What do you think?
Rate this book
Ripley #4
Sur les pas de Ripley
Tom Ripley, le héros diabolique et séduisant de Plein soleil , dévoile ici une facette inattendue de sa personnalité.
L'occasion en est la rencontre du jeune Franck Pierson, fils de milliardaire rongé par un amour malheureux et surtout par un atroce sentiment de remords (il prétend avoir assassiné son père invalide).
Avec une générosité et une chaleur qu'on ne lui connaissait guère, Ripley va entreprendre de l'aider dans sa lutte contre le désespoir.
L'occasion en est la rencontre du jeune Franck Pierson, fils de milliardaire rongé par un amour malheureux et surtout par un atroce sentiment de remords (il prétend avoir assassiné son père invalide).
Avec une générosité et une chaleur qu'on ne lui connaissait guère, Ripley va entreprendre de l'aider dans sa lutte contre le désespoir.
478 pages, Pocket Book
First published January 1, 1980
306 people are currently reading
6860 people want to read
About the author
Patricia Highsmith
477 books5,134 followersPatricia Highsmith was an American novelist who is known mainly for her psychological crime thrillers which have led to more than two dozen film adaptations over the years.
She lived with her grandmother, mother and later step-father (her mother divorced her natural father six months before 'Patsy' was born and married Stanley Highsmith) in Fort Worth before moving with her parents to New York in 1927 but returned to live with her grandmother for a year in 1933. Returning to her parents in New York, she attended public schools in New York City and later graduated from Barnard College in 1942.
Shortly after graduation her short story 'The Heroine' was published in the Harper's Bazaar magazine and it was selected as one of the 22 best stories that appeared in American magazines in 1945 and it won the O Henry award for short stories in 1946. She continued to write short stories, many of them comic book stories, and regularly earned herself a weekly $55 pay-check. During this period of her life she lived variously in New York and Mexico.
Her first suspense novel 'Strangers on a Train' published in 1950 was an immediate success with public and critics alike. The novel has been adapted for the screen three times, most notably by Alfred Hitchcock in 1951.
In 1955 her anti-hero Tom Ripley appeared in the splendid 'The Talented Mr Ripley', a book that was awarded the Grand Prix de Litterature Policiere as the best foreign mystery novel translated into French in 1957. This book, too, has been the subject of a number of film versions. Ripley appeared again in 'Ripley Under Ground' in 1970, in 'Ripley's Game' in 1974, 'The boy who Followed Ripley' in 1980 and in 'Ripley Under Water' in 1991.
Along with her acclaimed series about Ripley, she wrote 22 novels and eight short story collections plus many other short stories, often macabre, satirical or tinged with black humour. She also wrote one novel, non-mystery, under the name Claire Morgan , plus a work of non-fiction 'Plotting and Writing Suspense Fiction' and a co-written book of children's verse, 'Miranda the Panda Is on the Veranda'.
She latterly lived in England and France and was more popular in England than in her native United States. Her novel 'Deep Water', 1957, was called by the Sunday Times one of the "most brilliant analyses of psychosis in America" and Julian Symons once wrote of her "Miss Highsmith is the writer who fuses character and plot most successfully ... the most important crime novelist at present in practice." In addition, Michael Dirda observed "Europeans honoured her as a psychological novelist, part of an existentialist tradition represented by her own favorite writers, in particular Dostoevsky, Conrad, Kafka, Gide, and Camus."
She died of leukemia in Locarno, Switzerland on 4 February 1995 and her last novel, 'Small g: a Summer Idyll', was published posthumously a month later.
Gerry Wolstenholme
July 2010
She lived with her grandmother, mother and later step-father (her mother divorced her natural father six months before 'Patsy' was born and married Stanley Highsmith) in Fort Worth before moving with her parents to New York in 1927 but returned to live with her grandmother for a year in 1933. Returning to her parents in New York, she attended public schools in New York City and later graduated from Barnard College in 1942.
Shortly after graduation her short story 'The Heroine' was published in the Harper's Bazaar magazine and it was selected as one of the 22 best stories that appeared in American magazines in 1945 and it won the O Henry award for short stories in 1946. She continued to write short stories, many of them comic book stories, and regularly earned herself a weekly $55 pay-check. During this period of her life she lived variously in New York and Mexico.
Her first suspense novel 'Strangers on a Train' published in 1950 was an immediate success with public and critics alike. The novel has been adapted for the screen three times, most notably by Alfred Hitchcock in 1951.
In 1955 her anti-hero Tom Ripley appeared in the splendid 'The Talented Mr Ripley', a book that was awarded the Grand Prix de Litterature Policiere as the best foreign mystery novel translated into French in 1957. This book, too, has been the subject of a number of film versions. Ripley appeared again in 'Ripley Under Ground' in 1970, in 'Ripley's Game' in 1974, 'The boy who Followed Ripley' in 1980 and in 'Ripley Under Water' in 1991.
Along with her acclaimed series about Ripley, she wrote 22 novels and eight short story collections plus many other short stories, often macabre, satirical or tinged with black humour. She also wrote one novel, non-mystery, under the name Claire Morgan , plus a work of non-fiction 'Plotting and Writing Suspense Fiction' and a co-written book of children's verse, 'Miranda the Panda Is on the Veranda'.
She latterly lived in England and France and was more popular in England than in her native United States. Her novel 'Deep Water', 1957, was called by the Sunday Times one of the "most brilliant analyses of psychosis in America" and Julian Symons once wrote of her "Miss Highsmith is the writer who fuses character and plot most successfully ... the most important crime novelist at present in practice." In addition, Michael Dirda observed "Europeans honoured her as a psychological novelist, part of an existentialist tradition represented by her own favorite writers, in particular Dostoevsky, Conrad, Kafka, Gide, and Camus."
She died of leukemia in Locarno, Switzerland on 4 February 1995 and her last novel, 'Small g: a Summer Idyll', was published posthumously a month later.
Gerry Wolstenholme
July 2010
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 476 reviews
February 17, 2016
I was in this Berlin bar the other night called The Glad Ass with my friend the teenaged runaway, and it was so weird, it had only guys in it.* Eventually I was like Ohhhh, I get it, it's a gay bar! Totally accidental that I ended up there. So we went to another bar, me and this boy I've decided to gallivant around Europe with for no particular reason,** and the weirdest thing: it turned out that was a gay bar too! Lots of men in drag! I was like lol, are there even any straight bars in Europe? Later on, it's a long story but it turned out that I had no choice but to dress in drag myself!*** Anyway, then I went home to my lovely rich wife, who was perfectly understanding.****
* "Tom himself was an object of envy for having a nice-looking boy of sixteen in his company."
** "'I don't know when I'll see you again' [said the boy]. The words of a lover, Tom thought."
*** "Tom sat down again before the mirror, and felt in a fantasy world."
**** "The infrequency of their making love didn't seem to bother her at all. Curious...but convenient, for him."
Patricia Highsmith has returned to Tom Ripley, her cash cow, in a plotless and desultory closet-case of a book that uses the word "boring" 32 times. The only fun part is that it's clearly a wish-fulfillment fantasy for gay men who dream of leaving their wives to tour European gay bars with teenaged boys - and yet there isn't a single sentence that admits it. Highsmith is back at home with Tom's wife, cheerfully saying "I like that young friend of yours!" She appears - at least pretends - not to understand the book she's written.
Surely she did understand; she probably knew perfectly well that closeted men were writing her paycheck. But still: this fourth installment was published in 1974, twenty years after The Talented Mr. Ripley. This is the best she could do?
It's all extremely weird, and a little entertaining. This is easily the gayest Ripley book so far, despite its complete lack of on-page sex. (Off-page, those two are boning.) But aside from giggling at how tremendously gay it's pretending not to be, there's frankly nothing to recommend this book. Ripley's sense of fun, like his sexuality, is so far back in the closet that Highsmith has lost it.
* "Tom himself was an object of envy for having a nice-looking boy of sixteen in his company."
** "'I don't know when I'll see you again' [said the boy]. The words of a lover, Tom thought."
*** "Tom sat down again before the mirror, and felt in a fantasy world."
**** "The infrequency of their making love didn't seem to bother her at all. Curious...but convenient, for him."
Patricia Highsmith has returned to Tom Ripley, her cash cow, in a plotless and desultory closet-case of a book that uses the word "boring" 32 times. The only fun part is that it's clearly a wish-fulfillment fantasy for gay men who dream of leaving their wives to tour European gay bars with teenaged boys - and yet there isn't a single sentence that admits it. Highsmith is back at home with Tom's wife, cheerfully saying "I like that young friend of yours!" She appears - at least pretends - not to understand the book she's written.
Surely she did understand; she probably knew perfectly well that closeted men were writing her paycheck. But still: this fourth installment was published in 1974, twenty years after The Talented Mr. Ripley. This is the best she could do?
It's all extremely weird, and a little entertaining. This is easily the gayest Ripley book so far, despite its complete lack of on-page sex. (Off-page, those two are boning.) But aside from giggling at how tremendously gay it's pretending not to be, there's frankly nothing to recommend this book. Ripley's sense of fun, like his sexuality, is so far back in the closet that Highsmith has lost it.
August 5, 2024
Con diferencia, la más aburrida de la saga, realmente soporífera.
December 29, 2022
He could look at Heloise steadily now. It had been strange to try to steer a young life like that, as he had tried - and to have failed. Maybe one day he could admit that to Heloise.
Previously 4-stars, this one dropped to 3-stars on re-reading and that's because of the long stasis at the centre where an odd kidnapping episode suddenly gets inserted. It had been flagged up by Highsmith as a possibility from the start but it does rather derail the far more interesting story of the relationship between Tom Ripley and young Frank, a runaway from the US who feels an affinity with Ripley.
It's a fascinating variation on the other books all of which centre on Ripley's relationships with men: this time Frank is just 16 and Tom tries on paternity, it seems, as he mentors, protects and tries to support the troubled Frank.
With the insertion of Highsmith's political views (far more sympathetic to socialism, though not the USSR/GDR type of regime, than we might expect) and that sojourn in Berlin, this is crucial in the Ripliad arc to our developing understanding of Tom's psyche, and his own sense of self. It's just a shame that it loses momentum in the middle, almost as if PH is flailing around trying to find more plot and to give Ripley the chance to re-enact the amoral and guilt-free killer.
-------------------------------
This episode in the 'Ripliad' continues the reversions and inversions of the previous story as Ripley becomes a kind of mentor to a troubled young man. It's also the most overt about Ripley's gender and sexual ambiguities as he and his acolyte enjoy the decadent night-life of Berlin, complete with gay clubs and drag. Like the previous book, this ends with another kick in the guts - where will Highsmith go from here?
March 11, 2014
Oh, no.
The Boy Who Followed Ripley, judged based on its own merits, is a boring book that has almost no tension or excitement in it whatsoever. I feel blasphemous writing that, especially from just previously finishing the superb Ripley’s Game. This, in fact, is the first Highsmith novel I have actually abandoned (with about fifty pages left to go).
So, what went wrong?
Well, I think this reaffirms my belief that writing any type of series cannot – and will never – be done successfully. There is just no way (if the first in the series is good) to recapture the magic of that original idea. The Ripley novels are no exception, though Highsmith did try her darndest. We go from the outstanding first novel, plummet to the subpar second (Ripley Under Ground), rise exponentially with the third (Ripley’s Game) and now crash headlong into a pile of manure with this one.
It just goes to show that even the greats like Highsmith are not all-powerful and incapable of making mistakes. So, what exactly is my beef with The Boy Who Followed Ripley? There’s an interesting germ of an idea here – Tom Ripley, the amoral sociopath, takes on a young boy almost as an apprentice – but it’s just handled so bloody poorly, and is so boring that I’m genuinely surprised that 1. I didn’t abandon it sooner and 2. That Highsmith even wrote this.
I guess I thought, given the calibre of Highsmith novels that came before, I’d find something to like about this as I kept reading. No, no, no. We go from Belle Ombre, to meeting Frank Pierson, someone who really likes Tom. The start in fact is the most promising part of this novel, for sure. Frank and Tom develop a pretty strong bond, with Heloise even remarking if the two are “faggots”, which is brought up and then never mentioned again.
Long story short, Frank gets kidnapped while they’re in Berlin, and what follows has to be the driest, most uninteresting, unengaging travelogue in any book ever. Gee, I really don’t like writing all this, but it has to be done. What was an annoying constant mentioning and referring of weird German suburbs and names incomprehensible to the average reader at the end of Ripley Under Ground now takes up almost an entire third of the novel, very unfortunately.
Even before Frank is captured, he and Tom go about Berlin, seeing the zoo, going to bars and so on, for like 100 pages. Nothing happens of interest except Highsmith shows off that she has done research about Berlin or has been there extensively. This really is Highsmith’s Achilles heel, and I was willing to overlook it mostly in Ripley Under Ground, but not here. You know that saying in writing - show don’t tell? Well, Highsmith seems to think that constantly telling the reader weird German words like Kruezberg or Glienicker-Brucke or Kurfurstendamm adds anything whatsoever to the story being told.
It doesn’t. At all.
There are very few interesting moments here, and the signature existential meanderings and brokenness of Highsmith characters that I care about are seemingly missing. All we get is a smuggler named Eric Lanz who is creepily welcoming to Tom, and Frank, who does have a darkness in him, but it’s not touched on nearly enough to warrant this book being read.
The entire story really is rescuing Frank from the kidnappers. We see Tom getting all the ransom money from the banks (how exciting), dressing up in drag (wow), and going to the zoo. When Frank comes back they go to France and … here I stopped reading. I did skim to the end, however, and found out Frank kills himself. What the heck?
I guess why I dislike this book so is that it hardly even feels like a Ripley novel. When writing this one Highsmith wanted to show Tom Ripley as a more compassionate person, so we see him … doing his taxes and … trying to save a boy he barely knows, but all that is boring and uninteresting. The character in this book doesn’t even feel anything like the Tom Ripley I’ve come to know and love over the course of three books.
Hell, at least in Ripley Under Ground Tom Ripley felt like Tom Ripley. In this one, he’s almost a “good guy” and that doesn’t work at all. It’s like he kills the kidnappers and does all he does to save Frank, almost like it’s justified, for the greater good. But the exact opposite made the character so compelling, his killings were never that justified or logical, Ripley either killed because a) he wanted to be someone else b) he wanted to protect is illegal business or c) he was just bored of his safe life. The character is unbelievable here, and coupled with Highsmith’s insistence to write a travelogue of almost the entirety of Western Berlin, makes this for a truly unengaging read.
I wish it were different, I really do. I don’t like negatively reviewing an author whom I really respect very much so, but I will not be swayed by that, I must review as objectively as possible, and the objective question I usually ask myself while consuming a piece of media is: Am I enjoying myself, am I having a good time?
And with most Highsmith books the answer is usually, yes, yes I am. But not Boy Who Followed Ripley, in fact, I was hesitant and reluctant to continue reading it, I didn’t want to, because I wasn’t enjoying myself. Sadly, it looks like the end of the road for the Ripley books for me, I do not think I can read the final one, though I just might try, but I think I need a bit of a break from Highsmith after this.
The Boy Who Followed Ripley, judged based on its own merits, is a boring book that has almost no tension or excitement in it whatsoever. I feel blasphemous writing that, especially from just previously finishing the superb Ripley’s Game. This, in fact, is the first Highsmith novel I have actually abandoned (with about fifty pages left to go).
So, what went wrong?
Well, I think this reaffirms my belief that writing any type of series cannot – and will never – be done successfully. There is just no way (if the first in the series is good) to recapture the magic of that original idea. The Ripley novels are no exception, though Highsmith did try her darndest. We go from the outstanding first novel, plummet to the subpar second (Ripley Under Ground), rise exponentially with the third (Ripley’s Game) and now crash headlong into a pile of manure with this one.
It just goes to show that even the greats like Highsmith are not all-powerful and incapable of making mistakes. So, what exactly is my beef with The Boy Who Followed Ripley? There’s an interesting germ of an idea here – Tom Ripley, the amoral sociopath, takes on a young boy almost as an apprentice – but it’s just handled so bloody poorly, and is so boring that I’m genuinely surprised that 1. I didn’t abandon it sooner and 2. That Highsmith even wrote this.
I guess I thought, given the calibre of Highsmith novels that came before, I’d find something to like about this as I kept reading. No, no, no. We go from Belle Ombre, to meeting Frank Pierson, someone who really likes Tom. The start in fact is the most promising part of this novel, for sure. Frank and Tom develop a pretty strong bond, with Heloise even remarking if the two are “faggots”, which is brought up and then never mentioned again.
Long story short, Frank gets kidnapped while they’re in Berlin, and what follows has to be the driest, most uninteresting, unengaging travelogue in any book ever. Gee, I really don’t like writing all this, but it has to be done. What was an annoying constant mentioning and referring of weird German suburbs and names incomprehensible to the average reader at the end of Ripley Under Ground now takes up almost an entire third of the novel, very unfortunately.
Even before Frank is captured, he and Tom go about Berlin, seeing the zoo, going to bars and so on, for like 100 pages. Nothing happens of interest except Highsmith shows off that she has done research about Berlin or has been there extensively. This really is Highsmith’s Achilles heel, and I was willing to overlook it mostly in Ripley Under Ground, but not here. You know that saying in writing - show don’t tell? Well, Highsmith seems to think that constantly telling the reader weird German words like Kruezberg or Glienicker-Brucke or Kurfurstendamm adds anything whatsoever to the story being told.
It doesn’t. At all.
There are very few interesting moments here, and the signature existential meanderings and brokenness of Highsmith characters that I care about are seemingly missing. All we get is a smuggler named Eric Lanz who is creepily welcoming to Tom, and Frank, who does have a darkness in him, but it’s not touched on nearly enough to warrant this book being read.
The entire story really is rescuing Frank from the kidnappers. We see Tom getting all the ransom money from the banks (how exciting), dressing up in drag (wow), and going to the zoo. When Frank comes back they go to France and … here I stopped reading. I did skim to the end, however, and found out Frank kills himself. What the heck?
I guess why I dislike this book so is that it hardly even feels like a Ripley novel. When writing this one Highsmith wanted to show Tom Ripley as a more compassionate person, so we see him … doing his taxes and … trying to save a boy he barely knows, but all that is boring and uninteresting. The character in this book doesn’t even feel anything like the Tom Ripley I’ve come to know and love over the course of three books.
Hell, at least in Ripley Under Ground Tom Ripley felt like Tom Ripley. In this one, he’s almost a “good guy” and that doesn’t work at all. It’s like he kills the kidnappers and does all he does to save Frank, almost like it’s justified, for the greater good. But the exact opposite made the character so compelling, his killings were never that justified or logical, Ripley either killed because a) he wanted to be someone else b) he wanted to protect is illegal business or c) he was just bored of his safe life. The character is unbelievable here, and coupled with Highsmith’s insistence to write a travelogue of almost the entirety of Western Berlin, makes this for a truly unengaging read.
I wish it were different, I really do. I don’t like negatively reviewing an author whom I really respect very much so, but I will not be swayed by that, I must review as objectively as possible, and the objective question I usually ask myself while consuming a piece of media is: Am I enjoying myself, am I having a good time?
And with most Highsmith books the answer is usually, yes, yes I am. But not Boy Who Followed Ripley, in fact, I was hesitant and reluctant to continue reading it, I didn’t want to, because I wasn’t enjoying myself. Sadly, it looks like the end of the road for the Ripley books for me, I do not think I can read the final one, though I just might try, but I think I need a bit of a break from Highsmith after this.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
April 26, 2024
09/2019
From 1980
I feel terrible giving this such a low rating, because I love it. I think the plot is terrific, but after a hundred pages it just gets... so long... boring... slow. I read this before, and the length apparently didn't bother me. But, on my second readings of Highsmith, after a decade (more now), I got stuck on her weird slowness. I can think of three of her books that move fast with fairly lively plots (one being the Talented Mr. Ripley, of course). I like following Ripley in his interesting European post-Dickie Greenleaf life, but it's like, move it along a little.
From 1980
I feel terrible giving this such a low rating, because I love it. I think the plot is terrific, but after a hundred pages it just gets... so long... boring... slow. I read this before, and the length apparently didn't bother me. But, on my second readings of Highsmith, after a decade (more now), I got stuck on her weird slowness. I can think of three of her books that move fast with fairly lively plots (one being the Talented Mr. Ripley, of course). I like following Ripley in his interesting European post-Dickie Greenleaf life, but it's like, move it along a little.
December 7, 2015
"We live in the age of the refugee, the age of the exile."
-- Ariel Dorfman
This was a slippery Highsmith. Ripley coldly floats between two steep cliffs. He isn't necessarily a likable or even sympathetic narrator, but still manages to be someone it is natural to root for.
With the first three books in the Riplad, I bought into the idea that Tom Ripley was absolutely amoral. But that expecation, that setup, makes this novel seem even more crafty. Highsmith bends genders, flips expecations, dodges emotions, transforms motives, etc., and almost clones Ripley with Frank.
Probably the most disturbing character in the whole series is Tom's wife Heloise. I can sympathize Tom's amorality easy enough, but I just can't UNDERSTAND Heloise. While nothing about her is directly creepy, it is like Highsmith is using Heloise to point a finger at the West or perhaps at the reader.
-- Ariel Dorfman
This was a slippery Highsmith. Ripley coldly floats between two steep cliffs. He isn't necessarily a likable or even sympathetic narrator, but still manages to be someone it is natural to root for.
With the first three books in the Riplad, I bought into the idea that Tom Ripley was absolutely amoral. But that expecation, that setup, makes this novel seem even more crafty. Highsmith bends genders, flips expecations, dodges emotions, transforms motives, etc., and almost clones Ripley with Frank.
Probably the most disturbing character in the whole series is Tom's wife Heloise. I can sympathize Tom's amorality easy enough, but I just can't UNDERSTAND Heloise. While nothing about her is directly creepy, it is like Highsmith is using Heloise to point a finger at the West or perhaps at the reader.
August 11, 2022
The Boy Who Followed Ripley, the fourth of five in Patricia Smith’s thriller series, is almost universally seen as the weakest of the group, but it is still good, well written, with much to offer, though it is too long for what it accomplishes, and has its share of disappointments. Ultimately, few sequels can match a masterpiece first book.
As the book opens Tom is dealing with a serious problem of carpenter ants, a nasty problem for a man of leisure who gardens daily and is taking harpsichord lessons twice a week. Then Frank Pierson, the 16-year-old (rich) son of an American acquaintance visits, adoring (the rich) Tom, wanting to be everything he sees Tom is--his taste in music and art and food is exquisite! We understand!--and he shares a terrible secret, that he has committed [a terrible crime] and needs to talk about it. There are two basic types of killers in Highsmith: 1) Good men who on impulse or pushed the limit, do dastardly deeds, and 2) psychopaths. This brings the two types together, with Tom (the psychopath) trying to mentor the young Frank (a young kid who does a bad thing) into the world of amorality.
Tom gets Frank out of town when it is clear his family is trying to find him, and so the two men go to Berlin, where they see the sights, go to gay bars, and Frank is (spoiler alert) kidnapped though Tom--doing his own little bit of predictable damage along the way--frees him and returns him to America, where there is a dramatic conclusion I wasn't sure what to think of it.
At several points over the years Highsmith had denied Tom Ripley was gay, though it certainly seems he is at least bisexual in The Talented Mr. Ripley, the first Ripley book. As if to mess with us, or finally confirm the suspicions of fans, Tom, in Berlin, takes Frank to gay bars, and “under cover” during the kidnapping Tom dresses in drag. There’s no actual sex in the book and no deep homo-erotic reflections, but at one point Tom muses that he feels very much like he is most himself when in disguise. It frees him, he thinks. Frank confesses that he has had only one unsuccessful sexual experience with his girlfriend Teresa, and Tom also reveals to us that he very rarely has sex with his wife Heloise, who seems to kid Tom as the two leave when she asks if they are “faggots.” In the end, is Frank more upset about his estrangement from Teresa or Tom? We are left to debate this sexual identity question over, say, a glass of Scotch?
Ultimately, Highsmith may be right, though; Tom may be more asexual than anything else. As a psychopath, he admits he has never had any guilt over the murders he has committed. No typical emotions, I mean. And sex just doesn’t seem to interest him. But it is true that disguise and sexual identity, performing it in drag, are wedded here in interesting ways.
This is a good book, but I still thought this was the weakest of the Ripliad. It’s too long, and not enough happens to justify the length. And Ripley here isn’t as deliciously evil as in other books, as he seems to actually care about Tom as a person. Huh??! I assign it three stars, but that’s really more just making a distinction with the other Ripley books. It’s still very good writing and engaging.
PS: I like the fact that in each Ripley book the forged “Derwood” paintings are mentioned, the work he has been defrauding the public with, fake “lost” paintings he had an artist paint as if by a reclusive artist, who is in fact dead.
As the book opens Tom is dealing with a serious problem of carpenter ants, a nasty problem for a man of leisure who gardens daily and is taking harpsichord lessons twice a week. Then Frank Pierson, the 16-year-old (rich) son of an American acquaintance visits, adoring (the rich) Tom, wanting to be everything he sees Tom is--his taste in music and art and food is exquisite! We understand!--and he shares a terrible secret, that he has committed [a terrible crime] and needs to talk about it. There are two basic types of killers in Highsmith: 1) Good men who on impulse or pushed the limit, do dastardly deeds, and 2) psychopaths. This brings the two types together, with Tom (the psychopath) trying to mentor the young Frank (a young kid who does a bad thing) into the world of amorality.
Tom gets Frank out of town when it is clear his family is trying to find him, and so the two men go to Berlin, where they see the sights, go to gay bars, and Frank is (spoiler alert) kidnapped though Tom--doing his own little bit of predictable damage along the way--frees him and returns him to America, where there is a dramatic conclusion I wasn't sure what to think of it.
At several points over the years Highsmith had denied Tom Ripley was gay, though it certainly seems he is at least bisexual in The Talented Mr. Ripley, the first Ripley book. As if to mess with us, or finally confirm the suspicions of fans, Tom, in Berlin, takes Frank to gay bars, and “under cover” during the kidnapping Tom dresses in drag. There’s no actual sex in the book and no deep homo-erotic reflections, but at one point Tom muses that he feels very much like he is most himself when in disguise. It frees him, he thinks. Frank confesses that he has had only one unsuccessful sexual experience with his girlfriend Teresa, and Tom also reveals to us that he very rarely has sex with his wife Heloise, who seems to kid Tom as the two leave when she asks if they are “faggots.” In the end, is Frank more upset about his estrangement from Teresa or Tom? We are left to debate this sexual identity question over, say, a glass of Scotch?
Ultimately, Highsmith may be right, though; Tom may be more asexual than anything else. As a psychopath, he admits he has never had any guilt over the murders he has committed. No typical emotions, I mean. And sex just doesn’t seem to interest him. But it is true that disguise and sexual identity, performing it in drag, are wedded here in interesting ways.
This is a good book, but I still thought this was the weakest of the Ripliad. It’s too long, and not enough happens to justify the length. And Ripley here isn’t as deliciously evil as in other books, as he seems to actually care about Tom as a person. Huh??! I assign it three stars, but that’s really more just making a distinction with the other Ripley books. It’s still very good writing and engaging.
PS: I like the fact that in each Ripley book the forged “Derwood” paintings are mentioned, the work he has been defrauding the public with, fake “lost” paintings he had an artist paint as if by a reclusive artist, who is in fact dead.
December 15, 2016
2.5*
The Boy Who Followed Ripley, published in 1980, is the 4th book in the Tom Ripley series, and seems to be quite different to the other installments.
In this one, Tom is sought out in his home in France by an American teenage runaway who asks him for a job. Tom agrees to hire him as a help in the garden. As they get to know each other, Tom learns more about the reasons why Billy/Frank ran away from home and sees some similarities between himself and the boy.
Then the story takes a turn that leads us to follow the two to Berlin where Billy/Frank is kidnapped.......
This book seriously had me scratching my head - I don't even know where to start taking this apart: Should I start with the obvious flaw? Yes? OK - plot holes. So, so, many of them and they start right at the beginning. Why did Billy/Frank seek out Tom? Why does he tell him his motivations? Why do they need to go to Berlin? How do they end up in the gay bar scene? (I mean, I get why, so the question is really how?) Why the kidnapping? And here I'm really puzzled as to how this would even be practicable....... I have so, so many questions. Very little of this book made sense. Least of all the Frank's letter.
Did Highsmith write this one purely for the money? I mean, there are a lot of details about the French tax authorities in this book that sound similar to what Highsmith was dealing with. Her relations with the French tax authorities were, erm, "strained", so maybe that was one of the motivations for the book.
However, there was also something rather mellow in the way that Tom looked after Frank and in that Tom seemed to have a lot more patience for other people than in the first book. (I have not yet read books 2 and 3.) And something about this more personable side seemed to reflect something of the author. At least, it seemed to reflect some of what my impression is about the author after reading a few of her books, and this made The Boy Who Followed Ripley still somewhat intriguing.
Andrew Wilson (in Beautiful Shadow: A Life of Patricia Highsmith) notes that Highsmith conceived the idea of this book after she had to deal with inheritance issues, and that she wrote to her editor that she wanted to explore the theme of legacy. I do believe this does indeed come across in the book - on one hand we have Frank and his father and brother, who are one line of legacy and on the other we have the similar personae of Tom and Frank. The central point of issue being that The Boy Who Followed Ripley actually rejects Tom's motivations as strongly as he rejects the motivations of his own family - both of them being financial gain.
I honestly don't know what to make of the book. On one hand there there are certainly some interesting themes - Ripley's morals, questions about gender/sexuality, the topic of legacy - but on the other hand, the lack of flow of the book and the rocky plot make it bit of a chore to read.
The Boy Who Followed Ripley, published in 1980, is the 4th book in the Tom Ripley series, and seems to be quite different to the other installments.
In this one, Tom is sought out in his home in France by an American teenage runaway who asks him for a job. Tom agrees to hire him as a help in the garden. As they get to know each other, Tom learns more about the reasons why Billy/Frank ran away from home and sees some similarities between himself and the boy.
Then the story takes a turn that leads us to follow the two to Berlin where Billy/Frank is kidnapped.......
This book seriously had me scratching my head - I don't even know where to start taking this apart: Should I start with the obvious flaw? Yes? OK - plot holes. So, so, many of them and they start right at the beginning. Why did Billy/Frank seek out Tom? Why does he tell him his motivations? Why do they need to go to Berlin? How do they end up in the gay bar scene? (I mean, I get why, so the question is really how?) Why the kidnapping? And here I'm really puzzled as to how this would even be practicable....... I have so, so many questions. Very little of this book made sense. Least of all the Frank's letter.
Did Highsmith write this one purely for the money? I mean, there are a lot of details about the French tax authorities in this book that sound similar to what Highsmith was dealing with. Her relations with the French tax authorities were, erm, "strained", so maybe that was one of the motivations for the book.
However, there was also something rather mellow in the way that Tom looked after Frank and in that Tom seemed to have a lot more patience for other people than in the first book. (I have not yet read books 2 and 3.) And something about this more personable side seemed to reflect something of the author. At least, it seemed to reflect some of what my impression is about the author after reading a few of her books, and this made The Boy Who Followed Ripley still somewhat intriguing.
Andrew Wilson (in Beautiful Shadow: A Life of Patricia Highsmith) notes that Highsmith conceived the idea of this book after she had to deal with inheritance issues, and that she wrote to her editor that she wanted to explore the theme of legacy. I do believe this does indeed come across in the book - on one hand we have Frank and his father and brother, who are one line of legacy and on the other we have the similar personae of Tom and Frank. The central point of issue being that The Boy Who Followed Ripley actually rejects Tom's motivations as strongly as he rejects the motivations of his own family - both of them being financial gain.
I honestly don't know what to make of the book. On one hand there there are certainly some interesting themes - Ripley's morals, questions about gender/sexuality, the topic of legacy - but on the other hand, the lack of flow of the book and the rocky plot make it bit of a chore to read.
August 15, 2022
Tom Ripley in drag. A boy with a “dark secret.” As gay as The Ripliad gets.
February 21, 2012
I think I was about 14 pages in before I said to myself, "wow, Patricia Highsmith was a talented writer." It was clear almost instantly that this was a different type of Ripley book but the way she writes meant that it didn't matter. Her understanding of Tom Ripley and her ability to set the tone and atmosphere of a novel means that it doesn't matter whether his behaviour is that of a sociopath or murderer or curious old man or kindly uncle or bag lady as it's almost impossible not to enjoy it.
I can appreciate why some people are of the opinion that this is the weakest Ripley novel to date and perhaps as a standalone title it might well be considered such BUT as a further chronicle in the life of one of great anti-heroes of contemporary literature this is pretty damned enjoyable.
Tom is growing old, mellow; his attempts to become a mentor allow us to explore this growth/change in his personality and led to perhaps one of my favourite sequences in the series in the sexual underbelly of West Berlin. It also allows us to share loss with him, something that he had never felt before, which from a sociopath is rare and signifies that perhaps he has finally started to find a peace and happiness in his life. If you'd told me that Highsmith would write this book and this development after the devastating arrival of Tom in The Talented Mr. Ripley I probably wouldn't have believed you but now having read it nothing feels more natural.
I had a few issues with the chronology of the series here. The book is clearly set in 1979, 24 years after the first Ripley novel but he hasn't aged much at all, especially considering that he points out Heloise as being 28 or 29. Before this novel I would've been unable to really place the stories but Highsmith seems to ahve gone out of her way to place this novel at a certain time; the mention of Christopher And His Kind, references to the visit of Jimmy Carter to Berlin in 1978 amongst others deliberately placed in the text only served to drag me out of the story and question the reality of the world she was writing in.
Small things but something I would've expected someone as talented as Ms Highsmith to have noticed and fixed. Only one Tom Ripley book left and then I shall allow myself to read other of her works.
I can appreciate why some people are of the opinion that this is the weakest Ripley novel to date and perhaps as a standalone title it might well be considered such BUT as a further chronicle in the life of one of great anti-heroes of contemporary literature this is pretty damned enjoyable.
Tom is growing old, mellow; his attempts to become a mentor allow us to explore this growth/change in his personality and led to perhaps one of my favourite sequences in the series in the sexual underbelly of West Berlin. It also allows us to share loss with him, something that he had never felt before, which from a sociopath is rare and signifies that perhaps he has finally started to find a peace and happiness in his life. If you'd told me that Highsmith would write this book and this development after the devastating arrival of Tom in The Talented Mr. Ripley I probably wouldn't have believed you but now having read it nothing feels more natural.
I had a few issues with the chronology of the series here. The book is clearly set in 1979, 24 years after the first Ripley novel but he hasn't aged much at all, especially considering that he points out Heloise as being 28 or 29. Before this novel I would've been unable to really place the stories but Highsmith seems to ahve gone out of her way to place this novel at a certain time; the mention of Christopher And His Kind, references to the visit of Jimmy Carter to Berlin in 1978 amongst others deliberately placed in the text only served to drag me out of the story and question the reality of the world she was writing in.
Small things but something I would've expected someone as talented as Ms Highsmith to have noticed and fixed. Only one Tom Ripley book left and then I shall allow myself to read other of her works.
November 11, 2016
I think the end of this book, which is tragic and horrible, is prefigured in the beginning. Frank Pierson, sixteen years old and hiding a terrible secret, seeks out Tom Ripley in France, having read about him and feeling a kinship with him. Frank is only just hanging on to life, though he does a good job of pretending otherwise. I went for long stretches of time hovering between fearing that Frank was even more of a sociopath than Tom and meant him ill, and fearing that Frank wasn't going to make it. It's interesting to see Tom in a more paternal role, which he's not suited for--or at any rate, it seems odd for him to be willing to take on that role. There were hints of it in Ripley's Game, in his attitude toward Jonathan Trevenny, but this goes far beyond that.
The rest deals with the ending:
I find the descriptions of these books really amusing. There's "In a mesmerizing novel that coolly subverts all traditional notions of literary justice, Ripley enthralls us even as we watch him perform acts of pure and unspeakable evil," which makes him sound like a puppy-killer, and "This quietly terrifying exploration of trust and friendship," neither of which really describes the books or Tom Ripley. It makes me think the people writing these blurbs are either trying to pump the novels up, or have a strange idea of what justice and evil are. I suppose if you're reading these as literary fiction and not as thrillers, those descriptions might be true. But the truth is that Tom is an engaging character because his "acts of evil" serve a larger purpose. And nowhere is that better evident than in this book.
The rest deals with the ending:
I find the descriptions of these books really amusing. There's "In a mesmerizing novel that coolly subverts all traditional notions of literary justice, Ripley enthralls us even as we watch him perform acts of pure and unspeakable evil," which makes him sound like a puppy-killer, and "This quietly terrifying exploration of trust and friendship," neither of which really describes the books or Tom Ripley. It makes me think the people writing these blurbs are either trying to pump the novels up, or have a strange idea of what justice and evil are. I suppose if you're reading these as literary fiction and not as thrillers, those descriptions might be true. But the truth is that Tom is an engaging character because his "acts of evil" serve a larger purpose. And nowhere is that better evident than in this book.
July 30, 2021
The Boy Who Followed Ripley (1980) (Ripley #4) is my least favourite of the Ripley books. Thomas Ripley remains a fascinating and compelling character but the plot here is curiously bereft of tension or drama. Tom's customary lack of morality, sociopathic tendecies and calculating certainty are all missing.
The eponymous boy is a 16 year old American who is the runaway son of a tycoon. Tom sees a lot of himself in the lad, or thinks he does. Tom spends time with him and attempts to fulfil a paternalistic mentor role.
The positives are Patricia Highsmith's splendid evocation of Cold War Berlin and further exploration of Tom's ambiguous sexuality. Highsmith has fun getting Tom visting gay bars and into drag as a part of a convuluted plan to foil some kidnappers. The supporting cast constains some interesting characters too: the return of Reeves with his shady underworld connections, enigmatic East German driver Peter, and Eric, another shady German. Oh and Lou Reed's classic Transformer LP keeps reappearing too.
Sadly the plot bares very little scrutiny. Why does the boy turn up out of the blue? Why are the kidnappers so woefully incompetent? Why do Frank's family happily hand over a $2 million cash ransom to Tom given his dubious reputation? Why is Heloise, Tom's wife, so extraordinarily accepting of her husband's unpredictable and erratic behaviour? These questions are just the tip of the iceberg. The ending is both predictable and underwhelming.
That said, because I am now so invested in the Ripley character and the series I am prepared to overlook the incoherent plot and pedestrian story however I hope that Ripley Under Water (Ripley #5), the fifth and final installment of the Ripliad, is a return to form.
3/5
The eponymous boy is a 16 year old American who is the runaway son of a tycoon. Tom sees a lot of himself in the lad, or thinks he does. Tom spends time with him and attempts to fulfil a paternalistic mentor role.
The positives are Patricia Highsmith's splendid evocation of Cold War Berlin and further exploration of Tom's ambiguous sexuality. Highsmith has fun getting Tom visting gay bars and into drag as a part of a convuluted plan to foil some kidnappers. The supporting cast constains some interesting characters too: the return of Reeves with his shady underworld connections, enigmatic East German driver Peter, and Eric, another shady German. Oh and Lou Reed's classic Transformer LP keeps reappearing too.
Sadly the plot bares very little scrutiny. Why does the boy turn up out of the blue? Why are the kidnappers so woefully incompetent? Why do Frank's family happily hand over a $2 million cash ransom to Tom given his dubious reputation? Why is Heloise, Tom's wife, so extraordinarily accepting of her husband's unpredictable and erratic behaviour? These questions are just the tip of the iceberg. The ending is both predictable and underwhelming.
That said, because I am now so invested in the Ripley character and the series I am prepared to overlook the incoherent plot and pedestrian story however I hope that Ripley Under Water (Ripley #5), the fifth and final installment of the Ripliad, is a return to form.
3/5
June 20, 2019
I'm pretty sure that Highsmith was really tired of people asking her if Tom Ripley was gay. So she wrote this book.
Her answer? No, not in practice. She's a wonderful author and took an entire book to say it.
I loved this book. It's quite different than the other Ripley books. It shows a different side of Tom. It's his mid-life crisis and his longing for passion in his life. He's reflective and a marvelously unreliable narrator.
Her answer? No, not in practice. She's a wonderful author and took an entire book to say it.
I loved this book. It's quite different than the other Ripley books. It shows a different side of Tom. It's his mid-life crisis and his longing for passion in his life. He's reflective and a marvelously unreliable narrator.
March 26, 2026
Every mistake in life, Tom thought, had to be met by an attitude, either the right attitude or the wrong one, a constructive or self-destructive attitude. What was tragedy for one man was not for another, if he could assume the right attitude toward it.It's been a long while since I was in Ripley's company. I found it intriguing to be back there.
I'd read the first three of Highsmith's Ripley novels - and somehow just never got around to the other two. Now I've read Book #4. If I had enjoyed it even a tiny bit more, it's likely I'd've given it a higher mark - but I was pulled in to a high-enough degree... enough to realize that others intrigued by Ripley would want to continue along with the tale.
The main 'drawback' here is that this entry is more leisurely in its approach. There are sections which seem to needlessly slow up the pacing. Still... we are always smack-dab in Ripley's mind, and that manages to keep us captured.
The title can seem to have a double meaning. We're aware of the first, more common meaning almost immediately, as The Boy (Billy) walks behind Ripley when the latter leaves a bar near his home in France. Later, it will become apparent that Billy is something of a mirror image to Ripley, something perhaps following in the shadow of his reputation.
Ripley quickly takes the boy under his fraternal wing. But, even though Highsmith herself was gay and there has always been something gay-adjacent about Ripley, there's nothing at all homoerotic going on between Ripley and Billy. It's almost as though, through Billy, Ripley wishes to make some sort of amends for his own past / murderous behavior.
~ which, in itself, is peculiar since Ripley's character isn't one that leans towards guilt. Still, Ripley knows himself well enough to know that his type of duplicity may be unique to him, and that others are likely to be prone to remorse.
This novel takes more of an in-depth look at Ripley's marriage to Heloise - and perhaps we realize more fully what a 'lucky dog' he really is:
Sometimes Heloise half-understood what was going on, and the half that she did not know she didn't want to know.Heloise isn't totally unaffected emotionally but at the same time she seems secure in the belief that Ripley, in his own oblique way, loves her... as much as such a thing is possible for him (considering sexuality is the least of his concerns).
The story is not overrun with action but what there is certainly suffices. More specifically, the narrative's centerpiece - involving an abduction - affords Highsmith something of a creative coup. In an extended sequence that highlights Ripley dressing in drag (!) to throw the bad guys off the scent, Highsmith concocts what, to me, read as one of the funniest scenes the author has ever written, esp. funny for something having to do with possible murder. I can't but think that Highsmith was having... a 'gay' ol' time!
As well, a few subordinate characters are blended into the mix to give Ripley the kind of unexpected support that makes his path smooth. A few of these 'associates' are refreshingly / obviously gay; a few others, like Ripley, have a more shadowy (if existent) sexuality.
Highsmith's descriptive prowess - whether it's covering the windmills of Ripley's mind or the geographical details of France / Germany / Northeast US - is impressive. The tone and mood may be languid but the author is always alert with Ripley's thoughts and the specifics of his surroundings.
So I enjoyed this more than I expected to... and I did find where it all leads to surprising.
