What do you think?
Rate this book
The Running of Beasts
Book by Pronzini, Bill, Malzberg, Barry
- GenresMystery
320 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1976
48 people want to read
About the author
Bill Pronzini
629 books236 followersMystery Writers of America Awards "Grand Master" 2008
Shamus Awards Best Novel winner (1999) for Boobytrap
Edgar Awards Best Novel nominee (1998) for A Wasteland of Strangers
Shamus Awards Best Novel nominee (1997) for Sentinels
Shamus Awards "The Eye" (Lifetime achievment award) 1987
Shamus Awards Best Novel winner (1982) for Hoodwink
Married to author Marcia Muller.
Pseudonyms:
Robert Hart Davis (collaboration with Jeffrey M. Wallmann)
Jack Foxx
William Jeffrey (collaboration with Jeffrey M. Wallmann)
Alex Saxon
Shamus Awards Best Novel winner (1999) for Boobytrap
Edgar Awards Best Novel nominee (1998) for A Wasteland of Strangers
Shamus Awards Best Novel nominee (1997) for Sentinels
Shamus Awards "The Eye" (Lifetime achievment award) 1987
Shamus Awards Best Novel winner (1982) for Hoodwink
Married to author Marcia Muller.
Pseudonyms:
Robert Hart Davis (collaboration with Jeffrey M. Wallmann)
Jack Foxx
William Jeffrey (collaboration with Jeffrey M. Wallmann)
Alex Saxon
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
August 29, 2017
"The Running of the Beasts" is a story about a serial killer in a small town in upstate New York. The authors (Pronzini and Malzberg) approach the serial killer story from a different angle. The story doesn't focus on one detective pursuing the killer, but shoots out into six different alternating points of view. These different points of view make the reading a bit difficult at first, but eventually you get used to these switches and how each of these characters develop. In the end, the story is haunting, cold, and brutal. The pace really picks up towards the end. Well worth reading.
June 23, 2013
This was originally published in 1976, so it's a little dated, but the subject of serial killers has (unfortunately) remained current. The story takes place in a small upstate New York town in which three women have been killed. The state police and the town police are at odds, and the town is ramping up toward hysteria. We are allowed inside the minds of several main characters with the understanding that any one of them could be the killer. The state investigator is fighting off an ulcer and trying to solve the murders through deduction and logic. The chief constable is using his gut and his knowledge of the vicinity to try to figure out who the killer is. One local man is attempting to use these murders as his big writing break; he is writing a book detailing the investigation. One man is watching his 'career' as a pony gambler crash around him, and trying desperately not to start drinking again. None of these men are happy, they all have reasons to have suppressed rage against women.
Do we find out who the bad guy is? No. Well, not really. OK, no. The ending makes it a good discussion book, though.
Do we find out who the bad guy is? No. Well, not really. OK, no. The ending makes it a good discussion book, though.
December 3, 2017
I'm giving this 5 stars because I'm a huge Pronzini fan, even though it's early, less mature Pronzini.
The book is from 1976, co-written with Barry Malzberg. I don't know much about Malzberg, but it's fun to read early Pronzini. Totally plot-driven, the book is a roller coaster ride, with tons of twists and turns, including a resolution that fools you, right to the last page. Don't expect a happy ending.
Pronzini's stand alones tend to be darker than his Nameless Detective books, which invariably have an element of redemption, no matter how heinous the crimes. The Nameless books, especially the later ones, are also very character-driven. In this book, Pronzini and his co-writer were going straight for the horror and the bleak noir. But it's still great fun!
The book is from 1976, co-written with Barry Malzberg. I don't know much about Malzberg, but it's fun to read early Pronzini. Totally plot-driven, the book is a roller coaster ride, with tons of twists and turns, including a resolution that fools you, right to the last page. Don't expect a happy ending.
