The Readers discussion

Leave your comments and questions related to Strangers on the Train here by August 26th. With any luck Simon and I will be together on August 27th to record. Simon and I will be silent on substance on this thread until after the episode airs. Since I have already read the book I will pop in to see what is going on, but am going to keep my thoughts to myself.

RULES:

1. No chewing gum.
2. Number 1 isn't a real rule.
3. This thread will be replete with SPOILERS. You've been warned.
4. Number 3 really isn't a rule either, it's more a warning.

And finally, did I mention SPOILERS? I think I did. You've been warned thrice.

Trying to listen to the audio and I'm having a rough time of it. Think I need to get the actual book. Hopefully, that will help!

I listened to the audio (a couple of years ago) because BALKI was the narrator. That was my first experience with Bronson Pinchot as audiobook narrator, but not my last, I thought he was fantastic.



I could definitely tell this was the same author as The Talented Mr. Ripley - creepy, desperate, overanalyzing characters who live in their minds but make bad decisions. After reading this on a cruise in 2011 I watched the film but I think it worked better in my head.

I also listened to this on audio narrated by Bronson Pinchot and I agree, he was amazing. I particularly thought his "Bruno" was great; he captured Bruno's petulant, nut-job, creep factor perfectly.

I had never seen the film and I thought it was Bruno's mother Guy was supposed to kill (because of Throw Momma from the Train), so I was surprised when it was his dad instead. Bruno definitely had a mommy-complex.

I think one could read his relationship with Guy as homoerotic for sure, but I think what he really wanted was to BE Guy; like inhabit him.

I also wonder if Gerard from The Fugitive wasn't modeled on the private detective of the same name from this book. He was dogged, for sure.

Ruthiella wrote: "I think one could read his relationship with Guy as homoerotic for sure, but I think what he really wanted was to BE Guy; like inhabit him.."
I think this is one reason the film disappoints; because of the era they tone that underlying tone down. It just works better in the book. Sorry, Hitchcock. :D

There are some things I didn't quite understand. I could reread the book, I suppose, but there are so many other things I want to read, so maybe you all paid better attention than me and can help me out.

From the beginning, I couldn't understand why Guy thinks he can't go to the Palm Beach job if Miriam goes along. Of course he doesn't want her around, but it's not like she's going to be on the job site all day long. Is it some architect's version of writer's block? You're actually going to pass up the commission of your life for that nonsense? Maybe that's one reason why Hitchcock changed his career to tennis player, because this line of thinking is a little weak in my opinion. Then later on, Guy thinks he owes the Palmyra job to Bruno. He already had it, basically, so why was it crucial for Miriam to be dead in order for it to be realized? It's not obvious to me, so if someone could explain that, I'd appreciate it.

That wasn't crucial for me to enjoy the book, though. I mostly ws in it to see how Guy was going to get rid of Bruno. On page 129, I wrote, "I'm starting to think Guy will just kill Bruno, not Bruno's dad." Later, I wondered why Guy tried to rescue Bruno. I suppose I didn't pay close enough attention, so I missed something.

Finally, I find it interesting on p. 158 that Guy felt more guilt after MIriam's death than now, after actually killing Bruno's dad. There are many reasons that might be true. I'm interested in your thoughts on this.

Gripping read but so claustrophobic I can only read in short bursts. Can't remember much about the film but will definitely be getting the DVD when I've finished.

This is an amazing portrait of a psychopath and how he touches the psychopathic qualities we all try to hide.

Juliette wrote: "This is an amazing portrait of a psychopath and how he touches the psychopathic qualities we all try to hide."

Also, starting the book out with that ginormous "boil" on Bruno's head was ingenious.

Balki! No way! Now I wish I had listened to the audio.

I enjoyed this as a summer read, but got really frustrated at Guy. Was he supposed to be the sane one? Ugh, so many bad decisions.

I bought the Bronson PInchot recording on Audible but then forgot I had it. I read it old school.

