What do you think?
Rate this book
Sliver
AN UPTOWN HIGH-RISE
A glittering Manhattan "sliver" building.
A successful single career woman.
A shocking secret hidden in brick and concrete.
A HIGH-TECH NIGHTMARE
Someone is watching her.
He watches her unpack, watches her make the bed; his eyes are everywhere.
He owns the building: now he owns her.
SLIVER
There's no place more frightening than home.
A glittering Manhattan "sliver" building.
A successful single career woman.
A shocking secret hidden in brick and concrete.
A HIGH-TECH NIGHTMARE
Someone is watching her.
He watches her unpack, watches her make the bed; his eyes are everywhere.
He owns the building: now he owns her.
SLIVER
There's no place more frightening than home.
261 pages, Mass Market Paperback
First published January 1, 1991
105 people are currently reading
2,251 people want to read
About the author
Ira Levin
74books1,625followersLevin graduated from the Horace Mann School and New York University, where he majored in philosophy and English.
After college, he wrote training films and scripts for television.
Levin's first produced play was No Time for Sergeants (adapted from Mac Hyman's novel), a comedy about a hillbilly drafted into the United States Air Force that launched the career of Andy Griffith. The play was turned into a movie in 1958, and co-starred Don Knotts, Griffith's long-time co-star and friend. No Time for Sergeants is generally considered the precursor to Gomer Pyle, USMC.
Levin's first novel, A Kiss Before Dying, was well received, earning him the 1954 Edgar Award for Best First Novel. A Kiss Before Dying was turned into a movie twice, first in 1956, and again in 1991.
Levin's best known play is Deathtrap, which holds the record as the longest-running comedy-thriller on Broadway and brought Levin his second Edgar Award. In 1982, it was made into a film starring Christopher Reeve and Michael Caine.
Levin's best known novel is Rosemary's Baby, a horror story of modern day satanism and the occult, set in Manhattan's Upper West Side. It was made into a film starring Mia Farrow and John Cassavetes. Ruth Gordon won an Oscar for Best Actress in a Supporting Role for her performance. Roman Polanski, who wrote and directed the film, was nominated for Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium.
Other Levin novels were turned into movies, including The Boys from Brazil in 1978; The Stepford Wives in 1975 and again in 2004; and Sliver in 1993.
Stephen King has described Ira Levin as "the Swiss watchmaker of suspense novels, he makes what the rest of us do look like cheap watchmakers in drugstores." Chuck Palahniuk, in , calls Levin's writing "a smart, updated version of the kind of folksy legends that cultures have always used."
Ira Levin died from a heart attack at his home in Manhattan, on 12 November 2007. He was seventy-eight at the time of his death.
After college, he wrote training films and scripts for television.
Levin's first produced play was No Time for Sergeants (adapted from Mac Hyman's novel), a comedy about a hillbilly drafted into the United States Air Force that launched the career of Andy Griffith. The play was turned into a movie in 1958, and co-starred Don Knotts, Griffith's long-time co-star and friend. No Time for Sergeants is generally considered the precursor to Gomer Pyle, USMC.
Levin's first novel, A Kiss Before Dying, was well received, earning him the 1954 Edgar Award for Best First Novel. A Kiss Before Dying was turned into a movie twice, first in 1956, and again in 1991.
Levin's best known play is Deathtrap, which holds the record as the longest-running comedy-thriller on Broadway and brought Levin his second Edgar Award. In 1982, it was made into a film starring Christopher Reeve and Michael Caine.
Levin's best known novel is Rosemary's Baby, a horror story of modern day satanism and the occult, set in Manhattan's Upper West Side. It was made into a film starring Mia Farrow and John Cassavetes. Ruth Gordon won an Oscar for Best Actress in a Supporting Role for her performance. Roman Polanski, who wrote and directed the film, was nominated for Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium.
Other Levin novels were turned into movies, including The Boys from Brazil in 1978; The Stepford Wives in 1975 and again in 2004; and Sliver in 1993.
Stephen King has described Ira Levin as "the Swiss watchmaker of suspense novels, he makes what the rest of us do look like cheap watchmakers in drugstores." Chuck Palahniuk, in , calls Levin's writing "a smart, updated version of the kind of folksy legends that cultures have always used."
Ira Levin died from a heart attack at his home in Manhattan, on 12 November 2007. He was seventy-eight at the time of his death.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 368 reviews
August 27, 2023
SOMEONE IS WATCHING
Sharon Stone e William Baldwin (ah, se avesse anche solo una minima frazione del talento del fratello maggiore...)
Ira Levin ha un’idea dei condomini che se diffusa spingerebbe a evitarli: dal condominio demoniaco di Rosemary’s Baby, il suo personale capolavoro, a questo parto della sua ultima produzione, nei condomini dove ambienta le sue storie succedono “stranger things�.
Questo Sliver � Scheggia però non ha il fascino e l’originalità dell’altro, Rosemary’s Baby: la trama fino a un certo punto mantiene buona suspense, ma in generale è più banale.
C’� una bella e sensuale quarantenne, Kay Norris � che nel film diventa Sharon Stone sperando di bissare il successo colossale dell’anno prima, Basic Istinct: Kay, caporedattrice di una casa editrice, è fresca di divorzio e decide di chiudere con una parte della sua vita precedente. È per questo che si sposta in un condominio prestigioso nell’Upper East Side di Manhattan. Palazzo che ha la forma richiamata dal titolo, quello di una scheggia di vetro. E che ha un nome, il Black Bamford, e una sinistra nomea per gli incidenti e le morti che ci sono state in quegli appartamenti.
Kay diventa immediatamente preda di qualcuno che la osserva e la spia in tutte le sue attività, da quando disfa i bagagli, a quando, soprattutto, si prepara per fare un bagno. E naturalmente non poteva mancare il gatto, Felice, che ovviamente miagola nel momento in cui la pelle si raggrinza per i brividi. È sempre così.
A dire il vero, il maniaco, se posso definirlo tale (credo di sì), non spia solo Kay: anche se lei è la più bella, il triste soggetto dedica la sua attenzione a un cospicuo numero di condomini, avendo istallato telecamere più o meno ovunque. Cominciando dai rispettivi bagni, dove è facile presumere che la gente si spogli.
Oltre ad avere sistemato telecamere pressoché ovunque, ascensore incluso, ha anche messo microfoni nei telefoni. Per cui, è impossibile che qualcosa gli sfugga, la vita dei condomini è sorvegliata e controllata 24/7.
Per quanto maniaco e pervertito, non si deve pensare che sia vecchio e bavoso: perché riesce a intrecciare una relazione di qualche tipo proprio con la bella Kay.
Levin tiene la suspense per un po� finché non si capisce chi è il voyeur che ha collocato tutte le telecamere. Dopo, per un altro po�, si entra in un altro tipo di suspense, perché Sharon/Kay (che nel film chissà perché diventa Carly), come Sharon/Catherine Tramell di Basic Istinct, ama fare giochi al limite, flirtare col pericolo.
Però, non riesce a mantenere la suspense fino in fondo, e non riesce a evitare banalità e cadute. Peccato.
Sharon Stone e William Baldwin (ah, se avesse anche solo una minima frazione del talento del fratello maggiore...)
Ira Levin ha un’idea dei condomini che se diffusa spingerebbe a evitarli: dal condominio demoniaco di Rosemary’s Baby, il suo personale capolavoro, a questo parto della sua ultima produzione, nei condomini dove ambienta le sue storie succedono “stranger things�.
Questo Sliver � Scheggia però non ha il fascino e l’originalità dell’altro, Rosemary’s Baby: la trama fino a un certo punto mantiene buona suspense, ma in generale è più banale.
C’� una bella e sensuale quarantenne, Kay Norris � che nel film diventa Sharon Stone sperando di bissare il successo colossale dell’anno prima, Basic Istinct: Kay, caporedattrice di una casa editrice, è fresca di divorzio e decide di chiudere con una parte della sua vita precedente. È per questo che si sposta in un condominio prestigioso nell’Upper East Side di Manhattan. Palazzo che ha la forma richiamata dal titolo, quello di una scheggia di vetro. E che ha un nome, il Black Bamford, e una sinistra nomea per gli incidenti e le morti che ci sono state in quegli appartamenti.
Kay diventa immediatamente preda di qualcuno che la osserva e la spia in tutte le sue attività, da quando disfa i bagagli, a quando, soprattutto, si prepara per fare un bagno. E naturalmente non poteva mancare il gatto, Felice, che ovviamente miagola nel momento in cui la pelle si raggrinza per i brividi. È sempre così.
A dire il vero, il maniaco, se posso definirlo tale (credo di sì), non spia solo Kay: anche se lei è la più bella, il triste soggetto dedica la sua attenzione a un cospicuo numero di condomini, avendo istallato telecamere più o meno ovunque. Cominciando dai rispettivi bagni, dove è facile presumere che la gente si spogli.
Oltre ad avere sistemato telecamere pressoché ovunque, ascensore incluso, ha anche messo microfoni nei telefoni. Per cui, è impossibile che qualcosa gli sfugga, la vita dei condomini è sorvegliata e controllata 24/7.
Per quanto maniaco e pervertito, non si deve pensare che sia vecchio e bavoso: perché riesce a intrecciare una relazione di qualche tipo proprio con la bella Kay.
Levin tiene la suspense per un po� finché non si capisce chi è il voyeur che ha collocato tutte le telecamere. Dopo, per un altro po�, si entra in un altro tipo di suspense, perché Sharon/Kay (che nel film chissà perché diventa Carly), come Sharon/Catherine Tramell di Basic Istinct, ama fare giochi al limite, flirtare col pericolo.
