Strangers on a Train

I saw the Alfred Hitchcock movie just prior to buying the book. The movie is outstanding, but the book is even better!! Even though it was written in 1950, it translate well into today. Definitely worth reading.

i'd hesitated when it came to reading this book. like everyonelse i'd seen the hitchcock movie and i wasn't sure i wanted to deal with the original.the book is good but my reticence was justified.this is early middling highsmith.it's strangely"girlish".given highsmiths misogyny,that is surprising.it's also too cozily bourgeois.no i'm not a bourgeois basher!but there are points in this book where you can't wait for highsmith to whip out here nasty acid tongue and it just does'nt happen.i almost cringed while reading the description of anne's father making mint juleps.although i must admit i made a mint julep that night. it's with CRY OF THE OWL and THE TALENTED MR.RIPLEY that highsmith becomes highmith.you still see it as late as PEOPLE WHO KNOCK ON THE DOOR,with its marvelous biliousness and the abrasive cantankouresness of FOUND ON THE STREET.STRANGERS probably hurt highsmiths career precisely by being such a sucess so early on. it is a thriller -crime novel and probably lead to the typing of highsmith as a genre novelist.in reality it's one of the few books she wrote that neatly fits the genre. i suspect that she was hyped as a "master of suspense".one can only imagine the poor reader who was looking for a masterpiece of suspense reading EDITHS DIARY.even RIPLEY and CRY OF-her masterpieces-aren'nt really thrillers.they are simply very good novels written by a writer who was one of americas best.crime,thrills,even some mystery were not to be disdained but they were mediums of expression not the essence of the novels.SRANGERS however is a cime suspense novel and a good one.however highsmith evolved beyond this quickly.most readers did'nt.

This is another Patricia Highsmith novel with crisp and beautiful writing that has a strong charge to it. Her works are often described as being in the suspense and mystery genres, but these are really exacting drawings of motivations and thinking in a criminal context. She is the best.

I found the dialog between the two potential accomplices in the train was the best part of the book. The descriptions of the murders were OK, but we've read plenty of those in other books. The thing I found frustrating was the exploration of the characters. I'm still not sure whether Patricia Highsmith was trying to tell us there was homosexuality to explain the attraction between the two main characters. Did I miss something ? Personally, I don't care, but I wish she'd get on with it and let us know one way or the other. Perhaps the book is showing its age...

great read. Highsmith is a master of tension, the gradual losing of one's center and sanity at the hands of a madman. sometimes the madman is tom ripley, sometimes its a stranger on a train. read it quick and enjoy the gradual unraveling of the protagonist.

Although this is a classic psycho mystery and a movie was made of the book, I really did not like the two main characters and thought they were creepy. Our book group was very divided about the book, so perhaps if one enjoys psychological novels it would be more to their liking.

Guy Haines is on a train to Texas, hoping that his estranged wife Miriam will finally give him the divorce he needs so that he can marry his new love, Anne. When another passenger, Charles Bruno, begins to chat to him, Guy little thinks that this is the beginning of an odd relationship which will eventually spiral into murder...

First published in 1950, this is one of the early examples of what we'd now call “psychological thrillers”. Bruno has a difficult relationship with his rich father who controls the purse strings. He suggests to Guy that they swap murders – that Bruno will murder the inconvenient Miriam if in return Guy will murder Bruno's father. Guy tries to brush him off, but Bruno goes ahead with his part of the scheme. The thrust of the book is Bruno pressuring Guy to hold up his side of the bargain – a bargain Guy never agreed to, although he didn't explicitly refuse it either. We see the psychological effect on Guy and eventually on Bruno too, as the plot plays out.

Two things combined to give me perhaps overly high expectations of this book. The first is its stellar reputation as a masterpiece of the form and as an influence on later generations of crime writers; the second is Hitchcock's wonderful film adaptation, one of my favourite movies of all time. Having recently read quite a few of the books that Hitchcock adapted, I've realised that he often changed the plot almost out of all recognition, so I wasn't surprised to find that that's the case with this one too. While Hitch's story is of a good man hounded by a crazy one, Highsmith's version of Guy is of a weak and distinctly unlikeable character whose innate lack of moral strength is as much of an issue as Bruno's possible insanity. Oddly, it reminded me far more of Hitch's other great classic, Rope, in terms of the moral questions it poses.

Guy's inability to deal with the moral dilemma and subsequent descent into a state of extreme anxiety is done brilliantly, and the psychology underpinning Bruno's craziness is well and credibly developed. His unhealthy relationship with his mother in particular is portrayed with a good deal of subtlety – lots of showing rather than telling and, because we see it almost entirely through Bruno's eyes, it's handled with a good deal of ambiguity. However, the unlikeability of both characters made it hard for me to get up any kind of emotional investment in the outcome, especially as we don't really get to know the potential second victim, Mr Bruno, Senior.

Miriam is given more characterisation, but not much, and there's a kind of suggestion that she brought her fate on herself by her sexual promiscuity. But she's bumped off too quickly for the reader to develop any depth of feeling for her either way. Anne, Guy's new love interest, is a cipher for most of the book – there merely to give Guy a motive for wishing to be rid of Miriam and, later, to give him something to lose. For the most part we see Anne solely through Guy's eyes, as a kind of idealised opposite to Miriam, which makes her come over as rather passionless and insipid, and almost unbelievably trusting of this man that she clearly barely knows or comprehends (or she wouldn't dream of marrying him). In the end stages, we do get to see things from her perspective briefly, but she never really comes to life as a distinct character in her own right.

The writing is very good, particularly when showing Guy's increasing loss of grip on reality, but I found the pacing of the first half incredibly slow. Partly that may have been because I knew the story from the film, but the book seems to cover the same ground over and over again, with Guy angsting over his moral dilemma to the point where I didn't care what he decided to do so long as he finally did something! However, the second half seems to flow much better and the tension ramps up, so that in the end I was glad I stuck with it.

As you'll no doubt have realised by now, I'm not joining the legions of readers who have praised this unreservedly. For me, the unlikeability of the characters made it an intellectual rather an emotional read and, as I've said, the first half seemed to drag interminably. However, there's plenty to enjoy in it, especially in the later stages when it picks up pace, and it definitely deserves its reputation as a classic for its originality at the time. So I certainly recommend it, both as a good read overall and because it's always interesting to read a book that has been so influential on the genre.

“People, feelings, everything! Double! Two people in each person. There's also a person exactly the opposite of you, like the unseen part of you, somewhere in the world, and he waits in ambush.”

This is the classic story that Alfred Hitchcock used to make his movie “Strangers on a Train” and it still resonates today. It’s a film noir story about the basest parts of being human and how no matter how good you are; anyone can accept evil and change their life course.

Guy Haines meets Charlie Bruno on a train and allows himself to be seduced into telling him his secret hatred of his unfaithful wife. Bruno tells him of his hatred of his father and then tells him they should make a bargain and kill each other’s nemesis so there will be no ties to the two of them and their victims.

The next thing Guy knows is that his wife is dead and with dread, he realizes Bruno wasn’t just making small talk on the train but doing what they said. Soon Bruno is forcing Guy to follow through on his part of the bargain, or Bruno will tell his employer and his girlfriend what they had done.

