Pulp Fiction discussion

Kenneth Fearing, born in 1902, was an American poet and novelist. A major poet of the Depression era, he addressed the shallowness and consumerism of American society as he saw it He influenced the Beat poets, such as Allen Ginsberg.

Fearing moved from Illinois to New York City in 1924, and spent the rest of his life there. He supported himself by writing pulp fiction, often under pseudonyms. Around 1939 be began to write novels and wrote less poetry. His most famous novel, The Big Clock, has remained in print since its 1946 publication and was adapted for film two years later.

Fearing was inspired to write The Big Clock after reading Sam Fuller’s novel The Dark Page. More directly, though, he was influenced by the sensational high-society murder of Patricia Lonergan, heiress to a $7 million beer fortune, by her husband, Wayne, who strangled and bludgeoned her to death in their posh Midtown Manhattan home after she filed for separation and cut him out of her will.

The book became a bestseller, bringing in much needed royalties and magazine republication rights and the sale of film rights. Its publication inspired Raymond Chandler to say, “I’m still a bit puzzled as to why no one has come forward to make me look like thirty cents. But except for an occasional tour-de-force like The Big Clock, no one has.”

One other note of interest: Fearing's leftist-leaning poetry did not sit well in the era of McCarthyism, and his political associations were sufficient for him to be interviewed by the FBI and called before the House Un-American Activities Committee. Before the Committee in 1950, when asked if he was a member of the Communist Party, Fearing replied, "Not yet."

He lived in poverty in the 1950s, and had smoked and drank heavily for most of his life, which seriously affected his health in his last years. He died in 1961.

this one looks like a good start to my reading year. I hope to start on it soon.

Nice hair. I happen to love the book and the movie, although the movie parts significantly from the book.

I won’t be able to even look for it until the second half of this month…

Christopher wrote: "Nice hair . . ."

I know, right. This is one of my favorite author photos. He looks like he was attacked by a tub of Dippity-Do.

Lawrence wrote: "I won’t be able to even look for it until the second half of this month…"

My borrowed copy is next in the stack.

Excellent! This book has been in my bookcase for several years. I saw and really enjoyed the movie so I'm looking forward to this.

Between the name of the book, and the author's photo . . . does this image keep popping into anyone else's mind?



Or is it just me?

I'm about halfway done and should finish in a few days, maybe over the weekend. I had forgotten that this book was the basis for a film I really enjoyed:



I haven't seen the earlier film version though.

I read this one years ago when we did the reading for it, and I enjoyed it so I'm not sure I'll do the reread but try to chime in. I've never watched No Way Out, so maybe I'll check that out.

Looking forward to reading this. Never heard of the guy, but I've seen the haircut on a couple of 80's new wave rockers. I'll watch the movie when I finish reading.

I finished, practically in two sittings. It was a really quick read because it is so well written, crossing effortlessly from social commentary to comedy to the thrill of the chase.
Raymond Chandler knew what he was talking about when he called it a tour-de-force. Thank you Melki for finding this trivia.

Now I plan to watch the movies, although I'm pretty sure I already saw the Yves Montand version [ Police Python 357] in cinema when it first came out, not that I remember much about it except miscasting Montand in the role of an action hero.

Melki wrote: "Christopher wrote: "Nice hair . . ."

I know, right. This is one of my favorite author photos. He looks like he was attacked by a tub of Dippity-Do."

I'm not convinced that he doesn't have a pet muskrat.

I gotta admit, I'm not digging this one so far. What's with the cutesy names? George, Georgia, Georgette . . . Was everyone named by George Foreman?

I'm gonna put this aside for a week or so, then try again.

Melki wrote: "I gotta admit, I'm not digging this one so far. What's with the cutesy names? George, Georgia, Georgette . . . Was everyone named by George Foreman?

I'm gonna put this aside for a week or so, the..."

The family scenes can be a little silly. I thought it improved quickly after that.

(view spoiler)[ For me, it was the ending that was too cute and convenient for what went on before, but I don't want to spoil the surprise for other readers (hide spoiler)]

I definitely wouldn't file this under "page-turner." Every time the story heats up a bit, he hoses it down with business speak.

