I picked up a copy of Rum Punch from a place I was staying on a recent vacation. Having somehow missed it among all the Elmore Leonard I had read, having also solid reason to believe it would lie neglected on the shelf where I found it, I decided to give it a new home. According to the message penciled inside the battered cover, it had cost somebody only 2 pounds sterling, so no great loss if I never get back to Bradford-on-Avon to return it. Then, a few pages into it, I got the word of his death. Coincidence only that, after a couple of years' lapse, I'm reading the master just when he shuffles off the mortal coil? A mystery not worth pondering, but it is worth reminding myself what influence he's wrought on American fiction. I realize that I can add little or nothing to the reams of observations from others, but that's no reason to keep my mouth shut.Just, for example, in the elliptical sentence structure he invented. 220px-Elmore_LeonardAlmost a new language. A style like Richard Pryce's ghetto-eloquent would have been impossible without Leonard's work before:"No I don't imagine you know what you want."Louis said, "You don't, huh?" [Just that: the dialogue tag in front of instead of behind the quote.]"Giving me the convict stare. . ." [Not, "Don't give me that convict stare." The present participle keeping the action moving. . .]Smiled then to show he was kidding. Ordell in linen and gold, orange crew-neck sweater and white slacks, the gold shining on his neck, his wrist, and two of his fingers. [The description of clothing (and previously, hair style) moving as part of the action instead of a separate passage. And "Smiled" instead of "He smiled."]"Man, I'm telling you, fate's been working its ass off, getting uls all together here. What I'm thinking of doing, introducing Big Guy to Melanie."Leading up to something. Louis could feel it. [Not, "What I'm thinking of doing IS introducing" or "He was leading up to something." Just, again, that little ellipsis keeping things moving.]Or, how about character in twenty-five words less of razor-sharp dialogue?Jackie said, . . . "You wouldn't happen to have a pack of cigarettes you could let me have."He said, "I don't smoke."She said, "I didn't think so."Rum Punch is a pretty famous book, and not exactly new. It's set in Miami, all about gun-running and dope. The 1997 movie is Jackie Brown named after one of the main characters. Tarantino directed a young and lithe Samuel L. Jackson in the lead. Pam Grier in the title role. De Niro and Michael Keaton along for the ride. They moved it from Miami to L.A., which doesn't hurt anything. I didn't like the ending, but the rest of the film gets it right.The plot is complex, but not a brain-buster. Very funny in many parts. We meet the corrupt , the semi-corrupt, and the uncorruptible. Full range of human nature in less then 300 pages. By the end, we've become deeply committed to two characters who--surprise to us and the themselves--have fallen in love. A bail-bondsman and an aging stewardess plagued by bad luck and bad choices in men. In addition to all the cops-and-robbers stuff, we're captivated by the mystery of how this couple will handle their situation.That's another of Leonard's gifts, to write a book about people with guns that depends on our attachment as much to character as to action. I'm sorry there won't be another Get Shorty or 3:10 to Yuma. But Justified's still running on TV. Timothy Oliphant is not the perfect Raylan Givens, but it's still got some solid writing going for it. Good for us old guys.
Find all of my reviews at: http://52bookminimum.blogspot.com/ 4.5 Stars “My ass may be dumb, but I ain’t no dumbass” – Ordell Robbie Well, call me a dumbass because I had no idea that Rum Punch was the real name for For the past 17 years I’ve been singing the praises of Tarantino’s film – only to find out Elmore Leonard was actually the mastermind behind this product. (In defense of my undying Tarantino love – casting Pam Grier as “Jackie Brown” rather than some rando white broad as “Jackie Burke” was genius). A Facebook discussion regarding “manly authors who write manly books” was the driving force behind me letting the moths out of my wallet and dropping $15.00 (FIFTEEN MOTHERFUCKING DOLLARS?????? HIGHWAY ROBBERY!!!!!) on Rum Punch this weekend. When I discovered one of my favorite films was actually a book by an author I should have been reading a long time ago (due to my Carl Hiassen fangirl status), I had to come off the cash and read it immediately. What did I find? The movie “Jackie Brown” literally played in my head while reading this book. Leonard’s work is so brilliant that Tarantino didn’t even have to change the dialogue. I love an author who can toss a billion main characters into one big pot and produce something delicious – and that is what happens with Rum Punch. If you’re one of the few who have never seen “Jackie Brown” but are looking for an action-packed tale of double-crossing with a complex plot that, at times, might leave you asking – then this is the book for you. If you’re like me and have read many “Elmore-inspired” authors, once you read the real thing you will know:
Do You like book Rum Punch (2004)?
I picked this up the other day in a pawn shop for 1€ in English and reread it in a day. The book is brilliant with dialogue so authentic that it barely qualifies as English at times. Elmore Leonard has the ear of a great musician when it comes to writing dialogue from the street. I used to live down in this area of south Florida so I appreciate his eye for detail in his descriptions of this tacky suburban hellscape. I read this book many years ago and when I saw Quentin Tarrantino’s shitty film version I wondered if he even bothered to read the novel. He left out some of the best and funniest moments from the book and his casting was pure crap. Two has-beens and Robert DeNiro looking like a deer in the headlights, and we get it, you really like that stupid song. Sam Jackson was great but it just wasn’t enough and the movie made the unforgivable mistake of being slow and boring at times—not something I look for especially in what should have been a sort of action comedy. So the viewers get to hear that dumb Delfonics song more than once instead of the scene in the book where Urdell and crew rob the Nazi bikers. Does that sound like a good cinematic choice?
—Leftbanker
Being a fan of the film, I'd put off reading the book for a long time. I suppose I thought I'd be constantly comparing the book to the film. As it happens I did compare it but it wasn't a problem, if anything it made the book and storyline stronger.Jackie Brown is actually Jackie Burke, still an airline stewardess but white. That's the main difference between the book and the film. The ending is also different, but I still hummed 100th Street when I finished reading it. We also get to see more of Ordell's deals.The book itself is a tight page-turner and I only wish I'd read it before seeing the film.
—Charlie Wade
I decided to read this one, since it offered the continued adventures of the two hapless kidnappers from Switch, which I read a few weeks ago. Written more than a decade later, and much, much darker, it fascinated me for a while. The cast of bad guys and semi-bad guys is fairly large and the double-crossing starts almost from the beginning. At first this was complicated and entertaining, but eventually, as the con-men and -women were killed off one by one, I began to think, "Gosh, just getting an honest job would be a whole lot easier than this." And Leonard's trademark style began to wear a little thin too. I suppose avoiding complete sentences and depending on present participles shortens things and makes perceptions seem immediate, as if the reader were seeing things right along with the characters; but after a while it just starts to seem like an affectation. After a while more it gets irritating.
—Jon
