Libro adaptado al cine, protagonizado por Steve McQueen, mi héroe de los '60s - '70s, con un parecido a Expreso de Medianoche y Alcatraz.

Würde ich heute wahrscheinlich nicht mehr lesen aber damals war es sehr prägend im Genre Gefängnisroman und sehr spannend.

این کتاب رو حدودا دو سال پیش خوندم. ترجمه کتاب واقعا بد بود گرچه داستان کتاب به شدت گیرا و جذاب بود که میتونست تا حدودی ترجمه بدش رو پوشش بده.
زمانی که به این حقیقت فکر میکنی که داستان هایی که داری میخونی عین واقعیته حس و حال خاصی داره.
4/5

Read this when I was quite young. Don’t remember the plot or the action as such, but still remember the fascination.

Imagine being..
Imprisoned to rot for a crime you had not committed.
Framed by the law and frustrated by such injustice.
Fueled by vengeance with an undying hope of freedom.

This book puts Prison Break (the series) to shame. Prison stories are my guilty pleasure. I simply can't get enough of them. No wonder that my all-time favorite book is The Count of Monte Cristo. There's something magnetic about prisons that attracts me in a heartbeat. Do you feel the same? Join the club. Papillon by Henri Charrière is one of those stories. And it's a true story (or mostly true).

The book consists of 13 notebooks documenting Henri Charrière's life in prison(s). The English translation is easy breezy and goes by smoothly like water running through fingers, so I didn't encounter any difficulty reading it. That's almost always a bonus. While the simple writing style serves for easy reading, the two-dimensional dialogue sounds robot-like and devoid of emotion sometimes.


Henri Charrière (Papillon aka Papi) looking badass AF.

I lost interest after about 20% into the book. It was shortly after Papi & Co. had made their first escape. I wondered whether the rest of the book will be about the mundane routine of freedom. But my loss of interest didn't last too long because the boys got busted again. And again. And again. Am I a sick person if I enjoy the parts when they are behind the bars more than those when they're free?

There was a WTF moment while Papi was staying with an Indian tribe. He was in a relationship with a young woman (Lali) who thought that she wasn't satisfying him enough, and she offered him Zoraima (Lali's 12-year-old sis) to have sex with, and the threesome became husband and wives. I don't care if it's traditionally okay for that tribe's children to screw around at such a young age, but Papi's consent made me despise him then.

Taking into consideration all the helpless and extraordinary fucked up circumstances he was going through, I couldn't cut him some slack in that particular issue. But it's crazy because aside from his consent to have sex with a minor, his other traits keep him charismatic enough that you can't help empathizing with his case. He's brave, witty, diplomatic, funny, upbeat, honorable, and a best friend to count on in tough times.

In general, this book doesn't feel like an autobiography. I feel that I'm not that much into biographies/autobiographies (well, except for Maya Angelou's which I ADORE!). But somehow, Henri Charrière manages to keep his story interesting because it's full of adventures. It's a timeless thriller which will make you at the edge of your seat each time Papi tries a cavale. I definitely recommend this book to action, thriller, and drama lovers.

This book is interesting. Very interesting. To describe it in a sentence I would say - it is a handbook of really clever ideas by which one can break jail successfully.

A must read for all jail inmates and jail officials, also any one directly or indirectly connected with law enforcement like lawyers, judges, police, armed forces, ambitious unsocial elements.

It is also a chronicle of many interesting anecdotes of extreme jail torture. Also, it advises one how to cope in custody. This is a real helpful part. In one book thats a lot.

Somehow, the author hasn't dwelved much on the pain and misery and the emotional turmoil much while narrating this tale. It is not that it isn't mentioned at all... it is just that, he has mentioned it almost as if in passing or apologetically. Either, he is one extremely practical man, or, he is impatient with the emotional side of it all. He seems to be a complete man of action, with a single minded object of freedom.

The author also, seems to be a born leader. It satisfies him immensely when his co inmates hand over their life and liberty in his hands... even when he fails miserably in safeguarding either. Most times, he is only thinking of his sole freedom. Few times, he has consulted his friends, but not always.

