Strangers on a Train

    
  
    
      When most people hear Strangers on a Train, they think of the film by Alfred Hitchcock. The film version was made in 1951; a year after the novel was published. Since then it has also been adapted for the theater and its theme has been used in many television shows as recently as 2009 when Castle based an episode on this central idea. Strangers on a Train by Patricia Highsmith, in my opinion, is an extremely intelligent, disturbing read that forces the reader to re-examine human nature. Before beginning this book I had an idea of what to expect, having read The Talented Mr. Ripley for a class in college. I knew that this novel would, at times, be uncomfortable to read yet impossible to quit without knowing it's ending, just as Ripley was for me. Many critics have commented on the sense of claustrophobia and paranoia that Highsmith's writing often evokes and I feel that those words perfectly describe the two novels I have read so far. Throughout this novel in particular, I felt as though the story was continuously weighing on me. The distress and agony that Bruno inflicts upon Guy is absolutely tangible.
    
     Strangers on a Train is based on the premise that everyone is capable of murder. Though I am not sure I agree with the point Highsmith is trying to make, I am once again impressed by the way she juxtaposes humanity with iniquity. The novel begins on a train where we meet Guy Haines, an architect living in New York that is traveling back to his hometown in order to divorce his estranged wife Miriam. Guy is a simple man that believes in love, honesty, and integrity. Enter Charles Bruno, a spoiled young man of leisure that despises his father and is traveling to meet his mother, whom he is a bit too fond of. Bruno is a man full of his own ideas and not exactly interested in men or women, with the exception of his mother, until he meets Guy. After a very brief conversation Bruno invites Guy to his private room for dinner and, based on what I can only imagine is instant infatuation, proceeds to tell him about his plan for a perfect murder. In this plan, Bruno would kill Guy's wife while Guy is out of town and a few months later Guy would kill Bruno's father while Bruno is away, thus providing both with airtight alibis. Guy is so disturbed by this complete stranger and his outlandish proposition that he hardly knows how to respond and therefore excuses himself as soon as possible. A couple weeks later Bruno, undeterred, decides to carry out his plan and travels to Texas to murder Miriam. Bruno's obsession with Guy and the fact that Miriam's murder goes off without a hitch sparks a series of events that devolves the rational and just Guy Haines into an erratic shell of a man.

     This novel portrays two seemingly opposite men that end up at a similar conclusion, which then begs the question, "Can anyone be brought to murder?" The way Highsmith proves her theory is by taking a man initially disgusted by the thought of murder and illustrating the ways in which his righteousness and humanity are broken down until he is reduced to his most base form. I have to say, Highsmith makes her case quite well, though at the end of the novel I am left with more questions than answers. Therefore I want to end this post with questions instead of excerpts, as those are what remain with me this time.


What is it about Guy Haines that makes Charles Bruno, a vain narcissist, instantly taken with him?

What is it that Bruno immediately notices in a complete stranger that would make him certain he has found a partner in murder?

Why is it that a smart and sensible man would not choose a different path than Charles Bruno? Or was Guy not a sensible man, merely a weak man that was waiting for a dominant personality to unearth his true character?

Can a person become someone else, or is that the person they always were, they just didn't know it?

Why Owen Markman? It seemed clear that he did not love Miriam so why confess to him of all people?