Pronzini's stand alones tend to be darker than his Nameless Detective books, which invariably have an element of redemption, no matter how heinous the crimes. The Nameless books, especially the later ones, are also very character-driven. In this book, Pronzini and his co-writer were going straight for the horror and the bleak noir. But it's still great fun!
January 27, 2023
I first read this novel when the book was published in the '70s, when I was a teenager. I'd never read a serial killer novel and this was a fine introduction. I recently decided to read it again, just to determine why the book had appealed to me so much as a young writer.
First, the structure of juxtaposed POVs throughout the book works incredibly well to maintain the pace and develop the characters. The book is steeped in complex psychology and paranoia, which is given great emphasis via the balanced POVs.
Second, the book maintained suspense without the blood and gore of many serial killer novels today. In fact, all the murders took place offstage. Less is more.
But it was the denouement that blew me away when I first read the book, and again now reading it decades later. I'm still impressed at how the writers pulled together all the threads of the complex plot and delivered an ending that was totally unexpected and chills you to the bone.
I've always wondered how Pronzini and Malzberg pulled this off. How did they cooperatively develop the twisting plot? The style is seamless, as if written by a solitary writer. Quite amazing.
The book may be nearly half a century old, but it still holds up relatively well. Highly recommended!
First, the structure of juxtaposed POVs throughout the book works incredibly well to maintain the pace and develop the characters. The book is steeped in complex psychology and paranoia, which is given great emphasis via the balanced POVs.
Second, the book maintained suspense without the blood and gore of many serial killer novels today. In fact, all the murders took place offstage. Less is more.
But it was the denouement that blew me away when I first read the book, and again now reading it decades later. I'm still impressed at how the writers pulled together all the threads of the complex plot and delivered an ending that was totally unexpected and chills you to the bone.
I've always wondered how Pronzini and Malzberg pulled this off. How did they cooperatively develop the twisting plot? The style is seamless, as if written by a solitary writer. Quite amazing.
The book may be nearly half a century old, but it still holds up relatively well. Highly recommended!
January 8, 2021
Un classico contemporaneo
Un romanzo del 1976 che inizia in qualche modo a tracciare la strada a tutti quei romanzi in cui l’idea del serial killer viene usata, e più spesso abusata. Qui abbiamo a che fare con una cittadina, Bloodstone (nomen omen) nella parte montuosa dello stato di New York, sconvolta da un serial killer che uccide donne sole. La narrazione ci viene proposta seguendo le parallele vicende di alcuni personaggi: Il poliziotto locale. L’agente della polizia di stato. Un ex attore, poi ex giocatore d’azzardo professionista, ora alcolizzato. Uno scrittore locale appassionato di fumetti e col sogno nel cassetto di diventare famoso scrivendo un libro sul mostro. Una giornalista di città, nativa di qui, e uno psichiatra. Le loro vicende si incrociano, fra sospetti che toccano il lettore fin da subito, e un finale incredibile, che (come piace a me) si rivela letteralmente all’ultima riga.
La narrazione è estremamente avvincente, con un ritmo incalzante e rapido passaggio da una all’altra delle vicende. Vicende che si intrecciano presto fra loro, i personaggi si incontrano e iniziano i sospetti incrociati. Fin da subito lo psichiatra enuncia una teoria secondo la quale il colpevole potrebbe avere una grave forma di schizofrenia, talmente forte da fargli dimenticare di aver compiuto gli omicidi una volta esaurito il raptus del quale diventa preda quando uccide. Questo di fatto permette di estendere il novero dei sospettati a tutti i protagonisti.
La storia è narrata in modo molto asciutto e con poche divagazioni, a differenza dei non sempre riusciti epigoni del genere, per cui si legge molto agevolmente, e la tensione è tale che si divorano letteralmente le pagine in attesa di scoprire la validità delle ipotesi che via via si affacciano alla mente del lettore. Il finale è spiazzante, non tanto per l’identità dell’omicida ma per il modo con cui viene presentata. Per me che non amo le spiegazioni troppo prolisse su chi e come, il finale perfetto.
