Scan barcode
Reviews
The Talented Miss Highsmith: The Secret Life and Serious Art of Patricia Highsmith by Joan Schenkar
krobart's review against another edition
3.0
See my review here:
http://whatmeread.wordpress.com/2014/10/23/day-601-the-talented-miss-highsmith/
http://whatmeread.wordpress.com/2014/10/23/day-601-the-talented-miss-highsmith/
pattydsf's review against another edition
3.0
"Fear of loss, instigated by a world of people and objects out of her control, was a constant theme in Pat's life. It put its unmistakable patina on much of her work - that long, slow crawl over the surface of things that can be counted, described and handled..." p. 453
"She was only comfortable when she was uncomfortable. Discomfort - the condition with which he was most at home and least at ease - was a productive state for her; it usually kept her writing." p. 463.
This biography took me three months to finish. I kept thinking I would give up, but then I went back. Patricia Highsmith's writing makes me very uncomfortable. Stranger On the Train is the first book in a long time that I didn't finish for my book group. Not only did I quit only a few chapters in, but I have no intention of returning to Highsmith Country. This book confirmed that it is a world that I don't want to be in for any amount of time.
However, I needed Schenkar's explication of Highsmith to help me figure out why I was so uneasy while reading Stranger On the Train. I have never before put down a book because I was made uncomfortable by the characters' behavior. There have been books where I don't like the characters or don't care for them. But the people in Highsmith's book seemed evil to me, really, really evil. I wanted to know about the woman who could imagine those people.
I learned a lot about Patricia Highsmith, her writing and her life. I found out some of the factors that made her the way she was. I am never going to like her, but I understand what might have made her write the kinds of novels and stories that she wrote.
Schenkar has done yeoman's work explaining Patricia Highsmith. If you like to know the inner workings of people, this may be your book. Schenkar is a good writer who found a fascinating topic. I don't think you could invent Highsmith.
"She was only comfortable when she was uncomfortable. Discomfort - the condition with which he was most at home and least at ease - was a productive state for her; it usually kept her writing." p. 463.
This biography took me three months to finish. I kept thinking I would give up, but then I went back. Patricia Highsmith's writing makes me very uncomfortable. Stranger On the Train is the first book in a long time that I didn't finish for my book group. Not only did I quit only a few chapters in, but I have no intention of returning to Highsmith Country. This book confirmed that it is a world that I don't want to be in for any amount of time.
However, I needed Schenkar's explication of Highsmith to help me figure out why I was so uneasy while reading Stranger On the Train. I have never before put down a book because I was made uncomfortable by the characters' behavior. There have been books where I don't like the characters or don't care for them. But the people in Highsmith's book seemed evil to me, really, really evil. I wanted to know about the woman who could imagine those people.
I learned a lot about Patricia Highsmith, her writing and her life. I found out some of the factors that made her the way she was. I am never going to like her, but I understand what might have made her write the kinds of novels and stories that she wrote.
Schenkar has done yeoman's work explaining Patricia Highsmith. If you like to know the inner workings of people, this may be your book. Schenkar is a good writer who found a fascinating topic. I don't think you could invent Highsmith.
bryce_is_a_librarian's review against another edition
3.0
Some interesting new details and genuine insight spoiled by manufactured dramatics and self consciously novelistic style.
laura_sonja's review against another edition
4.0
(Really more like a 3.5) Patricia Highsmith was, by literally all accounts, a miserable person, and she didn’t write anything of any particular value for the last like 30 years of her life. BUT she’s still somehow a really fascinating person to read about? Like, again, she was awful, but so fun to read about. I will say the author’s tone was a bit irritating at times, but overall I really enjoyed reading this. Unsurprisingly, the “Les Girls” segments were probably my favourite.
enbyemu's review against another edition
3.0
The only reason this book gets three stars is because of all the independent research done by the author. This resulted in a wealth of information that was previously unavailable.
The book was fine as long as the author stuck to the facts. As soon as she tried to be coy, interpret the motives behind Patricia Highsmith's actions, or even give much of an interpretation of Highsmith's works, the book became an incredibly frustrating read. I get the impression that the author decided who Patricia Highsmith was before she sat down to write this book and read every scrap of information she found through those filters. Then she, quite painfully, tried to stretch the available information far enough for the reader to come to the same conclusions even when the text she was quoting seemed to have nothing whatsoever to do with the image of Highsmith she was trying to force.
The book was fine as long as the author stuck to the facts. As soon as she tried to be coy, interpret the motives behind Patricia Highsmith's actions, or even give much of an interpretation of Highsmith's works, the book became an incredibly frustrating read. I get the impression that the author decided who Patricia Highsmith was before she sat down to write this book and read every scrap of information she found through those filters. Then she, quite painfully, tried to stretch the available information far enough for the reader to come to the same conclusions even when the text she was quoting seemed to have nothing whatsoever to do with the image of Highsmith she was trying to force.
eraofkara's review against another edition
3.0
I don't know what I expected.
I learned about Patricia Highsmith through the New York Times Book Review of this biography. In it, a portrait was painted of a woman writer in the 1940s and '50s whose actions seemed as sociopathic as that of one of her most famous characters, the talented Mr. Ripley. She was dark, dreamed up ugly murders for fun, wrote for comic books (though she denied it), hated her mother, and slept with women (and sometimes men) -- sometimes for love but often for sport.
I wanted to read this bio, and so, true book nerd that I am, I first went and read the Ripley series and The Price of Salt (pub. 1952, featuring the first lesbian book romance that doesn't end horribly for the characters). Thus prepped, I finally read this bio.
In life, Patricia Highsmith was apparently very difficult to like. Author Joan Schenkar backs this up time and again with evidence of Highsmith's treachery, stubborness, oddities, and the like. I ended up frustrated and sometimes appalled with Highsmith's antics. Again, I don't know what I expected: Those antics are pretty much WHY I read the book, right? I also grew frustrated with Schenkar's storytelling: nonlinear, with chapters grouped according to Highsmith's vices and other topics, often without mention of dates. Luckily, there's a chronological outline at the back of the book to help you figure out what happened when. Another beef with the book is Schenkar's repetition. Good lord, the same facts are repeated over and over.
That aside, it's still an interesting (albeit at times frustrating and confusing) look at the 1940s Manhattan lesbian scene, early comic books, and the many tiny heart-breaking ways events can shape an entire person's life.
I learned about Patricia Highsmith through the New York Times Book Review of this biography. In it, a portrait was painted of a woman writer in the 1940s and '50s whose actions seemed as sociopathic as that of one of her most famous characters, the talented Mr. Ripley. She was dark, dreamed up ugly murders for fun, wrote for comic books (though she denied it), hated her mother, and slept with women (and sometimes men) -- sometimes for love but often for sport.
I wanted to read this bio, and so, true book nerd that I am, I first went and read the Ripley series and The Price of Salt (pub. 1952, featuring the first lesbian book romance that doesn't end horribly for the characters). Thus prepped, I finally read this bio.
In life, Patricia Highsmith was apparently very difficult to like. Author Joan Schenkar backs this up time and again with evidence of Highsmith's treachery, stubborness, oddities, and the like. I ended up frustrated and sometimes appalled with Highsmith's antics. Again, I don't know what I expected: Those antics are pretty much WHY I read the book, right? I also grew frustrated with Schenkar's storytelling: nonlinear, with chapters grouped according to Highsmith's vices and other topics, often without mention of dates. Luckily, there's a chronological outline at the back of the book to help you figure out what happened when. Another beef with the book is Schenkar's repetition. Good lord, the same facts are repeated over and over.
That aside, it's still an interesting (albeit at times frustrating and confusing) look at the 1940s Manhattan lesbian scene, early comic books, and the many tiny heart-breaking ways events can shape an entire person's life.
sshabein's review against another edition
5.0
What a feat of a book. Patricia Highsmith might be the very definition of talented-but-unlikeable, and even though she was fairly terrible to most people (especially at the end of her life), she still remains one of my favorite authors. She was queer (in both sexuality and in the sense that she was odd), gender nonconforming before we ever really had the term, survived an attempt at conversion therapy, and otherwise made her way through life by self-medicating her undiagnosed mental illnesses. This biography is thorough, especially for die-hards like me who love all sorts of details about a person's life, and reads fairly. It is neither gushing nor accusatory. This was well worth the library fines I've incurred by keeping the book over a week late.
pattydsf's review
3.0
"Fear of loss, instigated by a world of people and objects out of her control, was a constant theme in Pat's life. It put its unmistakable patina on much of her work - that long, slow crawl over the surface of things that can be counted, described and handled..." p. 453
"She was only comfortable when she was uncomfortable. Discomfort - the condition with which he was most at home and least at ease - was a productive state for her; it usually kept her writing." p. 463.
This biography took me three months to finish. I kept thinking I would give up, but then I went back. Patricia Highsmith's writing makes me very uncomfortable. Stranger On the Train is the first book in a long time that I didn't finish for my book group. Not only did I quit only a few chapters in, but I have no intention of returning to Highsmith Country. This book confirmed that it is a world that I don't want to be in for any amount of time.
However, I needed Schenkar's explication of Highsmith to help me figure out why I was so uneasy while reading Stranger On the Train. I have never before put down a book because I was made uncomfortable by the characters' behavior. There have been books where I don't like the characters or don't care for them. But the people in Highsmith's book seemed evil to me, really, really evil. I wanted to know about the woman who could imagine those people.
I learned a lot about Patricia Highsmith, her writing and her life. I found out some of the factors that made her the way she was. I am never going to like her, but I understand what might have made her write the kinds of novels and stories that she wrote.
Schenkar has done yeoman's work explaining Patricia Highsmith. If you like to know the inner workings of people, this may be your book. Schenkar is a good writer who found a fascinating topic. I don't think you could invent Highsmith.
"She was only comfortable when she was uncomfortable. Discomfort - the condition with which he was most at home and least at ease - was a productive state for her; it usually kept her writing." p. 463.
This biography took me three months to finish. I kept thinking I would give up, but then I went back. Patricia Highsmith's writing makes me very uncomfortable. Stranger On the Train is the first book in a long time that I didn't finish for my book group. Not only did I quit only a few chapters in, but I have no intention of returning to Highsmith Country. This book confirmed that it is a world that I don't want to be in for any amount of time.
However, I needed Schenkar's explication of Highsmith to help me figure out why I was so uneasy while reading Stranger On the Train. I have never before put down a book because I was made uncomfortable by the characters' behavior. There have been books where I don't like the characters or don't care for them. But the people in Highsmith's book seemed evil to me, really, really evil. I wanted to know about the woman who could imagine those people.
I learned a lot about Patricia Highsmith, her writing and her life. I found out some of the factors that made her the way she was. I am never going to like her, but I understand what might have made her write the kinds of novels and stories that she wrote.
Schenkar has done yeoman's work explaining Patricia Highsmith. If you like to know the inner workings of people, this may be your book. Schenkar is a good writer who found a fascinating topic. I don't think you could invent Highsmith.
janetlun's review
I picked up this biography out of curiosity. The central tenet of mystery novels is morality. Someone violates decency and/or the law, they are caught, and balance is restored. Highsmith violated all of that. Her best known are Strangers on a Train, and the several books in The Talented Mr. Ripley series.[return][return]Surprise, surprise -- I found out that she was an unpleasant woman. Not as amoral as her characters, but she was not a comfortable person to know. I read the first hundred pages, which gave me an overview of her life and her unhappy relationship with her mother. I looked at the next 500 pages, and concluded that I didn't want to spend that much time with her. I did skim them. I was amused that in her machinations to avoid taxes, she ended up dying in Switzerland and getting hit by much higher estate taxes than if she'd stayed in France or gone home to the States.[return][return]She kept thorough diaries and journals, and lied in them. Now, that's quirky. The biographer believes that she made a conscious effort to be sane. It was fun to learn that she did quite well writing comic books before getting short stories and novels published. I was surprised to learn that her roots were in Texas. She was anorexic (at least in her youth, but always thin), racist, anti-Semitic (with various Jewish friends), alcoholic, and a lesbian. She gave heterosexuality a bit of a try in her youth, but decided to give it a pass. The money she was making in comics no doubt helped her be independent.