Pulp Fiction discussion

Fast-paced classic Noir, what better way than start this group with such a great book. Nice and quick to read :)

This is a short, very quick book. I've almost finished it, just have to find the time.

To start of the conversation, without giving away spoilers; would you call this book Noir?

I say yes.

I've finished it now but I won't say much in here til some more people have finished it too. My review is up if you wish to read it.

I probably wouldn't call it noir, just crime. I always see noir novels as highly descriptive, really making you feel the dark and grim and mood. This novella just really didn't make me feel like I was in that world. It almost read as a transcript rather than a story.

from wiki;

This type of fiction also has the lean, direct writing style and the gritty realism commonly associated with hardboiled fiction.

Kim, KL--finished Postman today. I have to side with KL on this being noir. Although there's plenty of room to debate on what is noir or hard boiled, for me noir is a sub-genre of hardboiled detective fiction. Cain is outside the realm of Hammett or Chandler.

Noir generally does not feature a detective. The protagonist is a suspect, a victim, or the actual perpetrator. They are caught up in circumstances outside the law and, in the case of Frank and Cora, hoping that the law never becomes involved.

I was reading an interesting article this evening about noir. I'll see if I can pull it up on my history for the link. The author indicated that noir did not exist in America prior to the 1980s, when it was coined by the head of Vintage/Lizard Crime. It had existed as a French term, "Roman Noir"--the black novel for many years. According to this author, the French recognized classic American noir authors as such considerably before Americans did. http://noirfiction.info/what.html Ah! There's the link.

Kim, interesting that you compared Postman to a transcript. McCain was a crime beat reporter for The Baltimore American and The Baltimore Sun. He taught journalism at St. Johns in Annapolis for two years.

"Postman" was banned in Canada and Boston. McCain was tried for obscenity in Boston--acquitted. Of course, being banned in Boston will send a book to the top of the charts faster than anything else.

Good choice for the first group read. I'll hold comments about the novel till others have time to catch up.

Ok. Review is up for those who care to see it. Will continue to hold comments here for the time being.

Will be reading soon. I've already watched the movie (awhile back...I think it was on TCM), so the plot, conflict, resolution, etc won't be a big surprise. Still, I want to see Cain's style and approach to this genre, and this will be my first experience reading one of his books.

KL, interesting you mention the question about whether this is noir or not. There was a discussion on a board about the film, whether it would be defined as noir.

I've been rereading this and while I can see why people wouldn't class it as noir but we would have to define noir.

In my opinion the fact that they are perpetrators of a crime is one of the ey reasons I call it noir. The other is the fact this book is like a car wreak about to happen (pun intended)

Knowledge Lost wrote: "I've been rereading this and while I can see why people wouldn't class it as noir but we would have to define noir.

In my opinion the fact that they are perpetrators of a crime is one of the ey re..."

haha KL.

I can see the argument with calling it noir from the fact that yes they are the perpetrators and you never get a detective's viewpoint.

Although, the description was quite limited which partly, I liked as I could imagine the characters as I wanted to.

It's a very quick read though. Those that haven't yet managed it have no excuse! :P

Very good choice for the first read though, it's a good introduction to the type of fiction this group is about and not too long or daunting. I look forward to the next read!

This is one of the best examples of noir i have read. For me its simple PI hardboiled is about detectives and noir is about books like this. Lowlifes, criminals, social misfits. Stories you cant tell in hardcore PI story.

Cain and Thompson or Hammett/Chandler.

Anyway i loved this novel when i read it in 2009. I still remember it vividly. Its a surprising sexual charged novel for a 30s book. They would never have been able to tell the same story in film form. Characters destroying themselves in this novel was so well done.

Kim wrote: "I've finished it now but I won't say much in here til some more people have finished it too. My review is up if you wish to read it.

I probably wouldn't call it noir, just crime. I always see noir..."

Doesnt matter what they made you feel because thats personal to a reader. This about characters, stories you can tell in noir story. People destroying themselves. It was dark in that way. Doesnt have to uber dark,violent to be noir.

Its like saying i dont like Jim Thompson novel so he cant be noir....

There are textbooks about noir with this book in the title.

I'm about half way through. It's hard to believe that this was written in the 30s as it really pushes the envelope with sexual situations and controversy. I can see how people would have reacted negatively towards the book, based on its content.

This is my first noir book read, so the dialogue took awhile to get into (it seemed kind of jumpy or scattered at first), but it's picked up since the first few chapters. Things have picked up as Chambers has hit a road block.

Anyways, I'll probably have this finished pretty soon.

Otto Penzler once wrote, "Look, noir is about losers. The characters in these existential, nihilistic tales are doomed. They may not die, but they probably should, as the life that awaits them is certain to be so ugly, so lost and lonely, that they'd be better off just curling up and getting it over with. And, let's face it, they deserve it."
Apply that definition to this tale and you get the poster-child for noir. Great book!
My only issue came with the scene where Chambers loses all his money shooting pool. I can't decide if that was genius writing or just a mess.

Adam wrote: "Otto Penzler once wrote, "Look, noir is about losers. The characters in these existential, nihilistic tales are doomed. They may not die, but they probably should, as the life that awaits them is c..."