Un romanzo del 1976 che inizia in qualche modo a tracciare la strada a tutti quei romanzi in cui l’idea del serial killer viene usata, e più spesso abusata. Qui abbiamo a che fare con una cittadina, Bloodstone (nomen omen) nella parte montuosa dello stato di New York, sconvolta da un serial killer che uccide donne sole. La narrazione ci viene proposta seguendo le parallele vicende di alcuni personaggi: Il poliziotto locale. L’agente della polizia di stato. Un ex attore, poi ex giocatore d’azzardo professionista, ora alcolizzato. Uno scrittore locale appassionato di fumetti e col sogno nel cassetto di diventare famoso scrivendo un libro sul mostro. Una giornalista di città, nativa di qui, e uno psichiatra. Le loro vicende si incrociano, fra sospetti che toccano il lettore fin da subito, e un finale incredibile, che (come piace a me) si rivela letteralmente all’ultima riga.
La narrazione è estremamente avvincente, con un ritmo incalzante e rapido passaggio da una all’altra delle vicende. Vicende che si intrecciano presto fra loro, i personaggi si incontrano e iniziano i sospetti incrociati. Fin da subito lo psichiatra enuncia una teoria secondo la quale il colpevole potrebbe avere una grave forma di schizofrenia, talmente forte da fargli dimenticare di aver compiuto gli omicidi una volta esaurito il raptus del quale diventa preda quando uccide. Questo di fatto permette di estendere il novero dei sospettati a tutti i protagonisti.
La storia è narrata in modo molto asciutto e con poche divagazioni, a differenza dei non sempre riusciti epigoni del genere, per cui si legge molto agevolmente, e la tensione è tale che si divorano letteralmente le pagine in attesa di scoprire la validità delle ipotesi che via via si affacciano alla mente del lettore. Il finale è spiazzante, non tanto per l’identità dell’omicida ma per il modo con cui viene presentata. Per me che non amo le spiegazioni troppo prolisse su chi e come, il finale perfetto.
January 17, 2024
It was a good book, for a long way along…and then it wasn’t. I was afraid that would happen. I wished it wouldn’t. If wishes were credible, non-ridiculous book endings, then we’d all be happier in the pages.
It tries for too much, in the last 40 pages. It wants to be all finales packed into one finale. Things don’t end up making much sense. And there was too much farting; all this emphasis on farting; imagine if Morgan Freeman in Se7en had had flatulence, especially at the finale. That’s kind of what we have to put up with here. But I don’t wanna go into that at length. Did the gas affect my rating? I’d be lying if I said No. But I spent the vast majority of the book thinking this would be a 4-star read, then about 40 pages feeling we had bottomed out at a decent 3 stars…and then with the last fleeting pages I just felt that things had deteriorated to the point that the ending had completely undermined my feeling that most of the book deserved a reward.
I get that most of the characters needed to be quirky, and oddball, and alarmingly capable of irrational behaviour and decisions - so that they all fit as suspects for murders by a clear nutter - but it comes to the point where it not only seems contrived, but also stupid decisions don’t even seem believable. A lot of weirdos who behave strangely so that we can wonder if each of them is a deranged killer…but collectively these people became unreal to me. Somewhere along the line, effective blanket nightmarishness devolved into contrived silliness.
Much of this book held me in its grip. I do feel comfortable dragging things down to 2 stars, but at the same time I feel that other readers might reward journey over underwhelming destination. Or, who knows, maybe that finale is for you. Plus, think about would you have preferred Mel Gibson farting his way through Lethal Weapon.
Dammit, I didn’t want to end the review like that, and still it happened.
