Disturbing! Paris Trout is an extremely unpredictable character. His actions are often violent, which makes reading this story an uncomfortable and even stressful experience. However, despite this, there is something about it that keeps pulling me in and making me want to turn the page. It's truly frightening, but at the same time, it's oh so good. The author has done an excellent job of creating a sense of unease and tension that keeps the reader on the edge of their seat. The story is full of twists and turns, and just when you think you know what's going to happen, something completely unexpected occurs. It's a masterful work of fiction that will leave you thinking long after you've finished reading it.

A disturbing account has emerged of a murderer who shows no sign of remorse. This cold-blooded individual's actions have had a profound impact on the people and the town that surrounds him.

The news of the murder has sent shockwaves through the community, leaving residents in a state of fear and uncertainty. The lack of remorse exhibited by the murderer only adds to the sense of horror and revulsion.

Friends and family of the victim are left to grapple with the loss, while also trying to come to terms with the fact that the person responsible shows no sign of guilt. The town as a whole is left to deal with the aftermath, with questions about safety and justice lingering in the air.

This disturbing account serves as a reminder of the capacity for evil that exists in the world, and the far-reaching consequences that one person's actions can have.

**Paris Trout: A Powerful and Heartbreaking Novel**

Paris Trout (1988; Dt. 2008) is a truly sad and bitter book. It commences with a fox biting the ankle of a black girl and concludes with the senseless killing of three people. In between, the reader witnesses a quiet Southern drama that feeds on everyday racism, misanthropy, egotism, and disinterest or ignorance. One is left with a huge lump in the throat that only slowly eases.

In the small town of Cotton Point in the middle of the 1950s, the black community lives relatively peacefully apart from the whites. There are few points of contact between them. The blacks work for the whites, as it has always seemed to be. The pubescent Rosie Sayers is bitten by what is likely a rabid fox but desperately wants to keep it a secret from her mother, who doesn't like her and whom Rosie fears will send her away. She arrives bleeding at the store of Paris Trout, a local general store owner who also has a thriving business in lending money, especially to penniless blacks. His wife Hanna sees that the girl is injured and takes her to a hospital where the attending doctor scares Rosie so much with a syringe that she claims it was a dog, not a fox. This sets in motion a series of events that ultimately lead to a catastrophe for almost all involved.

The story of the book's external action cannot convey how powerful the social portrait that Dexter creates is. This Paris Trout is one of the most incredible (human) monsters in recent literary history. It is less racism that defines him; he is far too misanthropic for that. Racism is what pervades society - for example, there is a judge who enters the courtroom in the morning with the words: "All Negroes with lawyers on one side, the Negroes without lawyers on the other." - and insidiously poisons it. Through this everyday, ever-present racism, figures like Trout, but also many others we encounter in this book, are made possible in the first place.

As the story progresses, Rosie Sayers is forgotten by everyone. She becomes a specter that haunts one or the other, yet even those we might like, such as the lawyers Seagraves and Bonner, wish that none of this had happened and they could simply carry on as before. Only Hanna, a former teacher and married to Paris Trout for reasons she no longer understands with the onset of the story, hates Trout for what he does and has done. Trout himself stumbles through the story like a kind of somnambulistic colossus. He simply does not perceive what he does not like and sees "certain laws" as higher than all those made by humans. This includes, for him, without it ever being explicitly mentioned, that a man can get from others - especially from blacks - what he believes is due to him, namely money. Moreover, blacks seem to him to be in a natural order beneath the whites, and in this he is, of course, not alone in this society. He treats everyone the same, whether policeman, lawyer, or judge: he simply does not understand (or does not want to understand) what he should have done wrong. He wanted money from a black family because their son had borrowed it from him. In his view, this is enough to wipe out a family.