Adam, great quote. That pretty much personifies the characters in Postman and is great way to define a noir. (The term noir tends to get thrown around a lot in films, books,etc). Cora says it best, "We're just two punks, Frank." You don't really end up despising the characters when you are reading, but you know they are basically "no good" and aren't surprised at their downfalls.

Great read! I have never been fond of the niche of crime/mystery, but figured that this group would point my in the right direction. Cain's book was very good as I definitely noticed how the story and style pulled me in. I had seen both film versions ages ago, but it seems like they altered the plot? Cain really weaves a great atmosphere within the book as one starts to root for Frank and Cora.

I've never seen the 1946 film version, but have added it to my Netflix queue. I read "Postman..." the first time in 1983, after seeing the Nicholson remake. Even the script by David Mamet couldn't save that one. Perhaps it was a lack of chemistry between the leads. I've always felt Jessica Lange was too classy for the role. Can't wait to see the original film and compare the two.

Melki wrote: "I've never seen the 1946 film version, but have added it to my Netflix queue. I read "Postman..." the first time in 1983, after seeing the Nicholson remake. Even the script by David Mamet couldn'..."

Hi Melki! Yes, I am curious about the 1946 film as well. Haven't seen the Lange/Nicholson version for a while, but remember that I completely fell for Jessica Lange at the time. It will be interesting to watch either version in terms of comparing with the book.

In terms of the book it seems full of fate. It seems almost predetermined that this is a path that Frank will walk on no matter what happens. Did you sense that as well?

Melki wrote: "I've never seen the 1946 film version, but have added it to my Netflix queue. I read "Postman..." the first time in 1983, after seeing the Nicholson remake. Even the script by David Mamet couldn'..."

I saw the film before I read the book. I thought it was passable, but rather so-so. Now that I've read the book I just don't think the story translates as well to a film (Frank's inner thoughts, for instance).

Still, many regard the film as a classic, so I'm probably in the minority on that point.

A lot of people love it, but I don't think the 1946 version is that great. Lana Turner is beautiful, and John Garfield is always good, but their murder schemes don't have enough gravity to them, and then second half of the film is almost pitched at the level of farce, and focuses more on the opposing attorneys in the case than on Garfield and Turner, which is where the viewer's interest lies. It's not a bad film, but I think it's bound to be disappointing if you're a fan of the book.

In complete agreement with Adam. I read the book first and as good as Garfield was, his role in the second half wasn't as well fleshed out as was required. Consequently, that took a lot of punch and verve that the movie would have had otherwise.

Very few "Noirs" were as good as the books they were based on.

//"Otto Penzler once wrote, "Look, noir is about losers. The characters in these existential, nihilistic tales are doomed. They may not die, but they probably should, as the life that awaits them//

"The Friends Of Eddie Coyle" immediately comes to mind. What a book and what an incredible performance by Bob Mitchum in the Film?!

Adam wrote: "Otto Penzler once wrote, "Look, noir is about losers. The characters in these existential, nihilistic tales are doomed. They may not die, but they probably should, as the life that awaits them is c..."


Frankly i dig PI stories but sometimes i want to read about people like the ones in this book. People that are not normal,good. Sometimes you want to read people that are really low like the ones in James M Cain novels.

Just finished my reread - 28 years after my first reading.
Cain has a very minimalist style. There are few descriptions, no flowery sentences and no wasted words. His characters waste no time either. They meet and then it's pretty much wham-bam-"Bite me, bite me!" Things move along at a fast clip from there. The first murder attempt is in chapter 4, and these are short chapters, folks.
Haaze asked about predetermination in message 18. Some people do indeed seem almost cursed - sometimes by circumstances beyond their control and others by their own making. Frank and Cora certainly seemed the type to die young, leaving good-looking corpses. You just know there will be no happily ever after in this book.

The title still puzzles me. Google provided no real answers. Anyone have any ideas why a book that has nothing to do with speedy mail delivery or bell ringing, mentions both in its title?

I read this i think two year ago and still remember it vividly. The minimilastic style was rare,different even for a noir novel of that era. It was so mean in its directness.

The title i never understood either. Maybe it means someone that keeps coming back the rings twice part. Not postal service or bell rining related.

Melki wrote: "Just finished my reread - 28 years after my first reading.
Cain has a very minimalist style. There are few descriptions, no flowery sentences and no wasted words. His characters waste no time ..."

AHA! Melki, I knew you didn't read my reviews. I gave an extensive explanation about the title. I could say, Neaner, nearner, neaner and not say, or say, *sniff* it's in the review.

However,being the gentleman, There is no postman in the book.

Cain has offered two versions, the first appearing during the lines of John Garfield in the 46 film.

It goes something like this...if you do something wrong and get away with it once, the second time around, you're going to pay the piper, even if it's for a crime you didn't commit.

Garfield works in the postman line. He always rings twice.

The idea came to Cain from an actual murder case--now THAT is in the review. And I can't remember the name of the case. However, wife wants to kill Hubby for his life insurance, which she has increased unbeknownst to her husband. There's an indication that she told the postman to ring twice so she could intercept the insurance papers before her husband saw them.

