Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Henry Oliver's avatar

I might watch it. But I try and limit my television and I’m not good at that. Also I love the original!

I haven’t read the biography but it sounds great — certainly the diaries have plenty of that gruesome detail. I was interested though in her writing life and was disappointed that so many reviewers were not, even though I’m a great advocate of biography!

Here’s the real question: can you take one side and not the other? Reading her novels, I suspect not…….

Jim Coughenour's avatar

My first question: WHY aren’t you watching the new Ripley? It’s superb. Also loved the Matt Damon version, the French version (Purple Noon with the astonishingly handsome Alain Delon) as well as Wim Wender’s color-saturated 70s version of Ripley’s Game (The American Friend) and, most recently watched, John Malkovich in another version of Ripley’s Game. Apparently Tom Ripley is a man of many dimensions, and we end up rooting for him even though we would never want to cross his path.

Otherwise: I can see Dostoyevsky as an influence on Highsmith but not Proust.

Have you read Richard Bradford’s biography Devils, Lusts and Strange Desires. If you have, you likely have a strong opinion. If not, you may relish it after your trek through the diaries. I picked it up when it first came out, read the first paragraph and bought it immediately. None of the usual admiring respect for the subject of his bio. Speaking of Highsmith as an “animal lover” we may be reassured, until we read the next sentence or two. “She was an animal lover - largely because she regarded them as superior to human beings. On one occasion, she declared that if she came upon a starving infant and a starving kitten, she would not hesitate to feed the latter and leave the child to fend for itself. Why, she once asked, should domestic pets be expected to consume material that we might find unpalatable? She recommended that as a mark of respect to dogs and cats they should be fed carefully prepared foetuses from human miscarriages or abortions.” (That’s palatable?)

A couple pages later (I was still reading in the bookstore) we come across a description of her disposition from one of her closest friends. “‘She was an equal opportunity offender .. You name the group, she hated them.’ Her hate list was impressive in its diversity: Latinos, black people, Koreans, Indians (south Asian), 'Red Indians', the Portuguese, Catholics, evangelicals and fundamentalists, and Mexicans, among others. In 1992, she visited her erstwhile girlfriend, Marijane Meaker, in America and, glancing around a diner, remarked on how the vast majority of customers were African American. Meaker assumed that she was acknowledging how things had changed since their youth when discrimination was routine, but no. To Highsmith, there were so many of them because of their

'animal-like breeding habits', that it was common knowledge that black men became physically ill without a regular diet of sex and were too stupid to realise that unprotected intercourse led to pregnancy.”

So: caveat lector? A model for writers? I say, why not? *as a writer.* Otherwise, run the other way. What is fascinating in her biography is the gratuitous even imaginative degree of cruelty she visited upon her lovers (no more examples, I’ve quoted enough) — but amazingly they returned for more. The woman had a dangerous charisma. You see a degree of that in Andrew Scott’s performance.

3 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?