Scan barcode
A review by fictionfan
Strangers on a Train by Patricia Highsmith
4.0
The weak and the mad...
Guy Haines is on a train to Texas, hoping that his estranged wife Miriam will finally give him the divorce he needs so that he can marry his new love, Anne. When another passenger, Charles Bruno, begins to chat to him, Guy little thinks that this is the beginning of an odd relationship which will eventually spiral into murder...
First published in 1950, this is one of the early examples of what we'd now call “psychological thrillers”. Bruno has a difficult relationship with his rich father who controls the purse strings. He suggests to Guy that they swap murders – that Bruno will murder the inconvenient Miriam if in return Guy will murder Bruno's father. Guy tries to brush him off, but Bruno goes ahead with his part of the scheme. The thrust of the book is Bruno pressuring Guy to hold up his side of the bargain – a bargain Guy never agreed to, although he didn't explicitly refuse it either. We see the psychological effect on Guy and eventually on Bruno too, as the plot plays out.
Two things combined to give me perhaps overly high expectations of this book. The first is its stellar reputation as a masterpiece of the form and as an influence on later generations of crime writers; the second is Hitchcock's wonderful film adaptation, one of my favourite movies of all time. Having recently read quite a few of the books that Hitchcock adapted, I've realised that he often changed the plot almost out of all recognition, so I wasn't surprised to find that that's the case with this one too. While Hitch's story is of a good man hounded by a crazy one, Highsmith's version of Guy is of a weak and distinctly unlikeable character whose innate lack of moral strength is as much of an issue as Bruno's possible insanity. Oddly, it reminded me far more of Hitch's other great classic, Rope, in terms of the moral questions it poses.
Guy's inability to deal with the moral dilemma and subsequent descent into a state of extreme anxiety is done brilliantly, and the psychology underpinning Bruno's craziness is well and credibly developed. His unhealthy relationship with his mother in particular is portrayed with a good deal of subtlety – lots of showing rather than telling and, because we see it almost entirely through Bruno's eyes, it's handled with a good deal of ambiguity. However, the unlikeability of both characters made it hard for me to get up any kind of emotional investment in the outcome, especially as we don't really get to know the potential second victim, Mr Bruno, Senior.
Miriam is given more characterisation, but not much, and there's a kind of suggestion that she brought her fate on herself by her sexual promiscuity. But she's bumped off too quickly for the reader to develop any depth of feeling for her either way. Anne, Guy's new love interest, is a cipher for most of the book – there merely to give Guy a motive for wishing to be rid of Miriam and, later, to give him something to lose. For the most part we see Anne solely through Guy's eyes, as a kind of idealised opposite to Miriam, which makes her come over as rather passionless and insipid, and almost unbelievably trusting of this man that she clearly barely knows or comprehends (or she wouldn't dream of marrying him). In the end stages, we do get to see things from her perspective briefly, but she never really comes to life as a distinct character in her own right.
The writing is very good, particularly when showing Guy's increasing loss of grip on reality, but I found the pacing of the first half incredibly slow. Partly that may have been because I knew the story from the film, but the book seems to cover the same ground over and over again, with Guy angsting over his moral dilemma to the point where I didn't care what he decided to do so long as he finally did something! However, the second half seems to flow much better and the tension ramps up, so that in the end I was glad I stuck with it.
As you'll no doubt have realised by now, I'm not joining the legions of readers who have praised this unreservedly. For me, the unlikeability of the characters made it an intellectual rather an emotional read and, as I've said, the first half seemed to drag interminably. However, there's plenty to enjoy in it, especially in the later stages when it picks up pace, and it definitely deserves its reputation as a classic for its originality at the time. So I certainly recommend it, both as a good read overall and because it's always interesting to read a book that has been so influential on the genre.
www.fictionfanblog.wordpress.com
Guy Haines is on a train to Texas, hoping that his estranged wife Miriam will finally give him the divorce he needs so that he can marry his new love, Anne. When another passenger, Charles Bruno, begins to chat to him, Guy little thinks that this is the beginning of an odd relationship which will eventually spiral into murder...
First published in 1950, this is one of the early examples of what we'd now call “psychological thrillers”. Bruno has a difficult relationship with his rich father who controls the purse strings. He suggests to Guy that they swap murders – that Bruno will murder the inconvenient Miriam if in return Guy will murder Bruno's father. Guy tries to brush him off, but Bruno goes ahead with his part of the scheme. The thrust of the book is Bruno pressuring Guy to hold up his side of the bargain – a bargain Guy never agreed to, although he didn't explicitly refuse it either. We see the psychological effect on Guy and eventually on Bruno too, as the plot plays out.
Two things combined to give me perhaps overly high expectations of this book. The first is its stellar reputation as a masterpiece of the form and as an influence on later generations of crime writers; the second is Hitchcock's wonderful film adaptation, one of my favourite movies of all time. Having recently read quite a few of the books that Hitchcock adapted, I've realised that he often changed the plot almost out of all recognition, so I wasn't surprised to find that that's the case with this one too. While Hitch's story is of a good man hounded by a crazy one, Highsmith's version of Guy is of a weak and distinctly unlikeable character whose innate lack of moral strength is as much of an issue as Bruno's possible insanity. Oddly, it reminded me far more of Hitch's other great classic, Rope, in terms of the moral questions it poses.
Guy's inability to deal with the moral dilemma and subsequent descent into a state of extreme anxiety is done brilliantly, and the psychology underpinning Bruno's craziness is well and credibly developed. His unhealthy relationship with his mother in particular is portrayed with a good deal of subtlety – lots of showing rather than telling and, because we see it almost entirely through Bruno's eyes, it's handled with a good deal of ambiguity. However, the unlikeability of both characters made it hard for me to get up any kind of emotional investment in the outcome, especially as we don't really get to know the potential second victim, Mr Bruno, Senior.
Miriam is given more characterisation, but not much, and there's a kind of suggestion that she brought her fate on herself by her sexual promiscuity. But she's bumped off too quickly for the reader to develop any depth of feeling for her either way. Anne, Guy's new love interest, is a cipher for most of the book – there merely to give Guy a motive for wishing to be rid of Miriam and, later, to give him something to lose. For the most part we see Anne solely through Guy's eyes, as a kind of idealised opposite to Miriam, which makes her come over as rather passionless and insipid, and almost unbelievably trusting of this man that she clearly barely knows or comprehends (or she wouldn't dream of marrying him). In the end stages, we do get to see things from her perspective briefly, but she never really comes to life as a distinct character in her own right.
The writing is very good, particularly when showing Guy's increasing loss of grip on reality, but I found the pacing of the first half incredibly slow. Partly that may have been because I knew the story from the film, but the book seems to cover the same ground over and over again, with Guy angsting over his moral dilemma to the point where I didn't care what he decided to do so long as he finally did something! However, the second half seems to flow much better and the tension ramps up, so that in the end I was glad I stuck with it.
As you'll no doubt have realised by now, I'm not joining the legions of readers who have praised this unreservedly. For me, the unlikeability of the characters made it an intellectual rather an emotional read and, as I've said, the first half seemed to drag interminably. However, there's plenty to enjoy in it, especially in the later stages when it picks up pace, and it definitely deserves its reputation as a classic for its originality at the time. So I certainly recommend it, both as a good read overall and because it's always interesting to read a book that has been so influential on the genre.
www.fictionfanblog.wordpress.com