I loved the suspenseful buildup in this novel and the emerging dread when Guy decides to follow through. Guy’s change from being an upstanding genius Architect, to his decline and fall into the depths of evil, which he begins to enjoy make the novel unique and powerful. It’s only his love of Ann that keeps him sane and able to function in the real world. Then Charlie introduces himself to Ann and Guy is doomed.

This is a great mystery suspense novel and I highly recommend it. It was Patricia Highsmith’s debut novel.

Strangers on a Train is the classic 1950 novel by Patricia Highsmith that most people probably didn't know was the basis for Hitchcock's movie of the same name. It's a fascinating story, and is quaint in its contemporary depiction of technology as it relates to all things involved with travel, communication and engineering. It's a great step back in time.

The story is wonderfully classic, though it may not seem a bit dated by current standards. This may sound strange, but I found the progression of the story to follow the same track as someone who becomes addicted to a drug and sees their life impacted by it in so many different ways. I won't go into too many details of that description in order to preserve the storyline and prevent spoilers, but I couldn't help reflecting on the analogy at various times in the novel.

The ending was not what I was expecting, but I felt was very appropriate. I don't think many people will like the ending, but I thought it was refreshing and made sense for where the story was heading.

Audiobook note: Bronson Pinchot did a wonderful job narrating the story, giving distinct voices to the sophisticated architect Guy Haines, while portraying the bumbling alcoholic Charles Bruno with the slurred, spoiled affectations appropriate for his character. All in all, a wonderful performance.

Strangers On A Train, is, as is usual with a Highsmith novel, intriguing.

Two men meet by chance on a long, overnight, train journey.

Wealthy, dissolute, needy, alcoholic Charles Bruno is classically and dysfunctionally Oedipal. He hates his father, and is unusually close to his mother who is doting and overindulgent. Bruno has achieved nothing in his life, and is progressively wasting it, surrendering to infantile ragings and sulkings, unable to take responsibility for himself. He is nevertheless a man of high intelligence, possessed of a curious puppydoggish charm, with an odd sort of compulsive charisma which can overpower seemingly stronger characters.

Guy Haines is his (seemingly) polar opposite. He is a rising star in the world of architecture. A man of vision in his field, he is creative, dynamic, self-motivated, hard-working, innovative and highly ambitious. He is clarity and light to Bruno's muddy, confused formlessness. However, Guy does have one seemingly fatal mistake in his past - an early marriage to a chaotic, feckless and unsuitable woman. The reason for Guy's presence on the train is he is travelling to Metcalf in order to insist that Miriam gives him the divorce he has been after for so long, and which she is withholding. And this despite the fact that the marriage ended due to her infidelities. Guy is intending to marry his true soulmate, Anne, a woman who is his own source of lightness - self-motivated, warm, creative, balanced and intelligent. She embodies the clarity, reason and intelligence he aspires to develop still further in himself.

So what could two such dissimilar men find to connect them together, following a passing-the-time conversation on a long journey?

Bruno unveils a fantasy, a seemingly offensive and ridiculous idea - the two men, who are thrown together by chance, unknown to each other, unlikely to ever meet again, should commit the perfect, because motiveless, murder for each other. Bruno will kill Miriam; Guy, Bruno's father. Now of course upright, cerebral, reasoning, Plato-reading Guy recognises that Bruno is a little deranged, and quite pathetic.............

Clearly things are going to happen, and the central relationship in the book will be that between the two diametrically opposed men, one `good' one `bad', one strong and one weak. And it is the subtly insidious changeover between the two, how the weak becomes strong, and the strong weakened. Highsmith is always fascinatingly deeply delving into dark psychology, into the shadow self, and is terrific on sabotaged lives, particularly where the sabotage is self administered.

She sets up from the start the reader to be on the side of the upright Guy, who is always referred to in narration by his first name, just as in the third person narration sociopath Bruno is distanced from us, the reader, by using his surname.

What I particularly like about Patricia Highsmith's take on characters who are dysfunctional, or journeying to become so, is that not only is she excellent in winding up the tension higher and higher, but she makes the reader collude in deviant and aberrant behaviour. Even in Strangers on a Train the reader may find that they want one of the murderers to get away with their horrible crime. In some ways `Strangers' almost acts as a precursor to her later series with a wonderfully charming plausible villain - Tom Ripley, in the Ripley series of books. What is dreadful is that we want Ripley to succeed, she makes us party to events, and makes us identify with Ripley. In `Strangers', Bruno, the sociopath, is too much of a loser for that to happen, we sit inside Guy's head as he steadily departs from his upright path and comes closer and closer to inhabiting `Bruno world'

It took me some time to finish this book - my hands were sweating too much, and I was feeling too nauseous and anxious. As this was a re-read, I knew what was going to happen. It's Highsmith's skill that it is the why and the how of the story which work so well , not only the `what happens next and in the end' .

Though I must admit that the mechanics of the final scene in the book failed to be quite plausible to me (can't say more, spoilers - though telephones play a part)

And I had at some point seen the loosely related Hitchcock film - much was changed - starring Farley Grainger as Guy - turned into a tennis player - and Robert Walker as Bruno. And Hitch's ending had nothing to do with Highsmith's!

In Patricia Highsmith's first novel, architect Guy Haines meets psychopath Charles Bruno on a train to Texas. Bruno isn't the kind of lunatic who instantly terrifies people. He just comes off as a little odd at first. In the course of a long conversation on the train, Guy reveals his troubles with his estranged wife, and Bruno discusses his hatred of his father.

Bruno likes to read detective novels, and he mentions, off-hand at first, how it would be the perfect crime if two strangers who met on a train were to exchange murders. Bruno could kill Guy's wife and Guy could kill Bruno's father, and no one would ever be able to solve the crimes, because no one knows Guy and Bruno ever met, and neither has a motive to kill someone they don't know. Guy dismisses the idea and walks away, but Bruno becomes obsessed with it.

[Some spoilers from here down.]

Though it has its moments as a traditional thriller, in which the excitement comes from action and physical danger, the bulk of the book is a psychological thriller, in which we see more and more of Bruno's terrifying madness and Guy's slow and agonizing moral, mental, and emotional breakdown. Highsmith is especially good at portraying the inner psychological torment of a man sliding into moral corruption, and how his sense of guilt begins to poison not only his perception of the world, but his interactions with it as well.

Guy's decline is especially vivid and painful when measured against the clear, steady conscience of his fiance Anne, who, though wise and worldly, is also pure of mind. You don't see the true destructive power of evil until you see the value of what it destroys, and Highsmith does a good job of portraying that in showing the deterioration of a deep and healthy relationship.

I do think the book could have used some editing, but I also see why it's a classic. Many crime and mystery writers after Highsmith included psychopathic characters just to have a deranged mind in the mix to provide some thrills and plot twists. Not many have shown so clearly and with such depth how evil slowly infects and corrupts all it touches, or how the ordinary weaknesses of ordinary people make them so susceptible to its influence.