Finished it last night. Read it old school and will not watch the movie ( I have sadly lost the ability to sit still long enough to watch movies, but am grateful I can sit still and read!). A few thoughts: I really liked it. I knew the premise from and old episode of the TV series, CSI where Grissom and Jim figure out 2 people are murdered in Las Vegas utilizing the plot from the movie/book. It did not detract from my reading. Like Rebekah, I couldn't understand why Guy would give up The Palmyra if Miriam were alive, but the more I thought about it, I think Guy recognized her as a sociopath who would undermine his professional life. At the end, when Guy was trying to justify her death he really thought only Owen loved her and when Owen denied it, I really thought she might be one of those people no one likes. Although that should have made Guy realize sooner that Bruno was a sociopath, which he seemingly did not. Guy was way too weak for my taste and Bruno honed on that characteristic right away.
Now my questions:

Why did Anne not dump Guy? I realize she loved him, but she had a career and money and could have had any man. She put up with all the months of moodiness without being married to him. I realize this is a very 2010s sensibility on my part.

For a book smart person, why was Guy so passive with Bruno? Copious amounts of alcohol doesn't explain all of it.

If Bruno had not drowned, would he have drunk himself to death? I think so and fairly soon after. Guy seems to take on a lot of misplaced guilt, so if Bruno had not drowned, would he have confessed to Owen.

Would Gerard have solved the case without the confession? Lots of cabdrivers and bartenders remembered Charles and Guy months later. I am not sure that would really happen unless you are extremely memorable and Guy seemed average to me.

Thanks for a fun summer read and I am looking forward to hearing you both discuss it!!

Rebekah wrote: "There are some things I didn't quite understand. ....From the beginning, I couldn't understand why Guy thinks he can't go to the Palm Beach job if Miriam goes along."

I think you have to understand the social mores of the era.
Miriam wanted to stay with Guy because she couldn't marry the father of the child and being divorced and pregnant would have been socially unacceptable.
The pregnancy was proof of her adultery and a reason Guy could present in court in order to divorce her. If Guy stayed married to Miriam and allowed her to live with him while she was pregnant it would be tantamount to condoning her behaviour. (at one time in English law if you slept under the same roof as a cheating spouse it was considered you condoned their behaviour and could no longer divorce them for adultery)

Miriam would be using him to gain respectability which makes Guy look weak and guilable. She might carry on having affairs or been seen publicly with the baby's father. All scandalous behaviour that could ruin Guy's reputation.
Also if his wife is known to be present Guy would have to take her with him to social events and he could not possibly carry on his relationship with Anne.

Even in the 1950s not everyone would have cared about such considerations but Guy relies on his good reputation both socially and professionally in order to gain commisions.

I saw the film years ago when I was a child and found Bruno very creepy.
Only as an adult did I discover the film was based on a book. I always intended to read it but never quite managed.
At present I am about 2/3 through my distengrating Penguin paperback.

I do find Guy very frustrating. As much as he says he loves Anne their relationship is so polite and lifeless.
Guy seems to lack agency and I can't think why Bruno likes him so much.
But then Bruno has so many issues, the drink, the Oedipus complex and the homoerotic obsession with Guy.

Aghh I did not enjoy this! I think I prefer 'who dunnits' to 'why dunnits'. Or, if exploring the 'why' with the murderer as the protagonist, then they need to be fun. As mentioned above, Guy is weak and sooo frustrating - why let himself be drawn into this?- and Charles is mad & tiresome.

The slow pace, unlikeable characters and lack of humour made it an unenjoyable read. (Compare eg Wilkie Collins, Dickens or Steinbeck who bring a light touch to dark subjects; even Lionel Shriver in We Need to Talk About Kevin has a wry humour).

If there was a homoerotic theme it seems Highsmith has played it down because of the era she wrote in. But it occurred to me that this story would have made more sense if Guy & Charles were attracted to each other. As it is, without that, Guy's feelings veering from hate to friendship just seem overwrought.

On the other hand, his descent into madness shows the impact of being stalked.

It did make me wonder (before I threw the book across the room), who is more unhinged, Charles or Guy?

Are we all susceptible to crime if we meet the wrong person on a train?

It was interesting to read this after The Long Drop by Denise Mina, which dealt with a similar theme more economically. Intelligent, perceptive writing in both cases but I preferred The Long Drop.

Can't wait for your discussion!

I find it curious (and a little annoying) that they let Gerard poke around in their lives without making any objection. He is a private dectective so can have no right to interupt their lives in the way that he does.
Nowadays they would just shut the door in his face and refuse to answer his questions, and he would probably be charged with stalking or invasion of privacy.

Well I have finished it - thank goodness for small mercies!

I did find this book too long by a few pages – but then I do most books, because by the time I’m near the end I’m already lining up my next read (just call me the Don Juan of books).

I agree with Esther and Kate. Guy was such a drip for a seemingly smart and switched on bloke. Anne would have dumped him quick smart if she was half the woman she seemed to be.

I found the pages flying when Bruno was on them. Guy and his endless rationalising and hand wringing was a slower read.


Details I liked:

How Guy didn’t lose his critical architect eye even when he was about to commit murder (re the gables on p 135-136 when he first looks at Bruno's house). 

Bruno adding names to his address book to fox the detective then eating the paper with Guy's name.

When Mr. Faulkner talks about hunting and asks "Any good with a gun, Guy?

Esther wrote: "Well I have finished it - thank goodness for small mercies!"

Amen.

Thank you, Esther, for your help in understanding Guy's motivations. That makes sense.

Great comments! After this one I went ahead and read "The Price of Salt" by Patricia Highsmith. In discussing her works with a friend, she mentioned that Patricia's writing is cold. I think she is right. It worked in "Strangers in a Train" but didn't in "The Price of Salt." In "The Price of Salt" I had a difficult time believing in the romantic connection because of the coldness of the writing. But in Strangers on a Train, it worked because you were left with trying to understand what was going on in each of their heads. She did a good job of trying to unfold how Guy got to the point that he did.

I'm reading The Secret History now. It has a similar theme of bad choices and then trying to cover them up. It must be a common fear that we could find ourselves in a position that murder seemed the sensible way out! It is interesting how many authors explore this theme of what it would take to get someone to the point of murder.

Carol wrote: "Great comments! After this one I went ahead and read "The Price of Salt" by Patricia Highsmith. In discussing her works with a friend, she mentioned that Patricia's writing is cold. I think she is ..."
I agree with you Carol about "The Price of Salt". The only copy of "Strangers in a Train" I could get through my library was an audio book of selected novels and stories and it included "The Price of Salt", so I listened to it as well. I just didn't feel the relationship between Carol and Therese.

Thanks, Esther, for the incite into Guy. Maybe I don't have a 1950 mentality, but I just kept thinking Guy could tell Miriam she wasn't going to Florida with him. She can go to Florida if she wants, but she wouldn't be living with him and she'd have to pay for her own place to live.

I also want to know what it was that Bruno recognized in Guy that made him reach out to him on the train with the double murder off, which he'd clearly been thinking about. I wonder how long he'd been riding around on trains, looking for someone he thought might take him up on it.

I actually sort of liked the ending with the phone off the hook. Well played, Gerard, well played.

Looking forward to Simon and Thomas' discussion!

I thought that Bruno reached out to Guy because he was attracted to him. There was a sexual attraction, I think, but also, as Ruthiella says, Bruno wanted to be like Guy.

Very familiar with the Hitchcock film version of Strangers on a Train, and I've seen it several times. I listened to an audio version of the novel while on a road trip and was floored by the differences between book and movie. Some of my favorite features were missing in the book--the strong facial resemblance between Anne's sister and Miriam (and how it's so apparent from the get go but not ever mentioned till well into the movie) and of course the out-of-control carousel climax of the film.

I had Hitchcock's casting in my head as I listened too--Robert Walker was so dementedly creepy as Bruno, and Marion Lorne as Bruno's mother.

But it was hard for me to believe Guy's stupidity--how could anyone be dumb enough to destroy the incriminating messages from Bruno that were sent even before any murders took place!?

It was an interesting listen, but overall I prefer the movie. For those who haven't seen it--highly recommended.

This was a brilliantly written story of a very unsavory subject.

This sentence:

""He had hit both his fists against the wall simultaneously, then seized the sandwich and broken its insolent triangular mouth and burnt it, piece by piece, in the empty fireplace, the caviar popping like little people, dying, each one a life." Wow.

One does get weary of the obsessive interior dialogue, but that's exactly the effect the writer wanted to create. Highsmith attempts to convince the reader that anyone could commit murder given the right circumstances. Or as she puts it: "But love and hate, {Guy] 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."

As in so many novels and films it's frustrating to feel that all could have been avoided if someone had just spoken the truth at the proper time. After Miriam was killed, shouldn't Guy have come forward? But already guilt was mastering him. He shouldn't have spoken of Miriam the way he had, and the man that spoke like that wasn't consistent with the image he had formed of himself. If he had already known that he was all evil and all good, perhaps then he could have come forward without the threat to his sense of his own identity.

I imagined a different ending. When they all got on the boat near the end, I thought there would be an accident and Bruno would fall over and Guy would try to rescue him (as actually did happen), but it would have been better if Guy were able to reach him and the frantic Bruno had pulled Guy down and they had both drowned wrapped in a smothering embrace. That way, Anne would have been spared the humiliation and pain of discovering that Guy was a murderer. I really liked Anne.

Strange, I keep hoping that Gerard will somehow understand and not turn Guy in. Why am I rooting for a murderer? But maybe Guy will finally find some peace in prison where he can feel he makes atonement. Or can anyone ever atone for murder?

I have just seen the film again. Bruno was as creepy as I remembered but I preferred the film Anne because she was less 'brittle' and more of the kind of grown-up companion Guy could confide in.

Ha! Just listened to the episode and came straight here to change my name. It WAS Serenkinitity, which I thought up for my knitting blog years ago - serendipity but with knit instead of dip. Somehow Google, or one of them, clung onto it in the dark reaches of the internet and even when leaving comments on blogs I had to use it. But now I am Cindy, just like in real life and easier to pronounce.

Great episode, laugh out loud a lot of times (not bad when one is listening on a rainy Monday morning in January). Can't wait for the next readalong.

*Serenknitity - even I got it wrong above - Doh!

CINDY! Good to meet you.

I must say when I saw there was a new comment on this thread, I didn't want to look because I thought it was going to be another question about when the discussion might get posted. Then I noticed the episode had indeed been posted. Hooray. Now I need to go listen to see what we said.

Great discussion, thank you Simon and Thomas! Please do another summer read along, even if we all find the book frustrating and it takes a few months for the discussion, it’s hilarious and so worth it.

I listened to the episode and I think it greatly benefited from being a second recording.

I enjoyed it and started listening to the first summer read, which posted on... what was it, Boxing Day? Hahahaha. But I just read The Night Guest so I wanted to hear what you had to say.

Loved the discussion! One of my favorite episodes of The Readers. I hope you will have another summer read. I read the book several years ago but still enjoyed all the comments and your reading of them. What an insightful bunch of followers you have.

I didn't like the book but loved the podcast. Thank you for doing it twice.

Great discussion Thomas and Simon! I didn't read the book. I waited for the podcast : ) It's always so fun to listen to you two!

I enjoyed the discussion. You (Simon, Thomas, and the folks who commented) all hit on the things that stayed with me after reading it. I'm not sure I'll be in a rush to read another Highsmith, but she's also not going on my Don't Read list.

Thanks for taking the time to re-record the episode after the first didn't work out!

I didn't really have any plans to read any Highsmith, and didn't read the book, but I really enjoyed listening to your discussion. It seems like there was a lot of potential in the book that could have been handled better with a different writer?

Inspired to read it, especially before listening to the episode. Hope the conversation is still humming in a week or so when I’m done.

I was in my car today, listening to this episode, and I about drove into a snowbank when Thomas said, "Here's a comment from Kathie with a K and an IE." I had totally forgotten I had posted a comment last summer.

All in all, very interesting discussion. Looking forward to this year's summer choice. Thanks for a great podcast.

Hmmm, how about a winter book? or a quarterly book?

Carol, don't make me get the usher. ;)

😜

I laughed all the way through this podcast. It was well worth the wait. I apologize for making an off-topic comment in this thread. :)

Signed Ruthiella (superfan)

Ruthiella, I started it when I brought up reading the price of salt along with strangers on a train and commented that the writing was cold and I didn't believe in the relationship. So sorry for getting you in trouble! 😲

Carol wrote: "Ruthiella, I started it when I brought up reading the price of salt along with strangers on a train and commented that the writing was cold and I didn't believe in the relationship. So sorry for ge..."

LOL! Clearly Carol you are the troublemaker on this thread!

I listened to the podcast and then decided that I wanted to read the book...actually the audio which I though was very well narrated. I wasn't keen to read Highsmith because I had seen the film Carol based on The Price of Salt and thought it was a really bad movie.

Didn't know that Strangers on the Train was also a film...now I want to find it.

I was mesmerized by the book and didn't feel there was a slow or dull moment. I loved that Highsmith picked the names Guy and Bruno as Guy is the sort of "every man" that we can identify with while Bruno sounds like "brute"...which he is.

The way that Bruno boxed Guy in and convinced him to commit murder was astonishing and although most people would never go so far, she demonstrates how innocent people can be manipulated into doing things that would never occur to them on their own.

I didn't particularly like Anne...I felt she was disloyal to Guy and could not figure out why she kept inviting Bruno to their home, wedding, boating, etc. I kept thinking that Bruno was going to murder her next because of his attraction to Guy and his "hatred of women".

So many questions about the ending....how did Gerard figure out that Guy went to Houston instead of Canada? And how did he manage to get into Guy's room and establish an open phone connection to eavesdrop on Guy's conversation with Owen?

I agree with the poster who said that the Gerard's intrusions would not be tolerated in today's society. The minute that detectives started snooping around, everyone would have been lawyering up.

Anyway, Simon and Thomas, thanks for turning me onto a great read that I wouldn't have found on my own.

Comin' in tardy after finishing the book and the podcast episode:

I enjoyed the episode. I'm new (couple of months) to the podcast and am a fan.

To start, I liked the book. I like her writing style. I also listened to the audiobook and Balki did a great job with the narration. Who knew he had it in him?! Apparently his mom did, because he was raised on the classics. His audible profile reads, "Bronson Pinchot, an Audie® Award–winning narrator, received his education at Yale University, which filled out what he had already received at his mother's knee in the all-important areas of Shakespeare, Greek art and architecture, and the Italian Renaissance. He restores Greek Revival buildings and appears in television, film, and on stage whenever the pilasters and entablatures overwhelm him." (Yes, I was curious and took a detour down a very brief rabbit hole on him).

I did not mind the claustrophobia. I like that. Could have even turned the dial up on it. That's one of the best parts about reading a book, as opposed to other mediums. The best authors put words to sensations and experiences in ways that make us realize that we've had that experience but hadn't quite put those words together in our minds or otherwise.

My only exposure to Highsmith is this book and the Talented Mr. Ripley movie. I am seeing a pattern in which men are either psychopathic or insubstantial (Guy and Jude Law character). Could this be how Highsmith felt about men? If so, it helps me a little get over her making the key features of multiple male characters both homoeroticism and psychopathology. Unless she was going for the " denying yourself makes you go insane? Which is also not cool. But, I don't think that's what she was doing. So, back to "not helpful, Trish, not helpful."

The other commonality between these two stories is the angelic female. Weak. And/But angelic. Not sure if this plays out in Carol/Price of Salt.

I find the confession the least plausible-not that he may have confessed, but to who and how. I think ending with Guy going on with his life was more in keeping with his character. Authors and readers often want protagonists to evolve. But the evolution got rocky at the end there and not entirely natural. The idea of them drowning together raised by another listener would also have been fitting: sinking into madness.

I did wonder why Bruno was attracted to Guy and thought so highly of him. I get Simon's point that he was theoretically very handsome, but that wasn't enough reason for me. I see a handsome guy sometimes. Then once he opens his mouth he may or may not become incredibly unattractive. But, then again I'm not a sociopath . . . as far as we know. It seems that Bruno saw Guy as more impressive than Patricia Highsmith, which strains the credibility. Though a friend of mine theorizes that the day they meet is not the first time that Bruno tried to cross paths with Guy (slightly different take than that he was just on trains trying to meet anyone who might go along with his idea). So maybe Bruno admired Guy before he even met him, based on who he was on paper and being not such a well person never incorporated the actual experience of Guy into his opinion. I do think Bruno had an interesting tension about Guy's "goodness." He saw Guy's lack of interest in the plan as something that made him an exceptionally good person. But, his view of Guy was not tarnished by Guy actually killing his father. It only seemed to raise his esteem. I think this is probably an intentional artifact of Bruno's madness, but there could have been some attention paid to how he convinced himself of that. I do agree that Guy doesn't seem closeted.

Appreciate that you have this discussion space. Can't wait to listen to the episode about a Readers Retreat and finding out about the summer read.

Simon wrote: "So pleased you all enjoyed this episode. We will definitely be doing another summer read and talking about in in September. Hopefully with some of you! In real life. If you haven’t listened to the ..."

I'm really hoping that your retreat works out for me. I'm thinking Booktopia was big in Asheville, NC, but no longer works there, so wouldn't it be a perfect spot? Not that many bookstores though. Just one great one. And an hour from me so maaaaaybe that's why I care.

But there's another indie store, Hub City Books, an hour from Asheville, and Greenville SC has two indie bookstores (an hour from ASheville) and Athens GA has another one....

Just a thought! Okay, a selfish thought!