The Talented Mr. Ripley / Ripley Under Ground / Ripley's Game
Ratings126
Average rating3.8
I began this book after watching the Matt Damon version of the film and was pleased with the book's ending. Highsmith provided Ripley with everything he wanted in the end, which I found satisfying. Tom Ripley is a likable villain and despite his ill intent I found myself wanting him to succeed. I find myself at a bit of a loss for words while writing this review. The book was enthralling and I was absorbed until the very end. If you're a fan of the dark academia genre, you'll enjoy this one.
I'll definitely be looking into Highsmith's other novels.
A bit of a slow start but from around the half way point it really picked up pace and I couldn't put it down until the end. Tom Ripley is certainly an intriguing character and I'm keen to read more books in the series.
I have to say that I'm a bit disappointed in this. I think it is a rare case of not one but both of the adaptations I've seen being better than the source material.
Anthony Minghella's 1999 film with Jude Law as Dickie and Matt Damon as Tom, has a lively excitement and almost eroticism (especially in the first third) that the book simply does not have, almost shies from. Plus, we get the legendary Philip Seymour Hoffman as Freddie.
The more recent adaptation, the 2024 mini-series directed by Steven Zaillian featuring Andrew Scott as Tom and Johnny Flynn as Dickie, feels custom-made for me. Scott is about double the age of book Tom, and I did not find Johnny Flynn to be in any way comparable to Jude Law (but then, who is?), but the ambiance, the cinematography, and the fantastic performances by Scott, Dakota Fanning as Marge, and Eliot Sumner as Freddie (even if not remotely book accurate) produce a thing that is much more compelling than this book.
It is very readable, I'll say that. Few chapters if any are more than 10 pages, so there's always a sense of getting one more chapter in. Then again, Tom is simply not an enjoyable character in this debut. His self-hatred becomes tiresome, and while there are interesting bits in his exploration of Dickie and navigating his schemes, it all falls a little flat for me.
I wonder about the reception of this book on its publication in the 1950s. The 1999 film will have viewers thirsting over Jude Law. The 2024 mini-series has us thirsting over Andrew Scott, wishing we could go on a European vacation with the ill-gotten-gains. The 1955 book gives us a (closeted? probably?) Ripley that essentially detests everything, most of all himself; he is capricious, and mostly trades off of the incompetence or good faith of others, not necessarily his own cleverness.
I am not sure why I expected the book to be a little more gay, or at least a little more gay-friendly. I think many of my fellow gays have fallen for a straight guy, perhaps had the question of, “I don't know if I want to be him, or sleep with him.” Tom clearly has this feeling, but is self-hating to the point of denial and scorn. Almost to the point of unawareness. I guess this was the expectation in the 1950s. The book rarely misses a chance to throw out words like fairy and sissy and queer, and again, I guess these are all the words that would be going around in the 1950s. The end result, however, is not the erotic, dark, passion of the 1999 film or even the 2024 adaptation. Instead, the scene of Tom dressing as Dickie feels more like Norman Bates wearing his mother's clothes than something of passion. Tom is simply very cold, and his blue flame only crackles to life when he is smashing someone's head in with an ashtray or lying to the police about it. Or, watching someone else struggle to lie.
In any event, the book is readable but after the first third it became a little laborious. I have a copy of the third book, but I probably will not get around to reading any of the sequels.
I was about three episodes into the Netflix Ripley mini-series when I decided to read the Patricia Highsmith novel it was based on. A question about the setting of the mini-series sparked my interest in the novel. The series claimed to have been set in 1961, but it gave me feelings of post-war Italy, maybe 1949 or so.
The answer is that the Highsmith novel was published in 1955, which means that it captures a cultural sense of the mid-1950s. 1961 is not too far off from that.
By now, everyone should know that the title character, Tom Ripley, is a sociopath[1]. The word “sociopathy” is not used in either presentation. The acting of Andrew Scott in the Netflix series captures the essence of a sociopath. Scott plays Ripley as awkward, autitistic, and anhedonic — Scott's Ripley is one off-beat, creepy dude.[2]
Offbeat and creepy.
The opening scene in the Netflix series is a perfect representation of the sociopath in action. On the spur of the moment, Ripley intercepts a letter from a postal carrier by acting as if he is going into an apartment. He then uses the letter to scam the sender to send a replacement check to him by posing as a bill collector. He has to abandon the cashing of the check when he senses that he is about to be unmasked. The sequence portrays the opportunism of a lot of crime, which has to be the domain of sociopaths who do not hesitate a moment out of guilt or conscience.
