Pulp Fiction discussion

Pierre Boulle (20 February 1912 – 30 January 1994) was a French novelist best known for two works, The Bridge Over the River Kwai (1952) and Planet of the Apes (1963) that were both made into award-winning films.

Boulle was an engineer serving as a secret agent with the Free French in Singapore, when he was captured and subjected to two years' forced labour. He used these experiences in The Bridge over the River Kwai, about the notorious Death Railway, which became an international bestseller. The film by David Lean won many Oscars, and Boulle was credited with writing the screenplay, because its two genuine authors had been blacklisted.

His science-fiction novel Planet of the Apes, where intelligent apes gain mastery over humans, was adapted into a series of five award-winning films that spawned magazine versions and popular themed toys.

nope

I just began this yesterday. It's actually not half bad. It reads very fast. The library I got it from has it marked as Young Adult.

Lawrence wrote: "I just began this yesterdThe Bridge On the River Kwaiay. It's actually not half bad. It reads very fast. The library I got it from has it marked as Young Adult."

Our copy was in the YA section, as well. Not sure why a book about a 40-year-old man should be placed there, but I changed the location, and it's now in adult fiction, right beside The Bridge On the River Kwai.

The Heston film is one of my favorite classics. I'm into this one and really loving it so far. This one has been on my radar for quite some time. So intriguing.

Franky wrote: "The Heston film is one of my favorite classics. I'm into this one and really loving it so far. This one has been on my radar for quite some time. So intriguing."

One of my favorite parodies of the original film is in the children's animated film Madagascar. If you haven't seen it, check out the following clip (you can skip ahead to the 3:40 mark)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9Z5x...

Like many of us, I've already started reading this one and I'm enjoying it quite a bit. It does read fast and I should have no trouble wrapping it up in the next couple weeks.

One of my favorite parodies of the original film is in the children's animated film Madagascar. If you haven't seen it, check out the following clip (you can skip ahead to the 3:40 mark)."

That's pretty funny...

Since Homer Simpson came up a few months ago, we might as well revisit this parody - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2E1m...

Thanks for the laughs with the two videos. I have watched the Simpsons over the years but never remember that one. I don't remember the Madagascar scene either.

I just finished the book this morning, and generally enjoyed it very much. I am looking forward to the discussions to come as people finish reading.

I finished last night as well and enjoyed it. I'll wait a bit before jumping in with thoughts.

David wrote: "I just finished the book this morning, and generally enjoyed it very much. I am looking forward to the discussions to come as people finish reading."

Lawrence wrote: "I finished last night as well and enjoyed it. I'll wait a bit before jumping in with thoughts."

Thank you for waiting for everyone. It's not a long book but we officially just started it a few days ago. Let's say spoiler discussions can start on Friday August 9th. Does that work for everyone? If you haven't finished by then, you may want to avert your eyes from this thread until you've finished the read.

Melki wrote: "Since Homer Simpson came up a few months ago, we might as well revisit this parody - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2E1m..."

Oh, I love legitimate theatre! HAHAHAHAHA

RJ - Slayer of Trolls wrote: "David wrote: "I just finished the book this morning, and generally enjoyed it very much. I am looking forward to the discussions to come as people finish reading."

No worries on waiting. I'm usually late to the party anyway.

I'm flying through this one and thoroughly enjoying it. I will most likely have it done by tomorrow or Thursday hopefully. I am doing some comparisons with the film and noticed that Rod Serling was one of the screenwriters for the film. No wonder it was so good.

I'm back from a holiday in Southern Italy, so I hope to get started on this one soon. I remember I saw the original movie way back in the early seventies and thinking it was a great story.

Okay, everyone who has finished feel free to spoil away!

Those who haven't finished may want to avoid this thread until they are done reading the book. The book is said to end differently than the original movie, by the way.

(And I still have a few days left of reading, so I will now excuse myself for a bit...)

POTA was a surprise; a very good surprise. Boulle did a superb job with pacing and action in the first parts and chapters. He did well to create character, conflict and establish a very parallel and surreal analogy with real past colonialism, slavery and obviously evolution. Ulyse (nice allusion to Ulysses/Odysseus), was given a little more credit than the other characters - as a journalist - which was a bit hard to believe, but it doesn't really matter because of how good everything else is. Now I kinda want to go back and rewatch the original - mostly because of comparison, but also, was Nova as hot as Boulle described her? - but I probably won't. I don't want to ruin the experience of the novel.

Philip wrote: "POTA was a surprise; a very good surprise. Boulle did a superb job with pacing and action in the first parts and chapters. He did well to create character, conflict and establish a very parallel an..."

I also thought the story was very good. In particular Boulle's world building is pretty compelling and thought-provoking.

My only criticism of the novel is how scientifically implausible the evolution/devolution concept is as it pertains to Earth at the end of the novel. I think even in Boulle's day, this would have been seen as implausible. On Soror, it seemed obvious to me that the apes evolution and the humans devolution played out over thousands of years, but the evolution of apes and the (implied) devolution of humans on Earth was achieved in only 1400 years (due to time dilation, the trip from Earth to Soror took 700 earth years, and the return trip took another 700 earth years). The only thing I can think of to account for this would be that Einstein's theory of special relativity is somehow wrong, and time dilation actually works in some other way.

I really ended up enjoying this one. My favorite read so far this year. I went back and re-watched the film to compare and there are obviously some differences but both are very solid experiences. I would say that the film seems a little more action-based and the book seems more theory/ scientific. I kind of let go some of the science theories and just enjoyed the ride for what it was worth. I want to go and read the next in the series but it is hard getting a copy of a cheap version of "Beneath the Planet of the Apes" in English. I'll have to look around a bit more maybe.

This was a very quick read, I finished it in a couple of sittings. I too liked the fact that Boulle doesn't waste words and has a clear plot development without distractions or filler.
Regarding the science part of the story, it's true that it lacks credibility, but for me this story is a fable of ethics in research and a challenge of the belief that man is the true apex of evolution, master of everything below him on the evolutionary ladder.
By the way, did you notice the teaser in the prologue in the dialogue between the couple of space sailors? the one where the lady wonders at the very same word: antropomorphism. It gives away the ending even to those few of us who haven't watched the original movie. For me, the movie solution (view spoiler)[ all the action takes place on Earth instead of going all the way to Soror and back (hide spoiler)] is more elegant and impactful.

Algernon (Darth Anyan) wrote: "This was a very quick read, I finished it in a couple of sittings. I too liked the fact that Boulle doesn't waste words and has a clear plot development without distractions or filler.
Regarding th..."

I agree that the twist presented at the end of the movie is much more elegant, impactful and shocking than the twist in the book, and it certainly reframed the story for me when I saw the film. The twist at the end of the novel didn't have the same impact, and really only had the effect of me questioning it's plausibility.

I had missed the part where Phyllis uses the word 'anthropomorphism' at the beginning of the novel. I'll have to go back and listen to that part of the audiobook again. Nice catch, Algernon!

I finished a few days ago, but with my college-age daughter in town and work being busy this is the first chance I've had to sit down and spill out my thoughts. I've read your comments above so my opinion will no doubt be influenced by some of the excellent thoughts and insights you have all shared so far.

The framing device that opened the story seemed odd to me - a leisurely couple "sailing" around in space happen upon the equivalent of a message in a bottle (cue the song by the Police). But later I wondered if it was a reference to Poe's "MS Found in a bottle" or even a nod to the framing device used by Wells in The Time Machine (we'll come back to that later) where the story is told to us by someone who heard it from the Time Traveler. It might have been either of those things, but it was also a way for Boulle to throw another twist at us on the final page. Cute.

I was surprised that Boulle chose to spend a couple chapters regarding the interstellar trip, but as I read further I supposed this was a nice way to show how far and fast the Professor fell from his once-civilized self into a much more animal-like state. If I was concerned with believability, this would have been a sticking point for me. It seemed more realistic to think that the Professor was going through a PTSD episode than truly regressing to a more primitive self. (They didn't have "PTSD" as a term back in 1963 when this novel was written, but the disorder had been known for years as "shell shock.") But I think Boulle's aim was social satire so I was willing to sacrifice some believability to that end.

The idea of the ape culture having reached roughly the level of 1963-era human culture was a surprise to me, as well as to others who had seen the movie, I'm sure. Apparently Rod Serling's original film script called for exactly that, which would have been prohibitively expensive to film in that day and age. So the script was heavily revised and the ape culture made a little more primitive and therefore easier to film.

The film did keep Serling's original twist ending though, which I thought was a little better - or as Algernon put it, "more elegant and impactful") than the book's ending. The film's ending also was able to tap into the Cold War paranoia of a nuclear WWIII Armageddon scenario that would reduce humanity to a Stone Age existence. Also, to pay off my earlier remark, the ending of the film is similar to Wells' Time Traveler's voyage to the future where the Morlocks and the Eloi share an uneasy existence.

I watched all the movies as a kid including Beneath, Escape, Conquest and Battle for the Planet of the Apes. They were trotted out periodically on the ABC 4:30 afternoon movie. The original movie is quite similar to the book. I must confess as I read, that I could not escape the vision of the stars and look of the movie.

That said, I did enjoy the book. It was a quick read and though some parts of it seemed fantastical, it was believable enough. In post-apocalyptic books, I think most anything goes. I'm not well versed in science so I can't speak to the premise of it all including time-lines of a role-reversed evolution.

As for the final line of the book, I thought it was quite clever and Twilight Zone-esque ending.

Late to the party but am enjoying the book immensely (although I know the outcome from the original movie which I watched for the first time some 35 years ago).

Great points RJ. I thought the little twist at the end with the two reading the message in the bottle and then what we find out at the end was a nice touch.

I agree about the ending being more impactful where as in the novel it is quite sudden but still very ironic. There is quite a bit of build up when Heston is on his horse approaching what he finds and that shot with the camera as he looks up at the State of Liberty. And the ominous words from one of the apes before he starts on the beach "You aren't going to like what you see" is clear foreshadowing.

I agree Lawrence. The ending very Twilight Zone-esque! It is no surprise that Serling had a role in the process of the film.

I vaguely remember seeing Beneath the Planet of the Apes, but I'm ready to move on in the series and purchase some of the other books and read them and watch some of the older films. (It is pretty hard finding a decent cheap English version of Beneath the Planet of the Apes paperback). I have watched some of the newer ones but don't remember them being quite as good as those classic ones.

I decided to re-watch the original movie from 1968, because I was 9 or 10 years old when I first saw it. I must say, it has aged surprisingly well, despite the costumes for the apes being rather ridiculous to my modern eyes, oversaturated with CGI.
The best scenes for me now are the monologue by Charlton Heston at the start, the whole process that was supposed to mirror the Scopes trial, and the final monologue about the evil of Man from Dr. Zaius.
I believe I've also watched the new version of the movie, but I remember little from it except the disappointment in the script that turned it into an action movie instead of a satire of society.

Algernon (Darth Anyan) wrote: "I decided to re-watch the original movie from 1968, because I was 9 or 10 years old when I first saw it. I must say, it has aged surprisingly well, despite the costumes for the apes being rather ri..."

Algernon, that's a good way to put it about the newer version. It felt like an action "popcorn" movie designed to sell tickets rather than designed to be a good movie.

Magnus wrote: "Late to the party but am enjoying the book immensely (although I know the outcome from the original movie which I watched for the first time some 35 years ago)."

Welcome, Magnus! The book is a little different than the movie so beware of possible spoilers in the discussion. We would love to hear your thoughts when you finish.

RJ - Slayer of Trolls wrote: "Welcome, Magnus! Th..."

Thanks. Yes, I've skipped a lot of the entries here when I saw they discussed the plot (differences to the movie). I'll check in again when I've finished.

Speaking of the movie...

I watched the original a long time ago. Not when it first came out, because I was negative 6 months old at the time, but probably in college in the late 80s or early 90s. I don't remember it well, except for the ending of course. I would like to re-watch it sometime. I never saw any of the other films in the original series. Any thoughts on those? Are they worth watching?

By the way, I was surprised to learn (thanks Wikipedia!) that the original had a second wave of popularity in 1973 when it was shown on network TV for the first time. It's hard to remember, but that used to be a big deal, when a smash blockbuster was aired on network TV, especially in the pre-video rental days. Anyway, this second wave of popularity is what supposedly led to the cartoon series and action figures that I slightly recall (GI Joe and the Bionic Man were bigger deals in my neighborhood, although no one was really into action figures that much until the Star Wars action figures came out...but I digress...).

The Tim Burton remake was supposedly closer to the book in terms of the ending, but I find that I don't remember it well at all. So I watched the original trailer and my reaction was, "did I actually see this?" So, I still don't remember it. Below I liked the trailer, along with the "Honest Trailer" which is pretty funny.

Trailer - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9_Ew...

Honest Trailer - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4US0F...

The new series, which started with Rise of the Planet of the Apes, has been pretty good so far. I haven't seen the new one and to be honest I don't remember the 2nd and 3rd ones that well, but I liked them when I watched them. I understand the new one is meant to be the first in a "second trilogy" and a third trilogy is being considered. I have to wonder if the reboot series will eventually take us to the time and events of the original film, or if it is going to go in its own direction.

Just curious what you all think...

I was surprised at the amount of social satire in this book. It's been a long time since I saw the film and I need to go back and rewatch it to see how much of the book's satire made the transition to the big screen.

The reversal of roles between humans and apes was very pronounced in the book. I laughed out loud a few times as the apes tested the humans and especially Ulyse. How do you think the portrayal of the apes challenge or reinforce ideas about intelligence and civilization? What do you think the novel suggests about the nature of humanity?

RJ - Slayer of Trolls wrote: "How do you think the portrayal of the apes challenge or reinforce ideas about intelligence and civilization? What do you think the novel suggests about the nature of humanity?"

For me, the portrayal of the apes suggests that ideas about intelligence and civilization are relative. The apes think of the humans as uncivilized and unintelligent principally because they are not apes, which is how humans tend to view other species (uncivilized and unintelligent because they are not human). I'm not sure what this suggests beyond that intelligence and civilization tend to be defined by the ruling species.

I'm surprised that the apes speak a different language in the book (I'm about half way through). The way they treat the humans makes me think the book is designed among other things for us to re-think the way we treat wild animals. Very progressive for its time.

RJ - Slayer of Trolls wrote: "Just curious what you all think...

I think it all plays into survival of the fittest.

We humans test things on animals (the less intelligent) for our own benefit. Of course we also test animals to see what their intelligence level is. I think if superior aliens landed here (maybe they have!) they would scoop us up and test and probe us just like we see the apes do in this book. Or like the Kanamits of the Twilight Zone, aliens might ship us off like cattle to be a food source.

Magnus wrote: "I'm surprised that the apes speak a different language in the book (I'm about half way through). The way they treat the humans makes me think the book is designed among other things for us to re-th..."

The part about that that surprised me a little was (view spoiler)[Ulysse being able to become fluent in Simian so quickly. Unless I missed something, I don't think they ever tried to learn French from him. I would have thought that the scientists would have been curious to learn how to communicate with a human, but perhaps they couldn't overcome the differences in anatomy and vocal structure, or they just figured there is no good reason to speak to a human in his own language. (hide spoiler)]