a study in madness... dark, tense, and ultimately very sad.

This is NOT the movie!!
(if you are interested in both, I strongly suggest reading the novel first.) ( )

I had heard Dorothy Hughes's name but not read any of her work. She is brilliant. This book is fantastic, the creation of the narrator's character grows and becomes ominous, then tougher than ominous. The other major characters are very well-formed and alive. This book is extraordinary. It is also different from the movie of the same name which was adapted from this book. I like both very much. ( )

4.75


Not just a good noir, but an excellent character drama. Good prose, great dialogue. It all flows and reads so well. Tight and rich.

My one minor qualm is that the ending feels just a little (little) bit rushed.

The film is also excellent, and less explicit (if my memory serves me). Not a criticism of the book in any way, just an observation. It's always a credit to a book if it manages to suck me in when I've already witnessed the story on screen. ( )

A noir classic, this novel takes place in post-WW2 Los Angeles.

Yes, this is a crime novel, but really it is a study of a criminal. The reader learns very quickly what is going on, but reading the story is watching the criminal's take on his own cleverness. Meanwhile the reader wonders when the people around him--including the police--will figure it out. Of course, maybe they already have, and are simply collecting evidence for a successful arrest and charging.

One of the main characters here, though, is Los Angeles. Late 1940s Los Angeles, which most definitely is not the same as modern Los Angeles. Beverly Glen Road is no longer a rural outpost above the city--it is lined with nice houses and is a "shortcut" commuting corridor. There are no longer drive-ins with carhops, and for all the driving around in this book there is no traffic. Because 1940s!

The description of Palisades Park, the California Incline, and Santa Monica Canyon still hold true, for the most part (no more foghorns, and it is 7th Street that drops from San Vicente down into the canyon, not 4th, and it is much more densely populated now). But the fog, the mist, the creepiness of it at night when it is quiet--it is still on point.

I have heard this book described as being very "gray" (it's noir, the NYRB cover is B&W, characters are named Steele and Gray). For me, though, this book was in vivid color. San Vicente is GREEN with trees and grass. Wilshire Blvd is lit up. The sky is BLUE unless it is foggy--and then yes, it is gray and monotone.

I really enjoyed the visit to 1940s LA, but the story itself is not my favorite type of book. I prefer mysteries where the reader is trying to figure it out (and it is possible to figure it out), or psychological studies like Perfume: The Story of a Murderer in which the creepy factor is over-the-top. But this is personal preference, and I plan to watch the movie (which is supposed to be VERY different) soon. ( )

The only thing I would add to the reviews here is that there are way too many passages where there is Dix or someone else lighting a cigarette, or Dix thinking about what he wants to eat, or Dix pouring more alcoholic drinks, or thinking about where he might drive and how he'll get there. Normally, I wouldn't notice something like that, but in this novel it's overdone. It's like Hughes was padding. Laurel comes across as sociopathic, which I'm not sure is intended. Otherwise, the positive points that other reviewers have talked about are valid. ( )