Another of charismatic author Patricia Highsmith's cheery stories... no seriously, another of usually personally unliked author Highsmith's dark stories. It is well-written and there's almost nothing that could have possibly been edited out. I always think a book is of superior quality if nothing could be removed without losing a lot. There are no overly long descriptions or unneeded scenes. This is one of two of her novels that was adapted to film (the other being 'The Talented Mr. Ripley'). In the film the only major change was that Guy was made a tennis player instead of an architect, no doubt because that would be more suspenseful in the film art form. Besides that nothing was changed and the film is as good as the book. And neither disappoints.
Strangers on a Train

Paperback (edit)

review
Architect Guy Haines is on a train to Texas to see his estranged wife Miriam to discuss their divorce. Before long Charles Bruno, a rich n'er do well, sits down opposite him. Haines talks about his problems with Miriam and Bruno talks about his hatred for his father. Before long Bruno makes a suggestion: the two men should "exchange murders". That is, Bruno should kill Miriam and Haines should kill Bruno's dad - and having no demonstrable motive - neither man will be suspected. Haines strongly opposes this scheme, refuses to participate, and goes on his way. Before long, however, Bruno tracks Miriam down and murders her. He then proceeds to stalk Haines and insert himself into Haine's life at every opportunity - pressuring him to carry out his part of the plan. To say any more would be a spoiler. The book is a well-crafted psychological thriller with believable well-rounded characters. I wanted to jump into the book and shout at Haines to "get that nutcase out of your life" but of course that would have spoiled the plot. I enjoyed the book. And Alfred Hitchcock made it into an excellent film as well

I've read that there are a limited number of plots and an unlimited way of writing about them. Each writer brings a little something different to the telling. That said, I have never read a more suspenseful psychological thriller than Strangers on a Train. Highsmith is a master at getting her readers into the characters' minds and of describing scenes, people, events, and surroundings. The dialogue is believable and rings true despite the fact that much of it is actually about murdering people!

More than any book I can recall reading, this one compeIled me to read it and yet made me want to shy away. I couldn't bear to read what was coming, and yet I could not stop reading to find out what was going to happen. Was Bruno really going to kill Guy's wife? And what exactly was his problem? Was he a sociopath with an unresolved Oedipus complex? Was he homosexual? Would that explain his latching on to Guy with such immediacy and loyalty? Was he going to hurt Anne? We know Bruno has "snakes in his head" but what about Guy? He's a serious, intelligent, moral architect. Surely he won't even consider taking another's life. Or will he?

Every single page is a page turner. Highsmith is a master of building suspense, and you (or this reader anyway) can't predict what's going to happen next. Like a bad penny, Bruno shows up everywhere, casting a pall over Guy's life regardless of how good things are on the surface. And then there's the boat scene, the middle of the night escape through the woods, the gun hidden in the drawer, and many, many other nail-biting moments.

People who look absolutely normal can do fiendish things. That stranger you see on your morning commute may have just murdered someone. Or he could be planning for you to do the deed for him.

The author had a great idea for a plot, a premise that could have yielded fantastic ramifications. But that's about the only good thing in this book: the first few chapters. After the problem has been presented to the reader, he will be served endless pages of inane conjectures, moral and existential qualms treated with less depth one would apply on a restaurant menu. Other than a few personality quirks, characters have no scope nor verisimilitude. The main character makes so many stupid decisions that by the end of this awfully protracted book you want him to get royally f***ed. No such luck, though.

Patricia Highsmith's novels demonstrate time and again the mastery that the author had in creating characters that readers had trouble liking, but also had trouble rooting against. The most famous of her characters is the completely amoral killer, Tom Ripley, whose escapades are hideous, but the reader always wants to see Tom get away with it. That same contradiction of spirit is at play in "Strangers on a Train", where the lives of two complete strangers intersect randmonly, but are forever inextricably bound.

Guy Haines is a rising star in the world of architecture. He is deeply in love with an artist named Anne, and they plan to marry, when the only obstacle in their way becomes final - his divorce from his first wife, Miriam. Yet Miriam makes it clear that she isn't going to go away very easily, and Guy feels everything slipping away from him. On the train down to Texas to demand a divorce from Miriam, Guy meets Charles Bruno, a young directionless man, who believes he has found a kindred spirit in Guy Haines. Guy wants little to do with Bruno, especially when the talk turns to murder and Bruno's plot for the perfect motiveless murder; he will kill Guy's wife Miriam, if Guy kills the father that he loathes. Disgusted, Guy leaves Bruno (without agreeing to the plan), but when Miriam is found strangled within the next two weeks, Guy dreads that Bruno is behind it, and that Bruno will not let him rest until Guy has lived up to his end of the "bargain".

"Strangers on a Train" is deftly written, shifting back and forth in narrative between Guy's struggles to maintain a normal life and Bruno's increasingly drunken descent into madness. The mood is encapsulated by Guy's fear as Bruno haunts his every moment, driving him to think and act in ways he thought impossible. Patricia Highsmith is a master storyteller, having created stories that ask unpleasant questions and reveal the unpleasantness that lies within everyone.

The Fiction Writer should put tension on every page of a novel, in every scene, and select every word to forward that tension. Patricia Highsmith's debut novel, Strangers on a Train, could be a textbook to these principles. From the first line, "The train tore along with an angry irregular rhythm." she keeps the reader off balance and anticipating with dread every new scene. It's fantastic.

On a train, Guy Haines sits next to Charles Anthony Bruno. Bruno forcefully intrudes on architect Guy's life and then proposes a unique solution for Guy's marital quandary, Bruno will kill Miriam, Guy's wife if Guy kills Bruno's father; neither of them will have a motive, and the police will have no reason to suspect either of them. Then Guy can marry Anne Morton, the woman he loves and Guy can get his inheritance. Perfect, brilliant, and insane.

The true plot isn't in this scenario, however. The true plot is in Guy feeling trapped by circumstance, seeing half the plan realized and then being forced to comply, to murder, to embrace the idea after initially rejecting it, and then wracked with guilt over all the turns and twists in this complex noir story. The true plot is Guy searching to moralize his deed. It's Guy reaching for his soul.

Hitchcock missed the mark with this one. The movie was good, but is only a shadow of the book's well-crafted tale.

- CV Rick

I would have given this book 5 stars but for the following reasons: 1) It was too long and rambling at times, especially when the two main characters, Guy and Charlie, were going through their psychological self-torture inside their heads. 2) The ending was a letdown. It was as if we were all climbing this tough mountain and there was a lot of tension. Then all of a sudden, someone in our party just jumps off the cliff and that's the end of our hike! However, I did enjoy most of the book.

What's interesting is the powerful difference between this novel and Hitchcock's film version. In the novel, Guy Haines is an architect rather than a tennis pro (the film), but this is not the main difference. Without giving anything away, there is a major difference plotwise, and if you read the novel AFTER having seen the film (as I did), your jaw drops open at how big a difference this really is.

While Hitchcock's film is a great cinematic classic, Highsmith's novel is, I think, an even better piece of work overall. She is an absolute master of psychological nuance and digs so deep into the Guy Haines character that the reader is absolutely riveted to the page. So too does she dig into the character of the antagonist, Charles Anthony Bruno, and this as well keeps you turning page after page.

