Reading the 20th Century discussion

Welcome to our buddy read of...


Carol (originally published as The Price of Salt) (1952)

by

Patricia Highsmith (originally published under the pseudonym Claire Morgan)

This discussion will open in January 2021, probably around the middle of the month

Patricia Highsmith's story of romantic obsession may be one of the most important, but still largely unrecognised, novels of the twentieth century. First published in 1952 and touted as "the novel of a love that society forbids," the book soon became a cult classic.

Based on a true story plucked from Highsmith's own life, Carol tells the riveting drama of Therese Belivet, a stage designer trapped in a department-store day job, whose routine is forever shattered by a gorgeous epiphany—the appearance of Carol Aird, a customer who comes in to buy her daughter a Christmas toy. Therese begins to gravitate toward the alluring suburban housewife, who is trapped in a marriage as stultifying as Therese's job. They fall in love and set out across the United States, ensnared by society's confines and the imminent disapproval of others, yet propelled by their infatuation. Carol is a brilliantly written story that may surprise Highsmith fans and will delight those discovering her work.

This authorised edition includes an afterword by Patricia Highsmith. Previously titled The Price of Salt.

We're opening up this thread a day early so feel free to post spoiler-free comments for the moment.

I've just read the first 50 pages and am trying to pinpoint what makes the writing so distinctively Highsmith despite being very different in tone from her Ripley books and Strangers on a Train.

I think it's the way she drops sudden little skewed snippets into what seems, on the surface, to be a standard text: 'She could more easily imagine him with an ax in his hand than a paintbrush', for example. It's just enough to make us feel unnerved.

I agree RC.


Complex, slightly damaged characters who often seem distracted, repressed, or preoccupied. Moments of simple connection are frequently absent. Feelings are often ambiguous or left unstated. It all adds up to a sense of dreamlike unreality.

A question for you to consider....


What do you think was the significance of the early scene with Mrs Robichek?

And why do you think the thought of Mrs Robichek is something Therese finds so disturbing when it recurs later in the book?

I'm also intrigued by the role of Abby...


What purpose does Abby play in the story? Why did Patricia Highsmith include her in the story?

Nigeyb wrote: "What do you think was the significance of the early scene with Mrs Robichek?"

I think you're further ahead than me, I'm just on the first 'date' with Carol.

That early scene with Mrs Robichek is vintage Highsmith, I felt. It feels so sinister and yet it's hard to say precisely why. I think it's clever that it's viewed through Therese's point of view and so tells us more about her alienated self than the reality of Mrs R. As you said before, there's no easy connection between people, instead there's a kind of misconnection.

I think it's interesting that already there are so many images and metaphors of prison, from the department store to women's roles (the importance of all the dolls at the start). I'm watching Mad Men at the moment and though that's set slightly later at the beginning of the 1960s, there's a similar social conservatism. It's a key theme, too, in The Bell Jar, another 1950s-set story about the pressures on women to conform.

Have we said before that Highsmith must be an influence on Otessa Moshfegh, especially Eileen?

Thanks RC - all great points and I hadn't considered the Moshfegh/Highsmith connections before

Talking of symbolism, there's also the toy train that Therese sees ever day at the department store that suggests a lack of options for the employees and probably female employees in particular

Yes, that train!

Abby's just turned up at Carol's house so I'll be thinking about your questions.

I'm finding it interesting that Highsmith is supposed to have modelled Therese on herself - the awkwardness is there and sense of not fitting but she seems more naive than I'd expect from Highsmith's sense of self. Though, just thought, there's something a bit naive about Ripley too in the first book.

