Review: The enemy below (book)

[Platapus]

Rayner, D. A., (1957) The enemy below. New York: Henry Hold and Company

The movie “The enemy below” is not only one of my favourite submarine movies, but one of my all time favourite movies. I have wanted to read the book for many years. It is not an easy book to find. Recently, I was able to find a first American edition for just under an unreasonable price so I snapped it up. Money spent on books is never wasted.

Most of the time.

I admit that I am frequently one of those annoying people who believe that “the book” is better than “the movie”. Sadly, this is not true for this book.

I found the book disappointing. It being a fiction book written in 1957, it is excusable that the author makes some glaring errors concerning German submarines such as confusing a Type VIIa with a Type VIIb and making the usual fictional errors concerning the layout of the control room. These are small spuds.

The author, continues with some pretty wild errors. The author claims that the armament of a British destroyer (main guns 4-5 inches) can not damage a submarine’s hull. The author also makes a claim that the 20mm Oerlikon is completely useless against the hull of the U-boat. At the same time, the author states that the 8.8cm deck is devastating against a destroyer. The author makes the claim that in a surface gun battle, the submarine will easily win.

Considering that the “action” of this book concerns a long gun battle between a destroyer and a Uboat, perhaps the author is simply creating a fictional world for his plot. WWII submarine nuts will have difficulties with the technical information in this book.

However, the literary license concerning facts is not the primary problem with this book. The greatest weakness of this book is that it is dull. The author does not develop any of the characters beyond a simple dimension. Unlike the movie, there is not an equal telling of “both sides”. The Germans are one-dimensionally bad, and the British are superficially good. Other than the British Captain and the Doctor, the rest of the crew is simply a name. No character development at all. If the reader is expecting any of the deep character development and contrasts seen in the movie, they will be disappointed.

There are several potentially exciting parts of the story that the author simply choses not to address. First there is the tracking of the German submarine by the British Destroyer. The Captain is able to do so because of his ability to “get in to the head” of the German Captain. The trouble is that none of this is explained even remotely as in the movie. In the book there is no sense of suspense. They just follow the submarine for 150 miles. Wake me when we get there.


Another of them is that in the German submarine, there is the ubiquitous crew member who loses it. In the movie there was some interaction between the Captain and the crew member where the Captain disarms the crewmember and then shows compassion and understanding by giving the crew member the wrench back.

In the book, the Captain shoots the crew member. Ok, that’s a good subplot (pun intended) but where a good author would delve further in to the thought processes and the angst between the Captain and the crew member for a few pages, this author describes it in two short banal paragraphs.

Without answering directly the Kapitan crossed to the cabinet where the revolvers hung, and took one down. With only a partial turn of their heads, the men in the control room watched go. Their eye-balls gleamen in the dim light.

There was a sudden, small, unmistakable explosion, and burnt cordite joined the other smells in the boat. The white eyeballs glanced nervously at each other, and then returned to their instruments.

What the hell? A Captain choosing to shoot a crewmember in order to preserve discipline on the submarine, and this is all the author can think to write about it? Read that quoted piece again and consider that this is exciting as the book gets.

Even the gun battle, which is the main part of the book, is shallow and, using the only word that applies, dull.

I contrast this with Edward Beach’s “Run Silent, Run Deep”. In reading Beach’s book you will find yourself experiencing anxiety as the author really captures the drama and is able to put the reader in the literary action. In reading Beach, I found my heart rate go up. From just reading a book! None of that happens with Rayner.

To be perfectly honest, this book reminded me of my fictional writings. Technically everything is there, but it lacks that critical spark that brings the book to life.

The author makes some cheap morality shots pointing out that the British follow the rules of war but the nasty Germans never do. This is taken to a laughable extreme when after the British Captain has order gun action against the submarine, and the submarine does not surrender, the British Captain admonishes one of his crew for aiming a rifle at one of the Germans still on the Submarine claiming that “that would be murder”…. All at the same time the British Captain is trying to ram these same Germans. Shooting Germans with a rifle – bad. Crushing them with your ship – good.

I thought there would be hope at the very end when both vessels sink. Even the author points out that suddenly the men have stopped being men against men and are now spiritually united as men against the sea…… and then he ignores it. The final scene is the German Captain and the British Captain ending up on the same raft. They argue and the British Captain hits the German Captain.

One of the wonderful parts of the movie was that after the fighting was done, there was respect for each other, there was a deepness of character. None of that in the book.

I can not in any way recommend this book for anyone seriously interested in submarine fiction. It is inaccurate, which can be excused, and dull, which can’t. The movie is so much better and it takes a lot for a pompous prick like me to admit.

[Sailor Steve]

Wow. I've wanted to read the book for a long time, but now I think I'll give it a miss. I'm not complaining; you did me a favor, and I'm glad it was you and not me.

[Sonarman]

The original Star Trek episode "Balance of Terror" is quite well known as a rather blatent ripoff of "The Enemy Below"

[Platapus]

The Star Trek episode is also much better than the book, unfortunately.

[Sonarman]

Yup, I think I'll give the book a miss too, based on your description, I much prefer the moral dimension and brevity of the screenplay.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Sonarman

The original Star Trek episode "Balance of Terror" is quite well known as a rather blatent ripoff of "The Enemy Below"

Yes, that is very well known.

Sorry, couldn't resist. I saw the movie in the theater and made that observation when the episode first aired.

[sharkbit]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I saw the movie in the theater and made that observation when the episode first aired.

Man.....you're old.

Just kidding but you're really dating yourself.

[Boompus]

Here's a quote from IMDB. Robert Mitchum a Sub commander ?

"According to the Australian DVD sleeve notes, "Producer-Director Dick Powell let the public decide the ending for The Enemy Below. He filmed the movie with two endings, then let a preview audience vote for the ending they liked best. The ending he used won by unanimous vote." The ending which wasn't used had both submarine commanders, Captain Murrell (Robert Mitchum) and Von Stolberg (Curd Jürgens) die by drowning at the end of this picture when Murrell dives into the sea to rescue Von Stolberg. The used ending was the happy ending which had both of them rescued by a ship. Details of the two endings were reported in a July 1957 edition of 'The Hollywood Reporter' which stated that Powell filmed the two endings because he thought that the original ending (the unused one) was too bleak. "

[Herr-Berbunch]

Good review, thanks for warning us

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by sharkbit

Just kidding but you're really dating yourself.

That's because no one else will date me.

No, wait. You meant...

Seriously though, I'm as old as I am and I treasure my experiences, and don't mind people knowing the things I've done and seen.

[Herr-Berbunch]

Sadly it's only when you do become older that you begin to treasure things and experiences. My only regret is not getting more things like photos along the way.

[sharkbit]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Seriously though, I'm as old as I am and I treasure my experiences, and don't mind people knowing the things I've done and seen.