I couldn't make up my mind whether Charrière is an Athiest or a Believer. He conveniently switches between the two stands all through this book. He has tried to wriggle out of openly claiming to be either, by citing his father's up bringing... but somehow, it seems like a poor eye wash. At other times, he has preached Christian values of integration and forgiveness while trying to justify his flight. He hasn't hesitated any where to grab the opportunity and help from the various people of God he met on his way. This again, shows him as a sly opportunist.

I still couldn't understand, like his fellow inmates (refer pg. 240 of this edition), what is he exactly after? Is he wanting revenge? That is a low reason to escape jail. Freedom? If freedom, then why leave Goajira tribe? Is he just restless? Seems more likely somehow. Is it just for another chance? Then why is he so critical of society? Or was is it just a personal challenge? I really couldn't make up my mind.

His behaviour towards the Goajiras is down right inhuman and selfish. As it seems by the end of the book, it was all lies that he promised the poor women who trusted him; I really don't think there is anything to justify his actions. All his ill luck later on, seems like a poor consolation for his utterly criminal act of abandoning not one, but two women AFTER making them pregnant. How responsible or just is that? How grateful?

Not just the Goajira wives, he also forgets his French wife (Nunette) and his Javanese Indian (Indara)! It does seem a bit insensitive. Of course, since he is not the one initiating intimacy with any of his four wives, it looks like they deserved what they got. But, he does come across as a thorough opportunist here too. Using the women completely, infact in case of the Javanese one, at the fag end of this book, he almost turned into a 'ponce' he was accused of killing in the first place!

I just couldn't feel for Henri Charrière. I Just Couldn't. There is no redeeming factor in him. Whatever honorable behaviour he attributes to himself, is just basic human consideration. For that too, if I am not mistaken, he later on shows that he suffered great loss and pain (got captured or lost boats and money). So, I really don't get this - is Charrière advocating selfishness and inconsiderate behaviour through this book?

His fellow inmates come across as much more better human beings. On quite a few places, he has felt ashamed for his lowly behaviour, as compared to their charitable and noble one. Even the lepers and the primitive Goajiras are much more noble.

Even with all this, he has been remarkably lucky all through the book. Some may say, he was sentenced for murder, how can that be lucky. Pray, he claims to be sentenced unfairly. But, he was arrested in a pub. He is suspiciously silent about the entire incident. No explanation given. Only his anger, his thoughts of revenge and false testimonies of the police.

When I was checking up the reviews before starting this book, I saw many 5 stars and some claiming this to be the best book they ever read! I wouldn't go that far. It is definitely interesting. It is worth being read once. But, I wouldn't call it a revolutionary book. Jail life is bad everywhere. The constant condemnation about French legal system as worse in the world was a bit premature, considering he knew nothing of jail life else where.

Towards the second half, ironically at his lowest point in the book, (pg.354 in this edition) he has touched fleetingly on the question of -"when do you have the right to kill?" This could have been a real deep analysis, but for Charrière again reverting to other memories and the story. I wonder, did he shy short of saying anything provocative or was it because he thought it would make the book boring and hence affect sales; or whether he really is the man who doesn't think much deep... preferring to think of just the practical issues and avoiding the moralistic ones.

To conclude, again I would say, a very interesting book. Worth a read for sure. If not for the protagonist, surely hundred times over, for the various characters he met on his journey.

16/6 - Knowing nothing about this book or Charrière, only knowing the word papillon and it's English translation through the fact that there's a dog breed that's called papillon because the dog's fluffy ears (vaguely) resemble a butterfly's wings, I picked this up off the 'new and recently returned' shelf because the blurb on the back described it as "A classic memoir of prison breaks and adventure". And 'adventure' sounded like the right genre for me at that moment in time. I read the translator's introduction last night and I'm looking forward to reading a big chunk of it tonight. To be continued...

19/6 - I don't recommend reading this book if you have a strong sense of injustice, you may get the near-uncontrollable need to stab something. I like to midnight-snack while I do my nightly reading and in a number of places over the last hundred pages I found myself rage-eating my chips - just shovelling them in, too angry with the injustice of Henri's situation to enjoy them. Usually I eat them slowly, one or two per page, savouring them so that I don't accidentally eat a whole bag in one night, something which I could easily have done while reading this book last night. To be continued...