July 28, 2014
Wow, Highsmith throws you yet another curve-ball with this novel. Some of the peer reviews here discount this entry in the series but I think they misunderstand what Highsmith was up to here and drastically underrate it. Despite all appearances, I hesitate to even call it a crime novel. A young American boy, Frank, the heir of a very wealthy family, kills his father and flees to France to hide from his guilt, though everyone thinks it was either an accident or suicide. But Frank knows better. Frank looks up Tom because he read about him during the Derwatt art-fraud affair (Frank's father even owns one of the forged paintings) and does follow-up research on Tom regarding the Dickie Greenleaf affair, and Frank has decided to tell Tom everything about his own crime. Tom takes an interest in the boy and keeps him at his house, then goes with him to Berlin in an effort to entertain the boy and persuade him to go back home to his family. Frank's picture is in the news though, and a bunch of German kidnappers snatch him from Tom. With the usual mix of wit and luck Tom manages to get Frank back. But this typical crime-fiction plot description really only covers a portion of what the novel is all about. This is more of an existentialist novel, a rumination upon the nature of responsibility and guilt and even mortality, upon what it means to human. The young man stirs some semblance of emotions in Tom Ripley that he has never felt before and he actually cares for and strives to help the boy weather his existential crisis. But Tom is ultimately unable to help Frank through his crisis of conscience, since he has never had much of a conscience himself and thinks this is little more than a phase through which the boy will pass with a little understanding and assistance. In addition, this is probably the closest Tom Ripley ever comes to facing his latent homosexuality, as he arranges to meet the kidnappers at a gay bar for the ransom drop and proceeds to go there disguised in drag for the purpose of tailing them to their lair. This sequence is outrageous! If I were to judge this purely as crime fiction, I might not rate it among the best, but I actually suspect that this is the greatest work of art Highsmith ever produced. (Oh, and dig those references to Lou Reed and The Ramones!)
April 18, 2024
Ależ mam problem z oceną tej części!
Na początku byłam gotowa powiedzieć, że Highsmith wróciła na dobre tory i po nieco słabszych poprzednich tomach cofamy się do interesującej fabuły pokroju Utalentowanego Pana Ripleya – zaiste poczułam się zaintrygowana historią młodego chłopca, który przykleja się do Toma, a wygląda na to, że może być tak dobrym kłamcą i oszustem, jak sam tytułowy bohater. Więc faktycznie, czy będzie to obserwacja powstawania następcy? A może uświadomienie sobie własnych złych czynów przez Toma i próba uratowania chłopca?
Niestety z czasem odkryłam, że Ripley nie jest już tym bohaterem, który intrygował nas w pierwszych tomach. Ba, tu jest kompletnie do siebie niepodobny, chce ratować i pomagać innym, płaci podatki... No okay, zmiana, metamorfoza. Ale jednocześnie postać staje się mdła, a jego opisywane podróże wtrącające obco brzmiące słowa – nudne.
Ah, no i dostajemy tu dość wyraźne sygnały co do orientacji Toma. Ale znowu, nie w pełni. Wiadomo, książka powstawała w innych czasach, autorka starała się więc sugerować, rzucać aluzje, ale nigdzie nie potwierdza, by Ripley był homoseksualny. Więc skręca to trochę w stronę współczesnych fanfików, serialowego Sherlocka i Johna i ogólnego queerbaitingu.
Na początku byłam gotowa powiedzieć, że Highsmith wróciła na dobre tory i po nieco słabszych poprzednich tomach cofamy się do interesującej fabuły pokroju Utalentowanego Pana Ripleya – zaiste poczułam się zaintrygowana historią młodego chłopca, który przykleja się do Toma, a wygląda na to, że może być tak dobrym kłamcą i oszustem, jak sam tytułowy bohater. Więc faktycznie, czy będzie to obserwacja powstawania następcy? A może uświadomienie sobie własnych złych czynów przez Toma i próba uratowania chłopca?
Niestety z czasem odkryłam, że Ripley nie jest już tym bohaterem, który intrygował nas w pierwszych tomach. Ba, tu jest kompletnie do siebie niepodobny, chce ratować i pomagać innym, płaci podatki... No okay, zmiana, metamorfoza. Ale jednocześnie postać staje się mdła, a jego opisywane podróże wtrącające obco brzmiące słowa – nudne.
Ah, no i dostajemy tu dość wyraźne sygnały co do orientacji Toma. Ale znowu, nie w pełni. Wiadomo, książka powstawała w innych czasach, autorka starała się więc sugerować, rzucać aluzje, ale nigdzie nie potwierdza, by Ripley był homoseksualny. Więc skręca to trochę w stronę współczesnych fanfików, serialowego Sherlocka i Johna i ogólnego queerbaitingu.
February 19, 2022
Just as intriguing as the first 3 books in the series and suspenseful.
March 26, 2019
He shouldn't'a done that!
The boy, I mean ;)
Another compelling entry in the series. Really interesting to see how "the boy" will "follow" Ripley—in what way does Highsmith mean this? Frank Pierson turns out to be an interesting character foil, revealing even more psychological insight about Ripley himself—which is what the universe, according to Ripley, is ultimately about, of course ;) (How does she make a character, who is so compelled by himself, so compelling?)
I read that they're turning these novels into a TV series!! Can't wait! Although there's debate about whether or not they're going to "make Tom gay." UGH. They make it sound like a creative choice to please an audience rather than a genuine analysis of the text. In which case you know what they're going to do, which is to "make Tom gay", because, applying Rowling's law, everything that can be gay will be gay. Including me, in case you thought I was being offensive/flippant :P But seriously, who would want it "just because"? Not me.
I think sociopaths are sexually ambivalent. That is, they don't care where their pleasure is coming from. Tom obviously doesn't have high regard for other people at all. He can admire them and want what they have for himself, but that's not the same as affection.
I even think that Tom's wife, Heloise, is more sociopathic than he is. She seems somewhat aware of his crimes, other times no, but it's often very easy to get her out of the picture when some sort of illicit thing has to go down—and not because she's not paying attention but because she genuinely doesn't give a shit either way. Theirs is not a marriage but a dual manipulation. In Jon Ronson's The Psychopath Test, I think it was, he mentions how Sissy Spacek's character in the film Badlands is the quintessential psychopath, even though her boyfriend is the one with violent tendencies. I think it's something similar here.
But the idea of making someone who at times appears to be attracted to men "sexually ambivalent", in this day and age, might be criticised for "gay/bi erasure" if the character is not explicitly outed as something.
Say they do go for the ambiguous or ambivalent approach, it'll be difficult to convince an audience that that's what's going on anyway. From my own writing experience, if I make a character have sex with someone of their own sex, most readers automatically assume homosexuality. Probably because they could never imagine themselves sleeping with the same sex unless they were homosexual, which is stupid because that may be the most common case, but we all know that boredom, curiosity and "what the hell" sometimes suffice. But a lot of people (men) don't like the idea of succumbing to these occasional temptations, so they have to categorise acts they perceive as uncomfortable as "done by others."
By the way, AS A GAY MAN I don't enjoy having to offer so many gay takes—but when I encounter ignorance or confusion I feel obliged. I just hope no one doubles down on their gay ignorance by then labelling me a gay author for doing so!! (I have at least like two other dimensions: engineer, likes cats and so on.)
The boy, I mean ;)
Another compelling entry in the series. Really interesting to see how "the boy" will "follow" Ripley—in what way does Highsmith mean this? Frank Pierson turns out to be an interesting character foil, revealing even more psychological insight about Ripley himself—which is what the universe, according to Ripley, is ultimately about, of course ;) (How does she make a character, who is so compelled by himself, so compelling?)
I read that they're turning these novels into a TV series!! Can't wait! Although there's debate about whether or not they're going to "make Tom gay." UGH. They make it sound like a creative choice to please an audience rather than a genuine analysis of the text. In which case you know what they're going to do, which is to "make Tom gay", because, applying Rowling's law, everything that can be gay will be gay. Including me, in case you thought I was being offensive/flippant :P But seriously, who would want it "just because"? Not me.
I think sociopaths are sexually ambivalent. That is, they don't care where their pleasure is coming from. Tom obviously doesn't have high regard for other people at all. He can admire them and want what they have for himself, but that's not the same as affection.
I even think that Tom's wife, Heloise, is more sociopathic than he is. She seems somewhat aware of his crimes, other times no, but it's often very easy to get her out of the picture when some sort of illicit thing has to go down—and not because she's not paying attention but because she genuinely doesn't give a shit either way. Theirs is not a marriage but a dual manipulation. In Jon Ronson's The Psychopath Test, I think it was, he mentions how Sissy Spacek's character in the film Badlands is the quintessential psychopath, even though her boyfriend is the one with violent tendencies. I think it's something similar here.
But the idea of making someone who at times appears to be attracted to men "sexually ambivalent", in this day and age, might be criticised for "gay/bi erasure" if the character is not explicitly outed as something.
Say they do go for the ambiguous or ambivalent approach, it'll be difficult to convince an audience that that's what's going on anyway. From my own writing experience, if I make a character have sex with someone of their own sex, most readers automatically assume homosexuality. Probably because they could never imagine themselves sleeping with the same sex unless they were homosexual, which is stupid because that may be the most common case, but we all know that boredom, curiosity and "what the hell" sometimes suffice. But a lot of people (men) don't like the idea of succumbing to these occasional temptations, so they have to categorise acts they perceive as uncomfortable as "done by others."
By the way, AS A GAY MAN I don't enjoy having to offer so many gay takes—but when I encounter ignorance or confusion I feel obliged. I just hope no one doubles down on their gay ignorance by then labelling me a gay author for doing so!! (I have at least like two other dimensions: engineer, likes cats and so on.)
February 12, 2015
The Boy Who Followed Ripley (1980) was, I am very sorry to say, a bit of an ordeal. If it had been anyone other than Patricia Highsmith I think I would have stuck to my fifty pages rule and jumped ship! The story had potential but Highsmith just meanders and rambles on, giving us page after page of detail about the most inconsequential details of domestic life. There is also a strange sexual ambiguity about Ripley’s association with Frank, the boy of the title, which I found repetitious and annoying. Highsmith seems to find it amusing to place Ripley with Frank in gay bars, or having to share a three-quarters bed; Ripley actually dresses up in drag at one point. The only action in the book is confined to one short rather poorly set up section of the story; it’s never really explained why Ripley suddenly acts on impulse quite in the way he does. Here’s a (mercifully) brief example of some of the superfluous prose Highsmith subjects us to in this book:
"Antoine and Heloise exchanged French kisses at the door, smacks on the cheek, one, two. Tom hated it. Not French kisses in the American sense, certainly nothing sexy about them, just damned silly."
I had planned on completing what is known to Highsmith fans as the Ripliad but this book has put me off the idea; also the reviews on Goodreads for the final book Ripley Under Water would suggest it’s little better than its predecessor. So I think I’ll bail out on Ripley and concentrate on discovering Highsmith’s earlier more celebrated books.
"Antoine and Heloise exchanged French kisses at the door, smacks on the cheek, one, two. Tom hated it. Not French kisses in the American sense, certainly nothing sexy about them, just damned silly."
I had planned on completing what is known to Highsmith fans as the Ripliad but this book has put me off the idea; also the reviews on Goodreads for the final book Ripley Under Water would suggest it’s little better than its predecessor. So I think I’ll bail out on Ripley and concentrate on discovering Highsmith’s earlier more celebrated books.
April 16, 2013
As I was approaching the end of Ripley's Game (Ripley #3), I felt sorry that I had only two more novels to finish the series. So far, Mrs. Highsmith managed to keep me on the hook with her formula: Ripley's ruthless unethical yet strangely admirable character, care for details that bring scenes to life, and well kept rhythm with action and tension at just the right level and coming out of the blue many a time.
However, as I approached half the way in this book with hardly an event worth of narration, I started to feel frustrated. Indeed, looking back at it, the book has a single real event packed with action but before and after is padded with useless pointless narration of too many unimportant details and even unimportant characters that have no role whatsoever. Details became excruciatingly boring with the description of every single finger motion a character makes and every idea he/she thinks. Details kept promising something to build or some surprise but no, everything went, blandly, quite as expected.
A real let down.
However, as I approached half the way in this book with hardly an event worth of narration, I started to feel frustrated. Indeed, looking back at it, the book has a single real event packed with action but before and after is padded with useless pointless narration of too many unimportant details and even unimportant characters that have no role whatsoever. Details became excruciatingly boring with the description of every single finger motion a character makes and every idea he/she thinks. Details kept promising something to build or some surprise but no, everything went, blandly, quite as expected.
A real let down.
November 4, 2021
I am surprised at all of the mixed reviews of this Ripley installment. I was intrigued immediately by the opening scene. A strange boy takes an interest in Tom and they spend a night drinking a beer together. At first, we are unsure if the boy is a criminal too, or if Tom will drag him against his will into one of his schemes. Fortunately, it is neither.
It turns out the boy is Frank Pierson, the son of a very wealthy American food magnate, who has run away from home after killing his father. It is revealed that Frank sought out Tom because he believed it possible that Tom also killed someone and therefore would understand him. But the truth is, Tom did not understand Frank because there was a core difference between them.
Every mistake in life, Tom thought, had to be met by an attitude, either the right attitude or the wrong one, a constructive or a self-destructive attitude. What was a tragedy for one man was not for another, if he could assume the right attitude toward it. Frank felt guilt, which is why he had looked up Tom Ripley, and curiously Tom had never felt such guilt, never let it seriously trouble him. In this, Tom realized that he was odd.
This book had all of the magic of the last three Ripleys, which of course, includes Tom taking matters into his own hands to solve problems, rather than calling the police. One of the main things that does distinguish the book from the others is Highsmith's blatant in-your-face hints regarding Tom's sexuality. Tom and Frank's whole relationship, while not sexual, was described using language which was romantically charged. They shared a bed. Tom even dresses in drag as part of his scheme to rescue Frank from some amateur kidnappers. But just like Ripley's Game, the object of Tom's "affections" .
I am interested to see how the series ends. Tom Ripley is an enigma - one of the most interest characters I have ever met through reading.
It turns out the boy is Frank Pierson, the son of a very wealthy American food magnate, who has run away from home after killing his father. It is revealed that Frank sought out Tom because he believed it possible that Tom also killed someone and therefore would understand him. But the truth is, Tom did not understand Frank because there was a core difference between them.
Every mistake in life, Tom thought, had to be met by an attitude, either the right attitude or the wrong one, a constructive or a self-destructive attitude. What was a tragedy for one man was not for another, if he could assume the right attitude toward it. Frank felt guilt, which is why he had looked up Tom Ripley, and curiously Tom had never felt such guilt, never let it seriously trouble him. In this, Tom realized that he was odd.
This book had all of the magic of the last three Ripleys, which of course, includes Tom taking matters into his own hands to solve problems, rather than calling the police. One of the main things that does distinguish the book from the others is Highsmith's blatant in-your-face hints regarding Tom's sexuality. Tom and Frank's whole relationship, while not sexual, was described using language which was romantically charged. They shared a bed. Tom even dresses in drag as part of his scheme to rescue Frank from some amateur kidnappers. But just like Ripley's Game, the object of Tom's "affections" .
I am interested to see how the series ends. Tom Ripley is an enigma - one of the most interest characters I have ever met through reading.
March 24, 2020
Ripley serisi içinde en az sevdiğim kitap oldu. Ne Ripley'nin ne peşindeki çocuğun motivasyonuna, ne de olayların gelişimine ve Berlin günlerine anlam verebildim. 2/5
August 30, 2022
Una novel·la clarament inferior, pràcticament sense trama i amb un munt de queer bait que no deixa de molestar per la seva manca d'explicitud.
November 19, 2025
Ripley é o anti-herói do século: elegante, amoral, interessado apenas em preservar a própria vida com algum lucro e nenhum escrúpulo. Desde Balzac sabemos que a esperteza burguesa, antes privilégio dos altos salões, acabou virando o hábito geral — e nós, por osmose, descemos junto com ela.
O menino que o seguiu não o fez por idolatria, mas porque reconheceu naquele homem sem culpa um modo viável de suportar o vazio. Ripley não julga; apenas observa. E essa frieza acolhedora é mais forte que qualquer carisma. O garoto, já marcado pelo parricídio — gesto fundador de tantos mitos — imagina que o crime lhe dará forma. Não dá.
Ripley ao contrário do que esperávamos não põe a mão em milhões que desfilaram à sua frente manejado por amadores. Ao contrário quis ombrear com o heroísmo e o devolveu à origem. Inconsistência que mostrou ao menino que ele tampouco era inteiro, era um estilhaço, um ricochete.
Ao contrário de Ripley, que administra o vazio com uma graça quase clínica, o garoto não encontra nada depois do primeiro ato. Furou os próprios olhos simbólicos ao matar o pai e não viu nascer nenhuma outra luz. E no fim cai exatamente no mesmo abismo: não suportando a ausência de sentido, repete o gesto, mata-se do mesmo modo como matou o pai.
É a diferença entre quem flutua no cinismo e quem se afoga nele. Ripley vive do crime; o garoto se dissolve. Um permanece mito funcional — o outro, apenas eco trágico.
March 23, 2011
It's gotten to the point for me where Highsmith 'can do no wrong' - meaning that I read each fresh bk in full expectation that she'll have thoughtfully explored the subject at hand in ways that avoid clichés & that show her ever-shifting skill as a crime fiction / psychological thriller writer. &, as usual, this bk is not a disappointment. I don't want this review to have too many 'spoilers' so I'll resist outlining the whole plot. Suffice it to say that where most mediocre writers wd end the bk on a particular type of climax Highsmith continues to forge on into the deeper territory at hand.
Highsmith takes a perverse pleasure in presenting her main character, Ripley, as more complex & multi-faceted than just yr ordinary 'bad guy'. He's an archetypal 'anti-hero' in that respect. Yes, he's capable of murdering people w/o much or any conscience.. but he's also an appreciator of the 'finer' things in life & he's capable of being very caring & very subtle & very non-judgmental. & these are the characteristics that Highsmith admires. But she also admires his ability to be decisive under difficult circumstances - even psychopathically so.