As most people probably know by now, the story is of criss-crossing murders whose idea first emerges when the two main characters meet by chance on a train and eventually Bruno proposes to Haines--after sneakily drawing out the particulars of the latter's family situation--that each kill the one person most in the way of the other person's happiness.

Highsmith's prose is way ahead of its time; the novel was published in 1951 and reads like it could have been published at least 25 years later, if not more. This was, in fact, her first published work.

I dare you to start reading this and put it down for any length of time. You can't.

After an aborted reading attempt of Highsmith’s The Talented Mr Ripley some years ago – my first proper read of the author.
I did have a look at the book initially – 250-odd pages and think, okay – biff, bang, bosh – two days reading job done. Well Pat from Texas soon put pay to that notion. I read it from the 13th until the 23rd at an average of 25 pages a day. Each time I put the book down, I felt absolutely exhausted.

Tough writing, tough to read, she forces you to pay attention and concentrate on every word. Maybe I‘m usually a lazy reader and I only skim-read, I don’t know.

Enjoyed? No, more like endured.

Plot – amazing premise – two strangers meet on a train and kill for each other. No motive – the perfect crime.

Pace – pedestrian, leaden-footed.

Characters – Charles Bruno – slightly more interesting than Guy Haines. There’s an air of manic unpredictability about him. He seems to oscillate between wanting to either screw his mother or Guy Haines or maybe both at the same time – which would have made for a slightly more interesting book. Guy Haines – the somewhat unwilling participant in our scheme – idealistic and weak. I kind of wished he had missed that train and then I could have been spared all that followed.

I’m fairly sure Highsmith and psychological suspense and drama is not my thing, but I suppose I’ll have to try another from her to confirm. I previously thought when discarding Ripley, it was a case of right book, but the wrong time - it may well be there is no right time.

Overall - not great - though the ending was a wee bit better than what had come before, albeit somewhat predictable. I was a bit unconvinced at Markham’s capacity to assist our dogged detective Gerard in unmasking Guy. He seemed too slow-witted for such duplicity.

A generous 3 from 5

Bought second hand several years ago, possibly after suffering some kind of concussion which temporarily relieved me of my senses.

Patricia Highsmith's "Strangers on a Train" came out in 1950, attaining prompt bestseller status and intriguing filmdom's master of intrigue, Alfred Hitchcock, enough to fashion a film around it which was released one year later. Highsmith jolted readers with her gripping realism, taking a basically simple but clever plot and carving out something much more.
Highsmith's book focuses on two men in their twenties, Charlie Bruno and Guy Haines. The former is of great New York wealth, but is troubled and is headed for cataclysmic disaster, which he appears eager to reach fast through his alcoholic dissipation and all-purpose troublemaking. The latter has worked his way upward from a modest, middle class background in his native Texas to become one of America's premier architects before reaching his thirtieth birthday.
Under normal circumstances these individuals would probably never cross paths, but fate intervenes when they travel on the same train and meet as a result of the extroverted Bruno forcing himself on the more introspective Haines, who does not want to appear rude. When Bruno learns that Haines is faced with an unpleasant divorce situation in dealing with a promiscuous wife, the inebriated Bruno jolts his more stable traveling companion by suggesting that they swap murders. Someone who avidly reads mystery books, Bruno states that they would each perform a perfect crime since they would each be killing total strangers and there is nothing to link them to their victims. Bruno wants Haines to kill his father, who is standing in the way of his getting access to the family wealth. The reason for his hatred of his father is also linked to his slavish devotion to his mother, who is seen as a quasi-deity to the troubled young man.
Haines leaves the compartment when Bruno is sleeping off his drinking, convinced he will never hear from him again. He does, and under the most frightening circumstances. Highsmith has such a brilliant penchant for plotting mystery that no more will be given away, except to say that the psychological currents and cross-currents put readers squarely into the picture. The author forces the reader to make judgments of their own about life and death, and how we deal with each, and how authority is correlated with society. Are the two in opposition to each other? This is one of the probing questions she asks mainly through the interactions of the characters.
Highsmith could be referred to as an American Dostoyevsky. Just as the great nineteenth century Russian author probed the inner mind and the dimensions of guilt within the framework of someone who has taken a human life, the American touches those same roots in an atmosphere of chilling suspense. Bruno and Haines are characters fastened indelibly into the mind after reading Highsmith's explosive novel.

Strangers on a Train is the debut novel of the highly acclaimed Patricia Highsmith. And what a gut wrenching, suspense saturated debut novel it is.

Guy Haines is an up and coming architect who meets the malevolent and seriously disturbed Charles Bruno on a train. Guy unwisely reveals a little too much about his personal life to Bruno and subsequently finds himself a party to murder most foul. The psychologic torment Guy undergoes because of his involvement in this nefarious crime just leaps from the pages of this book and slaps the reader right in the face.

The story takes place circa. 1950, yet I couldn't help but think of certain aspects of the book as being more characteristic of the 1920s and its anything goes, Jazz Age mentality. Especially when it comes to the the high flying Charles Bruno and his uninhibited lifestyle.

Strangers on a Train is an intricately crafted psychological thriller that is suspense filled and emotionally jarring. An oustanding novel worthy of a 5 star rating. Highly recommended.

"The train tore along with an angry irregular rhythm."
The first sentence of Patricia Highsmith's 1951 first novel, Strangers on the Train, evokes emotion and mystery on so many levels, just like her stories and novels work on so many levels. Highsmith's catalog, laden with unpredictability, tension, apprehension, strangeness and irrational viewpoints are classics ripe for a celebrated re-emergence
Norton has accepted the challenge with an announced 15-book initiative that should eventually bring nearly all of her work back into print. The initial release includes as the cornerstone a weighty volume of over 60 short stories written throughout her career, now collected together for the first time: The Selected Stories of Patricia Highsmith. Also re-released in trade paperback are novels Strangers on the Train and A Suspension of Mercy.
True mystery takes the reader into an unpredictable, twisted and scary world. Highsmith writes true mystery. This is most certainly NOT the formula PI novel with a simpleton murder and nice and neat search for the culprit. Highsmith doesn't rely on simple cat and mouse tension. Instead, she's a master of an unpredictable world, a cold and dark place where even you, the reader, are capable of murder. These are not feel-good works. The good guy usually loses, (that is if you can find a good guy). But the reader wins big because the work is so utterly interesting. Highsmith can rightly be called a master.
Strangers on a Train is a terrific introduction to Highsmith's work. Her first, and one of her finest novels, was the source for Alfred Hitchcock's classic 1953 film. From the opening sentence, the book works on many levels. Highsmith delights in surfacing the unsettled forces that lurk inside of the average person, in this case a passenger on a routine train journey.
What are the triggers that cause a seemingly average man to murder? What is good and what is evil? What is normal? Highsmith paints a picture that stretches the imagination to answer these questions in ways we never thought possible. She disturbs you. And she does it in a totally entertaining way.
David Meerman Scott
Author of Eyeball Wars: a novel of dot-com intrigue

