Grace Metalious' Peyton Place, reviewed by jseger9000

Hey guys. Here's my review of Peyton Place, the queen mother of 'soap opera' books.

I wrote the review is a couple of sessions and am not sure how it flows. Also, I'm concerned about the length. Is it too long? Is there stuff that should be cut?

Please feel free to criticize anything else you catch as well.
---
Peyton Place. A landmark of a book. Most people are familiar with at least the name and core concept of gossipy small town folks and their scandals, even if they aren’t aware of the novel’s existence.

The book covers roughly ten years in the life of an isolated, sleepy New England town from 1935 to 1945. There is no single central character, though most people would focus on Allison MacKenzie because she seems to most resemble the author Grace Metalious. The book follows the intricate web between a large number of Peyton Place’s residents and the back-biting, bad mouthing and general hypocrisy that runs rampant through the town. Having read the book, I can see that it must have been some influence on Stephen King and his detailed small towns full of not quite so lily white characters and if you are a fan of his novels, you would probably enjoy this one.

The book is much better written than you would believe. It is rich in incidental details showing an intimate portrait of an isolated New England town in the late 1930’s. Some of my favorite parts were throwaway details about ringing the bells for school or the old men sitting on the wooden benches in front of the court house. Peyton Place itself is probably the most prominent character in the book. Often Metalious uses quotes from unnamed characters to act as the ‘voice’ of Peyton Place.

Regardless, the book is not literary fiction. It revels in titillating details. I noticed over the course of the book that the narrative tended to wallow in the more salacious bits. At first, shocking secrets are presented pretty matter-of-factly. I got the feeling that the author felt more and more comfortable with her narrative as she wrote, because while the soap opera-like twists were always pretty breathtaking, as the story wound on they were presented more and more sensationally. I have to admit, it really did make the book more fun to read. Who doesn’t like tut-tutting over other folk’s dirty laundry?

I do think that the book is a cut above Jackie Collins/Danielle Steele trash fiction though. While Metalious crammed Peyton Place with enough hot details to fill an issue of the National Enquirer, she was also very clear in pointing out the hypocrisy in the way that New England was presenting itself to the rest of the country back then. The book was clearly at least semi-autobiographical and you can see that as gleeful as the author was in dragging out scandal of the place, she clearly had some fondness for her roots.

Lots of bad stuff happens in Peyton Place, but it is not all bad. There are still picnics in the woods, drowsy Indian summer days and townspeople helping each other out.

Whatever reputation it earned when originally published, the book is some kinda classic. Fifty-plus years later, the book holds a reader's interest. It is unquestionably dated, but since it was a novel so much about its time, that is not a strike against it. The only reason I didn't rate this one at five stars is that some of the dialog is stilted (while some of it is fantastic) and I felt toward the end that the story was getting a little long in the tooth. While the events are always interesting, I started to wonder if it wasn't fifty pages too long or so.

What does it say that a book that was considered so frankly shocking on publication that it was banned in many places now stirs a sense of nostalgia? Metalious does not by any means whitewash the problems of Peyton Place. Indeed, often while reading I was still shocked. But like Jean Shepherd’s purposely ‘anti-nostalgic’ reminiscences or the movie Pleasantville, you see that maybe the good old days weren't so good for those that lived them.

Well, I've gone through and revised my review a little but. I cut the comparison to Stephen King, because even though it was on my mind the entire time I read it, it felt sort of tacked on in my review.

I've switched around a few other things as well.
---
Peyton Place, a landmark of a book. Most people are familiar with at least the name and core concept of gossipy small town folks and their scandals, even if they aren’t aware of the novel’s existence.

The book covers roughly ten years in the life of an isolated, sleepy New England town from 1935 to 1945. There is no single central character. Instead, the book follows the intricate web between a large number of Peyton Place’s residents and the back-biting, bad mouthing and general hypocrisy that runs rampant through the town.

The book is much better written than I was expecting. It is rich in incidental details, showing an intimate portrait of an isolated New England town in the late 1930’s. Some of my favorite parts were throwaway details about ringing the bells for school or the old men sitting on the wooden benches in front of the court house. Peyton Place itself is probably the most prominent character in the book. Often Metalious uses quotes from unnamed characters to act as the ‘voice’ of Peyton Place.

Regardless, the book is not literary fiction. It revels in titillating details. I noticed over the course of the book that the narrative tended to wallow in the more salacious bits. At first, shocking secrets are presented pretty matter-of-factly. I got the feeling that the author felt more and more comfortable with her narrative as she wrote, because while the soap opera-like twists were always pretty breathtaking, as the story wound on they were presented more and more sensationally. I have to admit, it really did make the book more fun to read. Who doesn’t like tut-tutting over other folk’s dirty laundry?

I do think that the book is a cut above Jackie Collins/Danielle Steele trash fiction though. While Metalious crammed Peyton Place with enough hot details to fill an issue of the National Enquirer, she was also very clear in pointing out the hypocrisy in the way that New England was presenting itself to the rest of the country back then. The book was clearly at least semi-autobiographical (as the character Allison MacKenzie seems to closely resemble the author) and you can see that as gleeful as the author was in dragging out scandal of the place, she clearly had some fondness for her roots.

Lots of bad stuff happens in Peyton Place, but it is not all bad. There are still picnics in the woods, drowsy Indian summer days and townspeople helping each other out.

Whatever reputation it earned when originally published, the book is some kinda classic now. Fifty-plus years later, the book still holds a reader's interest. It is unquestionably dated, but it is a novel so much about portraying a particular time and place, so that is not a strike against it. The only reason I didn't rate this one at five stars is that some of the dialog is stilted (while some of it is fantastic) and I felt toward the end that the story was getting a little long in the tooth. While the events are always interesting, I started to wonder if it wasn't fifty pages too long or so.

What does it say that a book that was considered so frankly shocking on publication that it was banned in many places now stirs a sense of nostalgia? Metalious does not by any means whitewash the problems of Peyton Place. Indeed, often while reading I was still shocked. But like Jean Shepherd’s purposely ‘anti-nostalgic’ reminiscences or the movie Pleasantville, you see that maybe the good old days weren't so good for those that lived them.

4th para

It revels in titillating details. This sentence just seems to be stuck in there, seems out of place.

7th para

the book is some kinda classic now.

shouldn't that be 'kind of'?

Thanks for the response.

It revels in titillating details was supposed to explain the previous sentence. That the book is not literary fiction. Perhaps I should combine the two?

How does this read: Regardless, the book is not literary fiction, it revels in titillating details. or Regardless, the book is not literary fiction. Rather, it revels in titillating details.

Do either of those read better? If so, which?

With 'kinda' I was purposely going for a lowbrow, back-handed compliment. But if it's distracting to a reader I'll change it.

Here's a revised review. Any further comments/suggestions are appreciated.
---
Peyton Place, a landmark of a book. Most people are familiar with at least the name and core concept of gossipy small town folks and their scandals, even if they aren’t aware of the novel’s existence.

The book covers roughly ten years in the life of an isolated, sleepy New England town from 1935 to 1945. There is no single central character. Instead, the book follows the intricate web between a large number of Peyton Place’s residents and the back-biting, bad mouthing and general hypocrisy that runs rampant through the town.

The book is much better written than I was expecting. It is rich in incidental details, showing an intimate portrait of an isolated New England town in the late 1930’s. Some of my favorite parts were throwaway details about ringing the bells for school or the old men sitting on the wooden benches in front of the court house. Peyton Place itself is probably the most prominent character in the book. Often Metalious uses quotes from unnamed characters to act as the ‘voice’ of Peyton Place.

Regardless, the book is not literary fiction. Rather, it revels in titillating details. I noticed over the course of the book that the narrative tended to wallow in the more salacious bits. At first, shocking secrets are presented pretty matter-of-factly. I got the feeling that the author felt more and more comfortable with her narrative as she wrote, because while the soap opera-like twists were always pretty breathtaking, as the story wound on they were presented more and more sensationally. I have to admit, it really did make the book more fun to read. Who doesn’t like tut-tutting over other folk’s dirty laundry?

I do think that the book is a cut above Jackie Collins/Danielle Steele trash fiction though. While Metalious crammed Peyton Place with enough hot details to fill an issue of the National Enquirer, she was also very clear in pointing out the hypocrisy in the way that New England was presenting itself to the rest of the country back then. The book was clearly at least semi-autobiographical (as the character Allison MacKenzie seems to closely resemble the author) and you can see that as gleeful as the author was in dragging out scandal of the place, she clearly had some fondness for her roots.

Lots of bad stuff happens in Peyton Place, but it is not all bad. There are still picnics in the woods, drowsy Indian summer days and townspeople helping each other out.

Whatever reputation it earned when originally published, the book is some kind of classic now. Fifty-plus years later, the book still holds a reader's interest. It is unquestionably dated, but it is a novel so much about portraying a particular time and place, so that is not a strike against it. The only reason I didn't rate this one at five stars is that some of the dialog is stilted (while some of it is fantastic) and I felt toward the end that the story was getting a little long in the tooth. While the events are always interesting, I started to wonder if it wasn't fifty pages too long or so.

What does it say that a book that was considered so frankly shocking on publication that it was banned in many places now stirs a sense of nostalgia? Metalious does not by any means whitewash the problems of Peyton Place. Indeed, often while reading I was still shocked. But like Jean Shepherd’s purposely ‘anti-nostalgic’ reminiscences or the movie Pleasantville, you see that maybe the good old days weren't so good for those that lived them.

I like "Regardless, the book is not literary fiction, it revels in titillating details."

I figured that was what you where going for but it just didn't read that way.

'kinda' with just that one word by itself it your mistake rather than an opinion on the book to me.

I enjoyed your review but have a few questions about the edition.

What edition did you read it in? Is your copy an old one or a new reprint? If a reprint, is there any introduction and, if so, does that offer anything extra to the experience of reading the book?

Why I'm asking: I believe there is a Virago Modern Classics reprint of this, I love VMCs and I like the introductions and presentation etc, so this would be relevant to me, I would be far more likely to buy a VMC or other particularly interesting presentation of a book than to buy/read any old copy.

I enjoyed your review, but there were two bits near the end that read a little 'funny' to me.

It is unquestionably dated, but it is a novel so much about portraying a particular time and place, so that is not a strike against it.

The 'so much' closely followed by 'so that' makes the sentence a bit stilted, instead of flowing. On a second read, it looks like the 'so much' is really out of place, so I'd suggest just leaving that out.

The only reason I didn't rate this one at five stars is that some of the dialog is stilted (while some of it is fantastic) and I felt toward the end that the story was getting a little long in the tooth. While the events are always interesting, I started to wonder if it wasn't fifty pages too long or so.

Here it feels like you're repeating yourself, saying the book was 'getting a little long in the tooth' followed by 'fifty pages too long or so.' It could be the fact
that you're repeating the word 'long', or the fact that both statements are so similar. Maybe you could rearrange/rewrite it? One way would be:

The only reason I didn't rate this one at five stars is that some of the dialog is stilted, while some of it is fantastic. Also, I felt toward the end that the story was getting a little long, because while the events are always interesting, I think the book could have been fifty pages or so shorter.

And I second elkiedee, I would like to know if you read the original version or a newer version, because newer versions often have forewords/comments.

Sorry for the delayed response.

My edition is the currently available paperback put out by Hardscrabble books, It contains a scholarly introduction by Ardis Cameron. It is fairly long, and I skipped it to get going with the book. I ought to go back and reread it, but since I hadn't, I didn't comment on it in the review.

Amazon gave a bit of a smack-down to the intro, but LT user VermontBooklover liked it.

#3, thanks for the feedback. I agree with both of your points and have revised my review. I changed 'while' to 'though', but kept the parenthesis. I completely removed the second sentence about the length. I've bolded the section I made changes to. Tell me how I did.
---
Peyton Place, a landmark of a book. Most people are familiar with at least the name and core concept of gossipy small town folks and their scandals, even if they aren’t aware of the novel’s existence.

The book covers roughly ten years in the life of an isolated, sleepy New England town from 1935 to 1945. There is no single central character. Instead, the book follows the intricate web between a large number of Peyton Place’s residents and the back-biting, bad mouthing and general hypocrisy that runs rampant through the town.

The book is much better written than I was expecting. It is rich in incidental details, showing an intimate portrait of an isolated New England town in the late 1930’s. Some of my favorite parts were throwaway details about ringing the bells for school or the old men sitting on the wooden benches in front of the court house. Peyton Place itself is probably the most prominent character in the book. Often Metalious uses quotes from unnamed characters to act as the ‘voice’ of Peyton Place.

Regardless, the book is not literary fiction. Rather, it revels in titillating details. I noticed over the course of the book that the narrative tended to wallow in the more salacious bits. At first, shocking secrets are presented pretty matter-of-factly. I got the feeling that the author felt more and more comfortable with her narrative as she wrote, because while the soap opera-like twists were always pretty breathtaking, as the story wound on they were presented more and more sensationally. I have to admit, it really did make the book more fun to read. Who doesn’t like tut-tutting over other folk’s dirty laundry?

I do think that the book is a cut above Jackie Collins/Danielle Steele trash fiction though. While Metalious crammed Peyton Place with enough hot details to fill an issue of the National Enquirer, she was also very clear in pointing out the hypocrisy in the way that New England was presenting itself to the rest of the country back then. The book was clearly at least semi-autobiographical (as the character Allison MacKenzie seems to closely resemble the author) and you can see that as gleeful as the author was in dragging out scandal of the place, she clearly had some fondness for her roots.

Lots of bad stuff happens in Peyton Place, but it is not all bad. There are still picnics in the woods, drowsy Indian summer days and townspeople helping each other out.

Whatever reputation it earned when originally published, the book is some kind of classic now. Fifty-plus years later, the book still holds a reader's interest. It is unquestionably dated, but it is a novel portraying a particular time and place, so that is not a strike against it. The only reason I didn't rate this one at five stars is that some of the dialog is stilted (though some of it is fantastic) and I felt toward the end that the story was getting a little long in the tooth.

What does it say that a book that was considered so frankly shocking on publication that it was banned in many places now stirs a sense of nostalgia? Metalious does not by any means whitewash the problems of Peyton Place. Indeed, often while reading I was still shocked. But like Jean Shepherd’s purposely ‘anti-nostalgic’ reminiscences or the movie Pleasantville, you see that maybe the good old days weren't so good for those that lived them.

Hmm... rereading my review I think I somewhat contradict myself in the last paragraph.

I've rewritten it like so:
---
All these years after the original publication of Peyton Place I was still often shocked while reading. The novel really does go for the sensational. But like Jean Shepherd’s purposely ‘anti-nostalgic’ reminiscences or the movie Pleasantville, it also tries to make you see that maybe the 'good old days' weren't so good for those that lived them.

Like it. The revised two last paragraphs read much better now.