I loved James Cain’s noir thriller The Postman Always Rings Twice, and the film adaptation of his novel Double Indemnity is one of my favorite movies of all time, so when I saw his novel Mildred Pierce on sale at Changing Hands in October I picked it up knowing nothing about it other than that HBO had adapted it into a miniseries. It’s a complete departure from those other Cain novels, in theme and in prose style, and in this case the villain isn’t a protagonist but the main character’s narcissist daughter, who contrives to get whatever she wants even if she has to ruin her own mother to get it.
The novel opens with Mildred and her husband, Bert, separating as she kicks him out because of his refusal to stop seeing his mistress, who lives in the same development of Pierce Homes. Bert had been flying high financially until the 1929 crash, losing almost everything because of his decision to invest all of his cash in AT&T stock, but since he was ruined he’s refused to get any sort of job, exacerbating Mildred’s dissatisfaction with him. After he leaves, she tries to support herself and their two daughters, Veda and Ray, by baking and selling pies, but eventually has to get a waitressing job that she considers a little beneath her and has to hide from Veda, her older daughter, a budding sociopath who loathes her mother and the working-class life she’s been handed.
Mildred eventually rises to the point where she opens her own restaurant, then turns it into a small chain of restaurants around greater Los Angeles, but still can’t satisfy Veda and ends up in a couple of disastrous dalliances of her own. Mildred is a strong central character, a feminist in her time who doesn’t need a man to support her and who’s willing to use men to suit her own purposes, but who’s attracted to feckless men who drag her down. She has initiative and a strong work ethic, but lacks the kind of high breeding that Veda, for reasons never explained, believes she herself possesses. Ultimately, Mildred’s choices in men and her subversion of her own priorities to please Veda are her undoing, and the successful post-marriage life she’s created for herself collapses of her own bad decisions.
I found Mildred Pierce a tougher read even than contemporary novels that involve a murder, because there’s such a clear sense that Mildred is heading for catastrophe, one in large part of her own making. Her need for Veda to love her is itself pathological, and she lacks any capacity to see that her own daughter cares nothing at all for her, only for herself. Mildred builds a small business empire, and loses it in a futile effort to make Veda love her. Cain seems to have some empathy for his main character for the first two-thirds of the book, but when she launches her last scheme to gain her daughter’s love and respect, the tone shifts and the admiring language around Mildred’s business savvy (and good fortune) disappears. If Pierce has a real flaw, however, it’s that she’s not quite smart enough for what she wants to achieve, and I can’t see looking down on a character for a lack of intelligence the way we might for a character who’s greedy or heartless, like Veda.
Cain’s prose in Postman is descriptive but stark, and it works for a dark novel about murder and betrayal. Here, his descriptive prose still serves him well – I give the man credit, he knew something about food – but the sparse, almost emotionless writing doesn’t match what’s happening on the page. This isn’t a noir novel, but the writing has too much noir in it for the subject matter, and the lack of a second strongly-developed character besides Mildred (Veda is true to life but very one-note) made the book a slower read than it should have been. If you’re interested in Cain’s writing, go with The Postman Always Rings Twice instead.
Next up: Rachel Joyce’s 2012 novel The Unlikely Pilgrimage of Harold Fry, a recommendation from my friend Adnan Virk.
Can’t say I’ve ever read the novel but had to chuckle when your point of reference was the HBO adaptation with Kate Winslet rather than the movie featuring Joan Crawford, Eve Arden and Ann Blyth. Still, an interesting review in a venue that avoids all those complaints from baseball-only readers.
Thank you. I’ve never seen either adaptation, but I know the 1945 movie completely changed the ending due to the Production Code. As something of a stickler for fidelity in adaptations, that would bug the heck out of me.
I see you posted on Instagram you were reading that was recommended by Adnan Virk. He was on the radio filling in the day after the Orlando shooting when Ryan Ruesillo asked him about being a Muslim in this country when shootings happen. It may have been the best 10 minutes of ever heard on ESPN Radio
Adnan plays it as kind of a goofy fill in on radio, but he’s far from that. I have a boat load of respect for the guy, as I sometimes forget on air people have real life problems.
Keep up your postings, I’ve learned a lot from articles and links to stories.
Happy Holidays.
The 1945 version actually restructures the narrative into a crime film–a legitimate noir. I had never seen the movie but knew it was considered a noir. When I read the book I was surprised there was really no crime element to it. Then I watched the Crawford film. There are some aspects retained from the book but it is much more it’s own thing than the HBO series, which I haven’t seen yet but understand is a more faithful adaptation.
?This has nothing to do with Mildred Pierce, but as this is your most recent literature review it seemed like as good a place as any. Have you ever heard of the Icelandic writer Sjón (aka Sigurjón Birgir Sigur?sson)? I just read the following in a recent issue of The Nation and thought it might pique your interest: “?If a contemporary equivalent of Mikhail Bulgakov’s The Master and Margarita exists, that equivalent would be these books taken together as a group. (Sjón has said that The Master and Margarita is ‘his favorite book of all time.’)” Here’s a link to the full review:
https://www.thenation.com/article/sjon-counterworlds/
Sorry about the random extra question marks. Copying and pasting to avoid transcription errors seems to have backfired…
No worries, I think it’s the special characters that did it. I’ve never heard of him but I will definitely check it out. Thanks!