I did enjoy this one - I posted my review in the other thread.

Just to expand on my thoughts, I liked the style in which the book was written. Fearing was a poet and he has an interesting way with words, such as his intermittent references to the "big clock" which to me represented not just the inexorable march of the hands of time but also the relentless self-interest of society which can crush individuals under the wheels of "progress." There were some pacing issues - some of the domestic scenes and work scenes at the magazine were a little tedious and self-serving. I thought the No Way Out film version did a much better job building tension. But the idea of a man directing a search for himself - a search which he knows to be bogus, and why, although he is unable to speak up - is an interesting one and enough to keep me reading through the dull parts. I'm glad we read it but I wouldn't consider it a favorite.

I think the cute and convenient ending was the weakest part of the novel, a fizzle after all the build-up of tension.
It's probably telling that both movie versions replace this ending with something more powerful and twisted.

Second observation about the two movies: in the book, George Stroud is not a sympathetic character, in fact he is an alcoholic, adulterous pig who doesn't deserve a break, but probably the audience or the studio heads wanted a righteous hero, so out goes the adultery and the heavy drinking, the anti-establishmentl speeches about publishing and most of the gay/lesbian references.

I prefer the 1948 version over the Kevin Costner thriller because it has the hilarious actress playing the painter in it.

I'm glad everyone else is enjoying this, but I just can't get past everyone being named George. (Honestly, what was Fearing thinking?) PLUS - I just got my hands on the new Duane Swierczynski, so I'm going to return this one to the library unread.

Melki, im glad I’ve been traveling, and, my library system does not have a copy. Mixed reviews by my compadres here. I’ll move on to the February read…

I found it pretty dull at the start but it has finally picked up, now that I'm about 3/4ths of the way through it. I must be slow on the uptake because I was halfway through before I realized tat the title was a play on Time, Inc.

I read it nearly 10 years ago, but from what I remember, I really liked the atypical approach to noir, and the "big clock" metaphor analogy running throughout. Sure there are some silly moments, but I thought this had some high moments of psychological tension. I think I remember the 1948 film version taming some aspects of the novel in some of the darker moments.

I just finished the novel, and while not great, I did enjoy it. The ending did not bother me, unlike the ending to last month's read. The snippets of family life was a bit of a head scratcher, unless the author needed to get his word count up. I liked the commentary on the publishing world, and the big clock metaphor. I have to believe that there is / was a NYC bar like Gil's as described in the book.
With respect to the movies, I almost always prefer the books, especially when hollywood feels the need to clean up things for the masses.

I looked for it on Kindle, and only translations were available. So I'll be muddling through in French, feeling very silly.

I finished it earlier this week. I agree with Howard for the most part. I remember enjoying the movie more than I did the book, (unusual, but it happens). It was a long time ago, though, so I may need to track it down and watch it again.

Thanks for the opportunity/nudge to pull this off my shelf and finally read it.

Fearing's little suspense story snuck up on me not unlike the incessant hands that move the hours when you're deep in a good read. The Big Clock is a tightly packed, perspective-shifting little dime-store masterpiece.

True, there are too many "George"s, and the pacing drags a bit for my liking especially all the departments in Janoth Enterprises, but with where we're headed with AI and the end of print, it's a study in what print information was. Fearing uses some poetic slight-of-hand and sharp plot elements in the '40's, I think it more than stands the test of time.

Sorry, friends. My copy, ordered on interlibrary loan on New Year's Day, just arrived. My comments will be late. See you for the February read.

the discussion stays open after the end of the month. everyone is welcome to drop in whenever they feel like sharing their impressions

This didn't turn out to be my cup of tea. I found the first third to be achingly slow, and written in an affected language full of over-the-top similes probably born in Fearing's poetry background. The coincidence that George is selected to direct the investigation into the "mystery man" was too much.

Brian wrote: "This didn't turn out to be my cup of tea. I found the first third to be achingly slow, and written in an affected language full of over-the-top similes probably born in Fearing's poetry background...."
I totally agree.