Sol Yurick (1925–2013)

This American 60's novel uses the case of a mass killer, disaffected and angry with "the system" after losing his young son to an undiagnosed condition, to expose the corruption of the judiciary and body politic while also attempting an (inconclusive) analysis of whether a sane person can commit a capital crime. The plot is devoid of suspense, but at least tries to make progress before dissolving into incoherency with a hundred pages left. The book is pervasively misogynistic, with every show more female character serving a sexual purpose, without exception in a degrading way and often without any point in terms of the story. And while I'm the last person to demand characters I "like" or can "empathise with", the unrelenting obnoxiousness of all the characters in Fertig gets tiresome very quickly (n.b. the main character actually isn't the titular killer, but the revolting lawyer who takes up his case). The prose is self-conscious, the narrative style changing willfully from chapter to chapter, which comes across as pretentious rather than virtuosic. If this is a novel of ideas, they are few and bad; if a crime novel, then the novel is the crime - a capital one. show less

On a purely conceptual level I love this novel. As a lifelong fan of Greek mythology (from childhood) and Greek history and philosophy (from early twenties to this moment though my actual understanding of it...talk to me in a few years) this story's conceit, that of a 1960's African-American and Hispanic street gang fighting their way to Coney Island over the course of a single night (and all based loosely on Xenaphon's Anabasis) is brilliant. Sol Yurick captures the (apparently) show more pre-Giuliani New York in such a way that you can taste the grit and smell the waste accumulating and putrefying waste and corruption all under the aegis of the 'Greatest City on Earth'. The characters, while not exactly likable or easy to relate to, are certainly distinct enough to warrant some great dialogue and funny (and dark) encounters with both fellow gangs and other counterpart denizens of Brooklyn's post sunset underworld.

And that is why the novel deserves three stars from me. However, novels aren't just conceptual no more than science is just theory. There has to be a tangible follow through and utilizing of theory into something, if not coherent, then at least structured. And that, unfortunately, is where this novel falters just a bit. Between the spots of good dialogue and thrilling fight scenes (as well as dark entropy, this is not a book for the soft-hearted or easily offended, racial epithets get thrown and HARD) there are long stretches where Yurick's greenness as a writer (Warriors was one of his first published novels) really shows and the creaking of a fledgling reaching too hard and too far above his station for literary greatness. But, really, better a writer (or any artist for that matter) try too hard then not hard enough (looking at you Low Boy).

Finally, Yurick's afterword wherein he lays bare everything I just said though, admittedly, in a much more turgid and at times confusedly worded way than I thought, is something worth discussing. It's a great piece of writing that really resonated with this amateur writer's heart in terms of attempting to yoke together so many disparate influences together into a coherent (and meritorious) whole. Unlike certain other writers I felt a connection with Yurick predicated on authorial desire and the inhering limitations in all of our abilities from the greats to the novices.

(As an addendum I want to add that I saw the movie years ago, dug it for all of its cheesy glory and find Yurick's ambivalence to it some of the best comedy I've read in years). show less

The Warriors - Sol Yurick *****

Like many people I saw the film about a New York street gang making their way back home across enemy territory while causing havoc. If you liked the film then there is a fair chance that you will love the book. Although a large number of the details were changed for the film (such as the ages, names, brutality) the plot is basically the same. The problem with the film that becomes apparent is that a lot of the intensity becomes lost in translation. Don’t get show more me wrong, the film is brilliant, but the book is something else.

Very often books like this include violence only for the shock factor or to have a talking point. The Warriors is very different and although graphic at times, it really adds to the storyline, hammering to the reader the type of world these people inhabit. Sol Yurick isn’t afraid to really show the dark underbelly of society, and what makes it even more frightening is that you tend to forget that these aren’t adults that are running amok, but teenagers. These are the same people that will settle down to read a comic, or complain about being frightened of the dark only moments after viciously raping or murdering a stranger.

The storyline is simple; a meeting of all the gangs in New York is called. An incident occurs which sees all hell break lose, with each gang trying to avoid both the law and enemies. Obviously they have to cross through hostile areas, but do they try and sneak across quietly, or should they make a statement and some additional points for their own reputation? It is hard to believe that life was/is like this for some people, that a civilised society could have such an existence and yet you find that you even begin to sympathise with the characters, rooting for them to succeed, recognising that they aren’t just villains, but victims as well.

A relatively short book (just over 200 pages) but so much is crammed into each page that it feels like an epic long after the last page is finished. Give it a try and see for yourself. show less

NYC will be having a meeting of warring gangs but things don't go as well as planned. This is the basis for one of my favorite movies, only because the film takes itself so seriously while being hilarious. Though I'm not sure they were going for that. The movie is probably 95% different from the book which I can appreciate. I like that they are two separate beasts. But also, why even name the movie after the book if there is not much similar between the two? It seems the movie might have show more just taken those wacky gangs from the book, or maybe just their clothes (one of the gangs in the book wears ice cream shorts? ) I love the idea of the Others enjoying their day on the Coney Island boardwalk while the Warriors are in a veritable battle zone. Such a memorable image there alone and an interesting way of seeing how gangs might think differently than the Others. Which is an interesting perspective of gang life in general. I also love that the gangs start to wonder why they aren't working together right before everything hits the fan. The book is much more brutal than the movie. The movie wanted to make the main characters, the warriors, much more sympathetic than Yurick cared to write them. Yurick's gang is Lord of the Flies in NYC while the film's gangs could be Disney's interpretation. The book itself switches perspectives occasionally, while mostly staying with Hinton. I feel like there is a ton here in this short book. It's a bit tough for me to unpack. Quite the number of odd scenarios, reminding me a bit of 'Oreo' by Fran Ross. Some of it is a bit Kafkaesque. (Is my life in itself Kafkaesque if every book I read seems inspired by Kafka? It's uncanny.) I do like my edition with Yurick explaining the writing process and discussing actually walking down subway train tunnels to see how long the Warriors journey might take. I can appreciate both the book and the film for different reasons. show less