Però, non riesce a mantenere la suspense fino in fondo, e non riesce a evitare banalità e cadute. Peccato.
July 25, 2015
This is going to be a spoiler-filled ranty ragefest, so if you are interested in reading this book, and don't want me to save you from yourself, then you should stop reading this review now. Because I'm about to give away the ending, and nobody likes that kind of spoiler.
You've been warned.
Dear Sliver,
10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1...
Goddammit.
ANIMALS. ARE. NOT. HUMAN.
THEY. ARE. ANIMALS.
Did I seriously just read a book- ostensibly written by the same man who wrote both the fucking amazing Rosemary's Baby and the almost as amazing Stepford Wives- which relies on deus ex machina in cat form to save the day and foil the killer? Did I read that? Because I feel like I fucking read that. I feel like (and anyone feel free to chime in here if Felice somehow was NOT a cat the whole time and I was just suffering from exhaustion or stress or some sort of temporary psychosis while reading this) the man that I thought wrote awesome, brilliant thrillers went full-on What-In-The-Everloving-Fuck??.
Dear Ira Levin, Dean Koontz, R.L. Stine, and any other motherfucking authors who write ridiculous hero pet resolutions into their stories:
Stop.
Just stop it. Unless you can do it in such a way that the animal acts like the animal that it actually is and not COMPLETELY AGAINST ITS NATURE or LIKE A HUMAN, just don't. It's fucking stupid and it makes my eye twitch and it makes you look like a hack.
Example of how it would WORK to have a cat as your hero: The scared cat darts between the killer's feet as he's chasing his victim down the stairs, resulting in his falling and being either seriously injured or killed.
Example of how it does NOT work: The killer and his victim fight, and the killer loses his gun to the victim, then he runs away and pretends to jump out the window. The victim comes to see, and the killer then pushes her out the window (don't worry, she totally finger-tip catches herself on the ledge, miraculously, on the way out). The cat then investigates the fingers gripping the sill, realizes they are her human's, and gets pissed because apparently she can logically figure out the chain of events and what they mean. So she then, while the killer tells her to get lost (repeatedly), proceeds to launch an attack on the killer from the very windowsill that he just pushed her owner out of, and she literally claws his eyes out.
I never thought that I would be calling Ira Levin a hack, but I'm not taking it back. This book was such utter fucking stupidity, and then to have that shit-pie topped off with a fly-covered turd that is this ridiculous resolution just adds insult to injury.
I usually bitch about authors fucking up with dog characters, because they are more popularly used (at least from what I've seen) as heroes. I think that dogs are seen as loyal and protective, man's best friend, etc. So it's not so much of a stretch to think that a dog might go above and beyond to protect its owner. Except when it feels like the author has only seen dogs in movies like "Homeward Bound" or "AirBud" or something, in which dogs are unrealistically portrayed as basically being furry, four-legged people.
But then there are cats. We have all seen cute cat videos on the internet, where they are personified and anthropomorphized, and awwww, how cute! But those cats are living in their own world, a world in which the hierarchy of existence is:
1) Cat
2) Food
3) Sleep
4) Bugs, birds, mice, and other chaseable objects which can be eaten
5) Bugs, birds, mice, and other chaseable objects which should just be tortured and killed for fun, but not eaten; toys
6) Food
7) The human slave
Cats are not concerned with your human shit. They don't give a shit if you are having a bad day and would just like a cuddle. They cuddle because THEY want to cuddle. Or they are cold. You can give them the best food, the most toys, the most attention, the most love, and they may still disdain to even flick an ear in your direction if you call the name you think they are called. If they choose to grace you with their presence, it's because they want your attention, not necessarily because they like you. Humans that live with cats know this. Cats do their own thing, and don't concern themselves with humans unless the human is taking too long making with the food or something.
So, cats don't know when you are in danger, and likely wouldn't care if they did, despite some claims that cats have knowingly tried to kill their owners on the stairs. This wasn't intentional or malicious attempted murder, it was just that they were scent-marking you to remind you that they will need food again in the future, so DON'T FUCKING FORGET.
Otherwise, they are perfectly oblivious to whether you may die... as long as you die inside so that they could feast on your corpse in the resulting food shortage emergency your death has caused for them.
They also generally avoid situations that they perceive as dangerous to them, including loud noises, things bigger than them that move unpredictably, like children, or two full size humans fighting. They would run and hide to avoid being trampled, and would only come out when the coast is absolutely clear.
So, Felice, our furry heroine, would have been hiding from the fight. And even if she was just out of the way and watching shit develop, she would not know that her human going out the window would be bad - she's never been allowed to experience window danger. She just knows it's off-limits. She wouldn't know that the human's man-person standing by the window would be the REASON for the human food bringer to have gone out the off-limits window, and even if she DID somehow know that (because who knows what cats really know), she's not going to attack the man, which might result in her being injured when he defends himself. She had no reason to fear or mistrust the man at all - YES he held her hostage and petted her with a razorblade, but it's not like she was hurt or even knew that she was in danger. She is a CAT.
End of story.
Sure, we all read stories about hero pets that have killed the snake in the baby's room, or which have alerted humans to smoke in the house when there's a fire, or whatever... but I think we can be pretty certain that this is the cat acting out of instinct for its own safety rather than any concern for the humans in the situation.
There are even rarer stories of cats having compassion for others, like the ... but that's not the norm. The norm is more like this:
Coincidentally, that also describes how I felt about this book. In case my subtlety was lost on you.
OK. So enough about the animals-acting-like-humans thing. Let's chat about the rest of this shitfactory.
This book was 190 pages long, in the edition I read. It should have been pared down to, say, a short story. The amount of needless fucking detail drivel in this book made my eyes bleed. Yes, please, tell me more about where Kay shops for furniture THAT WILL NEVER ARRIVE DURING THE COURSE OF THE MOTHERFUCKING BOOK, but we need to have shopped for because otherwise there would never be a OH-SO-TENSE game of "Who left me an answering machine message??" in which the answer is "the furniture store".
Please, let's discuss drapes. They will be important when it's poetically described how they flutter after Kay is pushed through them to her (hopeful) death.
I'm begging, make sure to mention several mind-melting times that Kay's friend Roxie painted the art on her wall, because hey, did anyone ever mention how many cultured and successful people Kay is surrounded by who have NO FUCKING PURPOSE IN THE BOOK AT ALL?
I WISH there had been more detail about the neighborhood, because the 20 or 30 pages spent on it just didn't quite meet my needs. I KNOW that the story is about the INSIDE of the building, and the inhabitants, but if I don't know the layout of the grocery store across the street, and what they stock, I just won't be able to sleep at night.
All that detail, and I still had no idea who these people were. They made no sense to me. They acted in illogical and bizarre ways, and I spent almost the entire book with a perplexed expression on my face because WHY THE FUCK ARE THEY DOING THAT??
I can understand the sociopathic or psychopathic behaviors. The watching and the killing. Fine. I accept those things, because they are central to the story, and they don't really NEED explanation. We all people-watch to some extent, on public transportation, on the street, in restaurants, or other public places where other people might also be... just some take it a bit further than others and watch people in private.
But why did he reveal himself? Because she MIGHT figure it out? Why did she stay with him? Because she loved him? After a few weeks? COME ON.
I've been with my boyfriend for 12 years. If I found out that he'd been watching my neighbors' private moments, that he'd bugged their phones so they could spy on their conversations and put cameras in their bathrooms to watch their every move, that would be a deal-breaker for me. A dozen years of love, my best friend, and I'd fucking drop his ass like a hot potato and then place an anonymous call to the authorities. There are just some things that are not fucking acceptable.
And the fact that Kay went along with it, that she was coming around to accepting it, because "they don't KNOW" and apparently that means that it's not wrong, baffles me and pisses me off. Was the sex THAT good, Kay? For you to become a monster? Nah, it was probably his money.
Speaking of their, uhh, "romance".
"Oh baby" this, and "honey" that. Him saying "I love you," with her replying "I love you, Pete" or sometimes, nauseatingly, "I love you, baby." The book's emphasis. Because it's a competition?
The rest of their relationship was alternating through a few phrases "They smiled at each other" or "they hugged" or "they kissed." Or they had shower sex, which, unfortunately, resulted in this being printed in a book and now existing for all of fucking time:
SHE TONGUED WITH HIM IN THE DOWNPOUR.
Wait wait wait... let's back up a second, and just add a little context to this scene, shall we? She has recently found out that her boyfriend of several weeks has lied to her about everything but his name. He's a millionaire, not a freelance computer guy; owner of the building she has recently moved into, not just a tenant; etc. She has found out more recently that on top of just owning the building, he's had it custom rigged with high-tech cameras and microphones, and has bugged every phone line in the building, and that he watches everyone, including her, in their most private moments. She has accepted all of these things, and now is even watching with him.
On top of these things, there have been several, shall we say, 'suspicious deaths' in the building, and she's beginning to wonder if they couldn't be connected... And then someone just casually mentions that Mr. Perfecto Boyfriendo used to date one of the girls who died suspiciously. She questions him about it on the phone, he says he barely knew her, took her out on a couple dates, nothing happened, nothing to tell. She says she needs to think about things, please don't watch her... and then that scene.
The problem (well ONE of them. I mean, did you READ that passage?? It was published in a BOOK! A book featuring an EDITOR as the main character. My brain, it hurts. I think it's melting.) ... Anyway, the problem is that these characters suck. They're so fucking thin that I can see light through them. I don't know what is going through Kay's mind when she's standing there TONGUING WITH HIM IN THE DOWNPOUR, even though this book alternates perspectives and TELLS us what they are thinking constantly.
She doesn't yet suspect him of murder. She hasn't yet found that she's right to suspect. She's both too accepting and trusting, and too smart to accept and trust what she does. She makes no damn sense. None of it makes any damn sense.
