی که به دلایل پزشکی مرگ قریب الوقوع و گریز ناپذیری در پیش دارد،برای بهبود زندگی آنانی که دوستشان دارد پس از مرگ خود تا چه اندازه حاضر است که اخلاقیات و آنچه که سال ها زندگی شرافتمندانه نامیده را رها کند و دست به جنایت بزند و زندگی های دیگران را پایان دهد.
May 20, 2009
Tom Ripley is perhaps my favorite psychopath. Even though he is frighteningly amoral, I still find myself somehow rooting for him as he murders his “best friend”, engages in art forgery (and commits murder to cover it up), plays with the lives of others (and murders some of them of course) simply because he feels he was snubbed, indulges in a lot of sexually ambiguous behavior, and generally plays a game of cat-and-mouse with anyone who crosses his path.
October 19, 2018
Ripley goes missing for a lot of this book. His old mate Reeves wants someone to murder a couple of Mafia men but Ripley does not feel like it so he cons a local to get involved. When Ripley was missing the story was a bit ho hum and when he reappears it all gets a little far fetched and unbelievable.
September 17, 2021
Mình tưởng cuốn này sẽ tiếp nối cuốn Thế giới ngầm của Ripley vì phần kết của cuốn kia có hơi dở dang một chút, hoá ra cuốn này bắt đầu một câu chuyện khác của Tom Ripley làm mình hơi hụt hẫng.
Ở cuốn sách này, Ripley không buộc phải tạo vấn đề hay vô tình tạo vấn đề mà CHỦ ĐỘNG tạo vấn đề theo kiểu đùa giỡn. Tom hứng khởi với trò chơi mình tạo ra, cho dù biết rằng vụ việc này vô cùng nguy hiểm vì nó có liên quan đến mafia, và một nạn nhân vô tội đang bị dính líu vào vụ việc vì trò chơi của Tom.
Truyện có cấu trúc khá giống với cuốn Thế giới ngầm, và cũng khai thác nhiều vào mối quan hệ đặc biệt của Tom với một nhân vật khác. Ở đây, nhân vật đó chính là Jonathan, anh chàng bán hoạ cụ nghèo nàn không hay biết gì về âm mưu đầy tội lỗi của Tom. Chính Tom gián tiếp lôi kéo Jonathan vào mạng lưới rắc rối của hiểm nguy, gây ra ngờ vực trong gia đình Jonathan, đồng thời cũng khiến Jonathan xung đột, mâu thuẫn với bản thân mình.
Có thể coi truyện được tạo nên từ hai phần: một phần là góc nhìn của Tom, và một phần là góc nhìn của Jonathan. Ta thấy được thái độ, cách nhìn nhận của mỗi người về vụ việc và có thể thấy Tom Ripley, dù ngông cuồng, quá tự tin vào dự tính của mình, cũng vẫn có chút xúc cảm với nạn nhân mà mình lôi kéo vào. Mới đầu mình tưởng truyện sẽ dành nhiều thời gian kể cho từ Jonathan hơn, nhưng hoá ra Tom Ripley đã chủ động tự dính líu bản thân vào vụ việc.
Hậu quả mưu tính của Tom thực sự khốc liệt và khiến mình ngỡ ngàng. Với mình thì kết không có hậu, và kết này, hay cả câu chuyện này, cũng đã chứng minh cho Tom là không phải lúc nào Tom cũng có thể tính toán hết mọi việc được, đặc biệt là khi liên quan đến những người vô tội.
Ở cuốn sách này, Ripley không buộc phải tạo vấn đề hay vô tình tạo vấn đề mà CHỦ ĐỘNG tạo vấn đề theo kiểu đùa giỡn. Tom hứng khởi với trò chơi mình tạo ra, cho dù biết rằng vụ việc này vô cùng nguy hiểm vì nó có liên quan đến mafia, và một nạn nhân vô tội đang bị dính líu vào vụ việc vì trò chơi của Tom.
Truyện có cấu trúc khá giống với cuốn Thế giới ngầm, và cũng khai thác nhiều vào mối quan hệ đặc biệt của Tom với một nhân vật khác. Ở đây, nhân vật đó chính là Jonathan, anh chàng bán hoạ cụ nghèo nàn không hay biết gì về âm mưu đầy tội lỗi của Tom. Chính Tom gián tiếp lôi kéo Jonathan vào mạng lưới rắc rối của hiểm nguy, gây ra ngờ vực trong gia đình Jonathan, đồng thời cũng khiến Jonathan xung đột, mâu thuẫn với bản thân mình.
Có thể coi truyện được tạo nên từ hai phần: một phần là góc nhìn của Tom, và một phần là góc nhìn của Jonathan. Ta thấy được thái độ, cách nhìn nhận của mỗi người về vụ việc và có thể thấy Tom Ripley, dù ngông cuồng, quá tự tin vào dự tính của mình, cũng vẫn có chút xúc cảm với nạn nhân mà mình lôi kéo vào. Mới đầu mình tưởng truyện sẽ dành nhiều thời gian kể cho từ Jonathan hơn, nhưng hoá ra Tom Ripley đã chủ động tự dính líu bản thân vào vụ việc.