Later - I'm a bit disappointed with Charrière's description of his encounter with the lepers. He talks about a man who hands him a cup of coffee and then exclaims "Oh, where's my finger gone?". Henri finds it stuck to the outside of his cup and hands it back to him. According to Wikipedia this sequence is impossible, leprosy, despite all the old wives' tales, does not lead to body parts falling off here, there and everywhere. This next passage is taken straight from Wikipedia's page on leprosy

"Initially, infections are without symptoms and typically remain this way for 5 to as long as 20 years. Symptoms that develop include granulomas (loosely described as 'a small nodule') of the nerves, respiratory tract, skin, and eyes. This may result in a lack of ability to feel pain and thus loss of parts of extremities due to repeated injuries. Weakness and poor eyesight may also be present.

To reiterate, the loss of body parts happens because of repeated injuries to these body parts, which have become numbed due to granulomas of the nerves. There is no "Oh, my finger just fell off.", it's more like "Oops, I just accidentally chopped my finger off while chopping the carrots, but due to the granulomas it doesn't actually hurt." Below is a second passage taken straight from Wikipedia rephrasing what I've just written, only coming from a more official source.

"Leprosy is primarily a granulomatous disease of the peripheral nerves and mucosa of the upper respiratory tract; skin lesions (light or dark patches) are the primary external sign. If untreated, leprosy can progress and cause permanent damage to the skin, nerves, limbs, and eyes. Contrary to folklore, leprosy does not cause body parts to fall off, although they can become numb or diseased as a result of secondary infections; these occur as a result of the body's defences being compromised by the primary disease. Secondary infections, in turn, can result in tissue loss causing fingers and toes to become shortened and deformed, as cartilage is absorbed into the body."

So, therefore that part of the scene must be a figment of Charrière's imagination as that man's finger cannot have just come off without some kind of trauma happening to it first. Silly little exaggerations (possibly playing to the public's horrified fascination with the disease and the people who suffer from it) like that could lead to a reader doubting half of what Charrière has written in this book (some of it is pretty fantastical). I don't like feeling that what Charrière has written isn't completely true. I want it all to be true, not because I want anyone to have been through what Charrière went through (and I'm only 21% of the way through), but because I want to know that it's not all made up. That his main motive for writing this tale of injustice wasn't to make a pile of cash, but to let the world know of what he went through. To be continued...

20/6 - Why oh why, Henri, did you leave those lovely Goajira 'Indians'? You had everything you needed, not one but two loving wives both pregnant with your child (not a comment on the fact that one of the wives was not much more than 12, or that the two girls were sisters, just a comment on what he had and what he left behind); you had a community who accepted and revered you. You had an idyllic island paradise life, what more could you want? Deciding not to go back for revenge doesn't make you weak, it just means you've found something more important, something worth living for, which you didn't have when you first visualised getting your revenge on all the people who were involved in your imprisonment. Now look what's happened, you've been recaptured and as you pointed out that mistake will cost you seven years of your life. Imagine how your life could have gone if you had just stayed with Lali and Zoraima. To be continued...

24/6 - This is such a dense book! There are so many words per page, with so few paragraphs that it's really slowing down my normal reading speed. Normally, when I'm enjoying a book as much as I'm enjoying this one I look down and am amazed to have read 50 pages in half an hour, with this book I look down and find I've only read 10 pages. Like I said, I'm enjoying the story, but I don't want to be reading it for the rest of my life, I do have other books that I want to get to that I may well enjoy even more than this (plus library due dates are looming). To be continued...

25/6 - Deceptions and misleading blurbs are the name of the day today. First it turns out that GR has been fudging the page count, it's not 688 as I was originally led to believe it's 560 followed by numerous pages of 'extras' including an 'exclusive essay by Howard Marks'. I think I'm pleased that I've only got 120 pages to go instead of 240 as I'm feeling the pressure from my other books' library due dates and this really is taking a long while to read.

The blurb on the back of my book reads as follows:

"Condemned for a murder he did not commit, Henri Charrière, known as Papillon, was sent to the penal colony of French Guiana. Forty-two days after his arrival he made his first break, travelling a thousand gruelling miles in an open boat. Recaptured, his spirit remained untamed - in thirteen years he made nine amazingly daring escapes, including one from the notorious Devil's Island.

An immediate sensation upon its 1969 publication, Papillon is one of the greatest adventure stories ever told, a true tale of courage, resilience and an unbreakable will."

"...Nine amazingly daring escapes..." That is a very misleading statement. From what the blurb says I was expecting Papillon to escape (by which I mean, and thought everyone else meant, leave his jail/cage/penal colony for at least 24 hours before being recaptured) on nine different occasions. What the blurb really means is that he attempts to escape nine times, he only succeeds twice, the first attempt when he managed to stay out for 11 months and the final, which I'm currently in the middle of. To be continued...

26/6 - Finally finished it! *relieved sigh* I've currently got this shelved as an autobiography/biography, but I hesitate to leave it there. Modern researchers don't believe Charrière's continual claims of complete honesty regarding his book. They now say that it's very likely the book is a combination of other inmate's adventures and Charrière's imagination. According to all available records Charrière never spent any time on Devil's Island, and like with the leprosy situation I described above he got a number of pertinent details regarding the geography of Devil's Island wrong (he describes the shore of the island as rocky, when in fact it is a gently sloping sand beach, it's not like that's something that he could 'forget'). A French journalist maintains that only "10% of Papillon represents the truth".

Learning that a book like this is pretty much just a well-imagined adventure story in the vein of Robinson Crusoe or Treasure Island takes a bit of the shine off story. It's no longer as fantastically amazing because it's not real. I went into the reading of this book believing that it was a true story and I am certainly disappointed to come to the conclusion that there's very little truth to be found anywhere in the book. After reading all that back to check for errors before posting I realise that I can't leave it on the autobiography/biography shelf, I know it's not one so it doesn't belong next to my biographies of Katherine Parr or Jamie Oliver. It's moving to the historical fiction shelf.

One can only presume Henri Charriere (Papillon, or simply Papi to inmates) was a cat in a previous life, and was still blessed with nine lives in this, believe me he needed all of them. Nine death-defying escapes from the brutal penal settlements of French Guiana in eleven years, pushing his stubborn body to the brink each time, wow!, now that's quite something, how it was even possible for a man of flesh and bone not to die a hundred deaths whilst also going round the bend is beyond me. He would not accept a life's incarceration for a crime he didn't commit, no way, after being wrongly convicted of murder in Paris 1931, and sent to the infamously named Devils Island. The man who had a beautiful butterfly tattoo on his chest, against all odds beat a system dreaded from the days of Napoleon who used its harsh and near inhospitable conditions to punish renegades and political prisoners. Well, this prisoner was simply having none of it!

This was a big book in length, and it felt like it to, through a ravaging chain of events Papillon reads both as an adventure story of high thrills and tension and a savage graphic account of the misery and inhumanity of the French penal system. Right from the start there is no settling in period, and you’re left in no doubt as to how hard you needed to be to survive. Charriere grabs you by the scruff of the neck and drags you all the way on this incredible journey, leaving you just as exhausted as he. The emotions are explicit, the story is resolute and pumped full of testosterone, and the lessons from his life are succinct. He made his first break from the prison of Saint Laurent within the first forty-two days of his term navigating the heat, humidity and shark infested waters of the Caribbean Sea. Showing exemplary courage and will power he reached as far as Colombia using a rickety and an old crumbling wooden boat only to be captured and returned back to the French, this totally pissed them off. Angered and embarrassed French officials shipped him to the devil’s islands without delay. The failure only made him more resilient; he simply refused to accept his fate, eventually ending up in Venezuela, doing a little jail time, before, with the sun on his back he's a free man.

The book also explores the humane relations Papillon shared with his cell mates, and you feel for a lot of them to, he was heavy handed with the sods but easy to make friends with. He learned to live with the rogues, the dreaded convicts who hacked at moment’s provocation but he never abandoned the meek and the suffering, whilst also getting along with guards and wardens. Most were never repulsed by his intense obsession to break out, believing his innocence and respecting his dream to live as a free man. It was this trust that enlivened his spirits and increased his strength to keep his sanity in the lowest ebbs of confinement, which generally were truly awful.

On finishing Papillon I put the book down feeling that, out there in the big wide world, anything is possible. This is a testament to the human spirit on a grandeur level, an adrenaline soaked, hard as nails unshakable will to live. As for his writing, he took to it like anything else, without ever imagining that he could fail, putting pen to paper, 5,000 words a day, and if events from 30 years before ended up feeling a little fictionalised, he still managed to get Papillon across to the reader in the most believable way. An experience never to be forgotten. 5/5

Llegué a este libro gracias a la película y me ha gustado mucho.
Es verdad que hay cierta historia sobre cuánto de aquí es verdad y cuánto no, pero a mí es que este libro me resulta interesante por la temática y por el estilo. Incluso aunque fuera ficción y solo ficción, me seguiría pareciendo interesante por lo que esconde en sus páginas.
Igualmente, aunque no todo le pasara al autor, creo que es bastante obvio que este tipo de torturas y prisiones sí que existen. Que es algo que ha pasado y sigue pasando, y que hay que darle al menos un pensamiento a todo ello.
También, como no, me parece que es una gran metáfora de que la vida hay que vivirla y que no puede uno dejar de intentar, ni de luchar. Que tiene que valorar las cosas, apoyarse en la gente que te quiere y seguir tirando, siempre hacia adelante.

‘Dear Papillon, you’ve done everything humanly possible to get back your freedom. Fate has been cruel to you. All that is left is for you to blow up the prison.’

Freedom, that is what Papillon was born to fight for. Talk about purpose and destiny. Clyde Griffith was born to fight for class and prestige in the American Tragedy. We are all born for something, how we fight to get them, to reach them, is up to us.

But it is your God given right to fight for what is yours. Whether love, freedom, wealth etc. That is your God given right.

But on earth, man tells you that you are free. That this is a free world, free country. Indeed, it may be so. I say may, because they have laws and rules to limit your freedom. Then, they created prisons, prisons and more prisons. And to top it up, hard labor and torture.
But one man, Papillon, was bent to circumvent the system and the men who controls the system. He managed to escape from the French system. But escaping from one system only lands you into another system. Then the question remains whether the system will absorb you.

No system was willing to absorb Papillon. No system was willing to help him. The better systems, could only offer him solace for a while, and afterwards, he had to go.

This circle of events went on till he came face to face with the Colombian system. A system that can kill a man within days. A system not buit to rehabilitate but to break. To break the body, spirit and soul. The same with the French.

The only solution, escape! Escape and you survive. This he did and met the Indians. A new lease of life. Marriage to two beautiful women; Lali and Zoraima. But destiny, some call it fate, it will always find you and it found him while trying to get to Venezuela. That is when he came to experience the brutal force of the system.

This proves just how civilization is full of human beings who are poor in understanding and simple love. Call them anything, from the police, the prosecutors, the judges, the jury and the wardens. Yet they are the cream of the society. I disagree; the nobility of the society are the savages and the primitives who have been cast aside: the prisoners, the lepers and the Indians who don’t care about the system, leave alone having one.

Heaven on earth is what human beings have labeled hell while hell on earth is what human beings have labeled heaven. Angels are those who have been relegated to the bottom of the society while demons are those who stand on top of it.

I was recently reminded of this book, which I loved, back in the day. How could I have missed adding it to my books? I have since been exposed to similarly graphic stories (news, fiction, tv, films), but it was a shocking eye-opener to me then.

I also remember being surprised some years later how well the film portrayed the events and characters and setting the way I'd imagined them.

I don't plan to revisit the book or the film - I'll stick to my memories.

I wavered a bit on my 4* rating but in the end I decided it's such a great adventure that I'm sure I won't forget - so four stars it is. I've seen in other review there is some question in the authenticity, (and I did think that some of Papillon's adventures were over-the-top, especially making it so far in the sea on coconuts!) but I guess I don't care because it is great storytelling. I do think some of the book is a bit repetitive and a bit long but overall I really enjoyed it. Now I really have to watch the movie (I want to see the original and then the remake).