They killed trees for this shit.
You've been warned.
Dear Sliver,
10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1...
Goddammit.
ANIMALS. ARE. NOT. HUMAN.
THEY. ARE. ANIMALS.
Did I seriously just read a book- ostensibly written by the same man who wrote both the fucking amazing Rosemary's Baby and the almost as amazing Stepford Wives- which relies on deus ex machina in cat form to save the day and foil the killer? Did I read that? Because I feel like I fucking read that. I feel like (and anyone feel free to chime in here if Felice somehow was NOT a cat the whole time and I was just suffering from exhaustion or stress or some sort of temporary psychosis while reading this) the man that I thought wrote awesome, brilliant thrillers went full-on What-In-The-Everloving-Fuck??.
Dear Ira Levin, Dean Koontz, R.L. Stine, and any other motherfucking authors who write ridiculous hero pet resolutions into their stories:
Stop.
Just stop it. Unless you can do it in such a way that the animal acts like the animal that it actually is and not COMPLETELY AGAINST ITS NATURE or LIKE A HUMAN, just don't. It's fucking stupid and it makes my eye twitch and it makes you look like a hack.
Example of how it would WORK to have a cat as your hero: The scared cat darts between the killer's feet as he's chasing his victim down the stairs, resulting in his falling and being either seriously injured or killed.
Example of how it does NOT work: The killer and his victim fight, and the killer loses his gun to the victim, then he runs away and pretends to jump out the window. The victim comes to see, and the killer then pushes her out the window (don't worry, she totally finger-tip catches herself on the ledge, miraculously, on the way out). The cat then investigates the fingers gripping the sill, realizes they are her human's, and gets pissed because apparently she can logically figure out the chain of events and what they mean. So she then, while the killer tells her to get lost (repeatedly), proceeds to launch an attack on the killer from the very windowsill that he just pushed her owner out of, and she literally claws his eyes out.
I never thought that I would be calling Ira Levin a hack, but I'm not taking it back. This book was such utter fucking stupidity, and then to have that shit-pie topped off with a fly-covered turd that is this ridiculous resolution just adds insult to injury.
I usually bitch about authors fucking up with dog characters, because they are more popularly used (at least from what I've seen) as heroes. I think that dogs are seen as loyal and protective, man's best friend, etc. So it's not so much of a stretch to think that a dog might go above and beyond to protect its owner. Except when it feels like the author has only seen dogs in movies like "Homeward Bound" or "AirBud" or something, in which dogs are unrealistically portrayed as basically being furry, four-legged people.
But then there are cats. We have all seen cute cat videos on the internet, where they are personified and anthropomorphized, and awwww, how cute! But those cats are living in their own world, a world in which the hierarchy of existence is:
1) Cat
2) Food
3) Sleep
4) Bugs, birds, mice, and other chaseable objects which can be eaten
5) Bugs, birds, mice, and other chaseable objects which should just be tortured and killed for fun, but not eaten; toys
6) Food
7) The human slave
Cats are not concerned with your human shit. They don't give a shit if you are having a bad day and would just like a cuddle. They cuddle because THEY want to cuddle. Or they are cold. You can give them the best food, the most toys, the most attention, the most love, and they may still disdain to even flick an ear in your direction if you call the name you think they are called. If they choose to grace you with their presence, it's because they want your attention, not necessarily because they like you. Humans that live with cats know this. Cats do their own thing, and don't concern themselves with humans unless the human is taking too long making with the food or something.
So, cats don't know when you are in danger, and likely wouldn't care if they did, despite some claims that cats have knowingly tried to kill their owners on the stairs. This wasn't intentional or malicious attempted murder, it was just that they were scent-marking you to remind you that they will need food again in the future, so DON'T FUCKING FORGET.
Otherwise, they are perfectly oblivious to whether you may die... as long as you die inside so that they could feast on your corpse in the resulting food shortage emergency your death has caused for them.
They also generally avoid situations that they perceive as dangerous to them, including loud noises, things bigger than them that move unpredictably, like children, or two full size humans fighting. They would run and hide to avoid being trampled, and would only come out when the coast is absolutely clear.
So, Felice, our furry heroine, would have been hiding from the fight. And even if she was just out of the way and watching shit develop, she would not know that her human going out the window would be bad - she's never been allowed to experience window danger. She just knows it's off-limits. She wouldn't know that the human's man-person standing by the window would be the REASON for the human food bringer to have gone out the off-limits window, and even if she DID somehow know that (because who knows what cats really know), she's not going to attack the man, which might result in her being injured when he defends himself. She had no reason to fear or mistrust the man at all - YES he held her hostage and petted her with a razorblade, but it's not like she was hurt or even knew that she was in danger. She is a CAT.
End of story.
Sure, we all read stories about hero pets that have killed the snake in the baby's room, or which have alerted humans to smoke in the house when there's a fire, or whatever... but I think we can be pretty certain that this is the cat acting out of instinct for its own safety rather than any concern for the humans in the situation.
There are even rarer stories of cats having compassion for others, like the ... but that's not the norm. The norm is more like this:
Coincidentally, that also describes how I felt about this book. In case my subtlety was lost on you.
OK. So enough about the animals-acting-like-humans thing. Let's chat about the rest of this shitfactory.
This book was 190 pages long, in the edition I read. It should have been pared down to, say, a short story. The amount of needless fucking detail drivel in this book made my eyes bleed. Yes, please, tell me more about where Kay shops for furniture THAT WILL NEVER ARRIVE DURING THE COURSE OF THE MOTHERFUCKING BOOK, but we need to have shopped for because otherwise there would never be a OH-SO-TENSE game of "Who left me an answering machine message??" in which the answer is "the furniture store".
Please, let's discuss drapes. They will be important when it's poetically described how they flutter after Kay is pushed through them to her (hopeful) death.
I'm begging, make sure to mention several mind-melting times that Kay's friend Roxie painted the art on her wall, because hey, did anyone ever mention how many cultured and successful people Kay is surrounded by who have NO FUCKING PURPOSE IN THE BOOK AT ALL?
I WISH there had been more detail about the neighborhood, because the 20 or 30 pages spent on it just didn't quite meet my needs. I KNOW that the story is about the INSIDE of the building, and the inhabitants, but if I don't know the layout of the grocery store across the street, and what they stock, I just won't be able to sleep at night.
All that detail, and I still had no idea who these people were. They made no sense to me. They acted in illogical and bizarre ways, and I spent almost the entire book with a perplexed expression on my face because WHY THE FUCK ARE THEY DOING THAT??
I can understand the sociopathic or psychopathic behaviors. The watching and the killing. Fine. I accept those things, because they are central to the story, and they don't really NEED explanation. We all people-watch to some extent, on public transportation, on the street, in restaurants, or other public places where other people might also be... just some take it a bit further than others and watch people in private.
But why did he reveal himself? Because she MIGHT figure it out? Why did she stay with him? Because she loved him? After a few weeks? COME ON.
I've been with my boyfriend for 12 years. If I found out that he'd been watching my neighbors' private moments, that he'd bugged their phones so they could spy on their conversations and put cameras in their bathrooms to watch their every move, that would be a deal-breaker for me. A dozen years of love, my best friend, and I'd fucking drop his ass like a hot potato and then place an anonymous call to the authorities. There are just some things that are not fucking acceptable.
And the fact that Kay went along with it, that she was coming around to accepting it, because "they don't KNOW" and apparently that means that it's not wrong, baffles me and pisses me off. Was the sex THAT good, Kay? For you to become a monster? Nah, it was probably his money.
Speaking of their, uhh, "romance".
"Oh baby" this, and "honey" that. Him saying "I love you," with her replying "I love you, Pete" or sometimes, nauseatingly, "I love you, baby." The book's emphasis. Because it's a competition?
The rest of their relationship was alternating through a few phrases "They smiled at each other" or "they hugged" or "they kissed." Or they had shower sex, which, unfortunately, resulted in this being printed in a book and now existing for all of fucking time:
She hung up [the phone].
Sat reading.
Scratched her neck.
Took a shower.
Saw movement beyond the steamy glass. The door opened and he came in naked, smiling. "Surprise," he said, hugging her in the downpour, wincing at its heat, dancing against her-- "Owwweee..."
She caught her breath. "I could do without Psycho," she said.
"I'm sorry." He hugged her tighter, kissing her cheek. "I took a couple of peeks at you. When I saw you go in, I thought, 'Jeez, I can actually go up and get in with her.' I couldn't resist."
She said, "I knew you were watching me...."
"I knew you knew," he said. Smiled. "It was sort of a turn-on...." She looked away; he took her jaw and turned her face to him, looked at her. "I wasn't lying, honey," he said. "Really. I took her out twice and that was it. If it had been a big thing I would have told you. I don't blame you for wondering; look how much I've lied to you before. But it's the truth. I swear." He kissed her, hugging her.
She tongued with him in the downpour.
SHE TONGUED WITH HIM IN THE DOWNPOUR.
Wait wait wait... let's back up a second, and just add a little context to this scene, shall we? She has recently found out that her boyfriend of several weeks has lied to her about everything but his name. He's a millionaire, not a freelance computer guy; owner of the building she has recently moved into, not just a tenant; etc. She has found out more recently that on top of just owning the building, he's had it custom rigged with high-tech cameras and microphones, and has bugged every phone line in the building, and that he watches everyone, including her, in their most private moments. She has accepted all of these things, and now is even watching with him.
On top of these things, there have been several, shall we say, 'suspicious deaths' in the building, and she's beginning to wonder if they couldn't be connected... And then someone just casually mentions that Mr. Perfecto Boyfriendo used to date one of the girls who died suspiciously. She questions him about it on the phone, he says he barely knew her, took her out on a couple dates, nothing happened, nothing to tell. She says she needs to think about things, please don't watch her... and then that scene.
The problem (well ONE of them. I mean, did you READ that passage?? It was published in a BOOK! A book featuring an EDITOR as the main character. My brain, it hurts. I think it's melting.) ... Anyway, the problem is that these characters suck. They're so fucking thin that I can see light through them. I don't know what is going through Kay's mind when she's standing there TONGUING WITH HIM IN THE DOWNPOUR, even though this book alternates perspectives and TELLS us what they are thinking constantly.
She doesn't yet suspect him of murder. She hasn't yet found that she's right to suspect. She's both too accepting and trusting, and too smart to accept and trust what she does. She makes no damn sense. None of it makes any damn sense.
They killed trees for this shit.
July 28, 2016
4.5 Stars
OMG, I absolutely cannot believe the ending of this Ira Levin thriller. He never ceases to amaze me, and I don't think it's supposed to be funny, but I can't help it........HAHAHAHAHAHA.......Go Girl! It sure isn't often we have a heroine such as this.....
Anyway, welcome to 1300 Madison Avenue, a 21 story apartment building on Manhattan's East Side better known as Horror High-Rise or High-Rise Horror where there's a history of bizarre accidents that end in death and a shocking secret present within its walls.
SLIVER is described as a "sinuous erotic thriller" not so much erotica really, just a bit, but there is indeed a psychotic pervert that will eventually show his face. You will also find the term 'smooching' (no kidding) and mention of the old tv show Kukla, Fran and Ollie that put a smile on my face that only the older generation of readers will recognize, and then there's the Apropos Ironic Ending that totally satisfied this reader!
Am sad to say I only have two plays left to read, and then no more of this GREAT author.
May 11, 2022
This has pretty low rating and I can see why. But I was in the mood for a trashy thriller with an intense ending that wouldn't at the same time be to "emotional". Just a "light" but intruiging thriller that didn't require to much
February 26, 2020
"The jogger was watching her, jogging in place a few yards away; as she glanced at him he looked toward the chop-chipping and watched that".
Sliver by Ira Levin
Sliver was a good creepy read. Not spectacular, like some other of Levin's books but eerie enough so that you will most likely be tempted to leave the light on when going to sleep.
He does atmosphere so well. Sliver is was also a movie and if I remember correctly, Sharon Stone starred. The story is gritty, takes place in the city and for single women living in apartment buildings, it is scary. For some reason, this story is not as widely known as some of his others but I'd recommend it, especially if one is in the mood for a smartly written thriller. It will make you look over your shoulder a few times for sure!
Sliver by Ira Levin
Sliver was a good creepy read. Not spectacular, like some other of Levin's books but eerie enough so that you will most likely be tempted to leave the light on when going to sleep.
He does atmosphere so well. Sliver is was also a movie and if I remember correctly, Sharon Stone starred. The story is gritty, takes place in the city and for single women living in apartment buildings, it is scary. For some reason, this story is not as widely known as some of his others but I'd recommend it, especially if one is in the mood for a smartly written thriller. It will make you look over your shoulder a few times for sure!
April 11, 2023
DNF at 25% . I just can’t, this is some seriously unreadable crap. Maybe by 1991 Levin was in the early stages of dementia.
October 16, 2024
Voyeurs and apartment buildings seem to go hand in hand. There's Rear Window, and that episode of Friends. Edward Hopper, who gets several references in Sliver, often painted from a voyeuristic point of view, and how many New York apartments feature telescopes? But there is a line, and Ira Levin's watcher crosses it.
The rating for this book is absolutely abysmal, and so I picked it up for a dollar at the library book store determined to disagree. I enjoyed JG Ballard's earlier this year, and for a dollar I was willing to risk it. But should 1300 Madison Avenue find itself in competition with Ballard's building for 'Horror High Rise of the Year,' Ballard's would be the victor. Creepiest on the hand, that honor is Levin's. With its pervy watcher, masturbating to the building's residents taking a bath, having sex etc. Clothed in Central Park though, would there be an issue?
There is a mystery that slowly builds, a series of mysterious deaths, and a relationship that develops at breakneck speed. Baby, darling, I love you—all within three weeks of hooking up? Turns out voyeurism can be a couples activity. The orange idiot, then still revered as a real estate tycoon, gets an unfortunate reference, but so does Now, Voyager. I was into the whole soap opera mother thing—soap operas, which scratch that same voyeuristic itch, remain an area of endless fascination for me—but let's not forget the Oedipal aspects ("Mommy says no and I'm a good boy, right?"). Farce aspiring to Greek tragedy. The cat's part in all of it pushed me over the (l)edge, not to mention the heavy-handed recurrence of the number 13. Cheap and trashy, but cheap and trashy can be fun—if expectations are managed.
The rating for this book is absolutely abysmal, and so I picked it up for a dollar at the library book store determined to disagree. I enjoyed JG Ballard's earlier this year, and for a dollar I was willing to risk it. But should 1300 Madison Avenue find itself in competition with Ballard's building for 'Horror High Rise of the Year,' Ballard's would be the victor. Creepiest on the hand, that honor is Levin's. With its pervy watcher, masturbating to the building's residents taking a bath, having sex etc. Clothed in Central Park though, would there be an issue?
There is a mystery that slowly builds, a series of mysterious deaths, and a relationship that develops at breakneck speed. Baby, darling, I love you—all within three weeks of hooking up? Turns out voyeurism can be a couples activity. The orange idiot, then still revered as a real estate tycoon, gets an unfortunate reference, but so does Now, Voyager. I was into the whole soap opera mother thing—soap operas, which scratch that same voyeuristic itch, remain an area of endless fascination for me—but let's not forget the Oedipal aspects ("Mommy says no and I'm a good boy, right?"). Farce aspiring to Greek tragedy. The cat's part in all of it pushed me over the (l)edge, not to mention the heavy-handed recurrence of the number 13. Cheap and trashy, but cheap and trashy can be fun—if expectations are managed.
January 2, 2022
Had to put this book down. The book was written from 2 views, but at times it was hard to notice upfront which view it was. Next to that, it had a lot of characters and conversations and that also was hard at times to get who was who. The characters had no depth either. A shame because this could have been a good story to tell.
May 2, 2020
Interesting premise, although I thought the details in the writing could have been more horrifying.
February 5, 2020
Me recordó bastante a La semilla del diablo, me gustó más que ese porque el final me parece mejor
March 1, 2022
Ladies and Gentlemen it was not my intention to write such an early review, when I was more interested in advancing my ŷ challenge (I have finally been able to get rid of a month of January that has been almost lost). I know that many of the users of goodreads are waiting for other reviews such as "La lozana andaluza" /book/show/2... or one of the novels with which I will have to settle accounts late, or early "Lazarus" by Morris West /book/show/1... that for me he has signed so far the worst book of this year (in fact I have already ceased to be a fan of his), and the proof that my admired Juan Manuel de Prada /author/show... was absolutely right /book/show/5... (on this subject take a look at his astute review of "The fisherman's sandals" . /book/show/3... ). This man has done terrible damage to the Catholic Church with his nefarious influence. If you had the opportunity to read my review of Steven A. McKay's Druid (he took the opportunity to apologize to Mr. McKay for being so his book. I already tell him that the fault is not solely his, and that most likely he would never have written this review, but would have been conditioned by exogenous factors) /review/show... People will wait for my impressions about Jules Verne's "Journey to the Center of the Earth." /book/show/4... that despite the anti-religious charge that this book has (something strange, since Verne is not an anti-religious writer. I will comment on this, but I have the feeling that this is due to its editor Haetzel, who is a socialist.) It would also be very interesting to write a review about "Four Rogues Without blemish" by G.K. Chesterton /book/show/1... who is my favorite writer, which is a good book, but it is not one of the best books by G.K. Chesterton. I also have other pending readings such as "Madre patria" by Marcelo Gullo /author/show... /book/show/5... that is fine, but I see an important failure, and that is why I lowered it to four stars. It would also be interesting to talk about "Jesus of Nazareth" by Benedict XVI (more after the campaign that was unleashed around his person) /book/show/8... or the best book of the year so far "It gets late and dusk" by Robert Sarah /book/show/4... An accurate x-ray not only of the situation of the Church, but of how the world is. I don't think I got to write it, but it deserves a special mention "Itroduction to the devout life" of St. Francis de Sales /book/show/3... about the importance of prayer, the sacraments, and of being a devout man.
This month is part of being Lent for Catholics, and I'm going to miss many users friends of mine who are going to take a abstinence from ŷ, and they're going to take a break from ŷ. I express my affection to them, and I will miss them very much. I will of course still be here brimming with activity (God willing). In fact, this month I am going to read two books, which may be key for this year. I refer to an "Amendment to the whole" by my admired Juan Manuel de Prada (remember that "A Library in the Oasis" was together with "Characters of the Reformation" by Hilaire Belloc /book/show/5... the best non-fiction book of last year, and it will be interesting to see if he can stand up to Cardinal Robert Sarah. /author/show...) and the other book is the novel is "The third that never existed" by José Javier Esparza /book/show/6... written by my favorite Valencian writer (you know that despite being the son of a Valladolid, and a Cordovan. It will already be spoken in my review of "La lozana andaluza" of my Cordoban ancestry. But I think I already told you that I am in love with a Valencian girl, even though we broke up fifteen years ago, and she is married, and has two children. But one of the things she taught me was to love her city. Although now I no longer want to hear from me.) If any devout soul reads this criticism I ask you to pray a lot for her, her husband, and her children. Why do I insist so much on him? Because it is the only way to show her how much I love her without sinning (she has an exhibition called Cities in the air I leave you the link and I leave a link of her creations that can be acquired at a small price. I am not like the frog of the fabula, which promoted some merchandise that it did not use. I will also acquire objects designed by her very soon ). But we have been distracted from the matter, José Javier Esparza's novel is a continuation of another he wrote about a soldier Julián Romero de Ibarrola who participated in the battle of San Quintín (one of the greatest victories of the Hispanic monarchy). Now comes the truly interesting thing. Once I have written the reviews of the books written by Juan Manuel de Prada, and José Javier Esparza my big project will be to write a balance of my readings of 2021, and eye what has been read so far, and what is thought (always in conditional, because it is not up to me) to read this year. With this I intend to crown this month of March.
By the way, there is one thing there is one thing that I have not told you, that I have opened an Instagram account fonch38 in case you want to follow it. Of course you should not expect photos of me in top less, because I am an antidote to lust, but if you have played the BioWare video game called Planeescape Torment. Without a doubt alguina one of the best of the saga, if we dispense with Baldur's Gates 2 Shadows of Amn /review/show... will know that there is a succubus called Fall of Grace, and that in the planar city of Sigil has a brothel, but not for sexual appetites, but to satiate intellectual appetites, and that is what I propose with my Instagram account, although he believes it for another purpose. Similar to the novel that is going to be commented on now.
WARNING THIS NOVEL CONTAINS SOME SEX SCENES. (this was included for my friends, or some users who don't like books that have a lot of sex. We will talk about this topic when I write my review of the "Andalusian Lozana").
The first thing I'm going to tell you is a pretty vast expression, but I must say it. It is used a lot by my mother, to whom I send a hug from here, but I have enjoyed reading this novel "more than a marrano in a puddle". The first thing I must tell you about "Sliver" is that perhaps a lot has happened to me with the note (this has also happened to me with "Four rogues without blemish", or with "The Magdeburg Wedding" by Getrud von Le Fort /review/show...). What I mean is that three stars seemed too little to me, and four seem too many to me. Actually, the note that "The Sliver" deserves would be rather 3.5, but until ŷ does not introduce that scoring scale I considered that in this case it is better to go over, than to fall short. One of the things that made me put a four instead of three stars was the fact that it had such a low rating. In fact, I found this book much better than I expected, and from page 100-200 (my edition was 223 pages) I had a lot of fun, and it has been a very pleasant experience. As sordid as this story is.
We must be honest this is not the best novel by Ira Levin I think his best novel will be "The Son of Rosemary" or "The Devil's Seed", /book/show/2... which is what the great writer the Jesuit Leonardo Castellani would /author/show... have called nightmare literature. In "The Baby of Rose Mary" we are told the birth of the antichrist, then Seltzer would tell us his uplifting childhood in "The Prophecy" /book/show/2... and also in "Twilight Servers" /book/show/3... and then we would see his activity in "The Lord of the World" by Robert Hugh Benson, "Father Elias" by Michael D. O'Brien, or "Apocalypse the Day of the Lord" by Jorge Sáez Criado /book/show/2... /book/show/5... /book/show/3... to name three in this case. It had a magnificent adaptation "Rose Mary's Baby" carried out by Woody Allen's (Mia Farrow) ex-wife, John Cassavettes, and a transvestite Tony Curtis (for those who say he has no records). The same goes for his other two novels "The Children of Brazil" played by Sir Laurence Olivier, and Gregory Peck (I haven't seen this one, nor have I read it) and stepford's women (which had a disastrous remake a few decades ago. /book/show/9... /book/show/5... .
In the face of such critical triumphs, and sales "The sliver" may not have interest, but for me it has. Like the novels mentioned above, "The Sliver" had an adaptation with Sharon Stone, William Baldwin, Tom Berenger, and Martin Landau in the lead roles. The film was nominated for seven razzies, but as usual I think it has become a cult title. Hopefully the same will happen with this book. The one I am trying to save from ignominy, which I believe he does not deserve. In my opinion, and I believe, I have already said it on many occasions. One should not be carried away by fashions, nor the fan phenomenon. That is what they would like, and that is what is typical of totalitarian regimes, and what excites them, as Alexis de Tocqueville /author/show... or Herbert Marcuse of the disastrous Frankfurt school /author/show... the so-called mass man have already predicted. That's why I'm a bit uncritical of the fan phenomenon, and I try to try glasses not as frequented as the Julius K. Brayne from G.K. Chesterton's "Secret Garden." First of all, it should be said of "The sliver" that it is a rather worthy, and decent, thriller. True, that it was difficult for me to settle in the hundred pages I was a little groggy, trying to find out who is who, and trying to understand the matter, or the crux of the novel, but once you have understood it is very addictive. It has a lot in common with "Rosemary's Baby" is a splinter-style building. Hence the title of the novel. Maybe my friend I've told you about, or friends of mine from the Language Center could explain to me what kind of buildings those are. It shares that trait with that other novel by Ira Levin, a disastrous place where accidents have occurred a priori, so it has a bad reputation. It is known that there is a landlord, and several tenants. A woman named Kay Norris who is editor of Daimpress (we will see that there are many allusions to writers like Anne Tyler /author/show...) or actors like Paul Newman, John Guielgud, or Claire Bloom. In fact, and this is going to be key, it looks a lot like an actress, and the mother of one of the characters. So this novel is going to be very morbid, as a friend of my father Doctor Conde would say "What is not morbid is not interesting". In fact, it has a strong Oedipal component. In fact, there is a lot of mention of a psychiatrist who has the name of the Swedish President. Perhaps at first the most difficult thing is to sit with so many characters whether they are the neighbors of the immuebe, or Kay's friends. One of the things I like the most is that the protagonist is not a woman in her twenties, but a mature woman, who is about to enter quarantine. This is a trait, which I believe, is going to be something premonitory, and more in a society like ours, increasingly aged. I was talking about this on twitter with a friend. I told him that I had never seen more beautiful women than in our time. One of the qualities of the twenty-first century is that the woman who is now between 40-60 has never been more beautiful. More or less that age would be equivalent to women in their thirties. The mature woman has never been more appetizing than in these times. There are always cases like Diana de Poitiers, or Ninon de Lenclos who achieved love success in their maturity, or old age. /author/show... One of the things I don't like about feminism today, and that reproached her is that she only seems to take care of women aged 20-40 and the rest of the women give them the same. One of the things that infuriates me the most is seeing how Hollywood despises women in their fifties, and does not give them the role they deserve, while actors have such a long life. In addition to the psychological pressure to which these women are subjected, they are always forced to be beautiful, and young, undergoing cruel aesthetic operations, breast amphibious, putting on lips. When what they do is get uglier. That is what should be done because the woman is beautiful, and has dignity. It is also a shame the behavior of certain companies, which prevent them from getting pregnant, and force them to sign contracts so that they do not get pregnant. This is why women protest, and not be slaves to policies maintained by unscrupulous millionaires, who seek to turn the family into a camp of Agramente, and promote an absurd, sterile struggle of the sexes, saying that men are abusers, and rapists, and that they are their enemies.
This month is part of being Lent for Catholics, and I'm going to miss many users friends of mine who are going to take a abstinence from ŷ, and they're going to take a break from ŷ. I express my affection to them, and I will miss them very much. I will of course still be here brimming with activity (God willing). In fact, this month I am going to read two books, which may be key for this year. I refer to an "Amendment to the whole" by my admired Juan Manuel de Prada (remember that "A Library in the Oasis" was together with "Characters of the Reformation" by Hilaire Belloc /book/show/5... the best non-fiction book of last year, and it will be interesting to see if he can stand up to Cardinal Robert Sarah. /author/show...) and the other book is the novel is "The third that never existed" by José Javier Esparza /book/show/6... written by my favorite Valencian writer (you know that despite being the son of a Valladolid, and a Cordovan. It will already be spoken in my review of "La lozana andaluza" of my Cordoban ancestry. But I think I already told you that I am in love with a Valencian girl, even though we broke up fifteen years ago, and she is married, and has two children. But one of the things she taught me was to love her city. Although now I no longer want to hear from me.) If any devout soul reads this criticism I ask you to pray a lot for her, her husband, and her children. Why do I insist so much on him? Because it is the only way to show her how much I love her without sinning (she has an exhibition called Cities in the air I leave you the link and I leave a link of her creations that can be acquired at a small price. I am not like the frog of the fabula, which promoted some merchandise that it did not use. I will also acquire objects designed by her very soon ). But we have been distracted from the matter, José Javier Esparza's novel is a continuation of another he wrote about a soldier Julián Romero de Ibarrola who participated in the battle of San Quintín (one of the greatest victories of the Hispanic monarchy). Now comes the truly interesting thing. Once I have written the reviews of the books written by Juan Manuel de Prada, and José Javier Esparza my big project will be to write a balance of my readings of 2021, and eye what has been read so far, and what is thought (always in conditional, because it is not up to me) to read this year. With this I intend to crown this month of March.
By the way, there is one thing there is one thing that I have not told you, that I have opened an Instagram account fonch38 in case you want to follow it. Of course you should not expect photos of me in top less, because I am an antidote to lust, but if you have played the BioWare video game called Planeescape Torment. Without a doubt alguina one of the best of the saga, if we dispense with Baldur's Gates 2 Shadows of Amn /review/show... will know that there is a succubus called Fall of Grace, and that in the planar city of Sigil has a brothel, but not for sexual appetites, but to satiate intellectual appetites, and that is what I propose with my Instagram account, although he believes it for another purpose. Similar to the novel that is going to be commented on now.
WARNING THIS NOVEL CONTAINS SOME SEX SCENES. (this was included for my friends, or some users who don't like books that have a lot of sex. We will talk about this topic when I write my review of the "Andalusian Lozana").
The first thing I'm going to tell you is a pretty vast expression, but I must say it. It is used a lot by my mother, to whom I send a hug from here, but I have enjoyed reading this novel "more than a marrano in a puddle". The first thing I must tell you about "Sliver" is that perhaps a lot has happened to me with the note (this has also happened to me with "Four rogues without blemish", or with "The Magdeburg Wedding" by Getrud von Le Fort /review/show...). What I mean is that three stars seemed too little to me, and four seem too many to me. Actually, the note that "The Sliver" deserves would be rather 3.5, but until ŷ does not introduce that scoring scale I considered that in this case it is better to go over, than to fall short. One of the things that made me put a four instead of three stars was the fact that it had such a low rating. In fact, I found this book much better than I expected, and from page 100-200 (my edition was 223 pages) I had a lot of fun, and it has been a very pleasant experience. As sordid as this story is.
We must be honest this is not the best novel by Ira Levin I think his best novel will be "The Son of Rosemary" or "The Devil's Seed", /book/show/2... which is what the great writer the Jesuit Leonardo Castellani would /author/show... have called nightmare literature. In "The Baby of Rose Mary" we are told the birth of the antichrist, then Seltzer would tell us his uplifting childhood in "The Prophecy" /book/show/2... and also in "Twilight Servers" /book/show/3... and then we would see his activity in "The Lord of the World" by Robert Hugh Benson, "Father Elias" by Michael D. O'Brien, or "Apocalypse the Day of the Lord" by Jorge Sáez Criado /book/show/2... /book/show/5... /book/show/3... to name three in this case. It had a magnificent adaptation "Rose Mary's Baby" carried out by Woody Allen's (Mia Farrow) ex-wife, John Cassavettes, and a transvestite Tony Curtis (for those who say he has no records). The same goes for his other two novels "The Children of Brazil" played by Sir Laurence Olivier, and Gregory Peck (I haven't seen this one, nor have I read it) and stepford's women (which had a disastrous remake a few decades ago. /book/show/9... /book/show/5... .
In the face of such critical triumphs, and sales "The sliver" may not have interest, but for me it has. Like the novels mentioned above, "The Sliver" had an adaptation with Sharon Stone, William Baldwin, Tom Berenger, and Martin Landau in the lead roles. The film was nominated for seven razzies, but as usual I think it has become a cult title. Hopefully the same will happen with this book. The one I am trying to save from ignominy, which I believe he does not deserve. In my opinion, and I believe, I have already said it on many occasions. One should not be carried away by fashions, nor the fan phenomenon. That is what they would like, and that is what is typical of totalitarian regimes, and what excites them, as Alexis de Tocqueville /author/show... or Herbert Marcuse of the disastrous Frankfurt school /author/show... the so-called mass man have already predicted. That's why I'm a bit uncritical of the fan phenomenon, and I try to try glasses not as frequented as the Julius K. Brayne from G.K. Chesterton's "Secret Garden." First of all, it should be said of "The sliver" that it is a rather worthy, and decent, thriller. True, that it was difficult for me to settle in the hundred pages I was a little groggy, trying to find out who is who, and trying to understand the matter, or the crux of the novel, but once you have understood it is very addictive. It has a lot in common with "Rosemary's Baby" is a splinter-style building. Hence the title of the novel. Maybe my friend I've told you about, or friends of mine from the Language Center could explain to me what kind of buildings those are. It shares that trait with that other novel by Ira Levin, a disastrous place where accidents have occurred a priori, so it has a bad reputation. It is known that there is a landlord, and several tenants. A woman named Kay Norris who is editor of Daimpress (we will see that there are many allusions to writers like Anne Tyler /author/show...) or actors like Paul Newman, John Guielgud, or Claire Bloom. In fact, and this is going to be key, it looks a lot like an actress, and the mother of one of the characters. So this novel is going to be very morbid, as a friend of my father Doctor Conde would say "What is not morbid is not interesting". In fact, it has a strong Oedipal component. In fact, there is a lot of mention of a psychiatrist who has the name of the Swedish President. Perhaps at first the most difficult thing is to sit with so many characters whether they are the neighbors of the immuebe, or Kay's friends. One of the things I like the most is that the protagonist is not a woman in her twenties, but a mature woman, who is about to enter quarantine. This is a trait, which I believe, is going to be something premonitory, and more in a society like ours, increasingly aged. I was talking about this on twitter with a friend. I told him that I had never seen more beautiful women than in our time. One of the qualities of the twenty-first century is that the woman who is now between 40-60 has never been more beautiful. More or less that age would be equivalent to women in their thirties. The mature woman has never been more appetizing than in these times. There are always cases like Diana de Poitiers, or Ninon de Lenclos who achieved love success in their maturity, or old age. /author/show... One of the things I don't like about feminism today, and that reproached her is that she only seems to take care of women aged 20-40 and the rest of the women give them the same. One of the things that infuriates me the most is seeing how Hollywood despises women in their fifties, and does not give them the role they deserve, while actors have such a long life. In addition to the psychological pressure to which these women are subjected, they are always forced to be beautiful, and young, undergoing cruel aesthetic operations, breast amphibious, putting on lips. When what they do is get uglier. That is what should be done because the woman is beautiful, and has dignity. It is also a shame the behavior of certain companies, which prevent them from getting pregnant, and force them to sign contracts so that they do not get pregnant. This is why women protest, and not be slaves to policies maintained by unscrupulous millionaires, who seek to turn the family into a camp of Agramente, and promote an absurd, sterile struggle of the sexes, saying that men are abusers, and rapists, and that they are their enemies.
December 22, 2024
I’m giving this 3.5-4 ⭐️s. I enjoyed this one much more than I thought I would. It was a quick read, which I think I kind of needed. I have read a lot of bigger books lately. Still thought it was pretty good. It kept me interested and I read it in a day. My first Ira Levin book and I would like to read others by him. 👍🏻
January 3, 2025
This erotic psychological thriller was Ira Levin’s first novel in fifteen years, after
The Boys From Brazil
in the mid-70’s, and other than the subsequent and final Son of Rosemary, an allegedly terrible sequel to the iconic and excellent Rosemary’s Baby which I’ll never read, it’s unanimously the one rated the lowest� and I get why. I’ve loved everything else by Levin that I’ve read so far—his stories are always a wild, exhilarating ride with great twists—but the writing here isn’t very good (to put it mildly—it goes beyond Levin’s trademark matter-of-fact sparseness), the protagonist’s choices are utterly unrealistic, and the ending is such an unlikely, ironic cop-out that I couldn’t help but laugh, although I’m sure Levin was going for poetic justice rather than ludicrous deus-ex-machina. I was very much in the mood for a quick, enjoyably ridiculous thriller though, and I inhaled it in two short days. It’s not appallingly bad, but it’s also nowhere near good, yet I enjoyed my time with it. Sue me.
Kay Norris, an attractive and successful thirty-nine year old book editor, moves into an apartment in a slender 21-story high-rise on Manhattan’s Upper East Side, which the tabloids have already dubbed the Horror High-Rise because of a series of bizarre, deathly accidents that have befallen four of its tenants. She starts an affair with the building’s young, handsome, and rich owner, who, unbeknownst to everyone, has surveillance cameras and microphones installed in every apartment. What follows is kind of the opposite of Hitchcock’s Rear Window, with an intriguingly prescient Big Brother spin: Instead of a voyeur who witnesses a murder, the voyeur is the one committing murders to protect his voyeuristic habit.
The "romance" aspect of Sliver is so terrible, I truly cannot stress this enough—it’s so absurd that it’s funny. Here’s a worldly woman who somehow doesn’t think it’s a massive red flag when a guy openly admits to being attracted to her because she looks like his dead mother� and six weeks into a fling, when she finds out what would, for most rational people, be a deal breaker, she’s instead willing to marry him so she wouldn’t have to testify against him in a court of law. At least she has second thoughts when murdering gets added on top of the peeping. Small mercies, oh baby.
The theme of technology posing a threat to our privacy has ensured that the novel has aged well in a way Levin couldn’t possibly have foreseen in 1991 though; the trashy, gritty veneer of the suspense thriller hides a pretty compelling and uncomfortable exploration of the forbidden lure and addictive nature of voyeurism. In our age of social media, who hasn’t ‘watched� someone who was unaware of it? Where is the line, and how do you know if you’ve crossed it? If anything, Sliver is more relevant now than when it was first released, and all the more unsettling for it—and it was even ahead of its time in a way, as the Peeping Tom exhibits what can only be described as binge watching behavior.
Kay Norris, an attractive and successful thirty-nine year old book editor, moves into an apartment in a slender 21-story high-rise on Manhattan’s Upper East Side, which the tabloids have already dubbed the Horror High-Rise because of a series of bizarre, deathly accidents that have befallen four of its tenants. She starts an affair with the building’s young, handsome, and rich owner, who, unbeknownst to everyone, has surveillance cameras and microphones installed in every apartment. What follows is kind of the opposite of Hitchcock’s Rear Window, with an intriguingly prescient Big Brother spin: Instead of a voyeur who witnesses a murder, the voyeur is the one committing murders to protect his voyeuristic habit.
“Life. The real thing, the soap that God watches. A sliver of it anyway. No actresses, no actors, no directors. No writers or editors. No commercials. And every bit of it true, not somebody’s version of the truth.�
The "romance" aspect of Sliver is so terrible, I truly cannot stress this enough—it’s so absurd that it’s funny. Here’s a worldly woman who somehow doesn’t think it’s a massive red flag when a guy openly admits to being attracted to her because she looks like his dead mother� and six weeks into a fling, when she finds out what would, for most rational people, be a deal breaker, she’s instead willing to marry him so she wouldn’t have to testify against him in a court of law. At least she has second thoughts when murdering gets added on top of the peeping. Small mercies, oh baby.
