The Impersonator

by Diana Hammond

Hypnotic and intriguingly corrupt, screenwriter Hammond's virtuoso second novel (after Sweet Lies ) is continuously charged with sexuality and menace. This is an utterly compelling tale of a master manipulator who insinuates himself into various characters' lives--and precipitates ruin at every treacherous curve. Shortly after the mysterious death of his wife, the glamorous, world-famous entertainer Theo Buckley, Robert de Pena ("trendy scholar, dilettante") hastily woos and weds Jane Donovan ("a Jane Austen girl"). Their problems begin when the couple encounter a nightclub performer doing an uncannily accurate impersonation of Theo. In quick, incisive strokes, Hammond delineates her singular cast, while her plot twists send frequent pinpricks to the heart, the brain and the gut. Even a central character's name--Barrett Rossignol--typifies the mixture of elegance and horror here: it's as if Noel Coward veered toward the macabre. Though the book's final quarter--the explanation of Theo's death--seems not quite up to its extraordinary precedents, this is a minor cavil. The beguiling Theo says in her writings, "If you turn the glass half a millimeter, everything looks different"--and different is decidedly the name of this unusually stylish game. Major ad/promo.

Genres: Fiction

Hardcover

First published June 1, 1992

Reviews

[Will Byrnes · Rating 3 out of 5]

Barrett has a knack. He is able to get people to love him, to believe his excuses for a core passivity, to support him. He careens from woman to woman (and at least one man) showing each exactly what they want to see. He is a gifted liar of a chameleon, learning enough about various things to appear expert, yet never really going much past the surface.

There is a core mystery here. Is Barrett a killer as well as a wandering stray? He was a childhood pal and lover of the later Beyoncé-level-famous Theo. Robert is Theo’s widower. When he sees a club performer doing Theo with incredible precision, he is intrigued. More than intrigued. Barrett’s travels through relationships weave together a pattern of deceit and pathos. We learn the reality of Theo’s fate in the final chapter, and of Barrett’s role. Hammond shows a culture, both high and low, in which a creature like Barrett, shallow as he is, whose education comes primarily from television, can appear to meet every need. He holds open the possibility of romance, true love, adventure, excitement, and is able to deliver some of that, but it is all an act, the work of his life, to allow him to survive without having to develop any core, and real knowledge, any real substance. Is he a stand-in for the shallowness of our culture? Does the naivete of his partners signify the willingness of Americans to believe any well-told lie?

The book was published in 1992. I read it in 2006. This review was first posted
on GR in 2008

Update December 2016 - This seems a particularly relevant novel given our recent election.

And now, in 2021, after Desecration Day at the Capitol, even moreso, given the willingness of the gullible to believe and act on the outrageous lies of the unconscionable

P 229 [Jane and her brother Jerry discuss Theo]

We grew up with silver spoons, et cetera. A rotten father who is also a wealthy rotten father is in the position to offer his children counterbalances to his abuse. We grew up with access. The best kind of education, travel, culture, and the company of people with spirit and experience who have all the above. Options is the key word. A rotten father whose failures, poverty, and anger are basically all he has to offer can strangle the growing child and spawn an adult wrapped in a blanket of shame and fear…Barrett’s only attractive role models were flickering shadows. Errol Flynn. Montgomery Clift. Double image, double bind. What I wonder is, did he aspire to be the actor or the part? Did he possibly not even discern the difference? A childhood produced by Hollywood, presented on a series of television sets in a series of houses in a series of towns, parented by a drunken, promiscuous, debt-ridden father, a crushed mother, and a great-aunt who ran a loony bin? I think on the whole he turned out remarkably…”We don’t do loving so well, you and I,” Jerry was saying quietly. “We add up two divorces and an alleged life of celibacy [Jerry is a priest]. Do you suppose the problem is that we want ‘perfect’?”

[Isabelle · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was absolutely amazing. Went in completely blind and honestly that’s how I’d recommend it — the flap of the book tells you almost nothing so I think it’s intended to be read that way. It’s wild to think that people like this are real and have definitely been in my past.

This is one of the best books I’ve ever read.

[Corinne · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was a serendipitous discovery buried heavy under brighter books in a messy, forgettable bookshop that is surely shut down by now. It has been nearly six years since it snuggled into my palm, and yet I still regard it reverently on my bedstand table, it's permanent home close to me while I sleep; its dark, disturbed characters locked in a hypnotic loop of sexual despair and blind romance. I swear I have known, and perhaps once been, each and every one of them, tossing themselves at each other with desperation, love and loathing. I want to reread, but even after such a time, I still remember the passages much too clear for fresh revisting. I am still digesting after my first.

[Bobbi Duncan · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read this book as a teen in the 90's, and it forever stayed with me. I'd love to see this played out on screen. Barrett gave off "The Talented Mr. Ripley" vibes! I'm definitely going to revisit this gem if I can find a copy online.

[AV AV · Rating 3 out of 5]

Een wat taai begin. In het begin denk je:'Typisch Amerikaans, het zal wel.' Toch, al lezende, begint steeds meer waardering te komen voor de karakterschetsen die de auteur weet te geven. Uiteindelijk is het een leuk boek dat de moeite waard is te lezen.