It tries for too much, in the last 40 pages. It wants to be all finales packed into one finale. Things don’t end up making much sense. And there was too much farting; all this emphasis on farting; imagine if Morgan Freeman in Se7en had had flatulence, especially at the finale. That’s kind of what we have to put up with here. But I don’t wanna go into that at length. Did the gas affect my rating? I’d be lying if I said No. But I spent the vast majority of the book thinking this would be a 4-star read, then about 40 pages feeling we had bottomed out at a decent 3 stars…and then with the last fleeting pages I just felt that things had deteriorated to the point that the ending had completely undermined my feeling that most of the book deserved a reward.
I get that most of the characters needed to be quirky, and oddball, and alarmingly capable of irrational behaviour and decisions - so that they all fit as suspects for murders by a clear nutter - but it comes to the point where it not only seems contrived, but also stupid decisions don’t even seem believable. A lot of weirdos who behave strangely so that we can wonder if each of them is a deranged killer…but collectively these people became unreal to me. Somewhere along the line, effective blanket nightmarishness devolved into contrived silliness.
Much of this book held me in its grip. I do feel comfortable dragging things down to 2 stars, but at the same time I feel that other readers might reward journey over underwhelming destination. Or, who knows, maybe that finale is for you. Plus, think about would you have preferred Mel Gibson farting his way through Lethal Weapon.
Dammit, I didn’t want to end the review like that, and still it happened.
June 23, 2024
A modern-day (well, 1971-day) Jack the Ripper is terrorizing a town in upstate New York called Bloodstone, with three murders to his name at the book's onset, and we jump back and forth between five different POV characters investigating the murders. At the beginning we learn that one of the five narrators is actually the killer and we need to figure out which.
The five main characters all have a specific character trait that we see but that the world doesn't - a social anxiety, a stifling childhood, a struggle with alcohol, a nervous introversion, a stubborn refusal to accept outsiders - presented in a way that makes it possible that any one of them could be the killer because a criminal psychologist early in the book theorizes that our "Bloodstone Ripper" blacks out, commits the crimes, and then reverts to his "normal" self, not knowing the murder even happened.
Verdict: A fun setup and plot, an interesting mystery to solve for fans of murder thrillers, lots of twists and turns, but a bit dated and with too much gratuitous adult content.
Jeff's Rating: 3 / 5 (Good)
movie rating if made into a movie: R
The five main characters all have a specific character trait that we see but that the world doesn't - a social anxiety, a stifling childhood, a struggle with alcohol, a nervous introversion, a stubborn refusal to accept outsiders - presented in a way that makes it possible that any one of them could be the killer because a criminal psychologist early in the book theorizes that our "Bloodstone Ripper" blacks out, commits the crimes, and then reverts to his "normal" self, not knowing the murder even happened.
Verdict: A fun setup and plot, an interesting mystery to solve for fans of murder thrillers, lots of twists and turns, but a bit dated and with too much gratuitous adult content.
Jeff's Rating: 3 / 5 (Good)
movie rating if made into a movie: R
April 25, 2019
Told from multiple character's perspective, this twisty and fairly twisted thriller/whodunit is always interesting. It takes place in the tiny (and fictional) upstate New York village of Bloodstone and shifts back and forth between the prominent characters who live in fear of the killer and visitors with their own agendas. Funnily enough, every suspect is a creep and/or loser, so you won't be upset at whomever the killer ends up being. I'm curious how Pronzini and Malzberg co-wrote it. Did they each take different characters or collaborate on the entire manuscript? Always dark and evocative, this is a decent read that definitely reflects a specific time (1976) and nihilistic place.
August 2, 2021
Reading this book is like reading someone's notes for a novel: you can see where the book is going and who the characters are, but you have no emotional involvement in any of it. The root problem is that everything - actions, thoughts, feelings - is just told to us, point-blank. It gets monotonous after a while, and I lost interest in what was going to happen.
July 12, 2020
Read in 1977. Detective must find a Jack the Ripper type killer.
September 17, 2024
This was pretty good overall, with a nice twist at the very end. I really like Bill Pronzini, so this was a nice find in a used bookstore!
March 31, 2011
action packed page turner, plot twists and red herrings
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews