Home > 1950, 20th Century, American Literature, Classics, Crime Fiction, Highsmith Patricia, Made into a film > Strangers On A Train by Patricia Highsmith

Strangers On A Train by Patricia Highsmith

February 15, 2012 Leave a comment Go to comments

Stranger On A Train by Patricia Highsmith. 1950. French title: L’inconnu du Nord Express.

Strangers On a Train is one of the books Guy gave me for our virtual Christmas gifts. Hitchcock made this novel into a film in 1951, shortly after the novel was published. The film is very famous, so I suspect you already know the plot. Let me refresh your memory. 

Guy Haines is a young architect in his late twenties. He made a mistake when he was younger, marrying the vulgar and clinging Miriam, back there in his home town of Metcalf, Texas. Their marriage is a failure and they’ve been living apart for two years now, he in New York, she still in Metcalf.  

At the beginning of the book, Guy is on his way to Metcalf, to get a divorce. Miriam is pregnant with another man’s child and she intends to marry him. She’s eventually ready to agree on the divorce. Guy is impatient to get away with it, both because he loathes Miriam and wants her out of his life and because he’s in love with Anne and needs his freedom to marry her.  

He meets Charles Bruno on a train carriage to Metcalf. Bruno starts talking to him and Guy is too polite to object and get rid of him. Against his better judgement, he accepts to dine with him in his private carriage. Bruno is on his way to Santa Fe to meet his mother. He hates his father and wants him dead, mostly to put his hands on his fortune and have his mother to himself. Bruno adores his mother. Although he’s usually rather private, Guy confides in Bruno who quickly understands how convenient it would be if Miriam were dead. The craziest idea occurs to him and he suggests Guy that they plan the perfect murder. He would kill Miriam and Guy would kill Bruno Senior. Guy refuses and turns his back on him, appalled. They part.  

When Miriam is murdered a few weeks later, Guy suspects that Bruno did it. Bruno confirms his suspicion and now claims that Guy must pay him back and do his part of the bargain.  

From then on, Guy’s life turns into hell.  

The confrontation between the two men is uneven as Bruno is unbalanced and fights dirty. I found the two characters complex and perfectly drawn. Patricia Highsmith excels in pealing of layers after layers of thoughts and feelings, exploring the minds of our two murderers.  

Bruno is a crazy man and his motives are based on muddy feelings. We are in an Oedipal story: he wants his father killed to have his mother. He loathes women in general and yet can’t stay away from Guy, even if it’s imprudent to contact him as the basis of their perfect murder is the impossibility for the police to make a connection between the two of them. The following quote is typical of Bruno’s behaviour and attitude towards life:  

I mean you’re serious and you choose a profession. Like architect. Me, I don’t feel like working. I don’t have to work, see? I’m not a writer or a painter or a musician. Is there any reason a person should work if they don’t have to? I’ll get my ulcers the easy way. My father has ulcers. Hah! He still has hopes I’ll enter his hardware business. I tell him his business, all business, is legalized throat-cutting, like marriage is legalized fornication.

I think Bruno is in love with Guy. We are in 1950 and Patricia Highsmith doesn’t write it openly but there are enough hints. Perhaps it’s such a taboo that Bruno can’t admit it to himself either. Bruno coaxes Guy into killing Bruno Senior. He appears out of thin air, crashes at Guy’s wedding with Anne, telephones at home, at the office, writes letters. He threatens to tell the truth to Anne or to the police, follows Guy at work. He pushes Guy over the edge.

The novel shows how Bruno slowly but surely breaks up Guy.  

Guy is an honest man, deep inside. He’s a quiet, serious man, climbing the social ladder thanks to his gift for architecture and his wedding with Anne. He’s deeply in love with her, a requited love by the way. She’s his anchor in real life when things get out of control with Bruno. Guy’s leading a double life. On the one hand, he’s a promising architect, his career is taking off and he’s busy building a life with Anne and designing creative buildings. On the other hand, he’s consumed with guilt and always on edge because of Bruno’s looming presence.  

Bruno tortures him, not physically of course, but mentally. Guy’s an fascinating character, serious, shy, professional and creative. His creativity relies on his ability to imagine the people who will use the building he’s drawing and to design an artistic line without neglecting the practicalities. It’s an interesting side of his character, it reveals his concern for other people and explains his anguish and his guilt. He’s split into two.  