In contrast, it doesn't seem that Highsmith had a developed knowledge of sociopathy. Her Ripley is weirdly bipolar. He transitions from bouts of manic exuberance about his plans to bitter resentment about the injustices he feels he has been subjected to. Highsmith's Ripley is not nearly as disciplined as the Netflix Ripley. In Highsmith's novel, for example, Ripley just collects the checks from his victims without ever trying to cash them.
This could reflect the development of the idea of the sociopath/psychopath as a fictional type. We have had decades of tropes and caricatures about high-functioning sociopaths that Highsmith didn't have. While the idea of psychopathy was introduced in the 1950s, sociopathy had been known since the 1930s.[3] One source describes the history of sociopathy as follows:
While psychopathy was yet to make its premiere in the DSM, sociopathic personality disturbance, or sociopathy, was included in the DSM-I. Sociopathy was developed in the 1930s and consisted of antisocial and dissocial reactions and sexual deviation (Pickersgill, 2012). Differences and similarities existed between sociopathic personality disorder and psychopathy, however psychopathy would not have its own category in the DSM until the publication of the DSM III. In DSM-I, sociopathic personality disturbance, antisocial reaction was defined as a diagnosis for chronically antisocial individuals who didn't profit from experience or punishment and maintained no real loyalties (Pickersgill, 2012).
This could explain why Tom Ripley is not the smooth and charming manipulator we expect to see in more recent stories involving psychopaths.
It might also explain why Highsmith edges around the homosexual issue.
It seems clear from Highsmith's novel that Tom is “same sex attracted.” He is a young man (around 24 or 25) who has been “kept” by a wealthier male who treats him as a possession. Highsmith shares that Tom runs in homosexual circles and poses as a homosexual, but is actually a virgin:
His mind went back to certain groups of people he had known in New York, known and dropped finally, all of them, but he regretted now having ever known them. They had taken him up because he amused them, but he had never had anything to do with any of them! When a couple of them had made a pass at him, he had rejected them — though he remembered how he had tried to make it up to them later by getting ice for their drinks, dropping them off in taxis when it was out of his way, because he had been afraid they would start to dislike him. He'd been an ass! And he remembered, too, the humiliating moment when Vic Simmons had said, Oh, for Christ sake, Tommie, shut up! when he had said to a group of people, for perhaps the third or fourth time in Vic's presence, “I can't make up my mind whether I like men or women, so I'm thinking of giving them both up.” Tom had used to pretend he was going to an analyst, because everybody else was going to an analyst, and he had used to spin wildly funny stories about his sessions with his analyst to amuse people at parties, and the line about giving up men and women both had always been good for a laugh, the way he delivered it, until Vic had told him for Christ sake to shut up, and after that Tom had never said it again and never mentioned his analyst again, either. As a matter of fact, there was a lot of truth in it, Tom thought. As people went, he was one of the most innocent and clean-minded he had ever known. That was the irony of this situation with Dickie.
Highsmith, Patricia. The Talented Mr. Ripley (pp. 79–80). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition.
On the other hand, everyone who knows Tom suspects that he is a homosexual. He is fixated on Dickie. He becomes jealous when he sees Dickie with his girlfriend, Marge Sherwood.
In the Netflix series, this backstory is not revealed. There are clues that he might be homosexual and attracted to Dickie, such as the weird scene where he dresses as Dickie, which prompts Dickie to tell Tom that he is not “queer.”
In the book, Tom's two murders occur after homosexuality is derided. Before Tom murders Dickie, the two men are watching the gymnastics of a group of men that Dickie describes as “daffodils” by quoting lines from a poem. This sets Tom off on a chain of thinking about taking over Dickie's life after he remembers Aunt Dottie describing him as a “sissy.” Later, Tom justifies killing Freddie Miles for accusing Dickie of “sexual deviation”:
The gin only intensified the same thoughts he had had. He stood looking down at Freddie's long, heavy body in the polo coat that was crumpled under him, that he hadn't the energy or the heart to straighten out, though it annoyed him, and thinking how sad, stupid, clumsy, dangerous, and unnecessary his death had been, and how brutally unfair to Freddie. Of course, one could loathe Freddie, too. A selfish, stupid bastard who had sneered at one of his best friends — Dickie certainly was one of his best friends — just because he suspected him of sexual deviation. Tom laughed at that phrase “sexual deviation.” Where was the sex? Where was the deviation? He looked at Freddie and said low and bitterly: “Freddie Miles, you're a victim of your own dirty mind.”