I don't know anything about Highsmith's personal life but she was probably bisexual - & many of her novels delve into bisexual, lesbian, & gay subcultures. Additionally, her novels tend to take place in sometimes radically different locales - in this case, part of it is in Berlin. Given that it was copyrighted in 1980, it's fun for me that Highsmith has the characters playing Lou Reed's "Transformer" record, a classic of gay/bisexual/transvestite rock, & that some important parts of the action center around dressing in drag & a gay disco. Highsmith wd've been in her late 50s when she wrote this & it's pretty obvious that she hadn't dulled her zest for life yet.
Highsmith takes a perverse pleasure in presenting her main character, Ripley, as more complex & multi-faceted than just yr ordinary 'bad guy'. He's an archetypal 'anti-hero' in that respect. Yes, he's capable of murdering people w/o much or any conscience.. but he's also an appreciator of the 'finer' things in life & he's capable of being very caring & very subtle & very non-judgmental. & these are the characteristics that Highsmith admires. But she also admires his ability to be decisive under difficult circumstances - even psychopathically so.
I don't know anything about Highsmith's personal life but she was probably bisexual - & many of her novels delve into bisexual, lesbian, & gay subcultures. Additionally, her novels tend to take place in sometimes radically different locales - in this case, part of it is in Berlin. Given that it was copyrighted in 1980, it's fun for me that Highsmith has the characters playing Lou Reed's "Transformer" record, a classic of gay/bisexual/transvestite rock, & that some important parts of the action center around dressing in drag & a gay disco. Highsmith wd've been in her late 50s when she wrote this & it's pretty obvious that she hadn't dulled her zest for life yet.
October 3, 2015
I think once hooked by Tom Ripley you will enjoy any of his exploits, and in my case I found this – the fourth in the five-strong ‘Ripliad’ – to be no exception.
On reflection, however, ‘enjoy’ is perhaps too generous a word – for Tom is your friendly neighbourhood psychopath, and not to be taken lightly.
I must remember to re-read the first in the series – The Talented Mr Ripley – to work out just how Patricia Highsmith tricked me into siding with him!
This novel skims along in the author’s effective economical style, and promises a tale of some intrigue right at the outset, when an American runaway (who might almost be Tom’s protégé) presents himself at the Ripleys’ French country mansion and confesses to murdering his wealthy industrialist father.
From hereon in the tale is rather contrived – though never entirely implausible – and sees Tom and his charge undertake life-threatening (and murderous) adventures in Paris and Berlin before jetting off to the USA.
There is a twist in the tail – but not in the shape I had rather hoped for. Tom shows an unexpectedly altruistic side of his nature – though his motivation remains a mystery.
It’s a stand-alone novel – worth reading if you’re a fan – but I would suggest working through the Ripliad in sequence to better understand Tom.
On reflection, however, ‘enjoy’ is perhaps too generous a word – for Tom is your friendly neighbourhood psychopath, and not to be taken lightly.
I must remember to re-read the first in the series – The Talented Mr Ripley – to work out just how Patricia Highsmith tricked me into siding with him!
This novel skims along in the author’s effective economical style, and promises a tale of some intrigue right at the outset, when an American runaway (who might almost be Tom’s protégé) presents himself at the Ripleys’ French country mansion and confesses to murdering his wealthy industrialist father.
From hereon in the tale is rather contrived – though never entirely implausible – and sees Tom and his charge undertake life-threatening (and murderous) adventures in Paris and Berlin before jetting off to the USA.
There is a twist in the tail – but not in the shape I had rather hoped for. Tom shows an unexpectedly altruistic side of his nature – though his motivation remains a mystery.
It’s a stand-alone novel – worth reading if you’re a fan – but I would suggest working through the Ripliad in sequence to better understand Tom.
August 15, 2011
This book was very strange and disconnected. Sometimes, I wonder how similar of people Highsmith and Ripley really were/are/etc. While reading this, I felt like Highsmith was grudgingly trying to explore more of her "fun" side. Mr Ripley listens to Lou Reed's 'Transformer' (whoa!), reads 'Christopher and His Kind' (will Ripley FINALLY deal with his 'mo tendencies?!) and Heloise even reads some WH Auden...all names dropped as build-up to set against the main backdrop of Berlin in the late 70s/early 80s as Ripley strangely takes on a young boy of sixteen under his wing...and is kind of a nice guy...but wait...there's something very uncomfortable, awkward, and...UM...boring about this book. It was as if Highsmith had all the ingredients to make a knock-out, fresh and fun story but then decided not to use them. A pretty disappointing book as well as a chore to read. I'm still going to go for Ripley Under Water, just to see how this ends...
July 18, 2022
A bit of a non book for me, nothing really happens and I found it boring. A shame as I've enjoyed the first three books. Fingers crossed for a better fifth book to complete the series.
March 26, 2015
First of all, it starts off boring. You're nearly halfway through the book before anything happens plot-wise; before that Ripley just decides to take some runaway rich kid under his wing and go on sneaky jaunts around Europe that seem incredibly suspicious to a modern reader but I guess it wasn't that strange for a married man to go on vacation in a foreign country alone with a sixteen year old boy in the 60s?
Once the plot did get going, I kept anticipating clever twists that never materialized. Maybe all this time in the gay clubs will make Frank realize he's totally over Teresa and actually likes men! Nope. Maybe Ripley's new acquaintances will actually be in cahoots with the kidnappers! Nope. Well, maybe they'll try to steal the ransom money for themselves by swapping the suitcases! Nope. Or maybe the bank gave him some sort of counterfeit notes, because they suspect that he's a criminal! Nope. Maybe the kidnappers will have planned for a tail from the gay club and will ambush them! Nope. Maybe Peter will track down the kidnappers and kick the crap out of them! Nope. Maybe people will refuse to trust Ripley and accuse him of being Frank's secret gay lover! Nope. It goes on and on.
I feel I could have made this story much more interesting with my own ideas for twist endings. As it is, nothing ever goes awry. Everything is exactly what you expect to happen at every turn. Ripley only commits one (rather unnecessary) murder, and feels no remorse whatsoever. It's a filler book in the series and it's boring.
I mean, I guess it's interesting enough that I read the whole thing in a sitting (not to mention that Ripley breaks down a door and impersonates a police officer whilst dressed as a female prostitute, which is memorable, to say the least), but really... lots of missed opportunities to make the plot more interesting. Sigh.
Once the plot did get going, I kept anticipating clever twists that never materialized. Maybe all this time in the gay clubs will make Frank realize he's totally over Teresa and actually likes men! Nope. Maybe Ripley's new acquaintances will actually be in cahoots with the kidnappers! Nope. Well, maybe they'll try to steal the ransom money for themselves by swapping the suitcases! Nope. Or maybe the bank gave him some sort of counterfeit notes, because they suspect that he's a criminal! Nope. Maybe the kidnappers will have planned for a tail from the gay club and will ambush them! Nope. Maybe Peter will track down the kidnappers and kick the crap out of them! Nope. Maybe people will refuse to trust Ripley and accuse him of being Frank's secret gay lover! Nope. It goes on and on.
I feel I could have made this story much more interesting with my own ideas for twist endings. As it is, nothing ever goes awry. Everything is exactly what you expect to happen at every turn. Ripley only commits one (rather unnecessary) murder, and feels no remorse whatsoever. It's a filler book in the series and it's boring.
I mean, I guess it's interesting enough that I read the whole thing in a sitting (not to mention that Ripley breaks down a door and impersonates a police officer whilst dressed as a female prostitute, which is memorable, to say the least), but really... lots of missed opportunities to make the plot more interesting. Sigh.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
January 4, 2017
I'm a big admirer of Patricia Highsmith and have read lots of her books, however, I couldn't help feeling like she knocked this thing out for the money. In this installment of the Ripley series, 16-year-old heir to a fortune Frank Pierson comes to Ripley's town in France to meet him, for reasons that are vague at best, confesses that he has pushed his father, in a wheelchair, off a cliff to his death behind their estate in Kennebunkport, Maine. Ripley spends the entire book looking after this young guy, letting him stay as a house guest, taking him to some gay bars in Berlin--although neither one of them identify as gay, so we're left to wonder why they're there, and what they're thinking--saving him from some kidnappers, flying back to New York with him and hanging out with his family. The story is a series of events leading to a flat conclusion, rather than a well-constructed novel. I kept waiting for something to happen to bring some sense or structure to it, but nothing ever did happen. Frank's speech and behavior is strangely old womanish, and his slang is antiquated, from some period way before the 70s. It made me wonder if Highsmith had actually ever met or talked to a 16-year-old boy. As for Ripley, he buys and reads many newspapers, drinks and describes a lot of coffees, smokes a lot of cigarettes, whose brands are always named. He drinks many, many beers and cocktails which we hear about in a lot of detail. I do kind of like reading all that stuff, but only because it's Highsmith writing about her famous character. But if you came at this book cold, you'd probably be saying to yourself, what the hell was that? The book also has a very out-of-joint sense of time. Ripley is still a young man in this book, even though decades have gone by since he was a young man in first (fantastic) book.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 476 reviews