What do you think?
Rate this book
Strangers on a Train
The world of Patricia Highsmith has always been filled with ordinary people, all of whom are capable of very ordinary crimes. This theme was present from the beginning, when her debut novel, Strangers on a Train, galvanized the reading public. Here we encounter Guy Haines and Charles Anthony Bruno, passengers on the same train. But while Guy is a successful architect in the midst of a divorce, Bruno turns out to be a sadistic psychopath who manipulates Guy into swapping murders with him. “Some people are better off dead,” Bruno remarks, “like your wife and my father, for instance.” As Bruno carries out his twisted plan, Guy is trapped in Highsmith’s perilous world, where, under the right circumstances, anybody is capable of murder.
The inspiration for Alfred Hitchcock’s classic 1951 film, Strangers on a Train launched Highsmith on a prolific career of noir fiction, proving her a master at depicting the unsettling forces that tremble beneath the surface of everyday contemporary life.
The inspiration for Alfred Hitchcock’s classic 1951 film, Strangers on a Train launched Highsmith on a prolific career of noir fiction, proving her a master at depicting the unsettling forces that tremble beneath the surface of everyday contemporary life.
289 pages, Kindle Edition
First published March 15, 1950
About the author
Patricia Highsmith
485 books5,293 followersPatricia Highsmith (19 January 1921 – 4 February 1995) was an American novelist who is known mainly for her psychological crime thrillers which have led to more than two dozen film adaptations over the years.
She lived with her grandmother, mother and later step-father (her mother divorced her natural father six months before 'Patsy' was born and married Stanley Highsmith) in Fort Worth before moving with her parents to New York in 1927 but returned to live with her grandmother for a year in 1933. Returning to her parents in New York, she attended public schools in New York City and later graduated from Barnard College in 1942.
Shortly after graduation her short story "The Heroine" was published in the Harper's Bazaar magazine and it was selected as one of the 22 best stories that appeared in American magazines in 1945 and it won the O Henry award for short stories in 1946. She continued to write short stories, many of them comic book stories, and regularly earned herself a weekly $55 paycheck. During this period of her life she lived variously in New York and Mexico.
Her first suspense novel Strangers on a Train published in 1950 was an immediate success with public and critics alike. The novel has been adapted for the screen three times, most notably by Alfred Hitchcock in 1951.
In 1955 her anti-hero Tom Ripley appeared in the splendid The Talented Mr Ripley, a book that was awarded the Grand Prix de Litterature Policiere as the best foreign mystery novel translated into French in 1957. This book, too, has been the subject of a number of film versions. Ripley appeared again in Ripley Under Ground in 1970, in Ripley's Game in 1974, The Boy Who Followed Ripley in 1980, and in Ripley Under Water in 1991.
Along with her acclaimed series about Ripley, she wrote 22 novels and eight short story collections plus many other short stories, often macabre, satirical or tinged with black humour. She also wrote one novel, non-mystery, under the name Claire Morgan , plus a work of nonfiction Plotting and Writing Suspense Fiction and a co-written book of children's verse, Miranda the Panda Is on the Veranda.
She latterly lived in England and France and was more popular in England than in her native United States. Her novel Deep Water, 1957, was called by the Sunday Times one of the "most brilliant analyses of psychosis in America" and Julian Symons once wrote of her "Miss Highsmith is the writer who fuses character and plot most successfully ... the most important crime novelist at present in practice." In addition, Michael Dirda observed "Europeans honoured her as a psychological novelist, part of an existentialist tradition represented by her own favorite writers, in particular Dostoevsky, Conrad, Kafka, Gide, and Camus."
She died of leukemia in Locarno, Switzerland on 4 February 1995 and her last novel, Small g: A Summer Idyll, was published posthumously a month later. (Gerry Wolstenholme, July 2010).
She lived with her grandmother, mother and later step-father (her mother divorced her natural father six months before 'Patsy' was born and married Stanley Highsmith) in Fort Worth before moving with her parents to New York in 1927 but returned to live with her grandmother for a year in 1933. Returning to her parents in New York, she attended public schools in New York City and later graduated from Barnard College in 1942.
Shortly after graduation her short story "The Heroine" was published in the Harper's Bazaar magazine and it was selected as one of the 22 best stories that appeared in American magazines in 1945 and it won the O Henry award for short stories in 1946. She continued to write short stories, many of them comic book stories, and regularly earned herself a weekly $55 paycheck. During this period of her life she lived variously in New York and Mexico.
Her first suspense novel Strangers on a Train published in 1950 was an immediate success with public and critics alike. The novel has been adapted for the screen three times, most notably by Alfred Hitchcock in 1951.
In 1955 her anti-hero Tom Ripley appeared in the splendid The Talented Mr Ripley, a book that was awarded the Grand Prix de Litterature Policiere as the best foreign mystery novel translated into French in 1957. This book, too, has been the subject of a number of film versions. Ripley appeared again in Ripley Under Ground in 1970, in Ripley's Game in 1974, The Boy Who Followed Ripley in 1980, and in Ripley Under Water in 1991.
Along with her acclaimed series about Ripley, she wrote 22 novels and eight short story collections plus many other short stories, often macabre, satirical or tinged with black humour. She also wrote one novel, non-mystery, under the name Claire Morgan , plus a work of nonfiction Plotting and Writing Suspense Fiction and a co-written book of children's verse, Miranda the Panda Is on the Veranda.
She latterly lived in England and France and was more popular in England than in her native United States. Her novel Deep Water, 1957, was called by the Sunday Times one of the "most brilliant analyses of psychosis in America" and Julian Symons once wrote of her "Miss Highsmith is the writer who fuses character and plot most successfully ... the most important crime novelist at present in practice." In addition, Michael Dirda observed "Europeans honoured her as a psychological novelist, part of an existentialist tradition represented by her own favorite writers, in particular Dostoevsky, Conrad, Kafka, Gide, and Camus."
She died of leukemia in Locarno, Switzerland on 4 February 1995 and her last novel, Small g: A Summer Idyll, was published posthumously a month later. (Gerry Wolstenholme, July 2010).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 4,311 reviews
February 24, 2026
After reading Eight Perfect Murders and rewatching Alfred Hitchcock’s classic Strangers on a Train, along with my favorite comedy adaptation, Throw Momma from the Train (Danny DeVito was absolutely brilliant—if you haven’t seen it, I highly recommend it!), I finally decided it was time to read the original novel by Patricia Highsmith that inspired these unforgettable films.
Overall, the central premise is chilling and fascinating: the idea that every ordinary person may carry the capacity to kill, that one dark suggestion at the wrong moment could place evil in the driver’s seat and send someone spiraling down their darkest internal highways. It’s a provocative, disturbing, and undeniably brilliant concept.
That said, I have to admit that the screenplay adaptations made some necessary and incredibly effective changes. The films added sharper characterization, clearer motivations, and more immediate emotional stakes. In comparison, the novel leans heavily into long, philosophical passages examining the violent and untamed nature of human beings. While intellectually interesting, these sections sometimes lessened the tension and slowed the pacing. A few chapters and extended internal monologues could have been trimmed to preserve the story’s thriller momentum.
Still, this novel remains a remarkable achievement. It’s impossible not to admire how one psychological thriller sparked so many creative reinterpretations and inspired legendary filmmakers to create masterpieces from its bones. Reading it now, especially after revisiting those films, felt like participating in a living conversation between literature and cinema.
I’m confidently giving it four stars—and now I’m excited to revisit Rebecca next. I’ve dedicated the past two weeks to rewatching Hitchcock’s films and reading the novels that helped shape his iconic vision, and it has been an absolutely thrilling, immersive journey into the mind of suspense itself
Overall, the central premise is chilling and fascinating: the idea that every ordinary person may carry the capacity to kill, that one dark suggestion at the wrong moment could place evil in the driver’s seat and send someone spiraling down their darkest internal highways. It’s a provocative, disturbing, and undeniably brilliant concept.
That said, I have to admit that the screenplay adaptations made some necessary and incredibly effective changes. The films added sharper characterization, clearer motivations, and more immediate emotional stakes. In comparison, the novel leans heavily into long, philosophical passages examining the violent and untamed nature of human beings. While intellectually interesting, these sections sometimes lessened the tension and slowed the pacing. A few chapters and extended internal monologues could have been trimmed to preserve the story’s thriller momentum.
Still, this novel remains a remarkable achievement. It’s impossible not to admire how one psychological thriller sparked so many creative reinterpretations and inspired legendary filmmakers to create masterpieces from its bones. Reading it now, especially after revisiting those films, felt like participating in a living conversation between literature and cinema.
I’m confidently giving it four stars—and now I’m excited to revisit Rebecca next. I’ve dedicated the past two weeks to rewatching Hitchcock’s films and reading the novels that helped shape his iconic vision, and it has been an absolutely thrilling, immersive journey into the mind of suspense itself
July 18, 2016
When Guy Haines and Charles Anthony Bruno meet on a train, they discover they have one thing in common: each of them has someone they would be better off without. When Haines' estranged wife winds up strangled, he finds himself caught in Bruno's psychotic, alcoholic web...
Yeah, that makes the book sound really gripping. It wasn't. The Hitchcock film Strangers on a Train is legendary so I thought I'd give the book that inspired it a shot. I would have been better off watching Throw Mama From the Train again.
The setup is classic noir: two men, two murders, no complications. The problem is that neither man is all that interesting. Guy Haines is too by the book and Bruno is an alcoholic mama's boy, more sad that anything else.
It may have been a case of wrong book, wrong time, but the engine just didn't turn over for me with this one. I was pretty bored for the first half. After that, I was just ready for it to be over. The first murder was boring, the second was kind of illogical considering how flimsy things were, and the rest was just running out the clock.
I will say that Patricia Highsmith, like Jim Thompson, writes a very believable alcoholic psychopath. From her Wikipedia entry, I'd say a lot of it came from experience.
I'm going to paraphrase Roger Ebert (I think) here: Strangers on a Train is a gripping short story squeezed into 280 pages. Two out of five stars.
Yeah, that makes the book sound really gripping. It wasn't. The Hitchcock film Strangers on a Train is legendary so I thought I'd give the book that inspired it a shot. I would have been better off watching Throw Mama From the Train again.
The setup is classic noir: two men, two murders, no complications. The problem is that neither man is all that interesting. Guy Haines is too by the book and Bruno is an alcoholic mama's boy, more sad that anything else.
It may have been a case of wrong book, wrong time, but the engine just didn't turn over for me with this one. I was pretty bored for the first half. After that, I was just ready for it to be over. The first murder was boring, the second was kind of illogical considering how flimsy things were, and the rest was just running out the clock.
I will say that Patricia Highsmith, like Jim Thompson, writes a very believable alcoholic psychopath. From her Wikipedia entry, I'd say a lot of it came from experience.
I'm going to paraphrase Roger Ebert (I think) here: Strangers on a Train is a gripping short story squeezed into 280 pages. Two out of five stars.
January 30, 2022
“He didn’t look like a murderer, he supposed, in his clean white shirtsleeves and his silk tie and his dark blue trousers, and maybe even his strained face didn’t look like a murderer’s to anyone else. ‘That’s the mistake,’ Guy said aloud, ‘that nobody knows what a murderer looks like. A murderer looks like anybody!’”
- Patricia Highsmith, Strangers on a Train
Patricia Highsmith’s Strangers on a Train is a novel that almost needs no introduction. It is the very definition of high concept, an irresistible idea that can be summed up in a handful of sentences. Two strangers – architect Guy Haines and louche playboy Charles Bruno – engage in a conversation while traveling aboard a train. Both men have troublesome people in their lives, a soon-to-be ex-wife for Guy, and an unloving father for Bruno. The notion arises that they could swap murders, ridding themselves of these nagging issues, while elegantly dealing with the problems of motive and alibi. The train eventually reaches its destination, the two men part, and that should be the end of it.
Until one of the men goes through with the plan.
The first book written by the famed author of The Talented Mr. Ripley, Strangers on a Train gained immortality when Alfred Hitchcock turned it into a semi-classic film. Its setup has found its way into the pop cultural consciousness, the basis of many other additional movies, television episodes, and parodies.
In short, Strangers on a Train has transcended itself, becoming far more than it ever was to begin. Perhaps unsurprisingly, this resulted in a reading experience that often left me wondering what all the fuss was about. It’s a fine diversion and a quick read, but it would have been quite forgettable, if other factors had not already made forgetting it impossible.
***
Plotwise, Strangers on a Train is relatively straightforward. There is a minimum of surprises or twists, and once you swallow the central conceit – that two guys who’d never met each other would have this conversation, and that one of them would put the plan into motion – things progress in ways that are not hard to guess.
Rather than focus on storytelling mechanics, Highsmith is more interested in her two main characters, Guy and Bruno. And that’s a bit of a problem.
Neither man is really worth rooting for. Guy is put in the unenviable position of being the moral center, except that he’s not really good, just indecisive. There are a half-dozen points in the novel when he could have solved every problem by simply doing the halfway decent thing, but his lack of a backbone prevents this. Meanwhile, Bruno is a proto-Tom Ripley, a psychopath with an ingratiating smile. Unlike Ripley, however, Bruno has zero charisma. Instead, he’s a fall-down alcoholic with an inexplicable obsession for Guy, and Guy’s girlfriend Anne.
For much of Strangers on a Train’s length, I felt trapped in this story, pinging back and forth between Guy and Bruno – Highsmith writes in the third-person, mainly from the perspective of these two – neither of whom seemed worth a moment of my time.
Ultimately, I came to accept that this wasn’t really a character study, so much as a thesis statement. Highsmith is clearly a believer that there is a demon in all of us, and realizing that, I saw the two leads – and Guy, especially – in a different light. Rather than viewing Guy as a decent fellow trapped in extreme circumstance, I accepted him as a man slowly coming to realize his latent homicidal tendencies. Though Highsmith undercuts her own savage, cutthroat world with a tediously expository ending, I appreciated her willingness to execute such a bleak outlook.
***
Because this is a Highsmith novel, the sexuality of her characters has become a matter of some controversy. Specifically, it has been assumed that Bruno’s intense fixation with Guy is homosexual in nature. Highsmith – herself a lesbian – goes out of her way to tell us that Bruno is interested in women (there is a scene with Bruno trying to find a prostitute), but she leaves enough bread crumbs to form a trail to other conclusions.
This is important because it affects our ability to judge Strangers on a Train in the 21st century. At the time this was written – in 1950 – homosexuality was criminalized, stigmatized, and often diagnosed as a mental illness. There were many unfortunate examples of a fictional character’s sexual identity being used as a proxy for their villainy and evil. The matter was to arise again with The Talented Mr. Ripley, with Tom Ripley’s ambiguous desires called into question.
Frankly, I’m not sure that Bruno deserves the excavation. He is meant by Highsmith to be mesmerizing – at least, Guy and Anne are both oddly taken with him – but I found him to be an exasperating presence, a sloppy, erratic, vaguely-intentioned leech. Trying to pin his actions on any one thing, much less his sexual inclinations, seems a fool’s errand. The force that is driving him is not important, least of all to Highsmith, who is clearly more interested in Guy’s descent to the dark side. Bruno exists mainly to provide the wind that propels Guy’s voyage of lethal self-discovery.
***
Reading a book that has achieved cultural saturation is always at least a bit unusual. Even though you haven’t seen the exact arrangement of words, you have the sensation of having been there before. This can make it hard to accurately evaluate a piece of art, since what comes across as cliched or obvious now, might have been entirely original and sui generis seventy years ago.
With that caveat aside, this was a minor disappointment, given its lofty reputation. The ideas are still half-formed, the characters are a bit uncertain, and Highsmith definitely pulls her punches at the end, writing as though she was operating under the old Hays Code, in which the “bad guy” has to meet justice.
To be very clear: this is not a bad book. It is a solid psychological thriller boosted by the reality that Highsmith was a pioneer in this genre. Nevertheless, my greatest enjoyment came from seeing – for the first time – all the ingredients that Highsmith would later put to much better use in The Talented Mr. Ripley. It is a novel full of authorial promise that would only later be fulfilled.
- Patricia Highsmith, Strangers on a Train
Patricia Highsmith’s Strangers on a Train is a novel that almost needs no introduction. It is the very definition of high concept, an irresistible idea that can be summed up in a handful of sentences. Two strangers – architect Guy Haines and louche playboy Charles Bruno – engage in a conversation while traveling aboard a train. Both men have troublesome people in their lives, a soon-to-be ex-wife for Guy, and an unloving father for Bruno. The notion arises that they could swap murders, ridding themselves of these nagging issues, while elegantly dealing with the problems of motive and alibi. The train eventually reaches its destination, the two men part, and that should be the end of it.
Until one of the men goes through with the plan.
The first book written by the famed author of The Talented Mr. Ripley, Strangers on a Train gained immortality when Alfred Hitchcock turned it into a semi-classic film. Its setup has found its way into the pop cultural consciousness, the basis of many other additional movies, television episodes, and parodies.
In short, Strangers on a Train has transcended itself, becoming far more than it ever was to begin. Perhaps unsurprisingly, this resulted in a reading experience that often left me wondering what all the fuss was about. It’s a fine diversion and a quick read, but it would have been quite forgettable, if other factors had not already made forgetting it impossible.
***
Plotwise, Strangers on a Train is relatively straightforward. There is a minimum of surprises or twists, and once you swallow the central conceit – that two guys who’d never met each other would have this conversation, and that one of them would put the plan into motion – things progress in ways that are not hard to guess.
Rather than focus on storytelling mechanics, Highsmith is more interested in her two main characters, Guy and Bruno. And that’s a bit of a problem.
Neither man is really worth rooting for. Guy is put in the unenviable position of being the moral center, except that he’s not really good, just indecisive. There are a half-dozen points in the novel when he could have solved every problem by simply doing the halfway decent thing, but his lack of a backbone prevents this. Meanwhile, Bruno is a proto-Tom Ripley, a psychopath with an ingratiating smile. Unlike Ripley, however, Bruno has zero charisma. Instead, he’s a fall-down alcoholic with an inexplicable obsession for Guy, and Guy’s girlfriend Anne.
For much of Strangers on a Train’s length, I felt trapped in this story, pinging back and forth between Guy and Bruno – Highsmith writes in the third-person, mainly from the perspective of these two – neither of whom seemed worth a moment of my time.
Ultimately, I came to accept that this wasn’t really a character study, so much as a thesis statement. Highsmith is clearly a believer that there is a demon in all of us, and realizing that, I saw the two leads – and Guy, especially – in a different light. Rather than viewing Guy as a decent fellow trapped in extreme circumstance, I accepted him as a man slowly coming to realize his latent homicidal tendencies. Though Highsmith undercuts her own savage, cutthroat world with a tediously expository ending, I appreciated her willingness to execute such a bleak outlook.
***
Because this is a Highsmith novel, the sexuality of her characters has become a matter of some controversy. Specifically, it has been assumed that Bruno’s intense fixation with Guy is homosexual in nature. Highsmith – herself a lesbian – goes out of her way to tell us that Bruno is interested in women (there is a scene with Bruno trying to find a prostitute), but she leaves enough bread crumbs to form a trail to other conclusions.
This is important because it affects our ability to judge Strangers on a Train in the 21st century. At the time this was written – in 1950 – homosexuality was criminalized, stigmatized, and often diagnosed as a mental illness. There were many unfortunate examples of a fictional character’s sexual identity being used as a proxy for their villainy and evil. The matter was to arise again with The Talented Mr. Ripley, with Tom Ripley’s ambiguous desires called into question.
Frankly, I’m not sure that Bruno deserves the excavation. He is meant by Highsmith to be mesmerizing – at least, Guy and Anne are both oddly taken with him – but I found him to be an exasperating presence, a sloppy, erratic, vaguely-intentioned leech. Trying to pin his actions on any one thing, much less his sexual inclinations, seems a fool’s errand. The force that is driving him is not important, least of all to Highsmith, who is clearly more interested in Guy’s descent to the dark side. Bruno exists mainly to provide the wind that propels Guy’s voyage of lethal self-discovery.
***
Reading a book that has achieved cultural saturation is always at least a bit unusual. Even though you haven’t seen the exact arrangement of words, you have the sensation of having been there before. This can make it hard to accurately evaluate a piece of art, since what comes across as cliched or obvious now, might have been entirely original and sui generis seventy years ago.
With that caveat aside, this was a minor disappointment, given its lofty reputation. The ideas are still half-formed, the characters are a bit uncertain, and Highsmith definitely pulls her punches at the end, writing as though she was operating under the old Hays Code, in which the “bad guy” has to meet justice.
To be very clear: this is not a bad book. It is a solid psychological thriller boosted by the reality that Highsmith was a pioneer in this genre. Nevertheless, my greatest enjoyment came from seeing – for the first time – all the ingredients that Highsmith would later put to much better use in The Talented Mr. Ripley. It is a novel full of authorial promise that would only later be fulfilled.
March 4, 2025
Edit: Okay, so it's been almost a year and I still get angry every time I think about having read this book, so I'm changing my rating to a 1. Sorry not sorry.
Well, that was incredibly painful. Strangers on a Train could have been a novella (perhaps even a short story) and it would have been more than enough – two hundred plus pages of Guy and Bruno rambling on and arguing with each other was almost more than I could bear. The book did pick up a little in the last third or so, but it came way too late to make up for *gesticulates wildly* all of the rest of it. Bruno's a madman and perhaps the worst criminal “mastermind” in all of literary history, and Guy is a pushover. Such a dull and tedious read.
My overall rating:1.55 1.45 stars, rounded up down. I absolutely would have DNF'd this book around the 20% mark if I hadn't needed it for my Eight Perfect Murders reading list.
Well, that was incredibly painful. Strangers on a Train could have been a novella (perhaps even a short story) and it would have been more than enough – two hundred plus pages of Guy and Bruno rambling on and arguing with each other was almost more than I could bear. The book did pick up a little in the last third or so, but it came way too late to make up for *gesticulates wildly* all of the rest of it. Bruno's a madman and perhaps the worst criminal “mastermind” in all of literary history, and Guy is a pushover. Such a dull and tedious read.
My overall rating:
January 7, 2018
When I was in my 20s- living in Toronto and traveling on the train to visit my parents 4 hours away- I always thought there was nothing worse than trying to read my book while having some annoying fellow passenger try to start a conversation...but then I watched Alfred Hitchcock's STRANGERS ON A TRAIN and realized- Nope it could have been worse.
I usually have a hard time reading the book once I have watched the movie, but Patricia Highsmith's novel is very different than Hitchcock's adaptation of it. It is much darker and much more sinister...
Guy Haines life is just about perfect- he is about to get his big break as an architect, and he is in love with and wants to marry Anne- his girlfriend of two years. There is just one small problem. His wife Miriam is making life difficult for him, so Guy is on his way to his hometown of Metcalf to meet with her, and get the divorce finalized.
While on the train Guy meets Charles Anthony Bruno- a shiftless young man who hates his rich father- Samuel Bruno...but loves spending Samuel's money. As the hours pass and the alcohol flows, the idle chatter between the two men takes a dark turn when Bruno turns the talk to murder. The perfect murder. His idea- I kill your wife, you kill my father...
STRANGERS ON A TRAIN is a psychological thriller that stays with you. One that will make you think twice about striking up a conversation with a seemingly innocent stranger. Do yourself a favor and keep your nose in a book.
*Note -Not to be confused with Throw Momma from the Train.
...sorry I just had to get that picture in.
I usually have a hard time reading the book once I have watched the movie, but Patricia Highsmith's novel is very different than Hitchcock's adaptation of it. It is much darker and much more sinister...
Guy Haines life is just about perfect- he is about to get his big break as an architect, and he is in love with and wants to marry Anne- his girlfriend of two years. There is just one small problem. His wife Miriam is making life difficult for him, so Guy is on his way to his hometown of Metcalf to meet with her, and get the divorce finalized.
While on the train Guy meets Charles Anthony Bruno- a shiftless young man who hates his rich father- Samuel Bruno...but loves spending Samuel's money. As the hours pass and the alcohol flows, the idle chatter between the two men takes a dark turn when Bruno turns the talk to murder. The perfect murder. His idea- I kill your wife, you kill my father...
STRANGERS ON A TRAIN is a psychological thriller that stays with you. One that will make you think twice about striking up a conversation with a seemingly innocent stranger. Do yourself a favor and keep your nose in a book.
*Note -Not to be confused with Throw Momma from the Train.
...sorry I just had to get that picture in.
August 17, 2023
This was Patricia Highsmith’s first novel, initially published in 1950, and most often credited as being the first “Murder Swap” novel!
It inspired the Alfred Hitchcock movie, by the same name but if you THINK you know this story, because you watched the movie, you don’t!
Mr. Hitchcock actually changed quite a bit after the initial conversation between two strangers on the train, where a suggestion was made that the men “swap murders”.
“Some people are better off dead”, Bruno remarks, (to Guy) “like your wife and my father, for instance.”
Guy doesn’t take his train companion seriously, until his wife Miriam ends up dead.
Bruno, feels a plan WAS agreed to that day, and he will apply RELENTLESS pressure on Guy, to follow through on his end of the deal, as he becomes more and more OBSESSED with Guy.
And, a DOGGED detective name Arthur Gerard is convinced he has got it all figured out.
I figured it was about time that I actually read this CLASSIC which inspired my favorite thriller of all time-“THE KIND WORTH KILLING” by Peter Swanson.
I am definitely GLAD that I did!
It inspired the Alfred Hitchcock movie, by the same name but if you THINK you know this story, because you watched the movie, you don’t!
Mr. Hitchcock actually changed quite a bit after the initial conversation between two strangers on the train, where a suggestion was made that the men “swap murders”.
“Some people are better off dead”, Bruno remarks, (to Guy) “like your wife and my father, for instance.”
Guy doesn’t take his train companion seriously, until his wife Miriam ends up dead.
Bruno, feels a plan WAS agreed to that day, and he will apply RELENTLESS pressure on Guy, to follow through on his end of the deal, as he becomes more and more OBSESSED with Guy.
And, a DOGGED detective name Arthur Gerard is convinced he has got it all figured out.
I figured it was about time that I actually read this CLASSIC which inspired my favorite thriller of all time-“THE KIND WORTH KILLING” by Peter Swanson.
I am definitely GLAD that I did!
March 5, 2018
Everything has its opposite close beside it.
Why don't people write thrillers like Patricia Highsmith anymore? This, her first novel, boasts an iconic plot, gruelling tension, characters with psychological complexities, and plenty of intellect to balance out murderous actions. Plus, a psychopath. She's so good at the psychopaths.
I'm not surprised Alfred Hitchcock found this book worthy inspiration for his 1951 film. It's clever. Two men meet on a train journey. Guy, our 'hero', on his way to secure a divorce, makes the fatal error of sharing personal information with Bruno. He tells him he hates his wife. He gives names and details. Bruno shares that he wishes his father were dead, and suggests a plan for the "perfect murder": Bruno kills the wife, Guy kills the father, and >pouf< all their problems disappear. No one would be the wiser because the men are strangers and can't be connected.
Guy being normal, is repelled by Bruno and his switcheroo idea, and removes himself. The train journey ends. That's the last he'll see of that weirdo... right? Well, of course not, that would be boring. Murder is committed. Bruno is a nasty smell that just won't go away.
Highsmith's novel is haunted by concepts made famous by Robert Louis Stevenson's Jekyll and Hyde. The idea of opposites, good and evil, as naturally coexisting forces, is exemplified in the characters of Guy and Bruno, but also within Guy himself. How much threat is necessary to cause a basically 'good' person to commit murder? And, for that matter, is anyone 'basically good'?
Highsmith's clear prose paints a stylish picture of the time: train travel, omnipresent alcohol, glamorous women. There are also glimmers of homoeroticism, compulsion, wealth, and an innocent female love interest, which all feature in her later novel, The Talented Mr. Ripley. I found the ending, while not predictable and dappled with clever and logical twists, lost some of the power built in the first two thirds of the book. But I still enjoyed this classic thriller that gives new meaning to the old adage "don't talk to strangers". Just don't!
He felt rather like two people, one of whom could create and feel in harmony with God when he created, and the other who could murder.
August 22, 2016
Find all of my reviews at: http://52bookminimum.blogspot.com/
In order to prove that NO, I DON’T ONLY READ PORNOS THANK YOU VERY LITTLE I begged Steve to pull me out of my downward spiral and buddy read this one with me. When my husband asked his nightly question “what are you reading????” I was so very proud to say a classic rather than smut. I also jumped at the chance to say it was a book written by the author of The Talented Mr. Ripley and that this novel became one of my favorite Hitchcock films. It was at this point my husband pointed out that in the course of our 20 year marriage there has been an annual Alfred Hitchcock movie marathon on Turner Classic Movies and that he was pretty sure the winner of first place in my heart was . . . .
He also pointed out during said movie marathons that no interaction with me was permitted during . . . .
And . . . .
And . . . .
And . . . .
And . . .
Either. So basically me saying “a favorite Hitchcockian masterpiece” pretty much amounted to diddly shit.
It was at this point I reminded him exactly what this story was about . . . .
Guy Haines meets Charlie Bruno on a train and shares a meal with him in order to pass the time. I know what you’re thinking - WHY THE EFF WOULD ANYONE DO THIS WHEN THEY COULD JUST READ A BOOK?!?!?!? Who knows? It was a different time when men wore hats and ladies had to worry about stuff like whether the seam on their stockings was straight. Basically, people were cray. Anywho, over the course of this dinner between strangers (*shudder*) Guy shares that he’s an architect sitting on the cusp of making it big, has a real beaut of a gal he’s planning on marrying and that the reason he’s on the trip is to finalize a divorce agreement with his first wife. Bruno’s story is pretty much that he’s a drunk with an Oedipus complex who would like someone to off his dear ol’ dad. Which leads us to the offer of a murder swap and Bruno mistaking a clearly stated no for YAAAAAASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS leading to turnabout being fair play and Guy getting blackmailed into fulfilling his half of the bargain as well.
Sounds like a real winner, don’t it??? Yeah. It definitely could have been if it were about 100 pages lighter. There just wasn’t much to this one aside from the stabby stabby (or in this case the strangley shooty). The majority of the book was just “meh” page filler with little character development aside from each respectively losing their marbles.
The Hitchcock film, on the other hand? Magnificent. Please remember, however, that this is the man who could sniff out something so brilliant in an itsy-bitsy little 14-pager.
ORIGINAL "REVIEW"
Buddy up with my pal Steve
In order to prove that NO, I DON’T ONLY READ PORNOS THANK YOU VERY LITTLE I begged Steve to pull me out of my downward spiral and buddy read this one with me. When my husband asked his nightly question “what are you reading????” I was so very proud to say a classic rather than smut. I also jumped at the chance to say it was a book written by the author of The Talented Mr. Ripley and that this novel became one of my favorite Hitchcock films. It was at this point my husband pointed out that in the course of our 20 year marriage there has been an annual Alfred Hitchcock movie marathon on Turner Classic Movies and that he was pretty sure the winner of first place in my heart was . . . .
He also pointed out during said movie marathons that no interaction with me was permitted during . . . .
And . . . .
And . . . .
And . . . .
And . . .
Either. So basically me saying “a favorite Hitchcockian masterpiece” pretty much amounted to diddly shit.
It was at this point I reminded him exactly what this story was about . . . .
Guy Haines meets Charlie Bruno on a train and shares a meal with him in order to pass the time. I know what you’re thinking - WHY THE EFF WOULD ANYONE DO THIS WHEN THEY COULD JUST READ A BOOK?!?!?!? Who knows? It was a different time when men wore hats and ladies had to worry about stuff like whether the seam on their stockings was straight. Basically, people were cray. Anywho, over the course of this dinner between strangers (*shudder*) Guy shares that he’s an architect sitting on the cusp of making it big, has a real beaut of a gal he’s planning on marrying and that the reason he’s on the trip is to finalize a divorce agreement with his first wife. Bruno’s story is pretty much that he’s a drunk with an Oedipus complex who would like someone to off his dear ol’ dad. Which leads us to the offer of a murder swap and Bruno mistaking a clearly stated no for YAAAAAASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS leading to turnabout being fair play and Guy getting blackmailed into fulfilling his half of the bargain as well.
Sounds like a real winner, don’t it??? Yeah. It definitely could have been if it were about 100 pages lighter. There just wasn’t much to this one aside from the stabby stabby (or in this case the strangley shooty). The majority of the book was just “meh” page filler with little character development aside from each respectively losing their marbles.
The Hitchcock film, on the other hand? Magnificent. Please remember, however, that this is the man who could sniff out something so brilliant in an itsy-bitsy little 14-pager.
ORIGINAL "REVIEW"
Buddy up with my pal Steve
June 21, 2016
“My mistake was telling a stranger my private business.” — Guy Haines
This is my first Highsmith book, which is a shame because I have seen most movie adaptations of her novels. Throw Mama from the Train is one of my all-time favorite movies, and now I’ve finally read the book that the movie is loosely based on.
The book itself is far from comedic. Written in 1950, this gritty noir novel is mostly set in New York. Guy Haines, an up and coming architect, meets Charlie Bruno on a train bound for his Texas hometown, where he is due to meet up with his estranged wife. Though he doesn’t exchange too much personal information, Bruno has an uncanny perception of Guy’s mind and the real nature of his relationship with Miriam, his wife. He quickly offers up a foul-proof solution to getting rid of the “Miriam problem” in exchange for a small favor.
Even though the plot was predictable, I did find the psychological and philosophical themes on duality pretty interesting. Do each of us have a twin that is both our exact opposite and enemy? Another person that is the embodiment of evil? Are all of us capable of murder given the right circumstances? While I did enjoy the novel, I felt that Highsmith worked too hard to convey that message, and that it could have been a hundred pages shorter.
December 6, 2021
Patricia Highsmith es considerada la maestra del suspense. Y no es para menos la verdad, lo tiene merecidísimo ya que logra (siendo este su primer libro publicado), una atmósfera tremendamente opresiva e inquietante en la medida en que te vas sumergiendo en la mente de los dos protagonistas de esta obra literaria. Sin embargo, yo creo que también hay que darle el lujo de saber escribir personajes y nutrirlos de matices acorde a las conversaciones, lo que dejan entrever la cosmovisión de cada uno de ellos y las acciones que toman a lo largo de la trama. Sabe construir perfectamente la psicología de cada uno de ellos, volviéndolos grises; donde ninguno es totalmente bueno, pero tampoco malo del todo.
Me ha gustado mucho ver cómo dos extraños pasan justamente de ser eso, a estar conectados por un crimen que solo los llevará por una espiral de desconfianza, resentimiento y miedo ante lo que puede suceder desde aquel punto sin retorno. Pero también es interesante esa simbiosis en la que el uno no deja de necesitar al otro para poder seguir viviendo luego de ese macabro evento. Los perosonajes están plagados de defectos, de actitudes pesimistas, culpables, llenos de mentiras y pensamientos suicidas y/o homicidas; hay una crueldad a la hora de narrar algo tan macabro como un asesinato desde la perspectiva de un psicópata que no se siente para nada morboso. Es casi tenue, como si cuidara los detalles para no ser tan escabrosa; tirando a lo sutil sin regodearse ni mostrar más de la cuenta.
Sin embargo, creo que es un libro aburrido a ratos (así lo sentí yo), hay ciertas relaciones que me daban igual y si me pongo a reflexionar es que justamente lo que más brilla dentro de esta novela es la turbulenta conexión que se da entre los personajes principales luego del vínculo que los une. Cada pequeño encuentro, acercamiento o acecho del uno hacia el otro era lo que me mantenía en vilo y aunque la vida de cada uno de ellos por separado nutre de matices sus acciones, era eso lo que perfectamente me incitaba a no seguir leyendo. Y sí, el libro me ha dejado un poco plof, luego de haber leído dos colecciones de relatos de Patricia que me encantaron, ciertamente esperaba más. Aunque, tengo que darle el beneficio de la duda al ser su primera novela. Voy a leer otros libros de ella y espero que me convenza más de lo que ya lo hizo con sus cuentos.
Me ha gustado mucho ver cómo dos extraños pasan justamente de ser eso, a estar conectados por un crimen que solo los llevará por una espiral de desconfianza, resentimiento y miedo ante lo que puede suceder desde aquel punto sin retorno. Pero también es interesante esa simbiosis en la que el uno no deja de necesitar al otro para poder seguir viviendo luego de ese macabro evento. Los perosonajes están plagados de defectos, de actitudes pesimistas, culpables, llenos de mentiras y pensamientos suicidas y/o homicidas; hay una crueldad a la hora de narrar algo tan macabro como un asesinato desde la perspectiva de un psicópata que no se siente para nada morboso. Es casi tenue, como si cuidara los detalles para no ser tan escabrosa; tirando a lo sutil sin regodearse ni mostrar más de la cuenta.
Sin embargo, creo que es un libro aburrido a ratos (así lo sentí yo), hay ciertas relaciones que me daban igual y si me pongo a reflexionar es que justamente lo que más brilla dentro de esta novela es la turbulenta conexión que se da entre los personajes principales luego del vínculo que los une. Cada pequeño encuentro, acercamiento o acecho del uno hacia el otro era lo que me mantenía en vilo y aunque la vida de cada uno de ellos por separado nutre de matices sus acciones, era eso lo que perfectamente me incitaba a no seguir leyendo. Y sí, el libro me ha dejado un poco plof, luego de haber leído dos colecciones de relatos de Patricia que me encantaron, ciertamente esperaba más. Aunque, tengo que darle el beneficio de la duda al ser su primera novela. Voy a leer otros libros de ella y espero que me convenza más de lo que ya lo hizo con sus cuentos.
May 30, 2026
A short Psychological thriller book that revolves around two men, one of whom proposes to trade murders, although the other one is highly reluctant.
3/5 from my end!
Do watch the movie adaptation of the novel, it is directed by the all-time famous director, Alfred Hitchcock.
3/5 from my end!
Do watch the movie adaptation of the novel, it is directed by the all-time famous director, Alfred Hitchcock.
February 5, 2023
Architect Guy Haines is on a train to Texas to see his estranged wife Miriam to discuss their divorce. Before long Charles Bruno, a rich n'er do well, sits down opposite him. Haines talks about his problems with Miriam and Bruno talks about his hatred for his father.
Before long Bruno makes a suggestion: the two men should "exchange murders." That is, Bruno should kill Miriam and Haines should kill Bruno's dad - and having no demonstrable motive - neither man will be suspected.
Haines strongly opposes this scheme, refuses to participate, and goes on his way. Before long, however, Bruno tracks Miriam down and murders her.
He then proceeds to stalk Haines and insert himself into Haine's life at every opportunity - pressuring him to carry out his part of the plan. To say any more would be a spoiler.
The book is a well-crafted psychological thriller with believable well-rounded characters. I wanted to jump into the book and shout at Haines to "get that nutcase out of your life" but of course that would have spoiled the plot. I enjoyed the book. And Alfred Hitchcock made it into an excellent film as well.
You can follow my reviews at https://reviewsbybarbsaffer.blogspot....
August 20, 2024
The two men in “Strangers On A Train” are despicable people. One, a well-off psychopath who berates women, and the other is a brilliant yet insecure fella who lacks a few basic moral filters. Perhaps número dos is not too bad in the beginning, but time will tell as the novel chugs along. Does the dynamic fit a twisty murder plot? To me, the book has flashes of brilliance, but some of the melodrama and filler irked me quite a bit.
Guy and Bruno meet on a train. A few drinks are shared, and before long, Bruno lays out a perfect murder. Bruno will murder Guy’s wife; he is on his way to divorce, and Guy will in turn murder Bruno’s father. Does this sound like a foolproof idea to you?
If you can get past the ‘perfect’ meetup and subsequent murder coercing, I think you might enjoy it a bit more than I did. The chapter describing the deed was an eerie look into the mind of a psychopath and included quite a bit of introspection. This, coupled with the extreme detail, really set the tone for the rest of the book. Sadly, it takes until about the last third to really ramp up again. The middle portion of the book is filled with too much melodrama and philosophical takes, which I usually enjoy, but it sort of plateaued for me. It is understandable that these characters would get caught up in these ramblings of crime, but it hits it over the head a bit too much. It all could have been compacted a bit more. The alcoholism, the blackouts, and the staunch remarks started to get pretty grating. Also, it never really hits that sense of Annie Wilkes type crazy, if you know what I mean. Maybe we are just a bit desensitized to these types of stories, but back when this was published, I’m sure it was eye-opening.
On the other hand, the writing is pretty great. I read that the movie iteration was directed by Hitchcock, and this makes perfect sense. The stalking chapter in particular had a Hitchcockian feel to it, so I can see why he would gravitate toward it. Oh! One more point. The murder in and of itself was pretty clever. Back then, it would have been almost impossible for authorities to catch on to how it was committed. There is some detective work that shows up in the last third or so, but the ‘gotcha’ moments are pretty far-fetched and frankly uninteresting in my opinion. I can definitely see other writers being influenced by the interrogation scenes as well. Karen Slaughter comes to mind.
All in all, it had some amazing moments, but I feel like it could be trimmed up a bit. My advice would be to go into it not expecting a cat-and-mouse chase or an in-depth character story, just some tension surrounding a few blokes who devise a creative act of evil. A more sinister version of My Dinner with Andre, for example. 😁
📝 | “That's exactly where you're wrong! Any kind of person can murder. Purely circumstances and not a thing to do with temperament! People get so far -- and it takes just the least little thing to push them over the brink. Anybody. Even your grandmother. I know.”
🧐 | Book Feels
Manipulation | Fine Line Between Good and Evil | Destructive Power of Secrets | Communication is Key | Free Will | Fate | Idle Hands
🎵 | Soundtrack
❖ Dream Theater – Pull Me Under
❖ Anthrax - Madhouse
⭐ | Rating
❖ 3 out of 5 ❖
Guy and Bruno meet on a train. A few drinks are shared, and before long, Bruno lays out a perfect murder. Bruno will murder Guy’s wife; he is on his way to divorce, and Guy will in turn murder Bruno’s father. Does this sound like a foolproof idea to you?
If you can get past the ‘perfect’ meetup and subsequent murder coercing, I think you might enjoy it a bit more than I did. The chapter describing the deed was an eerie look into the mind of a psychopath and included quite a bit of introspection. This, coupled with the extreme detail, really set the tone for the rest of the book. Sadly, it takes until about the last third to really ramp up again. The middle portion of the book is filled with too much melodrama and philosophical takes, which I usually enjoy, but it sort of plateaued for me. It is understandable that these characters would get caught up in these ramblings of crime, but it hits it over the head a bit too much. It all could have been compacted a bit more. The alcoholism, the blackouts, and the staunch remarks started to get pretty grating. Also, it never really hits that sense of Annie Wilkes type crazy, if you know what I mean. Maybe we are just a bit desensitized to these types of stories, but back when this was published, I’m sure it was eye-opening.
On the other hand, the writing is pretty great. I read that the movie iteration was directed by Hitchcock, and this makes perfect sense. The stalking chapter in particular had a Hitchcockian feel to it, so I can see why he would gravitate toward it. Oh! One more point. The murder in and of itself was pretty clever. Back then, it would have been almost impossible for authorities to catch on to how it was committed. There is some detective work that shows up in the last third or so, but the ‘gotcha’ moments are pretty far-fetched and frankly uninteresting in my opinion. I can definitely see other writers being influenced by the interrogation scenes as well. Karen Slaughter comes to mind.
All in all, it had some amazing moments, but I feel like it could be trimmed up a bit. My advice would be to go into it not expecting a cat-and-mouse chase or an in-depth character story, just some tension surrounding a few blokes who devise a creative act of evil. A more sinister version of My Dinner with Andre, for example. 😁
📝 | “That's exactly where you're wrong! Any kind of person can murder. Purely circumstances and not a thing to do with temperament! People get so far -- and it takes just the least little thing to push them over the brink. Anybody. Even your grandmother. I know.”
🧐 | Book Feels
Manipulation | Fine Line Between Good and Evil | Destructive Power of Secrets | Communication is Key | Free Will | Fate | Idle Hands
🎵 | Soundtrack
❖ Dream Theater – Pull Me Under
❖ Anthrax - Madhouse
⭐ | Rating
❖ 3 out of 5 ❖
April 7, 2022
And the moral of the story is... stick to your headphones or your book when you're on a train. Don't talk to that rich frat boy who tries to entice you with pricey steak meals in first class wagons, just don't!
July 13, 2024
***SPOILERS HIDDEN***
Nightmare on a train. The premise is simple enough. Two men meet on a train and have a weird discussion about swapping murders. Patricia Highsmith’s intriguing but imperfect tale is a chilling portrait of obsessive psychopathy. It also asks an unsettling question: Do we all have a dark side?
This book is short and mostly to the point, but it could have been shorter, perhaps even a novella. Told in third person omniscient point of view, Strangers on a Train features nicely fleshed-out main characters Guy Haines, a buttoned-up architect, and Charles Bruno, a relaxed character who spends most of his time drunk.
The story’s hook is decent and propels it forward most of the time, although Strangers on a Train slows whenever Highsmith wrote about Guy’s career woes. Guy’s work situation has little, if any, relevance to the greater story, so it’s hard to care about his work worries. This is partially where Strangers on a Train carries on for too long.
The story has an odd set-up in the sense that It’s as if Highsmith didn’t know how she wanted Guy and Bruno to be, despite crafting them distinctly.
The attention on obsessive psychopathy is mostly in the beginning and is fascinating and the main reason to read Strangers on a Train. Highsmith didn’t portray it complexly, but she understood this frightening disorder, and she knew how to portray harassment and obsession at its creepiest.
Strangers on a Train is a simple, merely good story. For every strength it has a corresponding weakness, and its loose organization and capricious main characters are frustrating.
Nightmare on a train. The premise is simple enough. Two men meet on a train and have a weird discussion about swapping murders. Patricia Highsmith’s intriguing but imperfect tale is a chilling portrait of obsessive psychopathy. It also asks an unsettling question: Do we all have a dark side?
This book is short and mostly to the point, but it could have been shorter, perhaps even a novella. Told in third person omniscient point of view, Strangers on a Train features nicely fleshed-out main characters Guy Haines, a buttoned-up architect, and Charles Bruno, a relaxed character who spends most of his time drunk.
The story’s hook is decent and propels it forward most of the time, although Strangers on a Train slows whenever Highsmith wrote about Guy’s career woes. Guy’s work situation has little, if any, relevance to the greater story, so it’s hard to care about his work worries. This is partially where Strangers on a Train carries on for too long.
The story has an odd set-up in the sense that It’s as if Highsmith didn’t know how she wanted Guy and Bruno to be, despite crafting them distinctly.
The attention on obsessive psychopathy is mostly in the beginning and is fascinating and the main reason to read Strangers on a Train. Highsmith didn’t portray it complexly, but she understood this frightening disorder, and she knew how to portray harassment and obsession at its creepiest.
Strangers on a Train is a simple, merely good story. For every strength it has a corresponding weakness, and its loose organization and capricious main characters are frustrating.
September 28, 2017
“People, feelings, everything! Double! Two people in each person. There's also a person exactly the opposite of you, like the unseen part of you, somewhere in the world, and he waits in ambush.”
― Patricia Highsmith, Strangers on a Train
I put off watching the great Hitchcock's take on this Highsmith classic until I actually read it. The book has a neat narrative symmetry and logic to it. It contains a lot of the early hints of some of her later, great Ripley novels: obsessiveness, insanity, meticulous crimes, impulsiveness, boats, doppelgängers, homoeroticism, art, food, etc.
I didn't enjoy it as much as the Ripley novels, but even without knowing the great body of work to follow this one book, 'Strangers on a Train' contains enough to convince even the most hardened skeptic that Highsmith wasn't just an innocent young writer hoping to make her mark. No. Highsmith, it is obvious from the beginning, was a dangerous talent, an unpredictable force prepared to execute on her literary desires and vision. I can only begin to imagine how this novel (dropping in 1950), written by a woman, would have contained its own unique blast zones. Don't look at the explosion, just turn your cheek to the heat.
― Patricia Highsmith, Strangers on a Train
I put off watching the great Hitchcock's take on this Highsmith classic until I actually read it. The book has a neat narrative symmetry and logic to it. It contains a lot of the early hints of some of her later, great Ripley novels: obsessiveness, insanity, meticulous crimes, impulsiveness, boats, doppelgängers, homoeroticism, art, food, etc.
I didn't enjoy it as much as the Ripley novels, but even without knowing the great body of work to follow this one book, 'Strangers on a Train' contains enough to convince even the most hardened skeptic that Highsmith wasn't just an innocent young writer hoping to make her mark. No. Highsmith, it is obvious from the beginning, was a dangerous talent, an unpredictable force prepared to execute on her literary desires and vision. I can only begin to imagine how this novel (dropping in 1950), written by a woman, would have contained its own unique blast zones. Don't look at the explosion, just turn your cheek to the heat.
June 5, 2015
"And Bruno, he and Bruno. Each was what the other had not chosen to be, the cast-off self, what he thought he hated, but perhaps in reality loved."
Strangers on a Train is another case where most people have seen the movie but haven't read the book or didn't know there was a novel behind it. In this case, if you've seen the movie, and then go to read Highsmith's book, you end up with two different entities. The basic plot is the same -- two men, total strangers, meet on a train; one (Bruno) is a psychopath and in conversation things eventually come around to the concept of the "perfect murder." Bruno will get rid of the woman who stands in the way of the other man's (Guy Haines) path to happiness, and Guy in return, will get rid of Bruno's father. Guy has no intention of carrying out his side of Bruno's imaginary bargain, but Bruno kills Guy's wife anyway. I can see why Hitchcock got involved with this movie -- it seems tailor made for the man. But this is where movie and novel take different paths. Actually, the book and movie part company very early on.
There's really no need to rehash the plot of this book since it is so very well known, but it's worth saying that the strength of this novel is in Highsmith's ability to very quickly bring the reader inside of her characters' heads. The same is true in her Talented Mr. Ripley. In Strangers on a Train, she examines the very complex relationship between two men, strangers before they had that fateful meeting on the train, but whose lives afterward become inescapably interwined. The reader sees what drives each man not only individually, but also in the complexity of the ties that bring them "closer than brotherhood," even when they are not together. The quotation at the beginning of this post, to me, allows the reader to comprehend this tangled and tortuous relationship (and I could talk forever on the topic but I'll spare you), but the true genius of this novel is this: most of what creates the tension and suspense in this story plays out in the space of their minds. Sure, there are the physical murder scenes, but even here, you are taken step by step through the entire process of killing as seen through the respective characters' eyes. As the story progresses and you feel that all-too human need to sympathize with someone, you begin to realize that sympathy becomes an elusive, rather slippery concept where the two main players are concerned.
If I had read Strangers on a Train as my first foray into the mind of Patricia Highsmith, I would have bought every single book she ever wrote just praying that that they'd all be this good. I had to disagree with someone recently who complained that the book just didn't have enough "action," because frankly, action is not what Highsmith's writing is all about, a point evidently lost on the person but whatever. Anyone who picks up one of her books should know that she's going to dive right into the psyche and pull out whatever's there for all to see -- and then you're along for the ride as she slowly starts the dissection. I can't speak highly enough about this book, or the author: Highsmith is genuinely in a class of her own.
Strangers on a Train is another case where most people have seen the movie but haven't read the book or didn't know there was a novel behind it. In this case, if you've seen the movie, and then go to read Highsmith's book, you end up with two different entities. The basic plot is the same -- two men, total strangers, meet on a train; one (Bruno) is a psychopath and in conversation things eventually come around to the concept of the "perfect murder." Bruno will get rid of the woman who stands in the way of the other man's (Guy Haines) path to happiness, and Guy in return, will get rid of Bruno's father. Guy has no intention of carrying out his side of Bruno's imaginary bargain, but Bruno kills Guy's wife anyway. I can see why Hitchcock got involved with this movie -- it seems tailor made for the man. But this is where movie and novel take different paths. Actually, the book and movie part company very early on.
There's really no need to rehash the plot of this book since it is so very well known, but it's worth saying that the strength of this novel is in Highsmith's ability to very quickly bring the reader inside of her characters' heads. The same is true in her Talented Mr. Ripley. In Strangers on a Train, she examines the very complex relationship between two men, strangers before they had that fateful meeting on the train, but whose lives afterward become inescapably interwined. The reader sees what drives each man not only individually, but also in the complexity of the ties that bring them "closer than brotherhood," even when they are not together. The quotation at the beginning of this post, to me, allows the reader to comprehend this tangled and tortuous relationship (and I could talk forever on the topic but I'll spare you), but the true genius of this novel is this: most of what creates the tension and suspense in this story plays out in the space of their minds. Sure, there are the physical murder scenes, but even here, you are taken step by step through the entire process of killing as seen through the respective characters' eyes. As the story progresses and you feel that all-too human need to sympathize with someone, you begin to realize that sympathy becomes an elusive, rather slippery concept where the two main players are concerned.
If I had read Strangers on a Train as my first foray into the mind of Patricia Highsmith, I would have bought every single book she ever wrote just praying that that they'd all be this good. I had to disagree with someone recently who complained that the book just didn't have enough "action," because frankly, action is not what Highsmith's writing is all about, a point evidently lost on the person but whatever. Anyone who picks up one of her books should know that she's going to dive right into the psyche and pull out whatever's there for all to see -- and then you're along for the ride as she slowly starts the dissection. I can't speak highly enough about this book, or the author: Highsmith is genuinely in a class of her own.
September 28, 2017
Possibly I have been reading too many Cornell Woolrich and Jim Thompson gutter noir novels, tightly constructed, no waste, down and dirty, but I thought this was both elegant and about 1/3 longer than it needed to be. Patricia Highsmith imo gets high marks for this book that Hitchcock made into a classic movie, but it is also full of too many rather dull and sophisticated suburbanites. And yes, I am also reading #34 of Agatha Christie’s Hercules Poirot so I have a fairly high tolerance usually for rich snobs as characters, but usually they are less dull than many of these folks. Guy and Bruno, our two main characters, are interesting, though, because they are corrupt in ways that the Good and Boring are not. These two operate homo-erotically, and dopplegangerishly and Oedipally as a lot of mid- nineteenth-century mysteries seemed to be, with lost of psychopaths and sociopaths. Apparently Highsmith liked both psychology and “literary” fiction; she studied the psych texts of her time, and also liked Camus, Dostoevsky, the darker guys that inform a lot of noir. So her work is something along the lines of psychological thriller more than detective fiction. We read this from the perspective of Guy and Bruno.
Guy, an up-and-coming architect, is talking to a stranger, Bruno, on a train and for some (bad) reason he spills all the details about his train wreck of a personal life: He and his wife are separated and seeing other people and they are seeking an amicable divorce. The stranger hears the story from a Guy he increasingly likes (and “likes,” maybe) and he talks about murdering her for Guy. Guy says no, he finds out she is pregnant and then she miscarries, but (spoiler alert!) Bruno does in fact kill her. Can Guy now go on with his life with his new love, Anne? Well, it's not that simple. Bruno wants to get rid of his Dad, and he says to Guy, if you don’t kill my Dad for me, I will make it clear you are implicated in the killing of your own wife, so. . . . Guy does kill Bruno's Dad. This is a stretch to believe, I’ll admit, but the point about them is that they are essentially one character, Jekyll and Hyde, and they are dopplegangers, and they are attracted to each other, and they are both more in love with their mothers than any other women. This is the Oedipal part, for both men. Anyway, there's a lot you are going to have to question about in this story beyond your disbelief about Guy becoming murderer.
But, Highsmith has other concerns in her psychological drama:
“Any kind of person can murder. Purely circumstances and not a thing to do with temperament! People get so far -- and it takes just the least little thing to push them over the brink. Anybody. Even your grandmother. I know.”
And this stems from our “doubleness,” our capacity for good and evil:
“People, feelings, everything! Double! Two people in each person. There's also a person exactly the opposite of you, like the unseen part of you, somewhere in the world, and he waits in ambush.”
Guy, the good architect, has as his opposite Bruno, the loser, and this relationship is an emblem of the human condition:
“But love and hate, he thought now, good and evil, lived side by side in the human heart, and not merely in differing proportions in one man and the next, but all good and all evil. One had merely to look for a little of either to find it all, one had merely to scratch the surface. All things had opposites close by, every decision a reason against it, every animal an animal that destroys it, the male the female, the positive the negative.”
The attraction to their mothers by our two antiheroes is kind of creepily interesting in this story, as is the mention of mother characteristics in each woman either of them gets involved with in some way.
Drink, present in most detective stories and noir in particular (and looking back to Dostoevsky), is also an interesting aspect of this story:
“The way to see the world was to see it drunk. Everything was created to be seen drunk.”
“The tragedy was not even the first drink, because the first drink was not the first resort but the last."
“The taste of Scotch, though Guy didn’t much care for it, was pleasant because it reminded him of Anne. She drank Scotch, when she drank. It was like her, golden, full of light, made with careful art."
This is like a lot of noir sort of Calvinist in that it assumes kind of baseline total depravity. That's an interesting aspect of noir in general. Strangers is maybe 3.75 for me, not as good as the Ripley novels I recall reading years ago or as deliciously evil as the Thompson or Woolritch books. I glanced at reviews that gave it 1 or 2 stars from friends I respect, but hey, I liked it quite a bit in the end.
Guy, an up-and-coming architect, is talking to a stranger, Bruno, on a train and for some (bad) reason he spills all the details about his train wreck of a personal life: He and his wife are separated and seeing other people and they are seeking an amicable divorce. The stranger hears the story from a Guy he increasingly likes (and “likes,” maybe) and he talks about murdering her for Guy. Guy says no, he finds out she is pregnant and then she miscarries, but (spoiler alert!) Bruno does in fact kill her. Can Guy now go on with his life with his new love, Anne? Well, it's not that simple. Bruno wants to get rid of his Dad, and he says to Guy, if you don’t kill my Dad for me, I will make it clear you are implicated in the killing of your own wife, so. . . . Guy does kill Bruno's Dad. This is a stretch to believe, I’ll admit, but the point about them is that they are essentially one character, Jekyll and Hyde, and they are dopplegangers, and they are attracted to each other, and they are both more in love with their mothers than any other women. This is the Oedipal part, for both men. Anyway, there's a lot you are going to have to question about in this story beyond your disbelief about Guy becoming murderer.
But, Highsmith has other concerns in her psychological drama:
“Any kind of person can murder. Purely circumstances and not a thing to do with temperament! People get so far -- and it takes just the least little thing to push them over the brink. Anybody. Even your grandmother. I know.”
And this stems from our “doubleness,” our capacity for good and evil:
“People, feelings, everything! Double! Two people in each person. There's also a person exactly the opposite of you, like the unseen part of you, somewhere in the world, and he waits in ambush.”
Guy, the good architect, has as his opposite Bruno, the loser, and this relationship is an emblem of the human condition:
“But love and hate, he thought now, good and evil, lived side by side in the human heart, and not merely in differing proportions in one man and the next, but all good and all evil. One had merely to look for a little of either to find it all, one had merely to scratch the surface. All things had opposites close by, every decision a reason against it, every animal an animal that destroys it, the male the female, the positive the negative.”
The attraction to their mothers by our two antiheroes is kind of creepily interesting in this story, as is the mention of mother characteristics in each woman either of them gets involved with in some way.
Drink, present in most detective stories and noir in particular (and looking back to Dostoevsky), is also an interesting aspect of this story:
“The way to see the world was to see it drunk. Everything was created to be seen drunk.”
“The tragedy was not even the first drink, because the first drink was not the first resort but the last."
“The taste of Scotch, though Guy didn’t much care for it, was pleasant because it reminded him of Anne. She drank Scotch, when she drank. It was like her, golden, full of light, made with careful art."
This is like a lot of noir sort of Calvinist in that it assumes kind of baseline total depravity. That's an interesting aspect of noir in general. Strangers is maybe 3.75 for me, not as good as the Ripley novels I recall reading years ago or as deliciously evil as the Thompson or Woolritch books. I glanced at reviews that gave it 1 or 2 stars from friends I respect, but hey, I liked it quite a bit in the end.
August 23, 2015
[7/10]
Any kind of person can murder. Purely circumstances and not a thing to do with temperament! People get so far - and it gets just the least little thing to push them over the brink. Anybody. Even your grandmother. I know!
A disturbing proposition that I happen to strongly disagree with, but I can't think of a more able writer to raise doubts in my mind and to argue the merits of the case. According to her biographical notes, Patricia Highsmith started her study of perverted human nature at a very early age ( At the age of eight, she discovered Karl Menninger's The Human Mind and was fascinated by the case studies of patients afflicted with mental disorders such as pyromania and schizophrenia. ), and a list of her favorite authors include Kafka, Dostoyevsky, Camus, Conrad. It is no surprise then that, when she turned her talent towards writing crime fiction, she concentrated not on the whodunit questions, but on the motivations and the twisted reasonings in the mind of the killers.
"Strangers on a Train" is her debut novel, and the circumstances alluded to in the opening statement are as follows: two men accidentally meet and start a conversation during one of those long nights traversing the praerie. One of them, Guy, is a young arhitect on the brink of success, who goes back to his native Midwestern hometown to get a divorce from his embittered wife. The other, Bruno, is a rich socialite with an alcohol addiction and a deep seated hatred for his tight-fisted father. I am simplifying things here, as there are undercurrents and side issues that will come into play, a baggage of repressed feelings and unackowledged yearnings that would put a roomfull of psychologists to work for a year to untangle - Oedipal, Faustian, homosexual, envy, greed, anxiety - the list could go on and on, but basically Guy sees himself a a straight shooter, and Bruno is revealed even from the first statements a raving psychopat. The object of Highsmith's study is then not Bruno, already damaged goods, but Guy, and the path that will lead him to abandon all his principles and participate in the psychopat's game.
Mention of the game, means that from this point forward the review will contain spoilers, so tread carefully if you are unfamiliar with the story or with Alfred Hitchcock's famous movie adaptation.
- - - -
The plan is for each man to solve the other man's problem. Bruno will get rid of Guy's wife, and Guy will knock off Bruno's father. In this way both will have unbreakable alibis, and the police will find no motive for the murders, since the two men are supposedly strangers to one another. As any sane person would do, Guy rejects the offer without a second of doubt. But Bruno is another kettle of fish.
- "What do you want, Bruno?"
- "Something. Everything. I got a theory a person ought to do everything it's possible to do before he dies, and maybe die trying to do something that's really impossible."
The first half of the novel concentrates more on Bruno's side of the story, and it was a page turner for me, despite the repulsive feeling I got from dwelling so long inside the mind of a deranged person. Patricia Highsmith is the writer that sets down the standard by which other psychological thrillers will be judged in the future. Arguably, her Ripley books are more subtle and better argumented, but the major themes and the style is already evident here, in her first novel. One quote I think is enough to illustrate my point:
Oh, yes, he had felt terrific power! That was it. He had taken away a life. Now, nobody knew what life was, everybody defended it, the most priceless possession, but he had taken one away. That night there had been the danger, the ache of his hands, the fear in case she made a sound, but the instant when he felt that life had left her, everything else had fallen away, and only the mysterious fact of the thing he did remained, the mystery and the miracle of stopping life.
The second part of the novel switches focus on Guy, and here is where I started to struggle a little, not with the pacing, which remains tightly wounded, but with the lead character's motivations. I found the weakening of the ethical principles in the young arhitect a touch too abrupt and convenient for the needs of the plot. The moral blackmail that Bruno exercises on Guy is still within the parameters of that deranged mind, but the response of Guy is for me out of character - a debilitating weakness and a torturous chain of reasoning that swings wildly from denial of facts to fatalistic acceptance of Bruno's arguments. Case in point: despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Guy still pretends Bruno has nothing to do with the death of his first wife. I know temporary insanity is an accepted pledge in American courts of law, but for me this a cop out. To illustrate the kind of debate that goes oninside Guy's head, I have picked up one of his monologues:
... love and hate, he thought now, good and evil, lived side by side in the human heart, and not merely in different proportions in one man and the next, but all good and all evil. One had merely to look for a little of either to find it all, one had merely to scratch the surface. All things had opposites close by, every decision a reason against it, the male and female, the positive the negative.
Had this novel been writen by a male author, such association between evil and the female principle would have been cause for burning at the stake by feminists. Why did Highsmith include it here? Is it a mirror of the relationship between sexes in the early 50's? Or some other deeper disappointment in her own sentimental liaisons? Since the author preferred to be discreet about her personal life, my speculations here are gratuitous, but it is interesting to note the level of analysis that can be supported in the behaviour observations of Highsmith's characters.
The third part of the novel started to drag on for me, as the lines are already drawn in the conflict of personalities between Bruno and Guy, the action is concluded, and the only unresolved issue is the aftermath of the crime. Who will punish the successful criminal? Society seems unable to, and an appeal to Bruno's conscience is an exercise in futility. The only one left is Guy, and his late arrival misgivings rang as contrived to me as his earlier acquiescence to Bruno's demands. In all honesty, Highsmith is still brilliant in her exposition and in her ability to go from the personal to the problems of society as a whole, but as a reader I was surprisingly eager to get it over with, not caring one way or another if Guy embraces his Dark Side, or if he returns to the fold of the responsible social animal.
Conclusion: mixed feelings, admiration for the author's talent, coupled with personal dislike for one of her main characters (surprisingly, not the openly corrupt one). The rank of the novel among the classics of crime fiction is well deserved. I have started with a controversial theory, and I would like to finish on a more ambiguous note, one that is easier to get behind, even as it deconstructs most of my arguments above:
Logic doesn't always work out, so far as people go.
Any kind of person can murder. Purely circumstances and not a thing to do with temperament! People get so far - and it gets just the least little thing to push them over the brink. Anybody. Even your grandmother. I know!
A disturbing proposition that I happen to strongly disagree with, but I can't think of a more able writer to raise doubts in my mind and to argue the merits of the case. According to her biographical notes, Patricia Highsmith started her study of perverted human nature at a very early age ( At the age of eight, she discovered Karl Menninger's The Human Mind and was fascinated by the case studies of patients afflicted with mental disorders such as pyromania and schizophrenia. ), and a list of her favorite authors include Kafka, Dostoyevsky, Camus, Conrad. It is no surprise then that, when she turned her talent towards writing crime fiction, she concentrated not on the whodunit questions, but on the motivations and the twisted reasonings in the mind of the killers.
"Strangers on a Train" is her debut novel, and the circumstances alluded to in the opening statement are as follows: two men accidentally meet and start a conversation during one of those long nights traversing the praerie. One of them, Guy, is a young arhitect on the brink of success, who goes back to his native Midwestern hometown to get a divorce from his embittered wife. The other, Bruno, is a rich socialite with an alcohol addiction and a deep seated hatred for his tight-fisted father. I am simplifying things here, as there are undercurrents and side issues that will come into play, a baggage of repressed feelings and unackowledged yearnings that would put a roomfull of psychologists to work for a year to untangle - Oedipal, Faustian, homosexual, envy, greed, anxiety - the list could go on and on, but basically Guy sees himself a a straight shooter, and Bruno is revealed even from the first statements a raving psychopat. The object of Highsmith's study is then not Bruno, already damaged goods, but Guy, and the path that will lead him to abandon all his principles and participate in the psychopat's game.
Mention of the game, means that from this point forward the review will contain spoilers, so tread carefully if you are unfamiliar with the story or with Alfred Hitchcock's famous movie adaptation.
- - - -
The plan is for each man to solve the other man's problem. Bruno will get rid of Guy's wife, and Guy will knock off Bruno's father. In this way both will have unbreakable alibis, and the police will find no motive for the murders, since the two men are supposedly strangers to one another. As any sane person would do, Guy rejects the offer without a second of doubt. But Bruno is another kettle of fish.
- "What do you want, Bruno?"
- "Something. Everything. I got a theory a person ought to do everything it's possible to do before he dies, and maybe die trying to do something that's really impossible."
The first half of the novel concentrates more on Bruno's side of the story, and it was a page turner for me, despite the repulsive feeling I got from dwelling so long inside the mind of a deranged person. Patricia Highsmith is the writer that sets down the standard by which other psychological thrillers will be judged in the future. Arguably, her Ripley books are more subtle and better argumented, but the major themes and the style is already evident here, in her first novel. One quote I think is enough to illustrate my point:
Oh, yes, he had felt terrific power! That was it. He had taken away a life. Now, nobody knew what life was, everybody defended it, the most priceless possession, but he had taken one away. That night there had been the danger, the ache of his hands, the fear in case she made a sound, but the instant when he felt that life had left her, everything else had fallen away, and only the mysterious fact of the thing he did remained, the mystery and the miracle of stopping life.
The second part of the novel switches focus on Guy, and here is where I started to struggle a little, not with the pacing, which remains tightly wounded, but with the lead character's motivations. I found the weakening of the ethical principles in the young arhitect a touch too abrupt and convenient for the needs of the plot. The moral blackmail that Bruno exercises on Guy is still within the parameters of that deranged mind, but the response of Guy is for me out of character - a debilitating weakness and a torturous chain of reasoning that swings wildly from denial of facts to fatalistic acceptance of Bruno's arguments. Case in point: despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Guy still pretends Bruno has nothing to do with the death of his first wife. I know temporary insanity is an accepted pledge in American courts of law, but for me this a cop out. To illustrate the kind of debate that goes oninside Guy's head, I have picked up one of his monologues:
... love and hate, he thought now, good and evil, lived side by side in the human heart, and not merely in different proportions in one man and the next, but all good and all evil. One had merely to look for a little of either to find it all, one had merely to scratch the surface. All things had opposites close by, every decision a reason against it, the male and female, the positive the negative.
Had this novel been writen by a male author, such association between evil and the female principle would have been cause for burning at the stake by feminists. Why did Highsmith include it here? Is it a mirror of the relationship between sexes in the early 50's? Or some other deeper disappointment in her own sentimental liaisons? Since the author preferred to be discreet about her personal life, my speculations here are gratuitous, but it is interesting to note the level of analysis that can be supported in the behaviour observations of Highsmith's characters.
The third part of the novel started to drag on for me, as the lines are already drawn in the conflict of personalities between Bruno and Guy, the action is concluded, and the only unresolved issue is the aftermath of the crime. Who will punish the successful criminal? Society seems unable to, and an appeal to Bruno's conscience is an exercise in futility. The only one left is Guy, and his late arrival misgivings rang as contrived to me as his earlier acquiescence to Bruno's demands. In all honesty, Highsmith is still brilliant in her exposition and in her ability to go from the personal to the problems of society as a whole, but as a reader I was surprisingly eager to get it over with, not caring one way or another if Guy embraces his Dark Side, or if he returns to the fold of the responsible social animal.
Conclusion: mixed feelings, admiration for the author's talent, coupled with personal dislike for one of her main characters (surprisingly, not the openly corrupt one). The rank of the novel among the classics of crime fiction is well deserved. I have started with a controversial theory, and I would like to finish on a more ambiguous note, one that is easier to get behind, even as it deconstructs most of my arguments above:
Logic doesn't always work out, so far as people go.
May 17, 2021
I thought it was too long—my Norton paperback weighed in at 281 pages, small print—but wow, for 1950, this was some crazzzzzzy writing. Or 2021 for that matter. 😐 I think the one thing that stuck with me was the message that good and evil are not on opposite ends of a spectrum, but with enough pressure or the right circumstance, a saint can be pushed into doing a dastardly evil thing. The story line built by Patricia Highsmith did have some plausibility to it. It’s almost like: There but for the grace of God go I.
Well, another thing that stuck with me is don’t talk to strangers on a train. She or he might talk me into murdering their father, and I might casually say I would like So-and-So dead, and that stranger might turn maniacal or homicidal on me and instantly want So-and-So dead (to please me) and then unbeknownst to me kill So-and So. 😮 Limit one’s conversation with strangers on trains—and planes— to the Weather Channel. 😐
I have Highsmith’s The Selected Short Stories (Norton, 64 stories, ~500 pages)) and Nothing That Meets the Eye: The Uncollected Short Stories of Patricia Highsmith (Norton, 436 pp, 28 stories). This novel has piqued my curiosity, along with an article in The London Review of Books about her life, to dip into these short stories no doubt, and soon!
Note:
Quote from book on two sides of us…The duality within
• And yet, for all his loathing, Guy recognizes in Bruno the opposite half of himself. “The doubleness of everything — you know, the positive and the negative, side by side. Two people in each person. There’s always a person exactly the opposite of you, somewhere in the world, and he waits in ambush.”
Reviews:
• https://crimereads.com/paula-hawkins-...
• https://medium.com/read-watch-write-r...
• http://literarycornercafe.blogspot.co...
• https://www.literaryladiesguide.com/b...
Well, another thing that stuck with me is don’t talk to strangers on a train. She or he might talk me into murdering their father, and I might casually say I would like So-and-So dead, and that stranger might turn maniacal or homicidal on me and instantly want So-and-So dead (to please me) and then unbeknownst to me kill So-and So. 😮 Limit one’s conversation with strangers on trains—and planes— to the Weather Channel. 😐
I have Highsmith’s The Selected Short Stories (Norton, 64 stories, ~500 pages)) and Nothing That Meets the Eye: The Uncollected Short Stories of Patricia Highsmith (Norton, 436 pp, 28 stories). This novel has piqued my curiosity, along with an article in The London Review of Books about her life, to dip into these short stories no doubt, and soon!
Note:
Quote from book on two sides of us…The duality within
• And yet, for all his loathing, Guy recognizes in Bruno the opposite half of himself. “The doubleness of everything — you know, the positive and the negative, side by side. Two people in each person. There’s always a person exactly the opposite of you, somewhere in the world, and he waits in ambush.”
Reviews:
• https://crimereads.com/paula-hawkins-...
• https://medium.com/read-watch-write-r...
• http://literarycornercafe.blogspot.co...
• https://www.literaryladiesguide.com/b...
November 26, 2016
3.5 stars. After reading The Talented Mr. Ripley, I confess I really did want to like this book more. But, given this was her debut novel it's pretty darn good and does make one think: Could a manipulative psychopath really drive one to this kind of evil by the arousal of fear?? A seemingly normal “Guy” and psychopath Bruno are strangers on a train whose secrets revealed lead to Bruno suggesting they create the “perfect murder". Guy doesn’t take him seriously, just wants to be rid of him, and is eventually led on a downward spiral. Patricia Highsmith certainly has a knack for creating unlikable characters and disturbing scenes--and it was worth listening to the audiobook for the true essence of the characters’ distinct voices. Strangers on a Train was more like watching a train wreck—it made me really uncomfortable yet somehow I couldn’t bring myself to turn away, but wanted to get past it quickly!
October 4, 2023
This was just the book to end the unofficial summer season with. This was another "I've seen the movie" book for me and I was not disappointed. It's very different from the movie and I think both stand highly for their own reasons. I found this to be a tense, taut read and I really loved the things that surprised me. I did miss the tennis featured in movie-Guy's character, no offence to book-Guy who is an architect.
I have to admit, I was very impressed by this being Highsmith's first book. That woman knew how to tell a story. I have to give all kinds of credit to the true creep factor of Miriam being stalked and killed simply because Guy picked up a stalker himself. The vitriol directed at her from a man who'd never met her was fairly terrifying.
I found some new-to-me words I learned that I'll add as soon as the holiday is over. One of my favourite reasons for reading old books is picking up new-to-me words. I've listed them below with a shout-out to my fellow word buddy Bob (aka Bobby Lee), who seems not to be around here any longer. Bob, wherever you are, I'll always think of you when I come across new words in my reading and those BLCC reissues. :)
Words I came across that may be useful in word puzzles and crosswords:
marcel - curling iron wave in hair.
prarie oyster - hangover cure drink (that sounded vile).
roundheel -slang for promiscuous woman.
There are a number of great lines that I wanted to remember, here are a few:
"The desperate boredom of the wealthy, that he often spoke of to Anne. It tended to destroy rather than create. And it could lead to crime as easily as privation."
"Miriam. Miriam Joyce." "Hm-m. Smart or dumb?" "She's not an intellectual. I didn't want to marry an intellectual."
"My mistake was in speaking to him. My mistake was in telling a stranger my private business."
"That's the mistake," Guy said aloud, "that nobody knows what a murderer looks like. A murderer looks like anybody!"
Definitely recommended. Also, while it's important to be polite, do be wary of talking to strangers about your personal business. LOL
I have to admit, I was very impressed by this being Highsmith's first book. That woman knew how to tell a story. I have to give all kinds of credit to the true creep factor of Miriam being stalked and killed simply because Guy picked up a stalker himself. The vitriol directed at her from a man who'd never met her was fairly terrifying.
I found some new-to-me words I learned that I'll add as soon as the holiday is over. One of my favourite reasons for reading old books is picking up new-to-me words. I've listed them below with a shout-out to my fellow word buddy Bob (aka Bobby Lee), who seems not to be around here any longer. Bob, wherever you are, I'll always think of you when I come across new words in my reading and those BLCC reissues. :)
Words I came across that may be useful in word puzzles and crosswords:
marcel - curling iron wave in hair.
prarie oyster - hangover cure drink (that sounded vile).
roundheel -slang for promiscuous woman.
There are a number of great lines that I wanted to remember, here are a few:
"The desperate boredom of the wealthy, that he often spoke of to Anne. It tended to destroy rather than create. And it could lead to crime as easily as privation."
"Miriam. Miriam Joyce." "Hm-m. Smart or dumb?" "She's not an intellectual. I didn't want to marry an intellectual."
"My mistake was in speaking to him. My mistake was in telling a stranger my private business."
"That's the mistake," Guy said aloud, "that nobody knows what a murderer looks like. A murderer looks like anybody!"
Definitely recommended. Also, while it's important to be polite, do be wary of talking to strangers about your personal business. LOL
September 20, 2015
Warning: Mild spoilers ahead.
As I have said earlier, it is a dicey affair to one-star a classic on GR. Some people may see it as blasphemy: and maybe, one can expect a lynch mob. But what to do? I did not like this book: could not bring myself to finish it even; so one-star is the only option.
My only acquaintance with Patricia Highsmith before this novel was The Terrapin, a terrifying short story. So I was pretty sure I would like this novel, even though the story was familiar to me from Hitchcock's famous movie of the same name. I was prepared for some lack of suspense because I knew the story - but was not at all prepared for boredom, which is all the book gave me.
The movie itself has plot holes - only to be expected in any Hitchcock film, as he himself touts his use of the MacGuffin - but the director always gets away with it because of his masterly handling of pace and suspense. Well, the book is even worse. IMO, the story itself is a huge plot hole. Two strangers, Guy Haines and Charlie Bruno casually meet on a train. Guy tells Bruno about his unfaithful wife, who wouldn't give him a divorce. The clearly deranged Bruno suggests that he kill Guy's wife, and Guy return the favour by killing his troublesome father: a sort of murder swap. He refuses the screwy offer, but Bruno goes ahead and carries out his part of the plan anyway - then begins dogging Guy's footsteps to carry out his part of the "bargain", and from there onwards it's a descent into darkness.
The problem I had with this premise is the tenuousness of the case against Guy that Bruno could muster. It is true that he could cause some unpleasantness, but which court would convict a man based on the unsupported testimony of another, about an extremely dubious "contract", based on a drunken conversation in a train? And why doesn't Guy confide in Anne, his girlfriend, at the beginning itself? Can psychological guilt be so strong? For me, it was unbelievable.
Also, I found the writing to be ponderous and a chore to get through. Deep psychological examination of the characters' mindset would have been fascinating in a serious work of literature: but in a suspense novel, it became tedious after a while. I got seriously fed up with Guy's ruminations.
Maybe I'd have enjoyed the novel if I had come to it without expectations. Maybe I'd have enjoyed it if I had not seen the movie at all. Maybe.
But I doubt it.
As I have said earlier, it is a dicey affair to one-star a classic on GR. Some people may see it as blasphemy: and maybe, one can expect a lynch mob. But what to do? I did not like this book: could not bring myself to finish it even; so one-star is the only option.
My only acquaintance with Patricia Highsmith before this novel was The Terrapin, a terrifying short story. So I was pretty sure I would like this novel, even though the story was familiar to me from Hitchcock's famous movie of the same name. I was prepared for some lack of suspense because I knew the story - but was not at all prepared for boredom, which is all the book gave me.
The movie itself has plot holes - only to be expected in any Hitchcock film, as he himself touts his use of the MacGuffin - but the director always gets away with it because of his masterly handling of pace and suspense. Well, the book is even worse. IMO, the story itself is a huge plot hole. Two strangers, Guy Haines and Charlie Bruno casually meet on a train. Guy tells Bruno about his unfaithful wife, who wouldn't give him a divorce. The clearly deranged Bruno suggests that he kill Guy's wife, and Guy return the favour by killing his troublesome father: a sort of murder swap. He refuses the screwy offer, but Bruno goes ahead and carries out his part of the plan anyway - then begins dogging Guy's footsteps to carry out his part of the "bargain", and from there onwards it's a descent into darkness.
The problem I had with this premise is the tenuousness of the case against Guy that Bruno could muster. It is true that he could cause some unpleasantness, but which court would convict a man based on the unsupported testimony of another, about an extremely dubious "contract", based on a drunken conversation in a train? And why doesn't Guy confide in Anne, his girlfriend, at the beginning itself? Can psychological guilt be so strong? For me, it was unbelievable.
Also, I found the writing to be ponderous and a chore to get through. Deep psychological examination of the characters' mindset would have been fascinating in a serious work of literature: but in a suspense novel, it became tedious after a while. I got seriously fed up with Guy's ruminations.
Maybe I'd have enjoyed the novel if I had come to it without expectations. Maybe I'd have enjoyed it if I had not seen the movie at all. Maybe.
But I doubt it.
October 27, 2020
Any kind of person can murder.
There is no mystery to be solved in Strangers on a Train. Almost from the beginning we know who the culprits are and how the murders are committed.
Strangers on a Train is rather a psychological study of the people committing a crime; it delves into the darkest corners of an ordinary person’s mind and studies the effects this atrocious act has on his life and of the people close to him.
There is no mystery to be solved in Strangers on a Train. Almost from the beginning we know who the culprits are and how the murders are committed.
Strangers on a Train is rather a psychological study of the people committing a crime; it delves into the darkest corners of an ordinary person’s mind and studies the effects this atrocious act has on his life and of the people close to him.
March 22, 2021
Leído en la sala "Libro de Cine" de Telegram perteneciente al Club literario Atreyu.
He tenido sentimientos encontrados con mi primer acercamiento a la obra de Patricia Highsmith.
Me suelen gustar novelas con más ritmo, pero creo que precisamente lo que más he disfrutado del libro ha sido esa evolución pausada de los acontecimientos y el cómo iba aumentando la presión poco a poco como si estuviéramos en un espacio cerrado y nos fuéramos quedando sin aire. A todo eso hay que añadir una narrativa brillante "hacia adentro" mediante la cual, la autora nos hace unas completísimas visitas guiadas por las mentes de los personajes.
¿Por qué se me caen un par de estrellas de las cinco que por todo lo anterior merecería? Porque todo el peso de la trama recala en los hombros de sus dos protagonistas… y no empaticé ni con el mal en mayúsculas de uno ni con la gestión de la culpa del otro. Pese a que no entendí muchas de sus decisiones, creo que son grandísimos personajes y que la autora hizo un muy buen trabajo con ellos.
"Pero el amor y el odio, pensaba ahora, el bien y el mal, vivían juntos en el corazón humano; en vez de hallarse distribuidos desproporcionalmente en los hombres, formaban una especie de bloques monolíticos, uno bueno y otro malo".
El bloque monolítico de todo lo bueno que tiene la novela (que es mucho) creo que supera con creces a las pegas que en ella pudiéramos encontrar. ¡Ha sido una gran LC! 🚂👤👤
He tenido sentimientos encontrados con mi primer acercamiento a la obra de Patricia Highsmith.
Me suelen gustar novelas con más ritmo, pero creo que precisamente lo que más he disfrutado del libro ha sido esa evolución pausada de los acontecimientos y el cómo iba aumentando la presión poco a poco como si estuviéramos en un espacio cerrado y nos fuéramos quedando sin aire. A todo eso hay que añadir una narrativa brillante "hacia adentro" mediante la cual, la autora nos hace unas completísimas visitas guiadas por las mentes de los personajes.
¿Por qué se me caen un par de estrellas de las cinco que por todo lo anterior merecería? Porque todo el peso de la trama recala en los hombros de sus dos protagonistas… y no empaticé ni con el mal en mayúsculas de uno ni con la gestión de la culpa del otro. Pese a que no entendí muchas de sus decisiones, creo que son grandísimos personajes y que la autora hizo un muy buen trabajo con ellos.
"Pero el amor y el odio, pensaba ahora, el bien y el mal, vivían juntos en el corazón humano; en vez de hallarse distribuidos desproporcionalmente en los hombres, formaban una especie de bloques monolíticos, uno bueno y otro malo".
El bloque monolítico de todo lo bueno que tiene la novela (que es mucho) creo que supera con creces a las pegas que en ella pudiéramos encontrar. ¡Ha sido una gran LC! 🚂👤👤
May 24, 2021
4.5 Stars.
This book had me spellbound right from the beginning. Highsmith slowly built up the tension and never broke it.
Two men, Guy Haines and Charles Bruno meet on a train. A night of drinking and sharing of their lives ensues. Bruno comes up with what he thinks is a fail proof plan of murder. Guy becomes ensnared in his plan, and his life slowly starts unravelling.
“He had merely to crush the other part of himself, and live in the self he was now.”
There are so many psychological elements that can be explored throughout this book. There is ,of course, the fight between good and evil in one’s own self. There is definitely an Oedipal complex and there is an underlying tone of homosexuality, which would be very interesting to discuss. Highsmith is brilliant at characterization- to watch Guy and Bruno evolve was absolutely masterful. I thought of them as one person-one portraying the good and one the evil. But as the author shows, we all can go from one to the other when forced. Watching the two of them felt like a cat and mouse game. Yes, there is lots of tension in this one, but a really good kind of tension.
I was a bit disappointed in the ending after finishing it, but on further reflection, I changed my mind and think she gave us a perfect conclusion!
Really enjoyed this one. Have been trying to go on to another book, but the writing pales after this one.
This book had me spellbound right from the beginning. Highsmith slowly built up the tension and never broke it.
Two men, Guy Haines and Charles Bruno meet on a train. A night of drinking and sharing of their lives ensues. Bruno comes up with what he thinks is a fail proof plan of murder. Guy becomes ensnared in his plan, and his life slowly starts unravelling.
“He had merely to crush the other part of himself, and live in the self he was now.”
There are so many psychological elements that can be explored throughout this book. There is ,of course, the fight between good and evil in one’s own self. There is definitely an Oedipal complex and there is an underlying tone of homosexuality, which would be very interesting to discuss. Highsmith is brilliant at characterization- to watch Guy and Bruno evolve was absolutely masterful. I thought of them as one person-one portraying the good and one the evil. But as the author shows, we all can go from one to the other when forced. Watching the two of them felt like a cat and mouse game. Yes, there is lots of tension in this one, but a really good kind of tension.
I was a bit disappointed in the ending after finishing it, but on further reflection, I changed my mind and think she gave us a perfect conclusion!
Really enjoyed this one. Have been trying to go on to another book, but the writing pales after this one.
January 10, 2025
It's because of this book that parents tell their kids not to talk with strangers! 😂
Finally, I finished this book! The premise was very good, you kill my father and I kill your wife and no one will no because we have no motive. It promised to be an interesting reading but, for me, it wasn't. I thought it would be a thriller with the killings and the fear of being discovered, but it was more about the fixation Bruno had about Guy and his life.
I know no one should get away with murder but I kind of sympathized with Guy and I was hoping he wouldn't get caught, but he put in his head that he had to talk with Owen, dumb!
Finally, I finished this book! The premise was very good, you kill my father and I kill your wife and no one will no because we have no motive. It promised to be an interesting reading but, for me, it wasn't. I thought it would be a thriller with the killings and the fear of being discovered, but it was more about the fixation Bruno had about Guy and his life.
I know no one should get away with murder but I kind of sympathized with Guy and I was hoping he wouldn't get caught, but he put in his head that he had to talk with Owen, dumb!
August 28, 2015
A genius idea drowned in a soup of too many uninteresting characters. Most of the book could have been edited down to one taut, terrific short story.
November 19, 2018
Budding architect Guy Haines is currently in the process of trying to divorce unfaithful wife Miriam, during a train journey he meets Charles Bruno a playboy how’s father won’t allow him to have access to all of he’s money in fear of wasting it.
Bruno strikes up the idea of him killing Miriam, whilst Haines returns the favour of murdering Bruno’s father.
Two deaths - No motives.
Guy laughs the suggestion off until Bruno confirms that he has killed Miriam whilst Guy was away in Mexico.
I’d already seen the Hitchcock movie so new the basic premise, the two do differ as this is more character driven with Bruno’s blackmailing and subsequent obsession with Guy.
This slowly gripping psychological thriller just seems to hook me, I’ve even seen a play adaptation which I also loved.
The original idea of murder swapping is so so clever.
The book clearly brings Highsmith’s own sexuality to the fore with Bruno’s actions towards Guy.
It one of them stories that just appeals to me in any form.
Bruno strikes up the idea of him killing Miriam, whilst Haines returns the favour of murdering Bruno’s father.
Two deaths - No motives.
Guy laughs the suggestion off until Bruno confirms that he has killed Miriam whilst Guy was away in Mexico.
I’d already seen the Hitchcock movie so new the basic premise, the two do differ as this is more character driven with Bruno’s blackmailing and subsequent obsession with Guy.
This slowly gripping psychological thriller just seems to hook me, I’ve even seen a play adaptation which I also loved.
The original idea of murder swapping is so so clever.
The book clearly brings Highsmith’s own sexuality to the fore with Bruno’s actions towards Guy.
It one of them stories that just appeals to me in any form.
August 22, 2026
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️✨
Había visto la película tantas veces que estaba seguro de haber leído la novela también. Se pueden imaginar mi sorpresa al comprobar que en un punto fundamental de la trama ambas se bifurcan por caminos opuestos. Tan distintos son los rumbos que toman ambas obras que bien se puede decir que Hitchcock traicionó a Highsmith. Yo me posiciono en favor de la novela y su planteamiento del dilema moral, si bien la película es mucho más efectista y su final trepidante.
Ya saben de qué va: dos extraños se encuentran en un tren y uno de ellos, Bruno, le propone al otro, Guy, cometer un crimen perfecto. Bruno es un niño rico, narcisista, con complejo de Edipo, vago, hedonista, caprichoso, misógino, con serios problemas con el alcohol y acomplejado por su padre. Guy es un arquitecto brillante y ambicioso que ha conseguido todo lo que tiene a base de esfuerzo. Está a punto de casarse con Ann, procedente de una familia acomodada. Sólo tiene un obstáculo, Miriam, su anterior esposa, una mujer manipuladora que le fue infiel en numerosas ocasiones y que ahora se opone al divorcio.
La tesis del libro la expone con rotundidad Bruno (curiosamente, la tesis se demostraba con total claridad en el libro con el que compaginé la lectura de este: «La vida al desnudo», de Jean Hatzfeld)
Una tesis que Guy explicitaba como sigue:
Esa convivencia del bien y el mal en cada uno de nosotros, una suerte de Jekyll y Hyde, esa cercanía entre opuestos es lo que explica la atracción que tanto Bruno como Guy sienten el uno por el otro, si bien las razones difieran y cada uno considera esa atracción de forma muy distinta.
Con la otra tesis del libro tengo más dudas:
Pienso que la conciencia no es siempre una cárcel, creo que no es necesario ser un psicópata para escapar de ella.
Había visto la película tantas veces que estaba seguro de haber leído la novela también. Se pueden imaginar mi sorpresa al comprobar que en un punto fundamental de la trama ambas se bifurcan por caminos opuestos. Tan distintos son los rumbos que toman ambas obras que bien se puede decir que Hitchcock traicionó a Highsmith. Yo me posiciono en favor de la novela y su planteamiento del dilema moral, si bien la película es mucho más efectista y su final trepidante.
Ya saben de qué va: dos extraños se encuentran en un tren y uno de ellos, Bruno, le propone al otro, Guy, cometer un crimen perfecto. Bruno es un niño rico, narcisista, con complejo de Edipo, vago, hedonista, caprichoso, misógino, con serios problemas con el alcohol y acomplejado por su padre. Guy es un arquitecto brillante y ambicioso que ha conseguido todo lo que tiene a base de esfuerzo. Está a punto de casarse con Ann, procedente de una familia acomodada. Sólo tiene un obstáculo, Miriam, su anterior esposa, una mujer manipuladora que le fue infiel en numerosas ocasiones y que ahora se opone al divorcio.
La tesis del libro la expone con rotundidad Bruno (curiosamente, la tesis se demostraba con total claridad en el libro con el que compaginé la lectura de este: «La vida al desnudo», de Jean Hatzfeld)
“Cualquier persona es capaz de asesinar. Es puramente una cuestión de circunstancias”
Una tesis que Guy explicitaba como sigue:
“¿Sabes cuál es la mayor verdad del mundo, Bruno?... Que todas las cosas llevan su lado opuesto muy cerca”
Esa convivencia del bien y el mal en cada uno de nosotros, una suerte de Jekyll y Hyde, esa cercanía entre opuestos es lo que explica la atracción que tanto Bruno como Guy sienten el uno por el otro, si bien las razones difieran y cada uno considera esa atracción de forma muy distinta.
Con la otra tesis del libro tengo más dudas:
“La ley de la sociedad era benévola comparada con la ley de la conciencia”
Pienso que la conciencia no es siempre una cárcel, creo que no es necesario ser un psicópata para escapar de ella.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 4,311 reviews