Although I haven't read Strangers on a Train, it's clear there's some obvious connections and similarities with the two books that allow critique on one to applied to the other. So, while reading Lukin's article, I tried to think of ways I could connect The Talented Mr. Ripley with what he says about Highsmith's other novel.
A couple things popped out:
How Guy is "kept from being satisfied in the 'neither here nor there' position" (32); that reminded me of how Tom is kinda in the "neither here nor there" position of identity. He isn't Tom anymore, but he isn't Dickie either. Although he truly is Tom, he doesn't recognize/accept that- but at the same time when he takes on Dickie's identity, he'll never fully be Dickie because that's just impossible. He's stuck in an place void of identity, 'Neither Tom nor Dickie'.
Bruno seems to have homosexual thoughts; "'If he could strangle Anne, too, then Guy and he could really be together'" (Lukin 34).
That drew me back to Tom, and how he wanted to get Marge out of the picture so that he and Dickie could be together. He does try to keep Dickie to himself and cut Marge out of plans, so I feel like Bruno and Tom have similar feelings regarding this.
"'The patient wants, by knowing and looking, to conquer and merge with the partner into an all powerful, autarchic union, and thus to incorporate the other person's strength and value'. Bruno, bring a suppurating mass of narcissistic wounds, needs that strength and virtue to compensate for his own felt emptiness. He craves the loss of ego through drinking, the focused activity or arranging murders or the introjection of someone whom he believes to be authentic" (Lukin 34).
-This seemed like he was describing Tom. I feel like Tom wants to merge his qualities with Dickie's qualities. It's pretty self-explanatory.
Those are just a few that I noticed right away while scanning over the article again. What other things did people find in Lukin's article that can be applied to both of the novels?
Yeah, but also I feel like Guy felt more guilt and uneasiness about committing a murder, whereas Tom doesn't seem to care. However, I do see the strong relationship between Guy and Bruno, and the idea regarding homosexuality. Guy and Bruno, though, had a motive to kill, whereas Tom simply seemed to kill because of the shame he felt.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest thing I agree with you on was
ReplyDelete"'The patient wants, by knowing and looking, to conquer and merge with the partner into an all powerful, autarchic union, and thus to incorporate the other person's strength and value'. Bruno, bring a suppurating mass of narcissistic wounds, needs that strength and virtue to compensate for his own felt emptiness. He craves the loss of ego through drinking, the focused activity or arranging murders or the introjection of someone whom he believes to be authentic"
I think that sums up almost perfectly what I believe as to why Tom decided to kill Dickie. Guy is most certainly different from Tom in a number of ways, chiefly in the respect that he, like has already been pointed out, Guy murders for different reasons and differently.