That may be urban legend. There is some information to indicate that the postman ALWAYS rang twice back in the day.

So, back to the Garfield lines in the movie, it kind of taps into the determinism issue you touched on. Yep. God is gonna get you. If not the first time around, the second time around.

If the murder angle about the insurance papers sounds familiar, that's because Cain said that murder trial was also the source for Double Indemnity.

Now. *clearing throat* Cain has also given a different version, which is IN THE REVIEW grin> that once he sent off a manuscript he couldn't stand to wait for the postman. In fact, when he expected word on a submission, he would deliberately go into the back yard to avoid hearing the postman, but the postman would ring twice.

That is not a plausible reason for naming the novel "The Poastman Always Rings Twice." Of course, Cain had wanted to name the book "Bar-b-cue," which Knopf didn't like. That was ITR. Too. *ahem* LAUGHING MYSELF SILLY

Actually, I did read your review. I was trying to solicit opinions from OTHER members, so - neaner, neaner, neaner - right back at you. (Actually, I prefer "nanny, nanny, boo-boo", a regional thing, perhaps...)

I caught the insurance snare this time around, and found myself saying, "Wait a minute! Didn't he use that again in DI?" But, I'm all for recycling!


"Bar-b-cue"? Seriously? What WAS he thinking?

Melki wrote: "Actually, I did read your review. I was trying to solicit opinions from OTHER members, so - neaner, neaner, neaner - right back at you. (Actually, I prefer "nanny, nanny, boo-boo", a regional thi..."

Capital punishment, perhaps. In the real life murder case that inspired both Postman and DI, a reporter sneaked a camera into the viewing room for the execution of the wife. He had the camera strapped to his ankle. One of the more infamous photos of an execution by electric chair. Printed all over the wire services, pun intended. Hence, Bar-B-Cue. RIM SHOT!

From Wiki:

The crime

In 1925, Snyder, a Queens Village, Queens housewife, began an affair with Henry Judd Gray, a married corset salesman. She then began to plan the murder of her husband, enlisting the help of her new lover, though he appeared to be very reluctant. Her distaste for her husband apparently began when he insisted on hanging a picture of his late fiancée, Jessie Guishard, on the wall of their first home, and also named his boat after her. Guishard, whom Albert described to Ruth as "the finest woman I have ever met", had been dead for 10 years.[1]
Ruth Snyder first persuaded her husband to purchase insurance, but with the assistance of an insurance agent (who was subsequently fired and sent to prison for forgery) "signed" a $48,000 life insurance policy that paid extra ("double indemnity") if an unexpected act of violence killed the victim.
According to Judd Gray, Ruth had made at least seven attempts to kill her husband, all of which he survived. On March 20, 1927, the couple garrotted Albert Snyder and stuffed his nose full of chloroform-soaked rags, then staged his death as part of a burglary. Detectives at the scene noted that the burglar left little evidence of breaking into the house; moreover, that the behavior of Mrs. Snyder was inconsistent with her story of a terrorized wife witnessing her husband being killed.

Ruth Snyder's final photo op-- http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia...

Golly! Seven tries. You kind of have to admire her persistence.

Sorry for coming late to the discussion!

I have to say, I really enjoyed this. Here's the odd thing, though; for the first bit (third, perhaps more) I was enjoying the sparse, clipped style and reading it as a well written but frankly trashy thriller. I'm not sure where the change happened, but well into the second half I realised I was utterly gripped, and I was filled with the dawning realisation that this was much more than that. And it was that ending that clinched it. Maybe you think I'm reading too much into it, but I do think The Postman Always Rings Twice is a tragedy in the true Sophoclean or Shakespearean sense.

How else can I explain that, despite the fact that Frank and Cora are, quite frankly, a couple of sleazeballs who kill the only decent, honest character in the whole book, in that final passage I was rooting for them. Frank is haunted by what they have done and is taking the knowledge of Cora's pregnancy as a sign of potential redemption. He doesn't think he deserves it, but really seems to want to do what he can to redeem himself.

And them kapow.

I think this is also some explanation for Frank hanging round and losing all his money at pool; he knows he ought to skedaddle, but hangs around and let's himself be drawn back into the situation, sealing his fate. Also, I thought it shows nicely that he isn't nearly as clever as he thinks he is.

Paul 'Pezski' wrote: "Sorry for coming late to the discussion!

I have to say, I really enjoyed this. Here's the odd thing, though; for the first bit (third, perhaps more) I was enjoying the sparse, clipped style and re..."

Well said, Paul. Well said, indeed.

Paul 'Pezski' wrote: "Sorry for coming late to the discussion!

I have to say, I really enjoyed this. Here's the odd thing, though; for the first bit (third, perhaps more) I was enjoying the sparse, clipped style and re..."

Paul, I agree with your comments and you articulate it better than I did. At first I wasn't so sold on the book and it did seem quite light and more of a dime store novel kind of a read, but there's a deeper level of fatalistic tragedy going on, especially with Frank in the later portions. The pool game is a classic illustration of this fatalism, as you insightfully pointed out, because he can't seem to control himself. Great observations.