noir read of the month #5: Strangers on a Train, by Patricia Highsmith

[Nancy, Co-Moderator]

I do hope I can get a few people to join me as I read Strangers on a Train by Patricia Highsmith for my noir pick of the month. I love Highsmith because of her ability to bring her readers inside her characters' heads.

If you choose to read along, please think of some questions, some comments, or other insights -- let's make this a good discussion.

[IShita]

I read this just a couple of months ago. It takes time but does justice to Highsmith in regard to its characters. However, I feel she's written better works. Not to put you down, but the book is a little predictable. And it's irksome how some events take place. However, how they fall into the picture is very skillfully done by Highsmith.
Won't say any further about it unless you start reading. Would love to join in on the discussion :)

[Nancy, Co-Moderator]

Ishita wrote: "I read this just a couple of months ago. It takes time but does justice to Highsmith in regard to its characters. However, I feel she's written better works. Not to put you down, but the book is a ..."

You're not putting me down. And as far as "predictable," that's also in the eye of the beholder. You have to remember that for its time, it was something very different.

[IShita]

It was. But when you read her works like The Riplad or the Price of Salt, your expectations kind of reach a certain point and when you find this book inconsistent with those standards, it kind of let's you down a little. But that only goes for the turn of events, not the characters or their psychology. This book for me is a bit too "simple" in terms of occurrences.

[Nancy, Co-Moderator]

Well, personally speaking, I don't go into any book with certain expectations -- I let the book speak to me. It's much like reading Kazuo Ishiguro's new novel -- it was widely panned because it wasn't up to his normal standards, but I ended up loving it. While I was reading it, I wasn't mentally comparing it to what he'd written before. That's just how I roll.

[IShita]

Haha, that's the way to go, girl!

[Bill]

I read this back in 2011, I think after I'd seen the movie based on the book. She's got a unique style, not necessarily one that draws you in, but her stories are still interesting. It's amazing how many shows I've seen that have been influenced by this book; I remember a CSI that followed the basic premise, for instance. It'll be interesting to read what other people think.

[Nancy, Co-Moderator]

Bill wrote: "I read this back in 2011, I think after I'd seen the movie based on the book. She's got a unique style, not necessarily one that draws you in, but her stories are still interesting. It's amazing ho..."

I'm definitely looking forward to rereading it.

[Arlene]

I love books by Ms. Highsmith, I'm really looking forward to this reading this book.

[Nancy, Co-Moderator]

Very nice. I'll be eager to hear your thoughts.

[Franky]

I'm in. Now I just need to find some time to read this one. I just bought it too. Looking forward to the great insights and comments :)

[Nancy, Co-Moderator]

could someone please reply to this post...I am not getting notifications from goodreads. Thanks!

[Bill]

Nancy wrote: "could someone please reply to this post...I am not getting notifications from goodreads. Thanks!"

Does this work, Nancy?

[Jan C]

Got this book last night on Kindle.

[Nancy, Co-Moderator]

no, it didn't Bill, but thank you.

[Franky]

Finally got to start reading this tonight. I just read the first chapter and think Highsmith really sets up who these characters are, or will be, in that first scene on the train. Bruno, very calculating. Seems to know how to push the right buttons to find out about Guy's life and his failed marriage. I'm really intrigued to find out what happens next!

[Nancy, Co-Moderator]

Franky wrote: "Finally got to start reading this tonight. I just read the first chapter and think Highsmith really sets up who these characters are, or will be, in that first scene on the train. Bruno, very calcu..."

I can finally open my book tomorrow. Looking forward to it.

[Arlene]

For some reason Guy reminds me of the main character in Crime and Punishment.

[IShita]

Oh Bruno never fails to surprise! He's the most interesting character in the book.

[Nancy, Co-Moderator]

(view spoiler)[ Bruno is obviously in love with his mother (hide spoiler)]. He's giving me a case of the willies just reading him, and I'm just starting Chapter three. Even if someone quit reading at this point, you just know somehow Bruno is bad news here.

[IShita]

(view spoiler)[ oh yes, there is definitely that incenscous undertone to it. I sometimes even thought he had wet dreams about her! Don't remember whether he does or not :P I don't think he does though. (hide spoiler)]

Bruno is really interesting. One of the best psychological protagonists I've come across but again, all of Highsmith's characters are pretty interesting. I don't think how much I can say at this point without giving anything away, so I'm just gonna wait for you to read further.

