Oh, and, there is a sexy landlords daughter, and a memorable scene involving the policeman being sorely tempted through a bedroom wall. He is repelled by the pagan leanings and perceived abandon of the villagers, who are, at best, uncooperative with his investigation. But what about the plot?Ī policeman with strong Protestant convictions goes alone to a secluded community to investigate a potential crime involving a child. So, regarding a comparison, I’d say a surreal intensity was a distinct element shared by the book and film. Importantly, the plot remained intriguing, and kept me guessing right to the end (of course, you might be a bit quicker on the uptake than me).
(The book was written hurriedly over seven weeks while the author was appearing in the Mousetrap in the West End, and I can imagine this hectic environment was conducive to producing such breathless, over the top writing.) Most of the other characters are pretty unpleasant, bordering on grotesque, but they are interesting enough to keep the reader engaged.
He’s an interesting character, given a lot of depth. The book is written mostly from the idiosyncratic point of view of David Hanlin, the investigating detective, which carries you along with his obsessive quest. Overall the style gives a nightmarish intensity to the whole thing. Some of the extravagant description does not quite hit the mark, but a lot of it does, and because Pinner keeps it up throughout, any misfires don’t detract from the rough and livid tone. Foregrounding nature as a brooding, seething presence, the countryside and weather is always doing something or having intent, giving the impression that perhaps the environment is more in control than the people. The style of writing is eccentric and feverish – which was what I loved about it. Well, it’s not great literature, but it is weird, melodramatic and disturbing, with a good plot, and I really enjoyed it. (I’m assuming that you have seen the film, but anyway, there will be no spoilers for either.) My copy of the book quotes a Guardian review beneath the title, which coyly says – “Pinner’s decaying village, can stand alone from the book’s illustrious successor – the Wicker Man.”. And yet, Ritual is often referred to as the book the film was based on, Wikipaedia describing it as “the basis for The Wicker Man”.
Ritual is often described as the book that inspired the film, but this is not accepted in all circles, and this area of disagreement is what interested me.Īllan Brown, in his fascinating and thorough 2010 book about the making of the film, also called the Wicker Man, quotes the screenwriter Anthony Shaffer as saying “if he (Pinner) says the premise of the Wicker Man is borrowed from his book, then he is mad.” Apparently the rights (rites?) to Ritual had been purchased but then they decided, according those involved, not to pursue this, and moved on. I have just read David Pinner’s 1967 novel Ritual, and would like to share some thoughts on it – in its own right, and also in comparison to the 1973 film, The Wicker Man.
0 kommentar(er)