Highsmith, Patricia. The Talented Mr. Ripley (pp. 140–141). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition.
However, Freddie didn't make such an accusation. Tom killed him because Freddie had noticed him wearing Dickie's shoes and Dickie's bracelet.
In contrast, the Netflix series take the Freddie character in the direction of gingercide. In the novel, Freddie is a redhead, which disgusts Ripley. Highsmith writes:
The American's name was Freddie Miles. Tom thought he was hideous. Tom hated red hair, especially this kind of carrot-red hair with white skin and freckles.
Highsmith, Patricia. The Talented Mr. Ripley (p. 64). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition.
And who doesn't feel this way? [4]
In the Netflix series, Freddie is played by a former (or current) female — the actor is Elliott Summer, who, as it turns out, is Sting's daughter. The actor who plays Freddie is obviously a woman trying to pass as a man, which means the character is obviously a woman trying to pass as a man, but nothing is ever made of this.
https://medium.com/@peterseanEsq/the-talented-mr-ripley-a-sociopath-looks-at-70-ef5ee13b0d8a
Mr. Ripley es uno de esos caracteres en literatura que tienen una voz propia, lejos de los cliches que afectan a este tipo de personajes, Mr. Ripley siempre sorprende.
Una novela por otro lado muy normal, pero entrar en el mundo interior de Ripley es tan interestante que uno no puede mas que adorarla.
After reading Strangers on a Train I decided to try this one because Patricia Highsmith has true talent for writing characters. In the end, I liked Strangers on a Train better, though I still felt that The Talented Mr. Ripley was entertaining and character driven.
Pros:
- Beautiful European settings
- Believable characters
- Interesting plot concept
Cons:
- Repetitive and dragged a bit in the last third
- Tom isn't very likable, so I didn't root for him
- Would have loved a bit more description of the settings
Overall it was good but not great, and I am on the fence about the sequels. Also, the title tugged at me the whole time. I wouldn't consider Tom either clever or talented. Just stupid lucky.
Updated to say: I liked the movie better. No one likes to admit it, but sometimes that's the case.
I'm glad I finally read this! It took a little while to gain momentum, but Highsmith did an astounding job of keeping me suspended between sympathy and judgment. I really couldn't decide if I was rooting for Tom to succeed or enjoying every time he squirmed in fear, eager to see him caught.
The character she paints is vivid and textured. Not a mere mechanical sociopath, but someone shoved out of “good society” throughout his life, looking for a way in. And maybe excluded because others sense his repressed homosexuality (or asexuality?). This thread lent an additional dimension to the story. Does Tom want Dickie Greenleaf, or does he want to BE Dickie Greenleaf? Would the latter be in play if the former were socially acceptable? Highsmith leaves it ambiguous, while still prompting meditation on social mores surrounding sexuality in this era.
None of the characters are very interesting, particularly Tom Ripley. I'm amazed that there are several sequels to this book.
There are fantastic moments in this book, and I love the meandering pacing. When Highsmith ratchets up the tension, it's a fantastic ride. The contrast between Ripley as a man who wants to be loved and Ripley the man who might just hit you over the head is played out well here, and even holds up over time, I'd say.
Still, it has a fairly predictable ending (it may not have been predictable in 1955), not much in the way of an interesting tone, and gives us quite a few unintelligent characters; rather than Ripley being some sort of clever criminal, he's mostly just lucky, which might be fun as a metaphysical puzzle, but not as fun as a thriller. (And perhaps Highsmith wanted to write something more metaphysical–in that case, she didn't go far enough for me.)
Glad I read it. I may read another in the series to see how her writing develops over time, but this one didn't top Strangers on a Train for me...
Hated the movie when I saw it in theaters, but really enjoyed the book. Didn't realize until recently that it's a series of books and I plan to read the rest...
There is an awful temptation to overrate this book. It has all the qualities of a literary novel, especially the penetrating psychological insight. It is extremely well-written, closely and carefully plotted and you feel that you come to know Tom Ripley. All of that is very laudable. It also features some cutting observations of the manners and mores of the upper-class Americans in Europe in the 50???s. Ultimately, however, it is about a con man and murderer, and although it has a commentary to make about the culture and morality of the time, it has limited ???literary merit???. I will read more Highsmith, but I rate her as an accomplished and exceptional crime writer, but not as one who transcends the form and becomes a literary novelist.