Hậu quả mưu tính của Tom thực sự khốc liệt và khiến mình ngỡ ngàng. Với mình thì kết không có hậu, và kết này, hay cả câu chuyện này, cũng đã chứng minh cho Tom là không phải lúc nào Tom cũng có thể tính toán hết mọi việc được, đặc biệt là khi liên quan đến những người vô tội.
May 22, 2023
06/2019
From 1974
An interesting novel, about Tom Ripley manipulating another man, who has Leukaemia, into murdering Mafioso in Germany (like, you're dying anyway, do these killings and get money for your family). Overlong and sometimes depressing, but well written. The scene with Tom and Jonathan killing the men on the train then pushing them off was so good.
From 1974
An interesting novel, about Tom Ripley manipulating another man, who has Leukaemia, into murdering Mafioso in Germany (like, you're dying anyway, do these killings and get money for your family). Overlong and sometimes depressing, but well written. The scene with Tom and Jonathan killing the men on the train then pushing them off was so good.
January 12, 2023
3.5
Mannaggia, si è perso nell’ultima parte. Eppure è scritto così bene.
Mannaggia, si è perso nell’ultima parte. Eppure è scritto così bene.
March 12, 2021
"There's no such thing as a perfect murder," Tom Ripley declares in the very first line of this, the third in Patricia Highsmith's series of five novels about the charming, social-climbing sociopath. The joke here is that in the first two novels, "The Talented Mr. Ripley" and "Ripley Under Ground," Ripley killed four people, and got away with every one of those murders.
Not only did he get away with them, but he's now living in France in a grand home, with a beautiful wife who knows better than to ask too many questions and a housekeeper who cooks him lots of good food. Before this novel is over, he will have bought a harpsichord and started learning how to play, too. Oh, and of course he will have killed several more people.
While the police have never charged him with a thing, local gossip has tagged Ripley as a shady operator. That's why, at a party, a man named Jonathan Trevanny greets Ripley by saying, "Oh, I've heard of you." That bit of rudeness stings Ripley into what turns into a massive retaliation.
Ripley's fence and sometime friend Reeves Minot wants Ripley's help in killing a couple of mobsters because it will spark a mob war in Hamburg, to the benefit of the cafe he co-owns. Ripley demurs, but then comes up with an alternative: Tevanny, the man who was rude to him.
Ripley lays out a plan by which he and Reeves maniplulate Trevanny -- who has leukemia -- into agreeing to shoot one of the mobsters in exchange for a large sum of money being deposited in the bank for his family to use when he dies. The seduction of Trevanny, a family man who dotes on his wife and young child but fears leaving them in the lurch when he's gone, takes a while. Finally, unable to resist any more, he agrees.
Then, when Trevanny hesitates to carry through with all of Reeves' complicated plan, Ripley appears suddenly to help him out. Before this short (267 pages) novel is over, Ripley will have killed a total of five people, drawn Trevanny so deeply into his scheming that he can't get out and, in the end, the only consequence Ripley suffers is that Trevanny's wife spits at him -- and misses.
All in all, I'd say Tom's claim that there's no such thing as a perfect murder is pretty well disproven. I look forward to reading the next novel in the sequence, all in celebration of Highsmith's 100th birthday this year. Something tells me Ripley will get away with some more murdering in that one, too.
Not only did he get away with them, but he's now living in France in a grand home, with a beautiful wife who knows better than to ask too many questions and a housekeeper who cooks him lots of good food. Before this novel is over, he will have bought a harpsichord and started learning how to play, too. Oh, and of course he will have killed several more people.
While the police have never charged him with a thing, local gossip has tagged Ripley as a shady operator. That's why, at a party, a man named Jonathan Trevanny greets Ripley by saying, "Oh, I've heard of you." That bit of rudeness stings Ripley into what turns into a massive retaliation.
Ripley's fence and sometime friend Reeves Minot wants Ripley's help in killing a couple of mobsters because it will spark a mob war in Hamburg, to the benefit of the cafe he co-owns. Ripley demurs, but then comes up with an alternative: Tevanny, the man who was rude to him.
Ripley lays out a plan by which he and Reeves maniplulate Trevanny -- who has leukemia -- into agreeing to shoot one of the mobsters in exchange for a large sum of money being deposited in the bank for his family to use when he dies. The seduction of Trevanny, a family man who dotes on his wife and young child but fears leaving them in the lurch when he's gone, takes a while. Finally, unable to resist any more, he agrees.
Then, when Trevanny hesitates to carry through with all of Reeves' complicated plan, Ripley appears suddenly to help him out. Before this short (267 pages) novel is over, Ripley will have killed a total of five people, drawn Trevanny so deeply into his scheming that he can't get out and, in the end, the only consequence Ripley suffers is that Trevanny's wife spits at him -- and misses.
All in all, I'd say Tom's claim that there's no such thing as a perfect murder is pretty well disproven. I look forward to reading the next novel in the sequence, all in celebration of Highsmith's 100th birthday this year. Something tells me Ripley will get away with some more murdering in that one, too.