Bruno was not the ordinary stranger on a train by any means. -Strangers on a Train
The world of Patricia Highsmith is one in which the nice young man you ask to help find your son may instead kill him and take his place, where the cop you ask to help find your missing dog may turn out to be just as disturbed as the dognapper, and where the stranger you meet on a train may be a complete sociopath. In this, her first novel, famously made into a movie by Alfred Hitchcock, Guy Haines wants to divorce his estranged wife, Miriam, and has finally been presented with the pretext for doing so, as she's pregnant by another man. This will enable him to marry Ann and enjoy his burgeoning success as an architect. But then he meets a talkative stranger named Bruno, Charles Bruno, on a train. Bruno, the ne'er do well son of wealthy parents, wants to get rid of his father, who refuses to indulge Bruno's lazy but expensive lifestyle. He shares his troubles with Guy who in turn makes the mistake of telling Bruno about Miriam. As fate would have it, Bruno has an idea for the perfect murder, actually a double murder : two strangers could "swap" murders, each killing the person that the other wishes done away with, which would make the crimes seem motiveless, and therefore nearly impossible to solve.
Guy is quite naturally put off by the suggestion, though perhaps not as entirely as he should be. No matter how much he hates Miriam, the prospect of the divorce blunts his desire to see her dead. But when she finds out how important his pending commission is, and that his career is poised to take off, she decides not to let him go. Meanwhile, Bruno takes matters into his own hands, quite literally, and suddenly Guy is implicated in a murder whether he wants to be or not.
The book is significantly different than the film, so even fans of the movie will be in for a new experience. For Highsmith fans there's all the expected creepiness, from the threatening possibilities of every day life to homosexual undertones to the plasticity of identity, as Guy has essentially become Bruno by novel's end. Whatever depths of depravity she contained within herself to draw upon, no one has ever written better about the criminally deranged mind than Patricia Highsmith.
GRADE : A-

In many of her thrillers, Patricia Highsmith's primary characters fall into two categories: the unrepentant evil, and the weak-willed who are swept up in their evil. In fact, the line between villain and hero is often quite blurred in her stories in which innocence or good intentions are no protection. For this reason Highsmith is often compared to Ruth Rendell, whose chilling novels of psychological suspense also center around the destruction of unsuspecting innocence caught in the net of evil.

Strangers on a Train starts, suitably, on a train hurtling towards Texas, when young Guy Haines, budding architect, is caught up in a conversation with young Charles Anthony Bruno, inebriated and charming scion of a wealthy family. Pretty soon it becomes apparent that Charles is up to no good as he proposes that he and Guy become partners in the perfect crime. Charles says that if he kills Guy's unloving wife and Guy kill's Charles nasty father, both killers will get away scot free since there will be no way a motive can be proved or the killer traced. Guy, appalled by the plan, but too drunk to know how to firmly reject it, leaves Charles, thinking the whole scheme will blow over in the morning. What Guy doesn't know is that Charles is a psychopath, completely amoral, and drawn to the handsome Guy in ways that neither can fully or willingly comprehend.

This story is exciting, tense and disturbing, even when we know who will commit the crimes well before the novel has ended. Part of the excitement comes from Highsmith's skillful handling of character, setting, and dialogue that make even the improbable storyline seem grimly possible. There is even a kind of dark humor that moves the story along when the stomach-churning suspense draws a brief breath. And although written more than 60 years ago, Strangers on a Train still seems very current, perhaps because Highsmith's insight into a certain type of warped human personality and behavior can be found in every era of human history, including our own.

Only Cornell Woolrich equals Highsmith in creating characters who are beset from all directions: pursued to destruction by multiple external and internal forces. The tension of Strangers... is relentless; the action constantly unsettling. Much of the tension is contributed by the loose-cannon character of Bruno. He is constantly on the verge of destroying everyone around him. He is a wonderfully portrayed madman. I found Guy's loyalty to him hard to understand. Why doesn't he hope for Bruno to just disappear? Why doesn't he kill Bruno? Quibbles aside, this is a superb page-turner that is also a work of art.

Patricia Highsmith (1921-1991) was among the most lauded of the "noir" writers, an author who published over twenty books and won such prestigious prizes as the O. Henry Memorial Award and the Edgar Allan Poe Award. But in spite of her tremendous fame in Europe, she did not win fame in her native United States until after death, when the 1999 film version of her 1955 novel THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY at last brought her work the recognition it had long deserved.

The 1950 novel STRANGERS ON A TRAIN was Highsmith's first novel, and the premise was so intriguing that no less than legendary director Alfred Hitchcock snapped up the movie rights and turned it into one of his most admired films. The Hitchcock film is a classic of its kind--but even so the novel was both too hot and too dark to be filmed "as is" in the repressive 1950s. Readers who come to the book from the film are in for a surprise.

The very famous point on which the plot turns, however, is the same. Two men, Guy and Bruno, meet by chance on a train and pass the time in conversation. Each reveals to the other that a specific person stands in the way of happiness: for Guy, it is a wayward wife who refuses to give him a divorce; for Bruno it is a stubborn father who refuses him money. When Bruno playfully suggests that he will kill the wife for Guy if Guy will kill the father for Bruno it seems like a bad-taste joke... But Guy will soon discover there is nothing to laugh about at all.

From this opening salvo Highsmith unwinds and rewinds her plot in a manner distinctly different from the Hitchcock film, and even today the book is best known for its fiendish storyline. But it is the characters that make it work, and Bruno emerges as one of the most brilliantly constructed psychopaths of 20th Century fiction. By turns comic, pitiful, stupid, and witty, Bruno's insignificant veneer masks a truly deadly turn of mind. The all-American-honest Guy is no less memorable as his personality slowly but surely deteriorates under Bruno's pressure, and even the most minor of characters pop and sizzle with life under Highsmith's pen.

Although long out of print in the United States, STRANGERS ON A TRAIN is back with a vengeance--and the icy, direct, and darkly comic tone of the novel sets it among the best of Highsmith's remarkable work. Recommended.

GFT, the store Reviewer
In Memory of Ellen R. Smith, 1920-2005
Virtuoso Pianist and Good Friend

It is so rare to pick up a book expecting mild entertainment yet getting so much more. Strangers on a Train is not just a mystery novel (..made into a Hitchcock film), it is a tautly written analysis of how criminals cope (psychologically) after committing a heinous crime (eg, murder). People who have read Crime and Punishment, and especially those who would like to but "couldn't get into it", will love this book. Patricia Highsmith's little gem couldn't have been written any better.
As an example dialogue in the novel,..
"Of course I don't think he arranged it," Bruno replied. "You don't seem to realize the calibre of the person you're talking about."
"The only calibre ever worth considering is the gun's, Charles."
============
I agree with the previous reviewer's comments about how unfortunate it is for Strangers on a Train to be no longer in print. Maybe with the success of the film The Talented Mr. Ripley other works of Ms. Highsmith, such as this, will be reprinted. For those who can't wait I direct you to www.the store.co.uk where you will find multiple editions of Strangers on a Train available.

