I finally finished this book last Saturday, two weeks after I started reading it. I was made curious to read this book after watching the 1984 movie, starring Bill Murray.

There are some crucial differences between the book and the movie. Just as an example, in the movie, it is Larry who presents the dying Elliott Templeton with a fake party invitation to ease him in his final moments. In the book, it is the first person narrator who does so. The narrator in the book is not present in the movie at all. The book concludes differently (and better).

It was worth watching the movie, but only if you read the book after. The movie gives you a taste of what you’ll find in the book.

The book is well-written, but odd. There are two stories here. One is a sort of parlor-room social drama. Lots of the “action” takes place while people are sitting around drinking tea, having parties, dining out. And this action is, more or less, a sardonic examination of the hypocritical and shallow behavior of the upper-class characters encountered by the narrator. Then there’s Larry’s story itself; his search for an ultimate truth and meaning in life. His story seems weirdly out of place when juxtaposed with the rest. This is not a criticism. I find it interesting, and I wonder if such other-worldly elements appear in anything else by W. Somerset Maugham. I’ve got to try some more of his stuff.

I started reading “The Razor’s Edge” last night.

After watching the interesting but somewhat confusing movie, I had to read the book to get the full picture.

I picked up my copy of the book at the local library. It’s a 1944 edition. Inside the first few pages there’s a note: “THIS BOOK HAS NOT BEEN CONDENSED. ITS BULK IS LESS BECAUSE GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS PROHIBIT USE OF HEAVIER PAPER.” All in caps, yes. McCall and Co would have liked to make the book bulkier; damn that pesky war.

Anyway I’m about 10% into the book and so far so good. Clearly the movie liberally took plot elements from the book and mixed them around. And already something has been made clear: Elliott Templeton (the wealthy chap played by Denholm Elliott in the movie) is an arts dealer. Apparently back in the day this was a bit of a scandalous way to make a living. Anyway, that’s why all those precious items were laying about and getting knocked over in his Paris home; he was buying and selling them. If that was explained in the movie, I must have been napping at the time.

I’m enjoying Maugham’s style but it is a little peculiar. He has a way of describing people which is a little strange. Here’s how we meet Isabel: “She was comely though on the fat side, which I ascribed to her age, and I guessed that she would fine down as she grew older. She had strong, good hands, though they also were a trifle fat, and her legs, displayed by her short skirt, were fat too….” He goes on, but this short bit with “fat-fat-fat” made me laugh out loud.

Here’s the discussion of Gray Maturin: he was “striking rather than handsome. He had a rugged, unfinished look; a short blunt nose, a sensual mouth and the florid Irish complexion; a great quantity of raven black hair, very sleek, and under heavy eyebrows clear, very blue eyes. Though built on so large a scale he was finely proportioned, and stripped he must have been a fine figure of a man. He was obviously very powerful. His virility was impressive….” Doesn’t this passage make you want to giggle? Later we hear that he “strained his heart playing football” so he couldn’t get into the army to fight in WWI. Gee and I thought things like that only happened during the Vietnam war!

In making these descriptions, was Maugham planning out who would play the characters on the big screen (and yes there was a 1946 movie version of “The Razor’s Edge”, starring Tyrone Power and Gene Tierney, which I now feel compelled to consume as well)? I’d swear this is done by many best-selling authors these days, but I guess I’m a little surprised if it was being done back in the forties already.