Patricia Highsmith explores an intriguing idea: do we all have a murdered lurking in ourselves, ready to come out were our public self threatened enough. We all live with a dark side and here’s Guy thinking about it:  

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 slitting of the atom was the only true destruction, the breaking of the universal law of oneness. Nothing could be without its opposite that was bound up with it. Could space exist in a building without objects that stopped it? Could energy exist without matter, or matter without energy? Matter and energy, the inert and the active, once considered opposites, were now to be one. 

Highsmith’s style is amazing. Precise. Imaginative. Literary. She builds the tension in the story, adding one detail to the other, slowly driving the characters to the inevitable. I loved the Trollope Guy chose for me, this one is also excellent. Thanks Guy, now I’m looking forward to reading An Awfully Big Adventure by Beryl Bainbridge.

  1. February 15, 2012 at 11:45 pm

    I was thinking about No. 3 An Awfully Big Adventure last night and wondering if I’d made the right choice. Two down two to go. I loved Strangers on a Train. I’ve told you, I think, that it’s my favourite Hitchcock film and that I was surprised by how much darker the novel is than the film–although as you say how could they have dealt with the issue of homosexuality in the 1950s. Anyway I have a weakness for books and film set on trains. Perhaps it’s that chance meeting idea.

    Like

    • February 16, 2012 at 12:03 am

      So far, we’ve been good at choosing books for each other. I’m not worried about the Bainbridge. I’m worried about time to read and capacity to read in English since I’m exhausted.
      I agree with you, the book is much darker than the film. It didn’t show how unbalanced Bruno was and how tortured Guy felt. It’s another meaning of the phrase The Killer Inside Me. (Btw, the books were both written in the 1950s)
      How was censorship in films in the 1950s? Bad isn’t it? The homosexuality is a central issue here, it triggers Bruno’s behaviour.

      Like

      • February 17, 2012 at 1:28 am

        Film censorship was very active at the time. I just read a book that explored the idea of Elizabeth Taylor as a feminist icon with an emphasis on her films. The book included some excellent info regarding the censorship imposed on her films, and it was ridiculous. It wasn’t just a matter of cutting but script manipulation in some instances.

        I think this explains why noir fiction is so much darker than noir film as authors didn’t have censors breathing down their necks.

        The film version of Strangers on a Train had that good guy-bad guy frame whereas it’s much more muddled in the book

        Like

        • February 17, 2012 at 10:06 pm

          I agree with you, I remembered the film with a more clean break between the good and the bad guy. In the book, they are both guilty. None of them is really likeable.

          Like

  2. February 16, 2012 at 2:29 pm

    I haven’t read a lot of her books but what I read was always very good. I’m not going to read this any day soon, it does sound great but I still have at least two others of her books to read first. Homosexuality is a frequent topic in her books, I seem to remember. The Price of Salt is about lesbian love and was published under a pseudonym. Maybe her own inclination.

    Like

    • February 17, 2012 at 10:04 pm

      Sorry for the slow answer.
      As always I haven’t read the writer’s bio, so I don’t know anything about her sexual preferences. I thought her style amazing and I sure want to read some of her other books. Not soon, I’m afraid.

      Like

      • February 18, 2012 at 11:06 am

        She is a great writer, I agree. I got the first Ripley, This Sweet Sickness and Found in the Street and maybe others. My mother loved her and I just opened one of her book boxes and found those I just mentioned.

        Like

  3. February 19, 2012 at 2:59 am

    Amazing when you consider this was her first novel. She apparently had relationships with both sexes.

    Like

    • February 19, 2012 at 4:39 pm

      I didn’t know it was her first novel. Amazing indeed. She was discovered quickly then, the film was released in 1951 and the book published in 1950. Did she know Hitchcock?

      Like

  4. March 5, 2012 at 12:41 pm

    It does sound rather Oedipal.

    My great disappointment with the Ripley sequels, which are good but not great, is that the original has a very plain gay subtext whereas in the sequels there’s no hint of it. Put another way, in the first Ripley he’s clearly closeted, even from himself. In the sequels he’s straight. Similarly, in the original Ripley is utterly flawed, pathetic even, whereas in the sequels he’s highly competent.

    They’re good, but the original is dark and brilliant.

    I should read this, because I loved that first Ripley and liked the others well enough and this sounds more the former than the latter. Plus it is a great film, one of my favourites too (though I have soft spots for The Birds and Vertigo).

    Anyway, thank you for reminding me of it. I wonder if it’s kindleable. I shall check.

    Like

    • March 5, 2012 at 10:02 pm

      Thank Guy, he chose the book for me.
      I think you’d like it. It’s rather subversive and I’m interested in reading your thoughts about it.

      Like

  1. No trackbacks yet.

I love to hear your thoughts, thanks for commenting. Comments in French are welcome

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: