An auto-biographical masturbatory jizz fest.
Lots of writers write about themselves. Lots of writers who peaked in the late 1960's through 1980's made an industry out of writing about themselves. Philip Roth and Charles Bukowski are the two that pop right to mind, but I know there are lots more. Sometimes they are pretty clearly the author (as in when Philip Roth shucks the Nathan Zuckermann persona and starts writing about a character named Philip Roth you don't need an PhD in Contemporary American Literature to think, hmmm maybe he's writing about himself) and sometimes it takes just a little bit of work (as in Bukowski's Chinaski, you get it pretty quick that he's a barely disguised stand-in for Big B). Other times (well this one time in particular) the author or publisher decide that maybe the reader won't get the autobiographical wallowing the author has been engaged in. In this case it is best to give a four and a half page mini-biography in the back in the book, just to let the reader see what in the book was taken from real life.
With the help of the biography in the back of the book (written before the 1982 problems of Kosinski, when The Village Voice would come out with accusations that the National Book Awared winning author was a) a plagiarist and also b) didn't even write at least one of his own books (as in he paid someone else to write it, something that is a no-no in the literary fiction world, but which is acceptable in the less than savory land of genre fiction) the reader can fill in what parts of the book were taken from his own life. Sometimes a part of a person's name are changed, but mostly much work isn't needed to connect the events in the book to events that happened in the book.
This is fine, I've been reading books for enough years that I realize this happens. Some writers I like do this, some I don't do it. Whatever. I think if it weren't for the mini-biography in the back of the book praising him as a messiah of morality (and what does the phrase 'penultimate gamesman' even mean? C'mon if you're going to use hyperbolic praise at least make it mean something). Never mind the praise on the back of the book and in the mini-bio about him being the greatest psychological novelist at work. His main character goes through the book in almost a Forest Gump like trance that only gets broken when he decides to act out a violent fantasy on someone. Yes most of these violent fantasies made real in the context of the book are against people who deserve to be, ahem, treated violently. When he assassinates a bureaucratic official responsible for the torture of intellectuals you can see Kosinski re-imagining himself as a PEN superhero of sorts. Which is noble in a fantastical way. But then what do we make of the violent rape of a teenage girl in a flashback scene to the main characters youth? A scene where he feels enough remorse to be a step psychologically above a sociopath, but still way too removed from feelings that a 'moral' person should have. He feels bad for her after finishing raping her a first time, but his remorse evaporates when he gets a little bit aroused so he positions himself in some position so that one foot pushes the girls face into the dirt, one keeping a shoulder in place while he pile drives into her ass. Even afterward there is an inkling that, oh I did something wrong, and he tries to confess to it, but there is no depth in the character that he really feels like he did anything wrong, more like he feels cheated at people not believing that it was him and not his friend who raped the girl multiple times.
The book has more of these scenes that border have the main character (Kosinski) straddling the border of being a narcissistic sociopath. He has a three year relationship with a woman whom he doesn't doesn't even both to find out her real name or anything about her, except for one time that she leaves the room for a few minutes and he rifles through her purse, but he never in all that time thought to talk about anything but himself to her. Even when he recounts his close call with pop-culture notoriety, how he should have been at Roman Polanski's house the night that Charles Manson's family came visiting he doesn't sound convincing at having any feelings, never mind psychological depth. One acquaintance, a friend and one of his best friends from his youth are slaughtered by drugged out hippies and he can admit to feeling sad, but only by saying I was sad. Not really the way Proust would handle the delicate psychology of such a life altering event.
And speaking of Proust, whom one can say is a master of the psychological novel; if one is really supposed to believe that Kosinski represents the 1970's pinnacle of style of fiction that Proust excelled in, then well, literature is fucked. Fortunately critics talk out their asses. Kosinski is like a Proust on cocaine, or in need of ritalin, of suffering from ADD, who just can't keep a single thought going for long. Yeah one thing leads to a thought that leads to another thought that recollects and event from thirty years ago or whatever, but when you write them out in staccato and unanalyzed bursts, well, it doesn't really sing masterpiece.
So why three stars? Well because all of my annoyances aside I did enjoy the book. There are some great cringe worthy graphic moments in the book, and some of the stories that make up the whole are quite good. It's just the book as a whole seems so fucking self-congratulatory for someone who seems more important in his own head than he is in reality.
Maybe this is really only a two star book, but it gets an extra star for gore. Having a scene where a hooker is getting fucked by an old man and his eye pops out of his socket while he's on top of her deserves at least three stars. Nevermind the scene with the saber.
P.S. All of that said, I think I'm taking down a star because apparently in real life Kosinski liked to torture small dogs. See! Sociopath! Not Moral! Torturing small dogs is fucked. Back to two stars.