Strangers on a Train

By: Patricia Highsmith

Narrated by: Bronson Pinchot

In Patricia Highsmith's debut novel, 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. 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 and proved her mastery of depicting the unsettling forces that tremble beneath the surface of everyday contemporary life.

©2015 Patricia Highsmith (P)2015 Blackstone Audio, Inc.

Forget what you know from Hitch’s movie, this is something wholly other.

I’m a Hitchcock fan from way back. And “Strangers” is one of my favorite films. Its sunny charm and crackling humor and steaming, churning pace make it fun and thrilling from engine to caboose.

After reading a Hitch bio, I decided to visit some of his source material and started here. The vast difference in narrative and tone are striking. Absent are the charm and humor. In their place is a brooding, dark, psychological study that at once mirrors society at large and struggles to make sense of a post-war world. Guy and Bruno’s roles are familiar, sure. But their motivations run much, much deeper.

Patricia Highsmith has a brilliant voice that situates the reader squarely in the killing mind. I wasn’t prepared for how emotional this book is, or how introspective and even frustrating. I’m a full-fledged Highsmith fan now!

I must add how very much I enjoyed Bronson Pinchot’s performance. He brought the book alive carefully, stealthily, like a lone whistle in the distance signaling the raging locomotive on its way.

Very heavy but amazing

This is not for the superficial reader. But if one enjoys analysis of human emotion, behavior.. Society and individual right vs wrong, and all the grey areas in between. This is a novel that takes one deep into that grey area. Not with boring rhetoric, but full of rich discovery of individuals conscious. Differentiating between the informed conscious and the fully "formed" and heavy developed.

Psychological thriller at its best!

Narration was excellent, characters brilliantly described. Story intense and well laid out. So much better than the movie by Hitchcock. Elaborate depth of characters and their personalities. Highly recommend.

Highly Entertaining

Highsmith makes an accurate exploration of human nature... How about removing the only obstacle to get what you want? the price is your peace of mind! I enjoyed this book very much.

Patricia Highsmith’s 1st Novel - Intense Psychological Drama

The first novel by Patricia Highsmith (“The Talented Mr. Ripley” series) is an intense psychological drama, wonderfully written, if occasionally a little hard to listen to, with a couple of plot twists, including the ending. Bronson Pinchot’s rendition is excellent.

Keyword: cathect

Good and evil, two sides of the same coin? This is a story that depicts the human struggle to integrate direct ones good and evil sides. Torn between his feelings ( rage, wish to kill his ex wife, and his IDEA (Plato) /ideals/Christian middle class "training" Guy , a self aware, intelligent, talented, gifted , but ambivalent "architect"/ builder of beautiful structures so graceful and attuned they confer grace, meets his opposite, while in transit - through the wasteland on his way to Texas. to divorce himself from the past so he can start a "new life' with Anne who is apparently 'pure' focused,productive and in control of her life. Guy arrogantly assumes he can interact with Charles Bruno without becoming magnetized or absorbed into him, but he is no match for the Devil. His sensibily is constructed and in process. His over-riding insistence in doing what is right requires him to self-condemn. When they meet on the train his mind is in turmoil and chaotic. He is therefore open and vulnerable to the fatal magnetism of Bruno. Guy is no match for the Devil. He is neither strong enough to integrate and evolve the dissolution and darkness nor stable enough in his constructed self, his architected self to differentiate himself entirely from the darkness, Bruno. The train rolls ceaselessly through a hellish wasteland, a featureless,beige undefined zone, where anything can happen, where one is suspended between here and there, past and future, a zone where one can start with one destination and find that trajectory fatally compelled in a completely other direction. Bronson Pinchot was brilliant as narrator and the perfect choice for this story

Great psychological insight

I was impressed by the story and well paced way in which Highsmith shows Guy’s slowly developing awareness of and insight in to himself. Very much enjoyed the complexity and forthrightness of the characters.

Excellent!

Found the plot clever and the idea of dual sides of a human being realistic. Reminded me of the Don Draper character in Mad Men.

Everything

Best combination of story and narration I have found- and I listen to A LOT of audiobooks

A Hardboiled Novel of Manners

Any additional comments?

If the term doesn’t already exist, I want to coin this a ‘hardboiled novel of manners’. There’s a genteel novel-of-manners feel to it as we get a lot of attention on the niceties of how properly to entertain someone, how architecture or fashion functions as social statement, and how people generally express themselves through subtle public gestures.

Highsmith’s central insight seems to be that civilization (or what she has her characters call “society” when it comes to the fore in the final pages) is a thin veneer on top of a species with the capacity to be real animals. Bruno says as much in the opening scene when he declares that every man is capable of murder, and that’s borne out. Everyone (except the saintly Anne) is indeed capable of murder. We need laws to keep us from going wild, but it isn’t clear society truly wants that. Most of the characters seem happy to tolerate murder as long as it doesn’t affect them. It just seems understood that people do bad things.

Highsmith uses that hardboiled axiom to explore the famous premise of the novel: two men meet on a train and toy with the idea of having each commit a murder on the other’s behalf. Without motives, each murderer would go unsuspected, yet each would accomplish his goal.

In Hitchcock’s hands, that story became a chance for him to explore his own favored notion of a protagonist who, somehow a little guilty or compromised (whether for listening to a murderous stranger on a train or simply peeping into a neighbor’s window) finds himself a fundamentally innocent man bound up with truly despicable people. Highsmith’s vision is much darker. [SPOILER] Most tellingly, Guy actually goes on to commit the murder that Bruno wants from him. Hitchcock gives his protagonist an out; he eventually pulls himself back from the “deal” he’s entered into. Highsmith’s protagonist gets broken down, however. Under the pressure of Bruno’s obsession, he proceeds to kill Bruno’s father. Later, he begins to echo many of the more Bruno’s more despicable quirks. At the end he determines that anyone can be broken down, that we’re all so fundamentally vicious that the right pressure can turn us all into characters.

There’s a crispness throughout most of this, but I think it falls a bit short in some of its psychological profiling. In the end, I simply don’t find Guy’s breakdown authentic. Compromised as he might be, I don’t accept why he doesn’t go to the police, especially when he has such compelling evidence of Bruno’s guilt. Highsmith writes compellingly, but I think this falls a bit short of the even darker, more efficient Talented Mr. Ripley.

As a final thought, I wondered whether this might in some way be a comment on the then only 6-7 years old Fountainhead. We have here a protagonist who realizes, eventually, that individuals stand apart from a rule-bound society. He feels called to do great things, and he concludes that simple things, like other people’s lives, shouldn’t hold him back.

I have not read The Fountainhead, but is there’s anything to my hunch, this is not a flattering comment. The novel ultimately does not endorse such a vision of the power of the great ego. Rather, we come to find Guy a somewhat small man, a man whose being broken down by another has undermined the real gifts he had. In fact, as I read it, this undermines Ayn Rand altogether. Skeptical as this is of what holds society together, it laments our alone-ness rather than celebrates it.

Highsmith remains the first acknowledged female star of the hardboiled tradition. If all you know of this one is the film, you’re in for a surprise.