Dexter's merit lies in clarifying this figure - among all the others - through a laconic narrative language and thereby making it believable, which has the power to really touch the reader. Even the saddest and most terrible circumstances (and this begins with Rosie's mother, who no longer allows her 14-year-old daughter to enter the house because she is of the devil) are described with a casualness that sends shivers down the reader's spine during reading. Another merit is that this society is not simply presented as depraved and racist. Dexter shows the bigotry, the narrow-mindedness, and also the hypocrisy that precede, condition, flank, and make racism possible in the first place. He also does not let those who appear to us as sympathetic characters shine in a pure white light. On the contrary, they are part of this town that produces and tolerates someone like Paris Trout in its midst. And, of course, they are also to blame.
In addition - another aspect of racial differences - there is not only a profound inability to communicate between blacks and whites but also among the whites themselves. However, it becomes truly elemental only between members of different skin colors. Because the real conflict - both between Rosie and her mother and, above all, between Paris Trout and his opponents - is exacerbated by the ongoing inability to communicate between all those involved. The young Henry Ray, who has borrowed money from Trout for a car and taken out insurance, simply does not understand what this insurance is all about. Paris Trout, on the other hand, doesn't care. He just says that he will get his money - one way or another. Trout is a huge silent one. Often he does not answer questions that could be very important for the person asking, such as his business employee.
The lawyer Harry Seagraves is the - also literarily - most interesting figure. Dexter manages here, also linguistically, to create a vulgar version of one of the important figures of 20th-century American literature: Gavin Stevens, the wise, sometimes resigned and tired lawyer whom William Faulkner often lets appear as a kind of alter ego in his novels, short stories, and novellas, sometimes as the center and main character, sometimes only on the periphery, and who understands and tolerates the society in which he lives. Even where it is racist. Stevens is - like his creator Faulkner - of the opinion that the South must free itself from the yoke of what poisons and destroys it, namely racial inequality. He must himself realize that there is an injustice and that this injustice must be overcome. For this reason, Faulkner rejected the Civil War as "the salvation of the nation and the liberation from the yoke of slavery." In this way, he believed, it was not possible to free a society from its diseases.
Harry Seagraves is not quite as lofty as Gavin Stevens, but he is also not as intellectually sharp as Faulkner's character. And, unlike Stevens, the bachelor and proud one, he is a thoroughly sexualized being. Every woman he meets is examined for her sexual attributes, while his own wife only appears as a homebody in the story of the novel. Generally, the women here (not with Dexter but in Cotton Point) are just as second-class citizens as the blacks, perhaps not quite as second-class. They are not taken seriously, and if they are people in their own right with their own opinions (like Hanna and the young lady who has married Bonner and who does not want to adhere to social conventions or the local customs), then they also appear dangerous to the "enlightened" men (this goes so far that Bonner finally suspects his wife of being promiscuous with other men).
So it is above all a male society that Dexter portrays, in which bigotry, resulting racism, and misanthropy have progressed so far (and this, of course, also contains an implicit criticism of Faulkner's views and all those who share Faulkner's opinion) that the people who daily thrive on and are exposed to all this no longer even notice how it slowly destroys them. The only one who senses the poison (albeit in a different way than intended) is ironically Paris Trout himself, who always suspected his wife of poisoning him. His delusion, which Dexter portrays subtly because it is never exaggerated, ultimately consists of collecting bottles of his urine so that in the event of his death, it can be proven that he was the victim of poisoning.
Pete Dexter may have achieved his best novel so far with Paris Trout. After the city districts in God's Pocket (1983/Dt. 2008), which were characterized by ethnic and racial boundaries, and that Los Angeles in which Train (2003/Dt. 2006) takes place and where the racial struggle was like a class struggle, he has arrived where - at least in the USA - racism has its cradle: in the Deep South. This is the geographical aspect. He has also become linguistically more reduced in relation to his (possible) role models, role models like William Faulkner. And he hurts the reader, and society in general, with this book. It hurts to read it and it hurts to know that although this is set in the 1950s, it is never very far from the (sad) present.
Perhaps Pete Dexter was "only" a good crime and noir author until then (although this was always also good literature that revealed a lot about this society), but with his third novel Paris Trout, he presents a shocking literary social portrait. And that is then really great literature!

A disturbing southern gothic novel awaits the reader, with violence constantly lurking at its periphery and frequently erupting. Paris Trout is a truly disturbing monstrosity of a man. However, he is also the most transparent when it comes to his motives. He is a man who seems to be out of step with the times, having failed to perceive that the world is evolving. Yet, paradoxically, the world is changing so gradually that perhaps he is not entirely in the wrong. At times, this novel makes for a harsh and unrelenting read. And when the violence finally explodes, it is genuinely shocking in a manner that is extremely difficult to achieve. It forces the reader to confront the dark underbelly of society and the complex nature of human beings. The story unfolds in a way that keeps the reader on the edge of their seat, constantly anticipating what will happen next.

Rating: 9/10

This is the first book by Pete Dexter that I have read (there is still another one circulating in Greek, "The Paperboy" aka The Type of the Type, which belongs to my collection), and I state that I am extremely satisfied, both with the story and mainly with the writing and the atmosphere. The author, with his simple yet powerful story, gives us a picture of a small town in the American South in the 1950s, with all the pathologies of the society of this small town, such as racism, hypocrisy, violence, and many others. Dexter's writing is excellent, concise and laconic but at the same time with depth in images and ideas. Surely, as a writer, he has the sharpness and the necessary perceptiveness to describe an entire society and to capture the essence of the mores, the customs and the characters of the South, without being platitudinous and verbose. Truly a very powerful, interesting and well-written novel, with a central villain of the story who surely makes you shiver at certain points. I would very much like to see the 1991 film adaptation as well, with the terrifying role of Paris Trout being played by Dennis Hopper (a perfect choice I dare say!).

The story unfolds in a way that keeps the reader engaged from start to finish. The characters are well-developed and the setting is vividly described, making it easy to imagine oneself in that small Southern town. The themes explored, such as prejudice and injustice, are still relevant today, adding to the timelessness of the novel.

Overall, I highly recommend this book to anyone who enjoys a good story with strong writing and a thought-provoking message. It is a literary gem that deserves to be read and appreciated.

[3.5] Paris Trout is an extremely propulsive novel. It vividly描绘s a racist murderer named Paris Trout and the complicit white citizens of his town. I devoured the book quickly, eager to know what would happen next. However, by the end, I found myself completely worn out by Paris and the other characters.

There isn't a single character in this novel that I liked enough to make my reading experience any easier. Each character seems to be flawed in their own way, and their actions and behaviors are often disturbing and difficult to stomach.

Despite this, the novel is still a powerful and thought-provoking read. It forces the reader to confront the reality of racism and its consequences, and it makes us question our own beliefs and values.

In conclusion, Paris Trout is a novel that I would recommend to anyone who is interested in exploring the darker side of human nature and the impact of racism on society.

The mystery lies not in who committed the crime but rather in what unfolds afterwards. This is a highly interesting and in-depth exploration of the main characters within this book.

Peter Dexter skillfully portrays a racist reality that, regrettably, persists not only in the United States but also more broadly across the world. His vivid descriptions bring to life the harsh and unjust aspects of this social issue, making readers confront the uncomfortable truth.

The story delves deep into the psyches of the characters, revealing their prejudices, fears, and the complex web of relationships that are affected by this racism. It forces us to question our own beliefs and attitudes, and to consider how we can work towards a more inclusive and equitable society.

Overall, this book offers a powerful and thought-provoking examination of a topic that is still relevant today. It serves as a reminder that we must continue to strive for a world where everyone is treated with dignity and respect, regardless of their race or ethnicity.

I generally tend to avoid plot driven novels. The reason being that they often have very little to offer in terms of insights into the human condition. Instead, they are, as they are designed to be, highly enjoyable to read. This particular one, however, was very good. It managed to sweep me along quite nicely, to the point where I was fully satisfied and thoroughly entertained.

But there is a downside to plot driven books. They don't tend to stay in the memory for very long, and rarely do they possess any language or writing that is of particular significance. Nevertheless, every now and then, all you really want or need is an entertaining yarn. And on that front, this book is great.

Set in the 1950s, in the deep south of America, we have the story of Paris Trout, a racist. After loaning a car to a young black man and not receiving payment, he shows up at the man's house with his henchman Buster Devonne and shoots the mother and a 14-year-old girl named Rosie Sayers. What follows is a community in denial, complicit in the events, and a trial that leads nowhere. Trout is never truly punished due to his power and influence, and because the society he lives in doesn't value the life of a black person.

It's a story that you've read or seen countless times before, especially from America, and it's deliberately designed to get your back up. Paris Trout, for instance, is cartoonishly evil. He's not only a racist and a murderer but also a misogynist and an abuser of his own wife. Dexter really piles it on, allowing you to hate Trout from the very beginning until you start to enjoy it. There are no redeeming qualities, just unrelenting villainy to sink your teeth into. As such, it's somewhat manipulative and predictable as a story, but as already mentioned, it's enormously enjoyable to read.

The only aspect of Trout's life that suggests he might be more than just an unthinking monster is his ailing elderly mother who lives in a nursing home. He often visits her, and at the climax of the book, he uses her in his last line of defense. But even this doesn't really shed any light on Trout as a person or his motivations. I suspect the book is more about the community's ignoring of his actions (and thus being complicit in them) rather than an exploration of why those actions occurred in the first place.

So, in conclusion, it may not have any real literary significance, but it's a good old-fashioned and entertaining romp.

This was likely the worst novel I've ever been required to read for a class.

It竟然赢得了国家图书奖（顺便说一句，它打败了《宠儿》），但它绝对令人沮丧，而且完全牵强附会。

这本看似“南方哥特式”的小说，实际上只是从已有的南方文学中提取的一系列刻板印象和想法的集合。

它无端地暴力和色情，读起来就好像它本应该是一部讽刺作品，而不是一部严肃、真诚的作品。

The characters are one-dimensional and lack any real depth or complexity. The plot is convoluted and makes little sense, with events happening randomly and without any clear motivation.

The writing is also quite poor, with a lot of cliches and overused phrases.

Overall, I would not recommend this novel to anyone, especially not those who are looking for a good piece of literature.

In the current sociopolitical climate of 2018, reading "Paris Trout" is an interesting experience. This book, published in the late 80s, already made it clear that when a white man murders a young black girl, he should be punished. The story follows much of the trial, with the implication that a miscarriage of justice would have occurred if he wasn't convicted.

In the end, Paris Trout appeals repeatedly, but the conviction stands. He manages to pay off a judge to avoid serving his sentence, yet the fact that he is convicted remains, and no one in the book is surprised. It's puzzling why, 30 years later, we seem to have moved in the opposite direction.

My main concern with "Paris Trout" is that the book ultimately focuses on the white characters. Paris Trout is depicted as a menacing figure to all involved, not just the black characters. Ultimately, the book doesn't center around or explore the true experiences of the black characters, which is misleading considering how the book begins.

After the initial incident, the rest of the story is told from the perspectives of the various white characters and revolves around their relationships and tensions with Paris Trout.

This is yet another instance of the black experience being used as a prop to tell the story of white characters. It's also limiting because Paris Trout is not portrayed as a normal person who made a fatal mistake. He is painted as antisocial and abnormal, when white people don't have to be this way to commit acts of violence or aggression against minorities.

Ultimately, Dexter placed too much emphasis on characters whose stories weren't very interesting. In my opinion, delving into the psychology of some of the other characters, such as Mary Sayers and her sons and Leslie Bonner, would have been far more engaging.

He is an incredibly horrible man. He shoots an unarmed woman and a little girl multiple times.

Just because he is outraged over an unpaid debt and these are just colored folk, family members of the man he is angry with, he feels no remorse at all. It is 1949 in a small town in Georgia, and Paris fully anticipates getting away with murder.

When he is shocked to discover that he will be tried in court, it gradually dawns on him that the old days are over. He is furious and, now without the freedom to subjugate the blacks to whom he acts as a loan shark, he starts to brutally abuse his wife instead. He is deliberately depicted as monstrous because what he represents in our country's history is far more than just ugly.

Paris Trout's mind begins to further disintegrate. As the town is about to celebrate its sesquicentennial, its history, he finally realizes that the past is about to disappear. He decides to sever himself from it.

What I have loved about Dexter's writing since first sampling it 30 years ago is his subtle irony. The little girl Rosie, who is shot by Paris Trout, had been bitten by a fox on her way home from buying bullets at Trout's general store. 11 out of the 70 foxes killed that summer showed that rabies was running wild, and young Rosie feared she was 'poisoned.' Her mother gave her away because she thought the girl was poisoned too. And yet, it wasn't Rosie who went crazy.

Paris Trout later claims that he is poisoned but isn't referring to that fox or even to rabies. But as he ultimately cuts himself off from the past of this little Georgia backwater, he extinguishes the shambling and slobbering madness that is hatred based on race. And not a moment too soon. The fact that Dexter got the idea for this story from a real case (he heard the shots as a boy) tells us that this book is an exposure of ugliness.

Dexter says: ''This could have happened anywhere. The South has no monopoly on violence. In fact, South Philadelphia is more violent than the South.''

The title Paris Trout might instead have been Hatred - something to take note of and be cautious about.

Still 5 stars and still a favorite. You have to look closely and carefully at Dexter's work. It is so worth it!

A disturbing novel indeed. It is all the more so because, try as I might, I simply can't for the life of me remember what the point was. The character of Trout is truly an evil, evil man. He exists in the context of the Jim Crow South, where he enjoys the unjust privilege of being white.

In this novel, Trout's actions and attitudes are a reflection of the deeply ingrained racism and inequality of that era. His white privilege allows him to act with impunity, to treat others as inferior and to cause great harm.

The story may have been an attempt to shed light on the horrors of the Jim Crow South and the damage that was done by such a system. However, for me, the point seems to have been lost somewhere along the way.

Perhaps I need to read the novel again, more closely, to try and understand what the author was trying to convey. Or perhaps the point is simply that such a system was unjust and that we must never forget the lessons of the past.