This is the author's highly acclaimed debut novel. Two men, an architect, Guy Haines, and a psychopath, Charles Bruno, meet on a train to swap murders. Charles will kill Guy's wife Miriam and Guy will kill Charles's father. A chance meeting and a rash conversation will trap Guy Haines, almost against his will, in a nightmare. This is a cunningly plotted melodrama and I read it with thorough enjoyment. Alfred Hitchcock shot a film baring the same name and the movie is equally thrilling. Classic suspense is still the best in my view!
In this audiobook, Mr William Roberts reads Patricia Highsmith's "Strangers on a Train" with plenty of enthusiasm and I enjoyed his voice very much. He manages to adapt his intonation beautifully according to the situation, at times tense, then hilarious, then serious again. A great performance.

After reading the Ripley novels, I thought I'd venture into Highsmith's other work -- and started here. Although, at first, her familiar writing style (less polished as the later Ripley books...but that's relative as the narrative is fantastic) drove my thoughts into the Ripley world...she quickly sets up her own world of an untapped but modern west and everyday people problems.

Meeting people while traveling is always a random, exciting, yet nervous experience...while not too much heavy mile travel happens on a train, the same principle applies to today's air travel.

You want to like Bruno -- and to the very last page I was continually trying. That type of indecision that Highsmith gives her reader is exactly why her books are addicting. Page-turners, except you don't want to speed through the pages. The prose, dialogue, and subtle details attract you to each page...unlike the speed-read novels that blanket the top 10 lists today.

A fantastic and imaginative plot. Two men, one a brilliant architect and the other a neurotic, alcoholic, misogynist, psychopath meet on the train, develop a strange friendship, and one can easily guess troubles ahead. Bruno, the alcoholic rich dilettante, makes an offer to Guy over dinner with plenty of Scotch. He volunteers to kill Guy's estranged wife, if Guy would return the favor by murdering Bruno's hated father. Guy is shocked and revolted by the casualness and matter of fact tone of the proposal. Little did he guess that Bruno would fulfill his end of the bargain and blackmail Guy to go though with his.

It is a story reminiscent of Crime & Punishment, Les Miserable, which deal mainly with human frailties, conscience, morality, society at large, guilt and redemption. Guy duels with himself and the good finally prevails and he confesses.

It is a classic page turner with panache.

...than the movie! As I recall it, the character of Bruno never develops in the movie beyond that of a randomly-met psychopath; the portrayal of Guy, for that matter, is rather limited as well. I suppose that the nature of cinema is responsible rather than any failing on the part of Hitchcock; in fact, I've always loved the movie, but the novel has a real gut-wrenching impact, particularly for any reader who has ever suffered from panic attacks. One gets much more of a sense why both major characters feel and act the way they do, and how anyone can find themselves closer to doing the unthinkable than they would ever have believed possible. An altogether harrowing vision of guilt and isolation!

The book is too long, even at under 300 pages. The basic element of the story - that Guy is so afraid of Charles's wrongly fingering him as his wife's murderer that he goes through with the murder of Charles's father - is unconvincing. There is some suspense, especially as the detective, Gerard, is figuring out what happened and as Charles gets closer to Anne, but not a lot. The ending is entirely unsatisfying. The last two chapters, 46 and 47, should have been rewritten into a single chapter with a better ending. That Guy would travel thousands of miles to confess all to a complete stranger in a hotel room, a room that Gerard has miraculously bugged, is preposterous. Hitchcock's movie changes the story a great deal. Not all of the changes are to the good, such as Guy's getting cold feet about Charles's father's murder, but most of the alterations improve the story.

Charles Bruno is not the kind of man you want to confide in, but Guy Haines doesn't listen to his inner voice telling him just that. Under the influence of liquor and the lull of a moving train, he confides in Bruno, revealing his deep distaste for Miriam, his estranged, pregnant, wife.

Thus begins an unrelenting path of secrets, lies, obsession and murder. The fascination lies in Highsmith's ability to twist the everyday into nightmare. Strangers on a Train, is taut, well-crafted, and difficult to put down. It's a brilliant example of suspense done right, & a blueprint for legion's of mystery novels to come.

I had to join in this small but growing chorus of praise for Strangers on a Train. It is a wonderful read - and not just for suspense fans. Forget the film, this book is a dizzying ride through the mind of a man who is unexpectedly confronted with his darker half. Without giving too much away, check it out if only for the scene in the amusement park in Metcalf!
By the way, this title is out of print in the U.S. but is in print and available from any British bookstore. I got mine over the internet, with a wait of several weeks for the package to arrive. It was worth the effort! Read this book!

I don't know why it surprises me to discover that Hollywood has tampered with a novel. Having only seen the Hitchcock film scripted by Raymond Chandler, I was blown away by this early classic from Highsmith. Pretty much the first third of the novel has ended up on screen, but it would seem that Hitch and his associates simply didn't read the rest. Almost everything about this story has been changed. I like the story as Highsmith wrote it. She is a master of suspence. The characters are well drawn and full of ambiguity. Like most everything else I've read by Highsmith, this is both gripping and unnerving. I loved it.

I've read...

1. The Glass Cell
2. The Cry of the Owl
3. The Talented Mr. Ripley
4. The Price of Salt
5. Ripley Under Water
6. A Suspension of Mercy
7. The Tremor of Forgery
8. This Sweet Sickness
9. Most of her short stories

...but this is, far and away, the best one in my humble opinion.

There are characters in crisis, suspense, apprehension, existentialism, misanthropy, stalking, crime, misogyny, very subtle homosexual atmospehere. I couldn't put it down.

I highly recommend this book along with "The Talented Mr. Ripley" and "The Glass Cell".

P.S.: I think Alfred Hitchcock's movie adaptation is an insult to this book.

I cannot believe that A) only one the store customer has written areview of this book or that B) it is out of print! WHAT! This is,quite simply, one of the finest novels I have ever read. It was as tough to put down as any other book I've encountered, and at times as profound as Shakespeare. I've yet to discover any other writer besides Highsmith whose books are both absolutely riveting and thoroughly penetrating about the human condition. At times, it was so suspenseful I thought I was going to have a heart attack. The only other experience I've had in life that was as ravaging as this book is sex. Yet despite its at-times horrifying suspense, it is excruciatingly compassionate; the ending made me weep. Highsmith's characters are unbelievably real; I still can't figure out how she makes us care so much about people who are so flawed and sinful. It's as close to the divine as a writer can get. WOULD SOMEBODY PLEASE PUT THIS BOOK BACK IN PRINT SO I CAN GIVE A COPY TO EVERYONE I KNOW! END

This is Patricia Highsmith's first novel and as such it is good indicator of what an unusual novelist she would become. Many of her works demonstrate a tight structure and an economy of words, but not this one. It is peopled with too many characters not crucial to the plot. The plot is evidence of her genius for the perverse and over her writing career she would rework the main protagonists of "Strangers on a Train" to much greater affect such as seen in a later novel "A Dog's Ransom".
Alfred Hitchcock had great success with the movie version of "Strangers On A Train" in 1952 and it is regarded by film critics as one of his best movies. Hitchcock took many elements from the book but improved on the plot vastly and made the movie very interesting visually when he changes Guy's occupation from architect to tennis player.
This makes a great read when you follow up by watching the movie by the same name.

Yes. I realize that the book is usually better than the movie. "Strangers on A Train" is the exception to the rule. I was elated when the paperback came back into print. Perhaps my expectations were too high after reading "Those Who Walk Away". My basic complaint is that the book is too long: The reader will quickly realize that neither of the principal male characters, Bruno or Guy, are wrapped too tightly. The authoress devotes too much time and space in establishing that blatantly obvious fact. The story could easily have been shortened by 50 pages. The Hitchcock movie, at least the American version, concentrated on Guy's potential problems with the police. Highsmith chose to utilize a now you see him/now you don't private investigator. (Ineffectual police work is a recurring theme with the authoress, while the director was usually the opposite). I believe the authoress further lost her way when she decided to write "SOT" as a psychological tale rather than a straight crime story. I must acknowledge that the book is being held against a very high movie classic standard. Such comparisons are not completely fair to Ms. Highsmith, but they are also irresistible.

"Strangers on a Train" was a disappointment to me on a second reading. I had seen the Hitchcock movie classic again and read and immensely enjoyed all five of Patricia Highsmith's Tom Ripley novels. For long sections of this book she is too diffuse and wordy. The book is tough sledding because the batty Bruno and dull, prosaic Guy are covered in so much detail. The book lacks the intensity and focus of the Ripley books.
This, her first novel, was published in 1950. The two strangers meet, and it is quickly apparent that Bruno is erratic, a drunkard, and a nut case. In the novel Guy is an architect rather than a tennis player. Bruno talks of "a pure murder, without personal motives." He wants to do something for his new friend so later he murders Guy's malicious wife Miriam. Then, of course, he haunts Guy demanding "the exchange of victims"--Bruno's father for Miriam.
Bruno gets Guy's fiancée Anne enmeshed as Guy falls into Bruno's web, becoming a slave to him. He horns into their wedding. She becomes fascinated by Bruno and even invites him to stay overnight in the guest room when Guy is away.
Highsmith used private detectives in the Ripley series, and she does so in this book with Gerald. He does a thorough job of investigating Bruno and Guy.
Highsmith suggests there may be an unconscious sexual side to the relationship between Guy and Bruno. They become metaphoric brothers ensnared by their crimes.
Because Bruno is such a loony tune, the book as it goes along seems less credible and more of a case study of a psychotic. Anne and Guy seem less believable also because of their irrational acts. Guy almost believes in the reality of "The primal pleasure in killing."
The book is ultimately a mishmash with some great lines and passages, but much goes amiss. As Highsmith honed her talents, one wonders if in her later career, she couldn't have turned this into a shorter, tighter, more credible suspense novel. See the movie, skip the novel.

It recently came to my attention that Patricia Highsmith authored The Talented Mr. Ripley. Since I had seen that movie, I knew I would want to check out her other books. First I read Deep Water, which was excellent. Then I read "Strangers..."
Highsmith had a very good knack for creating tension. It is hard to explain, but the dialogue somehow has you cheering on the antagonist. She does a very good job of making the reader feel the same emotion of the characters. Her style in character and plot development is slow and meticulous, as you would expect from a 50's author, but it is worth the effort.

Not my normal choice to read but couldn't put it down... Author of _Talented Mr. Ripley_.

Seemingly gentle unassuming Guy Haines is bamboozled and stalked (before such a word existed) by Bruno Arnold. The two meet on a train, Guy ready to forget experience and Bruno ready to make him remember.
Guy is a famous architect still married to Anne, unfaithful and pregnant by another man. Won't grant Guy a divorce. He wants to be free to marry Anne Porter, daughter of senator and successful as well.
Bruno, described as playboy, seems to be obsessed with Guy. Bruno wants his father killed so he can claim his " rightful inheritance. "
Both see consequences of their actions. Too many words but excellent description of psychological, deranged killer.
Drama continues until last page.

SOAT has excellent parts but is severely bloated and suffers for its length. It's very tough to make it to the end. Hitchcock really handled the material well, and possibly better. The story would've been excellent at 1/2 the length.

Since I was commenting on a few Lesbian authors I thought I would include the best (mystery). I was rivited. Sure I saw the movie first, in this case, but that was so good it added. She is a great writer. I haven't read Carol yet. My fave of hers is Ripley.

This book's story epitomizes obsession, revenge and murder. When Guy Haines is manipulated into an unspoken but very deadly pact with the unbalanced Bruno, his life is suddenly turned upside down. The consequences of a chance meeting makes for an enthralling tale which the author has woven perfectly. Action and suspense is present throughout the book and I found it almost impossible to put down until the dramatic and exciting end.

"Strangers on a Train" is a little known classic that tampers with the standard hero-wins, bad-guy-loses-formula. Because of this, I feel cheated. I saw Alfred Hitchcock's "Strangers on a Train" before reading the book, and I only read it because I enjoyed the movie so much. I was amazed at how little the book and movie correlated. I had to force myself to not compare the two, but that is so hard to do since the movie is so much better, in my opinion. Hitchcock took unlikable characters and plots and turned it into something one could cheer for. I do applaud author Patricia Highsmith for making Bruno such a slimy character, but I do not applaud her for Guy Haines. I could not feel anything for him, and his radical and constant personal changes kept me out of the loop. I think the movie is better, but the book does hook you in. I "sorta" recommend.

I haven't seen Hitchcock's movie based on this novel but the plot has been parodied or paid homage to in many TV shows such as The Simpsons, so I did know what basically was going to happen. To be fair to the novel, those reading it back in 1950 might have got a bit more enjoyment out of discovering the whole plot as they turned the pages. The method for murder is a good one, and discovering that may have carried the enjoyment factor further back then. But for me this novel showed its age. Both main character's mothers were to me ridiculous cheaply written negative stereotypes of old woman who in the novel aren't real intelligent at all and more concerned with gossip such as talking about a lucrative new future job with a woman you know your son wants to divorce. Or telling a stranger who rings your son's address. I didn't like the mothers but I also didn't like either of the two strangers characters either. Bruno was a bit too cartoony to be plausible and guy was a complete wuss. How hard is it to say no your doing some other guy, you're not coming to Florida with me. Guy's whole problems with various characters throughout the novel were all caused simply because he wouldn't stand up for himself.

I also thought the novel was way longer than it needed to be, I guess Highsmith was trying to pad it out, but the background stuff between the action was boring. The action itself was nothing great either. Accolades need to be given to Highsmith for coming up with a great concept for a murder and plot, I mean Hitchcock made one of his most famous movies from the idea. But even though it was a great idea, unfortunately I can't say it's a great novel.

Welcome to the tormented world of Guy Haines, an up-and-coming young architect snagged by a fateful meeting with Charley Bruno, a subtle sociopath. You will follow Guy as he is led by the nose by both Charles and his own moral turpitude down a path of both false and true guilt. Highsmith's suspenseful novel will keep you guessing right up to the last page when she tosses in a mind-boggling twist that will leave you gaping in disbelief.

"Stranger on a Train" is a really interesting book. It has a lot of crazy things in it and the main person is a real psychopath but I guess that's what makes the book so special. I like the idea that someone has an obsession and all he wants is to realize it. On the other hand I don't like the end of the novel too much since we don't know at all what will happen to Anne. But all in all it is a good novel and gives you some stuff to think about!

Yes, this is a wonderful plot for a novel - two men meet on a train and end up murdering each other's family member - the wife of one, the father of the other, on the understanding that neither would be traceable. Yes, it has wonderful scope for a film that can keep you glued to your seat, but as a novel, I find Patricia Highsmith's prose unreadable. I don't know why some writer's sentences close down the page, and others keep me hot-footing through every word. This book is the former, so I skipped through the whole thing, finding all the characters leaden and paper-thin, and impatient to get to the end and find out what happens.
Freak Out!: My Life With Frank Zappa

Oh my gosh, this book drove me nuts! I absolutely could not stand the character of Bruno. I could only read so much at a time, but I always had to come back to it. Like a train wreck in slow motion: you have to watch, but it's awful. In this case, you have to keep reading even though both characters, Bruno and poor Guy, are on a slow train to the bitter end. Very well written.

Brilliant. People swap murders on a train and oh you will have to read it but it certainly is an engaging read. Watch out for the way Bruno wrangles himself to get whats his name to murder his wife. Engaging as it Excellent. Long pages is the only criticism but thats English printing

Intense psychological drama and lush prose mark this expertly-crafted thriller. I'm impressed how Highsmith inhabits the mail psyche as a writer and it's a terror and a joy to experience her imagining of these two men's inner lives. Of course the book careens relentlessly towards tragedy as the doomed characters she's created never stood a chance. A pleasure to read.

Written in 1950, Patricia Highsmith's Strangers on a Train is said to be a classic among thrillers. Alfred Hitchcock even based a movie on this book. But I was disappointed.

Strangers on a Train begins with two men meeting on a train. One immediately becomes obsessed with the other and stalks him throughout most of the rest of the book.

Most of the rest of Strangers on a Train also consists of the other man's thoughts, his feelings of guilt that seem to be driving him crazy. He feels guilty about actions he took that he feels were forced on him. And his many thoughts that went on and on and on with endless repetition were monotonous and difficult to read.

I'm also not a fan of this book because everyone but one detective is stupid. Granted, because the book was written in 1950, the dialog sounded exactly like a 1940s movie, in which I always thought characters (with the exception of Jimmy Stewart's characters) didn't talk the way people really talk. But that isn't to say they sounded stupid. In this book, they do.

The man being stalked, especially, makes one stupid decision after the other. And then, in spite of the stupidity of everyone in the book, the one exception I make, a detective, miraculously understands what happened with the two strangers on a train. Yet nowhere are we told how he figures it out other than his prior understanding of the stalker.

Although I thought I saw all the Alfred Hitchcock movies, I don't remember seeing this one. I'd like to see what Hitchcock did with it.

I read prodigiously, and this is the most disappointing debut novel I've ever read. It pales in comparison to Ian McEwan's spine chilling The Comfort of Strangers.

With its weak utterly preposterous plot, Strangers on a Train is an insult to anyone's intelligence. The actions of Guy, the guy who's being stalked, are so unbelievable - not to say asinine - that I found them irritating. The private investigation into all the murders was equally unbelievable and downright farcical! Read the other 2 star review on here. It's right on the money!

I should have just watched the movie. The book drags on and on for nearly 300 pages towards a most unsatisfying anticlimactic ending, which I don't want to give away. A waste of time. Pick up any "hard" novel by Georges Simenon. I recommend Dirty Snow, The Widow, The Train, and particularly The Man who Watched Trains Go By and The Engagement (!). And of course, the Comfort of Strangers by Ian McEwan.

I was disappointed given the reviews I read. Her attempts at pidgin English spoken by the Chinese in the beginning of the story show bias and a lack of understanding. The Chinese characters are one-dimensional and stereotypical. The ending sort of comes out of nowhere. I do not recommend this book.

Guy Haines is an architect on his way. Bruno is a whiny trust fund baby. Bruno forces his company on Guy while on a train to Texas. Bruno reads a lot of mysteries and has come up with what he thinks is a perfect crime. Strangers commit murder for each other. Since they have no motive, the police will never find out. Bruno pulls information out of Guy about his estranged wife. Miriam, who cheated on him, now is pregnant by another man. For some reason, Guy has put off getting a divorce, even though he has a rich designer girlfriend (a very understanding one). He's going back to his hometown to meet with Miriam, at her request. Next he's on his way to a big job in Florida, which will make his name famous. However, Miriam tells him that her boyfriend is married, and she wants to stay married to Guy and go to Florida with him, for her convenience (to give the baby's Guy's last name). Guy's mom had opened her big mouth and gave Miriam the scoop about the great job, otherwise there wouldn't have been this problem. Guy tells Miriam no, then turns down the fantastic job, rather than go, and have Miriam show up as promised making a scene. We musn't have a scene.

Guy goes on to Mexico to meet up with his wonderful girlfriend, Anne, and next thing you know, Miriam is murdered. Well, Guy knows who's done it, but he doesn't call the police, for fear he will be in trouble. For what?

The funniest part of the whole novel is Bruno's perspective. The good time he has finding Miriam, following her to a carnival with her friends, finding a cab in this tiny town at 9:00 at night (not likely)and the comments he makes to himself are hilarious. True, he's an alcoholic and probably has some other mental health issues, but he does know right from wrong. He's not crazy.

Well, Bruno decides to keep bugging Guy. Guy's his hero. Bruno doesn't really care too much for women or have much use for them (except his mother). Bruno keeps contacting Guy. Guy knows for sure by this time that Bruno has done the murder of Miriam, still he doesn't report it. What will Anne think? What will everyone think of him? No one will believe him, so he says to himself.

He ends up going along with Bruno's plan to murder his father, rather than go to the police with what Bruno has done. Is he weak-minded? Yes, obviously, since he couldn't even stand up to his wife who cheated on him.

The ending is quite unlikely. Private investigators are smart, but not that smart. Plus I'm still wondering what the main street of the town (Houston) was.

well you know the basic plot if you have gotten this far so i won't bore you with that. but i will say that neither of the 2 main characters aer at all likeable ... quite the opposite ... they both are presented as being incredibly and unbelievably stupid in regard to events around their particular pact. which is strange since otherwise they are presented as quite intelligent.

so the whole book, in plot lines that kept getting more and more stupid and characters that got more and more unlikeable, became stupid and unlikeable.

Two total strangers who meet on a train discuss the perfect murder: "I kill your wife and you kill my father," says the mastermind.

Both will then escape as neither has any connection with the victim.

Not exactly a classic Agatha Christie whodunit.

The idea may be good but the mastermind turns out to be an unhinged alcoholic and the other murderer, a reluctant partner in this bizarre venture.

Most of the story occurs in the minds of the two murderers and the reader is drawn into their confused psyches.

This results in a tedious read as the plot becomes confusing, repetitive and at times totally unconvincing.

Perhaps a good reason not to talk to strangers on trains.