Just Finished Reading: Strangers on a Train by Patricia Highsmith (FP: 1950) [262pp] 

Talking to strangers can by positively therapeutic, cathartic even. You meet, swap problems, commiserate and move on – never to see each other again. At least that’s what Guy Haines thought to begin with. Bruno was entertaining, for a while, on a long journey but Guy almost instantly thought that something was ‘off’ about him. Then he mentioned murder – only in passing, only in jest, but still – murder. The idea was a crazy one even if it had its own kind of logic. The police solved most murders because they were committed by people the victim knew – often intimately. After all, you only really got mad enough to kill someone who you knew, right? But here was the genius part, what if two people, strangers, swapped murders? They would be no connection between victim and murderer for the police to focus on. They’d be lost, floundering looking for links that didn’t exist. It was brilliant, infallible, unsolvable. Of so Bruno thought, so he said. Guy said nothing at this point, part horrified, part fascinated by this strange man. Then it happened a few weeks later – Guy's soon to be ex-wife, who was holding up his divorce, was killed - murdered. Did Bruno go through with their crazy idea, did he take a casual conversation seriously? Did Bruno now expect Guy to commit his murder for him? Guy was at a loss for what to do. Should he go to the police? What then? Scandal? Ruination? Jail? Maybe it was a random killing and nothing at all to do with Bruno? Then the letter arrived: “Your Turn”.... 

I must admit it's an interesting idea – agreeing to do a stranger's murder to avoid the inevitable links between victim and killer. After all, that’s how serial killers avoid capture for so long. But this core idea was telegraphed almost immediately – even if I hadn’t already seen the 1951 movie adaptation at least once. After that, and the murder itself (which was rather well done) there was little left but the psychological effects of guilt and fear on both Bruno and Guy. The main problem I had with the whole thing was that none of the characters held much interest to me. I certainly didn’t like any of them although I did feel some sympathy for Guy’s finance Anne who, I thought, was generally hard done by. Bruno was a borderline sociopath and spoilt little rich kid with mother issues (and then some!) whilst Guy was both weak and self-absorbed. I honestly struggled to maintain any interest in whether either of the main male characters lived or died. I actually think it might have been a more interesting novel if it had been written from the PoV of the detective who investigated the second murder – that of Bruno’s father – rather than split between Guy and Bruno. Of course, 1950’s literature of all types (and not just crime fiction) was enthralled by the ‘new’ psychology of Freud so threw around his ideas and ‘theories’ like cheap confetti and we end up with books like this – lite on actually crime and detection and oh so heavy on the psychological effects of the crime on the criminals themselves. Unfortunately, in this case at least it really wasn’t my ‘thing’. Reasonable overall. More trains arriving soon...