The theme of technology posing a threat to our privacy has ensured that the novel has aged well in a way Levin couldn’t possibly have foreseen in 1991 though; the trashy, gritty veneer of the suspense thriller hides a pretty compelling and uncomfortable exploration of the forbidden lure and addictive nature of voyeurism. In our age of social media, who hasn’t ‘watched� someone who was unaware of it? Where is the line, and how do you know if you’ve crossed it? If anything, Sliver is more relevant now than when it was first released, and all the more unsettling for it—and it was even ahead of its time in a way, as the Peeping Tom exhibits what can only be described as binge watching behavior.
“HǴǰ�on that God’s-eye view of life, a sliver of it.�
November 22, 2020
3 stars
Alfred Hitchcock's Rear Window with a 90s tech spin; while it brings to the table compelling exploration on voyeurism, television culture, and make-believe, It's also oddly shallow and under-cooked, resulting in a thriller that entertains, but comes up short of its full potential.
Briefly on the butchered 1993 film adaptation (which was what brought me reading the book in the first place): The film maintains the same cast of character and the basic framework (a high-rise apartment in New York City with a less than desirable track record), but tells a heavily altered, all together different whodunit plot line. Still, to give credit where credit is due, the casting of Sharon Stone and William Baldwin is spot-on, and the film does a great job bringing the environment to life (the high-rise looks impeccable); so maybe watch a trailer if you're interested in reading, just to gain some visual references.
The lack of correlation between the two versions kept the reading fresh; the novel dives in deeper into the concept of 'watching'—from something that is made to be consumed (television and publishing), to something that is considered unacceptable conduct (voyeurism). Ira Levin is not afraid to push some characters into morally gray territory, and conjures up interesting circumstance on privacy and innate curiosity. The novel is ultimately a study on media consumption, and even a little ahead of its time with some of the characters' 'binge' behavior.
As much as I'm fascinated by the subject matter it's exploring, Sliver under-delivers as a thriller; the plot, while never boring, takes too long to set up, and the thrill barely has time to land its punches, before the short book ends on an out-of-left-field climax/closure. While definitely more coherent compares to its cinema counterpart, I can see why the filmmaker decided to rewrite the story from the ground up; the book feels a little aimless, like it has yet figured out just what is the story it wants to tell. Which is rather ironic, because the heroine is literally a publishing editor specializes in thrillers and Gothics.
You can tell Sliver is written by a seasoned master, with its lean and razor-sharp writing, and clever juxtaposition of ideas and concepts. It's too bad it also feels abandoned, like Ira Levin simply lost interest after the first draft. To conclude my own journey with Sliver: yes, the book is better, but only marginally so.
Alfred Hitchcock's Rear Window with a 90s tech spin; while it brings to the table compelling exploration on voyeurism, television culture, and make-believe, It's also oddly shallow and under-cooked, resulting in a thriller that entertains, but comes up short of its full potential.
Briefly on the butchered 1993 film adaptation (which was what brought me reading the book in the first place): The film maintains the same cast of character and the basic framework (a high-rise apartment in New York City with a less than desirable track record), but tells a heavily altered, all together different whodunit plot line. Still, to give credit where credit is due, the casting of Sharon Stone and William Baldwin is spot-on, and the film does a great job bringing the environment to life (the high-rise looks impeccable); so maybe watch a trailer if you're interested in reading, just to gain some visual references.
The lack of correlation between the two versions kept the reading fresh; the novel dives in deeper into the concept of 'watching'—from something that is made to be consumed (television and publishing), to something that is considered unacceptable conduct (voyeurism). Ira Levin is not afraid to push some characters into morally gray territory, and conjures up interesting circumstance on privacy and innate curiosity. The novel is ultimately a study on media consumption, and even a little ahead of its time with some of the characters' 'binge' behavior.
As much as I'm fascinated by the subject matter it's exploring, Sliver under-delivers as a thriller; the plot, while never boring, takes too long to set up, and the thrill barely has time to land its punches, before the short book ends on an out-of-left-field climax/closure. While definitely more coherent compares to its cinema counterpart, I can see why the filmmaker decided to rewrite the story from the ground up; the book feels a little aimless, like it has yet figured out just what is the story it wants to tell. Which is rather ironic, because the heroine is literally a publishing editor specializes in thrillers and Gothics.
You can tell Sliver is written by a seasoned master, with its lean and razor-sharp writing, and clever juxtaposition of ideas and concepts. It's too bad it also feels abandoned, like Ira Levin simply lost interest after the first draft. To conclude my own journey with Sliver: yes, the book is better, but only marginally so.
February 19, 2017
Eh. This wasn't great. Not totally apalling, but not great.
So - background. I've read most of Ira Levin's books (Rosemary's Baby, A Kiss Before Dying, Stepford Wives, The Boys From Brazil) and have really enjoyed them. He's a master of saying a lot without using many words, of building tension through innocuous events and of writing strong female characters who live in situations where female strength isn't encouraged.
So, yeah. I'm a bit of a fan.
Sadly, I was not a fan of Sliver.
The premise is that a hotshot publishing executive moves into a sliver (very thin) apartment block in New York that is, unbeknownest to her, fittedout with hundreds of video cameras that record the movements of all its inhabitants.
I found it really hard to like the protagonist - she was super whiney and I really didn't like the romatic relationship she enters into. The guy shehooks up with openly tells her he's attracted to her because she looks like his mother and she thinks that this is A-OK. Like, not a problem that you have a boner for your mum, Oedipus, let's jump into bed and declare our undying instalove for each other. So bizarre.
Unfortunately, where Levin's other books use a minimum of words to express a whole lot of feelings, plot and tension, this book does the complete opposite. I didn't need to know about Kay going furniture shopping - it had no relevance to the plot. A whole lot of the side-characters could havebeen cut out - they added nothing. In fact, I think this whole book could have been carved down to a long-ish short story.
Actually, I think Levin's editor might have asked him tothink about paring down the word count at some point, because he does this really weird thing that I've never seen in any of his other books - he misses out a whole bunch of pronouns. Like this:
She hung up [the phone].
Sat reading.
Scratched her neck.
Took a shower.
Saw movement beyond the steamy glass.
This happens a lot in the book, and it really irritated me.
The reason Sliver is a two-star rather than a one-star is because (a) the premise was pretty cool and (b) I'm in a good mood today.
If you want a creepy read, go for (in this order):
Stepford Wives
Rosemary's Baby
A Kiss Before Dying
The Boys From Brazil.
Don't bother with Sliver. It's really not representative of Levin's work.
So - background. I've read most of Ira Levin's books (Rosemary's Baby, A Kiss Before Dying, Stepford Wives, The Boys From Brazil) and have really enjoyed them. He's a master of saying a lot without using many words, of building tension through innocuous events and of writing strong female characters who live in situations where female strength isn't encouraged.
So, yeah. I'm a bit of a fan.
Sadly, I was not a fan of Sliver.
The premise is that a hotshot publishing executive moves into a sliver (very thin) apartment block in New York that is, unbeknownest to her, fittedout with hundreds of video cameras that record the movements of all its inhabitants.
I found it really hard to like the protagonist - she was super whiney and I really didn't like the romatic relationship she enters into. The guy shehooks up with openly tells her he's attracted to her because she looks like his mother and she thinks that this is A-OK. Like, not a problem that you have a boner for your mum, Oedipus, let's jump into bed and declare our undying instalove for each other. So bizarre.
Unfortunately, where Levin's other books use a minimum of words to express a whole lot of feelings, plot and tension, this book does the complete opposite. I didn't need to know about Kay going furniture shopping - it had no relevance to the plot. A whole lot of the side-characters could havebeen cut out - they added nothing. In fact, I think this whole book could have been carved down to a long-ish short story.
Actually, I think Levin's editor might have asked him tothink about paring down the word count at some point, because he does this really weird thing that I've never seen in any of his other books - he misses out a whole bunch of pronouns. Like this:
She hung up [the phone].
Sat reading.
Scratched her neck.
Took a shower.
Saw movement beyond the steamy glass.
This happens a lot in the book, and it really irritated me.
The reason Sliver is a two-star rather than a one-star is because (a) the premise was pretty cool and (b) I'm in a good mood today.
If you want a creepy read, go for (in this order):
Stepford Wives
Rosemary's Baby
A Kiss Before Dying
The Boys From Brazil.
Don't bother with Sliver. It's really not representative of Levin's work.
November 6, 2023
Would you? Spy on the lives of your neighbors if you could? Yeah, you would. You would too. Big Brother before Big Brother. A high-rise, Art Deco, voyeurism, manipulation, Oedipus and woman's best friend, a cat. Intriguing cocktail. Loved how Kay finds out the truth about her toyboy and then can't resist it herself. Written so smoothly, so nonchalant. Loved the irony in the ending even more. Similar to what Ira Levin did in The Boys from Brazil. Awesome author.
October 7, 2022
Let's not act like this was good, but Feliz the cat redeemed this thing. 🐱🔪
October 4, 2020
The female editor of trashy gothic romance novels gets a new apartment in a high rise, only to discover she is being watched.
This was an uncomfortably tense suspense novel that had two issues: the ending and being written at the wrong time.
The ending: the heroine makes several references to gothic novels, and indeed the opening of the book is indeed a juggling of "who is the bad guy really" that is the staple of gothics. Things veer in an interesting direction toward the middle of the book, overturning one big gothic trope, but then wrap up in a kind-of gothic fashion at the end, a bit deus ex machina. But there's one element missing: the good guy that the heroine has believed for most of the book to be the bad guy. I try not to "rewrite" books in reviews, but the ending was so weak I had to reread it to make sure I hadn't missed something.
Being written at the wrong time: This doesn't work as a thriller and would have gone over a lot better as a modern domestic suspense novel, with its shifting clues and tangled morality. Call it Girl in the Penthouse, fix the end with a good guy (hey, make it abut a same sex love triangle, why not?) and make sure she inherits the building, sell a bajillion copies, make a movie, cast Sharon Stone as the director character amd give her some good murdery red herrings, PROFIT.
Recommended if you like Gone Girl.
This was an uncomfortably tense suspense novel that had two issues: the ending and being written at the wrong time.
The ending: the heroine makes several references to gothic novels, and indeed the opening of the book is indeed a juggling of "who is the bad guy really" that is the staple of gothics. Things veer in an interesting direction toward the middle of the book, overturning one big gothic trope, but then wrap up in a kind-of gothic fashion at the end, a bit deus ex machina. But there's one element missing: the good guy that the heroine has believed for most of the book to be the bad guy. I try not to "rewrite" books in reviews, but the ending was so weak I had to reread it to make sure I hadn't missed something.
Being written at the wrong time: This doesn't work as a thriller and would have gone over a lot better as a modern domestic suspense novel, with its shifting clues and tangled morality. Call it Girl in the Penthouse, fix the end with a good guy (hey, make it abut a same sex love triangle, why not?) and make sure she inherits the building, sell a bajillion copies, make a movie, cast Sharon Stone as the director character amd give her some good murdery red herrings, PROFIT.
Recommended if you like Gone Girl.
September 16, 2023
Ira Levin, would not be Ira Levin if at the end of the book, there wasn’t a twist.
The twist is unexpected and most often very scary, 'Rosemary's Baby' and 'The Boys from Brazil'
Now in ‘Sliver� Ira Levin delves deep inside the human psyche.
He asks us the question,
‘What would you have done faced with the delicious opportunity of peering into your neighbor's lives, taking a good look at their darkest fantasies and best of all ... they are unaware of it'.
And my answer would have been a resounding 'yes' and another ‘yes�.
I too would have rejoiced at the very idea of being glued to the cameras taking in every detail and relishing every minute of my neighbor's lives.
I am a very normal person...
The twist is unexpected and most often very scary, 'Rosemary's Baby' and 'The Boys from Brazil'
Now in ‘Sliver� Ira Levin delves deep inside the human psyche.
He asks us the question,
‘What would you have done faced with the delicious opportunity of peering into your neighbor's lives, taking a good look at their darkest fantasies and best of all ... they are unaware of it'.
And my answer would have been a resounding 'yes' and another ‘yes�.
I too would have rejoiced at the very idea of being glued to the cameras taking in every detail and relishing every minute of my neighbor's lives.
I am a very normal person...
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
March 18, 2025
3.5 ⭐️
November 4, 2009
Is it just me or was this the most unexciting book that I have read in recent times. I confess to the fact that an exciting book like Rosemary's Baby by the same author piqued my interest enough to choose this book.
A hight rise building and the spooky goings on around it make up the crux of the tale. Centres mostly around a single career woman who comes into the building and falls in love with the wrong guy at the wrong place. It is at times so cliched that you can see the climax from miles off.
Nuff said... I dont know what else to cook up for a review
A hight rise building and the spooky goings on around it make up the crux of the tale. Centres mostly around a single career woman who comes into the building and falls in love with the wrong guy at the wrong place. It is at times so cliched that you can see the climax from miles off.
Nuff said... I dont know what else to cook up for a review
August 3, 2020
Far too much pointless waffle between/about irrelevant characters.
Far too many sentences that desperately needed commas.
Far too many sentences that made no sense to me at all.
What a disappointment.
Far too many sentences that desperately needed commas.
Far too many sentences that made no sense to me at all.
What a disappointment.
December 28, 2017
CATS ARE THE BEST
January 1, 2022
I am having the hardest time trying to comprehend that this book was written by Ira Levin. . . Seriously, how is it possible that the same person that wrote Rosemary's Baby wrote this crap? I guess to be fair, Sliver is only the second book of Ira Levin that I have read
but still
. I thoroughly enjoyed reading Rosemary's Baby so much that it motivated me to read more Ira Levin, but honestly, after enduring through Sliver (which I almost DNF'd a couple of times but pushed myself through since it's such a short book - big mistake), I honestly have lost all interest in reading more books by him.
Sliver had potential to be this really creepy little story, but absolutely everything about the execution was all wrong. You have a really slow paced story with an unlikable main character (not in a good way), a joke of a villain, a very anti climatic and un-suspenseful sequence of events apart from that utterly ridiculous ending with it's ridiculous use of deus ex machina, cliche after cliche after cliche, lots of side characters that do not matter, and paragraphs/pages of descriptions, actions, and just words in general that offers absolutely nothing to the story. Also, don't even get me started on the weird lack of pronouns and the strange, choppy sentences.
If you have any interest in this story whatsoever, I recommend you skip this book and just watch the 1993 film adaptation starring Sharon Stone. I use the word "recommend" here very lightly since I don't actual suggest you watch the adaptation either since it's a terrible movie. The idea is that if there is any amount of interest in Sliver, watching the movie will take you less time than actually sitting down and reading the book. The ending does differ though. Truthfully, I don't suggest you subject yourself to Sliver at all, be it book or movie.
Sliver had potential to be this really creepy little story, but absolutely everything about the execution was all wrong. You have a really slow paced story with an unlikable main character (not in a good way), a joke of a villain, a very anti climatic and un-suspenseful sequence of events apart from that utterly ridiculous ending with it's ridiculous use of deus ex machina, cliche after cliche after cliche, lots of side characters that do not matter, and paragraphs/pages of descriptions, actions, and just words in general that offers absolutely nothing to the story. Also, don't even get me started on the weird lack of pronouns and the strange, choppy sentences.
If you have any interest in this story whatsoever, I recommend you skip this book and just watch the 1993 film adaptation starring Sharon Stone. I use the word "recommend" here very lightly since I don't actual suggest you watch the adaptation either since it's a terrible movie. The idea is that if there is any amount of interest in Sliver, watching the movie will take you less time than actually sitting down and reading the book. The ending does differ though. Truthfully, I don't suggest you subject yourself to Sliver at all, be it book or movie.
November 18, 2012
Kay Norris, a successful single lady of thirty-nine, moves into the posh Upper East Side district of Carnegie Hill in Manhattan. The building she moves into is a slender, silvery high rise full of exclusive apartments. The building's landlord is personable, if slightly obsessive, but very solicitous of his tenants' various comforts. Only after she moves in does Kay discover that the tabloids have nicknamed her building "The Horror High Rise". Four unexplained deaths have occurred during the building's construction, and a fifth one is about to happen...
I really enjoyed reading Silver by Ira Levin. It was a very intriguing story and I would definitely recommend this book to anyone who likes horror. I think that I saw at least part of the movie that was made in 1993, and starred Sharon Stone and William Baldwin. In my opinion, the book was much better than the movie. I give Sliver by Ira Levin an A+!
I really enjoyed reading Silver by Ira Levin. It was a very intriguing story and I would definitely recommend this book to anyone who likes horror. I think that I saw at least part of the movie that was made in 1993, and starred Sharon Stone and William Baldwin. In my opinion, the book was much better than the movie. I give Sliver by Ira Levin an A+!
August 3, 2017
This was a humdrum story that couldn't maintain my interest, and I threw in the towel after a hundred pages. The writing was so sparse that, a couple of times, I could hardly make sense of what was happening or what the characters were talking about. If ever I've read a book malnourished from lack of words, this is it. Even yet, despite its stripped-down quality, it still manages to be a slow, dull read.
December 25, 2021
A blow-by-blow account of a middle aged cat lady's mundane day to day business. Occasionally she pets her kitty literally and figuratively and a pervert creams his pants watching her on surveillance.
Another dud by Levin.
Another dud by Levin.
February 27, 2016
I refuse to believe Levin wrote this.
August 27, 2018
Kurz, seltsam, gut!
Kay zieht in die 1300 Madison Avenue. Auch das "Horror-Hochhaus genannt". Es ist relativ neu, dafür gab es schon vier seltsame Todesfälle ...
Der Schreibstil ist speziell und man muss sich daran gewöhnen. Abgehackt, viele Perspektivwechsel, oft werden Szenen nur kurz dargestellt, dann wieder werden Details und Kleinigkeiten immer wieder hervorgehoben.
Ich fand das aber schon bei "die Frauen von Stepford" interessant.
Auch das Buch an sich ist speziell. Es fängt belanglos an, steigert sich langsam, die Stimmung wird immer beklemmender. Spannend ist es aber nicht.
Auf jeden Fall lesenswert. Und das Ende ist wahnsinnig gut.
Kay zieht in die 1300 Madison Avenue. Auch das "Horror-Hochhaus genannt". Es ist relativ neu, dafür gab es schon vier seltsame Todesfälle ...
Der Schreibstil ist speziell und man muss sich daran gewöhnen. Abgehackt, viele Perspektivwechsel, oft werden Szenen nur kurz dargestellt, dann wieder werden Details und Kleinigkeiten immer wieder hervorgehoben.
Ich fand das aber schon bei "die Frauen von Stepford" interessant.
Auch das Buch an sich ist speziell. Es fängt belanglos an, steigert sich langsam, die Stimmung wird immer beklemmender. Spannend ist es aber nicht.
Auf jeden Fall lesenswert. Und das Ende ist wahnsinnig gut.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 368 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.