"... one of the aunts with a fat midriff straining like a second bosom under a satin dress"

So mean - but so descriptive! I can see the aunt perfectly especially as she probably wore a 1950s girdle which would compress her stomach and push any excess flesh upwards.

re Mrs Robichek: I'm not sure why PH put her in, I'm not really analysing from a literature perspective apart from what comes to me off the top of my head, but I think in RC's vein it highlights her alienation, lack of empathy. And I think that is why it is so horrible a scene to her. Someone empathetic might have thought in dealing with Mrs R wow she had a really successful former life or at least she's had success or at least she's known love/someone out there daughter? loves her (I can't remember her details). But Therese doesn't have this she sees it"from the outside" as if just observing objects and without all the emotional meaning it becomes just a horrible scene.
She isn't totally devoid of empathy - she gets her a sausage that she calculates will help her out food wise later, but this is a really low level of feeling toward her.

re the naivety that RC identifies in PH characters including Therese, I'm not sure I can articulate this very well but Therese and Riley are types of personality that have a narrow focus of attention right in front of them at each given moment and they miss a lot of the context around them that most other personalities would perceive and this combined with the lack of empathy means that kind of naivety is achieved I think.

This is the psychopathic personality, which there is a lot to (and really most of the simplistic listicles on it on the interweb no where near touch on and in fact mangle what Intel they do get often). One thing is they can actually have empathy if particularly led to turn their brains to put themselves in another's shoes, it's just that they don't do this automatically in seeing people in whatever emotional state they are in as most others do. When Therese went to Mrs R and her sad domestic situation it really was unavoidable to perceive how pathetic it was.

Eileen sprang to mind for me too as I read Carol!

re Abby: I saw her as an old friend or peer who was"on a level with her". Someone who shares deep seated understandings and maybe times with that not all people or the average person would share. I recognize such people in my life that "get" certain things that those who I now hang around with wouldn't and may never get. There is a deep level of mutual understanding and "feeling"?(but I think there is a spectrum of strength of feeling too) for lack of articulation for these people even though you may not want to hang around with them all the time. An eg I have is when I was at a particular school where everyone was from a certain background and just one or two others from my background and we had certain understandings which others didn't get but we didn't necessarily ordinarily always hang around together.
I guess being gay when in the 50s was a strong touchstone for Carol and Abby.
as to why she was in the book- don't know. maybe just the scene of the reality of the day. Living furtively in the dark but beacons around could exist.

Thanks Kit. You make some interesting points about empathy.


I have been thinking a bit more about Therese's reaction to Mrs Robichek and her visit, part of which is disgust. Perhaps Therese sees a future version of herself if she makes different life choices?

I think you're correct about Abby being a kindred spirit for Carol, and also someone who has helped her come to terms with her sexuality. Her presence in the novel allows Carol to have credibly gained self insight which is helpful in her relationship with Therese.

How about Richard?


What's his role in the story?

I have just read one of his letters to Therese, which is close to the end of the book, and which suggests he is the voice of the straight, conservative society of the time. I won't go into details now as I don't want to spoil anythng for those yet to finish the book.

I should finish this sometime in the next 24 hours.

One other point, what's great about this book (and despite some earlier lurid covers) is that it's not remotely salacious or sensationalist. It's actually a very subtle exploration of a lesbian relationship at a time when it was neither understood nor accepted.

Ha, Richard! Was I being incredibly puerile and childish in sniggering at the kite-flying scene?

'Richard groaned, failing again... Wait'll I get it higher... Richard pumped at it... the long limp tail following foolishly... Carol wouldn't like kites, probably, Therese thought. Kites wouldn't amuse her. She would glance at one, and say it was silly.... Jerk it! Richard said. Keep working it up... She did... but the string was so long and slack now, it was all she could do to stir the kite. She pulled and pulled and pulled... soft and white and fat as a worm.'

Hee, hee!

I'd agree about him being a figure of the conservative and patriarchal establishment. I noted this quotation which seems to allude to his sense of masculine entitlement:

'It occurred to her that Richard's attitude was that his place in her life was unassailable, her tie with him permanent and beyond question, because he was the first man she had ever slept with.'

Highsmith punctures this complacency when Therese recalls the first night she spent with him, how unpleasurable it was, and that moment when she looks at him and asks if he's doing it right - ouch!

I'm about a third of the way through but it's a quick read so I'll probably finish tomorrow. I'm really enjoying it - yes, very bold for its time and wonderfully subversive without, as you say, being salacious.

The kite flying scene is indeed chortlesome

I am also pondering Therese's relationship with her mother, or lack of. Then there's the references to Sister Alicia from her schooldays. Is it too simplistic to say that Therese is partly looking to fill the maternal void in her life?

I've finished


Really enjoyable and interesting. Here's my spoiler free review...

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

4/5

Great points, Kit and Nigeyb.

I'd assumed that Abby was an ex-lover of Carol's and yes, had also noticed those unspoken communications between them - I'd thought they were personal but yes, as two gay women recognising each other in a repressive time, that works too.

Chatting about the book as I go is great for enhancing my enjoyment - I'm eager to dive back into it now.

Is anyone else a bit disconcerted at the wealth difference between Carol and Therese? I've just got to where Carol suggests buying Therese a tweed jacket and when Therese isn't enthusiastic, says 'But I'd particularly like to see you in one'.

As well as being an established way of manifesting power in a traditional M/F dynamic, it also harks back to the dolls in the opening chapter.

Yes. That did strike me RC. Both wealth and experience. Something Therese definitely has issues with too as she rips up cheques etc. Looking back, it is one of the subtexts of the story. I’ll be very interested in your views when you complete the book. Therese’s personal journey is fascinating

There's a definite Highsmith spikiness about the whole thing which leaves me feeling slightly off kilter (in a good way). I'm finding the pacing a bit uneven with some lulls, but am racing along at the moment.

More clothes being pressed on Therese which goes back, I now realise, to Mrs Robichek giving her that red velvet dress.

Mrs Semco (Richard's mother) sends her a white dress which Carol thinks looks like an old-fashioned wedding dress; Carol herself tells her to wear a suede shirt - clear subtext of people imposing roles and identities on Therese.

The gun! Oh my... :)

re Richard - he was a particularly pathetic figure representing patriarchy, I think, yes.
While I picked him from the beginning as the representation of patriarchal conformity in Therese's life I was surprised to read his letter expressing himself to Therese at the end. I didn't realise he was so blatantly pathetic and defeated. PH made him a real loser and figure of ridicule to skewer. So much of his self esteem and identity rides for him on the place of women in relation to him.
That kite scene quote is very ridiculing! PH had some fun here ;)

re the power dynamic - what do you think after reading the end. A bit more giving/ pushing back occurs before the book ends.

Finished! My review is here: www.goodreads.com/review/show/3769176528

I'm less sure about the ending, Kit: it *looks* like a happy reunion but is it ominous that Carol doesn't immediately recognise Therese now that she's dressed in her own clothes? Also T's options have opened up in that she may have her career break and she's arousing the interest of other women such as the actress at the party. Was PH giving us a wish-fulfillment ending?

I guess it also depends on how we see the book: as a romance (happy ending fits, then) or as a coming-of-age (I think this is where I am) in which case T's options are wide-open rather than fixed.

I do agree, too, about the changing power dynamic between T and C - another reason that I think they can't go back to their old relationship.

Going back to the clothes: there's that specific quotation where Therese feels that carol treats her like a stray puppy and that she speaks to her like a doll. The latter, especially, fits with the extent to which other people are constantly trying to clothe T, and it's only at the end that she chooses her own outfit.

I wonder now if Mrs Rubichek giving her that red velvet dress that she loves may be a figure who is gifting T liberation but that T herself only sees her as a seedy and needy old woman?

Great stuff RC


The other possibility is that if (as) Therese is Patricia Highsmith then it was an observation on her own development. From youth to experience. From limited possibilities to the world being her oyster.

Nigeyb wrote: "The other possibility is that if (as) Therese is Patricia Highsmith then it was an observation on her own development. From youth to experience."

Oh yes, great point! And we know that Highsmith never was faithful to any of her lovers even though she seems to like the ideal of being in love forever. It is left slightly ambiguous that the book ends with Therese walking towards Carol without them actually coming back together.

Also what did you make of the original title 'The Price of Salt'?

I marked this very close to the end when Therese meets Dannie and he's admiring her, saying she looks very grown-up:

'You don't look frightened any more. Or even so serious.'
'That pleases me.' She felt shy with him, yet somehow close, a closeness charged with something she had never felt with Richard. Something suspenseful, that she enjoyed. A little salt, she thought.

Great final quote RC and one which shows how Therese has changed.


Given the quote then perhaps Therese's experiences are "the price of salt"? - that (apparently) essential ingredient for maturity

re her thoughts about Dannie that you point up - huh! Makes me think again - was she actually bisexual? Without going through the text again to find it I seem to remember there was some scene earlier in the book where some guy other than Richard kissed her? or something and although she hasn't consented to it she has feelings of liking him or being intrigued by him more than Richard and not put of by him. I'm a bit vague on the details off the top of my head, will have to look it up.
For those who have read a/some PH biographies was she definitely a lesbian? Was there any possibility she was bi? Was there any possibility her actual relationships were lesbian but that she could have had straight ones if the opportunity that suited her arose?
I'm looking for PH through this I guess. Were her characters her writing roles for herself to some extent?
Ripley was bi.

The earlier kiss scene was with Dannie, Kit.

Tbh, I'm not sure that rigid categories such as gay or bi reflect the realities of sexualities and might be more about self-definition or society imposition. There's plenty of evidence that people in single-sex environments (e.g. school, prison) may form relationships that don't continue once back in mixed-sex settings.

And historically this categorising is a late 19th century thing - before that, from classical Athens through to all those cross-dressed heroines in Shakespeare and society rakes like Byron, sexual partners didn't necessarily lead to a sexual identity.

All of which probably makes Highsmith more subversive rather than less so in allowing Therese (and Carol?) this fluidity.

Oh and yes, according to her biography, PH self-identified with Ripley, even signing letters with his name!

Nigeyb wrote: "Given the quote then perhaps Therese's experiences are "the price of salt"? - that (apparently) essential ingredient for maturity"

In classical Latin poetry 'salt' (salis) is used to indicate wit, sophistication and a kind of urbanity - and it was previously a much-prized commodity that adds flavour and also helped preserve meat and fish in pre-fridge days.

The 'salt' she seems to feel with Dannie (and Carol) is, I guess, that frisson of excitement and allure. Is the price the loss of her innocence? Or that she has to reject the constraining social values that want her to be a 'safe' wife and mother? Intriguing!

yes, yes sexual fluidity. I wonder if some are more amenable to fluidity than others though/ some are less likely to glom on to whatever the societal conventions of the time are - and yes our recent times have been more rigid. In 50s mainstream society it would have been very straight I imagine. In a school or prison it may be more gay. Societal influence/ environment can be a big influence on people yes (people can change within their own lives when moving from different environments - gay for the stay etc) . There is nature too though, it's not all environment or choice - at least for gay men anyway. I don't know for sure what the current orthodoxy on origin of women's homosexuality is at moment...

I am wondering if Therese/ Riley/PH was more able to be attracted to a person regardless of whatever the conventions were(so not particularly women over men either).
I could see how if it was just a matter of deciding attraction based on attractiveness of the person(apart from sex) and their position or relations to you it could be either sex yes and I could see Carol as more attractive than Richard and even Dannie maybe more due to less controlling(despite kiss situation) and needy.

the reason this piques my interest is "bisexuality"(or maybe omni sexuality?) is a psychopathic trait. Yes I am still seeing the small view of Therese we see in Carol as convincingly possible to be part of the constellation of traits of a psychopathic personality. Although it is a small view it is convincing - far more than with some authors who deliberately set out to create an explicit psychopath.
I don't mean psychopath as the mainstream media synonym for monster here but the actual condition described in psychiatric literature (not DSM antisocial).

I still think ultimately the main point of the book is finding love in ways that were unaccepted at the time but the above is very interesting to me.

- salt/ wit/frisson/allure - another psychopathic trait is the need for excitement/high stimulation!
I might be the only one thinking along these lines, but I am more and more entertaining the possibility of psychopathy.

Interesting about psychopathy: I don't know anything about how it's defined or described, and certainly didn't know about the need for excitement. Ripley certainly creates drama about himself!

Carol comments on Therese's self-interested view of life and the way she doesn't have much sympathy for other people. The whole book is essentially focalised via Therese so we see everything mediated via her consciousness so some of the weirdness reflects Therese's view of the world rather than the world itself.

That does assume a feat of self-consciousness on the part of Highsmith to render the strangeness of someone's internal vision.

The more we talk about this, the more fascinating it becomes!

Roman Clodia wrote:


"The more we talk about this, the more fascinating it becomes!"

Abso-blimmin-lutely

I have had no new ideas or insights however really appreciated your posts, and Kit's, which have cast new light on an already instesting and unusual book

Did you read the afterword? I was interested that PH got appreciative and grateful mail from both men and women. What they really liked was that neither character died! That is was essentially just a love story that just happened to same sex. Revolutionary for the era.

Not true, Nigeyb, you always have interesting things to say.

No, I didn't have the afterword in my edition but yes, I can imagine how groundbreaking the book must have been for the time, especially given MacArthur-era emphases on the traditional family.

I was a little worried when Carol pulled out that gun and wondered if it was going to get melodramatic but thankfully not.

It *is* a love story but I also saw it as a bit of a coming-of-age story for Therese. And yes, I liked the casualness of the F/F love affair and, as we've already mentioned, the presence of Abby as ex-lover and now close friend. It does much to normalise same sex love.

Isn't it so weird about Highsmith that she can be so 'liberal' in this sense and yet also hold such abhorrent views on issues like race?

Roman Clodia wrote:


"Isn't it so weird about Highsmith that she can be so 'liberal' in this sense and yet also hold such abhorrent views on issues like race?"

Totally bizarre. It makes no sense.

yes thanks for your impressions NB and RC. Definitely added loads of stuff I hadn't thought of, especially as I read through it quite quickly.

Nigeyb wrote: "Roman Clodia wrote:
"Isn't it so weird about Highsmith that she can be so 'liberal' in this sense and yet also hold such abhorrent views on issues like race?"
Totally bizarre. It makes no sense."

I think it makes some sense, especially since Highsmith is just a very 'bizarre" person. There are many conservative LGBT people, even a group in the U.S, called Log Cabin Republicans, so why not LGBT racists? Wikipedia reported that some of her acquaintances refer to Highsmith "a lesbian with a misogynist streak."

I enjoyed the book. A few comments, based on other reader comments:
1) I do agree that it is peculiar that Highsmith would identify with the Therese character, as is explained in her Afterward. Therese is more demure than Carol and its hard to think of anything demure about Highsmith.
2) Nigeyb described this book as "not remotely salacious or sensationalist. It's actually a very subtle exploration of a lesbian relationship at a time when it was neither understood nor accepted." While I agree the book was subtle, I found the subtle build up over several meetings to the first kiss to be quite erotic in a suspenseful way. That may or may not make it "salacious."
3) As RC brought up. this story ended up being more of a "coming of age" story than a love story. I didn't really notice Danny's statement about the salt, so thanks for that, as it helps me understand the title and the story better.
4) SPOILER: I was expecting tragedy so was happy with the ending. As someone stated, it reinforces the coming of age story, as the world seems to be Therese's oyster. Also, the ending's importance to the LGBT community as it existed in 1950 contributes to its appropriateness.
I had seen the movie version when it came out but somehow had no memory of its ending. The movie did have an impact, though, as I always visualed Therese and Carol as Rooney Mara and Cate Blanchett, and it seemed to fit.

Thanks Brian - very interesting

Hope you don’t mind me joining in. I’m a new member to the group and was immediately drawn to read Carol. I knew nothing of the story, but when I read the premise, I founded it even more intriguing as it’s a bit of a different genre for me. I also knew of Patricia Highsmith from her movies only, so it’s the first novel I’ve read by her and will read more. I do want to read the Ripley series as I’ve read a bit about her and I’m intrigued as she seems to have an affinity with the character, to say the least.

I thought the writing was wonderful, and the book compelling from beginning to end. I love when a story starts in a small simple way and the ending seems miles apart.

I do agree it felt like a coming of age. I also felt a little Thelma & Louise and Anna Karenina while reading.

I did like the slow burn. I wondered at first if the intimate parts were deliberately left out as a product of the time, but it had just not developed to that point yet. I did like that aspect of it, that they didn’t just dive in and instead spent some time with each other before.

(view spoiler)[ I was surprised at the ending. It seemed to go around, and I think I didn’t want it to end the way that it did. I wasn’t sure how I felt about Carol, although I can imagine in the position they were both in with the time in history, it would add more anxiety to a budding relationship. And Carol really had a lot to lose. I don’t know that I agree with Therese that Carol chose her in the end. Carol had already lost everything for the most part. Part of me wonders if Therese just wanted to believe that? The relationship seemed to be so tense at times. And the age difference seemed really apparent. At least in the beginning. Therese did seem to mature, but enough to bridge that gap? (hide spoiler)]

I also wondered why Therese stayed with Richard for as long as she did. They seemed to be mismatched from her descriptions right at the beginning. Perhaps just a part of Therese's growing process? I didn't realize the length of time the novel takes place until the end when someone asks Therese her age. It begins with her at 19 as I recall and ends at 21. It seemed as if only months had passed.

Nigeyb wrote: Roman Clodia wrote:

"Isn't it so weird about Highsmith that she can be so 'liberal' in this sense and yet also hold such abhorrent views on issues like race?"

Totally bizarre. It makes no sense.

It makes me think of my grandparents and neighbors, two different cultures of immigrants, and both racist. Both of which I can imagine being treated differently because of their background, yet they still have animosity towards a certain other group.

I feel like sometimes people need a scapegoat, or somewhere to put mislaid anger? But I agree, it makes no sense.

Thanks Brenda - welcome to the group and thank you for your comments which are interesting and insightful

I suspect the reason why Therese stayed with Richard was apathy. There was no compelling reason to leave, until Carol came into her life.

The details are already fading however Richard was also, so far as I can recall, and via Danni, indirectly linked to her theatrical design ambitions and so perhaps she didn't want to unnecessarily alienate him despite knowing that he was not the one for her.

There was also that curious suggestion that she'd already run away from a previous group, although there's a hint at the end that she intends to re-establish contact with them. I suppose that might make her more reluctant to leave another group of friends and acquaintances.

Hi Brian and Brenda
-I second the coming of age story quality of the book
-I haven't seen the film but have seen the posters for it plastered everywhere that the book is brought up and as I read the book I too saw Carol as Cate Blanchett. I saw Therese as small and dark- something close to Rooney Mara. I saw her the same as my representation of Eileen in the Ottessa Moshfegh book who I identified her with. (Don't remember if any actual description for Eileen was given in that book, but I envisioned her as small and dark).
-I too assumed that the affair - in physical form - had begun already when it hadn't and that this book was just the type not to spell it out. But then PH did explicitly mention the start of physical intimacy and I realised that for a while even with the sleeping overnight etc there had been no physical contact between the two despite Therese's inner talk of attraction to her all the while
-Brenda: Re the Ripliad - you are in for a real treat! Oh to be a virgin for the series, alas I have gobbled it up though I still have the memory :)
-Re Therese being with Richard despite being so ill suited - I think I agree with Nigeyb that it could have been apathy, it could have been part of finding her way - was Richard the mainstream option of least resistance(before you find yourself and can stomach it no longer) in the 50s? As far as Richard being with her, I gather she didn't voice a lot of her thoughts - although she did communicate to him she didn't want to marry him - so I wonder if he, with the help of his overweening patriarchal mindset, projected on her some sort of ingenue mouldable little female wife material ie his "type".

Brian wrote: "There are many conservative LGBT people, even a group in the U.S, called Log Cabin Republicans, so why not LGBT racists? Wikipedia reported that some of her acquaintances refer to Highsmith "a lesbian with a misogynist streak.""

You're absolutely right, of course, Brian - how illogical humans are! You'd think that someone who has been the victim of prejudice would not pay it forward. I would guess that Highsmith is someone who didn't like to see herself as part of a group.

I haven't seen the film yet (it's available to stream on Prime) but yes, after seeing that book cover, I also pictured Carol as Cate Blanchett. though less so Mara Rooney as Therese.

Brenda wrote: "Hope you don’t mind me joining in. I’m a new member to the group and was immediately drawn to read Carol."

Yes, welcome Brenda - delighted you enjoyed this so much. (view spoiler)[I also am less sure about quite how happy that ending is and don't see Carol as having chosen Therese either. I think Highsmith was quite deliberate in having it end as Therese is walking across the restaurant... but not quite getting to Carol's table. (hide spoiler)]