What do you think?
Rate this book
A Dog's Ransom
Long out of print, this Highsmith classic resurfaces with a vengeance. The great revival of interest in Patricia Highsmith continues with the publication of this novel that will give dog owners nightmares for years to come. With an eerie simplicity of style, Highsmith turns our next-door neighbors into sadistic psychopaths, lying in wait among white picket fences and manicured lawns.
In 'A Dog's Ransom', Highsmith blends a savage humor with brilliant social satire in this dark tale of a highminded criminal who hits a wealthy Manhattan couple where it hurts the most when he kidnaps their beloved poodle. This work attests to Highsmith's reputation as "the poet of apprehension" (Graham Greene).
In 'A Dog's Ransom', Highsmith blends a savage humor with brilliant social satire in this dark tale of a highminded criminal who hits a wealthy Manhattan couple where it hurts the most when he kidnaps their beloved poodle. This work attests to Highsmith's reputation as "the poet of apprehension" (Graham Greene).
271 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1972
About the author
Patricia Highsmith
487 books5,181 followersPatricia Highsmith was an American novelist who is known mainly for her psychological crime thrillers which have led to more than two dozen film adaptations over the years.
She lived with her grandmother, mother and later step-father (her mother divorced her natural father six months before 'Patsy' was born and married Stanley Highsmith) in Fort Worth before moving with her parents to New York in 1927 but returned to live with her grandmother for a year in 1933. Returning to her parents in New York, she attended public schools in New York City and later graduated from Barnard College in 1942.
Shortly after graduation her short story 'The Heroine' was published in the Harper's Bazaar magazine and it was selected as one of the 22 best stories that appeared in American magazines in 1945 and it won the O Henry award for short stories in 1946. She continued to write short stories, many of them comic book stories, and regularly earned herself a weekly $55 pay-check. During this period of her life she lived variously in New York and Mexico.
Her first suspense novel 'Strangers on a Train' published in 1950 was an immediate success with public and critics alike. The novel has been adapted for the screen three times, most notably by Alfred Hitchcock in 1951.
In 1955 her anti-hero Tom Ripley appeared in the splendid 'The Talented Mr Ripley', a book that was awarded the Grand Prix de Litterature Policiere as the best foreign mystery novel translated into French in 1957. This book, too, has been the subject of a number of film versions. Ripley appeared again in 'Ripley Under Ground' in 1970, in 'Ripley's Game' in 1974, 'The boy who Followed Ripley' in 1980 and in 'Ripley Under Water' in 1991.
Along with her acclaimed series about Ripley, she wrote 22 novels and eight short story collections plus many other short stories, often macabre, satirical or tinged with black humour. She also wrote one novel, non-mystery, under the name Claire Morgan , plus a work of non-fiction 'Plotting and Writing Suspense Fiction' and a co-written book of children's verse, 'Miranda the Panda Is on the Veranda'.
She latterly lived in England and France and was more popular in England than in her native United States. Her novel 'Deep Water', 1957, was called by the Sunday Times one of the "most brilliant analyses of psychosis in America" and Julian Symons once wrote of her "Miss Highsmith is the writer who fuses character and plot most successfully ... the most important crime novelist at present in practice." In addition, Michael Dirda observed "Europeans honoured her as a psychological novelist, part of an existentialist tradition represented by her own favorite writers, in particular Dostoevsky, Conrad, Kafka, Gide, and Camus."
She died of leukemia in Locarno, Switzerland on 4 February 1995 and her last novel, 'Small g: a Summer Idyll', was published posthumously a month later.
Gerry Wolstenholme
July 2010
She lived with her grandmother, mother and later step-father (her mother divorced her natural father six months before 'Patsy' was born and married Stanley Highsmith) in Fort Worth before moving with her parents to New York in 1927 but returned to live with her grandmother for a year in 1933. Returning to her parents in New York, she attended public schools in New York City and later graduated from Barnard College in 1942.
Shortly after graduation her short story 'The Heroine' was published in the Harper's Bazaar magazine and it was selected as one of the 22 best stories that appeared in American magazines in 1945 and it won the O Henry award for short stories in 1946. She continued to write short stories, many of them comic book stories, and regularly earned herself a weekly $55 pay-check. During this period of her life she lived variously in New York and Mexico.
Her first suspense novel 'Strangers on a Train' published in 1950 was an immediate success with public and critics alike. The novel has been adapted for the screen three times, most notably by Alfred Hitchcock in 1951.
In 1955 her anti-hero Tom Ripley appeared in the splendid 'The Talented Mr Ripley', a book that was awarded the Grand Prix de Litterature Policiere as the best foreign mystery novel translated into French in 1957. This book, too, has been the subject of a number of film versions. Ripley appeared again in 'Ripley Under Ground' in 1970, in 'Ripley's Game' in 1974, 'The boy who Followed Ripley' in 1980 and in 'Ripley Under Water' in 1991.
Along with her acclaimed series about Ripley, she wrote 22 novels and eight short story collections plus many other short stories, often macabre, satirical or tinged with black humour. She also wrote one novel, non-mystery, under the name Claire Morgan , plus a work of non-fiction 'Plotting and Writing Suspense Fiction' and a co-written book of children's verse, 'Miranda the Panda Is on the Veranda'.
She latterly lived in England and France and was more popular in England than in her native United States. Her novel 'Deep Water', 1957, was called by the Sunday Times one of the "most brilliant analyses of psychosis in America" and Julian Symons once wrote of her "Miss Highsmith is the writer who fuses character and plot most successfully ... the most important crime novelist at present in practice." In addition, Michael Dirda observed "Europeans honoured her as a psychological novelist, part of an existentialist tradition represented by her own favorite writers, in particular Dostoevsky, Conrad, Kafka, Gide, and Camus."
She died of leukemia in Locarno, Switzerland on 4 February 1995 and her last novel, 'Small g: a Summer Idyll', was published posthumously a month later.
Gerry Wolstenholme
July 2010
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 174 reviews
Read
April 18, 2021
Memorable, vivid tale. This is my first Patricia Highsmith and I can assure you, it will not be my last.
A Dog's Ransom, a searing portrayal of crime and punishment in New York City when it’s a matter of life and death. And to think, it all started with an ominous note threatening a well-to-do middle age couple living on the Upper West Side with their miniature poodle, Lisa.
I'm confident Patricia Highsmith, master of the craft, composed her story in a way to surprise a reader at every step. As to not give away too many tantalizing details, I'll make an immediate shift to critique one of the book's main characters - tall, handsome, blonde, twenty-four-year-old Clarence Duhamell. By so doing, I’ll also focus on the author’s keen insights into social and cultural currents at play in 1972 urban America.
Clarence Duhamell, Cornell University graduate (major in psychology), Army veteran (Placement Counselor for draftees), following his honorable discharge, winds up in a personnel department for a large NYC bank, a job where his intelligence and judgement count for nothing, a 9 to 5 routine boring him to tears. By chance, Clarence reads brochures about joining the NYC police force, the variety of police work involved, the benefits, the pensions, the challenges, the service an individual can render their city.
Patricia Highsmith detected 1972 was a transitional year in many respects - the end of the Vietnam War caused a downturn in the US economy and for the first time in the nation's history, a mass of college graduates could not find jobs. Many grads, especially with sociology and psychology degrees, entered professions where they were the first college graduates to hold such positions – prime example: the police force.
It’s within this context Clarence, an only child raised in Astoria, Long Island, joins New York’s finest and becomes Officer Duhamell assigned to a tough downtown East Side precinct. As a rookie, he spent a year pounding a beat, feeling utterly useless although several times he had to run for cover and walkie talkie squad cars. His request for a transfer was granted and he became part of an Upper West Side precinct. However, once in his new location, Clarence found the atmosphere less than agreeable: his fellows and supervising officers were not so friendly. Also, a large issue loomed - in Patricia Highsmith’s words: “Clarence had always known pay-offs existed in the force, and he wasn’t trying to reform anyone or to inform on anyone, but it became know that he didn’t take kickbacks and so the cops who did – the majority – tended to avoid Clarence. He wasn’t fraternity material.”
The author’s penetration insight: being a police officer is much more than showing up and doing a good job; the NYC police force is a subculture unto itself, many officers the sons and grandsons of police, acculturated from a young age into the world of police as the ultimate goal and way of life – fraternity, benefits and pensions included. Clarence doesn’t realize his college degree (from an Ivy League school!), idealistic attitude and suburban white-collar manner and speech all pose a direct threat to the officers he works with – a threat to their self-identity of what it means to be a police officer and part of the force.
Several other Clarence tidbits: he had an apartment on East 19th Street but spent most nights with his hippie girlfriend Marylyn Coomes, age twenty-two, at her place on Macdougal Street down in Greenwich Village, an arrangement not exactly acceptable by Police Department rules but Clarence always made sure he slept in his own apartment those nights he was on emergency call; he considered himself politically left, although not as radically left as Marylyn; if he didn’t like being a policeman in another year, he planned to quit. Now, does any of this sound like a real, dedicated member of the force? You bet it doesn't - more reasons to alienate everyone around him.
One day, listening to the conversation at the station between Captain MacGregor and a Mr. Ed Reynolds about his kidnapped dog and a ransom, Clarence decided to take independent action: he arranges a visit with Ed Reynolds at his Upper West Side apartment. Words are exchanged and Clarence feels the emotional pain of Ed and his wife Greta. Knowing the department will not give a missing dog too much attention, Clarence promises Ed and Greta he will see what he can do.
Now Clarence is a man with a mission, a way to really make a difference in someone’s life. He strikes out on his own and has a measure of success but then it happens: comprehending just how much Ed and Greta love their dog Lisa, Clarence makes a big mistake, something any real police officer would definitely never do. This mistake leads to a string of mistakes, including one colossal mistake.
A number of critics have said it would be more accurate to call Patricia Highsmith an author of punishment fiction rather than crime fiction. Recognizing the deep personal and social divide between Clarence and other staunch members in the department, officers like Manzoni and Santini, how much punishment would they relish inflicting on college boy Clarence?
A Dog’s Ransom is chock full of suspense, a novel that will keep a reader turning the pages to the last sentence. Two highlights worth mentioning: Clarence’s girlfriend Marylyn offers a captivating study of a flower child’s view of the police – fascist pigs, ignorant slobs like that wop Manzoni. And Clarence’s visit to Bellevue Hospital where he sees “bandaged people were pushed along in wheelchairs or on rolling tables. Other people waited on straight chairs against the walls, and had lugubrious or fearful expressions on their faces. Arms, legs, feet, faces, necks were in bandages or plaster casts. How on earth did so many people get injured, Clarence wondered. And yet, he ought to know. Bellevue, also, wasn’t the only hospital in Manhattan. The amount of pain in the world was really appalling. And why did most people want to go on living? This thought shocked Clarence, not for any religious scruples, but simply because to Clarence it had seemed normal to want to live, until this instant.”
Again, this is my first Patricia Highsmith. The great news is I have many other of her classic tales to look forward to - Strangers on a Train, The Talented Mr. Ripley among their number.
American author Patricia Highsmith, 1921-1995
March 21, 2024
This has so many good ingredients. Unsalted farm-fresh butter. Perfect, organic strawberries that taste like sunshine. You know what I'm talking about. Such good quality stuff.
A creep with a limp who delights in writing his neighbours poison pen letters. A well-to-do couple who have a miniature poodle named Lisa. An idealistic, insecure cop whose hippie girlfriend hates "the pigs". The combination should be spectacular.
So why didn't it come together? Why, for most of the book, was I wondering where Pat was taking us? Why didn't she take us into a hundred other directions (that she'd set up so nicely)? Why was the ending so... blah?
Now, hopefully you know that Pat isn't a crime writer, nor does she write whodunnits. She's been compared more to Dostoevsky, actually, which might surprise some people who know her simply for her Ripley books. She writes suspenseful social commentary drenched in noir. This book promised to show her readers about the fragility of middle class society, and I was so ready to lap that up, was straining on the leash with excitement. Pat dropped the ball, though, unfortunately. It's not her best.
That said, that said, that said, there are SO many worse places to be, than in a mediocre Pat Highsmith novel. Her writing still thrills me. All those tasty ingredients...
A creep with a limp who delights in writing his neighbours poison pen letters. A well-to-do couple who have a miniature poodle named Lisa. An idealistic, insecure cop whose hippie girlfriend hates "the pigs". The combination should be spectacular.
So why didn't it come together? Why, for most of the book, was I wondering where Pat was taking us? Why didn't she take us into a hundred other directions (that she'd set up so nicely)? Why was the ending so... blah?
Now, hopefully you know that Pat isn't a crime writer, nor does she write whodunnits. She's been compared more to Dostoevsky, actually, which might surprise some people who know her simply for her Ripley books. She writes suspenseful social commentary drenched in noir. This book promised to show her readers about the fragility of middle class society, and I was so ready to lap that up, was straining on the leash with excitement. Pat dropped the ball, though, unfortunately. It's not her best.
That said, that said, that said, there are SO many worse places to be, than in a mediocre Pat Highsmith novel. Her writing still thrills me. All those tasty ingredients...
May 14, 2022
"Dear sir: I have your dog, Lisa. She is well and happy. . . I gather she is important to you? We'll see."
The lowest-rated Patricia Highsmith novel on Goodreads. At a glance, some people detest this book; many find all of the characters reprehensible and I’d agree, but I also know that Graham Greene wrote to her and said it might be her best novel, the best constructed, the best paced. I don’t agree with him, exactly, that this is her best book, but I had very low expectations for reading it--A Dog’s Ransom??! What a ridiculous premise for a book! Who cares/--and it went beyond my expectations, for sure. I’ll say 3.75 stars. I think it is sort of a deliciously low view of every cultural aspect of late sixties society.
Highsmith was a known misanthrope, a lesbian who likied men only slightly better than the women of her generation, so, that everyone is unlikable seems to fit her sardonic worldview. It seems like a mundane plot, but with each disastrous step that the main character makes, the dread and gloom seems to proliferate. It’s almost like a shaggy dog kinda story, where each step leads to more and more chaos--Got a hole in my bucket, and it just gets worse and worse, and th4y all deserve it and each other; it’s almost comedic to describe the plot, but the pacing of it is indeed very carefully planned and executed. The book was published in 1972, and it captures the zeitgeist of an older generation of fifties world Manhattan clashing with the anti-establishment flower-child generation, and Highsmith has something bad to say about each and every one of them.
It all begins with a well-off upper west side (Manhattan) couple, publishing executive Ed Reynolds (who publishes boring books!) and Greta Reynolds (who isn’t as bad as some others, but neither is she important to the plot) and their little dog Lisa.The Reynolds--who seem “nice” but terminally boring (no, Highsmith has no sympathy for them except maybe, since she is an animal -lover, well. . . but I doubt it), begin to receive disturbing notes from a clearly unbalanced man who hates their smug middle-class life and their little poodle, symbolic of their unforgivably dull lifestyle. The guy kidnaps their dog, asks for $1,000 in ransom money, which they gladly put up to get the dog back, but oops, no dog, and they (of course!) do not involve the police! The kidnapper warned them not to!
So they finally do, after losing the money, call the cops, whom Ed perceives as not surprisingly distracted from a kidnapped dog case by more serious crime, but an idealistic young cop, Clarence Reynolds, takes the case on and actually finds the guy. . . who insists on another $1K. Our young “hero” cop actually leaves to approach the Reynolds about how to approach things, and the guy escapes, of course, a ridiculous mistake, and the Reynolds ignore the cops and give the schelp/schlub yet another $1K. No dog, right! When the cops find the guy again, he is taken into psychiatric custody, but is released. You see how this all goes downhill fast?
Clarence Duhamel, Cornell University graduate is a new cop, eager to help people. He sets himself off from some of the tougher, rougher cops:
“Clarence had always known pay-offs existed in the force, and he wasn’t trying to reform anyone or to inform on anyone, but it became known that he didn’t take kickbacks and so the cops who did – the majority – tended to avoid Clarence. He wasn’t fraternity material.”
DuHamel is called Dummle by his fellow cops, or dum-hole, and while we don’t like the corrupt cops, as was the case with many New Yorkers in the early seventies--pigs! out for themselves, racists--and we don’t like the dognapper--a shallow critic of “the system” and in need of mental hralth care--we also come to despise the doofus Clarence DuHamel, who is naive and stupid. His fellow cops don’t like him, and mock him when he foolishly lets the dognapper go. And when the guy accuses DuHamel of taking a 5oo bribe to let him go (ouch, ironic) they seem to sort of side with the loser, in a way.
Then two people start to harass DuHamel’s hippie girlfriend Marylyn Coomes (no, Highsmith despises hippies and their facile social critique almost as much as the dognapper--1) a sleazy cop who hates the middle class college grad DuHamel and wants to get rid of him for doing what this guy has done all alone--steal and cheat, and 2) the dognapper. An unlikely alliance? Maybe, but they conspire to make his life an unholy Hell. Marilyn wants out of the relationship--she hates cops--though she and the Reynolds seem for awhile to agree to side with DuHamel, but things continue to spiral out of control.
I don’t love the actual ending, it’s almost anticlimactic and predictable, but I like the way it captures different kinds of class and cultural conflicts in the late sixties and early seventies. No one is admirable, but the tightening of the noose around poor dumb-bell will make you feel anxious. I was surprised how much I admired a book with such a suspect title/premise. Highsmith can surely write!
The lowest-rated Patricia Highsmith novel on Goodreads. At a glance, some people detest this book; many find all of the characters reprehensible and I’d agree, but I also know that Graham Greene wrote to her and said it might be her best novel, the best constructed, the best paced. I don’t agree with him, exactly, that this is her best book, but I had very low expectations for reading it--A Dog’s Ransom??! What a ridiculous premise for a book! Who cares/--and it went beyond my expectations, for sure. I’ll say 3.75 stars. I think it is sort of a deliciously low view of every cultural aspect of late sixties society.
Highsmith was a known misanthrope, a lesbian who likied men only slightly better than the women of her generation, so, that everyone is unlikable seems to fit her sardonic worldview. It seems like a mundane plot, but with each disastrous step that the main character makes, the dread and gloom seems to proliferate. It’s almost like a shaggy dog kinda story, where each step leads to more and more chaos--Got a hole in my bucket, and it just gets worse and worse, and th4y all deserve it and each other; it’s almost comedic to describe the plot, but the pacing of it is indeed very carefully planned and executed. The book was published in 1972, and it captures the zeitgeist of an older generation of fifties world Manhattan clashing with the anti-establishment flower-child generation, and Highsmith has something bad to say about each and every one of them.
It all begins with a well-off upper west side (Manhattan) couple, publishing executive Ed Reynolds (who publishes boring books!) and Greta Reynolds (who isn’t as bad as some others, but neither is she important to the plot) and their little dog Lisa.The Reynolds--who seem “nice” but terminally boring (no, Highsmith has no sympathy for them except maybe, since she is an animal -lover, well. . . but I doubt it), begin to receive disturbing notes from a clearly unbalanced man who hates their smug middle-class life and their little poodle, symbolic of their unforgivably dull lifestyle. The guy kidnaps their dog, asks for $1,000 in ransom money, which they gladly put up to get the dog back, but oops, no dog, and they (of course!) do not involve the police! The kidnapper warned them not to!
So they finally do, after losing the money, call the cops, whom Ed perceives as not surprisingly distracted from a kidnapped dog case by more serious crime, but an idealistic young cop, Clarence Reynolds, takes the case on and actually finds the guy. . . who insists on another $1K. Our young “hero” cop actually leaves to approach the Reynolds about how to approach things, and the guy escapes, of course, a ridiculous mistake, and the Reynolds ignore the cops and give the schelp/schlub yet another $1K. No dog, right! When the cops find the guy again, he is taken into psychiatric custody, but is released. You see how this all goes downhill fast?
Clarence Duhamel, Cornell University graduate is a new cop, eager to help people. He sets himself off from some of the tougher, rougher cops:
“Clarence had always known pay-offs existed in the force, and he wasn’t trying to reform anyone or to inform on anyone, but it became known that he didn’t take kickbacks and so the cops who did – the majority – tended to avoid Clarence. He wasn’t fraternity material.”
DuHamel is called Dummle by his fellow cops, or dum-hole, and while we don’t like the corrupt cops, as was the case with many New Yorkers in the early seventies--pigs! out for themselves, racists--and we don’t like the dognapper--a shallow critic of “the system” and in need of mental hralth care--we also come to despise the doofus Clarence DuHamel, who is naive and stupid. His fellow cops don’t like him, and mock him when he foolishly lets the dognapper go. And when the guy accuses DuHamel of taking a 5oo bribe to let him go (ouch, ironic) they seem to sort of side with the loser, in a way.
Then two people start to harass DuHamel’s hippie girlfriend Marylyn Coomes (no, Highsmith despises hippies and their facile social critique almost as much as the dognapper--1) a sleazy cop who hates the middle class college grad DuHamel and wants to get rid of him for doing what this guy has done all alone--steal and cheat, and 2) the dognapper. An unlikely alliance? Maybe, but they conspire to make his life an unholy Hell. Marilyn wants out of the relationship--she hates cops--though she and the Reynolds seem for awhile to agree to side with DuHamel, but things continue to spiral out of control.
I don’t love the actual ending, it’s almost anticlimactic and predictable, but I like the way it captures different kinds of class and cultural conflicts in the late sixties and early seventies. No one is admirable, but the tightening of the noose around poor dumb-bell will make you feel anxious. I was surprised how much I admired a book with such a suspect title/premise. Highsmith can surely write!
May 11, 2019
My least favorite Highsmith so far. Ugh. No wonder it was so low on the GR listing. Anyway, I finished it. Didn't HATE it, but just never caught any narrative momentum and didn't enjoy the characters. I don't have to like the characters in a book, I just helps to NOT be apathetic to the whole damn lot.
March 14, 2019
Expect to see a lot of reviews on Ms Highsmith's books, since I recently purchased 19 kindles of them!
Once again, this author does not disappoint. What an imagination she has. Despite the title, this story is not focused on the kidnapping of a dog, since that incident is merely a catalyst for what happens afterward, while at the same time offering an opportunity to get into the personalities of the people touched by this affair.
We have the dog's owners, a pleasant, even-tempered good natured couple. Surprisingly, they don't have much emotional baggage attached to them. Then of course there's the sicko who doesn't technically kidnap the dog, but kills the French Poodle and takes away the body and still sends a ransom note. What a dastardly scoundrel! And as Highsmith leads us into his head, our opinions of him are confirmed: a miserable, bitter, misanthrope, who vents his baseless resentment of others through poison pen letters, and whose twisted thinking justifies his actions.
But the second half of the story is dominated by the patrolman who tries to help the grieving couple, an idealistic and naive young man who appears to be a misfit in the police force. His descent into a personal quagmire, caused only by his desire to do good, is uncomfortable to witness.
Highsmith's usual prose of simple yet profound sentences, flows along like a quiescent yet troubling stream and once again made me neglect my chores.
Once again, this author does not disappoint. What an imagination she has. Despite the title, this story is not focused on the kidnapping of a dog, since that incident is merely a catalyst for what happens afterward, while at the same time offering an opportunity to get into the personalities of the people touched by this affair.
We have the dog's owners, a pleasant, even-tempered good natured couple. Surprisingly, they don't have much emotional baggage attached to them. Then of course there's the sicko who doesn't technically kidnap the dog, but kills the French Poodle and takes away the body and still sends a ransom note. What a dastardly scoundrel! And as Highsmith leads us into his head, our opinions of him are confirmed: a miserable, bitter, misanthrope, who vents his baseless resentment of others through poison pen letters, and whose twisted thinking justifies his actions.
But the second half of the story is dominated by the patrolman who tries to help the grieving couple, an idealistic and naive young man who appears to be a misfit in the police force. His descent into a personal quagmire, caused only by his desire to do good, is uncomfortable to witness.
Highsmith's usual prose of simple yet profound sentences, flows along like a quiescent yet troubling stream and once again made me neglect my chores.
April 8, 2008
This is a very disturbing story - surprise surprise - that is what you get when you enter the world of Patricia Highsmith. This is a story of a psycho who dognaps (is that the correct term?) a pet dog and gets a ransom for his deed. He killed the dog right away - and a nice policeman goes after the dog-killer. Which leads to that cops downfall.
What's interesting is Highsmith's well-known love for the animal kingdom and how she plays with that angle with respect to the policeman's eventually (even though accidently) killing of the dognapper.
I remember reading this book many years ago, and it had a really bad affect on my nerves. Highsmith can really get under my skin and there are a few authors who can do that. She's a master and it's amazing that her work is so consistent and in one's face.
What's interesting is Highsmith's well-known love for the animal kingdom and how she plays with that angle with respect to the policeman's eventually (even though accidently) killing of the dognapper.
I remember reading this book many years ago, and it had a really bad affect on my nerves. Highsmith can really get under my skin and there are a few authors who can do that. She's a master and it's amazing that her work is so consistent and in one's face.
April 30, 2026
What a funny city New York was--eight million people, and no one knew anybody and didn't really want to. It was a conglomeration to make money, not because people were fond of their fellow men.There is something that stands out about certain successful novelists - or perhaps it's true of all writers who achieve an admirable level of popularity. Often, these artists have written quite a lot - yet, when their names are brought up, it might be in reference to a mere percentage of their output.
There are exceptions. Stephen King has published a tremendous amount, and he's fortunate that many of his titles get bandied about. But take someone like Agatha Christie: a large bibliography, yet she's mainly mentioned in connection with certain works that became blockbusters. Or take Philip K. Dick: he tended to publish almost every year, yet he's most often tied to 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?'.
The point I'm getting at relates to a writer's less-talked-about titles; some which may be as good or even better than the ones the writer is most admired for. I come across such books with intriguing frequency. Often these works appear to be simply ignored... except perhaps by readers who were originally pulled in by what was better-known.
Patricia Highsmith wrote 22 novels. She's mostly remembered for her debut, 'Strangers on a Train', and her series of Ripley novels - mainly the first one, 'The Talented Mr. Ripley'. I've now read just about all of her novels. A few of them are under-par but the bulk of them are extraordinary and deserve more of an audience. (Throughout her career, she was typically much more popular in Europe.)
I might only skip one - 'A Game for the Living' - but, if I do, that will only be because the author herself has cautioned against "my worst book".
I even had some hesitation re: 'A Dog's Ransom'. The premise (which you sort of get from the title) didn't bode well, not to me. Nevertheless, it wasn't long after beginning the read that I felt the author's confident pull. Then I jumped in in earnest.
This is one *hell* of a story - one dealing with much more than simple dognapping.
Aside from her merciless (overall) take on urban police (something of a scourge in the '70s, as Serpico reported), Highsmith takes on themes of loss, loyalty (esp. when it is challenged), alienation, innocence, enmity and self-preservation. Perhaps etc.; there's a lot packed in here.
Uncharacteristically (something I last remember her doing admirably in 'People Who Knock on the Door'), the author outdoes herself in providing enough likable characters - or else those with a fighting spirit to balance their flaws - so that the book can be kept from being a complete downer.
Still... the narrative is considerably noir-saturated in terms of its protagonist... pitted against an antagonist who is among Highsmith's most repulsive creations. To a degree, the nemesis put me in mind of Highsmith's first villain: Bruno in 'Strangers on a Train'. ~ only less-intelligent and scummier.
The phrase 'up the ante' applies here - it's something that Highsmith does consistently as she progresses, for the purpose of throwing tension into a vise, before squeezing without let-up. Just when you think things can't possibly get much worse, they get much worse. The thought might come to you that things are reaching the implausible. But actually... I bought into it. ~ esp. when it came to the plus-one 'villain'. I believe such people exist.
It's esp. welcome when Highsmith chooses a bit of respite here and there - not much but enough to act as a breather. In these breaks, some very nice (warm, compassionate) character touches are added to some of the prominent (yet still peripheral) personalities. The balance and insight are appreciated.
I didn't anticipate what would come over me as I approached the last well-over 100 pages. At that point, the pages seemed to take on a life of their own, almost turning themselves. I was thrown into a vortex of utter despair, as my heart systematically crumbled into pieces.
August 20, 2015
Highsmith's prose is simple and unadorned. It is almost like a reading primer for adult learners sometimes; but the content is far from simplistic.
A middle aged couple's beloved poodle is kidnapped; a twisted outsider escalates his hobby of writing poison pen letters to those he considers unfairly priviliged; a confused young policeman tries to find meaning, love and honour. It all comes together in a stark, uncompromising narrative where innocence has no place.
It also makes an interesting companion piece to a couple of Simenon novels: Dark Snow and The Fate Of The Malous.
A middle aged couple's beloved poodle is kidnapped; a twisted outsider escalates his hobby of writing poison pen letters to those he considers unfairly priviliged; a confused young policeman tries to find meaning, love and honour. It all comes together in a stark, uncompromising narrative where innocence has no place.
It also makes an interesting companion piece to a couple of Simenon novels: Dark Snow and The Fate Of The Malous.
September 28, 2022
Patrolman Clarence (Clare, to his friends) walks a beat on the Upper West Side. Clare hasn't "found himself" yet. He's not sure he wants to be a cop and the the cops aren't sure they want him to be a cop. Clare screws the pooch and spends the rest of the book suffering the consequences of his blunder.
Add Clarence to the list of emasculated main characters that Highsmith seems to fancy (Walter, Vic, David, Robert, Philip, Sydney, Jack). Pat makes us walk in their uncomfortable shoes. In this story, there is some relief in the end, because Clare .
Add Clarence to the list of emasculated main characters that Highsmith seems to fancy (Walter, Vic, David, Robert, Philip, Sydney, Jack). Pat makes us walk in their uncomfortable shoes. In this story, there is some relief in the end, because Clare .
August 17, 2022
Well, after reading about the author's best summer reading memory:
"Alexander McCall Smith
One summer, over 20 years ago, my wife and I went to stay in a small cottage in France, on a farm in the Auvergne. Our children were small and needed an afternoon sleep, during which I sat on the veranda and readPatricia Highsmith novels, one after the other, and scared myself thoroughly. It started after I was a few chapters into"People Who Knock on the Door,” and by the time I had reached the end of"Deep Water,” I felt utterly uneasy."
I was hooked on reading anything by this author. I discovered that she was also the author of "The Talented Mr. Ripley" which I had only known as a movie...
Anyway, during my recent used book rampage, I discovered this paperback at Reader's Corner, which is a well known used book store near a local college here in Raleigh, NC. I was ecstatic. It looked old and a quick look on goodreads had it listed as an out of print book. I thought "goldmine!".
Ugh. Not even close. This book was a drone...and I thought about giving up but because it appeared to be "short" -- and it was but "short" doesn't mean a quick read when it's a slow, WTF story -- but at some point, there's a book where you have to finish it to just 1) torture yourself because you're mad enough at the book and 2) find out what the fudge happens anyway.
First: The book was apparently written (or just published?) in 1972. However, it read like some kind of 1940s book. I kept seeing people dressed in 40's clothing, talking like "see here, buster" (not that it was written that way, but that's what I kept hearing). The title character's name was Clarence Duhamell who gets called "Clare". That bothered me. And who, in 1972, gets called Clare? It just was so 1940s.
Also, curb was spelled "kerb". Again, is that a 1970s thing? The era was weird because there also was a great disdain for cops...where 'Clare's' girlfriend would call them "pigs"....which, well, was *very* 70s.
There were other odd spellings that I can no longer recall but "kerb" was used often.
Anyway, the story: Ed Reynolds is a publisher who lives in Manhattan and has a beloved black poodle, Lisa. He adores the dog because in the past year, he loses his 18 year old daughter to drugs.
He has been receiving anonymous letters from "anon" just talking about how he thinks he must be some big shot (Ed). One evening, as he walks Lisa to a nearby park, he throws a ball into some bushes and Lisa goes to retrieve it but never returns. After a search for his beloved poodle, he eventually receives a ransom note that the dog will be returned if he gives $1000. He does this but the dog is not returned.
After some time, he decides to report this to the police. The police take the info but are not as interested in the disappearance of a dog. But Clarence Duhamell overhears the conversation and takes it upon himself to visit Ed Reynolds on his own to take the details and keep an eye out on suspicious people. Sure enough, he finds the guy, a crazy guy Rowajinski. Turns out, Rowajinski had killed the dog that very night the dog went missing.
Where does this story go? Nowhere. It's on and on about Ed Reynolds looking for the dog. Paying the ransom and waiting for the dog. I mean: details and details - taking a cigarette out, waiting by post # 11. Waiting longer while wife goes away. 'I could care less about the money. I just want my dog back.' This goes on and on and on.
Then we go to Clarence and he goes on and on about why he's a cop and his disdain for his peers. How they take bribes and how he would not. How much he loves his girlfriend. And then how much he likes Ed and Greta Reynolds. How he wants to hang out with them as friends. And then his obsession of accusations against him (when Rowajinski sets him up to look like he took a bribe from him). My GOD the details that are incessantly unnecessary.
The dog became irrelevant and it became something about, I assume, Clarence going crazy? I don't know.
Clarence eventually kills Rowajinski. He tells his girlfriend and Ed and Greta Reynolds, but denies it to the cops. The cops don't believe him and in the end, do everything to try to beat him out of it. Literally. And the last thing that happens? One of the cops goes to his apartment and shoots him. The end. We don't know if he dies or what. That's it.
There was nothing thrilling. There was no psychological mindfudge. I know who stole the dog. I know who killed Rowajinski. I know who shot Clarence. I don't know what the hell was the point of the book. I don't know what is creepy about Patricia Highsmith...and yet, I'm still intrigued about what the original point was to get me to buy this book.
So, despite the one star, pissed as hell at this book attitude, I probably would give her books another try.
I'm sick like that.
"Alexander McCall Smith
One summer, over 20 years ago, my wife and I went to stay in a small cottage in France, on a farm in the Auvergne. Our children were small and needed an afternoon sleep, during which I sat on the veranda and readPatricia Highsmith novels, one after the other, and scared myself thoroughly. It started after I was a few chapters into"People Who Knock on the Door,” and by the time I had reached the end of"Deep Water,” I felt utterly uneasy."
I was hooked on reading anything by this author. I discovered that she was also the author of "The Talented Mr. Ripley" which I had only known as a movie...
Anyway, during my recent used book rampage, I discovered this paperback at Reader's Corner, which is a well known used book store near a local college here in Raleigh, NC. I was ecstatic. It looked old and a quick look on goodreads had it listed as an out of print book. I thought "goldmine!".
Ugh. Not even close. This book was a drone...and I thought about giving up but because it appeared to be "short" -- and it was but "short" doesn't mean a quick read when it's a slow, WTF story -- but at some point, there's a book where you have to finish it to just 1) torture yourself because you're mad enough at the book and 2) find out what the fudge happens anyway.
First: The book was apparently written (or just published?) in 1972. However, it read like some kind of 1940s book. I kept seeing people dressed in 40's clothing, talking like "see here, buster" (not that it was written that way, but that's what I kept hearing). The title character's name was Clarence Duhamell who gets called "Clare". That bothered me. And who, in 1972, gets called Clare? It just was so 1940s.
Also, curb was spelled "kerb". Again, is that a 1970s thing? The era was weird because there also was a great disdain for cops...where 'Clare's' girlfriend would call them "pigs"....which, well, was *very* 70s.
There were other odd spellings that I can no longer recall but "kerb" was used often.
Anyway, the story: Ed Reynolds is a publisher who lives in Manhattan and has a beloved black poodle, Lisa. He adores the dog because in the past year, he loses his 18 year old daughter to drugs.
He has been receiving anonymous letters from "anon" just talking about how he thinks he must be some big shot (Ed). One evening, as he walks Lisa to a nearby park, he throws a ball into some bushes and Lisa goes to retrieve it but never returns. After a search for his beloved poodle, he eventually receives a ransom note that the dog will be returned if he gives $1000. He does this but the dog is not returned.
After some time, he decides to report this to the police. The police take the info but are not as interested in the disappearance of a dog. But Clarence Duhamell overhears the conversation and takes it upon himself to visit Ed Reynolds on his own to take the details and keep an eye out on suspicious people. Sure enough, he finds the guy, a crazy guy Rowajinski. Turns out, Rowajinski had killed the dog that very night the dog went missing.
Where does this story go? Nowhere. It's on and on about Ed Reynolds looking for the dog. Paying the ransom and waiting for the dog. I mean: details and details - taking a cigarette out, waiting by post # 11. Waiting longer while wife goes away. 'I could care less about the money. I just want my dog back.' This goes on and on and on.
Then we go to Clarence and he goes on and on about why he's a cop and his disdain for his peers. How they take bribes and how he would not. How much he loves his girlfriend. And then how much he likes Ed and Greta Reynolds. How he wants to hang out with them as friends. And then his obsession of accusations against him (when Rowajinski sets him up to look like he took a bribe from him). My GOD the details that are incessantly unnecessary.
The dog became irrelevant and it became something about, I assume, Clarence going crazy? I don't know.
Clarence eventually kills Rowajinski. He tells his girlfriend and Ed and Greta Reynolds, but denies it to the cops. The cops don't believe him and in the end, do everything to try to beat him out of it. Literally. And the last thing that happens? One of the cops goes to his apartment and shoots him. The end. We don't know if he dies or what. That's it.
There was nothing thrilling. There was no psychological mindfudge. I know who stole the dog. I know who killed Rowajinski. I know who shot Clarence. I don't know what the hell was the point of the book. I don't know what is creepy about Patricia Highsmith...and yet, I'm still intrigued about what the original point was to get me to buy this book.
So, despite the one star, pissed as hell at this book attitude, I probably would give her books another try.
I'm sick like that.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
October 24, 2010
This tale of a pathetic loner who kills the poodle of an upper middle class Manhattan couple, sends ransom notes and money demands, and is pursued by an idealistic, Cornell-educated rookie cop, left me feeling skeeved, as much by its datedness (the cop's temporary-secretary, cop-hating girlfriend constantly referring to police as "fuzz") as by the story and unsavory characters.
July 14, 2024
Takes a bit for this one to find its feet. You're probably 20% of the way through before you even meet the character who turns out to be the central protagonist. But once it gets there it's definitely a Highsmith. Rage that rises out of control, the anxiety of holding a secret, the suspense of whether it will all be found out. What's interesting here is that Clarence thinks himself such a good guy, not the usual Highsmith protagonist. He's trusting and naive and spends the entire book doing everything wrong, by the end of the book I had no idea what I wanted to happen.
September 27, 2007
this story started off well but by midpoint it really started to ramble. the ending was disappointing; as the pages slipped away I kept thinking "How is she going to end this??" The author apparently was thinking the same thing; she just kind of cut it off abruptly with a final event that was about as satisfying as "and then I woke up and realized it was all a dream."
August 17, 2021
Interesting to see that this is one of the worst rated Highsmiths on Goodreads because it was easily my favourite. The protagonist is a bit of a loser but at least he wasn't a wanker like in every other book I've read by her.
It's not comfortable and there's not a lot of happiness going on but that's probably why I liked it so much.
It's not comfortable and there's not a lot of happiness going on but that's probably why I liked it so much.
May 27, 2013
Mais uma vez Patricia Highsmith faz um retrato arrepiante de um pequeno grupo de sociopatas, cujos caminhos se cruzam para originar confusão e destruição. Á medida que o pior de cada um deles é despertado, o seu comportamento amoral tem consequências devastadoras na vida dos cidadãos chamados "comuns".
Estamos em Nova Iorque, onde o crime, a ganância, a violência e tudo o que há de mais obscuro neste mundo adquirem contornos mais definidos.
Um casal perde a sua cadela, Lisa e reporta o acontecimento à polícia local. Até aqui, tudo normal. Dias depois é pedido um resgate pelo animal. Um pouco estranho, mas nada de alarmante. A partir daqui, tudo o que li é completamente alucinante, surreal e mesmo assustador.
Por um lado temos um raptor de cães que gosta de escrever cartas ameaçadoras, por outro temos um jovem policia bem intencionado, cuja obsessão pela justiça é tão perigosa como os crimes que quer punir e no meio de toda a trama as pessoas mais normais revelam, da mesma forma, distúrbios de personalidade.
"O Preço de Um Cão" é um livro claustrofóbico, que nos mostra o quão assustadoras as pessoas que nos rodeiam podem ser e o quão perigoso pode ser o dia-a-dia. Contudo, a narrativa não dispensa o humor e os diálogos não podiam ser mais estimulantes.
Patricia Highsmith faz uma sátira social brilhante onde expõe os desejos mais íntimos do ser humano e do que este é capaz para fazer prevalecer a sua vontade. Acima de tudo, e como sempre, as personagens são o foco central da história, e as suas motivações nunca são reveladas diretamente.
Uma história psicologicamente perturbadora que me prendeu até à última frase. Resta-me apenas confessar que os maus me atraem e mais do que as suas ações e pensamentos, o que mais me fascina é a genialidade de todo o enredo surpreendente: uma história real e assustadora, que mudou um bocadinho de mim.
Estamos em Nova Iorque, onde o crime, a ganância, a violência e tudo o que há de mais obscuro neste mundo adquirem contornos mais definidos.
Um casal perde a sua cadela, Lisa e reporta o acontecimento à polícia local. Até aqui, tudo normal. Dias depois é pedido um resgate pelo animal. Um pouco estranho, mas nada de alarmante. A partir daqui, tudo o que li é completamente alucinante, surreal e mesmo assustador.
Por um lado temos um raptor de cães que gosta de escrever cartas ameaçadoras, por outro temos um jovem policia bem intencionado, cuja obsessão pela justiça é tão perigosa como os crimes que quer punir e no meio de toda a trama as pessoas mais normais revelam, da mesma forma, distúrbios de personalidade.
"O Preço de Um Cão" é um livro claustrofóbico, que nos mostra o quão assustadoras as pessoas que nos rodeiam podem ser e o quão perigoso pode ser o dia-a-dia. Contudo, a narrativa não dispensa o humor e os diálogos não podiam ser mais estimulantes.
Patricia Highsmith faz uma sátira social brilhante onde expõe os desejos mais íntimos do ser humano e do que este é capaz para fazer prevalecer a sua vontade. Acima de tudo, e como sempre, as personagens são o foco central da história, e as suas motivações nunca são reveladas diretamente.
Uma história psicologicamente perturbadora que me prendeu até à última frase. Resta-me apenas confessar que os maus me atraem e mais do que as suas ações e pensamentos, o que mais me fascina é a genialidade de todo o enredo surpreendente: uma história real e assustadora, que mudou um bocadinho de mim.
May 22, 2023
09/2015
It's surprising that Highsmith, who would have said she loved pets more than people, didn't play with this tension more (there is The Animal Lover's Book of Beastly Murder, which I did read - but those stories were specifically about animals enacting revenge on humans). This novel was intense, the reaction of the dog owners to the kidnapping and so forth of their beloved pet. So the first part of it was predictably emotional for me. Then it became a typical Highsmithian tale of revenge, guilt, retribution. Not her best but as always interesting, however, too long.
It's surprising that Highsmith, who would have said she loved pets more than people, didn't play with this tension more (there is The Animal Lover's Book of Beastly Murder, which I did read - but those stories were specifically about animals enacting revenge on humans). This novel was intense, the reaction of the dog owners to the kidnapping and so forth of their beloved pet. So the first part of it was predictably emotional for me. Then it became a typical Highsmithian tale of revenge, guilt, retribution. Not her best but as always interesting, however, too long.
April 29, 2021
Va a ser bastante corta la reseña, ya os aviso.
He leído más libros de esta autora y siempre me dejan con la misma sensación, angustia, lentitud, intriga, tensión, más angustia... Pero este, nada de nada... bueno, sí.. lentitud y aburrimiento extremo...un peñazo, vamos.
¿Recomendaría este libro? Pues si queréis leer de la autora, este precisamente no, con tantos títulos que me parecen mejores.
Ay... esta no es mi Patri, que me la han "cambiao".
He leído más libros de esta autora y siempre me dejan con la misma sensación, angustia, lentitud, intriga, tensión, más angustia... Pero este, nada de nada... bueno, sí.. lentitud y aburrimiento extremo...un peñazo, vamos.
¿Recomendaría este libro? Pues si queréis leer de la autora, este precisamente no, con tantos títulos que me parecen mejores.
Ay... esta no es mi Patri, que me la han "cambiao".
October 31, 2022
Yazarın, Trendeki Yabancılar adlı romanından sonra okuduğum ikinci kitabı. İlk okuduğum kitabı gibi, bu kitabı da insan psikolojisini derinden analiz eden bir roman.
Farklı pozisyonlardaki kişilerin suça ve suçluya yaklaşımı ile suça karşı oluşturdukları savunma psikolojisi analizi etkileyici.
Çok beğendim.
Farklı pozisyonlardaki kişilerin suça ve suçluya yaklaşımı ile suça karşı oluşturdukları savunma psikolojisi analizi etkileyici.
Çok beğendim.
February 21, 2024
Thoroughly enjoyable Highsmith that manages to be both comic and super dark
April 18, 2022
Well, four stars for personal predilection rather than attempting to be the objective literature expert that I supposedly am. That is to say, the story here isn't all that compelling, but I super enjoyed the character study that appears to be the point of this little police murder melodrama. I also enjoyed returning to this period, the early 1970s, when New York City (the novel's locale), reeling from the heady protest years of the late '60s, began to become the graffiti-covered urban dystopia we see in so many of the great crime films of the era--from The Taking of Pelham 1-2-3 to the execrable Death Wish series. But even this was far more a part of placing these characters, explaining their complex and sometimes perverse relationships to the police--and, through their symbolic presence, societal order and the use of force in general--law-as-morality, and violence.
I'm writing my own noir novel right now so leaning into several as-yet-unread novels as I've collected over the years of Highsmith's startlingly personal and more existential than thrilling potboilers. They are quite engaging and thoughtful, even if often written quite plainly. Her prose style is, at its best a bit chilling when she gets to the violence and rare moments of tension and excitement, but it can also rather drag at other moments as she seems, at least to me, far more interested in writing people, their foibles and petty instincts, than in crafting fine crime fiction. Thus her work is more for the thoughtful than the thrill-seeking average reader of crime fiction, I imagine.
Anyway, despite some draggy passages, I quite enjoyed this one. For instance, the psychopath character here at first seems like the most interesting character--but, in the end, he's actually pretty one-dimensional, and the novel does away with him before long to focus in on the far more morally ambivalent characters. Thus he's there only to set in motion the story's chain of random violence. This is both disappointing and rather brilliant at the same time.
Thus, I think, in the end, this novel was far more sociological than anything else. It's a harsh look at who New Yorkers really were in 1972: a conglomeration of young people perhaps more dissatisfied with institutional violence than random, criminal violence, and older Post-war citizens just trying to live a cultural bourgeois life in a city fringed with the poor, outcast, and disenfranchised ever primed to bring their world down. The police were in the middle, some as corrupt as the criminals they pretended to persecute and prosecute, others trying to reform from the inside, right and wrong wholly muddled between all of these societal forces. It's hard not to agree.
I'm writing my own noir novel right now so leaning into several as-yet-unread novels as I've collected over the years of Highsmith's startlingly personal and more existential than thrilling potboilers. They are quite engaging and thoughtful, even if often written quite plainly. Her prose style is, at its best a bit chilling when she gets to the violence and rare moments of tension and excitement, but it can also rather drag at other moments as she seems, at least to me, far more interested in writing people, their foibles and petty instincts, than in crafting fine crime fiction. Thus her work is more for the thoughtful than the thrill-seeking average reader of crime fiction, I imagine.
Anyway, despite some draggy passages, I quite enjoyed this one. For instance, the psychopath character here at first seems like the most interesting character--but, in the end, he's actually pretty one-dimensional, and the novel does away with him before long to focus in on the far more morally ambivalent characters. Thus he's there only to set in motion the story's chain of random violence. This is both disappointing and rather brilliant at the same time.
Thus, I think, in the end, this novel was far more sociological than anything else. It's a harsh look at who New Yorkers really were in 1972: a conglomeration of young people perhaps more dissatisfied with institutional violence than random, criminal violence, and older Post-war citizens just trying to live a cultural bourgeois life in a city fringed with the poor, outcast, and disenfranchised ever primed to bring their world down. The police were in the middle, some as corrupt as the criminals they pretended to persecute and prosecute, others trying to reform from the inside, right and wrong wholly muddled between all of these societal forces. It's hard not to agree.
April 11, 2010
It kills me to write this.
If A Dog's Ransom had been written by some two-bit writer ... If I'd merely picked up the book at a flea market without expectations instead of seeking it out ... If I hadn't read and loved the works of Patricia Highsmith in the past ... well, maybe I'd rate the book a tad higher.
But it was disappointing. Dull. Redundant. The ending left me feeling nothing.
I still adore Ms. Highsmith and will seek out another of her works I've yet to read. Or perhaps I'll return to the Ripley tales for a spoonful of sugar.
If A Dog's Ransom had been written by some two-bit writer ... If I'd merely picked up the book at a flea market without expectations instead of seeking it out ... If I hadn't read and loved the works of Patricia Highsmith in the past ... well, maybe I'd rate the book a tad higher.
But it was disappointing. Dull. Redundant. The ending left me feeling nothing.
I still adore Ms. Highsmith and will seek out another of her works I've yet to read. Or perhaps I'll return to the Ripley tales for a spoonful of sugar.
April 27, 2022
So this is (yet) another book by Patricia Highsmith with protagonists who aren't particularly interesting or likeable doing things that are hard to fathom. Why do I keep going back for more?
Well, as a matter of fact the start of this one had me hooked at once. Highsmith has been accused of anti-semitism, and yet the (half-) Jewish wife of the apparent protagonist is one of the more likeable characters she's ever written. A little bit later the p.o.v. switches, and the nice couple become supporting characters to a more Highsmith'esque would-be psychopath.
Anyway, there are real bits of interst in this novel, but I was mostly galled by blatant racism spouted by the main character (and never contradicted by the author), when he reasons that rapes in New York City should be carried out by racially superior immigrants than Blacks and Hispanics (!). Impossible to come back from that one.
Well, as a matter of fact the start of this one had me hooked at once. Highsmith has been accused of anti-semitism, and yet the (half-) Jewish wife of the apparent protagonist is one of the more likeable characters she's ever written. A little bit later the p.o.v. switches, and the nice couple become supporting characters to a more Highsmith'esque would-be psychopath.
Anyway, there are real bits of interst in this novel, but I was mostly galled by blatant racism spouted by the main character (and never contradicted by the author), when he reasons that rapes in New York City should be carried out by racially superior immigrants than Blacks and Hispanics (!). Impossible to come back from that one.
August 16, 2008
Patricia Highsmith is the master of stories where ordinary people starts piling up small mistakes one on top of another, until they are completely drowned by the events. In "A Dog's Ransom", the initial sin of a young police officer is to take care of a case that everyone else would have paid no attention to at all. He gets involved too much, up to the point where his private life is affected, and from then it gets completely disrupted. This element can be found also in the the plot of "Strangers on a Train", and the Mr. Ripley book I'm reading now. Beware of small details - they can get you into trouble, Patricia says!
January 24, 2012
Ultimately, this was a novel about obsession. However, it seemed to take a long time making up its mind about what it wanted to be when it grew up and I was frankly annoyed at the stark, dry writing style. Had the story been as tight as the manner in which it was written, it may have been well served by such a style. As it was, it just made the ride to the bleak end all the more unpleasant. I also found the characters only marginally believable. I had trouble buying into their responses to events. They sounded like stiff actors reading bad lines.
September 2, 2018
This was a book I really wanted to enjoy, mostly because Patricia Highsmith has been continuously built up in the noir crime genre. She writes, for better words, in fairly simple prose which I did start to enjoy. Highsmith doesn't appear to elaborate on sentences with lengthy details, but instead she's quite straight forward. However, the plot of the the classic 'despicable man who sets honorable man up for failure ends up murdered by honorable man" did grow more tedious and tiring. It wasn't really a book that was groundbreaking, for me personally, and instead seemed to drag out.
November 12, 2009
???? I haven't been so disappointed in an ending since I read Lovely Bones. I really like Highsmith and recommend her other novels and short stories. But it seems like she gave up on her story and ended it very abruptly. I would have given it a much higher rating because I enjoyed the plot and her characters, but the lack of a credible ending weakens the book.
July 14, 2012
I learned that just because I liked one Patricia Highsmith book, I may not like another. Nothing much happens here except a couple's dog is kidnapped at the outset of the novel. I abandoned it after about 100 pages.
Go pick up The Talented Mr. Ripley by Highsmith instead. You won't be disappointed!
Go pick up The Talented Mr. Ripley by Highsmith instead. You won't be disappointed!
January 18, 2011
I HATED THIS BOOK! If I could give it a negative number of stars, I would!
January 4, 2013
I am a huge highsmith fan, always will be. But, this book is a little flawed. I think this would have been A great short story. Not so much for a novel. I would have cut it in half, if not more.
January 28, 2015
Not one of Highsmith's best books, but I stuck with it because I wanted to know what happened. The ending is an anti climax
Displaying 1 - 30 of 174 reviews