What do you think?
Rate this book
Неприлично предложение
Милиардер предлага на съпруг един милион долара за една нощ с жена му...
Джошуа и Джоан – съпрузи, водещи мизерен живот, си опитват късмета в казино в Атлантик Сити. Изключително красивата Джоан привлича вниманието на петролен милиардер, способен да купи всичко, което пожелае. Но може ли да „купи“ Джоан?
Джошуа се разкъсва между изкушението, безпаричието и моралните си принципи.
"Неприлично предложение“ е сред най-четените и обсъждани романи в света, благодарение на майсторския стил и моралната дилема, поставена в него. Вечната тема за изкушението не престава да вълнува света.
Романът е преведен на 22 езика; по него е заснет прочутият филм с участието на Робърт Редфорд и Деми Мур.
„Безпощаден поглед към алчността, неравенството и култа към парите. Героите са сложни и запленяващи, но и смущаващи, тъй като лесно можем да се поставим на тяхно място...“
Джошуа и Джоан – съпрузи, водещи мизерен живот, си опитват късмета в казино в Атлантик Сити. Изключително красивата Джоан привлича вниманието на петролен милиардер, способен да купи всичко, което пожелае. Но може ли да „купи“ Джоан?
Джошуа се разкъсва между изкушението, безпаричието и моралните си принципи.
"Неприлично предложение“ е сред най-четените и обсъждани романи в света, благодарение на майсторския стил и моралната дилема, поставена в него. Вечната тема за изкушението не престава да вълнува света.
Романът е преведен на 22 езика; по него е заснет прочутият филм с участието на Робърт Редфорд и Деми Мур.
„Безпощаден поглед към алчността, неравенството и култа към парите. Героите са сложни и запленяващи, но и смущаващи, тъй като лесно можем да се поставим на тяхно място...“
256 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1988
109 people are currently reading
1260 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 98 reviews
May 28, 2020
"Then I got to where I was gonna get off, and got off, the doors closed, and as the train was pulling away she looked right at me and gave me the most incredible smile. It was awful, I wanted to tear the doors open.
And I went back every night, same time, for two weeks, but she never showed up.
That was 30 years ago and I don't think that there's a day that goes by that I don't think about her, I don't want that to happen again".
― Jack Engelhard, Indecent Proposal
The books is a masterpiece, a psychological exploration of good and evil and of human nature and is nothing like the movie.
It is not fluff. It is not silly. It is among my all time favorites. I will write more when I have time but the worst thing a reader could do is not take this book seriously, not read it and miss out on an incredible reading experience.
In the book, it explores, very deeply, themes that the movie really sort of..for lack of a better term..blew off. Josh is a speech writer in Philly who hates his life with a passion. He is poor..and at the mercy of the corporate world. He hates his job..he LOATHES it but can see no way out.
As much as Josh deplores his work, that is how deeply he loves his wife Joan. Joan comes from wealth. She is his "mainline blonde" and both of them left their previous spouses to be together. This has left Josh with the fear that happiness can be taken from him at any moment.
Then, while on a vacation. they meet Ibrahim.
Ibrahim is everything Josh would like to be. Arrogant. Powerful. And, most of all, rich. Lavishly, garishly rich. Beyond anyone's imagination rich. He is a king of the casinos, at the top of the one percent, able to blow ten thousand dollars like it is pennies.
And Ibrahim wants something. That something is the wife of Josh..Joan.
Joan is beautiful. And from the moment Ibrahim sees her, he desires her. So he makes Josh an offer. One million dollars for a night with his wife.
And that is where the destruction starts.
Indecent proposal explores so much. Money and status. How much is to much? And will having money satisfy you in the most basic of ways?
Adultery. Can a marriage ever be the same after infidelity? Is it infedelity if the husband consents? And is it prostitution? Can one just take the money and move on?
The fact that Josh is Jewish and Ibrahim is an Arab is fascinating and the cultural themes are explored deeply as well. You can see them in the men's interactions.
Is this "deal" doable? Or will it taint their lives forever? Destroy their innocence? Will they turn on each other..and themselves?
This book is so much more literary than ever given credit for. And it is also deeply, bitterly painful. Because this chapter of their lives will change them in ways they never could have anticipated.
I consider the book a five and the movie a 2. Rarely have I disliked a movie version to this extreme. I read the book way before seeing the movie but seriously the movie was fluff. The book is not. Read it. It is completely and utterly outstanding.
Five fantastic stars.
And I went back every night, same time, for two weeks, but she never showed up.
That was 30 years ago and I don't think that there's a day that goes by that I don't think about her, I don't want that to happen again".
― Jack Engelhard, Indecent Proposal
The books is a masterpiece, a psychological exploration of good and evil and of human nature and is nothing like the movie.
It is not fluff. It is not silly. It is among my all time favorites. I will write more when I have time but the worst thing a reader could do is not take this book seriously, not read it and miss out on an incredible reading experience.
In the book, it explores, very deeply, themes that the movie really sort of..for lack of a better term..blew off. Josh is a speech writer in Philly who hates his life with a passion. He is poor..and at the mercy of the corporate world. He hates his job..he LOATHES it but can see no way out.
As much as Josh deplores his work, that is how deeply he loves his wife Joan. Joan comes from wealth. She is his "mainline blonde" and both of them left their previous spouses to be together. This has left Josh with the fear that happiness can be taken from him at any moment.
Then, while on a vacation. they meet Ibrahim.
Ibrahim is everything Josh would like to be. Arrogant. Powerful. And, most of all, rich. Lavishly, garishly rich. Beyond anyone's imagination rich. He is a king of the casinos, at the top of the one percent, able to blow ten thousand dollars like it is pennies.
And Ibrahim wants something. That something is the wife of Josh..Joan.
Joan is beautiful. And from the moment Ibrahim sees her, he desires her. So he makes Josh an offer. One million dollars for a night with his wife.
And that is where the destruction starts.
Indecent proposal explores so much. Money and status. How much is to much? And will having money satisfy you in the most basic of ways?
Adultery. Can a marriage ever be the same after infidelity? Is it infedelity if the husband consents? And is it prostitution? Can one just take the money and move on?
The fact that Josh is Jewish and Ibrahim is an Arab is fascinating and the cultural themes are explored deeply as well. You can see them in the men's interactions.
Is this "deal" doable? Or will it taint their lives forever? Destroy their innocence? Will they turn on each other..and themselves?
This book is so much more literary than ever given credit for. And it is also deeply, bitterly painful. Because this chapter of their lives will change them in ways they never could have anticipated.
I consider the book a five and the movie a 2. Rarely have I disliked a movie version to this extreme. I read the book way before seeing the movie but seriously the movie was fluff. The book is not. Read it. It is completely and utterly outstanding.
Five fantastic stars.
December 13, 2020
Disgusting book about Josh, who worships money and worships billionaires as 'heroes and gods.' Simply because they are billionaires.
He pimps out his wife to sleep with a billionaire Arab he met. A sicko who like to buy and own people and show people that money can buy anything and that humans have no dignity and morals because they will do anything for money. It amuses him to ruin marriages and turn husbands into pimps and etc.
He not only fucks Josh's wife but he secretly films it, too, because he's a piece of shit. Then he shows the film to Josh, because he is a piece of shit. Then Josh beats him up (honestly what the fuck? This book is so fucked up).
His and Joan's marriage is destroyed, she falls into a depression and tries to commit suicide. He leaves her and joins the Israeli Navy.
There's a huge overarching discussion of Jewishness and Jewish thought throughout the whole book, Josh is Jewish and he escaped France during the Holocaust as a child. He has visions of King David coming down to talk to him and etc. Huge discussions of being Jewish, being true to your Judaism, feelings caused by the Holocaust bleeding into daily life and affecting everything, hating Germans (Joshua rabidly hates all Germans), and etc.
People call Engelhard 'a master of moral dilemmas,' but, honestly I didn't find any of that in this book. Josh is employed. He makes $31,000 a year in 1988. That's good money. He decides to pimp out his wife for a million dollars. Why? Because he thinks money will solve all his 'problems?' What problems? There's some bullshit in here about him being a prostitute to his company, because he has to do what the company says to earn money. But that's BULLSHIT. By that logic, anyone who performs any work for money is a prostitute. Honestly, that's RIDICULOUS. It's so dumb, it's beyond comprehension. It's just a sick twisted way for him to justify pimping out his wife. Master of moral dilemma, my ass.
And then are we supposed to be surprised that pimping out his wife ruined his marriage, and, in a way, his entire life? Of course not. It's completely obvious both him and his wife should have refused to ever been a part of this. She ends up suicidal and he ends up quitting his job and leaving the country.
And Engelhard seems to admire James M. Cain, which is a huge red flag for me - he's name-checked in this novel - because I despise Cain's way of thinking and also his novels. Cain's pointless 'everyone is suffering and everyone is an asshole who causes more suffering, life is pain, there is no happiness' type of writing is mirrored by Engelhard's book. It's not enjoyable and worse, it's not even deep - although both authors seem to think it is.
It's also a completely misogynistic book. It's way of looking at and discussing women is quite frankly super-gross and feeds into typical male disgustingness like wife-sharing, seeing your woman fucked by another man, that man is a different 'race' or 'color' from you (Joan is, of course, a blonde WASP), he's fucking her 'better' than you can, your wife being your property and your prostitute, owning women, women as sexual property. Your wife losing all her 'value' to you because she's fucked another man (even though you told her to fuck the other man), you losing affection for her and seeing her as 'ugly' after she does this... The woman is destroyed by 'cheating' on her husband and becomes suicidal after it, blah blah blah. Big jar of woman-hating in this book. And self-hating. Josh hates himself on a lot of levels and wants to hurt himself on a lot of levels.
Complete waste of time.
He pimps out his wife to sleep with a billionaire Arab he met. A sicko who like to buy and own people and show people that money can buy anything and that humans have no dignity and morals because they will do anything for money. It amuses him to ruin marriages and turn husbands into pimps and etc.
He not only fucks Josh's wife but he secretly films it, too, because he's a piece of shit. Then he shows the film to Josh, because he is a piece of shit. Then Josh beats him up (honestly what the fuck? This book is so fucked up).
His and Joan's marriage is destroyed, she falls into a depression and tries to commit suicide. He leaves her and joins the Israeli Navy.
There's a huge overarching discussion of Jewishness and Jewish thought throughout the whole book, Josh is Jewish and he escaped France during the Holocaust as a child. He has visions of King David coming down to talk to him and etc. Huge discussions of being Jewish, being true to your Judaism, feelings caused by the Holocaust bleeding into daily life and affecting everything, hating Germans (Joshua rabidly hates all Germans), and etc.
People call Engelhard 'a master of moral dilemmas,' but, honestly I didn't find any of that in this book. Josh is employed. He makes $31,000 a year in 1988. That's good money. He decides to pimp out his wife for a million dollars. Why? Because he thinks money will solve all his 'problems?' What problems? There's some bullshit in here about him being a prostitute to his company, because he has to do what the company says to earn money. But that's BULLSHIT. By that logic, anyone who performs any work for money is a prostitute. Honestly, that's RIDICULOUS. It's so dumb, it's beyond comprehension. It's just a sick twisted way for him to justify pimping out his wife. Master of moral dilemma, my ass.
And then are we supposed to be surprised that pimping out his wife ruined his marriage, and, in a way, his entire life? Of course not. It's completely obvious both him and his wife should have refused to ever been a part of this. She ends up suicidal and he ends up quitting his job and leaving the country.
And Engelhard seems to admire James M. Cain, which is a huge red flag for me - he's name-checked in this novel - because I despise Cain's way of thinking and also his novels. Cain's pointless 'everyone is suffering and everyone is an asshole who causes more suffering, life is pain, there is no happiness' type of writing is mirrored by Engelhard's book. It's not enjoyable and worse, it's not even deep - although both authors seem to think it is.
It's also a completely misogynistic book. It's way of looking at and discussing women is quite frankly super-gross and feeds into typical male disgustingness like wife-sharing, seeing your woman fucked by another man, that man is a different 'race' or 'color' from you (Joan is, of course, a blonde WASP), he's fucking her 'better' than you can, your wife being your property and your prostitute, owning women, women as sexual property. Your wife losing all her 'value' to you because she's fucked another man (even though you told her to fuck the other man), you losing affection for her and seeing her as 'ugly' after she does this... The woman is destroyed by 'cheating' on her husband and becomes suicidal after it, blah blah blah. Big jar of woman-hating in this book. And self-hating. Josh hates himself on a lot of levels and wants to hurt himself on a lot of levels.
Complete waste of time.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
February 28, 2015
20 years after I watched the movie by the same title, I finally read the original novel "Indecent Proposal". Then, in 1993, for me the movie's main question reduced itself to: Why would any woman go back to Woody Harrelson when she can have Robert Redford? In fact, I thought that Woody Harrelson portrayed an unattractive person in comparison to Robert Redford, which made the question even more natural. Now having read the book, I think Harrelson's performance may have been the finest of all three.
I read 'Indecent Proposal' because after having read three other novels penned by Jack Engelhard, I realized that the 1993 movie's plot could not have been all. Something was missing. Engelhard writes much deeper content than the movie's story-line. Yes, I had known for a long time that the two men are really an Arab prince and a Jewish man, who escaped Hitler's Germany as child, but there had to be more, which Hollywood just simply cut.
For starters, there is the fact that both, Joan and Joshua, have been married before, that they have divorced their previous spouses to be with each other. While the movie made me believe that maybe Diana/Joan chose David/Joshua in some youthful excitement, and that she could have advanced to love another more mature man, in the novel that event had already happened, and she had chosen Joshua. That opens a whole new dimension, because what Joan had done before, namely leave her first husband, she could do again and leave Joshua; or it could be the other way around: Joan would never leave Joshua because she really knew for sure that Joshua was:
"... the outsider. The underdog. The fighter. The loner. The wanderer. You're everything I've been looking for." ... and that "other men were shallow".
Even more important and not surprising to me, Hollywood cut the book's deciding element about "the movie", the movie Ibrahim took of his sexual encounter with Joan. Obviously, Hollywood understands the power of the visual image better than anybody else, Hollywood creates the images, which sway our feelings toward this or that. A visual document/proof never goes away, which is exactly why Hollywood never wants to point to how powerful the movie industry is in influencing people's minds.
In his novel Engelhard refers occasionally to the Holocaust Joshua escaped as a child with his parents. It is because of the pictures that Amercian soldiers took when entering the concentration camps that we will never forget the Holocaust, whereas other undocumented atrocities in earlier history have become this blob, which we cannot associate any feelings with. Pictures document feelings and create feelings.
Joan does not know that her feelings, while having sex with Ibrahim have been recorded, but Ibrahim tells Joshua, and Joshua even gets to see part of the movie. Joshua mentions the recording of the movie to Joan but claims later that there is no movie and that he just said so. Uncertainty about possible documentation is even worse and Joan has to live through it. Both, Joan and Joshua cannot pretend that this sexual episode was just "something/nothing", because once they know or even only suspect that visual documentation recorded its reality it can't be just forgotten. In life, "documented reality" changes everything for real people (excluding politicians like John Edwards).
In his novel, Engelhard puts his finger on what influences too many of us to do things, which we don't really believe but only hope for:
"People are vulnerable, Josh, and I'll tell you why. They're vulnerable, because everybody wants something better. You hear that? Everybody wants something better out of life. Nobody, nobody is happy with what he's got. That's why we prosper here in this business . We cater to that, to that weakness, to that weakness in everybody--even the Ibrahims of the world."
However, when late in the novel Joshua thinks:
"As I made my way over I remembered this from the Midrash: A man's feet lead him to his destiny."
he is giving us hope that with our thinking we can direct our feet to walk to the destiny we choose.
"Indecent Proposal" is a fabulous read to encourage the intelligent and entertaining pondering about where we want to go and which paths to choose. Highly recommend to all over the age of 18. And, yes, the sex scene is very steamy.
Gisela Hausmann, author & blogger
I read 'Indecent Proposal' because after having read three other novels penned by Jack Engelhard, I realized that the 1993 movie's plot could not have been all. Something was missing. Engelhard writes much deeper content than the movie's story-line. Yes, I had known for a long time that the two men are really an Arab prince and a Jewish man, who escaped Hitler's Germany as child, but there had to be more, which Hollywood just simply cut.
For starters, there is the fact that both, Joan and Joshua, have been married before, that they have divorced their previous spouses to be with each other. While the movie made me believe that maybe Diana/Joan chose David/Joshua in some youthful excitement, and that she could have advanced to love another more mature man, in the novel that event had already happened, and she had chosen Joshua. That opens a whole new dimension, because what Joan had done before, namely leave her first husband, she could do again and leave Joshua; or it could be the other way around: Joan would never leave Joshua because she really knew for sure that Joshua was:
"... the outsider. The underdog. The fighter. The loner. The wanderer. You're everything I've been looking for." ... and that "other men were shallow".
Even more important and not surprising to me, Hollywood cut the book's deciding element about "the movie", the movie Ibrahim took of his sexual encounter with Joan. Obviously, Hollywood understands the power of the visual image better than anybody else, Hollywood creates the images, which sway our feelings toward this or that. A visual document/proof never goes away, which is exactly why Hollywood never wants to point to how powerful the movie industry is in influencing people's minds.
In his novel Engelhard refers occasionally to the Holocaust Joshua escaped as a child with his parents. It is because of the pictures that Amercian soldiers took when entering the concentration camps that we will never forget the Holocaust, whereas other undocumented atrocities in earlier history have become this blob, which we cannot associate any feelings with. Pictures document feelings and create feelings.
Joan does not know that her feelings, while having sex with Ibrahim have been recorded, but Ibrahim tells Joshua, and Joshua even gets to see part of the movie. Joshua mentions the recording of the movie to Joan but claims later that there is no movie and that he just said so. Uncertainty about possible documentation is even worse and Joan has to live through it. Both, Joan and Joshua cannot pretend that this sexual episode was just "something/nothing", because once they know or even only suspect that visual documentation recorded its reality it can't be just forgotten. In life, "documented reality" changes everything for real people (excluding politicians like John Edwards).
In his novel, Engelhard puts his finger on what influences too many of us to do things, which we don't really believe but only hope for:
"People are vulnerable, Josh, and I'll tell you why. They're vulnerable, because everybody wants something better. You hear that? Everybody wants something better out of life. Nobody, nobody is happy with what he's got. That's why we prosper here in this business . We cater to that, to that weakness, to that weakness in everybody--even the Ibrahims of the world."
However, when late in the novel Joshua thinks:
"As I made my way over I remembered this from the Midrash: A man's feet lead him to his destiny."
he is giving us hope that with our thinking we can direct our feet to walk to the destiny we choose.
"Indecent Proposal" is a fabulous read to encourage the intelligent and entertaining pondering about where we want to go and which paths to choose. Highly recommend to all over the age of 18. And, yes, the sex scene is very steamy.
Gisela Hausmann, author & blogger
June 26, 2023
We hadn’t received it at birth, we failed to earn it by the work of our hands, so we were here to wrest it from Lady Chance. Heaven had forgotten to bless us. Maybe a slot machine or blackjack table would hear our prayer.
It's been ages since I watched Indecent Proposal, I remember watching it as a little girl. This is probably the movie that turned me off from billionaires and made me cautious of taking any offers that seemed too good to be true. I have a vague memory of thinking as the movie closed: "It wasn't worth it. It wasn't worth it. It wasn't worth it." Those were my same thoughts as I read the book, to the extent that the book even reminded me of a sordid reimagining of The Pearl by John Steinbeck. The way in which the suffering of the couple escalated until the utter demise of their marriage was heart-wrenching. Yet, I would still call this a romance, the ending was perfect. Different than the movie, but the feeling of bittersweet hope lingered with me for days after I finished the book.
Note: This is not pc by today's standards.
~
Many reasons why this book is now a favorite: Morally ambiguous, flawed characters. All are rather unlikable, but the author used them to explore situational ethics in such a way I became hooked, and had to know how everything would play out. This is a layered story, with many sub-themes. The themes of wealth, infidelity, gender, insecurity & trust within relationships only scratch the surface. I need to rewatch the movie, but I think the movie did a good job making this more romantic in nature. More themes are explored in the book.
Favorite quotes:
While I consider this a romance, this is not typical of the genre. I can't emphasize the similarity to The Pearl by John Steinbeck enough. Despite becoming frustrated with both Josh & Joan multiple times while reading the characterization was done so well I couldn't set the book down.
4.5 stars.
It's been ages since I watched Indecent Proposal, I remember watching it as a little girl. This is probably the movie that turned me off from billionaires and made me cautious of taking any offers that seemed too good to be true. I have a vague memory of thinking as the movie closed: "It wasn't worth it. It wasn't worth it. It wasn't worth it." Those were my same thoughts as I read the book, to the extent that the book even reminded me of a sordid reimagining of The Pearl by John Steinbeck. The way in which the suffering of the couple escalated until the utter demise of their marriage was heart-wrenching. Yet, I would still call this a romance, the ending was perfect. Different than the movie, but the feeling of bittersweet hope lingered with me for days after I finished the book.
Note: This is not pc by today's standards.
~
Many reasons why this book is now a favorite: Morally ambiguous, flawed characters. All are rather unlikable, but the author used them to explore situational ethics in such a way I became hooked, and had to know how everything would play out. This is a layered story, with many sub-themes. The themes of wealth, infidelity, gender, insecurity & trust within relationships only scratch the surface. I need to rewatch the movie, but I think the movie did a good job making this more romantic in nature. More themes are explored in the book.
Favorite quotes:
While I consider this a romance, this is not typical of the genre. I can't emphasize the similarity to The Pearl by John Steinbeck enough. Despite becoming frustrated with both Josh & Joan multiple times while reading the characterization was done so well I couldn't set the book down.
4.5 stars.
May 16, 2012
Most of us know the premise of the story from the movie, but the book is so much more. It is a moral dilemma, a love story and a bit of history dealing with the Arab-Israeli conflict. It's worth reading.
January 12, 2016
Започвам с това , че между книгата и филма няма много общи неща. Много рядко ми се случва да не мога да избера, кой от двата варианта ми е харесал повече. Филмът ми е много любим , заради неподражаемото участие на Робърт Редфорд. Книгата ме изправи пред трудни размисли. Дали наистина всеки би се продал? Каква е цената на достойнството?
Много повече ми хареса Джоан от книгата,много интелигентна героиня, заредена с оптимизъм ,търсеща хармония. Според мен една жена ако наистина обича мъжа до себе си, би направила всичко за него.
Авторът е заложил на идеята ,че на хората не трябва да се има доверие и особено на жените.
Аз все още не съм загубила напълно вярата в тях.
Много повече ми хареса Джоан от книгата,много интелигентна героиня, заредена с оптимизъм ,търсеща хармония. Според мен една жена ако наистина обича мъжа до себе си, би направила всичко за него.
Авторът е заложил на идеята ,че на хората не трябва да се има доверие и особено на жените.
Аз все още не съм загубила напълно вярата в тях.
December 12, 2013
Indecent Proposal by Jack Engelhard, focuses on main character Joshua Cantor, who is experiencing monumental financial difficulties (eviction, repossession, bill collectors, etc) with and an intensive desire to provide better for him and wife. The topic is about money. The fears and insecurities of having very little. The security, glamour and confidence of having a lot. Its power, control, freedom and compromises; as well as, the old sane: the nature of man is never satisfied because there is always a desire for even better. I like how the author wrote in-depth, through Joshua’s character, the view of a worker who is ambitious, educated, medaled veteran and struggling financially to maintain a below to modest living. This is very real. I like how the author included the Holocaust and its history into the story. This fitted in very well. The story does start off slow, but quickly picks up. Joshua whining and weaknesses were very nerve racking. The overwhelming emphasis on Jane beauty, congeniality, charm and alluring appeal made her too perfect; therefore, fake. I loved how her character became a real person toward the end. The ending was not how I predicted it to be, but much nicer and very real. I rate this read a five star. Kudos, author Jack Engelhard!!
July 5, 2019
This book is very,very different from the movie. In a good way, it is deeper and more thought-provoking. On the negative side, none of the three main characters were the least likeable and it was difficult to care about any of them. The billionaire who bought whatever he wanted, the wife who would do anything for money, and the husband who would let her because it was him that wanted the money the most. A good lesson in consequences perhaps?
January 15, 2016
Very entertaining. Granted, the premise that every woman has a price is flawed, but this book was redeemed by the great writing.
May 22, 2022
"𝑰𝒇 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒓 𝒘𝒂𝒏𝒕 𝒔𝒐𝒎𝒆𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒃𝒂𝒅𝒍𝒚, 𝒍𝒆𝒕 𝒊𝒕 𝒈𝒐. 𝑰𝒇 𝒊𝒕 𝒄𝒐𝒎𝒆𝒔 𝒃𝒂𝒄𝒌 𝒕𝒐 𝒚𝒐𝒖, 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒏 𝒊𝒕'𝒔 𝒚𝒐𝒖𝒓𝒔 𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒓. 𝑰𝒇 𝒊𝒕 𝒅𝒐𝒆𝒔𝒏'𝒕, 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒏 𝒊𝒕 𝒘𝒂𝒔 𝒏𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒓 𝒚𝒐𝒖𝒓𝒔 𝒕𝒐 𝒃𝒆𝒈𝒊𝒏 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉"
December 1, 2022
I know what you're thinking...
...An indecent proposal and intelligent talkfest should be mutually exclusive.
But that's happily not the case.
This is definitely a more cerebral, adult take on what you're used to expecting on the genre.
It has moral conflict, situational ethics, existential questions, and it has less to with sex than you'd expect. This was well written and dark, and strange, and unpredictable, and interesting and I loved it.
It's nothing like the movie (which I love as well) and it's only lacking the POV of the female lead.
I'd 100% recommend this to anyone in the mood for a twisted domestic drama, with a side of manipulative erotic angst.
4.5 stars
...An indecent proposal and intelligent talkfest should be mutually exclusive.
But that's happily not the case.
This is definitely a more cerebral, adult take on what you're used to expecting on the genre.
It has moral conflict, situational ethics, existential questions, and it has less to with sex than you'd expect. This was well written and dark, and strange, and unpredictable, and interesting and I loved it.
It's nothing like the movie (which I love as well) and it's only lacking the POV of the female lead.
I'd 100% recommend this to anyone in the mood for a twisted domestic drama, with a side of manipulative erotic angst.
4.5 stars
August 21, 2015
It is quite difficult to judge a book fairly once you have watched the movie. It was a long time ago that I saw the Hollywood Blockbuster and it has faded in my mind a bit so I thought it was time to give the book a go.
Engelhard's novel goes so much deeper than the movie and throws up many intriguing questions on life and people's morals and actions, as well as how fate can throw us into situations both good and bad.
Yes the suspense of the 'will she, won't she' will obviously be exciting to anybody who was lucky enough to read the book before knowing the movie plot, but the main aspect I thought was so cleverly written was the breakdown of the relationship and later the breakdown of Joan altogether. I wasn't all that keen on Joan as a character for the most part of the book, she seemed very shallow - somewhat purposely I suppose - but I also didn't feel like there was enough substance to really get to know her well and therefore care about her. But this shallow person then became more real as the effects of what she had done began to haunt her.
I felt much more connected to Joshua and his life as a whole - his past, flashbacks, his unhappy life and his mental turmoil over this ordeal. At times I felt like he acted a bit of a 'wet lettuce' and I would have imagined he would be stronger in the relationship but then I suppose that leads onto the question of what the promise of escaping the mundane is really worth? How far will people go in their struggle to find something better?
I really liked the deeper thoughts that this book threw up. You can read it just as you watch the film, purely for entertainment value, or it can really get you thinking about the human mind, values, morals, what we are capable of.
Engelhard's novel goes so much deeper than the movie and throws up many intriguing questions on life and people's morals and actions, as well as how fate can throw us into situations both good and bad.
Yes the suspense of the 'will she, won't she' will obviously be exciting to anybody who was lucky enough to read the book before knowing the movie plot, but the main aspect I thought was so cleverly written was the breakdown of the relationship and later the breakdown of Joan altogether. I wasn't all that keen on Joan as a character for the most part of the book, she seemed very shallow - somewhat purposely I suppose - but I also didn't feel like there was enough substance to really get to know her well and therefore care about her. But this shallow person then became more real as the effects of what she had done began to haunt her.
I felt much more connected to Joshua and his life as a whole - his past, flashbacks, his unhappy life and his mental turmoil over this ordeal. At times I felt like he acted a bit of a 'wet lettuce' and I would have imagined he would be stronger in the relationship but then I suppose that leads onto the question of what the promise of escaping the mundane is really worth? How far will people go in their struggle to find something better?
I really liked the deeper thoughts that this book threw up. You can read it just as you watch the film, purely for entertainment value, or it can really get you thinking about the human mind, values, morals, what we are capable of.
September 21, 2012
Wow, very different from the movie and wouldn't you know it, I like the movie version much better! The only significant thing I saw that the movie stayed true to the book was the proposition (a very rich man to pay a million dollars to spend a night with another man's wife). Everything else was different, from character names to the journey to the ending.
A very moral seeking situation this proposition invites and so goes the fascination for the read. I didn't care for the book's process though. Maybe too political and racy for my taste. I'm more for the fluff and personal meaning to the adventure. Hence, I did like the overall conclusion of the struggle to finding relationship resolve. There's quite a lot to muddle through when a marriage is strained with such a heavy ethical offer. The potential for irreversible damage is highly likely. Consequently, that was the true gamble that Joshua and Joan was taking. Did their marriage survive in the end? I won't spoil it for you just in case you want to read it.
Jinky is Reading
A very moral seeking situation this proposition invites and so goes the fascination for the read. I didn't care for the book's process though. Maybe too political and racy for my taste. I'm more for the fluff and personal meaning to the adventure. Hence, I did like the overall conclusion of the struggle to finding relationship resolve. There's quite a lot to muddle through when a marriage is strained with such a heavy ethical offer. The potential for irreversible damage is highly likely. Consequently, that was the true gamble that Joshua and Joan was taking. Did their marriage survive in the end? I won't spoil it for you just in case you want to read it.
Jinky is Reading
September 23, 2012
This in-depth psychological examination of the old joke that ends with the punchline: "We've already established that. Now we're just deciding on a price." was a disappointment. I haven't seen the movie, but Robert Redford doesn't look like an Arab sheik to me. I probably couldn't get into the book because the Kindle edition (free on my Kindle deal of the day!) was riddled with typos, bad margins, and completely wrong words. What's the matter with you people? Proofread! Just because it's free doesn't mean it can be garbage. I would return it and say hand it in when you've bothered to read it yourself. In fact, I think I will go up and subtract another star for mechanics. Just remember the joke--funnier, makes the same point, and saves time.
June 7, 2020
the writing style reminded me of Damage by Josephine Hart. I wish the movie hadn't deviated from the book's plotline so much, but I can't hate it (because Robert Redford!) There was an underlying fuckeduppedness (lol @ my English) about this book that I loved. I also wish we got Joan's POV on the whole thing, or at the very least her interactions with Ibrahim (who was FASCINATING, the only time I paid attention to Josh's tedious monologue was when it was about him), not just the sex.
December 26, 2019
good book but heavy going in parts....but like the movie based on this book.it was as much about the wife wanting to spend the night with the billionare...as it was the money!.as,like the movie it was basically instigated by the wife after the husband had said no!.more evident in this book than the movie the husband saw the wife had a great night with him! [wont spoil it anymore]
May 18, 2021
Sorry, not my cup of tea, unfortunate!
November 27, 2022
"Хората са уязвими и ще ти кажа защо. Защото всеки иска нещо по-добро. Чуваш ли? Всеки иска нещо по-добро от този живот. Никой не е щастлив с това, което има."
"Приличах на плувец, който е навлязъл прекалено навътре, прекалено надълбоко, само веднъж надхвърлил границите на разумното и сега маха лудешки с ръце, за да спаси живота си."
Роман актуален и в днешно време- за алчността, за хората, които мислят, че с пари може да се купи всичко и всеки, за щастието, за любовта.
"Приличах на плувец, който е навлязъл прекалено навътре, прекалено надълбоко, само веднъж надхвърлил границите на разумното и сега маха лудешки с ръце, за да спаси живота си."
Роман актуален и в днешно време- за алчността, за хората, които мислят, че с пари може да се купи всичко и всеки, за щастието, за любовта.
May 12, 2023
This is my first novel I've ever read and I loved it after completing the novel I'm just trying to look for people who have read it and would love to discuss in depth because I have so many things to clear about the book, so if you're reading my review, please can we discuss more about it and just dm me on my insta. Here is my username "kar4n_kumar".
February 4, 2023
was not fond of this and it was nothing like the movie, was not even the same characters, the ending was ok, and the moral of the whole thing was good, but they changed the characters and everything. it was a pretty easy read, about 8 hrs, give or take
August 19, 2023
I must admit I skim read this. The opening was promising but it did not deliver on the story.
The hook is so, so brilliant but unfortunately the author over complicates everything by adding lots of dialogue and character points that do not further the plot. If you are only interested in the story, there are only about 100 pages of that, the rest is context that flits through time to explore the central character.
Joan is a typical female character written by a man. She is somewhat unbearable and happily a piece of meat to be fought over for a pot of gold.
The book tries to be deep but it loses momentum quickly.
I was bored for 2/3 of it.
That being said I did finish, just because I think the hook is so, so brilliant. It’s just a shame it wasn’t explored in a more emotional way.
The hook is so, so brilliant but unfortunately the author over complicates everything by adding lots of dialogue and character points that do not further the plot. If you are only interested in the story, there are only about 100 pages of that, the rest is context that flits through time to explore the central character.
Joan is a typical female character written by a man. She is somewhat unbearable and happily a piece of meat to be fought over for a pot of gold.
The book tries to be deep but it loses momentum quickly.
I was bored for 2/3 of it.
That being said I did finish, just because I think the hook is so, so brilliant. It’s just a shame it wasn’t explored in a more emotional way.
June 9, 2023
WARNING ⚠️ THIS NOVEL CONTAINS SEX SCENES.
Ladies and gentlemen before going to bed my intention is to write two reviews, because tomorrow I want to get up soon. This novel has been not only a disappointment, but so far it has been the worst novel of the year. It should not be called "Indecent Proposal", but indecent novel, and not only for the moment that serves to give the title to the novel.
The very few followers, and friends (the very few who pay attention to me will wonder why I bought this novel). The answer is very simple out of pure morbidity. I have already quoted on occasion the phrase of my father's companion Doctor Conde "What is not morbid is not interesting". I had heard of Adrian Lynne's movie in which Demi Moore https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... married to Woody Harrelson apart from being able to sleep with Robert Redford https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... (see it in Clayton's "Great Gatsby"). https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4... better than Bazz Lhurmann's, where Robert Redford is gorgeous playing Jay Gatsby) they give him a million dollars (which would now be small change, since it would not help you much). I find it fascinating to face such a strong temptation.
It happened the opposite of a movie (there is a novel, but it is much inferior, although this film was highly criticized by Paul Newman himself https://www.goodreads.com/author/show...) I am referring to the "Silver Chalice" of Saville https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... , which for me are going to lynch me all has become a cult film with a superb Jack Palance playing Simon the Magician (in the review of "The Omen" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2... I think we mentioned his brilliant speech to the hitmen absent in the novel by Thomas B. Costain https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... . The germ of modern tyranny. It is one of the great moments of the film along with the moment when Basil sculpts the face of Christ, the madness, and ending of Simon Magus, and the premonitory/prophetic final speech of St. Peter better than St. Luke in the novel https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7... ). In addition, it has the best current Spanish dubbers. The only thing that grates on me about the film is Virginia Mayo playing Helena of Tyre (about this character read the History of Eusebius of Caesarea https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4..., and "The Life of Christ" by Giovanni Papini https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...), which is horrifying.
The difference between "Indecent Proposal" and "The Silver Chalice" is that a conspiracy to make the character virtuous Basil/Paul Newman (who is a lucky man in "The Cat on the Tin Roof" and was https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7... married to Elizabeth Taylor) here is intended by two women. A very young, beautiful, rich, virtuous, and Christian named Deborah played by the prematurely disappeared, and beautiful Pier Angeli (she was in love with James Dean as it was said), and her rival was the ugly, aged, greedy, evil and pagan Virginia Mayo (far from the beauty of the Hidalgo of the Seas / Captain Hornblower, https://www.goodreads.com/series/4981... very much in the line of the novels of Patrick O'Brian https://www.goodreads.com/series/4033... https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... the Falcon/Hawk and the Arrow). It was making it too easy for the good Basil/Newman. The thing is how long it would take Newman to fall in love with Deborah/Angeli. In "Indecent Proposition" the opposite happens Moore / Joan faces a very strong temptation, because very few would choose Woody Harrelson / Joshua Kane, and more if the guy who wants to spend a night in your bed offers you a million dollars of the time, and above is as handsome as Robert Redford.
Lynne is someone who has always played with the morbid controversy see the remake of "Lolita" by Nabokov https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7... (there was a previous version of Stanley Kubrick with James Mason, and Sue Lyons), or "Infidel" in this case Dianne Lane (The Slut judge Judge Dreed as Joan Chen's character in the film called her) had to choose between Richard Gere, and Olivier Martinez in this case won the side of virtue. Personally I have not been able to see Adrian Lynne's film, but if you have read my review none of this is worth to the reader.
The only thing Lynne has taken from the novel is that a person in this case an Arab offers a million dollars to Joshua Kane (curious that he has the same surname as the fictional character of the novel).
"Patience of a Saint" by Andrew M. Greeley https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4..., which unfortunately does not review, and which is very interesting). The difference is that the million is not offered by Robert Redford's WASP to Woody Harrelson. Rather an imposing Arab Sultan with an air like Omar Shariff, but Omar Shariff was already old enough to play this role. That leads me to the conclusion that the Casting is poorly chosen Robert Redford should have been replaced by an Arab actor I can think of no famous. Certainly not Demi Moore is not Joan, who is blonde. That role should have been played by Michelle Pffeiffer, Kim Basinger, Sharon Stone, Nicole Kidman. Although I think the one who did the best the role was Melanie Griffiths. The beginning is great one of the best I've read. An Eastern potentate full of millions exhibits his wealth to Joshua Kane's loser (I wish I was like him. A six-day war hero. He is a speechwriter for businessmen and politicians. As you can see from hunger you are not going to die). With all this man has a purpose to be rich. He has terrible family circumstances. His family was ruined fleeing the Holocaust, and his parents were very miserable in America, and his mother became very sad, and stopped talking. He is someone whose favorite character is King David, and he seeks the Jewish faith in the midrash. There are many references to Judaism, and to Jewish life, and religion (the Sikhxa). The first chapter is excellent proposes to play for him, and wins him all the money. It looks like a Dostoevsky novel "The Gambler" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... or Graham Greene's "Loser Takes All" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4... https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... without the charismatic Gom, or a Stefan Zweig novel https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... . They are left with the Arab named Ibrahim Hassan promising to reward him. Then you see that the novel is a complete unmitigated disaster (at least for me, and in my very debatable opinion) by stupidity, and by an opposing vision between the characters, and me. The first thing that threw me back is that Joshua Kane was already married, and abandons his first wife, and his children for Joan, who in turn has also abandoned her first husband. The novel is influenced by that discourse of the 80s of the last century of greed is good (it has taken us where it has led us to the crises of mortgages suppresses, Jordan Belfort, and Bernie Madoff), how wonderful it is to be rich. There are blasphemous jokes against Jesus Christ, and the Virgin Mary more typical of the Talmud https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2... than of the Torah https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8... (the Christian Pentateuch). It is true that the one who tells the joke is the misogynist, and hateful father of the protagonist (equally hateful) who tells it, but it is in very bad taste. Joan herself is the typical progressive woman, daughter of rich parents is allowed to say how bad religious people are. The dialogues are stupid, there are ridiculous flashbacks that are useless. I am disgusted by his greed, and narrow-mindedness, of all the characters in the novel just thinking about money it seems that only Josuah Kane is interested in Zionism (a very noble cause, and respectable I, although it does not seem so in this review I am pro-Jewish, as long as they do not mess with my religion, although in this review it seems the opposite), and worship Mammon.
He's telling us (Kane the narrator) that Jews are compassionate, and he's (enormously) spiteful, bitter, vindictive, and excessively greedy. Behind Engelhard's cynical gaze it seems that everyone is corrupt, or has a price. There is also a somewhat enlightened, deistic (Protestant, post-Lutheran Calvinist) view of the important thing to be rich in this world, and then it gives a little bit the same. Also the vision of God is seen as cruel, and for me the God of the Old Testament is not cruel, but if severe, it is like a father who punishes a wayward son who is committing mischief, but always forgives him. Joan the rich daughter of her parents. Also a second-wave feminist, and involved in progressive social causes. Instead, think that God as painted by Origen https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... (who invented the most sympathetic heresy of Christianity until I the hammer of heretics am sympathetic to it), Papini https://www.goodreads.com/author/show..., or George McDonald https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... , and forgives everything without repentance so that it is not necessary to repent of anything. Not even to commit adultery, nor to resort to successive polygamy (divorce). I don't understand the messes the characters get into. There is never a hostile view of the author against gambling or casinos (which we all know, the number of lives, and families that have destroyed ending many cases in suicides). If Josuah is miserable because he wants more money, how will the poor in America feel? Or in the third world? Where people are starving. They seem to me Joan, and he is privileged who can be in Atlantic City all the time playing casinos. What I do not understand is that seeing how Ibrahim Hassan humiliates him in the second meeting how he decides to see him again, and more after what Joan confesses. What happens at the end of the novel would have to happen at the beginning, or if you don't want to hit him, at least dismiss him by not going to meet him. At first I wondered if in the proposal of Ibrahim Hassan the Prince of Meharen rich, and rotten of money. There wouldn't be something personal, a revenge, or something. Ibrahim had an air of Count Monte Cristo https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7..., and his reflections on revenge. I wondered if Joshua had killed any of his brothers or relatives of Ibrahim in the Six-Day War, or did I hate him for being Jewish. Despite having Israeli bodyguards. In the end it all comes down to a matter of lust. But the unacceptable thing is that Joan gladly accepts this repulsive proposition, and on top of that, enjoys. She says she does it for her husband, but for me that makes her a dirty, vulgar harlot (and not exactly the golden-hearted ones. What awaits our poor Western women, but they earned their fate.) If I were a man I would be a gigolo. At the peak the author takes the protagonists in an incomprehensible way to launch a criticism of the city of Philadelphia, and to show us how Joshua refuses to work for a German businessman named Friedrich Adolf of a soap factory that although he can not be Nazi for him is a Nazi, and not content with it calls all Germans Nazis (it does not matter if not all were Nazis also for this Mr. Adenauer is a Nazi, Bruning is a Nazi, Elster is a Nazi, Sophie Scholl is a Nazi, Stauffenberg is a Nazi, Klausener is a Nazi, and all Gereon Goldmann is also a Nazi, Rupert Meyer, Kuntenich. Nazism is very bad and we criticize it. But not all Germans are Nazis. As wrong is that as placing the responsibility on the righteous, and sinners. Joachim Fest https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... he said it he was never a Nazi, and my Louis de Wohl? Is he also a Nazi? https://www.goodreads.com/author/show..., also Oskar Schindler? What happened in Germany is outrageous, but unfortunately Jews have been persecuted everywhere in the world, including my Spain. There were many ballots in which someone like Hitler could be born in France, or in Russia. Stalin himself also persecuted Jews, and it is never said.) That is why what Joshua Kane does is a sign of great sectarianism, and only for that scene should he have closed the novel, and stopped reading, and not only does not fire him, but he leaves in an absurd gesture, and useless. That genius could have been brought out against Ibrahim Hassan, instead of playing his wife's pimp. It is true that in the final novel it improves a little. There is for example the fight that took away the "Bridget Jones" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2..., but you do not empathize with anyone. Even the happy ending does not leave you satisfied because the characters in the novel do not deserve it. Hassan is a depraved man who thinks that everything is achieved with money, Joan is foolish, and has no moral brakes, and Joshua Kane seems to me a self-conscious, and resentful. A novel that has produced a very strong rejection for me. The protagonists as King David tells him didn't need to do what they did. There was no need (they did not prostitute themselves because they will be in need, and hunger like many people in successive economic crises), nor was poverty so great. If Engelhard was so bad in America that he puts back, and half why not go to Israel along with his protagonist Joshua Kane instead of continuing to suck Uncle Sam as a good American progressive that he is? Chester Himes https://www.goodreads.com/author/show..., and Frank Yerby https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... had no problem doing so Nor do I see a redemption in what Joshua Kane makes a noble gesture like John Wayne in "The Quiet Man" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4... I will not be like my friend Ramon S. but the luck of Joshua Kane, and Joan produces me the most complete indifference due to the rejection generated by the characters of the novel.
Neither do references to other writers James M. Cain https://www.goodreads.com/author/show..., Philip Roth https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... (writer whom my Juan Manuel de Prada put https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... back, and a half, and rightly so), Saul Bellow https://www.goodreads.com/author/show..., or Norman Mailer https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... fix this mess. My grade is (1/5). Without a doubt despite the final third, and the beginning. This is the worst book I've read this year.
Ladies and gentlemen before going to bed my intention is to write two reviews, because tomorrow I want to get up soon. This novel has been not only a disappointment, but so far it has been the worst novel of the year. It should not be called "Indecent Proposal", but indecent novel, and not only for the moment that serves to give the title to the novel.
The very few followers, and friends (the very few who pay attention to me will wonder why I bought this novel). The answer is very simple out of pure morbidity. I have already quoted on occasion the phrase of my father's companion Doctor Conde "What is not morbid is not interesting". I had heard of Adrian Lynne's movie in which Demi Moore https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... married to Woody Harrelson apart from being able to sleep with Robert Redford https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... (see it in Clayton's "Great Gatsby"). https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4... better than Bazz Lhurmann's, where Robert Redford is gorgeous playing Jay Gatsby) they give him a million dollars (which would now be small change, since it would not help you much). I find it fascinating to face such a strong temptation.
It happened the opposite of a movie (there is a novel, but it is much inferior, although this film was highly criticized by Paul Newman himself https://www.goodreads.com/author/show...) I am referring to the "Silver Chalice" of Saville https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... , which for me are going to lynch me all has become a cult film with a superb Jack Palance playing Simon the Magician (in the review of "The Omen" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2... I think we mentioned his brilliant speech to the hitmen absent in the novel by Thomas B. Costain https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... . The germ of modern tyranny. It is one of the great moments of the film along with the moment when Basil sculpts the face of Christ, the madness, and ending of Simon Magus, and the premonitory/prophetic final speech of St. Peter better than St. Luke in the novel https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7... ). In addition, it has the best current Spanish dubbers. The only thing that grates on me about the film is Virginia Mayo playing Helena of Tyre (about this character read the History of Eusebius of Caesarea https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4..., and "The Life of Christ" by Giovanni Papini https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...), which is horrifying.
The difference between "Indecent Proposal" and "The Silver Chalice" is that a conspiracy to make the character virtuous Basil/Paul Newman (who is a lucky man in "The Cat on the Tin Roof" and was https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7... married to Elizabeth Taylor) here is intended by two women. A very young, beautiful, rich, virtuous, and Christian named Deborah played by the prematurely disappeared, and beautiful Pier Angeli (she was in love with James Dean as it was said), and her rival was the ugly, aged, greedy, evil and pagan Virginia Mayo (far from the beauty of the Hidalgo of the Seas / Captain Hornblower, https://www.goodreads.com/series/4981... very much in the line of the novels of Patrick O'Brian https://www.goodreads.com/series/4033... https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... the Falcon/Hawk and the Arrow). It was making it too easy for the good Basil/Newman. The thing is how long it would take Newman to fall in love with Deborah/Angeli. In "Indecent Proposition" the opposite happens Moore / Joan faces a very strong temptation, because very few would choose Woody Harrelson / Joshua Kane, and more if the guy who wants to spend a night in your bed offers you a million dollars of the time, and above is as handsome as Robert Redford.
Lynne is someone who has always played with the morbid controversy see the remake of "Lolita" by Nabokov https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7... (there was a previous version of Stanley Kubrick with James Mason, and Sue Lyons), or "Infidel" in this case Dianne Lane (The Slut judge Judge Dreed as Joan Chen's character in the film called her) had to choose between Richard Gere, and Olivier Martinez in this case won the side of virtue. Personally I have not been able to see Adrian Lynne's film, but if you have read my review none of this is worth to the reader.
The only thing Lynne has taken from the novel is that a person in this case an Arab offers a million dollars to Joshua Kane (curious that he has the same surname as the fictional character of the novel).
"Patience of a Saint" by Andrew M. Greeley https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4..., which unfortunately does not review, and which is very interesting). The difference is that the million is not offered by Robert Redford's WASP to Woody Harrelson. Rather an imposing Arab Sultan with an air like Omar Shariff, but Omar Shariff was already old enough to play this role. That leads me to the conclusion that the Casting is poorly chosen Robert Redford should have been replaced by an Arab actor I can think of no famous. Certainly not Demi Moore is not Joan, who is blonde. That role should have been played by Michelle Pffeiffer, Kim Basinger, Sharon Stone, Nicole Kidman. Although I think the one who did the best the role was Melanie Griffiths. The beginning is great one of the best I've read. An Eastern potentate full of millions exhibits his wealth to Joshua Kane's loser (I wish I was like him. A six-day war hero. He is a speechwriter for businessmen and politicians. As you can see from hunger you are not going to die). With all this man has a purpose to be rich. He has terrible family circumstances. His family was ruined fleeing the Holocaust, and his parents were very miserable in America, and his mother became very sad, and stopped talking. He is someone whose favorite character is King David, and he seeks the Jewish faith in the midrash. There are many references to Judaism, and to Jewish life, and religion (the Sikhxa). The first chapter is excellent proposes to play for him, and wins him all the money. It looks like a Dostoevsky novel "The Gambler" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... or Graham Greene's "Loser Takes All" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4... https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... without the charismatic Gom, or a Stefan Zweig novel https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... . They are left with the Arab named Ibrahim Hassan promising to reward him. Then you see that the novel is a complete unmitigated disaster (at least for me, and in my very debatable opinion) by stupidity, and by an opposing vision between the characters, and me. The first thing that threw me back is that Joshua Kane was already married, and abandons his first wife, and his children for Joan, who in turn has also abandoned her first husband. The novel is influenced by that discourse of the 80s of the last century of greed is good (it has taken us where it has led us to the crises of mortgages suppresses, Jordan Belfort, and Bernie Madoff), how wonderful it is to be rich. There are blasphemous jokes against Jesus Christ, and the Virgin Mary more typical of the Talmud https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2... than of the Torah https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8... (the Christian Pentateuch). It is true that the one who tells the joke is the misogynist, and hateful father of the protagonist (equally hateful) who tells it, but it is in very bad taste. Joan herself is the typical progressive woman, daughter of rich parents is allowed to say how bad religious people are. The dialogues are stupid, there are ridiculous flashbacks that are useless. I am disgusted by his greed, and narrow-mindedness, of all the characters in the novel just thinking about money it seems that only Josuah Kane is interested in Zionism (a very noble cause, and respectable I, although it does not seem so in this review I am pro-Jewish, as long as they do not mess with my religion, although in this review it seems the opposite), and worship Mammon.
He's telling us (Kane the narrator) that Jews are compassionate, and he's (enormously) spiteful, bitter, vindictive, and excessively greedy. Behind Engelhard's cynical gaze it seems that everyone is corrupt, or has a price. There is also a somewhat enlightened, deistic (Protestant, post-Lutheran Calvinist) view of the important thing to be rich in this world, and then it gives a little bit the same. Also the vision of God is seen as cruel, and for me the God of the Old Testament is not cruel, but if severe, it is like a father who punishes a wayward son who is committing mischief, but always forgives him. Joan the rich daughter of her parents. Also a second-wave feminist, and involved in progressive social causes. Instead, think that God as painted by Origen https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... (who invented the most sympathetic heresy of Christianity until I the hammer of heretics am sympathetic to it), Papini https://www.goodreads.com/author/show..., or George McDonald https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... , and forgives everything without repentance so that it is not necessary to repent of anything. Not even to commit adultery, nor to resort to successive polygamy (divorce). I don't understand the messes the characters get into. There is never a hostile view of the author against gambling or casinos (which we all know, the number of lives, and families that have destroyed ending many cases in suicides). If Josuah is miserable because he wants more money, how will the poor in America feel? Or in the third world? Where people are starving. They seem to me Joan, and he is privileged who can be in Atlantic City all the time playing casinos. What I do not understand is that seeing how Ibrahim Hassan humiliates him in the second meeting how he decides to see him again, and more after what Joan confesses. What happens at the end of the novel would have to happen at the beginning, or if you don't want to hit him, at least dismiss him by not going to meet him. At first I wondered if in the proposal of Ibrahim Hassan the Prince of Meharen rich, and rotten of money. There wouldn't be something personal, a revenge, or something. Ibrahim had an air of Count Monte Cristo https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7..., and his reflections on revenge. I wondered if Joshua had killed any of his brothers or relatives of Ibrahim in the Six-Day War, or did I hate him for being Jewish. Despite having Israeli bodyguards. In the end it all comes down to a matter of lust. But the unacceptable thing is that Joan gladly accepts this repulsive proposition, and on top of that, enjoys. She says she does it for her husband, but for me that makes her a dirty, vulgar harlot (and not exactly the golden-hearted ones. What awaits our poor Western women, but they earned their fate.) If I were a man I would be a gigolo. At the peak the author takes the protagonists in an incomprehensible way to launch a criticism of the city of Philadelphia, and to show us how Joshua refuses to work for a German businessman named Friedrich Adolf of a soap factory that although he can not be Nazi for him is a Nazi, and not content with it calls all Germans Nazis (it does not matter if not all were Nazis also for this Mr. Adenauer is a Nazi, Bruning is a Nazi, Elster is a Nazi, Sophie Scholl is a Nazi, Stauffenberg is a Nazi, Klausener is a Nazi, and all Gereon Goldmann is also a Nazi, Rupert Meyer, Kuntenich. Nazism is very bad and we criticize it. But not all Germans are Nazis. As wrong is that as placing the responsibility on the righteous, and sinners. Joachim Fest https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... he said it he was never a Nazi, and my Louis de Wohl? Is he also a Nazi? https://www.goodreads.com/author/show..., also Oskar Schindler? What happened in Germany is outrageous, but unfortunately Jews have been persecuted everywhere in the world, including my Spain. There were many ballots in which someone like Hitler could be born in France, or in Russia. Stalin himself also persecuted Jews, and it is never said.) That is why what Joshua Kane does is a sign of great sectarianism, and only for that scene should he have closed the novel, and stopped reading, and not only does not fire him, but he leaves in an absurd gesture, and useless. That genius could have been brought out against Ibrahim Hassan, instead of playing his wife's pimp. It is true that in the final novel it improves a little. There is for example the fight that took away the "Bridget Jones" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2..., but you do not empathize with anyone. Even the happy ending does not leave you satisfied because the characters in the novel do not deserve it. Hassan is a depraved man who thinks that everything is achieved with money, Joan is foolish, and has no moral brakes, and Joshua Kane seems to me a self-conscious, and resentful. A novel that has produced a very strong rejection for me. The protagonists as King David tells him didn't need to do what they did. There was no need (they did not prostitute themselves because they will be in need, and hunger like many people in successive economic crises), nor was poverty so great. If Engelhard was so bad in America that he puts back, and half why not go to Israel along with his protagonist Joshua Kane instead of continuing to suck Uncle Sam as a good American progressive that he is? Chester Himes https://www.goodreads.com/author/show..., and Frank Yerby https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... had no problem doing so Nor do I see a redemption in what Joshua Kane makes a noble gesture like John Wayne in "The Quiet Man" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4... I will not be like my friend Ramon S. but the luck of Joshua Kane, and Joan produces me the most complete indifference due to the rejection generated by the characters of the novel.
Neither do references to other writers James M. Cain https://www.goodreads.com/author/show..., Philip Roth https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... (writer whom my Juan Manuel de Prada put https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... back, and a half, and rightly so), Saul Bellow https://www.goodreads.com/author/show..., or Norman Mailer https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... fix this mess. My grade is (1/5). Without a doubt despite the final third, and the beginning. This is the worst book I've read this year.
September 17, 2013
Interestingly, many of the reviews of this book directly reference the 1993 film, but neglect the fact that the book was originally published in 1988, and the reviewers tend to reference the fact that they loved the film and that this book did not live up to their expectations, regardless of the fact that it has not been out of print since as far as I am aware and has been translated into close to 25 languages. As of this writing, I have not seen the film yet (it is on my Netflix Queue, ready to go), and I do not plan on revising my review after the film.
The book is a fast-paced commercial story about a man making the sacrifice of his wife for a small fortune in the face of several ethical and moral considerations that are tied to American consumerism, religious and social identity, class structure, and a myriad of other details that eventually drive the protagonist insane.
The plot is relatively simple, and surprisingly fresh even though the book is so modern and one would think the story has been told a million times before it. The execution is simple, however, and it reads like a train-station-wire-stand dime novel. The themes and the application of them drive a surprisingly complex narrative under the surface that can be attributed to the subtle sub plots involving the protagonists involvement in the building of the state of Israel, his downtrodden state of financial affairs, and the well-chosen grinding of the opposite gears of conflict against the standards of reality.
While this book is a quick and dirty read, the refreshingly original plot (which is now a cliche) and the real magic that is woven for us is in Engelhard’s surprisingly complex themes is what is the most redeeming qualities of the book. He did it first, and did it well, regardless of the formulaic structure and simple writing. It is a great story, and should not be held against the separate work of art that is the Hollywood film.
The book is a fast-paced commercial story about a man making the sacrifice of his wife for a small fortune in the face of several ethical and moral considerations that are tied to American consumerism, religious and social identity, class structure, and a myriad of other details that eventually drive the protagonist insane.
The plot is relatively simple, and surprisingly fresh even though the book is so modern and one would think the story has been told a million times before it. The execution is simple, however, and it reads like a train-station-wire-stand dime novel. The themes and the application of them drive a surprisingly complex narrative under the surface that can be attributed to the subtle sub plots involving the protagonists involvement in the building of the state of Israel, his downtrodden state of financial affairs, and the well-chosen grinding of the opposite gears of conflict against the standards of reality.
While this book is a quick and dirty read, the refreshingly original plot (which is now a cliche) and the real magic that is woven for us is in Engelhard’s surprisingly complex themes is what is the most redeeming qualities of the book. He did it first, and did it well, regardless of the formulaic structure and simple writing. It is a great story, and should not be held against the separate work of art that is the Hollywood film.
May 20, 2023
Dirty Deed Done Not So Dirt Cheap, better known as Indecent Proposal has a bit more going on under the hood than than you’d expect. It’s a bit hard not to suspect dreck with its high-concept, schlocky premise and its simple, clunky, and at times, laughably shallow prose (“when came the big bang she yelped the big yelp”).
A relatively simple question drives the story: what would you do for money? Is there something you hold so dear as to not offer for money? For some, it’s a question that doesn’t require 300 admittedly short pages of pondering to answer. For those people, the answer is either a resounding “yes” or “no.” I won’t bore and horrify you with the nitty-gritty details of my nonexistent love life nor dreary sex life, but, I’m someone who believes in a thing called love and who puts assigns a lot of mysticism to matrimony, yet can separate sex from all of it. It can feel good, great even, but can be ultimately unfulfilling — an example of momentary bliss. I’m someone who distinguishes “making love” from “fucking.” Essentially, assuming my partner shared the same values if I was met with this indecent proposition, I’d get to have my cake and eat it too. Sex would be had and money would be in the bag without a novella worth of psychological drama.
This isn’t the case for our protagonist, Joshua Kane, who is wracked with Othellian jealousy even before Middle-Eastern billionaire Ibrahim hits him with the eponymous proposal. Joan apparently sees the entire arrangement with more practical eyes — her husband is always complaining about the money they don’t have and this could be their ticket to the life he feels they deserve. She rationalizes that if they say no, they’ll be left wondering “what if” for the rest of their lives, the proposal haunting them anytime they can’t meet rent or their car breaks down. She argues that her having sex with another man needn’t change their relationship.
Naturally, you’d imagine that, whatever their decision, this will be Josh’s tell-tale heart, an unfounded fear of infidelity tearing his marriage apart. But no, surprisingly, it falls apart due to Joan falling into a depression over the act, or at the very least, she plays as much of a part as her husband.
Of course, complicating matters is the fact that this isn’t just a question of sex, it’s about autonomy and objectification. Joan isn’t the one propositioned with the promise of money, Josh is. Ibrahim is an asshole, not just in how he propositions, but in other ways he carries himself, how he treats others like toys. The proposition itself is a power play and he records a video of him and Joan having sex without her consent also as a power play. The story makes a point to characterize Joan and Josh going through with the offer as morally wrong, or at the very least, ruinous to their relationship, and it’s easy to see Joan’s body being made into a commodity as why. A point could be made that even if they treat each other with respect, the end result is the same if they play Ibrahim’s game.
Yet there’s little in the text to support this. Ibrahim shows Joshua the video and we see that Joan is enjoying herself in the moment. Joshua remarks that the sounds she makes for him during sex are now being made for Ibrahim, thus it’s easy to see this as being the crux of the moral failing; the sex itself, the fact that she enjoyed herself while having intercourse, as people tend to do. Throughout the story, Joshua claims ownership of Joan’s body and seems so the story could be moralizing him “giving up” this ownership, which would be gross, to say the least.
Yet it can’t be said with authority that this is the case. Sure, the book reads as very dated nowadays and a part of this is the general “men are from Mars, women are from Venus” thing Joan and Josh have going on, with the two saying that they love each other because they can’t understand each other. That said, despite Joan and Josh seemingly disagreeing wildly regarding their feelings about the proposal, they’re in-line at the end and a lot of the problems seem to be due to a breakdown in communication, which could lead one to believe the point is that women and men aren’t fundamentally different from each other.
Part of the reason it’s hard for me to pin down what the “point” is supposed to be is because we’re only given Josh’s perspective and, again, the two avoid talking about the event as much as possible. It makes the story feel lopsided because we’re essentially derived of the most important perspective. Sure, it puts us more in Josh’s shoes, but in doing so, the story feels a bit flat and frankly, Josh’s perspective doesn’t matter nearly as much as Joan’s.
The story also feels a bit flat because of how unlikable the characters are. Josh comes across as money-obsessed and just generally unpleasant from the jump and we don’t get much to endear us to him as the story goes on. A million dollars is hard to sneeze at for anyone, but Josh is presented as miserable when the money he’s bringing in should realistically take him far for the late 80s, even with him and his wife living with a one-income household because Josh is obsessed with a hyperspecific notion of what it means to be American. Part of the reason the whole proposal feels gross, even with Joan seemingly enthusiastic about it in the beginning, is because it feels like she’s doing it to appease her husband, furthering the idea of commodification. And it’s not like she’s off the hook, either; the two began their relationship by cheating on their previous spouses. With Josh, Joan, and Ibrahim being the most promimnent characters, it feels like everyone’s an asshole.
Yet as flat as the story feels at times, I can’t deny that it still is deeper than I expected, with questions of consumer culture, identity, religion, what it means to be in a relationship, etc. As a point of this, I don’t think Ibrahim is Middle-Eastern just because it’s fodder for “UwU it's such a shame my sweet white wife is getting railed by such a big brown cawk" and instead more about the nature of religion and the relationship between Jewish people and Muslims in the Middle East. Josh is Jewish and served in Palestine for a time and that opens an entire-ass can of worms, especially when you compare the way he talks about Ibrahim compared to the venom he feels towards the German character in the story.
The story is far from perfect, I struggle to call even call it good, but there are things going on that I’d probably need another read to appreciate, and that’s more than I expected from what I thought would be a silly little story about cuckoldry. It’s at times more thoughtful, exciting, anxiety-inducing, sad, and yes, even steamy than I anticipated. I think the story could be revisited with a more modern lens and with a more even hand, but I don’t regret buying this book one bit.
A relatively simple question drives the story: what would you do for money? Is there something you hold so dear as to not offer for money? For some, it’s a question that doesn’t require 300 admittedly short pages of pondering to answer. For those people, the answer is either a resounding “yes” or “no.” I won’t bore and horrify you with the nitty-gritty details of my nonexistent love life nor dreary sex life, but, I’m someone who believes in a thing called love and who puts assigns a lot of mysticism to matrimony, yet can separate sex from all of it. It can feel good, great even, but can be ultimately unfulfilling — an example of momentary bliss. I’m someone who distinguishes “making love” from “fucking.” Essentially, assuming my partner shared the same values if I was met with this indecent proposition, I’d get to have my cake and eat it too. Sex would be had and money would be in the bag without a novella worth of psychological drama.
This isn’t the case for our protagonist, Joshua Kane, who is wracked with Othellian jealousy even before Middle-Eastern billionaire Ibrahim hits him with the eponymous proposal. Joan apparently sees the entire arrangement with more practical eyes — her husband is always complaining about the money they don’t have and this could be their ticket to the life he feels they deserve. She rationalizes that if they say no, they’ll be left wondering “what if” for the rest of their lives, the proposal haunting them anytime they can’t meet rent or their car breaks down. She argues that her having sex with another man needn’t change their relationship.
Naturally, you’d imagine that, whatever their decision, this will be Josh’s tell-tale heart, an unfounded fear of infidelity tearing his marriage apart. But no, surprisingly, it falls apart due to Joan falling into a depression over the act, or at the very least, she plays as much of a part as her husband.
Of course, complicating matters is the fact that this isn’t just a question of sex, it’s about autonomy and objectification. Joan isn’t the one propositioned with the promise of money, Josh is. Ibrahim is an asshole, not just in how he propositions, but in other ways he carries himself, how he treats others like toys. The proposition itself is a power play and he records a video of him and Joan having sex without her consent also as a power play. The story makes a point to characterize Joan and Josh going through with the offer as morally wrong, or at the very least, ruinous to their relationship, and it’s easy to see Joan’s body being made into a commodity as why. A point could be made that even if they treat each other with respect, the end result is the same if they play Ibrahim’s game.
Yet there’s little in the text to support this. Ibrahim shows Joshua the video and we see that Joan is enjoying herself in the moment. Joshua remarks that the sounds she makes for him during sex are now being made for Ibrahim, thus it’s easy to see this as being the crux of the moral failing; the sex itself, the fact that she enjoyed herself while having intercourse, as people tend to do. Throughout the story, Joshua claims ownership of Joan’s body and seems so the story could be moralizing him “giving up” this ownership, which would be gross, to say the least.
Yet it can’t be said with authority that this is the case. Sure, the book reads as very dated nowadays and a part of this is the general “men are from Mars, women are from Venus” thing Joan and Josh have going on, with the two saying that they love each other because they can’t understand each other. That said, despite Joan and Josh seemingly disagreeing wildly regarding their feelings about the proposal, they’re in-line at the end and a lot of the problems seem to be due to a breakdown in communication, which could lead one to believe the point is that women and men aren’t fundamentally different from each other.
Part of the reason it’s hard for me to pin down what the “point” is supposed to be is because we’re only given Josh’s perspective and, again, the two avoid talking about the event as much as possible. It makes the story feel lopsided because we’re essentially derived of the most important perspective. Sure, it puts us more in Josh’s shoes, but in doing so, the story feels a bit flat and frankly, Josh’s perspective doesn’t matter nearly as much as Joan’s.
The story also feels a bit flat because of how unlikable the characters are. Josh comes across as money-obsessed and just generally unpleasant from the jump and we don’t get much to endear us to him as the story goes on. A million dollars is hard to sneeze at for anyone, but Josh is presented as miserable when the money he’s bringing in should realistically take him far for the late 80s, even with him and his wife living with a one-income household because Josh is obsessed with a hyperspecific notion of what it means to be American. Part of the reason the whole proposal feels gross, even with Joan seemingly enthusiastic about it in the beginning, is because it feels like she’s doing it to appease her husband, furthering the idea of commodification. And it’s not like she’s off the hook, either; the two began their relationship by cheating on their previous spouses. With Josh, Joan, and Ibrahim being the most promimnent characters, it feels like everyone’s an asshole.
Yet as flat as the story feels at times, I can’t deny that it still is deeper than I expected, with questions of consumer culture, identity, religion, what it means to be in a relationship, etc. As a point of this, I don’t think Ibrahim is Middle-Eastern just because it’s fodder for “UwU it's such a shame my sweet white wife is getting railed by such a big brown cawk" and instead more about the nature of religion and the relationship between Jewish people and Muslims in the Middle East. Josh is Jewish and served in Palestine for a time and that opens an entire-ass can of worms, especially when you compare the way he talks about Ibrahim compared to the venom he feels towards the German character in the story.
The story is far from perfect, I struggle to call even call it good, but there are things going on that I’d probably need another read to appreciate, and that’s more than I expected from what I thought would be a silly little story about cuckoldry. It’s at times more thoughtful, exciting, anxiety-inducing, sad, and yes, even steamy than I anticipated. I think the story could be revisited with a more modern lens and with a more even hand, but I don’t regret buying this book one bit.
August 20, 2021
Markus ist das ganze Gegenteil eines Frauenschwarms. Viele würden ihn eher als unattraktiv und sonderlich beschreiben, wenn sie ihn denn überhaupt bemerken. Aber dann eines Tages ganz plötzlich, gibt seine attraktive Vorgesetzte Nathalie einem Impuls nach und küsst ihn. Er schwebt auf Wolken und beschließt diese schöne Frau, die schon viel in ihrem Leben durchgemacht hat zu erobern. Nathalie weiß selbst nicht warum sie Markus geküsst hat, sie weiß nur das er der Erste ist, in dessen Nähe sie sich nach dem tragischen Unfalltod ihres Mannes wieder wohlfühlt. Doch keiner hat mit den kleinlichen Gefühlen des Chefs gerechnet, der heimlich in Nathalie verliebt ist und trotz einer Abfuhr ihrerseits die Hoffnung nie aufgegeben hat.
Dieses Buch ist sehr poetisch geschrieben. Es ist die Geschichte wie Nathalie nach dem Verlust der perfekten Liebe, wieder lernt ihr Herz zu öffnen. Und es ist eine Geschichte darüber, dass man nicht immer schön sein muss, um andere für sich zu begeistern. Eines hat mich aber ein bisschen gestört, trotz der Beschreibung aller möglichen Emotionen und Gedanken der Protagonisten bleibt man als Leser auf Distanz. Es klingt eher als würde die Liebesgeschichte von einem ihrer Bekannten erzählt, denn von den beiden selbst und durch die kleinen Einschübe, die nur bedingt etwas mit der Story zu tun haben, wird verhindert das der Leser tiefer ins Geschehen abtauchen kann. Diese Lovestory hat mich nicht wirklich bewegt, aber sie ist kurzweilig, wie ein schönes Gedicht was man liest.
Dieses Buch ist sehr poetisch geschrieben. Es ist die Geschichte wie Nathalie nach dem Verlust der perfekten Liebe, wieder lernt ihr Herz zu öffnen. Und es ist eine Geschichte darüber, dass man nicht immer schön sein muss, um andere für sich zu begeistern. Eines hat mich aber ein bisschen gestört, trotz der Beschreibung aller möglichen Emotionen und Gedanken der Protagonisten bleibt man als Leser auf Distanz. Es klingt eher als würde die Liebesgeschichte von einem ihrer Bekannten erzählt, denn von den beiden selbst und durch die kleinen Einschübe, die nur bedingt etwas mit der Story zu tun haben, wird verhindert das der Leser tiefer ins Geschehen abtauchen kann. Diese Lovestory hat mich nicht wirklich bewegt, aber sie ist kurzweilig, wie ein schönes Gedicht was man liest.
April 27, 2012
*Spoiler alert noted at bottom.
Can any relationship endure a proposal such as the rich Arab sultan presents?
Josh and Joan are very much in love. Though she is satisfied with the way things are for them financially, he is unhappy with not being able to provide a lifestyle to which she is accustomed, thereby spending much time at casinos trying to land the elusive big winnings. This indecent proposal could be just the ticket.
Beyond the great truisms within these pages, the author presents delicate questions to ponder. Ibrahim offers Josh an easy million dollars in exchange for one night with Josh's very beautiful wife. We all know what that implies. Josh is against it. Or is he? His wife is against it. Or is she?
"Is the act of sex merely another bodily function," as one of the characters suggests? Will acceptance of the proposal strengthen the marriage? If it's turned down, will "what if" forever be on their lips and in their minds? Is it true as one character implies that for a price every person can be bought?
There is much to think about in the pages of "Indecent Proposal."
***Spoiler Alert Below***
There is a very graphic 'scene' in which the sultan and Joan are engaged in. Unbeknownst to her, he captures their sex on film/video. When asked by Ibrahim whether Josh wanted to view it, he at first turns down the showing but then acquiesces. Perhaps it was to prove to himself that it was merely a business deal. He found out the contrary though and that Joan was quite enjoying herself.
Can any relationship endure a proposal such as the rich Arab sultan presents?
Josh and Joan are very much in love. Though she is satisfied with the way things are for them financially, he is unhappy with not being able to provide a lifestyle to which she is accustomed, thereby spending much time at casinos trying to land the elusive big winnings. This indecent proposal could be just the ticket.
Beyond the great truisms within these pages, the author presents delicate questions to ponder. Ibrahim offers Josh an easy million dollars in exchange for one night with Josh's very beautiful wife. We all know what that implies. Josh is against it. Or is he? His wife is against it. Or is she?
"Is the act of sex merely another bodily function," as one of the characters suggests? Will acceptance of the proposal strengthen the marriage? If it's turned down, will "what if" forever be on their lips and in their minds? Is it true as one character implies that for a price every person can be bought?
There is much to think about in the pages of "Indecent Proposal."
***Spoiler Alert Below***
There is a very graphic 'scene' in which the sultan and Joan are engaged in. Unbeknownst to her, he captures their sex on film/video. When asked by Ibrahim whether Josh wanted to view it, he at first turns down the showing but then acquiesces. Perhaps it was to prove to himself that it was merely a business deal. He found out the contrary though and that Joan was quite enjoying herself.
January 2, 2024
Un muy buen libro, lo recomiendo más que la película.
Tiene un muy buen background de los personajes. Y muy buen desarrollo per se. Disfrutarás la lectura.
Tiene un muy buen background de los personajes. Y muy buen desarrollo per se. Disfrutarás la lectura.
November 16, 2014
3.5 stars. Interesting read. Should say that I've not seen the movie, the Demi Moore / Robert Redford one, but was sorta familiar with the concept for the film and book: husband and wife are offered one million dollars by a super rich guy - all they have to do is agree for the wife to spend one night with the super rich guy. So, that's pretty much the novel in a nutshell. Of course, it goes beyond that, exploring international relations (really), race, class, gender roles, etc. etc. Now having read the book, I cannot fathom how they got the idea that Robert, Demi & Woody would be a good-cast trio to bring the story to screen. Anyway, I've read worse, I've read better; it still was an okay way to pass some free time over the course of a couple of days.
December 2, 2018
Para mí este libro es un grato 4.4 y debo admitir que supo envolverme bastante. Tuve la oportunidad de ver el filme basado en esta novela pero, afortunadamente, las palabras del señor Engelhard distan bastante de ese drama romanticón hecho por Hollywood. Podría pensarse que el argumento del libro gira en torno a esa propuesta indecorosa de entregar a Joan por un millón de dólares, pero creo que lo que hace de esta novela algo excepcional es precisamente lo que sucede después, la incertidumbre de si se puede seguir viviendo después de semejante decisión. ¿Se puede olvidar y comenzar de nuevo? Pues bien, sin duda aquí hay algo en que pensar.
March 21, 2022
They say “ don’t judge a book by its cover”. After reading this book I say “ don’t judge a book by its first few chapters”.
Interesting book, good story.
Spoiler alert ⚠️⚠️⚠️
The last few lines of the story were:
Joan: “…. So you have to keep on fighting. Especially for something very rare and precious.”
Josh: “ Yeah, you have to keep fighting”
Joan: “yes we do, I guess that’s why I am here”
Isn’t this true love? She slept with the man only for the money, to make her husband rich and happy. It didn’t turn out to be the greatest decision, but she was trying to fulfill his dream. She even apologized to him, when in fact, they were both equally responsible for what happened….
Interesting book, good story.
Spoiler alert ⚠️⚠️⚠️
The last few lines of the story were:
Joan: “…. So you have to keep on fighting. Especially for something very rare and precious.”
Josh: “ Yeah, you have to keep fighting”
Joan: “yes we do, I guess that’s why I am here”
Isn’t this true love? She slept with the man only for the money, to make her husband rich and happy. It didn’t turn out to be the greatest decision, but she was trying to fulfill his dream. She even apologized to him, when in fact, they were both equally responsible for what happened….
Displaying 1 - 30 of 98 reviews