January 23, 2022
This might be my favorite of the Ripley series—it’s just so different than the rest. In it, you get two different and intriguing perspectives as well as two different Ripleys himself—not only the maliciously evil Tom but the brilliantly intuitive, resourceful, brave and loyal Tom, too. My crush (and other ;) things) for Tom Ripley grows..
I’m not sure whether I should be ashamed to admit that this bloodthirsty crime thriller made me horny but it did. It’s very homo erotic with more hidden clues to Ripley’s sexuality than ever before. That’s part of the thrill of Ripley’s Game and Tom Ripley has good game—what a player.
I’m not sure whether I should be ashamed to admit that this bloodthirsty crime thriller made me horny but it did. It’s very homo erotic with more hidden clues to Ripley’s sexuality than ever before. That’s part of the thrill of Ripley’s Game and Tom Ripley has good game—what a player.
August 10, 2023
In this novel, the third in the accomplished Ripley mystery series, Highsmith invites the reader to glimpse the blasé manner in which our (anti-) hero can rope innocents into his cold schemes. 4.5 stars, imho. (Spoiler alert!)
Ripley, for no other reason than pique, casually sets the wheels in motion to ensnare an upright fellow in a plot to dispatch Mafia figures, in an effort to keep two crime families out of the illegal gambling business in Munich.
The man, happily married and a father, is ill, with poor prospects for living much longer. Therefore, he reasons, why not earn a tidy sum by becoming involved in a hit, so as to provide for his family down the road? Well, actually not quite that simple a decision, really.
Highsmith elegantly allows the reader to see how the poor man is gradually lured into the scheme as the German fence, initiating the crime, simply never acknowledges any doubt that our uninitiated craftsman will ultimately agree to do the deed. Tasty!
The genre ‘psychological thriller’, in these times, often leaves me somewhat cold. The plots are all too frequently, maddeningly predictable, and the matter of abnormal psychology as it relates to criminal acts, described with an unnecessary measure of pop culture clichés thrown in.
Not so with Highsmith, to her credit - and adding to my pleasure. She held off describing scandalous events and schemes involving Ripley, in terms of his cold manipulations and tangled webs of deceit, to an admirable extent in her first two offerings in the series, leaving the reader to imagine the depths of careless malice that Tom Ripley’s sociopathic tendencies could take him. Here, in the third installment, it is clear that he isn’t done yet - ruining lives at his whim - with a callous disregard for right and wrong, if he even understands the concept.
Here we catch a glimpse of his more malignant inner workings. He isn’t content to simply commit crimes, but also quite amused by the harm to others who, although less guarded against the danger to which they are exposing themselves than they might be, are nonetheless disarmingly susceptible to the masterful schemes Ripley dreams up.
In a phrase, I find Highsmith’s series to be refreshing and satisfying. This is in part because of the times - 30 years into the last century - and in part, because of the charming European village settings she employs, where the naïveté she depicts is quite believable. Although an American author, Patricia Highsmith is also a veteran of a bygone era of (relatively quaint) European life and she uses her experience on the continent to give a refined depth to her well-chosen settings..
Ripley, for no other reason than pique, casually sets the wheels in motion to ensnare an upright fellow in a plot to dispatch Mafia figures, in an effort to keep two crime families out of the illegal gambling business in Munich.
The man, happily married and a father, is ill, with poor prospects for living much longer. Therefore, he reasons, why not earn a tidy sum by becoming involved in a hit, so as to provide for his family down the road? Well, actually not quite that simple a decision, really.
Highsmith elegantly allows the reader to see how the poor man is gradually lured into the scheme as the German fence, initiating the crime, simply never acknowledges any doubt that our uninitiated craftsman will ultimately agree to do the deed. Tasty!
The genre ‘psychological thriller’, in these times, often leaves me somewhat cold. The plots are all too frequently, maddeningly predictable, and the matter of abnormal psychology as it relates to criminal acts, described with an unnecessary measure of pop culture clichés thrown in.
Not so with Highsmith, to her credit - and adding to my pleasure. She held off describing scandalous events and schemes involving Ripley, in terms of his cold manipulations and tangled webs of deceit, to an admirable extent in her first two offerings in the series, leaving the reader to imagine the depths of careless malice that Tom Ripley’s sociopathic tendencies could take him. Here, in the third installment, it is clear that he isn’t done yet - ruining lives at his whim - with a callous disregard for right and wrong, if he even understands the concept.
Here we catch a glimpse of his more malignant inner workings. He isn’t content to simply commit crimes, but also quite amused by the harm to others who, although less guarded against the danger to which they are exposing themselves than they might be, are nonetheless disarmingly susceptible to the masterful schemes Ripley dreams up.
In a phrase, I find Highsmith’s series to be refreshing and satisfying. This is in part because of the times - 30 years into the last century - and in part, because of the charming European village settings she employs, where the naïveté she depicts is quite believable. Although an American author, Patricia Highsmith is also a veteran of a bygone era of (relatively quaint) European life and she uses her experience on the continent to give a refined depth to her well-chosen settings..
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
April 13, 2024
Dość zaskakujące, że głównym bohaterem tej powieści stał się ktoś nowy, a nie tytułowy Ripley. Chociaż trzeba przyznać, że obserwowanie niejako powstawania mordercy, bo tym stanie się przecież Jonathan, było fascynujące. Przyglądamy się, jak kolejne osoby wikłają się w plątaninę intryg i tak naprawdę do końca nie miałam pewności, czy za chwilę Ripley nie wyskoczy spod brody i pseudonimu, by pokazać, że cały czas był z nami :)
Nadal nie jest to aż tak dobre jak pierwszy, Utalentowany Pan Ripley, ale rozrywka nienajgorsza.
Nadal nie jest to aż tak dobre jak pierwszy, Utalentowany Pan Ripley, ale rozrywka nienajgorsza.
October 28, 2025
When I read "The Talented Mr. Ripley" late last year, I was impressed by my first exposure to Patricia Highsmith's writing but also dead certain that I never needed to follow her titular character through any more of his adventures. Tom Ripley, a con artist and murderer, wasn't really my cup of tea. It wasn't any sort of moral objection; I have read about similarly despicable characters with glee, and never once asked myself if I was a bad person for doing so. No, Tom Ripley just struck me as an okay main character but not one that I wanted to spend time with. But then I gave "Ripley Under Ground" a try and realized that Highsmith was doing far more interesting things with Ripley than just "oops, did another murder just now." And so it goes with the third installment, which is the best so far.
"Ripley's Game" finds Tom being asked by Reeves Minot to take out some Mafia types in Germany and deciding to have a little fun with it by setting up someone else to do his dirty work. Jonathan Trevanny, an Englishman in France living under the death sentence of leukemia, is the perfect foil for Tom's scheme: he's not sure how long he has, he has a wife and young child who will need financial security when he's gone, and he made the unfortunate mistake of being rude to Tom at a party, thereby putting himself on the con artist's radar. Just for shits and giggles, Tom conspires to set before Jonathan a nest egg's worth of dough if he (Jonathan) becomes an amateur hit-man, and the poor soul takes the bait.
But then something strange happens, as we progress onwards: Tom Ripley becomes...sympathetic? I'm shocked at myself for saying it, and it doesn't excuse his actions, but Tom somehow decides to help Jonathan and ends up dooming him despite his best efforts not to do so. Tom disappears from the novel for a while, a d you're wondering as a reader what's going on. But when he reappears, he does so with gusto, and as it turns out he's strangely remorseful for the bind that he's put Jonathan in. It's not a typical trait for this fascinating character, and you almost wonder if it's for show. It may very well be...but you'll have to read the rest of the novel to figure it out for yourself. And even then...you might not land firmly on one side or the other.
But yeah, this is the masterpiece of the Ripley saga so far; "Talented" set the table, while "Under Ground" was the appetizer. "Ripley's Game" is the main course, perhaps, or maybe the entrée (I'm not a sophisticated diner, so I could be getting this analogy all wrong). My main point is, this novel delivers on the promise of a character who continues to evolve and, while still displaying sociopathic behavior, grow into a protagonist who is not one-note at all. Tom Ripley is charming at times, even while doing despicable things. And "Ripley's Game" serves as a reminder of what a joy it is to see a writer firing on all cylinders. I can't wait to read the final two books of the series, though I also plan to luxuriate in the feeling that "Ripley's Game" gives me. Tom Ripley contains multitudes, as it turns out; none of them are admirable, but none of them are boring, either.
"Ripley's Game" finds Tom being asked by Reeves Minot to take out some Mafia types in Germany and deciding to have a little fun with it by setting up someone else to do his dirty work. Jonathan Trevanny, an Englishman in France living under the death sentence of leukemia, is the perfect foil for Tom's scheme: he's not sure how long he has, he has a wife and young child who will need financial security when he's gone, and he made the unfortunate mistake of being rude to Tom at a party, thereby putting himself on the con artist's radar. Just for shits and giggles, Tom conspires to set before Jonathan a nest egg's worth of dough if he (Jonathan) becomes an amateur hit-man, and the poor soul takes the bait.
But then something strange happens, as we progress onwards: Tom Ripley becomes...sympathetic? I'm shocked at myself for saying it, and it doesn't excuse his actions, but Tom somehow decides to help Jonathan and ends up dooming him despite his best efforts not to do so. Tom disappears from the novel for a while, a d you're wondering as a reader what's going on. But when he reappears, he does so with gusto, and as it turns out he's strangely remorseful for the bind that he's put Jonathan in. It's not a typical trait for this fascinating character, and you almost wonder if it's for show. It may very well be...but you'll have to read the rest of the novel to figure it out for yourself. And even then...you might not land firmly on one side or the other.
But yeah, this is the masterpiece of the Ripley saga so far; "Talented" set the table, while "Under Ground" was the appetizer. "Ripley's Game" is the main course, perhaps, or maybe the entrée (I'm not a sophisticated diner, so I could be getting this analogy all wrong). My main point is, this novel delivers on the promise of a character who continues to evolve and, while still displaying sociopathic behavior, grow into a protagonist who is not one-note at all. Tom Ripley is charming at times, even while doing despicable things. And "Ripley's Game" serves as a reminder of what a joy it is to see a writer firing on all cylinders. I can't wait to read the final two books of the series, though I also plan to luxuriate in the feeling that "Ripley's Game" gives me. Tom Ripley contains multitudes, as it turns out; none of them are admirable, but none of them are boring, either.
November 8, 2016
In this third book in the series, Tom Ripley, feeling insulted by a local Englishman, decides to play a prank on him--but since this is Tom Ripley, the prank goes too far, and Tom ends up entangled in the aftermath. About half the book is told from the point of view of the victim, Jonathan Trevenny, who has incurable leukemia and a wife and small child and is thoroughly likeable, so for a long time I was angry with Tom for mixing this guy up in trouble with the unlikeable and apparently (and unjustly) bulletproof Reeves. In the previous books, Tom's victims at least have it coming to some degree. However, Jonathan chooses to go along with the "opportunity" Reeves sets him up for, and that was entirely his choice, so Tom isn't totally to blame. And Tom shows up to save Jonathan at the perfect time, redeeming him in my eyes.
I was seriously annoyed with Jonathan's wife Simone, who is unnaturally insightful (she always picks up on exactly the most damning details) and completely irrational in her belief that Ripley is to blame for Jonathan's immediate troubles (he's not, Reeves is). She adds to the tension, but in an irritating way. Aside from that, the book was entertaining. I like the more mature Tom Ripley than the one from the first book.
But the ending is dissatisfying:
I'm not sure if I'll continue with the series, as my library doesn't have the next book; I'm enjoying it, but maybe not enough to go out of my way to get it.
I was seriously annoyed with Jonathan's wife Simone, who is unnaturally insightful (she always picks up on exactly the most damning details) and completely irrational in her belief that Ripley is to blame for Jonathan's immediate troubles (he's not, Reeves is). She adds to the tension, but in an irritating way. Aside from that, the book was entertaining. I like the more mature Tom Ripley than the one from the first book.
But the ending is dissatisfying:
I'm not sure if I'll continue with the series, as my library doesn't have the next book; I'm enjoying it, but maybe not enough to go out of my way to get it.
Read
April 22, 2024- Hej, Tom, potrzebuję pomocy, szukam mordercy, który rozprawi się z włoską mafią w Hamburgu, masz ochotę kogoś przypadkowo zabić albo znasz kogoś, kto mógłby to zrobić?
-Nie, co ty, Reeves, ja zawsze zabijam z konkretnego powodu (chyba, że nie) i nie chcę się mieszać w porachunki mafijne... Chociaż, czekaj, był taki jeden facet, bardzo uczciwy i praworządny, ALE był DLA MNIE NIEMIŁY NA PRZYJĘCIU.
Tak, Ripley sprowadza na ścieżkę występku uczciwego człowieka i niszczy mu życie, bo jest małostkowy. Kiedy myślę, że nie mogę uwielbiać go bardziej, wyskakuje z czymś takim i moja admiracja wzrasta jak na sterydach.
Pozycja nietypowa dla serii o Ripleyu, bo samego Ripleya jest tu mało, praktycznie znika w pierwszej połowie, czego się nie spodziewałam. Albo raczej jest obecny zakulisowo. Wprawia trybiki machiny w ruch i obserwuje, co się dzieje. Wodzi na pokuszenie. Interesujące jest obserwowanie, co się dzieje z jego ofiarą: jak człowiek staje się mordercą, co może skłonić, skusić zwykłego, uczciwego obywatela, troskliwego męża i ojca, do wejścia na drogę zbrodni. Highsmith wielokrotnie poruszała ten temat, chociażby w słynnych "Nieznajomych z pociągu" i innych opowiadaniach. Tutaj subtelnie zarysowuje powolne ustępstwa (pojadę do Hamburga, ale do lekarza, nie żeby zabić, na pewno nie zabiję, skoro już tu jestem, niech mówi o tym, jak można zabić tego mafioza, i tak tego nie zrobię, skoro już wiem, jak to zrobić...), jakich dopuszcza się Johnathan zanim sięgnie po broń, dzięki czemu jego transformacja jest bardzo przekonująca pod względem psychologicznym. Niespodziewanie Ripley powraca w drugiej części powieści, aby zbierać żniwa swoich działań. Jego relacja z drugim mężczyzną staje się bardzo ciekawa, a wspólna zbrodnia znowu zostaje ekwiwalentem intymnej relacji, co jest jednym z moich ulubionych motywów.
Ripley świetnie się bawił manipulując człowieka, któremu chciał za wszelką cenę udowodnić, że jego poczucie moralnej wyższości jest niczym nieuzasadnione, a ja bawiłam się razem z nim.
-Nie, co ty, Reeves, ja zawsze zabijam z konkretnego powodu (chyba, że nie) i nie chcę się mieszać w porachunki mafijne... Chociaż, czekaj, był taki jeden facet, bardzo uczciwy i praworządny, ALE był DLA MNIE NIEMIŁY NA PRZYJĘCIU.
Tak, Ripley sprowadza na ścieżkę występku uczciwego człowieka i niszczy mu życie, bo jest małostkowy. Kiedy myślę, że nie mogę uwielbiać go bardziej, wyskakuje z czymś takim i moja admiracja wzrasta jak na sterydach.
Pozycja nietypowa dla serii o Ripleyu, bo samego Ripleya jest tu mało, praktycznie znika w pierwszej połowie, czego się nie spodziewałam. Albo raczej jest obecny zakulisowo. Wprawia trybiki machiny w ruch i obserwuje, co się dzieje. Wodzi na pokuszenie. Interesujące jest obserwowanie, co się dzieje z jego ofiarą: jak człowiek staje się mordercą, co może skłonić, skusić zwykłego, uczciwego obywatela, troskliwego męża i ojca, do wejścia na drogę zbrodni. Highsmith wielokrotnie poruszała ten temat, chociażby w słynnych "Nieznajomych z pociągu" i innych opowiadaniach. Tutaj subtelnie zarysowuje powolne ustępstwa (pojadę do Hamburga, ale do lekarza, nie żeby zabić, na pewno nie zabiję, skoro już tu jestem, niech mówi o tym, jak można zabić tego mafioza, i tak tego nie zrobię, skoro już wiem, jak to zrobić...), jakich dopuszcza się Johnathan zanim sięgnie po broń, dzięki czemu jego transformacja jest bardzo przekonująca pod względem psychologicznym. Niespodziewanie Ripley powraca w drugiej części powieści, aby zbierać żniwa swoich działań. Jego relacja z drugim mężczyzną staje się bardzo ciekawa, a wspólna zbrodnia znowu zostaje ekwiwalentem intymnej relacji, co jest jednym z moich ulubionych motywów.
Ripley świetnie się bawił manipulując człowieka, któremu chciał za wszelką cenę udowodnić, że jego poczucie moralnej wyższości jest niczym nieuzasadnione, a ja bawiłam się razem z nim.
Read
May 19, 2016I fell a little bit in love with Ripley with this book. Which is utterly, utterly twisted and wrong.
I'm so delighted to have discovered Patricia Highsmith for comfort reading. Yes, dark and twisted is my comfort reading.
I'm so delighted to have discovered Patricia Highsmith for comfort reading. Yes, dark and twisted is my comfort reading.
January 9, 2022
ughhhh i love this series. as much as i do wanna get back to my regularly scheduled stephen king reading, i also don't wanna say goodbye to tom ripley so soon :/
March 1, 2014
This … this is a return to form for the Ripley series. Coming out of a fairly weak sequel, the third book in this series – Ripley’s Game - is utterly outstanding. I don’t know whether my expectations were just a little bit low from Ripley Under Ground when compared to the first one, but this … Ripley’s Game reminds me how very much I love this character and how damn tense and enjoyable the first novel was.
Having just finished Ripley’s Game I feel my mind is everywhere, wanting to say everything. I feel almost like a schoolgirl talking to another schoolgirl about their schoolyard crushes. The fact that I can feel like this about a novel is oh so lovely. Highsmith, Highsmith, Highsmith you beautiful woman, help me write a competent review, here.
So we start off about six months after the Derwatt fiasco of the second book. Ripley is kind of out of the game (the blurb makes me think of Ripley as like a middle-aged man, grey hair, tweed jackets etc.) for a while, lying low. The problem is, with lying low, our loveable sociopath gets pretty damn bored. It’s almost as if all the killing and mayhem gives Tom’s life worth. So Tom Reeply is bored, and a shady fence named Reeves wants him to offer up some kind of hitman to plug two Mafia guys interfering with his operations in Hamburg.
Cut to Jonathan Trevanny. And speaking of cut, that’s an integral part of this book. Highsmith evidently wanted to switch things up and so quite lucidly switches between Jonathan and Ripley every other chapter or … whenever the hell she feels like it. Now you might think this won’t really work, or it will be too messy like I did initially, but this technique works rather remarkably. Highsmith knows what she’s doing here and you can really see this with the way she executes and seamlessly blends and makes us care for both Ripley (who we already do) and Jonathan.
In fact, this novel – Ripley’s Game – could very well pass off as an original property, focusing on the exploits of Jonathan. That could work, honestly, that’s how much I cared about this character, and how much Highsmith makes us care. I’d say we spend more time with Jonathan than we do Ripley. Both are main protagonists, really, but I feel Jonathan is the spiritual protagonist. As I said, we already care for Ripley, so Jonathan gets a lot of time to shine.
And it’s not like Ripley has nothing to do with the story. He is quite central here, as well. In short, Ripley meets Jonathan Trevanny at a party and Trevanny gives him a sneer, having heard the various seedy exploits with Dickie Greenleaf and so on. And, because Ripley is bored and because he also doesn’t like sneers, Ripley offers Trevanny’s name up as hitman to Reeves. Now, this is really my only problem in the whole book. Tom informs Reeves that Trevanny is terminal and so might make a good candidate for the job. He’ll make some hard cash and – moral gripes be damned – he dies anyway, his family gets the cash.
Thing is, I don’t understand how Tom initially knows this. Tom tells a friend of Jonathan’s (Gauthier) so the friend will spread it around and start Trevanny’s mortality clock, so Reeves can jump in and offer the deal. But how does Tom know? Maybe I missed something, but that’s my only main gripe with the novel.
After this set up, the ball rolls and doesn’t ever stop until the end. It takes a little bit of trickery and incentive (getting Jonathan to go to Germany to see doctors at the expense of Reeves) but Jonathan eventually succumbs to the dark side. This is Ripley’s Game. I won’t spoil everything that happens but I can safely say it’s as thrilling if not more so than the first Talented Mr Ripley. There’s a moment on the train which just blew my mind, and I had a grin ear to ear. I was not expecting it at all and it made me simply light up. Once again, Highsmith takes her characters to the sheer depths and heights of human emotion and doesn’t stop the cavalcade of intensity until the last page.
There’s never a moment where you feel the steam start pulling off. That’s not to say there’s always action, just that Highsmith holds your interest in this really visceral way where you can almost feel the characters and their pain. Pacing wise Ripley’s Game is nothing short of spot on and a remarkable step up from the sometimes-drudgery of Ripley Under Ground.
Because Jonathan is terminal, there’s a lot in this novel about death and the meaninglessness of life and so on and so on. And all this is handled not just excellently for the story, but realistically, handled in a way that’s applicable to real life. Sure, this is just fiction, but the thing about Ripley’s Game and a large amount of this specific type of fiction and almost all of Highsmith’s novels is that they transcend fiction, they kind of rise above the well-done prose and intense storytelling, there’s almost something more to it.
I’m rambling. Am I rambling? But, a truly great read. If you haven’t touched this series yet, firstly why are you reading this and, secondly, why haven’t you?
I like how despite Tom just trying to lie low he is physically incapable of doing so, and because he can’t really get any deeper in the mud is now dragging innocent people along with him. Objectively, this novel is wrong and the main character a vile man. And while the latter is true, and at the very end I can’t help but laugh as Tom continues to delude himself into thinking he’s not that bad a person, I continue to love this guy.
I’d say Tom Ripley is one of the greatest anti-heroes I’ve ever read. He’s so vile and horrible and he has everything, this should make you want to loathe him and despise him, but you just can’t the way Highsmith writes and depicts him, it’s just too much fun watching him succeed. Props also to Ripley’s Game for breaking up the formula of the last two novels in a unique way.
It almost felt like Jonathan was Ripley’s protégée in a way, and that was really strange considering Ripley always works alone. This is even brought up as Tom talks to himself and mentally has trouble thinking of his next course of action with Trevanny in the room.
I can’t help but wonder when Tom will get caught, though. Because he is so damn lucky in each novel and the tension is so high in this and the other two. Tom is almost just avoiding certain death or imprisonment by a mere molecule.
So, terrific prose, a very well paced – um – pace, realistic characters that I cared for and a looming philosophic doom. What more can I ask for in a novel?
And now, because why not, I leave this review with one of my favourite bits in Ripley’s Game and in my mind the greatest depiction of dying I probably will ever read.
Enjoy:
Jonathan heard voices, but he couldn’t speak. He couldn’t move, not even a finger. He had a grey vision of a sea running out – somewhere on an English coast – sinking, collapsing. He was already far away from Simone, whose breast he leaned against – or so he thought. But Tom was alive. Tom was driving the car, Jonathan thought, like God himself. Somewhere there had been a bullet, which somehow no longer mattered. This was death now, which he had tried to face before and yet had not faced, tried to prepare and yet hadn’t been able to. There was no preparation possible, it was merely a surrender, after all. And what he had done, misdone, accomplished, striven for – all seemed absurdity.
Having just finished Ripley’s Game I feel my mind is everywhere, wanting to say everything. I feel almost like a schoolgirl talking to another schoolgirl about their schoolyard crushes. The fact that I can feel like this about a novel is oh so lovely. Highsmith, Highsmith, Highsmith you beautiful woman, help me write a competent review, here.
So we start off about six months after the Derwatt fiasco of the second book. Ripley is kind of out of the game (the blurb makes me think of Ripley as like a middle-aged man, grey hair, tweed jackets etc.) for a while, lying low. The problem is, with lying low, our loveable sociopath gets pretty damn bored. It’s almost as if all the killing and mayhem gives Tom’s life worth. So Tom Reeply is bored, and a shady fence named Reeves wants him to offer up some kind of hitman to plug two Mafia guys interfering with his operations in Hamburg.
Cut to Jonathan Trevanny. And speaking of cut, that’s an integral part of this book. Highsmith evidently wanted to switch things up and so quite lucidly switches between Jonathan and Ripley every other chapter or … whenever the hell she feels like it. Now you might think this won’t really work, or it will be too messy like I did initially, but this technique works rather remarkably. Highsmith knows what she’s doing here and you can really see this with the way she executes and seamlessly blends and makes us care for both Ripley (who we already do) and Jonathan.
In fact, this novel – Ripley’s Game – could very well pass off as an original property, focusing on the exploits of Jonathan. That could work, honestly, that’s how much I cared about this character, and how much Highsmith makes us care. I’d say we spend more time with Jonathan than we do Ripley. Both are main protagonists, really, but I feel Jonathan is the spiritual protagonist. As I said, we already care for Ripley, so Jonathan gets a lot of time to shine.
And it’s not like Ripley has nothing to do with the story. He is quite central here, as well. In short, Ripley meets Jonathan Trevanny at a party and Trevanny gives him a sneer, having heard the various seedy exploits with Dickie Greenleaf and so on. And, because Ripley is bored and because he also doesn’t like sneers, Ripley offers Trevanny’s name up as hitman to Reeves. Now, this is really my only problem in the whole book. Tom informs Reeves that Trevanny is terminal and so might make a good candidate for the job. He’ll make some hard cash and – moral gripes be damned – he dies anyway, his family gets the cash.
Thing is, I don’t understand how Tom initially knows this. Tom tells a friend of Jonathan’s (Gauthier) so the friend will spread it around and start Trevanny’s mortality clock, so Reeves can jump in and offer the deal. But how does Tom know? Maybe I missed something, but that’s my only main gripe with the novel.
After this set up, the ball rolls and doesn’t ever stop until the end. It takes a little bit of trickery and incentive (getting Jonathan to go to Germany to see doctors at the expense of Reeves) but Jonathan eventually succumbs to the dark side. This is Ripley’s Game. I won’t spoil everything that happens but I can safely say it’s as thrilling if not more so than the first Talented Mr Ripley. There’s a moment on the train which just blew my mind, and I had a grin ear to ear. I was not expecting it at all and it made me simply light up. Once again, Highsmith takes her characters to the sheer depths and heights of human emotion and doesn’t stop the cavalcade of intensity until the last page.
There’s never a moment where you feel the steam start pulling off. That’s not to say there’s always action, just that Highsmith holds your interest in this really visceral way where you can almost feel the characters and their pain. Pacing wise Ripley’s Game is nothing short of spot on and a remarkable step up from the sometimes-drudgery of Ripley Under Ground.
Because Jonathan is terminal, there’s a lot in this novel about death and the meaninglessness of life and so on and so on. And all this is handled not just excellently for the story, but realistically, handled in a way that’s applicable to real life. Sure, this is just fiction, but the thing about Ripley’s Game and a large amount of this specific type of fiction and almost all of Highsmith’s novels is that they transcend fiction, they kind of rise above the well-done prose and intense storytelling, there’s almost something more to it.
I’m rambling. Am I rambling? But, a truly great read. If you haven’t touched this series yet, firstly why are you reading this and, secondly, why haven’t you?
I like how despite Tom just trying to lie low he is physically incapable of doing so, and because he can’t really get any deeper in the mud is now dragging innocent people along with him. Objectively, this novel is wrong and the main character a vile man. And while the latter is true, and at the very end I can’t help but laugh as Tom continues to delude himself into thinking he’s not that bad a person, I continue to love this guy.
I’d say Tom Ripley is one of the greatest anti-heroes I’ve ever read. He’s so vile and horrible and he has everything, this should make you want to loathe him and despise him, but you just can’t the way Highsmith writes and depicts him, it’s just too much fun watching him succeed. Props also to Ripley’s Game for breaking up the formula of the last two novels in a unique way.
It almost felt like Jonathan was Ripley’s protégée in a way, and that was really strange considering Ripley always works alone. This is even brought up as Tom talks to himself and mentally has trouble thinking of his next course of action with Trevanny in the room.
I can’t help but wonder when Tom will get caught, though. Because he is so damn lucky in each novel and the tension is so high in this and the other two. Tom is almost just avoiding certain death or imprisonment by a mere molecule.
So, terrific prose, a very well paced – um – pace, realistic characters that I cared for and a looming philosophic doom. What more can I ask for in a novel?
And now, because why not, I leave this review with one of my favourite bits in Ripley’s Game and in my mind the greatest depiction of dying I probably will ever read.
Enjoy:
Jonathan heard voices, but he couldn’t speak. He couldn’t move, not even a finger. He had a grey vision of a sea running out – somewhere on an English coast – sinking, collapsing. He was already far away from Simone, whose breast he leaned against – or so he thought. But Tom was alive. Tom was driving the car, Jonathan thought, like God himself. Somewhere there had been a bullet, which somehow no longer mattered. This was death now, which he had tried to face before and yet had not faced, tried to prepare and yet hadn’t been able to. There was no preparation possible, it was merely a surrender, after all. And what he had done, misdone, accomplished, striven for – all seemed absurdity.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 757 reviews