Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

The story tells of a down-and-out young man named Tom Ripley, who is sent by a wealthy man to persuade his son, Dickie, who is wandering abroad, to return home and inherit the family business. However, Tom ends up killing Dickie and impersonating him to steal his inheritance.

Rather than calling this a detective novel, it would be more accurate to call it a crime novel. Yet, the villain is not brought to justice, and the entire narrative revolves around the criminal, Tom.

Spoiler Alert!

Reading sone reviews on Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ, I was astonished to see many people cheering for his escape. Many argue that Tom is actually a victim, having lost his parents at a young age and being raised by a malicious, harsh aunt, which led to his crimes. But don’t you think the facts remain that he is an extremely selfish sociopath? Even if we trace his childhood to find psychological roots, it's impossible to rely solely on his narration. After all, he is a liar skilled enough to deceive himself. He was already fabricating stories and pretending to write letters to the Greenleafs as he set sail for Europe.

Should we not take his assessment of his aunt with a grain of salt? He claims many aunts and even strangers unconditionally raise other people's children and enjoy it. This clearly shows his psychological need for his aunt: he expects her to raise him "unconditionally" and "enjoy it." Such demands are nearly impossible to meet, and wouldn't he exaggerate her malice as a result? Most likely, yes. Therefore, justifying his evil actions by blaming his "original family" and sympathizing with his escape from punishment is neither appropriate nor frightening.

His demands of Dickie were also unreasonable. It's hard to say if he was homosexual. He had expressed similar tendencies in previous friendships to fit in, fearing they would dislike him otherwise. But his feelings for Dickie seemed to include some erotic elements. When he was about to kill Dickie, he "gazed at Dickie's closed eyelids, feeling a tumult of hatred, love, impatience, and frustration mixed, making it hard to breathe." This suggests Tom might have killed Dickie out of a love-turned-hate scenario.

Personally, I don't think assigning him a homosexual attribute is meaningful.

Psychologically, I believe Tom is deeply insecure. He didn't love Dickie; he just wanted validation from others, like when he pretended to be homosexual. However, his standards for validation were unreasonable. In one scene, he encounters a con artist exposed by Dickie and becomes furious. Tom wants to explain, break the deadlock with Dickie, and make Dickie understand, so they feel the same way, as they did a month ago. This terrifying thought shows he needs to feel the same as the other person to feel accepted, which is impossible. This leads to the frustration that caused him to kill Dickie.

Although he later thought that if he hadn't misjudged Dickie's relationship with Marge or had waited patiently for them to sort it out, none of this would have happened, and they could have lived together, traveled, and enjoyed life. But I believe this is just a fleeting fantasy, perhaps even a scene he imagined to put on a show for Peter, allowing himself to "cry like a child." Tom could never have lived with Dickie this way. If they were like brothers with mutual affection, Tom's identity would always be Tom Ripley, which he despises. From the moment he stole Dickie's clothes, he wanted to become Dickie. Therefore, Dickie had to die.

Tom definitely knows this. He had mimicked Peter's behavior, and that night he briefly thought what happened to Dickie could happen to Peter. He doesn't love Peter, but he knows that if they didn't look different, the same might have happened. He wants to become anyone who isn't Tom. He can mimic others, his talent, but completely lacks empathy. He mistakes his impeccable imitation for understanding others, which is clearly his misunderstanding. Thus, he repeatedly realizes he can never truly understand those who have appeared or will appear before him. Worse, he often mistakenly believes he understands them and is just like them.

So, after killing Dickie and obtaining all that money, can he live the life he desires? Appreciate art and support struggling artists, as he claims? I think not. In the movie, he crammed jazz music to get close to Dickie. The book doesn't include this part, but his love for art is similar. None of it is his nature. Art is merely a means to escape being Tom Ripley.

This is a story about a greedy, selfish, and deeply self-loathing person who commits murder and steals someone's identity. Stories from the "bad guy's" perspective are undoubtedly gripping, and the movie's success is guaranteed. Rationally, I utterly detest Tom, but I cannot deny that this is an undeniably brilliant story. Patricia Highsmith’s writing is superb.

4.5 / 5 stars