tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5448581132479481740.post7042807606072627480..comments2024-03-25T11:29:25.356-04:00Comments on Existential Ennui: A Tom Ripley and Ripliad Chronology: a Timeline in Patricia Highsmith's The Talented Mr. Ripley (Virago, 2015)Nick Jones (Louis XIV, the Sun King)http://www.blogger.com/profile/17716508525331235684noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5448581132479481740.post-69385493352698809662023-05-26T05:36:27.826-04:002023-05-26T05:36:27.826-04:00Thanks for this. I am also reading the Ripley nove...Thanks for this. I am also reading the Ripley novels in succession which doubtless make the timeline anomalies more noticeable. I guessed that Highsmith was effectively setting the novels in the present day of when she wrote them whilst, at the same time, suggesting that only a few years had passed since the previous novel. I decided to see if someone else had taken the trouble to summarise the timeline clues so I wouldn't have to!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5448581132479481740.post-58206046633268363242021-07-23T02:07:05.941-04:002021-07-23T02:07:05.941-04:00Thanks Eric! You might find the Ripley Reread post...Thanks Eric! You might find the Ripley Reread posts diverting, or maybe the Ripley's Game/American Friend one, but there's lots of other stuff besides.Nick Jones (Louis XIV, the Sun King)https://www.blogger.com/profile/17716508525331235684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5448581132479481740.post-75683293748401078922021-07-22T14:19:36.485-04:002021-07-22T14:19:36.485-04:00I came across this through a Google search while d...I came across this through a Google search while doing my own binge-read of Ripley, after my brain cracked a little trying to reconcile a paragraph in <i>Ripley Under Ground</i> in which we're told the events are five years after Murchison's murder with a paragraph in which Reeves Minot mentions the late-80s Salman Rushdie novel <i>The Satanic Verses</i>. Clearly the lesson is I just shouldn't worry about it more than Highsmith did!<br /><br />It occurs to me that it's not just the obsessiveness of readers; if you read these as they were published, you almost certainly didn't even notice the anachronisms, but reading them in quick succession the anachronisms fly right out at you (and possibly other contradictions--I can't look right now, but I think the owners of the local bar-tabac have switched political parties and completely crossed the aisle since I last saw them).<br /><br />Anyway, thank you for the post. I look forward to reading some other posts here.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18275812152895151542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5448581132479481740.post-28500657845446032015-08-23T08:03:26.527-04:002015-08-23T08:03:26.527-04:00I've not read enough of the novels to say for ...I've not read enough of the novels to say for certain, Chris, but I believe the characters in Anthony Price's David Audley spy series age at the same rate as the books were published (about 20 years, from 1970–1989). Ethan Iverson would be able to confirm that one. I was going to mention the Parkers at the start of the post (and the Bond continuation novels), but the intro was getting too longwinded (even more so than it currently is), so I dropped them. So thank you for bringing them up!Nick Jones (Louis XIV, the Sun King)https://www.blogger.com/profile/17716508525331235684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5448581132479481740.post-4103213796970008302015-08-22T22:31:28.396-04:002015-08-22T22:31:28.396-04:00Interesting to learn this is also a problem with t...Interesting to learn this is also a problem with the Ripleys. I've long been aware of a similar problem with the Parker novels. There's a 23 year gap between 1974's Butcher's Moon, and 1997's Comeback. From the perspective of Parker and a handful of other characters from the earlier books who also appear in the later ones, only a short time has passed. All of a sudden, there's the internet, there's cellphones, and in the final trilogy written towards the end of Westlake's life, there's post-9/11 security measures. The cars have changed as well. <br /><br />I think both of them liked there to be a certain sense of immediacy to their writing. Westlake hardly ever wrote stories which didn't take place around the same time he was writing them, and though I'm less familiar with Highsmith, I believe that's mainly the case with her as well? <br /><br />But also, they both want to see how these two strange protagonists will react to certain situations--to changes in the culture, in technology, in society. They need them to be in fairly fit condition to survive the dangerous situations they get themselves into, so they can't be too old. Highsmith in particular would want to go on seeing Ripley as a young man. He truly is an ageless character--it's a bit more complicated with Parker. I believe there are some minor problems with the Stark chronology, even if you allow for the great leap forward. There's been more scrutiny of the Ripleys, and of course there's only five of them. <br /><br />Maybe a better question to ask would be which long-running series of books about a particular character or group of characters does not have chronology issues? I know they're a huge problem for the Aubrey/Maturin nautical novels of Patrick O'Brian. He just needed more time than history afforded him, so he cheated. <br /><br />And I think they'd all say that their books were in the fiction section for a reason, and leave it at that. Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00271250698430923736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5448581132479481740.post-31235733830921153432015-08-13T15:53:47.077-04:002015-08-13T15:53:47.077-04:00Thank you for the splendid comments, both. Polecat...Thank you for the splendid comments, both. Polecat, I am in awe that you spotted those details, especially the poster for Romeo and Juliet. Amazing.Nick Jones (Louis XIV, the Sun King)https://www.blogger.com/profile/17716508525331235684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5448581132479481740.post-33979726928458952182015-08-13T11:29:12.248-04:002015-08-13T11:29:12.248-04:00In The Boy... Frank, who is 16, mentions that he w...In <i>The Boy...</i> Frank, who is 16, mentions that he was 14 when he read the news of Murchison's disappearance, so the date should be August 1970, but the chronology of current events places the book in August 1978.<br /><br />In <i>Game</i>, Tom writes a letter to Reeves on Friday March 28, and this corresponds to the 1969 calendar. But in the next chapter another Friday, March 31 arrives, and that's the 1972 calendar when Highsmith was actually writing the book, I think.<br /><br />In <i>Ripley Under Ground</i> Tom visits London in October and spots a poster for Zeffirelli's <i>Romeo and Juliet</i> on the Tube. So that's October 1968 when the film was released. Heloïse has her birthday next month, so she is either a Scorpio or a Sagittarius. Being at the moment 25, she was born in November 1942, under the Occupation. Tom is 31 in the book, so he must have been born in late 1936 or in 1937. It is also mentioned that Tom was 25 during the events of the previous book, which places them in 1961-62.polecathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15293284921429573528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5448581132479481740.post-61488522284185428302015-08-09T15:59:13.078-04:002015-08-09T15:59:13.078-04:00You're trying to bait me into commenting to se...You're trying to bait me into commenting to see if I'm still reading the blog, aren't you? ;)<br /><br />I've also compared the Ripley timeline to George Romero's Living Dead movies. For instance: Night of the Living Dead was made in 1968 and takes place in 1968, and Dawn of the Dead was made in 1978 and takes place in 1978, but it's clear that no more than a few weeks has passed between them.<br /><br />That new chronology baffles me, not only because the dates seem wrong, but also because it's unnecessary. This is what happens when scholars and editors focus too much on continuity and everything fitting together perfectly, and try too hard to fix the perceived "mistakes" of an author who didn't really care about such details. I see this all the time in the Sherlock Holmes world; obsessive fans trying to explain why John Watson's wife refers to him as James in one story, or why Holmes refers to Mrs. Hudson once as Mrs. Turner.<br /><br />A lot of fans get a kick out of that particular "game," as they call it, and it does interest me to an extent, but even my fanboy obsessiveness has limits. It just gets boring after a while.Craig D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02798473771333728151noreply@blogger.com