What do you think?
Rate this book
Pretty Poison
This twisted noirish tale of obsession and youthful rebellion was first published in 1966 as She Let Him Continue; later changed to Pretty Poison in 1968 with the release of the Tuesday Weld/Anthony Perkins film by that title. The story was filmed again in 1996.
- GenresNovels
paperback
First published January 1, 1966
49 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 - 3 of 3 reviews
January 15, 2019
"Nothing happened... She just slapped her old lady around the house, tried to kill me once with the car, and almost got us both killed over a cliff. Other than that, everything's fine. We're going to be married in a little white church in New England, with pine trees all around, and six old ladies clucking isn't she beautiful, and isn't he handsome, and sweet little girls will be pink-faced bridesmaids and throw roses in our path, and I'm going to be a famous millionaire and she's going to remain forever lovely. That's what it's all about, isn't it?"
p.98
Long story short: In the mid-'70s -- decades before I knew about this original 1966 source novella by Stephen Geller -- I saw on TV a haunting little 1968 movie based on the book. The film was Pretty Poison, and being a red-blooded adolescent at the time I was hooked by it right off by the presence of the lovely, mysterious dreamboat, Tuesday Weld. Weld played an oppressed, bored teen cheerleader, Sue Ann Stepanek, susceptible to the worldly fantasies of a slightly older man, Dennis Pitt, played by Anthony Perkins. Pitt, as it turns out, is bonkers, on parole from a mental institution for an arson crime that is only slowly revealed over the course of the story. Pitt is trying his best to make good, but the obsessions and fantasies over which he has little control pretty much doom his efforts as well as his odd romance with Sue Ann. Both are misfits, in their way, both with their (perceived) enemies in the social order, and the way they lash out at them guarantees their downfall.
I never forgot that movie. It was different, perplexing and disturbing. But if you wanted to see the movie again, you were up shit's creek. It pretty much disappeared from distribution, unavailable for decades. Trying to find it on video was maddeningly fruitless. And I was not the only one looking for it. The movie, as it happened, had built a staunch cult following, and after some clamoring it finally made it to DVD in the late 2000s. Needless to say, I bought it right off. On reacquaintance with it, I found some problems, but still felt it to be a minor masterwork of late '60s American film, with first-rate performances and mis-en-scene, as well as being a representative time-capsule example of the rebellious youth movies of the era.
Now that I've read the book (which in itself is hard to find -- that is, unless you're willing to pay $50 for a used copy of it, which I didn't) I can see how it served as a perfectly svelte, almost crystalline sharp little screenplay for the movie, which follows it faithfully until the movie veers off a bit into extra exposition in its last ten minutes (though not necessarily to the material's detriment).
The book is a literary bon bon, and quite enjoyable for what it is, a sort of first-person diary of a man who exhibits schizophrenic-style perceptions of the world. In the vast scheme of things, though, the movie renders the book a bit superfluous. This is one of those rare instances of a movie being superior to a book; of opening up the possibilities of its world. Nonetheless, even though I'm only giving this quick-reader two stars, I would actually recommend it. It's pretty good on the whole, with interesting points about male/female dynamics, some similar notions of rebellion/individuality that Burgess had explored in A Clockwork Orange and issues of ecology/eco-terrorism that put it slightly ahead of its time.
I had penned many notes and observations about the book, but in the interest of time will leave it here.
kr/eg '19
BTW: The book is available for checkout from the Internet Archive.
p.98
Long story short: In the mid-'70s -- decades before I knew about this original 1966 source novella by Stephen Geller -- I saw on TV a haunting little 1968 movie based on the book. The film was Pretty Poison, and being a red-blooded adolescent at the time I was hooked by it right off by the presence of the lovely, mysterious dreamboat, Tuesday Weld. Weld played an oppressed, bored teen cheerleader, Sue Ann Stepanek, susceptible to the worldly fantasies of a slightly older man, Dennis Pitt, played by Anthony Perkins. Pitt, as it turns out, is bonkers, on parole from a mental institution for an arson crime that is only slowly revealed over the course of the story. Pitt is trying his best to make good, but the obsessions and fantasies over which he has little control pretty much doom his efforts as well as his odd romance with Sue Ann. Both are misfits, in their way, both with their (perceived) enemies in the social order, and the way they lash out at them guarantees their downfall.
I never forgot that movie. It was different, perplexing and disturbing. But if you wanted to see the movie again, you were up shit's creek. It pretty much disappeared from distribution, unavailable for decades. Trying to find it on video was maddeningly fruitless. And I was not the only one looking for it. The movie, as it happened, had built a staunch cult following, and after some clamoring it finally made it to DVD in the late 2000s. Needless to say, I bought it right off. On reacquaintance with it, I found some problems, but still felt it to be a minor masterwork of late '60s American film, with first-rate performances and mis-en-scene, as well as being a representative time-capsule example of the rebellious youth movies of the era.
Now that I've read the book (which in itself is hard to find -- that is, unless you're willing to pay $50 for a used copy of it, which I didn't) I can see how it served as a perfectly svelte, almost crystalline sharp little screenplay for the movie, which follows it faithfully until the movie veers off a bit into extra exposition in its last ten minutes (though not necessarily to the material's detriment).
The book is a literary bon bon, and quite enjoyable for what it is, a sort of first-person diary of a man who exhibits schizophrenic-style perceptions of the world. In the vast scheme of things, though, the movie renders the book a bit superfluous. This is one of those rare instances of a movie being superior to a book; of opening up the possibilities of its world. Nonetheless, even though I'm only giving this quick-reader two stars, I would actually recommend it. It's pretty good on the whole, with interesting points about male/female dynamics, some similar notions of rebellion/individuality that Burgess had explored in A Clockwork Orange and issues of ecology/eco-terrorism that put it slightly ahead of its time.
I had penned many notes and observations about the book, but in the interest of time will leave it here.
kr/eg '19
BTW: The book is available for checkout from the Internet Archive.
Read
October 28, 2009This sleazy little paperback was actually pretty good. A "bad boy" abducts a "good girl" and they go on the lam... but which one is just misunderstood and which one is pure evil? Basically the premise of a million Lifetime movies, and flipping through the channels one day I actually did see a Lifetime adaption of this story. I'd like to see the version starring Anthony Perkins some time.
----
Final saw the Anthony Perkins movie version on TCM and it was actually pretty decent. Little different than I remember, seems strange now I didn't like the book.
----
Final saw the Anthony Perkins movie version on TCM and it was actually pretty decent. Little different than I remember, seems strange now I didn't like the book.
January 13, 2025
A really great novel from the focused perspective of an unreliable narrator.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews