What do you think?
Rate this book
Cruising : The book that was the basis for the film starring Al Pacino
Cruising by Gerald Walker
Kindle Edition
First published September 1, 1970
30 people are currently reading
620 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 35 reviews
July 7, 2022
This is quite possibly the most fascinating depiction of heterosexuality and heteronormativity I’ve ever read, along with its limits and vertiginous plunges into sexually gray areas. The narration is very strange: Clinical and devoid of style at times, then feverishly stream-of-consciousness (à la American Psycho) at others, but the effect is quite unsettling, and a brutal look at hatred and where it festers. Overall, it was a trying, but ultimately rewarding read.
January 27, 2017
This slasher novel was (quite loosely) based on a real series of leather-bar murders in NYC, but the author focused entirely on the internal mental states of the fictional killer and the fictional investigators. Well-written, with a lot of densely-layered metaphors that might remind you of Jack Torrance wrestling with his demons in The Shining or the characters in Carrie. Some of the twists in this story were so clever they made me laugh out loud. Long out of print but well worth seeking out.
January 27, 2014
Like the film proceeding it, "Crusing" the novel is misunderstood. I found it to be a witty, sinister and compelling read. While the S&M leather element is gone from the book, the mystery and chills found in the Freidkin film are intact.
In regards to the hatefulness and homophobia in this book -- it is accurate for both the time period (thankfully things have come a long way) and the psychology of two sociopaths. It really leaves a reflective and open-minded reader with much to think about.
The tone is ripe with black humor and tongue-in-cheek ala "American Psycho." Like Bret Easton Ellis, Walker's writing is clever and way ahead of its time.
In regards to the hatefulness and homophobia in this book -- it is accurate for both the time period (thankfully things have come a long way) and the psychology of two sociopaths. It really leaves a reflective and open-minded reader with much to think about.
The tone is ripe with black humor and tongue-in-cheek ala "American Psycho." Like Bret Easton Ellis, Walker's writing is clever and way ahead of its time.
February 7, 2015
I don't say this often about books: This one really needed to be about 50 to 75 pages longer. Some parts were developed rather well, while others, not as much. When I finished the book, I did get why the author did this, but, I think he missed the mark a bit. This could have been great, but ended up so-so. Definitely some frightening scenes, but, really needed a good editor.
To everyone going on about the high number of gay slurs . . . it was a book written in 1972 about a homophobic cop acting as a decoy for a homophobic serial killer. Expecting the language to be kind is a little bit ignorant.
To everyone going on about the high number of gay slurs . . . it was a book written in 1972 about a homophobic cop acting as a decoy for a homophobic serial killer. Expecting the language to be kind is a little bit ignorant.
August 1, 2021
A killer is stabbing and killing gay men in NY and a police decoy is sent undercover to try and find him. Gritty, sleazy, and dark undertones on the street make a moody atmosphere. In-depth look into the minds of both the killer and cop. The author is a good writer.
September 18, 2019
3.5 stars
I read this mostly as an intellectual and societal curiosity as opposed to really wanting to read the novel. I have a morbid fascination, for lack of a better term, with the 1980 film of the same name starring Al Pacino, that was inspired by this novel as well as some real-life murders happening in the gay neighborhoods of Manhattan at the time. And the fact that it's fully out of print for a long time now only added to the mystique.
The film and the book are very much alike, in the sense of feeling like they are more exploiting the gay community as a seedy, devious culture than they are truly exploring it through a fictional medium.
Cruising, the novel, is interesting in many ways. Its structure, pacing, content, and vibe are all off in one way or another. It has a plot, but it doesn't really have much of a plot progression. Not a lot really actually happens for about 150 of its 192 pages. But then, the last 40 pages are something else. The ending of this novel truly surprised me, and in a good, disturbing way.
I can't say that Gerald Walker was writing from a healthy perspective on the gay community when he wrote this novel. But he certainly left indelible mark, especially when combined with the further adaptation. This novel, and the movie, are both things that will sit with me for a while.
I read this mostly as an intellectual and societal curiosity as opposed to really wanting to read the novel. I have a morbid fascination, for lack of a better term, with the 1980 film of the same name starring Al Pacino, that was inspired by this novel as well as some real-life murders happening in the gay neighborhoods of Manhattan at the time. And the fact that it's fully out of print for a long time now only added to the mystique.
The film and the book are very much alike, in the sense of feeling like they are more exploiting the gay community as a seedy, devious culture than they are truly exploring it through a fictional medium.
