I know people like the Ripley novels, but I find them really creepy and predictable. This kind of wish-fulfillment fiction is kind of lazy. It's like the sci-fi where the author just invents a gadget that delivers what people fantasize about doing.
Do you think the novels are there to fulfill creepy "wishes"?
In my opinion, this is not the case, but to each their own.
What I find lazy is when stories try to make me guess about "what" happens in the story, flex about technological details, or use surprise as a narrative device.
Highsmith's stories are about "how" and "why" something happens, they are not movie stories trying to lead you astray and make you guess what will happen.
I prefer this, always, in movies, books, writing, art.
I like open questions. I hate plots that try to build surprises or riddles to keep me interested. These kinds of stories make me tune out and feel dull to me.
I really love her other novels too, many of them also have the perspective of a crime perpetrator though.
For a slightly different variant, maybe look at, for example, "Edith's diary".
Also, her short stories are amazing, for example "When the Fleet Was in", or many other ones published in collections along with it.
These stories are far from painting criminals as desirable, in my opinion. Sure, it's a part of the entertainment value to take the criminal's perspective.
Her novels challenge simplistic morality, but she does not "side with the criminals" IMO.
I get what you mean with her novels having in common a certain atmosphere of psychological determinism, and, a focus on dark motives that are somehow presented to the readers as "relatable".
I suggest to read some interviews with her: she did not have a nihilistic view on hunamity. She believed in good and evil. Certainly she was a difficult person.
This one has some content about these questions, it unfortunately also focuses strongly on the Ripley case, and you might feel it affirms your view in some sense (I'd disagree though):
(please ignore the PL-related stuff... should not distract from the content)
> Q: Your heroes are usually unscrupulous, amoral and sometimes schizoid. Is it simply that they are more dramatically interesting figures to write about, or does your attention to them run deeper than that?
> A: It’s not so much attraction. I find them interesting, puzzling. Nobody questions why somebody is good, but most people are curious about a murderer – they want to know why. Also there is entertainment value in somebody getting away with something. One may disapprove, but it’s still fascinating.
I couldn't retrieve the most interesting interview I read with her, didn't bookmark that, unfortunately.
I don't think her novels simply exploit people fantasizing about be murderers. That kind of "crime-porn" is much more prevalent in simplistic crime novels about killers who are caught in the end, but get to commit atrocities described in details before.
The "wish-fulfillment" you describe, in my opinion, I would call something else. I did not enjoy Highsmith because I wanted to murder people.
But sure, nobody has to like her, and there are plenty of other writing styles to enjoy.
She certainly has a style and complex of themes that leaves one with an urge to read something different after a couple of books.
>What I find lazy is when stories try to make me guess about "what" happens in the story, flex about technological details, or use surprise as a narrative device.
This is interesting to hear. I might not be interpreting your comments correctly but some of my favorite 'fiction' seems to contain all of this laziness. Significant technical detail that resists attempts at mental dismantling, a purposely ambiguous ending and a type of unreliable narrator.
I didn't find the perfect phrasing for what I meant:
> Significant technical detail that resists attempts at mental dismantling
The last part makes it interesting to me again! For example, I love "ice nine" and "dragon's egg" (more "hard" sci-fi), and I adore the sci-fi/fantasy story SCP-1425.
I also have a passion for PKD (to steer away from technology a little).
What I mean is boring descriptions of fictional technological details, not the effects of technology.
And, in general (unrelated second point), I do not like "McGuffins" and "action".
> a purposely ambiguous ending and a type of unreliable narrator
I love that! Have I mentioned Philip K Dick yet? Regardless, he's pretty much on the other end of the scale of what I meant: techno-centric vs more "philosophical" sci-fi.
I don't care about detailed descriptions of space-station machinery or interstellar travel–unless of course, it's written in a way that helps me imagine being in that world, and how it would feel like.
I know people like the Ripley novels, but I find them really creepy and predictable. This kind of wish-fulfillment fiction is kind of lazy. It's like the sci-fi where the author just invents a gadget that delivers what people fantasize about doing.
To me Highsmith's fiction is more about psychology than suspense.
It's not Agatha Christie, where you have no clue about what happens next or that the judge is the killer.
I disagree, apart from them being creepy.
Do you think the novels are there to fulfill creepy "wishes"?
In my opinion, this is not the case, but to each their own.
What I find lazy is when stories try to make me guess about "what" happens in the story, flex about technological details, or use surprise as a narrative device.
Highsmith's stories are about "how" and "why" something happens, they are not movie stories trying to lead you astray and make you guess what will happen.
I prefer this, always, in movies, books, writing, art.
I like open questions. I hate plots that try to build surprises or riddles to keep me interested. These kinds of stories make me tune out and feel dull to me.
I really love her other novels too, many of them also have the perspective of a crime perpetrator though.
For a slightly different variant, maybe look at, for example, "Edith's diary".
Also, her short stories are amazing, for example "When the Fleet Was in", or many other ones published in collections along with it.
These stories are far from painting criminals as desirable, in my opinion. Sure, it's a part of the entertainment value to take the criminal's perspective.
Her novels challenge simplistic morality, but she does not "side with the criminals" IMO.
I get what you mean with her novels having in common a certain atmosphere of psychological determinism, and, a focus on dark motives that are somehow presented to the readers as "relatable".
I suggest to read some interviews with her: she did not have a nihilistic view on hunamity. She believed in good and evil. Certainly she was a difficult person.
This one has some content about these questions, it unfortunately also focuses strongly on the Ripley case, and you might feel it affirms your view in some sense (I'd disagree though):
https://quartetbooks.wordpress.com/2014/01/10/patricia-highs...
(please ignore the PL-related stuff... should not distract from the content)
> Q: Your heroes are usually unscrupulous, amoral and sometimes schizoid. Is it simply that they are more dramatically interesting figures to write about, or does your attention to them run deeper than that?
> A: It’s not so much attraction. I find them interesting, puzzling. Nobody questions why somebody is good, but most people are curious about a murderer – they want to know why. Also there is entertainment value in somebody getting away with something. One may disapprove, but it’s still fascinating.
I couldn't retrieve the most interesting interview I read with her, didn't bookmark that, unfortunately.
I don't think her novels simply exploit people fantasizing about be murderers. That kind of "crime-porn" is much more prevalent in simplistic crime novels about killers who are caught in the end, but get to commit atrocities described in details before.
The "wish-fulfillment" you describe, in my opinion, I would call something else. I did not enjoy Highsmith because I wanted to murder people.
But sure, nobody has to like her, and there are plenty of other writing styles to enjoy.
She certainly has a style and complex of themes that leaves one with an urge to read something different after a couple of books.
>What I find lazy is when stories try to make me guess about "what" happens in the story, flex about technological details, or use surprise as a narrative device.
This is interesting to hear. I might not be interpreting your comments correctly but some of my favorite 'fiction' seems to contain all of this laziness. Significant technical detail that resists attempts at mental dismantling, a purposely ambiguous ending and a type of unreliable narrator.
I didn't find the perfect phrasing for what I meant:
> Significant technical detail that resists attempts at mental dismantling
The last part makes it interesting to me again! For example, I love "ice nine" and "dragon's egg" (more "hard" sci-fi), and I adore the sci-fi/fantasy story SCP-1425.
I also have a passion for PKD (to steer away from technology a little).
What I mean is boring descriptions of fictional technological details, not the effects of technology.
And, in general (unrelated second point), I do not like "McGuffins" and "action".
> a purposely ambiguous ending and a type of unreliable narrator
I love that! Have I mentioned Philip K Dick yet? Regardless, he's pretty much on the other end of the scale of what I meant: techno-centric vs more "philosophical" sci-fi.
I don't care about detailed descriptions of space-station machinery or interstellar travel–unless of course, it's written in a way that helps me imagine being in that world, and how it would feel like.