What do you think?
Rate this book
Parker #1
Payback
Do Unto Others...
She shot him just above the belt and left him for dead. Then they torched the house with Parker in it and took the money he has helped them steal. It all went down just the way they planned it . Except for one thing: Parker is coming back.
He roars into New York City, stealing and scamming, punching his way into the land of the living. Now Parker wants revenge: from the woman who betrayed him and from the man who used his money to pay off a debt to the syndicate. And then, when Parker finds them, he'll want something more. He'll want his money back from the Outfit. Every bloody cent...
198 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1962
563 people are currently reading
14831 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 1,297 reviews
February 29, 2024
This is a classic hard-boiled novel, the first book in a series that would ultimately run to twenty-four books published between 1962 and 2008. The series featured a brutal, smart, amoral professional criminal known only as Parker who worked with crews of other professional criminals and usually focused on robbing banks, armored cars or other such targets. Parker was not a professional killer, although he never balked at killing anyone who got in the way of the job at hand.
He also never hesitated to kill anyone who double-crossed him, and as the book and the series open, Parker has been double-crossed in the worst possible way, shot by his wife at the end of a job and left for dead. The wife then ran off with one of Parker's partners from the job, along with Parker's share of the loot. Needless to say, Parker, who luckily survived the attempt on his life, is not in a good mood when we first meet him, and Stark's introduction of his protagonist ranks as one of the best in crime fiction.
Pissed at the world and determined to get revenge, Parker is stalking across the George Washington Bridge into New York City, a "big and shaggy" man, with "flat square shoulders and arms too long in sleeves too short....His face was a chipped chunk of concrete, with eyes of flawed onyx. His mouth was a quick stroke, bloodless."
"Office women in passing cars looked at him and felt vibrations above their nylons....They knew he was a bastard, they knew his big hands were born to slap with, they knew his face would never break into a smile when he looked at a woman. They knew what he was, they thanked God for their husbands, and still they shivered. Because they knew how he would fall on a woman in the night. Like a tree."
Parker has traced his wife to New York and arrived there virtually penniless. He's determined to deal with her and, through her, to find the partner who betrayed him and stole the money that was Parker's share of the job they had pulled.
It won't be easy, and complications ensue, one after the other. But Parker will not be deterred, even when he learns that the man who betrayed him has used his money to repay a debt to the Outfit and is now protected by them. To get his revenge, Parker will have to take on the Outfit all by himself. But what the hell does he care; he won't rest until he gets what he's owed.
Richard Stark is the pen name of Donald Westlake, a prolific writer who is otherwise best known for the comedic Dortmunder crime novels that he wrote under his own name. But the Parker novels are really his crowing achievement. They are taut, spare stories cut close to the bone and without a wasted word. And there's absolutely nothing funny or redemptive about them. Parker's is a tough, brutal and dangerous world; there's no room for any sentimental nonsense and watching him make his way through that world is one of the most enjoyable experiences in the world of crime fiction.
As a side note, this book was ultimately filmed twice, once as "Point Blank," in 1967, starring Lee Marvin as Parker, and again in 1999, as "The Hunter," with Mel Gibson in the role. The Lee Marvin Version is much the better of the two, and Marvin captures the character about as well as anyone could.
He also never hesitated to kill anyone who double-crossed him, and as the book and the series open, Parker has been double-crossed in the worst possible way, shot by his wife at the end of a job and left for dead. The wife then ran off with one of Parker's partners from the job, along with Parker's share of the loot. Needless to say, Parker, who luckily survived the attempt on his life, is not in a good mood when we first meet him, and Stark's introduction of his protagonist ranks as one of the best in crime fiction.
Pissed at the world and determined to get revenge, Parker is stalking across the George Washington Bridge into New York City, a "big and shaggy" man, with "flat square shoulders and arms too long in sleeves too short....His face was a chipped chunk of concrete, with eyes of flawed onyx. His mouth was a quick stroke, bloodless."
"Office women in passing cars looked at him and felt vibrations above their nylons....They knew he was a bastard, they knew his big hands were born to slap with, they knew his face would never break into a smile when he looked at a woman. They knew what he was, they thanked God for their husbands, and still they shivered. Because they knew how he would fall on a woman in the night. Like a tree."
Parker has traced his wife to New York and arrived there virtually penniless. He's determined to deal with her and, through her, to find the partner who betrayed him and stole the money that was Parker's share of the job they had pulled.
It won't be easy, and complications ensue, one after the other. But Parker will not be deterred, even when he learns that the man who betrayed him has used his money to repay a debt to the Outfit and is now protected by them. To get his revenge, Parker will have to take on the Outfit all by himself. But what the hell does he care; he won't rest until he gets what he's owed.
Richard Stark is the pen name of Donald Westlake, a prolific writer who is otherwise best known for the comedic Dortmunder crime novels that he wrote under his own name. But the Parker novels are really his crowing achievement. They are taut, spare stories cut close to the bone and without a wasted word. And there's absolutely nothing funny or redemptive about them. Parker's is a tough, brutal and dangerous world; there's no room for any sentimental nonsense and watching him make his way through that world is one of the most enjoyable experiences in the world of crime fiction.
As a side note, this book was ultimately filmed twice, once as "Point Blank," in 1967, starring Lee Marvin as Parker, and again in 1999, as "The Hunter," with Mel Gibson in the role. The Lee Marvin Version is much the better of the two, and Marvin captures the character about as well as anyone could.
August 31, 2024
A very cold book about a very hard man. Master thief Parker has been left for dead, betrayed by his partner and his wife, and now he's out for revenge. If you like sociopath heroes, this is the noir for you, particularly if you also appreciate a spare, efficient prose style.
"The Hunter" has been filmed twice: 1) the stylish, nihilistic cult-classic Point Blank with Lee Marvin, and 2)the vicious, misanthropic Payback with Mel Gibson. Both are worth watching.
October 31, 2025
Okay, so I did this backwards, read my first Parker via Darwyn Cooke’s sixties retro illustrated version, which I liked, but you know, the source material is better, natch. This is a short classic that introduces Parker, a brutal, tight-lipped thief bent in this first book on revenge, straight out of the gate. Which you have to admit is an interesting in media res place to begin, right? Betrayed and left for dead by his wife, double-crossed by Mal, his partner in crime, Parker rather methodically takes out person after person on the way to getting his money back. Nothing personal. Just business. A revnge slaughter, sort of disturbingly satsifying, one body at a time. But whaddya gonna do?! They double0crossed him!
Parker is not an admirable guy. He’s a professional thief, has ice-only in his veins, is not particularly sweet to women (having been dumped by his wife, he's not trusting), and will kill if he has to. And he feels he has to now. Parker, in addition to fighting for his fair share, has some expensive tastes. He’s James Bond if Bond says things like this to set up his revenge:
“I'm going to drink his blood, I'm going to chew up his heart and spit it into the gutter for the dogs to raise a leg at. I'm going to peel the skin off him and rip out his veins and hang him with them.”
He doesn't usually talk this way, but this is him if you make him angry. And he's angry in this book, though almost never as angry in the later books. More smooth than enraged, say. I listened to this book on audio. I’ll listen to #2, sure, I’m no dope. Parker warned me I had to. And you don't want to double-cross Parker.
Parker is not an admirable guy. He’s a professional thief, has ice-only in his veins, is not particularly sweet to women (having been dumped by his wife, he's not trusting), and will kill if he has to. And he feels he has to now. Parker, in addition to fighting for his fair share, has some expensive tastes. He’s James Bond if Bond says things like this to set up his revenge:
“I'm going to drink his blood, I'm going to chew up his heart and spit it into the gutter for the dogs to raise a leg at. I'm going to peel the skin off him and rip out his veins and hang him with them.”
He doesn't usually talk this way, but this is him if you make him angry. And he's angry in this book, though almost never as angry in the later books. More smooth than enraged, say. I listened to this book on audio. I’ll listen to #2, sure, I’m no dope. Parker warned me I had to. And you don't want to double-cross Parker.
Read
November 3, 2023
“When a fresh-faced guy in a Chevy offered him a lift, Parker told him to go to hell.”
The above is the first line of the first chapter of The Hunter, the first Parker novel by Donald E. Westlake writing as Richard Stark.
Mr. Westlake told an interviewer: "All fiction starts with language, what kind of language do you use - starts with the language, then goes to the story, then goes to the people." And regarding his Parker novels specifically: "I want the language to be very stripped down and bleak and no adverbs; I want it stark. So, the name will be Stark just to remind me what we're doing here."
As they say, the rest is history. Under the pen name of Richard Stark, grand master of crime fiction Donald E. Westlake went on to write 24 Parker novels - number 1-16 from 1962 to 1974 then number 17-24 from 1997 to 2008.
The Hunter introduces readers to Parker, one of the most memorable characters in all of fiction. That's right - not just crime fiction but all fiction.
Physically, Parker is "big and shaggy, with flat square shoulders ... His hands, swinging curve-fingered at his sides, looked like they were molded of brown clay by a sculptor who thought big and liked veins. His hair was brown and dry and dead,..His face was a chipped chunk of concrete, with eyes of flawed onyx. His mouth was a quick stroke, bloodless."
Parker is always Parker, he's never called by his first name, if he has one at all, but you can bet a mil if he did it wouldn't be Clarence or Alister or Yale.
Parker has been working heists for eighteen years, roughly one a year, where he joins other heisters on a job - hit an armored car, rob a bank, steal jewelry, that kind of thing, usually going for cash since it's the cleanest.
On the job, Parker is always the true professional - all business, focused, keenly perceptive, constantly thinking through the possibilities. Parker is also the ultimate heister - solid, steady, calm, cold, calculating, keen on self-survival and, last but hardly least, willing to kill whenever necessary.
Mr. Westlake recounts his dealings with publishers: "When Bucklin Moon of Pocket Books said he wanted to publish The Hunter, if I’d help Parker escape the law at the end so I could write more books about him, I was at first very surprised. He was the bad guy in the book."
Oh, yea, bad to the bone. Here's what Dennis Lehane, contemporary crime writer and lifelong fan of Richard Stark, has to say: "Parker is as bad as he seems. If a baby carriage rolled in front of him during a heist, he'd kick it out of his way. If an innocent woman were caught helplessly in gangster crossfire, Parker would slip past her, happy she was drawing the bullets away from him... If you stole from him, he'd burn your house - or corporation - to the ground to get his money back."
And that hardness remains consistent in all 24 Parker novels. As per Mr. Westlake, "I’d done nothing to make him easy for the reader; no small talk, no quirks, no pets. I told myself the only way I could do it is if I held onto what Buck seemed to like, the very fact that he was a compendium of what your lead character should not be. I must never soften him, never make him user-friendly, and I’ve tried to hold to that."
Turning to The Hunter, recall Parker tells that driver of the Chevy to go to hell. Parker's walking across the George Washington Bridge to Manhattan. Parker's going for a very specific reason: to find wife Lynn and a guy by the name of Mal Resnick since both wife and Mal pulled a double-cross on him back in California during a heist.
As he takes long strides across the bridge, Parker can feel his large hands around Mal's neck, squeezing, demanding Mal tell him how he can get his $45,000, his fair split from that California job. Then when Mal spills, Parker tightens his squeeze until Mal's cowardly eyes bulge and he breaths no more.
As to how it all plays out, you'll have to read for yourself. And I dare you to stop reading after you're done with chapter one. Shifting to philosophy, two of the many reasons why Richard Stark will appeal to a much wider audience than simply crime fiction buffs:
Number One:
On the Parker novels, the great Irish author/critic John Banville tells us: "This is existential man at his furthest extremity, confronting a world that is even more wicked and treacherous than he is." Since I'm a huge fan of existential literature with its themes of alienation, absurdity, freedom, authenticity explored by such French authors as Jean-Paul Sartre, Albert Camus, Georges Simenon and Pascal Garnier, I'm especially taken by Richard Stark.
Number Two:
Anthropologists cite prior to the advent of agriculture six thousand years ago, we humans were hunters for nearly one hundred thousand years. In many ways, Parker embodies this hunting spirit (The Hunter, so appropriate a title). Thus, on some level, we can feel a kinship with Parker.
Also, according to one of Westlake/Stark's leading critics, Parker is a wolf in human form. Now, of course, wolves hunt in packs. Parker is a heister and heisters, like wolves, work in packs. But here's the rub: the other men and women (mostly men) Parker must work with are human, all too human, with their bloody human emotions and human personalities that always seem to get in the damn way. And herein lies the great drama of the Parker novels - to see how Parker the wolf responds to all the many challenges and double-crosses he must inevitably deal with. So gripping.
American author Donald E. Westlake, 1933-2008
September 5, 2010
When we meet Parker, we don’t know much about him. He’s just a guy with shabby clothes and a bad attitude walking across the George Washington Bridge into New York without a dime to his name. Within hours of arriving in Manhattan, Parker has used an early ’60s form of identity theft to fill his wallet and set himself up quite nicely. Clearly, this is a resourceful guy. As we quickly learn in The Hunter, he’s also a guy that you do not want to double-cross.
A professional thief, Parker was betrayed, robbed and left for dead by one of his partners, Mal Resnick, who turned Parker’s wife against him. Mal used the money he took from Parker to pay off a debt he owed to the Outfit, and now he’s got good connections to the mob in New York. Parker doesn’t care who got the money or who Mal knows, he just wants to satisfy his grudges.
It’d been a while since I’d read any of the early Parker novels, and I was a little worried about how they’d hold up. Thankfully, they‘ve aged with style. With Parker, we’d get the prototype to the anti-hero professional thief, and there are countless fictional characters that owe a debt to him.
Since this initial book has Parker seeking revenge for a very personal double-cross, he’s more angry than he’d be for most of the series, but he’d always have that blunt and no-nonsense nature. On some levels, Parker seems completely amoral, but he’s a ruthless pragmatist, not a psychopath. He doesn't hurt anyone unless it's necessary, but if he needs to kill someone to get away with the loot, he doesn't hesitate for a second.
I read somewhere once that when asked why he used the Richard Stark pen name for these novels, that Westlake replied that he wrote his funny comic capers as himself on sunny days but that on rainy days he wrote as Stark. Fortunately for crime fans, Westlake must have had a lot of rainy days.
And a big Thank You to the University of Chicago press for reprinting the hard-to-find early Parker books in these gorgeous trade paperbacks.
A professional thief, Parker was betrayed, robbed and left for dead by one of his partners, Mal Resnick, who turned Parker’s wife against him. Mal used the money he took from Parker to pay off a debt he owed to the Outfit, and now he’s got good connections to the mob in New York. Parker doesn’t care who got the money or who Mal knows, he just wants to satisfy his grudges.
It’d been a while since I’d read any of the early Parker novels, and I was a little worried about how they’d hold up. Thankfully, they‘ve aged with style. With Parker, we’d get the prototype to the anti-hero professional thief, and there are countless fictional characters that owe a debt to him.
Since this initial book has Parker seeking revenge for a very personal double-cross, he’s more angry than he’d be for most of the series, but he’d always have that blunt and no-nonsense nature. On some levels, Parker seems completely amoral, but he’s a ruthless pragmatist, not a psychopath. He doesn't hurt anyone unless it's necessary, but if he needs to kill someone to get away with the loot, he doesn't hesitate for a second.
I read somewhere once that when asked why he used the Richard Stark pen name for these novels, that Westlake replied that he wrote his funny comic capers as himself on sunny days but that on rainy days he wrote as Stark. Fortunately for crime fans, Westlake must have had a lot of rainy days.
And a big Thank You to the University of Chicago press for reprinting the hard-to-find early Parker books in these gorgeous trade paperbacks.
June 11, 2016
This is not a graphic novel. It is the Richard Stark novel that includes eight or nine full page illustrations by Darwyn Cooke.
I can not recommend this book highly enough.
Not is it a great example of great writing by Mr. Westlake, it is also an amazingly well produced book. Beautifully bound in leather and cloth, with extraordinary end papers and utilizing heavy paper stock, this is a treat for any lover of fine quality book making.
If you have not read this book there is a part of your reading life that is not complete.
I read the original years ago, I could not pass up this new version with illustrations by Darwyn Cooke. It's beautifully produced.
IDW have also produced a graphic novel of this first installment of the Parker series. The name and description are quite similar. Be aware.
IDW have promised the next installment of the series is to be published soon by them. I can only hope this is so.
I can not recommend this book highly enough.
Not is it a great example of great writing by Mr. Westlake, it is also an amazingly well produced book. Beautifully bound in leather and cloth, with extraordinary end papers and utilizing heavy paper stock, this is a treat for any lover of fine quality book making.
If you have not read this book there is a part of your reading life that is not complete.
I read the original years ago, I could not pass up this new version with illustrations by Darwyn Cooke. It's beautifully produced.
IDW have also produced a graphic novel of this first installment of the Parker series. The name and description are quite similar. Be aware.
IDW have promised the next installment of the series is to be published soon by them. I can only hope this is so.
August 11, 2011
When PARKER is after you...IT’S PRETTY MUCH
4.5 to 5.0 stars. I haven't read oodles of crime fiction but this is certainly one of the best I have read so far. Parker is a pinnacle of the noirish, badass main character. He's simply superb. In this first installment, Parker returns to New York to “even up the score” with some former crew-mates who double-crossed him and left him for dead. Uh…BIG MISTAKE (for them). Now Parker is out for payback and it's pretty much lights out for his former associates who soon come to the realization that they are in a world of hurt.
The further I got into the story, the more I started seeing Parker as almost inhuman...more like an irresistible force. Single-minded doesn’t begin to describe him for those on his bad side. He will keep coming until one of you is dead and HE DOES NOT NEGOTIATE!!! Basically, he is one serious BAD ASS MOFO.
Seeing Parker portrayed in such a visceral, gritty way was a lot of fun. Definitely not a "good guy" but he is the kind of bad guy that you can't help but root for even when he is doing some pretty naughty things. I found him to be a very compelling character. In addition to Parker, there is a fast-paced plot and great, NOIR-LUSCIOUS style writing. Overall, a very entertaining read. HIGHEST POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATION!!!
4.5 to 5.0 stars. I haven't read oodles of crime fiction but this is certainly one of the best I have read so far. Parker is a pinnacle of the noirish, badass main character. He's simply superb. In this first installment, Parker returns to New York to “even up the score” with some former crew-mates who double-crossed him and left him for dead. Uh…BIG MISTAKE (for them). Now Parker is out for payback and it's pretty much lights out for his former associates who soon come to the realization that they are in a world of hurt.
The further I got into the story, the more I started seeing Parker as almost inhuman...more like an irresistible force. Single-minded doesn’t begin to describe him for those on his bad side. He will keep coming until one of you is dead and HE DOES NOT NEGOTIATE!!! Basically, he is one serious BAD ASS MOFO.
Seeing Parker portrayed in such a visceral, gritty way was a lot of fun. Definitely not a "good guy" but he is the kind of bad guy that you can't help but root for even when he is doing some pretty naughty things. I found him to be a very compelling character. In addition to Parker, there is a fast-paced plot and great, NOIR-LUSCIOUS style writing. Overall, a very entertaining read. HIGHEST POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATION!!!
July 30, 2020
Novela muy entretenida y con un personaje principal de gran potencia. Parker es muy duro y no se deja intimidar por nada ni nadie.
Very entertaining novel and with a main character of great power. Parker is very tough and is not intimidated by anything or anyone.
Very entertaining novel and with a main character of great power. Parker is very tough and is not intimidated by anything or anyone.
January 8, 2010
Four men collaborate on a heist and everything goes well until one man decides he can't share and tries to off the others. But Parker doesn't die and comes looking for revenge! But will revenge be enough for Parker ...?
Wow. I'd been looking forward to reading Richard Stark's Parker books for quite some time and I'd say I'm hooked with the first one. Parker's a relentless force of nature with few redeeming qualities. The writing shows just how versatile a writer Donald Westlake was, powerful yet sparse. Westlake didn't waste words on this one.
The plot isn't revolutionary but the writing and the execution make it a home run. The viewpoints shift back and forth from Parker and his intended victim. It could have been a simple revenge story but it escalated into new levels. The book itself is a little thin but that's because it's all meat and no filler.
If you're into crime books and are looking for something great, give The Hunter a try. You won't be disappointed.
Wow. I'd been looking forward to reading Richard Stark's Parker books for quite some time and I'd say I'm hooked with the first one. Parker's a relentless force of nature with few redeeming qualities. The writing shows just how versatile a writer Donald Westlake was, powerful yet sparse. Westlake didn't waste words on this one.
The plot isn't revolutionary but the writing and the execution make it a home run. The viewpoints shift back and forth from Parker and his intended victim. It could have been a simple revenge story but it escalated into new levels. The book itself is a little thin but that's because it's all meat and no filler.
If you're into crime books and are looking for something great, give The Hunter a try. You won't be disappointed.
April 7, 2023
i want to write a review, but i’m mostly just stuck trying to figure out what makes these damned parker books tick.
on a superficial glance they’re simple and one-note, but in actual reading the experience is rather rich and fascinating, mostly due to observing parker’s blunt and effective choices while navigate the criminal underworld.
parker is basically the hardest and most efficient criminal you’ve ever met, and you’re with him for most of the book. he never does anything redeemable or kind, yet you find yourself rooting for him regardless because he has ALL the audacity. i mean all of it, bro.
the plot is unpredictable, and it keeps you wondering how parker will get out of this maze of hitmen and criminal bosses, which he only seems to be stepping deeper and deeper into as you read.
the book is enjoyable and brisk, and it legit defies most formal fiction writing rules.
richard stark (pen name for donald westlake), uses the sparest prose, without a flowery word in sight, nor any poetic or literary aspirations, but rather a blunt force writing technique that is matter of fact, terse, and wickedly propulsive. it’s muscular writing, without one embellished word or whim.
by doing this he somehow transcends the genre trappings of the crime novel, and creates a dry, and sometimes even wickedly funny tone, which you are not even fully sure is really there in the book (trust me, it is). it’s all centred around observing the characters thick as brick sense of willpower, his immoral but practical choices, and his ingenious problem solving abilities. all of this in a fascinating anti-hero criminal lead character that somehow becomes endlessly followable.
okay, i think i figured out how these books work now haha
onto the next! 💪🏽
on a superficial glance they’re simple and one-note, but in actual reading the experience is rather rich and fascinating, mostly due to observing parker’s blunt and effective choices while navigate the criminal underworld.
parker is basically the hardest and most efficient criminal you’ve ever met, and you’re with him for most of the book. he never does anything redeemable or kind, yet you find yourself rooting for him regardless because he has ALL the audacity. i mean all of it, bro.
the plot is unpredictable, and it keeps you wondering how parker will get out of this maze of hitmen and criminal bosses, which he only seems to be stepping deeper and deeper into as you read.
the book is enjoyable and brisk, and it legit defies most formal fiction writing rules.
richard stark (pen name for donald westlake), uses the sparest prose, without a flowery word in sight, nor any poetic or literary aspirations, but rather a blunt force writing technique that is matter of fact, terse, and wickedly propulsive. it’s muscular writing, without one embellished word or whim.
by doing this he somehow transcends the genre trappings of the crime novel, and creates a dry, and sometimes even wickedly funny tone, which you are not even fully sure is really there in the book (trust me, it is). it’s all centred around observing the characters thick as brick sense of willpower, his immoral but practical choices, and his ingenious problem solving abilities. all of this in a fascinating anti-hero criminal lead character that somehow becomes endlessly followable.
okay, i think i figured out how these books work now haha
onto the next! 💪🏽
March 17, 2012
The Hunter, Donald Westlake aka Richard Stark writes the first Parker Novel
I wrote an absolutely brilliant review of The Hunter: A Parker Novel last night. Trust me, it really was. Then it simply vanished. The laptop hiccuped and all those wonderful words went off to where good words go to die.
Richard Stark was a guy I had never heard of until I joined goodreads group Pulp Fiction. Donald E Westlake, I had heard of. I was in Junior High School when I read Fugitive Pigeon. It was a stitch, although it was probably a good thing the Mum didn't monitor my reading that closely.
Now comes another confession. I find myself doing that a lot these days. I (shhhhhh....) have a Nook. I'm basically a cheapskate about some things. That way I can save up and by signed first editions.
About being a cheapskate, I chose Nook over Kindle because I can take that little Nook to a brick and mortar B&N and read a book for free for an hour at a time per day. Yes. FREE. Of course, I buy a cup of coffee, sip on that, and check out the scenery passing by. Tuscaloosa is a college town. The University of Alabama typically supplies a bounty of beauty to Playboy's "The Girls of the SEC." I only know that from what I read in the news. I stopped reading Playboy for the interviews a few decades back. Of course, I say that with a completely straight face.
We are in a false spring. It has been unusually warm for January. The daffodils are popping as are the paper whites, snow bells and the like. The Saucer Magnolias and the Mock Orange bushes are completely confused.
Yesterday was the perfect afternoon to head over to B&N, have a coffee and finish off Parker in The Hunter. Finishing off Parker isn't the proper terminology. The series extended over 45 years, the last Parker, Dirty Money, appearing in 2008, the year that Westlake/Stark died. The University of Chicago Press began reprinting the Parker series that same year, and Westlake gave a helluva interview regarding his writing, with some particular points on his creation of Parker.
The Hunter came out as a Pocket Book in December, 1962. Christopher Lehman Haupt, an astute reviewer for the New York Times picked up that something special was going on when he reviewed it in January 1963. He waxed eloquently on the virtues of the novel and said that this debut novelist was no new voice. This novel had to be the work of a seasoned crime writer. Of course, he was right. It was Donald Westlake, the seasoned writer, hiding behind the pseudonym of Richard Stark because he was already under contract with two other publishers under different names.
How did Westlake make it hard for the reader? Merely calling Parker the bad guy in the book is an understatement. Parker is completely amoral. He is a heist man. And he will kill you to keep what he steals. He is relentless, ruthless, and remorseless.
To simply call Parker a thief doesn't encompass the degree of violence the man can inflict. If your idea of a heist caper is Topkapi and you like your thieves smooth, suave, and svelte cat burglars as Cary Grant in Hitchcock's To Catch a Thief, or urbane and witty as David Niven, in the original Pink Panther, Richard Stark is not your kind of author and Parker is not your kind of thief.
Hold the champagne and caviar. A cold beer and a bloody burger is more appropriate fare when reading Richard Stark.
Yes, Parker's debut is a heist caper. We meet him as he's entering New York City in search of his wife Lynne and a man named Mal Resnick. Why? They took something of his and he wants it back.
Westlake/Stark plays with plot in the manner of Quentin Tarentino in Pulp Fiction. The plot line jumps from present to past and back again before the full why is revealed. And The Hunter is a quick brutal read. A few coffees and a few hours here and there at B&N , you're done. It's not even like Chinese food that leaves you hungry in a few hours. The end of The Hunter draws you immediately to the next, again, all yours for free with your trusty Nook and a few hours to spare. You will feel that you're as guilty of under tipping as Parker consistently does with every meal he takes. I'm not worried about it.
What is it that has fascinated so many readers about Parker? He is the anti-hero. Some critics have defined him simply as the perfect non-hero. It's a question of degree. Evil is relative. Parker is a hardworking professional stiff. Mal, his cohort in crime is a Syndicate man. The Syndicate is an insidious network of goombahs holding one another up for the greater good of the chiefs up the line who prefer to call themselves "The Organization." It's rather like cheering for Rudolph Hess to cut a separate peace with England and kick Hitler's legs out from beneath him.
Then there's Parker's prep, method, logic, and thoroughness in carrying out any plan he makes. He's careful. And this time, he has the element of surprise on his side. Everyone involved in the heist where Parker was set up by Mal is either dead or believes Parker is dead.
Parker will stop at nothing to get what belongs to him. He'll even take on the whole Syndicate, the Outfit, as the mob's soldiers call it.
Women? Oh, they notice him. It's the hands they notice first. The face that appears to have been chiseled out of concrete. The veins that bulge and ripple beneath his huge hands, women instinctively know are made for slapping. But they're also indicative of something else bulging with rippling veins beneath his slacks that sends a shiver up their skirts. As Westlake says, Parker is a man who will fall on a woman like a tree. Sexist? Yes. Chauvinistic? Yes. Shamelessly so. But face it, I've known many women who were attracted to the Parkers out there. After all, I did direct a domestic violence shelter. And this behavior is another aspect of what makes Parker the unlikeable character he is.
The 2008 Westlake interview provides further insight into the fascination for Parker's violence.
And Parker knows how to lean on the incompetents.
It's coming on mid-afternoon. The wind's down, rain's gone, and the temperature is rising into the 70s. It's about time for a cup of coffee. Think I'll have it over at Barnes & Noble. I've got a bad case of early spring fever.
Let's see. Next on the list--
The Man With the Getaway Face. That's it. All mine.
Some of my more erudite compadres have been pondering weighty literary matters from The Epic of Gilgamesh to Pynchon's The Crying of Lot 49. Me? I think I'll hang around down here on the low road for a while. After that coffee, I think I'll head over to a classic 1940s road house called the Oasis. The neon cactus is pretty at night. The juke box is loaded. The waitress calls me "Hon." The beer is cold and the burgers are bloody. Yeah. I got friends.
I wrote an absolutely brilliant review of The Hunter: A Parker Novel last night. Trust me, it really was. Then it simply vanished. The laptop hiccuped and all those wonderful words went off to where good words go to die.
Richard Stark was a guy I had never heard of until I joined goodreads group Pulp Fiction. Donald E Westlake, I had heard of. I was in Junior High School when I read Fugitive Pigeon. It was a stitch, although it was probably a good thing the Mum didn't monitor my reading that closely.
Now comes another confession. I find myself doing that a lot these days. I (shhhhhh....) have a Nook. I'm basically a cheapskate about some things. That way I can save up and by signed first editions.
About being a cheapskate, I chose Nook over Kindle because I can take that little Nook to a brick and mortar B&N and read a book for free for an hour at a time per day. Yes. FREE. Of course, I buy a cup of coffee, sip on that, and check out the scenery passing by. Tuscaloosa is a college town. The University of Alabama typically supplies a bounty of beauty to Playboy's "The Girls of the SEC." I only know that from what I read in the news. I stopped reading Playboy for the interviews a few decades back. Of course, I say that with a completely straight face.
We are in a false spring. It has been unusually warm for January. The daffodils are popping as are the paper whites, snow bells and the like. The Saucer Magnolias and the Mock Orange bushes are completely confused.
Yesterday was the perfect afternoon to head over to B&N, have a coffee and finish off Parker in The Hunter. Finishing off Parker isn't the proper terminology. The series extended over 45 years, the last Parker, Dirty Money, appearing in 2008, the year that Westlake/Stark died. The University of Chicago Press began reprinting the Parker series that same year, and Westlake gave a helluva interview regarding his writing, with some particular points on his creation of Parker.
The Hunter came out as a Pocket Book in December, 1962. Christopher Lehman Haupt, an astute reviewer for the New York Times picked up that something special was going on when he reviewed it in January 1963. He waxed eloquently on the virtues of the novel and said that this debut novelist was no new voice. This novel had to be the work of a seasoned crime writer. Of course, he was right. It was Donald Westlake, the seasoned writer, hiding behind the pseudonym of Richard Stark because he was already under contract with two other publishers under different names.
" When Bucklyn Moon of Pocket Books said he wanted to publish The Hunter, if I’d help Parker escape the law at the end so I could write more books about him, I was at first very surprised. He was the bad guy in the book.
More than that, I’d done nothing to make him easy for the reader; no smalltalk, no quirks, no pets. I told myself the only way I could do it is if I held onto what Buck seemed to like, the very fact that he was a compendium of what your lead character should not be. I must never soften him, never make him user-friendly, and I’ve tried to hold to that."
How did Westlake make it hard for the reader? Merely calling Parker the bad guy in the book is an understatement. Parker is completely amoral. He is a heist man. And he will kill you to keep what he steals. He is relentless, ruthless, and remorseless.
To simply call Parker a thief doesn't encompass the degree of violence the man can inflict. If your idea of a heist caper is Topkapi and you like your thieves smooth, suave, and svelte cat burglars as Cary Grant in Hitchcock's To Catch a Thief, or urbane and witty as David Niven, in the original Pink Panther, Richard Stark is not your kind of author and Parker is not your kind of thief.
Hold the champagne and caviar. A cold beer and a bloody burger is more appropriate fare when reading Richard Stark.
Yes, Parker's debut is a heist caper. We meet him as he's entering New York City in search of his wife Lynne and a man named Mal Resnick. Why? They took something of his and he wants it back.
Westlake/Stark plays with plot in the manner of Quentin Tarentino in Pulp Fiction. The plot line jumps from present to past and back again before the full why is revealed. And The Hunter is a quick brutal read. A few coffees and a few hours here and there at B&N , you're done. It's not even like Chinese food that leaves you hungry in a few hours. The end of The Hunter draws you immediately to the next, again, all yours for free with your trusty Nook and a few hours to spare. You will feel that you're as guilty of under tipping as Parker consistently does with every meal he takes. I'm not worried about it.
What is it that has fascinated so many readers about Parker? He is the anti-hero. Some critics have defined him simply as the perfect non-hero. It's a question of degree. Evil is relative. Parker is a hardworking professional stiff. Mal, his cohort in crime is a Syndicate man. The Syndicate is an insidious network of goombahs holding one another up for the greater good of the chiefs up the line who prefer to call themselves "The Organization." It's rather like cheering for Rudolph Hess to cut a separate peace with England and kick Hitler's legs out from beneath him.
Then there's Parker's prep, method, logic, and thoroughness in carrying out any plan he makes. He's careful. And this time, he has the element of surprise on his side. Everyone involved in the heist where Parker was set up by Mal is either dead or believes Parker is dead.
Parker will stop at nothing to get what belongs to him. He'll even take on the whole Syndicate, the Outfit, as the mob's soldiers call it.
Women? Oh, they notice him. It's the hands they notice first. The face that appears to have been chiseled out of concrete. The veins that bulge and ripple beneath his huge hands, women instinctively know are made for slapping. But they're also indicative of something else bulging with rippling veins beneath his slacks that sends a shiver up their skirts. As Westlake says, Parker is a man who will fall on a woman like a tree. Sexist? Yes. Chauvinistic? Yes. Shamelessly so. But face it, I've known many women who were attracted to the Parkers out there. After all, I did direct a domestic violence shelter. And this behavior is another aspect of what makes Parker the unlikeable character he is.
The 2008 Westlake interview provides further insight into the fascination for Parker's violence.
"Question: Most of the characters who get hurt in these novels are tastelessly dressed, arrogant, dim, lazy or fussy; they whine about their wives, and they definitely don’t appreciate hard work. Parker may not abide by most moral codes, but whenever a character behaves like a complete jerk, his or her life expectancy goes down. Why is this?
Westlake: I hadn’t looked at it that way, but I suppose it must relate to Hemingway’s judgment on people, that the competent guy does it on his own and the incompetents lean on each other.
And Parker knows how to lean on the incompetents.
It's coming on mid-afternoon. The wind's down, rain's gone, and the temperature is rising into the 70s. It's about time for a cup of coffee. Think I'll have it over at Barnes & Noble. I've got a bad case of early spring fever.
Let's see. Next on the list--
The Man With the Getaway Face. That's it. All mine.
Some of my more erudite compadres have been pondering weighty literary matters from The Epic of Gilgamesh to Pynchon's The Crying of Lot 49. Me? I think I'll hang around down here on the low road for a while. After that coffee, I think I'll head over to a classic 1940s road house called the Oasis. The neon cactus is pretty at night. The juke box is loaded. The waitress calls me "Hon." The beer is cold and the burgers are bloody. Yeah. I got friends.
November 23, 2024
"𝘏𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥, 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦."
So much fun! Really looking forward to reading book 2 now.
So much fun! Really looking forward to reading book 2 now.
November 10, 2012
During my formative teen years, my dad practically force-fed me a diet of Ed McBain, Joseph Wambaugh, and Donald E Westlake, and for that, I will be eternally grateful. I will always have to wonder if he just didn't know about Westlake's evil twin, Richard Stark, or if perhaps he wanted to protect his shy, virginal daughter from the likes of a man like Parker.
He knew he was hard, he knew that he worried less about emotion than other people.
Calling Parker hard is something of an understatement. His motive is revenge, pure and simple. And LOOK OUT anyone who stands in his way.
He wanted Mal Resnick -- he wanted him between his hands. Not the money back. Not Lynn back. Just Mal, between his hands.
For Parker, women exist to be shoved, slapped or screwed. Maybe all three at once.
To be fair, he's not totally without a conscience. I had to laugh out loud when Parker uttered these words to one man - "Watch your driving, there's a lot of kids."
It's no spoiler to say that Parker will live to wreak havoc another day. Luckily most of his victims will deserve what's coming their way.
He knew he was hard, he knew that he worried less about emotion than other people.
Calling Parker hard is something of an understatement. His motive is revenge, pure and simple. And LOOK OUT anyone who stands in his way.
He wanted Mal Resnick -- he wanted him between his hands. Not the money back. Not Lynn back. Just Mal, between his hands.
For Parker, women exist to be shoved, slapped or screwed. Maybe all three at once.
To be fair, he's not totally without a conscience. I had to laugh out loud when Parker uttered these words to one man - "Watch your driving, there's a lot of kids."
It's no spoiler to say that Parker will live to wreak havoc another day. Luckily most of his victims will deserve what's coming their way.
December 14, 2021
This was brutal. Like a screwdriver up your ass. A brutal tale of revenge. Usually, in crime novels and movies, the guy taking revenge is some violent guy with a soft spot for women and children. None of that sentimental stuff here. Parker, the wronged conman wouldn't mind killing a couple of women, to get back at Mal Resnick, the man who stole his money and his woman after a heist.
The world that Richard Stark creates is so animalistic. A primal struggle between two men over money and a woman.
Parker is such a badass. The corporatized pussy criminal establishment (called The Outfit) cannot lay a finger on him. Mal Resnick is like a middle manager who got lucky against a good man like Parker. Usually this would have ended with some trite social commentary about the old criminal way of life giving way to the corporatized criminal world. None of that Sergio Leone/Scorsese social commentary here. Parker is always ahead of the corporates. This is because he is not what you would call a good guy. Not like Denzel Washington in Man on Fire listening to Killing Me Softly. Parker is a force of nature. He is like that dog who you think might be your best friend but can turn around one day when you're not watching and bite your dick off, for no good reason.
The writing is sharp. Stark is in total control here. There is no let up. No unnecessary scenes or bullshit descriptions. The two films based on this book do not really do it any justice. Point Blank was good, but it had too much arty farty crap in it. The Mel Gibson movie was just about OK.
I will be reading more in this series.
The world that Richard Stark creates is so animalistic. A primal struggle between two men over money and a woman.
Parker is such a badass. The corporatized pussy criminal establishment (called The Outfit) cannot lay a finger on him. Mal Resnick is like a middle manager who got lucky against a good man like Parker. Usually this would have ended with some trite social commentary about the old criminal way of life giving way to the corporatized criminal world. None of that Sergio Leone/Scorsese social commentary here. Parker is always ahead of the corporates. This is because he is not what you would call a good guy. Not like Denzel Washington in Man on Fire listening to Killing Me Softly. Parker is a force of nature. He is like that dog who you think might be your best friend but can turn around one day when you're not watching and bite your dick off, for no good reason.
The writing is sharp. Stark is in total control here. There is no let up. No unnecessary scenes or bullshit descriptions. The two films based on this book do not really do it any justice. Point Blank was good, but it had too much arty farty crap in it. The Mel Gibson movie was just about OK.
I will be reading more in this series.
September 27, 2016
Parker is a BAAAD man! Actually, a better descriptive would be "dick". Parker is a dick. I don't remember the last time I met a main character this reprehensible...Perhaps Humbert Humbert from Lolita, but he was more of a perverted douche.
Now, that's not to say Parker doesn't have his reasons for committing various murders and beating his wife to the point of torture. He was double crossed, after all. Of course, this happened during a heist in which he planned to do the double crossing. See what I mean? Dick.
If you're looking for gritty crime set in a nasty underworld, The Hunter a good place to look. If you're looking for top-shelf writing, look elsewhere. If you want action and bad guys getting their comeuppance, look no further.
Now, that's not to say Parker doesn't have his reasons for committing various murders and beating his wife to the point of torture. He was double crossed, after all. Of course, this happened during a heist in which he planned to do the double crossing. See what I mean? Dick.
If you're looking for gritty crime set in a nasty underworld, The Hunter a good place to look. If you're looking for top-shelf writing, look elsewhere. If you want action and bad guys getting their comeuppance, look no further.
Read
April 19, 2024Parker
Una especie de novela negra, pero desde el otro lado. Parker es un ladrón profesional que se dedica a atracar bancos o cualquier otra cosa que le diese beneficios.
En palabras de su creador, Parker es un hijo de perra. Un tipo despiadado, sin sentimientos, que al ser traicionado por su mujer y su socio no duda en escaparse de la cárcel he ir en busca de los dos.
Los personajes son todos del ámbito donde se mueve el protagonista, entre estafadores, ladrones y mafiosos se disputan las ganancias y los policías están para recibir puñetazos y cuando no, tiros.
Una novela de pocas páginas, muy entretenida, sin muchas descripciones ni páginas de relleno para el lucimiento de este animal llamado Parker que se lleva por delante todo lo que pilla. Debido al éxito de esta primera parte siguió escribiendo hasta una veintena de novelas de las cuales casi todas no se tradujeron al español.
Fue llevada al cine en 1967 (Point Blank) por John Boorman con Lee Marvin como Parker y luego en 1999 (Payback) con Mel Gibson. En 2013 le tocó el turno a Jason Statham en llevar al cine una adaptación de la saga de Parker con el mismo nombre.
No he visto ninguna, pero a Lee Marvin y a Jason Statham el papel le va como anillo al dedo.
El autor se había inspirado en Jack Palance, un actor de los considerados duros en los años sesenta cuando creó su personaje.
Una especie de novela negra, pero desde el otro lado. Parker es un ladrón profesional que se dedica a atracar bancos o cualquier otra cosa que le diese beneficios.
En palabras de su creador, Parker es un hijo de perra. Un tipo despiadado, sin sentimientos, que al ser traicionado por su mujer y su socio no duda en escaparse de la cárcel he ir en busca de los dos.
Los personajes son todos del ámbito donde se mueve el protagonista, entre estafadores, ladrones y mafiosos se disputan las ganancias y los policías están para recibir puñetazos y cuando no, tiros.
Una novela de pocas páginas, muy entretenida, sin muchas descripciones ni páginas de relleno para el lucimiento de este animal llamado Parker que se lleva por delante todo lo que pilla. Debido al éxito de esta primera parte siguió escribiendo hasta una veintena de novelas de las cuales casi todas no se tradujeron al español.
Fue llevada al cine en 1967 (Point Blank) por John Boorman con Lee Marvin como Parker y luego en 1999 (Payback) con Mel Gibson. En 2013 le tocó el turno a Jason Statham en llevar al cine una adaptación de la saga de Parker con el mismo nombre.
No he visto ninguna, pero a Lee Marvin y a Jason Statham el papel le va como anillo al dedo.
El autor se había inspirado en Jack Palance, un actor de los considerados duros en los años sesenta cuando creó su personaje.
September 7, 2024
3.5 stars
"The funny pages call it 'the syndicate.' The goons and hustlers call it 'the Outfit.' You call it 'the Organization.' I hope you people have fun with your words. But I don't care if you call yourselves the Red Cross, you owe me forty-five thousand dollars and you'll pay me back whether you like it or not." -- Parker, not mincing words when confronting an adjutant crime boss, on page 158
I've plowed through a number of the early books in the long-running 'Parker' series this year - thank you, Starr Books (two locations!) of southeastern Pennsylvania - and found them all to be uniformly excellent hardboiled crime tales. Finally and recently obtaining a copy of the debut story, The Hunter, presents an interesting if not outright blasphemous sort of dilemma for a fan. The two distinct film adaptations of both the character and plot - somewhat memorably with Mel Gibson as 'Porter' in the gritty Payback (1999), but legendarily with Lee Marvin as 'Walker' in the ultra-stylish noir Point Blank (1967) - do much to improve on and/or just overshadow this novel and make it seem almost ordinary in comparison. Still, it was much worth the read as the starting point for a series comprised of 24 books over four decades (!), and it was entertaining to read about the terse professional thief coldly exacting revenge on both a turncoat confederate who left him for dead AND a criminal consortium that is outright refusing to pay him his owed share of the loot. It's just that . . . as I was reading it I'd continually think of the late actor Lee Marvin, in one of his trademark hard-as-nails performances, and a wonderful line-up of character actors bringing this crisp story to life in groovy and glorious Metrocolor via the 1967 film. A rare case of the movie being better than the book? Unusually, yes.
"The funny pages call it 'the syndicate.' The goons and hustlers call it 'the Outfit.' You call it 'the Organization.' I hope you people have fun with your words. But I don't care if you call yourselves the Red Cross, you owe me forty-five thousand dollars and you'll pay me back whether you like it or not." -- Parker, not mincing words when confronting an adjutant crime boss, on page 158
I've plowed through a number of the early books in the long-running 'Parker' series this year - thank you, Starr Books (two locations!) of southeastern Pennsylvania - and found them all to be uniformly excellent hardboiled crime tales. Finally and recently obtaining a copy of the debut story, The Hunter, presents an interesting if not outright blasphemous sort of dilemma for a fan. The two distinct film adaptations of both the character and plot - somewhat memorably with Mel Gibson as 'Porter' in the gritty Payback (1999), but legendarily with Lee Marvin as 'Walker' in the ultra-stylish noir Point Blank (1967) - do much to improve on and/or just overshadow this novel and make it seem almost ordinary in comparison. Still, it was much worth the read as the starting point for a series comprised of 24 books over four decades (!), and it was entertaining to read about the terse professional thief coldly exacting revenge on both a turncoat confederate who left him for dead AND a criminal consortium that is outright refusing to pay him his owed share of the loot. It's just that . . . as I was reading it I'd continually think of the late actor Lee Marvin, in one of his trademark hard-as-nails performances, and a wonderful line-up of character actors bringing this crisp story to life in groovy and glorious Metrocolor via the 1967 film. A rare case of the movie being better than the book? Unusually, yes.
November 13, 2022
Well written times era story from 1962. Should you believe in vengeance as I do this is for you. 8 of 10 stars
October 9, 2022
Parker, no first name, no last name. Shot five times by his wife and his friend Mal and left for dead with the house burning down around him, Parker has somehow crawled through the wreckage, pilfered a wallet or two, opened a checking account in someone else's name, and kited the checks into a grubstake. Parker is not to be trifled with. He's out for revenge, retribution, and his $45,000 share of the loot that his wife and Mal absconded with.
Parker is a raging dynamo and a moody, hulk of a man who doesn't need any weapons to kill, just his bare hands. Even toughs hired by the Outfit stand no chance on his warpath. It's as if Conan the Cimmerian was reborn as a twentieth century bank robber. There's no soft inner core to Parker. But then again, after being shot five times and set on fire, who would really be willing to listen to reason. He's told the Outfit is like the Postal Service, coast to coast, so what. Parker wants his money and no one is going to stand in his way.
This is a full-on action story from beginning to end with no breaks. In sparse language, Westlake (aka Richard Stark) has created some really great characters.
Parker is a raging dynamo and a moody, hulk of a man who doesn't need any weapons to kill, just his bare hands. Even toughs hired by the Outfit stand no chance on his warpath. It's as if Conan the Cimmerian was reborn as a twentieth century bank robber. There's no soft inner core to Parker. But then again, after being shot five times and set on fire, who would really be willing to listen to reason. He's told the Outfit is like the Postal Service, coast to coast, so what. Parker wants his money and no one is going to stand in his way.
This is a full-on action story from beginning to end with no breaks. In sparse language, Westlake (aka Richard Stark) has created some really great characters.
January 14, 2014
[7/10]
The first book in the Parker series is a clear illustration for me of the need for half-stars here on Goodreads. I know three stars means a positive reaction, but often people interpret it as a mediocre book, and The Hunter may be flawed as far as I'm concerned, but it is definitely not mediocre. It has in fact most of the elements to make it a classic in its genre: a powerful lead, a heist gone bad, betrayal among crooks, women trouble, surprising twists towards the end.
Parker is a professional thief. The book opens up with him arriving penniless in New York and using some clever scams with a fake ID and a fake checkbook to put himself in a good hotel and in some decent clothes, with enough left over for expenses and drink. We learn over the course of the novel that he was competent, cautious, but not overly ambitious. That is, until he gets involved with Mal and with a big hit involving gun smuggling. This job is the one that goes sour, courtesy of Mal and his own wife, leaving Parker for dead in a burning house. After a stint in jail on the West Coast, Parker is coming back to New York for vengeance. He is driven by one thought only: to get his hands on Mal, and nothing will stand in his way. As this is the first appearance of the future lead in the series, I've bookmarked his portrait:
His hands, swinging curve-fingered at his sides, looked like they were molded of brown clay by a sculptor who thought big and liked veins. His hair was brown and dry and dead, blowing around his head like a poor toupee about to fly loose. His face was a chipped chunk of concrete, with eyes of flawed onyx. His mouth was a quick stroke, bloodless.
Impressive as his physical atributes are, it is Parker's ruthlessness and readiness for lethal violence that comes to define him in the novel : a savage predator intent only on getting his way and punishing those who cross him. Parker makes no distinction between sexes, he is as ready to hit or kill women, as he is to break the bones or torture the goons of the Outfit (another name for the Mob used in the novel). There are glimpses of the earlier personality of Parker, before the betrayal, but they appear like distant memories of a past life, with little bearing on his current pursuits:
He'd have to find another Lynn. There were plenty of them, around the resort-hotel swimming pools. And this time he'd know to watch her a little closer, and not to fall in love.
A sizable portion of the novel is told through the eyes of Mal - an opportunist, a bully and a coward, hiding now under the umbrella of the Outfit, running contraband liquor and cigarettes for them. This section is useful for catching a snapshot of the underworld through which Parker and Mal swim, small fry yet among big sharks with money and organized power behind them. But even these big sharks will not be safe from Parker if they cross him.
On the plus side, I really liked the minimalist prose of Stark / Westlake, the no frills characters that eschew moral dilemmas in favor of direct action, the dialogue and the colourful scenery. I have an example of a short description of a 'bodega' at the wrong end of Central Park West:
Inside there was a stink compounded of roach poison, rotted flour, floor wax, old wood, humankind and a hundred other things.
The story feels almost written for a cinema adaptation, and indeed it was - at least twice. I intend to watch these two movies, and I'll not be surprised if there was another remake in the planning soon, with the current Hollywood scarcity of freash ideas.
On the minus side, some plot elements could have been better argumented, such as Lynn betrayal. And the end twists , while entertaining, came on a tad too abruptly ( )
In a promising development for future entries in the series, Parker goes back to his criminal career in a new heist by the end of this book, proving he has the brains and not only the brawn to be a leader of the pack. A lot of my friends here have mentioned the fact that the series improves over time, so I may turn into a fully qualified fan of Parker yet.
The first book in the Parker series is a clear illustration for me of the need for half-stars here on Goodreads. I know three stars means a positive reaction, but often people interpret it as a mediocre book, and The Hunter may be flawed as far as I'm concerned, but it is definitely not mediocre. It has in fact most of the elements to make it a classic in its genre: a powerful lead, a heist gone bad, betrayal among crooks, women trouble, surprising twists towards the end.
Parker is a professional thief. The book opens up with him arriving penniless in New York and using some clever scams with a fake ID and a fake checkbook to put himself in a good hotel and in some decent clothes, with enough left over for expenses and drink. We learn over the course of the novel that he was competent, cautious, but not overly ambitious. That is, until he gets involved with Mal and with a big hit involving gun smuggling. This job is the one that goes sour, courtesy of Mal and his own wife, leaving Parker for dead in a burning house. After a stint in jail on the West Coast, Parker is coming back to New York for vengeance. He is driven by one thought only: to get his hands on Mal, and nothing will stand in his way. As this is the first appearance of the future lead in the series, I've bookmarked his portrait:
His hands, swinging curve-fingered at his sides, looked like they were molded of brown clay by a sculptor who thought big and liked veins. His hair was brown and dry and dead, blowing around his head like a poor toupee about to fly loose. His face was a chipped chunk of concrete, with eyes of flawed onyx. His mouth was a quick stroke, bloodless.
Impressive as his physical atributes are, it is Parker's ruthlessness and readiness for lethal violence that comes to define him in the novel : a savage predator intent only on getting his way and punishing those who cross him. Parker makes no distinction between sexes, he is as ready to hit or kill women, as he is to break the bones or torture the goons of the Outfit (another name for the Mob used in the novel). There are glimpses of the earlier personality of Parker, before the betrayal, but they appear like distant memories of a past life, with little bearing on his current pursuits:
He'd have to find another Lynn. There were plenty of them, around the resort-hotel swimming pools. And this time he'd know to watch her a little closer, and not to fall in love.
A sizable portion of the novel is told through the eyes of Mal - an opportunist, a bully and a coward, hiding now under the umbrella of the Outfit, running contraband liquor and cigarettes for them. This section is useful for catching a snapshot of the underworld through which Parker and Mal swim, small fry yet among big sharks with money and organized power behind them. But even these big sharks will not be safe from Parker if they cross him.
On the plus side, I really liked the minimalist prose of Stark / Westlake, the no frills characters that eschew moral dilemmas in favor of direct action, the dialogue and the colourful scenery. I have an example of a short description of a 'bodega' at the wrong end of Central Park West:
Inside there was a stink compounded of roach poison, rotted flour, floor wax, old wood, humankind and a hundred other things.
The story feels almost written for a cinema adaptation, and indeed it was - at least twice. I intend to watch these two movies, and I'll not be surprised if there was another remake in the planning soon, with the current Hollywood scarcity of freash ideas.
On the minus side, some plot elements could have been better argumented, such as Lynn betrayal. And the end twists , while entertaining, came on a tad too abruptly ( )
In a promising development for future entries in the series, Parker goes back to his criminal career in a new heist by the end of this book, proving he has the brains and not only the brawn to be a leader of the pack. A lot of my friends here have mentioned the fact that the series improves over time, so I may turn into a fully qualified fan of Parker yet.
October 22, 2022
I don't know what I was expecting, but probably not this.
First of all, this story is much more brutal than I expected. I thought Parker was going to be a cunning criminal doing some heists. Meanwhile, he is a very ruthless man who does not hesitate to use violence when it suits him. There was much, much more violence in this book than I expected.
The book was written in the 1960s and this is what you sometimes feel in the scenes of violence. I think that in modern books scenes of violence against women are written quite differently. Especially this combination of violence and sexual pleasure struck me as strange and unconfutable at times. And it wasn't unusual to find something like that in this book. All women are afraid and want Parker at the same time. There was something really strange about it.
As I mentioned, I expected Parker to be carrying out some complicated scheme. Meanwhile, this is a completely different story. Parker is looking for an ex-partner who took everything from him and nearly killed him to get revenge. This is a dark and brutal story.
At first, I wasn't sure I'd get used to Parker. But luckily I did over time and I even started to understand him a little better. Now I'm curious what else he will be involved in. So I'll probably read more books. Especially since now I know what to expect from this series.
First of all, this story is much more brutal than I expected. I thought Parker was going to be a cunning criminal doing some heists. Meanwhile, he is a very ruthless man who does not hesitate to use violence when it suits him. There was much, much more violence in this book than I expected.
The book was written in the 1960s and this is what you sometimes feel in the scenes of violence. I think that in modern books scenes of violence against women are written quite differently. Especially this combination of violence and sexual pleasure struck me as strange and unconfutable at times. And it wasn't unusual to find something like that in this book. All women are afraid and want Parker at the same time. There was something really strange about it.
As I mentioned, I expected Parker to be carrying out some complicated scheme. Meanwhile, this is a completely different story. Parker is looking for an ex-partner who took everything from him and nearly killed him to get revenge. This is a dark and brutal story.
At first, I wasn't sure I'd get used to Parker. But luckily I did over time and I even started to understand him a little better. Now I'm curious what else he will be involved in. So I'll probably read more books. Especially since now I know what to expect from this series.
October 2, 2015
You know I suspect we all have what we think of as "guilty pleasures" or possibly at least things we enjoy that we question ourselves about. One of my "guilty pleasures" is that I like a movie that I'm not really proud of liking as the protagonist has no redeeming qualities. He's the epitome of an antihero.
The movie is Pay Back with Mel Gibson as "Porter".
The thing is I didn't know the movie was based on a book (it's even the second movie based on the book. The first stared Lee Marvin it was titled Point Blank).
So anyway I started this book and got that been there done that feeling. Now while the protagonist in the movie is "Porter" and the protagonist in the book is "Parker" they stayed pretty close to the book's plot.
At first.
Later the movie diverged completely from the book but that's okay, they're both good just...different.
But the dialogue, the situations even the character were very spot on as the book opened up.
Oh except for one thing. Remember how I said the character in the movie had absolutely no redeeming qualities? Well the movie character is a sweetheart compared to Parker. I mean you will not like Parker (well if you do I'm a little concerned about you) but he tells a good story.
You're going to get a good action tale here with plenty of grit and blood.
There's also the added interest of it dating back to 1962. This means that you will need to multiply the money amounts mentioned by about 10 or 15 to get today's values.
Still I guess another guilty pleasure. I can recommend the book for quality of story and plan to read the next.
The movie is Pay Back with Mel Gibson as "Porter".
The thing is I didn't know the movie was based on a book (it's even the second movie based on the book. The first stared Lee Marvin it was titled Point Blank).
So anyway I started this book and got that been there done that feeling. Now while the protagonist in the movie is "Porter" and the protagonist in the book is "Parker" they stayed pretty close to the book's plot.
At first.
Later the movie diverged completely from the book but that's okay, they're both good just...different.
But the dialogue, the situations even the character were very spot on as the book opened up.
Oh except for one thing. Remember how I said the character in the movie had absolutely no redeeming qualities? Well the movie character is a sweetheart compared to Parker. I mean you will not like Parker (well if you do I'm a little concerned about you) but he tells a good story.
You're going to get a good action tale here with plenty of grit and blood.
There's also the added interest of it dating back to 1962. This means that you will need to multiply the money amounts mentioned by about 10 or 15 to get today's values.
Still I guess another guilty pleasure. I can recommend the book for quality of story and plan to read the next.
April 27, 2017
Imagine you’re Donald Westlake in 1961/1962. You’re a struggling writer, churning our four or five novels a year under a variety of names and across a number of genres. Then one day you finish a book named ‘The Hunter’ under the pseudonym Richard Stark. A book about a ruthless, super thief named Parker who finds himself up against a criminal outfit known as The Outfit. Do you instantly know that this is the one? That this is the character, and this is the book even, that would give you a lasting legacy? Could you possibly realise that this short, brutal novel would have numerous sequels, that there’d be Hollywood adaptations, countless imitations, and that when twenty-five years later you get chance to write a prestigious Oscar-bait movie, the English director would actually ask whether they could credit it to Richard Stark rather than Donald Westlake?
Was there any way he could possibly have conceived of such a thing?
To put it into further context: in the same year ‘The Hunter’ came out, Westlake also published novels (under a variety of pseudonyms) called ‘361’; ‘The Sin Drifter’; ‘Strange Affair’; and ‘Sin Hellcat’. Surely there wasn’t any way to know? Surely there was no way to realise that this book was a moment of grand triumph? Well, given that he apparently killed off Parker in his first draft and had to be talked into leaving him alive by his editor, clearly he didn’t realise. But when he looked back at his life and his career, this was undoubtedly the turning point, not just one book amongst many but a key book for him and for American crime fiction itself.
Without a doubt it’s a triumph. It’s over fifty years old and it still feels modern, it still has a vibrancy. You can see exactly why it had such an effect and why people were crying out for sequels. It’s tense, smart, darkly funny and terrifically entertaining. What I really noticed on this re-read was how grounded it is, how real it all feels. There’s no way I can check, of course, but this seems like a novel that has a great sense of living geography. The prose is never less than beautifully economical and yet even though they’re quick pencil sketches, the streets he visits and the places he goes seem to have a verisimilitude. It reads like a travel guide to the less salubrious parts of New York; so if you wanted to in 1962, you could have walked the very same streets, gone to the same cab-stands and hidden in the same scrublands as Parker.
In Parker himself we may have the ultimate anti-hero: one who follows his own rules, who always takes his own path. It isn’t just that he’s a thief and a law-breaker – there’s barely a character we meet here who isn’t on the wrong side of the law – it’s the uncompromising efficiency with which he operates. It means that in a world of criminals, Parker is always the hardest, nastiest bastard who walks into a room. Often the opening books of series are strange in hindsight as the central character we’ve got to know so well isn’t quite there yet. However Westlake/Stark seems to have a handle on Parker almost immediately – the professional, ruthless bastard who does what he has to do without compromise. Except not quite. Whereas in later books it’s all about the robbery at hand and Parker’s attempts to save it or save his neck or both, here it’s personal – it’s about vengeance. It’s almost as if Westlake created this character and instantly saw what he’d have to do this man to take him out of his comfort zone, to push the envelope of the character. Then rather than wait until later to shuffle things up a little, made that adventure the opening salvo. This book therefore, much like Parker himself, isn’t one to play by any arbitrary rules.
A truly impressive, breathlessly exciting, tersely but beautifully written, five star novel.
Was there any way he could possibly have conceived of such a thing?
To put it into further context: in the same year ‘The Hunter’ came out, Westlake also published novels (under a variety of pseudonyms) called ‘361’; ‘The Sin Drifter’; ‘Strange Affair’; and ‘Sin Hellcat’. Surely there wasn’t any way to know? Surely there was no way to realise that this book was a moment of grand triumph? Well, given that he apparently killed off Parker in his first draft and had to be talked into leaving him alive by his editor, clearly he didn’t realise. But when he looked back at his life and his career, this was undoubtedly the turning point, not just one book amongst many but a key book for him and for American crime fiction itself.
Without a doubt it’s a triumph. It’s over fifty years old and it still feels modern, it still has a vibrancy. You can see exactly why it had such an effect and why people were crying out for sequels. It’s tense, smart, darkly funny and terrifically entertaining. What I really noticed on this re-read was how grounded it is, how real it all feels. There’s no way I can check, of course, but this seems like a novel that has a great sense of living geography. The prose is never less than beautifully economical and yet even though they’re quick pencil sketches, the streets he visits and the places he goes seem to have a verisimilitude. It reads like a travel guide to the less salubrious parts of New York; so if you wanted to in 1962, you could have walked the very same streets, gone to the same cab-stands and hidden in the same scrublands as Parker.
In Parker himself we may have the ultimate anti-hero: one who follows his own rules, who always takes his own path. It isn’t just that he’s a thief and a law-breaker – there’s barely a character we meet here who isn’t on the wrong side of the law – it’s the uncompromising efficiency with which he operates. It means that in a world of criminals, Parker is always the hardest, nastiest bastard who walks into a room. Often the opening books of series are strange in hindsight as the central character we’ve got to know so well isn’t quite there yet. However Westlake/Stark seems to have a handle on Parker almost immediately – the professional, ruthless bastard who does what he has to do without compromise. Except not quite. Whereas in later books it’s all about the robbery at hand and Parker’s attempts to save it or save his neck or both, here it’s personal – it’s about vengeance. It’s almost as if Westlake created this character and instantly saw what he’d have to do this man to take him out of his comfort zone, to push the envelope of the character. Then rather than wait until later to shuffle things up a little, made that adventure the opening salvo. This book therefore, much like Parker himself, isn’t one to play by any arbitrary rules.
A truly impressive, breathlessly exciting, tersely but beautifully written, five star novel.
February 6, 2023
I like my fantasy grimdark, my horror hopeless, and my crime novels mean. Parker fits the bill here, because he is absolutely vicious.
If you want a good example of Parker's personality, just imagine the X-Men's Wolverine without powers and without a shred of conscience. This book is a really fun ride and I will definitely be checking out more from this series.
If you want a good example of Parker's personality, just imagine the X-Men's Wolverine without powers and without a shred of conscience. This book is a really fun ride and I will definitely be checking out more from this series.
October 27, 2018
One of the most thrilling debut noir crime series i ever read, it introduced me to one of my favorite characters of all time : PARKER a man of very few words and of great accomplishments ...
The synopsis is crazy , the writing is light , fast and to the point ourhero doesn't know the meaning of wasting time, he has one goal and one purpose only : get revenge on those who betrayed him , cheated him of his score and left him for dead unwillingly and incompetently ...
This novel was amazing it drove me to "binge" read the entire series in a month ... So happy i found it .
The synopsis is crazy , the writing is light , fast and to the point our
This novel was amazing it drove me to "binge" read the entire series in a month ... So happy i found it .
February 23, 2013
“I'm going to drink his blood, I'm going to chew up his heart and spit it into the gutter for the dogs to raise a leg at. I'm going to peel the skin off him and rip out his veins and hang him with them.”
Parker is one angry man, he's been crossed, left for dead, thrown in jail for vagrancy, had to cross an entire continent and now he's a hunter who wants payback at point blank range.
Knowing a little about this series of books and how highly fellow pulp fans rate the first book, published in 1962 as The Hunter, I've been on the lookout for them for well over a year now. I wanted to start at the beginning, understand the origins of this tough son of a bitch known only as Parker. A man who will stop at nothing to get revenge if he feels that he has been wronged, not even the killing of innocent people. But here in Perth it seems that the books have either been ignored or valued so highly that secondhand copies are kept safe and sound on a bookcase somewhere, unavailable for exploration by new fans such as myself. What should I find when I eventually get my hands on a copy? Around these parts it's still titled Point Blank in reference to the incredible John Boorman movie from 1967 starring Lee Marvin. At least they only published it as Payback once I guess.
Parker is the single minded, ruthless, bastard at the heart of the novel but he is not alone, there is not a single "good person" in this book aside from perhaps the beautician counting her takings for the day who takes a face full of fist as Parker holes up and plots his next move. They are all seedy, crooked, degenerate types, gangsters and hookers and dealers and thieves and murderers, they are all that seems to exist in Parker's world and they're all fair game.
Stark presents this tale of revenge in a tight little tale, all killer and no filler, he's the kind of writer these 21st century try hards should be emulating instead of aiming for Tolkein sized stories. His objective portrait of these lowlifes lends the novel an air of realism and legitimacy, they go about their crooked ways without any sense of glamour surrounding them, it's every day business and it remains so when they're faced with a curve ball in the shape of Parker. This I imagine is why Westlake chose the pseudonym Stark for this series.
For those not in the know, this is Lee Marvin as Parker (renamed Walker) in Point Blank:
Point Blank is one of if not the best films of its kind. John Boorman's direction combined with Lee Marvin's screen presence and Richard Stark's character leave this film head and shoulders above the rest of the field. It's a violent next generation film noir that owes as much to Godard as it does Hammett and shares many similarities with Melville's Le Samourai. And naturally when a film is as good and as iconic as this there was a remake.
This is Mel Gibson as Parker (renamed Porter) in Payback:
Payback was a bit of a Hollywood clusterfuck, they didn't learn from their mistakes with Blade Runner and essentially did exactly the same thing with Brian Helgeland's movie, losing a lot of the Stark written character in favour of something silly. Payback: Straight Up is the lesser known director's cut that was released on DVD in 2006, and if you're a fan of the books I don't know what's not to like about this boiled down pure noir vision, Porter/Parker is a tough son of a bitch even when played by Mel Gibson and Helgeland's direction is a perfect blend of 90s Hollywood and hardboiled homage.
Having now read the source material it is interesting to find that Payback: Straight Up feels like the most honest adaptation, it might not be as visually impressive and there's no Lee Marvin but it stays true to Stark's plot, is easy to follow for the uninitiated and Porter may be slightly more human with a softer side than Parker could ever have but is still a mean SOB.
Dear library, please find me more books from the Parker series, this one was so good that I need to read the next 23 pretty quickly. If you fail to do this I will shoot your minion if the answer is still no then I will come for you, using my Richard Stark training manual for guidance.
Parker is one angry man, he's been crossed, left for dead, thrown in jail for vagrancy, had to cross an entire continent and now he's a hunter who wants payback at point blank range.
Knowing a little about this series of books and how highly fellow pulp fans rate the first book, published in 1962 as The Hunter, I've been on the lookout for them for well over a year now. I wanted to start at the beginning, understand the origins of this tough son of a bitch known only as Parker. A man who will stop at nothing to get revenge if he feels that he has been wronged, not even the killing of innocent people. But here in Perth it seems that the books have either been ignored or valued so highly that secondhand copies are kept safe and sound on a bookcase somewhere, unavailable for exploration by new fans such as myself. What should I find when I eventually get my hands on a copy? Around these parts it's still titled Point Blank in reference to the incredible John Boorman movie from 1967 starring Lee Marvin. At least they only published it as Payback once I guess.
Parker is the single minded, ruthless, bastard at the heart of the novel but he is not alone, there is not a single "good person" in this book aside from perhaps the beautician counting her takings for the day who takes a face full of fist as Parker holes up and plots his next move. They are all seedy, crooked, degenerate types, gangsters and hookers and dealers and thieves and murderers, they are all that seems to exist in Parker's world and they're all fair game.
Stark presents this tale of revenge in a tight little tale, all killer and no filler, he's the kind of writer these 21st century try hards should be emulating instead of aiming for Tolkein sized stories. His objective portrait of these lowlifes lends the novel an air of realism and legitimacy, they go about their crooked ways without any sense of glamour surrounding them, it's every day business and it remains so when they're faced with a curve ball in the shape of Parker. This I imagine is why Westlake chose the pseudonym Stark for this series.
For those not in the know, this is Lee Marvin as Parker (renamed Walker) in Point Blank:
Point Blank is one of if not the best films of its kind. John Boorman's direction combined with Lee Marvin's screen presence and Richard Stark's character leave this film head and shoulders above the rest of the field. It's a violent next generation film noir that owes as much to Godard as it does Hammett and shares many similarities with Melville's Le Samourai. And naturally when a film is as good and as iconic as this there was a remake.
This is Mel Gibson as Parker (renamed Porter) in Payback:
Payback was a bit of a Hollywood clusterfuck, they didn't learn from their mistakes with Blade Runner and essentially did exactly the same thing with Brian Helgeland's movie, losing a lot of the Stark written character in favour of something silly. Payback: Straight Up is the lesser known director's cut that was released on DVD in 2006, and if you're a fan of the books I don't know what's not to like about this boiled down pure noir vision, Porter/Parker is a tough son of a bitch even when played by Mel Gibson and Helgeland's direction is a perfect blend of 90s Hollywood and hardboiled homage.
Having now read the source material it is interesting to find that Payback: Straight Up feels like the most honest adaptation, it might not be as visually impressive and there's no Lee Marvin but it stays true to Stark's plot, is easy to follow for the uninitiated and Porter may be slightly more human with a softer side than Parker could ever have but is still a mean SOB.
Dear library, please find me more books from the Parker series, this one was so good that I need to read the next 23 pretty quickly. If you fail to do this I will shoot your minion if the answer is still no then I will come for you, using my Richard Stark training manual for guidance.
January 10, 2011
i liked the movie better. and that's really not supposed to happen unless you're talking about the godfather. yeah, point blank is a surreal jagged & fucked-up masterpiece and lee marvin is cooler than god, but it ain't just the merits of the film, it's the deficiencies of the novel. i think the problem with the hunter lies in that, this being the first of the series, stark felt he had to create a firm foundation, establish character, theme, tone, and all the other literary junk that doesn't appear to weigh down the subsequent novels (but it's all there; just masterfully invisible) -- what we love about the parker novels is how stark (pun intended) and economical and straight-to-the-point they is. stark and his protagonist are almost pathologically in-the-moment and parker emerges as some kind of reluctant existential super-anti-hero. not so much with the first in the series. nonetheless, it's a must read as it launched the whole demented mess.
i searched for the albert king version but no results.
blue cheer's version is pretty great, too. enjoy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wCG5J...
next up: the man with the getaway face
i searched for the albert king version but no results.
blue cheer's version is pretty great, too. enjoy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wCG5J...
next up: the man with the getaway face
October 22, 2014
Jan2014: Group read & I get the different versions mixed up, so I'm relistening to this. It's short & still great.
Feb2013: An excellent first book of a very good series by Donald E. Westlake writing as Richard Stark. Parker is a great character. He's almost robotic in his cold logic & self-centeredness. He wants what he wants & allows very few emotions to get in his way. Others fidget while they wait, but Parker never does. He's big, strong & obviously has some training in fighting, although I don't think we ever find out exactly where that came from.
His ability to plan a job and his single-mindedness in pursuit of it are awesome & repellent. He wants to watch for a man, so he picks an office. He doesn't even take the money when he eventually leaves, although his funds aren't what they could be. Robbery wasn't part of his purpose in this situation, therefore isn't done. He sticks to the plan.
His rules are incredibly inflexible. When he does a job, the survivors split the take - always. This might not seem like a big deal, but it is when it happens at times. It's part of his system of honor(?) - not really the correct word. He's so amoral, yet this is a boundary of his & is well shown in later books. In this one, it is introduced perfectly with his calculation of what he is owed.
I couldn't give the book 5 stars because Parker broke character in several important ways:
1) He never gives a thought to paying off the 'bank' nor did he acknowledge that he knew the position he was putting his hooker informant friend in. He should have done both. Minor, but irritating.
2) I thought the reasoning behind & his reaction to
3) The last job was too much. but his message was too much. His character doesn't give a damn about anyone else for good or ill. It was salt in a wound, an added insult that he generally avoids.
In defense of the book, Westlake apparently meant this to be just one novel & originally had Parker dying in the end, but changed it when it was bought as a series. (I might be wrong, but I think I read that somewhere.) Considering his prodigious output & this drastic change, I'd say it is excellent. Yeah, Parker is a bit off, but Parker wasn't really Parker yet.
My introduction to Parker as a character was Mel Gibson playing him in "Payback" which is based on this book. "The Hunter" doesn't have a lot to do with "Payback" except in the broadest sketch of the story line, but I wasn't upset by most of the deviations. For instance, the jobs in both of them are completely different, but that was OK. The simplicity of the job in "Payback" played much better than the more complex one in "The Hunter" would have on the screen. The way Parker gets his money in both paints his character in a different light, but I think the brutality of his methods in "Payback" worked well for the screen. There were some frills that hurt it, but I hear there is a new release of a director's cut that removes some of them such as the voice-over & Kris Kristofferson's story line. I want to see it.
Feb2013: An excellent first book of a very good series by Donald E. Westlake writing as Richard Stark. Parker is a great character. He's almost robotic in his cold logic & self-centeredness. He wants what he wants & allows very few emotions to get in his way. Others fidget while they wait, but Parker never does. He's big, strong & obviously has some training in fighting, although I don't think we ever find out exactly where that came from.
His ability to plan a job and his single-mindedness in pursuit of it are awesome & repellent. He wants to watch for a man, so he picks an office. He doesn't even take the money when he eventually leaves, although his funds aren't what they could be. Robbery wasn't part of his purpose in this situation, therefore isn't done. He sticks to the plan.
His rules are incredibly inflexible. When he does a job, the survivors split the take - always. This might not seem like a big deal, but it is when it happens at times. It's part of his system of honor(?) - not really the correct word. He's so amoral, yet this is a boundary of his & is well shown in later books. In this one, it is introduced perfectly with his calculation of what he is owed.
I couldn't give the book 5 stars because Parker broke character in several important ways:
1) He never gives a thought to paying off the 'bank' nor did he acknowledge that he knew the position he was putting his hooker informant friend in. He should have done both. Minor, but irritating.
2) I thought the reasoning behind & his reaction to
3) The last job was too much. but his message was too much. His character doesn't give a damn about anyone else for good or ill. It was salt in a wound, an added insult that he generally avoids.
In defense of the book, Westlake apparently meant this to be just one novel & originally had Parker dying in the end, but changed it when it was bought as a series. (I might be wrong, but I think I read that somewhere.) Considering his prodigious output & this drastic change, I'd say it is excellent. Yeah, Parker is a bit off, but Parker wasn't really Parker yet.
My introduction to Parker as a character was Mel Gibson playing him in "Payback" which is based on this book. "The Hunter" doesn't have a lot to do with "Payback" except in the broadest sketch of the story line, but I wasn't upset by most of the deviations. For instance, the jobs in both of them are completely different, but that was OK. The simplicity of the job in "Payback" played much better than the more complex one in "The Hunter" would have on the screen. The way Parker gets his money in both paints his character in a different light, but I think the brutality of his methods in "Payback" worked well for the screen. There were some frills that hurt it, but I hear there is a new release of a director's cut that removes some of them such as the voice-over & Kris Kristofferson's story line. I want to see it.
June 28, 2019
Μπορεί να μοιάζει με noir, μπορεί να διαβάζεται ως noir, όμως ακριβώς noir δεν είναι. Ναι μεν ανήκει στην ευρύτερη "οικογένεια" του είδους (hard-boiled), αλλά του λείπουν δύο βασικές προϋποθέσεις, στιλιστικές βεβαίως.
Η μεν πρώτη έχει να κάνει με το γεγονός πως ο σκληροτράχηλος ήρωας δεν περιβάλλεται με το απαραίτητο "ακάνθινο στεφάνι" του μοιραίου, της πικρίας, της μοναχικότητας - αυτό το στενό μαύρο θρηνητικό ρούχο που φέρει μόνιμα ως τη στερνή του πνοή – conditio sine qua non της noir μυθολογίας, μακρινού απογόνου της Αρχαίας Τραγωδίας.
Η δεύτερη σχετίζεται με τη σκόπιμα ατημέλητη κι όμως υπαρκτή λογοτεχνική αξία του noir στη βέλτιστη βεβαίως εκδοχή του. Αναφέρομαι σε αυτό το Hemingway-ζον ύφος, την αφαίρεση που υποκρύπτει εντυπωσιακή δύναμη και αλλεπάλληλες επιστρώσεις πίσω από την εκ πρώτης απλοϊκή γραφή. Στο βιβλίο αυτό, η απλοϊκότητα υπερτερεί του βάθους, με συνέπεια η πλοκή (ας το δεχτούμε, ποτέ δεν ήταν το δυνατό σημείο του noir) να φαίνεται επίπλαστη, δυναμιτίζοντας το τελικό αποτέλεσμα, αλλά και τον ίδιο τον κεντρικό ήρωα.
Αν αφαιρέσεις από τον noir ήρωα την τραγικότητα, το ψυχικό μεγαλείο που υποτάσσεται στο πεπρωμένο (συνήθως ο έρωτας για μια εξιδανικευμένη θηλυκή παρουσία και η προδοσία), τότε μένει μόνο η φαιδρή πλευρά της macho ανασφάλειας, ενός εγκωμίου ξεπεσμένου φαλλοκρατισμού που κυριαρχεί μέσω της βίας ενάντια σε άλλους άντρες, ως ατέρμονη λούπα, ώσπου ο κραταιός μονομάχος να κυριαρχήσει στην αρένα. Συγκεκριμένα, ο ήρωας όπου επιθυμεί να εκδικηθεί γιατί προδόθηκε από όλους και στρέφεται εναντίον τους όσο ψηλά στην ιεραρχία του εγκλήματος κι αν βρίσκονται.
Ποιο το νόημα σ' αυτό όμως, πλην της θεαματικής του διάστασης;
Τα έχω ξαναπεί. Το noir είναι η λογοτεχνία του εκπεπτωκότος αγγέλου, του Χαμένου Παραδείσου, του ηττημένου της ζωής. Ακόμα κι αν ο ήρωας στο τέλος νικήσει και βγει ζωντανός, η νίκη του θα είναι Πύρρειος, το τίμημα που θα έχει στο μεταξύ πληρώσει θα είναι υψηλό, καθώς το σκοτάδι ενάντια στο οποίο ο ήρωας παλεύει βρίσκεται αείποτε εντός του, και εκείνος, άχθος αρούρης, το μεταφέρει σε κάθε βήμα ως τον Γολγοθά του. Αλλά για αυτόν ποτέ δεν πρόκειται να υπάρξει Ανάσταση.
Υ.Γ.
Στο βιβλίο αυτό βασίστηκε το Point Blank (1967) του φοβερού John Boorman με τον θρυλικό Lee Marvin. Από τις πλέον ιδιόμορφες και εντυπωσιακές ταινίες (σκεφτείτε έναν Νουβέλ Βαγκ σκηνοθέτη να επιχειρεί επιτυχώς να σκηνοθετήσει ένα neo-noir). Ο Boorman πήρε ένα μέτριο βιβλίο και έφτιαξε κάτι πρωτοποριακό που ακόμα και τώρα εκπλήσσει με τη φρεσκάδα του!
https://fotiskblog.home.blog/2019/06/...
Η μεν πρώτη έχει να κάνει με το γεγονός πως ο σκληροτράχηλος ήρωας δεν περιβάλλεται με το απαραίτητο "ακάνθινο στεφάνι" του μοιραίου, της πικρίας, της μοναχικότητας - αυτό το στενό μαύρο θρηνητικό ρούχο που φέρει μόνιμα ως τη στερνή του πνοή – conditio sine qua non της noir μυθολογίας, μακρινού απογόνου της Αρχαίας Τραγωδίας.
Η δεύτερη σχετίζεται με τη σκόπιμα ατημέλητη κι όμως υπαρκτή λογοτεχνική αξία του noir στη βέλτιστη βεβαίως εκδοχή του. Αναφέρομαι σε αυτό το Hemingway-ζον ύφος, την αφαίρεση που υποκρύπτει εντυπωσιακή δύναμη και αλλεπάλληλες επιστρώσεις πίσω από την εκ πρώτης απλοϊκή γραφή. Στο βιβλίο αυτό, η απλοϊκότητα υπερτερεί του βάθους, με συνέπεια η πλοκή (ας το δεχτούμε, ποτέ δεν ήταν το δυνατό σημείο του noir) να φαίνεται επίπλαστη, δυναμιτίζοντας το τελικό αποτέλεσμα, αλλά και τον ίδιο τον κεντρικό ήρωα.
Αν αφαιρέσεις από τον noir ήρωα την τραγικότητα, το ψυχικό μεγαλείο που υποτάσσεται στο πεπρωμένο (συνήθως ο έρωτας για μια εξιδανικευμένη θηλυκή παρουσία και η προδοσία), τότε μένει μόνο η φαιδρή πλευρά της macho ανασφάλειας, ενός εγκωμίου ξεπεσμένου φαλλοκρατισμού που κυριαρχεί μέσω της βίας ενάντια σε άλλους άντρες, ως ατέρμονη λούπα, ώσπου ο κραταιός μονομάχος να κυριαρχήσει στην αρένα. Συγκεκριμένα, ο ήρωας όπου επιθυμεί να εκδικηθεί γιατί προδόθηκε από όλους και στρέφεται εναντίον τους όσο ψηλά στην ιεραρχία του εγκλήματος κι αν βρίσκονται.
Ποιο το νόημα σ' αυτό όμως, πλην της θεαματικής του διάστασης;
Τα έχω ξαναπεί. Το noir είναι η λογοτεχνία του εκπεπτωκότος αγγέλου, του Χαμένου Παραδείσου, του ηττημένου της ζωής. Ακόμα κι αν ο ήρωας στο τέλος νικήσει και βγει ζωντανός, η νίκη του θα είναι Πύρρειος, το τίμημα που θα έχει στο μεταξύ πληρώσει θα είναι υψηλό, καθώς το σκοτάδι ενάντια στο οποίο ο ήρωας παλεύει βρίσκεται αείποτε εντός του, και εκείνος, άχθος αρούρης, το μεταφέρει σε κάθε βήμα ως τον Γολγοθά του. Αλλά για αυτόν ποτέ δεν πρόκειται να υπάρξει Ανάσταση.
Υ.Γ.
Στο βιβλίο αυτό βασίστηκε το Point Blank (1967) του φοβερού John Boorman με τον θρυλικό Lee Marvin. Από τις πλέον ιδιόμορφες και εντυπωσιακές ταινίες (σκεφτείτε έναν Νουβέλ Βαγκ σκηνοθέτη να επιχειρεί επιτυχώς να σκηνοθετήσει ένα neo-noir). Ο Boorman πήρε ένα μέτριο βιβλίο και έφτιαξε κάτι πρωτοποριακό που ακόμα και τώρα εκπλήσσει με τη φρεσκάδα του!
https://fotiskblog.home.blog/2019/06/...
May 26, 2023
Great structure, classic stripped-to-the-bone prose, but isn't anyone else rolling their eyes over Westlake's ridiculous depiction of mafia bosses as these WASP-y, educated, fifties corporate stooges?
It's not like he didn't know. At one point, someone explains The Outfit is run "by three guys, one of whom is in Florida," which is how it actually was in 1962 under Giancana/Marcello/Trafficante. Sure, Parker debuted before Joe Valachi first brought mob life into American living rooms, but freakin' GUYS AND DOLLS is a more incisive portrait of wise guy culture.
It's not like he didn't know. At one point, someone explains The Outfit is run "by three guys, one of whom is in Florida," which is how it actually was in 1962 under Giancana/Marcello/Trafficante. Sure, Parker debuted before Joe Valachi first brought mob life into American living rooms, but freakin' GUYS AND DOLLS is a more incisive portrait of wise guy culture.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,297 reviews