Cruising, the novel, is interesting in many ways. Its structure, pacing, content, and vibe are all off in one way or another. It has a plot, but it doesn't really have much of a plot progression. Not a lot really actually happens for about 150 of its 192 pages. But then, the last 40 pages are something else. The ending of this novel truly surprised me, and in a good, disturbing way.
I can't say that Gerald Walker was writing from a healthy perspective on the gay community when he wrote this novel. But he certainly left indelible mark, especially when combined with the further adaptation. This novel, and the movie, are both things that will sit with me for a while.
August 22, 2021
Ik ben stiekem een groot liefhebber van William Friedkins controversiële film, en zodoende was ik benieuwd naar de roman. Het boek volgt de film op nauwe voet, met als grootste verschil de perspectiefwisselingen tussen undercoveragent John Lynch, zijn baas Edelson en seriemoordenaar Stuart Richards.
Het perspectief van Richard is erg gedateerd en eendimensionaal, maar zoiets valt te verwachten bij een pulproman. Niettemin, de ambiguïteit waardoor de film in mijn ogen werkt en ook zoveel jaar na dato spannend blijft, ontbreekt volledig in de roman. De twijfel (en overgave) over de taak van Lynch wordt soms kort aangeraakt, maar blijft aan de oppervlakte. Ik had gehoopt dat de roman meer een aanvulling zou zijn op de film.
Het lezen van Cruising was een geinig uitstapje, maar voorlopig blijf ik trouw aan de film.
*2,5
Het perspectief van Richard is erg gedateerd en eendimensionaal, maar zoiets valt te verwachten bij een pulproman. Niettemin, de ambiguïteit waardoor de film in mijn ogen werkt en ook zoveel jaar na dato spannend blijft, ontbreekt volledig in de roman. De twijfel (en overgave) over de taak van Lynch wordt soms kort aangeraakt, maar blijft aan de oppervlakte. Ik had gehoopt dat de roman meer een aanvulling zou zijn op de film.
Het lezen van Cruising was een geinig uitstapje, maar voorlopig blijf ik trouw aan de film.
*2,5
November 20, 2024
Reminded me of American Psycho, if it could get any gayer than it already is
March 30, 2013
Was reading about James Franco's new film Interior. Leather Bar. and it's connection to the Al Pacino film Cruising (which was based on this novel) and I remembered that I had never read it and that I had a copy somewhere in my Attic... so after an hour of searching I started reading...
Homophobic, racist and misogynist - as I'm sure most genre fiction in 1970 was... it's VERY dated but the writing was good. Walker's portrait of pre-gentrification NYC was probably the strongest element of the book.
Homophobic, racist and misogynist - as I'm sure most genre fiction in 1970 was... it's VERY dated but the writing was good. Walker's portrait of pre-gentrification NYC was probably the strongest element of the book.
July 30, 2024
If you’re looking for a thriller about internalized homophobia made manifest, this one is it.
October 13, 2024
“It wouldn’t be easy to invent a life that had more drawbacks to it than ours. Myself, I’ve always been scared to death of cruising. But that’s also part of the attraction”.
Fascinante.
Fascinante.
February 6, 2025
My Review and Thoughts:
First off I absolutely adore and love the hauntingly disturbing masterpiece film directed by William Friedkin. I have always wanted to read the book it's based on and finally decided to give it ago.
Boy what a nightmarish brutal monstrosity of a book.
Floored. Absolutely floored. Thick disturbing darkness in all its narrative. The book is totally different from the movie. Right off the bat you know who the killer is and most of the book is from his point of view.
Think The Catcher in the Rye meets American Psycho.
The book is draining in the emotional roller-coaster department of suspenseful intense reality based horrors.
Gerald Walker wrote a perfect gem, sadly a forgotten gem. Most only remember the movie and not the book it's based on, but the book is so much more intense and brutal. The book is a stand alone and is 90 percent different from the movie.
The whole plot is different in many ways. And the ending, oh boy, what a freaking ending, that this reader never saw coming.
Be warned this book is very controversial. It is filled with homophobic and racist comments through out the book. But with that said it is a pivotal part of the plot so one must look past these concepts, for without it, the plot would not flow with ease. The homophobic and racist realities with in the plot, showcases the inner thinking of main pivotal characters.
Would I Return to it Again: Hell yeah. This book is a one of a kind force that batters the senses.
Would I Recommend: Absolutely in a heartbeat. This book needs a reprint. It needs to be read and explored in all its graphic intensity.
My Rating: 5 out of 5
Four Final Words: Pure intelligent madness. Brilliant.
First off I absolutely adore and love the hauntingly disturbing masterpiece film directed by William Friedkin. I have always wanted to read the book it's based on and finally decided to give it ago.
Boy what a nightmarish brutal monstrosity of a book.
Floored. Absolutely floored. Thick disturbing darkness in all its narrative. The book is totally different from the movie. Right off the bat you know who the killer is and most of the book is from his point of view.
Think The Catcher in the Rye meets American Psycho.
The book is draining in the emotional roller-coaster department of suspenseful intense reality based horrors.
Gerald Walker wrote a perfect gem, sadly a forgotten gem. Most only remember the movie and not the book it's based on, but the book is so much more intense and brutal. The book is a stand alone and is 90 percent different from the movie.
The whole plot is different in many ways. And the ending, oh boy, what a freaking ending, that this reader never saw coming.
Be warned this book is very controversial. It is filled with homophobic and racist comments through out the book. But with that said it is a pivotal part of the plot so one must look past these concepts, for without it, the plot would not flow with ease. The homophobic and racist realities with in the plot, showcases the inner thinking of main pivotal characters.
Would I Return to it Again: Hell yeah. This book is a one of a kind force that batters the senses.
Would I Recommend: Absolutely in a heartbeat. This book needs a reprint. It needs to be read and explored in all its graphic intensity.
My Rating: 5 out of 5
Four Final Words: Pure intelligent madness. Brilliant.
November 17, 2021
One legitimately shocking book, with most of its impact drawn from the chilling first-person narratives of the cop and killer. Two sides of a very nasty coin. The dialogue and scene structure can be found dropped straight into William Friedkin's film adaptation, though the movie's costumes are different. No leather, no S & M bars. Instead, the fashions are more Friedkin's "The Boys in the Band", and the undercover character even wears sandals(!) Lots of repellant, graphic sex and violence is nothing more controversial than the ick factor in the Stieg Larsson series, or your average wet and sticky Val McDermid thriller. But the language and toxic misanthropy are striking, even for 1973. The flaws lie in Walker's excessive use of Ken Kesey/Tom Wolfe stream of consciousness interior monologues from the killer--though the man's psychosis is well established. Also, it's hard to accept the killer's motive for so much self-loathing murder is rooted in petty issues such as being ogled by creepy gay men or a neglectful parent. Otherwise, many young straight, good-looking guys would be out there murdering too.
Want to read
August 30, 2009Lurid, sleazy and apparently homophobic. The famous movie with Al Pacino released 10 years after this 1970 novel evidently bears only cursory resemblance, although Vito Russo criticizes both in "The Celluloid Closet." Nonetheless, a little violent sleaze once in awhile is part of my complete breakfast.
February 7, 2012
The book dates itself, and is a snapshot into a bygone era. As a thriller or suspense piece of literature it is lacking. The Al Pacino film based on this book is a completely different animal. Do not read the book to see if the movie left out anything.
May 22, 2015
3.5 stars. I liked it but didn't love it. I loved how dark it was. Racist and homophobic but captured the era. I actually found it quite amusing. Quite different from the movie, from what I can remember. I'll definitely have to revisit that.
March 31, 2015
I really enjoyed the movie that was loosely based on this book. The book was better though in some ways, more clarification....sort of :)
June 30, 2016
"The knife itself was unchanged, just as cool and sleek as the day he'd bought it, not a nick on it. That was the way to go through life. Leave your mark, stay unmarked yourself."
August 7, 2025
Cruising
(4.5, rounded down because I’m not quite ready to forgive everything.)
If you're expecting pulp, sleaze, or even a straightforward serial killer thriller, step off now. What Gerald Walker wrote in Cruising is literature — yes, literature — disguised in the scent of sweat, smoke, piss, and leather. It's dangerous, disorienting, and at times, uncomfortably brilliant. And I cannot believe it's been allowed to fall out of print.
Let’s start here: This is not the movie. It shares the title. It shares some scenes, nearly verbatim in fact, especially those involving Dave (film: Ted), the only true heartbeat in both mediums. But Friedkin’s adaptation is a reinterpretation, a cinematic fever dream drenched in ambiguity and dread. Walker’s novel is something else entirely: a slow descent into fractured identity, psychosexual unraveling, and the existential horror of becoming exactly what you fear the most.
Reading this felt like sliding on greased rails into someone else’s madness, but also, uncomfortably, like passing mirrors I half-recognized. It's not a mystery novel. It's not even really a crime novel. It's a psychological dissection, flayed open and raw.
The character of Lynch (film: Steve) is a masterclass in unreliable narration. You're not peeking inside his head so much as trapped in it. His rationalizations, his slippery memory, his inability to name or frame what’s happening inside him — it all lands. Brutally. Somehow, Walker knew. He knew the dynamic. He knew the interior of it all. And his history suggests he shouldn't.
But here's the catch, and it’s a big one: This novel leans heavily on every trope that has ever been weaponized against gay men. Closet-case rage. Molestation. Self-hatred turned violent. It's all here. Every shadow in the cultural stereotype deck. And while I’d argue Walker handles most of it with more psychological nuance than he's been credited for, there are moments that feel like punches down instead of punches through. One character, Stuart, carries the full weight of this mess, and while he is not a caricature, he does embody so much horror that it teeters at times on irresponsible. Especially when, late in the book, a flashback to his days as a camp counselor creeps across the page like a cold hand on your neck. That part I won’t defend, just try to understand.
And I do try. Because it is possible (and necessary) to say that this book is not pornographic, even when it dives into graphic sex. It is not erotic, even when it touches on arousal. It is not a story of gay life. It is a story of men unmaking themselves through fear, confusion, and dislocation. It's queer only in the way trauma is queer: inarticulable, alienating, and made monstrous by silence.
Walker should be studied, not memory-holed. This book should be in queer studies programs everywhere. Yes, even as uncomfortable as it is. Especially as uncomfortable as it is. With forewords and afterwords and real discussion. It deserves the kind of deep, ethical engagement that doesn’t flinch. Simon & Schuster should reprint it, and if they won’t, someone else should grow a pair.
If you read it, come ready. Not for the blood, but for the mindfuck, and for a reminder that literature doesn’t always offer comfort. Sometimes it opens a vein.
(4.5, rounded down because I’m not quite ready to forgive everything.)
If you're expecting pulp, sleaze, or even a straightforward serial killer thriller, step off now. What Gerald Walker wrote in Cruising is literature — yes, literature — disguised in the scent of sweat, smoke, piss, and leather. It's dangerous, disorienting, and at times, uncomfortably brilliant. And I cannot believe it's been allowed to fall out of print.
Let’s start here: This is not the movie. It shares the title. It shares some scenes, nearly verbatim in fact, especially those involving Dave (film: Ted), the only true heartbeat in both mediums. But Friedkin’s adaptation is a reinterpretation, a cinematic fever dream drenched in ambiguity and dread. Walker’s novel is something else entirely: a slow descent into fractured identity, psychosexual unraveling, and the existential horror of becoming exactly what you fear the most.
Reading this felt like sliding on greased rails into someone else’s madness, but also, uncomfortably, like passing mirrors I half-recognized. It's not a mystery novel. It's not even really a crime novel. It's a psychological dissection, flayed open and raw.
The character of Lynch (film: Steve) is a masterclass in unreliable narration. You're not peeking inside his head so much as trapped in it. His rationalizations, his slippery memory, his inability to name or frame what’s happening inside him — it all lands. Brutally. Somehow, Walker knew. He knew the dynamic. He knew the interior of it all. And his history suggests he shouldn't.
But here's the catch, and it’s a big one: This novel leans heavily on every trope that has ever been weaponized against gay men. Closet-case rage. Molestation. Self-hatred turned violent. It's all here. Every shadow in the cultural stereotype deck. And while I’d argue Walker handles most of it with more psychological nuance than he's been credited for, there are moments that feel like punches down instead of punches through. One character, Stuart, carries the full weight of this mess, and while he is not a caricature, he does embody so much horror that it teeters at times on irresponsible. Especially when, late in the book, a flashback to his days as a camp counselor creeps across the page like a cold hand on your neck. That part I won’t defend, just try to understand.
And I do try. Because it is possible (and necessary) to say that this book is not pornographic, even when it dives into graphic sex. It is not erotic, even when it touches on arousal. It is not a story of gay life. It is a story of men unmaking themselves through fear, confusion, and dislocation. It's queer only in the way trauma is queer: inarticulable, alienating, and made monstrous by silence.
Walker should be studied, not memory-holed. This book should be in queer studies programs everywhere. Yes, even as uncomfortable as it is. Especially as uncomfortable as it is. With forewords and afterwords and real discussion. It deserves the kind of deep, ethical engagement that doesn’t flinch. Simon & Schuster should reprint it, and if they won’t, someone else should grow a pair.
If you read it, come ready. Not for the blood, but for the mindfuck, and for a reminder that literature doesn’t always offer comfort. Sometimes it opens a vein.
September 2, 2020
I read this book because I had seen the film adaptation prior and developed a strange fascination over it. Not because it was good but more so because of how bad it was. And this book suffers from mostly the same problems as the film.
But first, I would like to say that the approach of the open type mystery was a lot better than the closed type the film tried to pull off. I liked getting insights into Stuart's thought process and his own worries about getting caught whenever he wasn't describing the private parts of a girl he just so happened to be sleeping with at the time. Too bad it was about 20% of one and 80% of the other. Oh well. The motivation behind the murders was problematic all the same, and the internalized homophobia was present in the head of the main character John Lynch as well. I didn't even really get why he was in the book at all. He didn't do much of anything except constantly spout homophobic stuff and be another (implied) killer. Also, I was hoping for some character development on his part, but instead his homophobia just got worse as the novel progressed. Saying this the ending of this novel was very exciting but awfuly anticlimactic at the same time. The whole bath murders plot point was exciting to read about but I would have liked to see the police or Lynch himself catch the killer in another way, outsmart him instead of him just getting caught because of his inability to control his impulses.
Another thing I want to say is that this book is written in an incredibly demeaning way. It insults every possible minority it can and does so pretty constantly, the main one of course being gay men.
In the end, I can understand why this book lies forgotten. It's a product of its time and not a very good one at that. I wouldn't reccomend it.
But first, I would like to say that the approach of the open type mystery was a lot better than the closed type the film tried to pull off. I liked getting insights into Stuart's thought process and his own worries about getting caught whenever he wasn't describing the private parts of a girl he just so happened to be sleeping with at the time. Too bad it was about 20% of one and 80% of the other. Oh well. The motivation behind the murders was problematic all the same, and the internalized homophobia was present in the head of the main character John Lynch as well. I didn't even really get why he was in the book at all. He didn't do much of anything except constantly spout homophobic stuff and be another (implied) killer. Also, I was hoping for some character development on his part, but instead his homophobia just got worse as the novel progressed. Saying this the ending of this novel was very exciting but awfuly anticlimactic at the same time. The whole bath murders plot point was exciting to read about but I would have liked to see the police or Lynch himself catch the killer in another way, outsmart him instead of him just getting caught because of his inability to control his impulses.
Another thing I want to say is that this book is written in an incredibly demeaning way. It insults every possible minority it can and does so pretty constantly, the main one of course being gay men.
In the end, I can understand why this book lies forgotten. It's a product of its time and not a very good one at that. I wouldn't reccomend it.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
January 17, 2024
Kirkus Reviews, 1970: “It's fetid filth and you should go out of your way to avoid it.”
Well, I wouldn’t say so. This book has very upsetting subject matter, true, and the horrifying ending has me take off a star; but the author has a real style. It was also a fascinating look at attitudes toward gays at this time.
Alfred lashing back at Stuart seemed out of character; he had seemed so gentle.
If you have any doubts or difficulties with your own sexuality, perhaps this is not the book for you right now, as you might find yourself uncomfortably close to identifying with the killer(s).
Well, I wouldn’t say so. This book has very upsetting subject matter, true, and the horrifying ending has me take off a star; but the author has a real style. It was also a fascinating look at attitudes toward gays at this time.
Alfred lashing back at Stuart seemed out of character; he had seemed so gentle.
If you have any doubts or difficulties with your own sexuality, perhaps this is not the book for you right now, as you might find yourself uncomfortably close to identifying with the killer(s).
February 23, 2025
At first I didn't really like the chapters from the killer's POV because they were too introspective, but from the middle they started to be my favorites. It seems that the policeman did nothing throughout the book, and at the end there was a plot twist, even on the last page, to leave doubt as to whether he and the murderer were alike after all. I didn't know anything about the story, other than the theme, but my expectation was that it would be something different.
April 1, 2025
Sleazy, vicious look at toxic masculinity and internalized homophobia. It's not easy to be stuck in the heads of two absolute pieces of shit, entitled crybaby the one, your typical pig-in-blue the other, "a real hater", as his captain calls him, but the story's propulsive - and with the rise of the manosphere, feels sadly relevant again.
March 27, 2021
Not as sexually graphic as the movie, but a good little thriller.
December 24, 2022
Bah. Even the much-maligned film is better than this. Give it a pass.
May 11, 2023
Far better than the movie, though it’s a rough read with many slurs and much internalized homophobia. A good glimpse into the 1979 NYC underbelly.
June 17, 2023
Good story far better than the movie. This edition has a lot of typos. It needs to be proofread agin.
October 10, 2023
THIS IS SOMe CRAZY SHIT. way more thematic than the movie but really fucked up in ways i didn't expect... very similar style wise to strangers on a train and left a similar taste in my mouth.
Read
February 26, 2025dissertation book
this was such an exhausting read i can't believe it was less than 200 pages
this was such an exhausting read i can't believe it was less than 200 pages
August 3, 2025
No doubt homophobic by today’s standards, it’s a well-intentioned yet poorly written artifact about the pre-AIDS ‘70s Manhattan.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews