What do you think?
Rate this book
The Taking of Pelham One Two Three
THIS AFTERNOON IN NEW YORK CITY, AFTER A SUBWAY TRAIN LEFT THE PELHAM STATION AT 1:23 P.M., THE EVENTS OF THE DAY TOOK A TERRIFYING DETOUR… “You will all remain seated. Anyone who tries to get up, or even moves, will be shot. There will be no further warning. If you move you will be killed…” Four men, armed with submachine guns, have seized a New York City subway train, holding all seventeen passengers—and the entire city—hostage. The identities of the hijackers are unknown. Their demands seem impossible. Their threats are real. Their escape seems inconceivable.Only one thing is certain: they aren’t stopping for anything.
350 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1973
135 people are currently reading
1600 people want to read
About the author
John Godey
62 books18 followersJohn Godey was the pen name of Morton Freedgood.
Freedgood was born in Brooklyn, New York City, New York in 1913 and began writing at a young age. In the 1940s, he had several articles and short stories published in Cosmopolitan , Collier's, Esquire and other magazines while working full time in the motion picture industry in New York City. A WWII U.S.Army veteran he held public relations and publicity posts for United Artists, 20th Century Fox, Paramount Pictures and other companies for several years before focusing on his writing.
His novel The Wall-to-Wall Trap was published under his own name in 1957. He then began using the pen name John Godey — borrowed from the name of a 19th-century women's magazine — to differentiate his crime novels from his more serious writing.
Writing as John Godey he achieved commercial success with the books A Thrill a Minute With Jack Albany, Never Put Off Till Tomorrow What You Can Kill Today, and The Three Worlds of Johnny Handsome. The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3, his novel about the hijacking of a New York City subway train, was a bestseller in 1973 and was made into a hit movie starring Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw in 1974. A remake starring Denzel Washington and John Travolta was released in the summer of 2009.He saw his Jack Albany stories turned into the 1968 Walt Disney film Never a Dull Moment, starring Dick Van Dyke.
Freedgood was born in Brooklyn, New York City, New York in 1913 and began writing at a young age. In the 1940s, he had several articles and short stories published in Cosmopolitan , Collier's, Esquire and other magazines while working full time in the motion picture industry in New York City. A WWII U.S.Army veteran he held public relations and publicity posts for United Artists, 20th Century Fox, Paramount Pictures and other companies for several years before focusing on his writing.
His novel The Wall-to-Wall Trap was published under his own name in 1957. He then began using the pen name John Godey — borrowed from the name of a 19th-century women's magazine — to differentiate his crime novels from his more serious writing.
Writing as John Godey he achieved commercial success with the books A Thrill a Minute With Jack Albany, Never Put Off Till Tomorrow What You Can Kill Today, and The Three Worlds of Johnny Handsome. The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3, his novel about the hijacking of a New York City subway train, was a bestseller in 1973 and was made into a hit movie starring Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw in 1974. A remake starring Denzel Washington and John Travolta was released in the summer of 2009.He saw his Jack Albany stories turned into the 1968 Walt Disney film Never a Dull Moment, starring Dick Van Dyke.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 252 reviews
June 27, 2016
Treasure of the Rubbermaids 18: The Great Train Robbery
The on-going discoveries of priceless books and comics found in a stack of Rubbermaid containers previously stored and forgotten at my parent’s house and untouched for almost 20 years. Thanks to my father dumping them back on me, I now spend my spare time unearthing lost treasures from their plastic depths.
(Note: For the purposes of this review, any references to the movie are about the 1974 version with Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw. I like to pretend the remake with John Travolta and Denzel Washington doesn’t exist.)
In the early 1970s, four armed men hijack a New York subway car with sixteen passengers and demand a ransom of one million dollars be paid in an hour or they’ll start shooting hostages at the rate of one a minute. Various city, police and transit officials scramble to meet the deadline while dealing with their internal politics.
There are a couple of things setting this apart from the typical crime thriller. The third person narration shifts from the individual hijackers, the passengers, the cops, the politicians, and assorted other people. The different viewpoint makes the scope bigger than just a subway car held hostage underground.
Another departure from the genre is that no one in the book acts heroic in a traditional sense. The Walter Matthau character in the movie is a composite of a couple of people from the print version, but there’s no one individual that negotiates with the hijackers and then takes to the streets to track them down. A police officer hiding in the tunnel does something incredibly stupid for no reason that gets a hostage killed. There’s a subway official who is more worried about the upcoming rush hour than the people on the train. The mayor just wants to stay in bed and nurse his head cold.
Even the hostages seem more concerned with things other than the threat of imminent death. An undercover policeman can live with being branded a coward if he doesn’t act, but he’s more worried about his relationship with his hippie girlfriend. A prostitute thinks that if she stands up her next appointment that she’ll lose one of her most profitable regular johns. There’s a nicely done element of denial that there’s little panic or real feelings of fear among the passengers despite having every reason to think they could be dead in an hour.
In a weird way, the most well adjusted guy may be the leader of the hijackers, Ryder. A former mercenary who ran out of profitable wars, Ryder has a unique outlook that he has boiled down to his personal motto: You live or you die. And Ryder doesn’t think it matters much way either way. His implacable calm and refusal to budge on his demand of one million dollars in one hour makes him the only character that seems capable of getting what he wants in a city full of angry and irrational people that react to everything like overgrown children.
This has the grit and grime of other ‘70s New York crime stories like The French Connection, Serpico or the early Matt Scudder novels by Lawrence Block, and it also delivers a kind of day-in-the-life component that gives you an idea of how a big city of the era would react to a crisis.
Random trivia note: The hijackers in the book are identified by name, but in the movie they use code names like Mr. Blue and Mr. Green. IMDB tells me that Tarantino was inspired by this idea for his characters in Reservoir Dogs.
The on-going discoveries of priceless books and comics found in a stack of Rubbermaid containers previously stored and forgotten at my parent’s house and untouched for almost 20 years. Thanks to my father dumping them back on me, I now spend my spare time unearthing lost treasures from their plastic depths.
(Note: For the purposes of this review, any references to the movie are about the 1974 version with Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw. I like to pretend the remake with John Travolta and Denzel Washington doesn’t exist.)
In the early 1970s, four armed men hijack a New York subway car with sixteen passengers and demand a ransom of one million dollars be paid in an hour or they’ll start shooting hostages at the rate of one a minute. Various city, police and transit officials scramble to meet the deadline while dealing with their internal politics.
There are a couple of things setting this apart from the typical crime thriller. The third person narration shifts from the individual hijackers, the passengers, the cops, the politicians, and assorted other people. The different viewpoint makes the scope bigger than just a subway car held hostage underground.
Another departure from the genre is that no one in the book acts heroic in a traditional sense. The Walter Matthau character in the movie is a composite of a couple of people from the print version, but there’s no one individual that negotiates with the hijackers and then takes to the streets to track them down. A police officer hiding in the tunnel does something incredibly stupid for no reason that gets a hostage killed. There’s a subway official who is more worried about the upcoming rush hour than the people on the train. The mayor just wants to stay in bed and nurse his head cold.
Even the hostages seem more concerned with things other than the threat of imminent death. An undercover policeman can live with being branded a coward if he doesn’t act, but he’s more worried about his relationship with his hippie girlfriend. A prostitute thinks that if she stands up her next appointment that she’ll lose one of her most profitable regular johns. There’s a nicely done element of denial that there’s little panic or real feelings of fear among the passengers despite having every reason to think they could be dead in an hour.
In a weird way, the most well adjusted guy may be the leader of the hijackers, Ryder. A former mercenary who ran out of profitable wars, Ryder has a unique outlook that he has boiled down to his personal motto: You live or you die. And Ryder doesn’t think it matters much way either way. His implacable calm and refusal to budge on his demand of one million dollars in one hour makes him the only character that seems capable of getting what he wants in a city full of angry and irrational people that react to everything like overgrown children.
This has the grit and grime of other ‘70s New York crime stories like The French Connection, Serpico or the early Matt Scudder novels by Lawrence Block, and it also delivers a kind of day-in-the-life component that gives you an idea of how a big city of the era would react to a crisis.
Random trivia note: The hijackers in the book are identified by name, but in the movie they use code names like Mr. Blue and Mr. Green. IMDB tells me that Tarantino was inspired by this idea for his characters in Reservoir Dogs.
February 21, 2022
What a load of old bobbins. Written in 1973 this book is racist, sexist and lacking any merit.
Let’s start with the premise – not too bad a hijack, hostage taking plot that involves taking over a subway train and demanding 1 million dollars for the safe release of the passengers. The 70s was the era of disaster movies so in theory this could work. The reality is that subways are dull and unglamorous and there was too much description of the mechanics and logistics of the New York Subway.
Let us move on to the characters. I say characters but I’m pretty certain less people appeared in the film Gandhi. The book was frustrating to read as it was just a series of short descriptions of the action from a multitude of viewpoints. I forgot who was who and then didn’t care. There was never enough time spent with any character to feel any emotional investment for anyone involved. I’ve never read a book before where you are not rooting for the criminals (underdogs with an audacious plan), the detectives (trying to save innocent lives from evil villains) or the hostages (hoping they can all get back to their happy families or treating sick baby pandas or whatever their backstory is). In this book I was hoping a deranged president might have just put an end to the siege with a nuclear bomb. As it was I didn’t care when any character was killed and at one point was actively rooting for the hooker who unbelievably found the most testing thing about having a sub-machine gun poked in your face was being late for her trick, the old guy whose one liners surely would have earned him a bullet in the head if it was real life and the Black Panther devotee who was unable to do so much as cross his legs without linking it to oppression by the white pig (written peeeg for no reason other than Godey sometimes has his characters talking normally and then sporadically writing it phonetically).
The ending was weak and almost comical which wasn’t in keeping with the rest of the book. I’m left wondering what the purpose of the book was, it wasn’t exciting, it wasn’t tense, it wasn’t well written. All I can suppose is that he was hired by the anti-tourism board of New York because with these characters, the depiction of New Yorkers generally and the description of a subway system that makes Hades sound like Butlin’s it wasn’t a destination likely to be high on anyone’s list.
Let’s start with the premise – not too bad a hijack, hostage taking plot that involves taking over a subway train and demanding 1 million dollars for the safe release of the passengers. The 70s was the era of disaster movies so in theory this could work. The reality is that subways are dull and unglamorous and there was too much description of the mechanics and logistics of the New York Subway.
Let us move on to the characters. I say characters but I’m pretty certain less people appeared in the film Gandhi. The book was frustrating to read as it was just a series of short descriptions of the action from a multitude of viewpoints. I forgot who was who and then didn’t care. There was never enough time spent with any character to feel any emotional investment for anyone involved. I’ve never read a book before where you are not rooting for the criminals (underdogs with an audacious plan), the detectives (trying to save innocent lives from evil villains) or the hostages (hoping they can all get back to their happy families or treating sick baby pandas or whatever their backstory is). In this book I was hoping a deranged president might have just put an end to the siege with a nuclear bomb. As it was I didn’t care when any character was killed and at one point was actively rooting for the hooker who unbelievably found the most testing thing about having a sub-machine gun poked in your face was being late for her trick, the old guy whose one liners surely would have earned him a bullet in the head if it was real life and the Black Panther devotee who was unable to do so much as cross his legs without linking it to oppression by the white pig (written peeeg for no reason other than Godey sometimes has his characters talking normally and then sporadically writing it phonetically).
The ending was weak and almost comical which wasn’t in keeping with the rest of the book. I’m left wondering what the purpose of the book was, it wasn’t exciting, it wasn’t tense, it wasn’t well written. All I can suppose is that he was hired by the anti-tourism board of New York because with these characters, the depiction of New Yorkers generally and the description of a subway system that makes Hades sound like Butlin’s it wasn’t a destination likely to be high on anyone’s list.
August 31, 2009
Before there was the movie, and the other movie, there was, THE BOOK.
I liked the first movie.
I will probably like this movie. Denzel Washington. John Travolta. Luis Guzman. What’s not to like?
But the book, ah, I loved the book.
“Steever stood on the southbound local platform of the Lexington Avenue line at Fifty-ninth Street and chewed his gum with a gentle motion of his heavy jaws, like a soft-mouthed retriever schooled to hold game firmly but without bruising it.”
Today I slipped my brittle yellowing copy (hardcover, circa 1973, bought second-hand, sometime in the eighties) off the shelf and fondled it like a great memory. I read this book many many times. I read it for the:
Plot. Hijacking a New York subway train. Okay….
Pacing. . . “ “Look, he said, “give us another fifteen people. Is there any point to killing innocent people if it’s not necessary?” . . . and for dialog. “ “Nobody is innocent.” “
for The New York State of Mind, “Cut a New Yorker open and you would discover convolutions in his brain, tracks in his nervous system, that were not present in any other urban citizenry anywhere.”
and for the
A + multiples points of view. Even minor characters jump off the page, like the Mayor’s aide, “His Honor was lying on the face, his pajamas pulled down and his bare rump waving in the hair as the doctor profiled toward it with a hypodermic syringe. It was a shapely and practically hairless butt, and Lasalle thought; if mayors were elected on the beauty of their asses, His Honor could reign forever.”
I could go on. And I will.
Because, we should never forget.
First come the words.
August 14, 2022
Like animals in a jungle, like plants, they adapted, they mutated towards specific defenses and suspicions created to cope with specific threats. Cut a New Yorker open and you would discover convolutions in his brain, tracks in his nervous system, that were not present in any other urban citizenry anywhere.
At first glance, this is an extremely tense and sharp thriller, designed to keep you on the edge of your seat with the increased danger of a hostage situation. My personal experience, coloured probably by the fact that I have seen two of the movie adaptations in the past, was more focused on the characters, such as they are revealed in the very short personal POV chapters, and less on the outcome or on the technical details about the running of the underground trains in New York.
Ordinarily, Bedrick covered only the most dignified news events – Presidential inaugurations, assassinations on the ambassadorial level or better – but he had volunteered for this assignment, sensing its vast potential for human interest.
Like this Bedrick reporter fellow, what kept my interest in the story is the vertical slice through the heart of the city, a revealing dissection that John Godey makes with the precision of a surgeon, from the top of the highest skyscraper [the mayor’s office] to the lowest underground tunnel that moves the red cells/people around the body of the city. Equal space in the economy of the novel is given to the terrorists, to the seventeen hostages, to the people running the underground, to the cops and to the politicians who try to deal with the crisis.
Now that I mentioned names, John Godey is a pseudonym, and the only thing of relevance for me is that the author is a native of the urban jungle, a reason most probably why he speaks with such authoritative voice. The other thing that places the novel precisely in my mind is that dirty, corrosive anti-establishment vibe of the seventies – a time of increase in crime rates and urban decay, of racial tensions and unemployment, of a society struggling to come out of a dark age.
I am sick, Prescott thought, sick of cops and criminals and victims and bystanders. Sick of anger and of blood. Sick of what happened today and will happen tomorrow. Sick of white and black, of my job and my friends and my family, of love and of hatred. Above all, I am sick of myself, sick of being sick of the imperfections of the world that nobody would try to fix up even if they knew how.
By the end, this was a very satisfying train ride, both on the action-thriller front and on the human interest angle. I would make some comparisons with “The Day of the Jackal” for the technical details, and “Three Days of the Condor” for the conspiracy theories in high places, but I believe John Godey has managed to find his own personal style with his very large cast engaged in personal [stream-of-conscience] narration.
May 29, 2015
The Taking of Pelham 123 is a masterfully written novel. If someone were to describe the narrative voice of the novel told from the perspective of 30 plus characters, you would say it would be damn near impossible to pull off in such a way as to keep the action moving, but Godey does it.
It was interesting that in the first film version (1974) of the novel they kept the character of Ryder true to the book--cool and unflappable--as played brilliantly by Robert Shaw, but in the 2009 version the character as played by John Travolta was a hothead and a bit of a loose cannon, which I don't think worked as well.
It was interesting that in the first film version (1974) of the novel they kept the character of Ryder true to the book--cool and unflappable--as played brilliantly by Robert Shaw, but in the 2009 version the character as played by John Travolta was a hothead and a bit of a loose cannon, which I don't think worked as well.
August 12, 2011
I enjoyed this book, but some of the racism and sexism presented was a bit shocking. The author presents every character in the story as one sort of incredibly flawed asshole or another, which is actually kind of refreshing. The racism and sexism is independent to each character, and it flows in every direction. I think that it is important to take an anthropological perspective with older fiction and read it for the time in which it was written, as there is a tendency to forget how horrible race relations have been in the past. It is shocking and disruptive to us to read such things in the 21st century, and it throws us out of our comfort zone. But we shouldn't dismiss such books because they make us uncomfortable. I'm reminded of the effort to republish Huck Finn with certain epithets edited out. We don't have to like the racism and sexism presented in older fiction, and we don't have to excuse it. But we shouldn't ignore it either.
September 7, 2015
This book is a 70's time-capsule, but not in a campy outdated way. It still crackles with suspense, and maintains it's freshness, despite being written in 1973. It's easy to see why this material has been the basis for two movies.
December 22, 2013
I finally completed my reading of this somewhat leisurely paced subway thriller set in New York City with all the holidays' hoopla going on. Two movies were made based on the story, and I have not seen either one. I'd prefer to see the first one if only because I don't have much luck at enjoying the Hollywood reboots. Anyway, four men of very different temperaments plan out and then hold riders as hostages on a subway car (Pelham 123) for a million dollar ransom. The author hits all the suspenseful highpoints in the lurid drama, but he takes up a lot of ink by delving into his characters' lives and thoughts. That tends to slow down the pace. I can't decide if that is good or bad for this particular tale. I appreciated the humor, especially the jabs taken at the police top brass and mayor's office. The final scene is terrific. One of the hostage takers is named Welcome which I found a bit jarring while I was reading along. All in all, I liked Pelham enough to stick with reading it until the final page. Your mileage may vary, of course. It's not your by-the-numbers, adrenaline junkie thriller which at least sets it apart from the pack.
March 11, 2019
A heist tale set on a NY subway in the early 1970s. Most characters fail to rise above caricature, and the dialogue is trite. Like a transplanted New Yawker complaining endlessly about the dearth of locally acceptable pizza and bagels, the author is fascinated by the minute workings of the NY transit system which he describes in numbing detail. The plot drags along with no real surprises, just a dull and predictable ending. Changing character viewpoints several times during each chapter might be distracting to some but I found it to be the book's sole saving grace - slogging through 373 pages from the point of view of only one of the book's characters (there are many, and they often fail to distinguish themselves from one another) might have rendered the book completely unreadable. Modern readers will be horrified by the racial and gender stereotypes.
November 25, 2016
A rip-roaring ride, it's clear just how influential this book has been on any number of films. Yes, the characters are generally one-dimensional stereotypes, but it moved along nicely and doesn't outstay its welcome.
March 4, 2020
Four men hijack a subway train. Well-nigh Hitchcockian suspense ensues.
This was downright excellent, written by a patient author who knew that keeping you on the edge of your seat had nothing to do with frantic camera jiggles, as it were.
I don't normally quote opening sentences, but it's what sold the book for me, picked up at a used bookstore:
Steever stood on the southbound local platform of the Lexington Avenue line at Fifty-ninth Street and chewed his gum wtih a gentle motion of his heavy jaws, like a soft-mouthed retriever schooled to hold game firmly but without bruising it.
Every line's like that. Here's another random one:
"The people," the commissioner said. "Subtract the people from the scene and it would be easy to catch crooks."
Maybe not a perfect book, but close.
Recommended if you like Hitchcock :)
This was downright excellent, written by a patient author who knew that keeping you on the edge of your seat had nothing to do with frantic camera jiggles, as it were.
I don't normally quote opening sentences, but it's what sold the book for me, picked up at a used bookstore:
Steever stood on the southbound local platform of the Lexington Avenue line at Fifty-ninth Street and chewed his gum wtih a gentle motion of his heavy jaws, like a soft-mouthed retriever schooled to hold game firmly but without bruising it.
Every line's like that. Here's another random one:
"The people," the commissioner said. "Subtract the people from the scene and it would be easy to catch crooks."
Maybe not a perfect book, but close.
Recommended if you like Hitchcock :)
Read
October 9, 2024I heard this was a very suspenseful book, but I just couldn’t get into it. It is racist and probably that is how people like this acted in 1973. But I don’t want to read it.
February 9, 2020
This book was one of those I accidentally found being sold by a street vendor near my faculty, and the title hit me familiar. I remembered then that I watched the 2009 movie starring John Travolta and Denzel Washington.
How do you write a book when you only have fragments here and there that you can't really bring together without risking having an inconsistent final product? You simply split the story into a great number of characters, and proceed that way, giving details on each character, and developing them as you go on with the plot.
It was a fun read, just perfect for a train ride.
How do you write a book when you only have fragments here and there that you can't really bring together without risking having an inconsistent final product? You simply split the story into a great number of characters, and proceed that way, giving details on each character, and developing them as you go on with the plot.
It was a fun read, just perfect for a train ride.
October 11, 2021
No existe tal cosa como la imparcialidad al momento de opinar y en este caso mucho menos.
Pelham 1 2 3 es una de mis películas de cabecera. Uno de los clásicos más revisitados. Por consiguiente esta lectura estuvo muy marcada.
Cuatro hombres secuestran un vagón subterráneo con rehenes reclamando un millón de dólares para su liberación.
El escenario es New York de los 70s, ese momento y lugar que inspiró distintas obras.
Está escrita en mini capítulos cada uno desde el punto de vista de diferentes personajes. Como La colmena de Cela.
Para gustos tan específicos como ese contexto histórico es una gran obra. Leída hoy en día puede afectar sensibilidades por su lenguaje homófobo y racista, pero bueno, era esa época tan peculiar.
Tiene sus pequeñas diferencias con el largometraje siendo este superior por elevar la apuesta sumando las capacidades audiovisuales con una banda sonora tremenda y un manejo de la acción inédito para entonces. Fue una piedra angular para el cine de acción.
Con la cabeza son tres estrellas, con el corazón cuatro y así siempre en este eterno dilema de puntuar sean libros, películas, etc.
Recomiendo el film original de los 70s y obviar la remake.
Pelham 1 2 3 es una de mis películas de cabecera. Uno de los clásicos más revisitados. Por consiguiente esta lectura estuvo muy marcada.
Cuatro hombres secuestran un vagón subterráneo con rehenes reclamando un millón de dólares para su liberación.
El escenario es New York de los 70s, ese momento y lugar que inspiró distintas obras.
Está escrita en mini capítulos cada uno desde el punto de vista de diferentes personajes. Como La colmena de Cela.
Para gustos tan específicos como ese contexto histórico es una gran obra. Leída hoy en día puede afectar sensibilidades por su lenguaje homófobo y racista, pero bueno, era esa época tan peculiar.
Tiene sus pequeñas diferencias con el largometraje siendo este superior por elevar la apuesta sumando las capacidades audiovisuales con una banda sonora tremenda y un manejo de la acción inédito para entonces. Fue una piedra angular para el cine de acción.
Con la cabeza son tres estrellas, con el corazón cuatro y así siempre en este eterno dilema de puntuar sean libros, películas, etc.
Recomiendo el film original de los 70s y obviar la remake.
September 10, 2009
This book kept me interested, but it has some fatal flaws. For one, I twinged some at the racism and sexism. I don't mean that I have a problem with books that have racist characters. This book does, but that isn't my problem. My problem is that I suspect the author had racist and sexist tendencies. Or at least it reads that way to modern eyes.
There are several black characters in the novel, but most of them speak various forms of Ebonics. But sure, some people do talk like that, so I gave him the benefit of the doubt. But then I read a part about a black transit police officer. He was trying to hide in the dark to avoid getting shot. He thought that maybe his dark skin would help him stay hidden. Then there is this passage:
"So maybe there was some virtue in being a nigger, after all. The thought made him smile, but not for long. He snapped his mouth shut, thinking: But my teeth, goddamn, my teeth are lily white!"
Really? Did he really just play into that stereotype of only seeing a black person because of his teeth? Yes. He did.
Also, there were really only four female characters in the book. One is a hysterical mother. One is a bag lady. The most prominent one is a call girl. And the last one is a middle aged, black woman who works at the subway transit center. Stereotype, stereotype, stereotype, and... that last one isn't bad, is it? Well, no, not until near the end when she is the one radioing the position of the hijacked train to the police and the rest of the transit authority. And then there is bullshit like this:
"From the soft, modulated quality of her voice, Lieutenant Garber visualized Mrs. Jenkins as a slender, willowy blonde in her early thirties.
'Keep feeding me, honey,' he said."
WTF? And then later, someone else visualized her in some other sexualized way.
This kind of thing was so over the top that it really marred the novel for me. If I could have gotten past it (I couldn't), then there were some things to like. The plot is fast moving, but it does make some effort at characterization, and characterization is important to me. The short sub-chapters helped contribute to the novel's clipped pace. In more action-packed moments, that was a good thing. In the build-up, though, it just drew attention to itself in a somewhat annoying way. Still, though, I like heist stories, and the plot of this one is pretty good.
I'm not sure I've ever said this before, but I bet the movies are better.
There are several black characters in the novel, but most of them speak various forms of Ebonics. But sure, some people do talk like that, so I gave him the benefit of the doubt. But then I read a part about a black transit police officer. He was trying to hide in the dark to avoid getting shot. He thought that maybe his dark skin would help him stay hidden. Then there is this passage:
"So maybe there was some virtue in being a nigger, after all. The thought made him smile, but not for long. He snapped his mouth shut, thinking: But my teeth, goddamn, my teeth are lily white!"
Really? Did he really just play into that stereotype of only seeing a black person because of his teeth? Yes. He did.
Also, there were really only four female characters in the book. One is a hysterical mother. One is a bag lady. The most prominent one is a call girl. And the last one is a middle aged, black woman who works at the subway transit center. Stereotype, stereotype, stereotype, and... that last one isn't bad, is it? Well, no, not until near the end when she is the one radioing the position of the hijacked train to the police and the rest of the transit authority. And then there is bullshit like this:
"From the soft, modulated quality of her voice, Lieutenant Garber visualized Mrs. Jenkins as a slender, willowy blonde in her early thirties.
'Keep feeding me, honey,' he said."
WTF? And then later, someone else visualized her in some other sexualized way.
This kind of thing was so over the top that it really marred the novel for me. If I could have gotten past it (I couldn't), then there were some things to like. The plot is fast moving, but it does make some effort at characterization, and characterization is important to me. The short sub-chapters helped contribute to the novel's clipped pace. In more action-packed moments, that was a good thing. In the build-up, though, it just drew attention to itself in a somewhat annoying way. Still, though, I like heist stories, and the plot of this one is pretty good.
I'm not sure I've ever said this before, but I bet the movies are better.
November 12, 2016
Being quite a fan of the early 1970's movie, I approached this book with a great deal of anticipation. It was one of those rare cases, though, when the screenwriter significantly improved upon the original.
The story is a crime caper about an unlikely hijacking of a New York City subway train. The intrigue builds around how this could be accomplished and how the hijackers can possibly make good their escape. Colorful characters abound on both sides of the caper, although a number of them are fairly one dimensional and that makes it difficult for the Reader to develop a strong interest in what happens to them. Also, many are overly stereotypical and that is reflected in their actions.
The story structure suffers from two issues. The most pervasive one is an unending cynical tone and sarcastic points of view. Yes, it was a different time, but when everyone thinks that they are better than everyone else, the attitude grows old quickly.
The other central problem is that a good antagonist is created as the leader of the subway hijackers. However, there is no core protagonist to face him as there was in the original movie. Instead, there are several characters who enter the plot to seek a solution. That may be more realistic, but it left me with no one to cheer for as "the hero in the white hat."
Now, there are quite a few good points. There is a runaway subway train sequence that is quite exciting. The initial hijacking sequence is quite good. And some of the more obnoxious characters have a come-uppance that is difficult not to applaud.
On the whole, though, unless you are very curious about the source material, my recommendation would be to watch the 1973 movie with Walter Matthau, Robert Shaw, Martin Balsam, and David Shire's hard-driving musical score instead.
The story is a crime caper about an unlikely hijacking of a New York City subway train. The intrigue builds around how this could be accomplished and how the hijackers can possibly make good their escape. Colorful characters abound on both sides of the caper, although a number of them are fairly one dimensional and that makes it difficult for the Reader to develop a strong interest in what happens to them. Also, many are overly stereotypical and that is reflected in their actions.
The story structure suffers from two issues. The most pervasive one is an unending cynical tone and sarcastic points of view. Yes, it was a different time, but when everyone thinks that they are better than everyone else, the attitude grows old quickly.
The other central problem is that a good antagonist is created as the leader of the subway hijackers. However, there is no core protagonist to face him as there was in the original movie. Instead, there are several characters who enter the plot to seek a solution. That may be more realistic, but it left me with no one to cheer for as "the hero in the white hat."
Now, there are quite a few good points. There is a runaway subway train sequence that is quite exciting. The initial hijacking sequence is quite good. And some of the more obnoxious characters have a come-uppance that is difficult not to applaud.
On the whole, though, unless you are very curious about the source material, my recommendation would be to watch the 1973 movie with Walter Matthau, Robert Shaw, Martin Balsam, and David Shire's hard-driving musical score instead.
September 1, 2016
If you don't know this book --and it's accompanying classic 1974 heist-thriller movie starring Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw; if you don't know the huge impact this dual project had on the entire action/thriller genre; then ...well, I just don't know what to say to you. Just trust me when I assure you that it is one of the best 'book-to-screen adaptations' ever to appear in this country. I hope you realize how rarely this ever happens. There's only a very few such works EVER --where the movie adaptation equals or bests the great source novel it stemmed from--and this is one of them.
August 21, 2016
This is one of the times when the film is better than the book -the original film is a classic while the book is merely a decent thriller for its time. The film is one of the great seventies Crime films and in a strange way, it’s a love story to the New York City of that time, with it’s great cast of characters and view of a city struggling to maintain it’s greatness. The book is less loving. The city in the book is not just struggling but falling apart - pulled apart by race, generational and cultual conflicts. The book also does not have the balance between the characters of Walter Mathau and Robert Shaw. In the book, the characters of the hijackers are thoroughly examined, but the myriad characters of the Transit Authority and police never really come alive - perhaps because there are too many. There is more emphasis on the hostages in the book, whereas in the film, their characters are left to be defined by the actors portraying them (to various degrees of success).
May 7, 2018
I've always liked the movie but hadn't read this yet. Really glad my library has so many of these books from the 1970's. It is very close to the movie but expands on the characters involved. Ryder's interpretation is interesting, though he is American in this. The Walter Mathau character was taken from about 3 different characters here and that was a good choice. There's just a tiny amount of extra action from the movie. It's a good read so I'd say it's worth a read if you are a fan of the movie. The story constantly switches between all the characters. Some only appear one or two times. It hits on anyone involved by the story(newspaper stands, by-standers in a crowd) and forms a nice picture of NYC. Surprising number of the jokes in the movie are here but they hit harder in the movie for me.
June 28, 2025
I had already seen the movie so had a good idea of what was going to happen.
July 25, 2020
I've been wanting to read this for many years and have finally gotten around it. It was definitely worth the wait. An edge of the seat thriller that had been captivated to the end. Highly recommended.
July 22, 2017
We are serious, desperate men
The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (1973) is a thriller novel by Morton Freedgood. He wrote under the pen name John Godey. The novel's title comes from the train's radio call sign. When a New York City subway train leaves to start a run, its call sign is the time it left and where. Here it is Pelham Bay Park Station at 1:23 p.m.
All in all I liked this book. There are a handful of things that set this apart from the run-of-the-mill crime thriller. For example, it uses a third person narrative. This allows for a constant switching of viewpoints. Different characters describe the same scene. By doing this the book feels less claustrophobic. It has a scope grander than a subway car held in a tunnel. Nobody appears to be the main hero too. Each person has their own motives and agendas. The movie versions didn't do justice to this fact.
In summary, a better than expected thriller. Much better then the most recent movie version, that's for sure.
The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (1973) is a thriller novel by Morton Freedgood. He wrote under the pen name John Godey. The novel's title comes from the train's radio call sign. When a New York City subway train leaves to start a run, its call sign is the time it left and where. Here it is Pelham Bay Park Station at 1:23 p.m.
All in all I liked this book. There are a handful of things that set this apart from the run-of-the-mill crime thriller. For example, it uses a third person narrative. This allows for a constant switching of viewpoints. Different characters describe the same scene. By doing this the book feels less claustrophobic. It has a scope grander than a subway car held in a tunnel. Nobody appears to be the main hero too. Each person has their own motives and agendas. The movie versions didn't do justice to this fact.
In summary, a better than expected thriller. Much better then the most recent movie version, that's for sure.
Read
May 10, 2015A good friend has been nagging me to re-watch the original movie adaptation of THE TAKING OF PELHAM ONE TWO THREE (I saw it long long ago--no recollection), including for its fantastic score, and so I felt I should read the novel first. John Godey's not a familiar name to me (and I discovered it's actually a pen name) but, HOLY COW, this is one crackerjack piece of writing--I knocked it off in little more than one afternoon while on Spring Break because it's almost impossible to put down. Four desperate men decide to commandeer a NYC subway train (the train that originated in the Pelham station at 1:23--hence the title) and hold it for ransom. It's almost the archetypal heist story, but what a great twist: who the hell would hijack a subway car?! (This was, not surprisingly, the initial reaction of the police.) There's plenty of action and drama, but the special sauce in this novel is that the story is told piecemeal from a wide variety of points of view, from the hijackers themselves to some of the hostages to the mayor to the head of the transit authority as well as various cops who are pulled into the showdown--and the backstories of many of these characters are explored as well, which adds an unexpected richness to the tale. (Some reviewers seem to feel that the backstories "slow things down"; I didn't at all, and I thought it was a brilliant variation. While the book is not as streamlined as a classic hardboiled thriller, it never seems to drag, and the backstories add texture, emotion, humor, and some fascinating quotidian insights into NYC life in the 1970's.) Godey built a fantastic and ingenious story, and the writing is (not exaggerating here) close to Donald Westlake level: lean, powerful, witty, and relentless. My only slight nit is that the ending didn't seem perfect to me . . . but then again, that may be because it wasn't in my heart how I wanted things to turn out (avoiding spoilers here). GREAT heist caper, with a fantastic '70's vibe: this novel deserves to be on any list of great crime fiction. Is Godey's other work worth tracking down?
January 4, 2015
I've seen the original film of this book many times, probably originally at the time it came out in 1974, and own it, as well as the remake which was done a couple of years ago. Finally, I was persuaded to read the actual book, since the two films have some significant differences in the storylines.
Basically a team of four men hijack one car of the New York subway system, holding 25 or so people hostage and demanding one million dollars (the amount got much larger in the remake, due to inflation). The original movie followed the book pretty faithfully, except that the hijackers' names were used in the remake and not in the original. In the original they went by pseudonyms by color, such as "Mr. Blue", "Mr. Green", etc. (reportedly this was Quentin Tarantino's inspiration for his characters' names in 'Reservoir Dog'.)
A NYC Transit policeman (played with the perfect mix of humor and drama in the original movie by Walter Matthau), communicates with the head hijacker (played by the great Robert Shaw) via two-way radio. The police are given a short 1 hour to get that amount of money together (and to get the NYC mayor to agree to pay it first), and racing across town and through the subway system to deliver it before the bad guys start executing hostages. Just as enthralling and tension-filled in this book as it was in the film (and incidentally, the remake which stars John Travolta as the main bad guy and Denzel Washington as the transit authority contact, is a good film as long as it's not compared too much to the original). I won't give away the ending but if you like suspense novels you will undoubtedly enjoy it. Also, check out the movies, at least the original 1974 version.
Basically a team of four men hijack one car of the New York subway system, holding 25 or so people hostage and demanding one million dollars (the amount got much larger in the remake, due to inflation). The original movie followed the book pretty faithfully, except that the hijackers' names were used in the remake and not in the original. In the original they went by pseudonyms by color, such as "Mr. Blue", "Mr. Green", etc. (reportedly this was Quentin Tarantino's inspiration for his characters' names in 'Reservoir Dog'.)
A NYC Transit policeman (played with the perfect mix of humor and drama in the original movie by Walter Matthau), communicates with the head hijacker (played by the great Robert Shaw) via two-way radio. The police are given a short 1 hour to get that amount of money together (and to get the NYC mayor to agree to pay it first), and racing across town and through the subway system to deliver it before the bad guys start executing hostages. Just as enthralling and tension-filled in this book as it was in the film (and incidentally, the remake which stars John Travolta as the main bad guy and Denzel Washington as the transit authority contact, is a good film as long as it's not compared too much to the original). I won't give away the ending but if you like suspense novels you will undoubtedly enjoy it. Also, check out the movies, at least the original 1974 version.
November 17, 2017
Actual rating: 3.5 stars
Good, solid crime story that moves along faster as it goes. I was surprised I liked this, normally crime/cop stories bore me. This one was fun, though.
You already know the basic plot-four guys hijack a subway train and demand a ransom for the passengers. Nothing too fancy there. However, the story gets better, as the plan unfolds. You get to see how the hijackers pretty much covered every base, very few holes in their plan, as they execute it with military precision. However, they did have exactly two holes, and those are the ones that cost them. The fun part is catching their mistakes, and asking 'will this cost them later on in the story?'
Improvements over the film-the personalities are fleshed out more in terms of the bad guys, and you get some back story to them, especially Ryder, the leader of the hijackers. It adds a good deal to the story. Also-don't expect the standard big shootout at the end, with the bad guys going out in a hail of bullets. The ending has more thought to it, although you might get mad by the abrupt ending.
Worth noting: some readers have complained about the sexism and racism in the book. Oh, the horror! It isn't bad at all, just a reflection of the times. This was written in the 70s, what do you expect? It's part of the characters, it's not in there just to be obnoxious. However, if you are someone who goes into crying fits over the 'offensiveness' of seeing the word 'nigger' in print a few times in the story, find a more PC book. I actually got a good chuckle out of the militant black guy passenger on the train, with all his talk about 'peegs' and 'tomming.' Geez people, it's fiction. Lighten up a bit.
Good, solid crime story that moves along faster as it goes. I was surprised I liked this, normally crime/cop stories bore me. This one was fun, though.
You already know the basic plot-four guys hijack a subway train and demand a ransom for the passengers. Nothing too fancy there. However, the story gets better, as the plan unfolds. You get to see how the hijackers pretty much covered every base, very few holes in their plan, as they execute it with military precision. However, they did have exactly two holes, and those are the ones that cost them. The fun part is catching their mistakes, and asking 'will this cost them later on in the story?'
Improvements over the film-the personalities are fleshed out more in terms of the bad guys, and you get some back story to them, especially Ryder, the leader of the hijackers. It adds a good deal to the story. Also-don't expect the standard big shootout at the end, with the bad guys going out in a hail of bullets. The ending has more thought to it, although you might get mad by the abrupt ending.
Worth noting: some readers have complained about the sexism and racism in the book. Oh, the horror! It isn't bad at all, just a reflection of the times. This was written in the 70s, what do you expect? It's part of the characters, it's not in there just to be obnoxious. However, if you are someone who goes into crying fits over the 'offensiveness' of seeing the word 'nigger' in print a few times in the story, find a more PC book. I actually got a good chuckle out of the militant black guy passenger on the train, with all his talk about 'peegs' and 'tomming.' Geez people, it's fiction. Lighten up a bit.
December 31, 2015
$1.99
Because I got to see this movie, the one starring John Travolta and Denzel Washington, not too long ago, I thought I would check out the book. I usually prefer to read the book and then see the movie, but I had never heard of this one before. Strangely enough, I like the movie better.
This book is dated since it was written 40 years ago, but there were other things I didn't care for in it. The author has used so many different POV's that it becomes difficult to know who is talking and telling the story. It would also be helpful to understand the New York subway system, and I don't. The characters are rather stereotypical, although in this book you got to know their backgrounds a little better although Ryder still remains rather two-sided and not fully developed as the major character.
You can read the previews to see what this book is about for yourself. It looks like I'm in the minority of not caring as much for the book, but that's okay. To each his own.
Because I got to see this movie, the one starring John Travolta and Denzel Washington, not too long ago, I thought I would check out the book. I usually prefer to read the book and then see the movie, but I had never heard of this one before. Strangely enough, I like the movie better.
This book is dated since it was written 40 years ago, but there were other things I didn't care for in it. The author has used so many different POV's that it becomes difficult to know who is talking and telling the story. It would also be helpful to understand the New York subway system, and I don't. The characters are rather stereotypical, although in this book you got to know their backgrounds a little better although Ryder still remains rather two-sided and not fully developed as the major character.
You can read the previews to see what this book is about for yourself. It looks like I'm in the minority of not caring as much for the book, but that's okay. To each his own.
July 4, 2016
What's that song lyric? "A little less talk, a little more action please."
I guess I was expecting more action, more suspense, more...plot? Granted, I've never seen a movie of this book, but they all sounded like action/adventure movies. So I was surprised by the majority of this book being a social commentary of the '70s. And not a kind commentary. While it wasn't flooded with profanity like some books are today, it definitely strayed into the crude too often for my tastes.
The book is set up with constantly switching viewpoints, giving us the scene from the eyes of many different characters. It didn't take too much effort to settle in to this style, and it was actually very interesting to experience the day from all these angles. Back story really only focused on the main hijackers, which was good - any more and it would have been too much.
I'm not sure I would recommend this book to anyone, but I do understand why its a widely-read.
I guess I was expecting more action, more suspense, more...plot? Granted, I've never seen a movie of this book, but they all sounded like action/adventure movies. So I was surprised by the majority of this book being a social commentary of the '70s. And not a kind commentary. While it wasn't flooded with profanity like some books are today, it definitely strayed into the crude too often for my tastes.
The book is set up with constantly switching viewpoints, giving us the scene from the eyes of many different characters. It didn't take too much effort to settle in to this style, and it was actually very interesting to experience the day from all these angles. Back story really only focused on the main hijackers, which was good - any more and it would have been too much.
I'm not sure I would recommend this book to anyone, but I do understand why its a widely-read.
September 16, 2014
Good story. Even though I've seen the movie several times and basically knew the ending, I enjoyed the "original" twists to the story. I did not care for the foul language, the description of Ryder's sex life as a teen/young man, nor the leering lust of Welcome at Anita (the prostitute). Many of the characters were stereotypes — Steever the dumb strongman, the radical black, the OCD dispatcher trying to get the trains back on schedule even when the crisis was full on, the mayor and his assistant who were more worried with politics than the hostages. Even the blatant racism was stereotypical. But, then, this book was written in 1973, not 2014. I thought the best characters were Ryder and Longman and, at the end, I found myself wanting Longman to get away. Great quote: "The crowd's antenna, an organ tuned to a permanent wavelenth of suspicion...."
May 27, 2014
The core of the novel - a hijacking plot devised by an ex-mercenary and a former MTA motorman still has tremendous kick and is, as written, far superior to the recent film remake. The device of rapidly switching points of view allows you to get a far better sense of the intricacy of the crime and it's response, and makes for a more enjoyable experience than watching a more linear screen adaptation.
It is, however, firmly entrenched in the politics of the early 1970s, and is redolent with that decade's machismo. This didn't put me off the book, but it did distract with a sort of anti-intellectual mustiness.
It is, however, firmly entrenched in the politics of the early 1970s, and is redolent with that decade's machismo. This didn't put me off the book, but it did distract with a sort of anti-intellectual mustiness.
October 8, 2022
A well conceived, well-researched, detailed, clever, and competently executed heist thriller that features old tropes, and unfortunately too many ingredients I don’t enjoy. Too much 70’s angst. Too much New York angst. Too much obsession with the New York subway system. Too much lewdness. Too impure a blend of silliness, satire, pulp, and realism. Two stars means this was an okay read, but time would have been better spent elsewhere.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 252 reviews