Franky- he is exactly that. Manipulating and calculating. He knows how to get his way and he knows exactly what strings to pull. He's exploitive.

[Nancy, Co-Moderator]

I think you may mean (view spoiler)[ "incestuous." My feeling is that absolutely no woman can live up to his mother's standards' no matter who she may be. As he notes, "And essentially one kind of women...At one end it's two-timing and the other end it's a whore." (hide spoiler)].

[IShita]

yes, sorry. Autocorrect does that to me sometimes. It hates me so.

(view spoiler)[ exactly. It's like he wants to see his mother in every woman and when he does, he can't take it. That's a good quote you brought up. Come to think of it, it feels like he's talking about his mother when he says "it's two timing". As if he imagines his mother sleeping with him and therefore two-timing his father and thus calls her a whore. Man Bruno is messed up! (hide spoiler)]

[Nancy, Co-Moderator]

I'm not so sure that at this stage I can agree, actually. (view spoiler)[ Right after Bruno waxes on about women, Guy asks him "what about women like your mother?" Bruno: "I never seen a woman take so much. She's good looking, too, lots of men friends, but she doesn't fool around with them." He doesn't include his mother with the whores. At least not now -- it's much more like he views her as some kind of saint, a sort of paragon of womanhood." (hide spoiler)]. But as I said, I'm just getting started.

When did you read this?

[IShita]

(view spoiler)[ yeah but, who wouldn't defend the ones they love? No man likes to think of his woman as a whore! He does love her, no doubt. His love could actually be called "pure" so he looks at his mother under that light. However, I might be wrong. This all comes from what I remember. (hide spoiler)]

I read it sometimes during the end of last year. Don't remember it exactly but I do remember quite a lot of it. Have you read Ripley series? I read the first book and it is much better. I'd even say brilliant!

[Arlene]

I agree with the comments about his mother and I too have read the first book in the Ripley series and I thought it was a better as well

[Arlene]

Arlene wrote: "I agree with the comments about his mother and I too have read the first book in the Ripley series and I thought it was better as well"

[Nancy, Co-Moderator]

Have you finished the book, Arlene?

[Arlene]

Not yet I'm 81% in I am loving the book. I have watched the movie what a difference.

[Nancy, Co-Moderator]

You're way ahead of me. I read these books very slowly, flag pages & take notes.

[Arlene]

WOW Nancy, even so I think you read more books than I do so far I have only read 27 books this year.

[Nancy, Co-Moderator]

Arlene wrote: "WOW Nancy, even so I think you read more books than I do so far I have only read 27 books this year."

I usually have 2 going -- an upstairs book and a downstairs book, totally different from each other in genre so It makes it easier.

[IShita]

Upstairs, downstairs books? I thought I was the only one who did that!

Arlene, I haven't seen the movie yet. Which is better in your opinion?

[Arlene]

Without giving anything away since you have not seen the movie, I would say the movie because it made more since and I usually never think the movie version is better than the book!!

[Nancy, Co-Moderator]

Ishita wrote: "[spoilers removed]

I read it sometimes during the end of last year. Don't remember it exactly but I do remember quite a lot of it. Have you read Ripley series? I read the first book and it is much..."

you might want to give it a quick reread ... I think I've found what motivates Bruno up to the point of the murder(chapter 11):

1. (view spoiler)[ -- remembering that Guy had told him Miriam was pregnant --"Women who slept around made him furious, made him ill, like the mistresses his father used to have, that had turned all his school holidays into nightmares because he had not know if his mother knew and was only pretending to be happy, or if she did not know at all." and

2. His life up to now had been pathless, and seeking had known no direction, finding had revealed no meaning....So long had he been frustrated in his hunger fora meaning of his life, and in his amorphous desire to perform an act that would give it meaning... Now on the train to Metcalf, he had direction. He had not felt so alive so real..." (hide spoiler)]

[IShita]

(view spoiler)[ Yeah, I remember that first part. Apart from that, I think what made him so firm on his decision was his obsession with Guy. That first part gave him strong incentive but his driving force was this obsession. This is a curious combination. And for me, it was this complexity of his nature that made Bruno my favorite character.

That being said, from where you are in this book, I don't like how things go on from here. I mean, it's not the events themselves but how they come to happen. I won't say much in regard to this for one word is all I need to describe it and as simple as it is, it might effect your opinion. (hide spoiler)]

Loving the discussion so far, Nancy :)

[IShita]

Arlene- (view spoiler)[ the only thing that irked me about this book was how easy the events were! I mean, there wasn't a bloody twist in it! He saw Mariam, made an assumption and bam, here she was. Just like that. I know this is supposed to be a psychological thriller but there should at least be some "thrill" in it! I'd rather call it a psychological crime. That makes more sense to me.

Also, you were talking about difference between the two. How's the movie different? (hide spoiler)]

[Nancy, Co-Moderator]

Where is it listed as a psychological thriller?

[IShita]

Wikipedia and Google books.

[Nancy, Co-Moderator]

I personally think that Highsmith's novels are more a study of psychologies, and crime is the vehicle through which she explores them.

[Arlene]

Ishita wrote: "Arlene- the only thing that irked me about this book was how easy the events were! I mean, there wasn't a bloody twist in it! He saw Mariam, made an assumption and bam, here she was. Just like tha..."

Ishita the difference which makes so much more sense to me. I totally agree with you about the issues in the book. It is all such a neat package.

[IShita]

Nancy, that's one way of looking at it.

Arlene, exactly- it's such a neat package. Now that encourages me to watch the movie! :)

[Arlene]

I really liked the movie. Nancy I really agree with you regarding Highsmith. I think The Talented Mr. Ripley is a perfect example of what you are saying

[Nancy, Co-Moderator]

Here's where we differ, Ishita. The way I see it, it's not so much about the plot or the "package," but rather what is going on inside these two mens' heads. That's where Highsmith excels.

[Arlene]

One, did it show in my last posting that I had spoilers?

Nancy, I'm not sure I get what was going through Guy's head at all. I totally understand Bruno, hates dad wants dad dead etc., so it's just him and mom. But Guy, whats up with him. Even if someone hounded me non stop, I would just go to the police.

[Nancy, Co-Moderator]

Arlene wrote: "One, did it show in my last posting that I had spoilers?

Nancy, I'm not sure I get what was going through Guy's head at all. I totally understand Bruno, hates dad wants dad dead etc., so it's just..."

That's why it pays to go slowly and carefully into the characters' minds. More later!

[IShita]

Nancy, it is about all the psychology, yes but then there is more to a book than that. I mean, if she only wanted to do that, she could've written a psychology book! When people buy a book, they expect a lot from the author. And with Highsmith- yes she's known for her psychologically twisted characters but she is also known for her plots. Read the Riplad, it's an epitome example!

Arlene- I quite agree and quite not. I mean, I get it, he's disturbed and tormented by Bruno but that guy has no real character of his own. It's all just confused ramblings inside his head, and you just never know what he's thinking! But it's how all this mess inside his head gets him to act is what his character is all about. He's not strong, he's not level headed and he's easily influenced. Bruno is firm, he's assertive and he's really manipulative. Bruno is fascinating in his firmness but Guy has an appeal to his deficits.

[Nancy, Co-Moderator]

Did you not catch the parts about (view spoiler)[ opposites and the "cast-off self?" (hide spoiler)]. Pure Guy. He definitely does have a character of his own -- which is where the conflict is. And I will also say, which is where I disagree with you and a number of other people re Ripley (and I don't feel badly if my opinion is not shared because everyone's response is different) that she takes you again into the amoral mind -- and the psychopathology is key to understanding that book.

[Nancy, Co-Moderator]

I guess part of my point is that in someone else's hands, this plot wouldn't make as good of a story without Highsmith's keen focus on psychopathology. I'm agreeing to disagree with you and that's okay.

[IShita]

Even so, Nancy, that doesn't make up a lot of it. And when I say "his own character" I mean he hasn't got a strong one. And I don't mean morally or psychologically strong, i mean one that has a lot to it. He's simple in the sense that he hasn't got much layers to him. He is what he is. He's disturbed but he's simple. Predictable I could say.

Second, I don't disagree with you about the plot or the importance of psychology in really getting into such plots, it's just how the events happen that irks me about this book. They're so simple. I mean, things happen just like that. I wish there was some complexity, some twists, some thrills in it but there aren't. And the reason it irks me is because this was such a strong plot and one that had such scope! It's like a wasted ammunition. If only she'd gone on and beyond and made these events a little more challenging! It's not the amorality of the human mind, it's the simplicity of events. Quite a few of my favorite characters are amoral!