Post by Titus GPost by Francis A. MiniterI have taken up Paula Hawkin's novel _The Girl on the Train_ .
The protagonist, a mid-30s, severely alcoholic woman, who has lost
her husband and her job and is being evicted from the place where she
rooms, is driving me crazy. I understand that the author is
portraying the type fairly accurately, but I find the character
repulsive. I have just reached the point where the protagonist has
learned that the second narrator, a woman she has seen each day from
the train, has gone missing.
snip
Here are my comments after I read "The Girl on the Train" just over a
year ago and ranked it as drek.
Chapters from the perspective of three women who all thought the same
things in the same way with the same limited vocabulary, use of
alcoholism to deceive the reader with incredibly selective memory loss
and the thoughts and worries of another character did not include
something of much importance to her which was also a major plot factor,
were three excellent reasons to stop reading. But unfortunately I
continued to find out what had really happened and how it would be
resolved. The action sequences in the final 30 pages of the book were
unrealistic and unbelievable because of their stupidity. The New York
Times ranked this as a best seller. So are MacDonalds.
When Megan first goes to see the therapist who asks her about drinking
and drugs, about half way through the book, she replies - roughly,
"That's not my vice of choice these days." At that point I knew who the
killer would turn out to be. I was correct, but I was correct because
the circle of persons in the story is drawn very small. By contrast,
Agatha Christie would always write so as to draw a relatively large
circle, at least seven and usually ten or more possible suspects. The
reason she did that is that the human mind can track a certain number of
variables, but at or after seven it loses the ability to organize
properly - at least for most of us.
Titus is correct that the text contains a limited vocabulary. The
author was a journalist before writing and presumably making a fortune
on this novel. And the vocabulary is that of a journalist. An Umberto
Eco she will never be.
The plot, however, moved quickly. Recently, I heard an interview with a
Hollywood script writer. He said that he wrote so as always to have the
reader (studio producer) wanting to turn the page. So each page had a
little cliff hanger in it. This novel kept enough hidden to make the
reader want to move forward.
But some of it did not ring true. In Rachel's first two visits to the
therapist, she just overflows with confessions. No, someone that likely
to talk to a stranger would have talked to friends (Cathy, for
instance). If someone cannot talk to friends, then at first there will
be considerable resistance to trusting the therapist. Megan exhibited
such resistance. Rachel should have, as well.
Geography annoyed me. Rachel lives with Cathy in Ashbury, and she used
to live in Witney, "a village on the edge of London", where most of the
action takes place. Both are on a rail line from Euston Station in
London, we are told. There is a real Witney. It is northwest of Oxford
and not on a rail line. There is a real Ashbury. It is southwest of
Oxford and near a rail line, one that goes to London through Reading,
and I believe, terminates at Victoria Station. If Hawkins had used
names of towns that do not exist, I would not have a problem. But she
used the names of real towns that cannot possibly apply.
The "flat" where Rachel rooms confused me. On page 257, for instance,
she talks about walking up the stairs to the flat, checking for
strangers lurking on landings. But the "flat" is two stories high. It
has an upstairs and a downstairs. So, I researched it. There is a
concept of a "two-story flat", and I found one for rent in Dunbar,
England, for £76 per night. But I could not determine if it was above
another apartment. The problem of visualization was a distraction.
Titus was unconvinced by the last 30 pages. There are flaws there, but
what I saw that seemed real were the fears that women often have of men,
fears realized here and which, therefore, probably hit home with women
readers more than with men. Anna demonstrates the probable concern of
almost all mothers - save the child, whatever the cost. It is the
realization that such a course of action would result only in a very
short term safety that impels her to change course.
By way of summary, let me refer to Martha Grimes's wonderful and funny
novel, _Foul Matter_ , in which the tension between literary novels
and commercial novels becomes one of life and death. Hawkins' novel is
a commercial novel, pure and simple. It is written for action and
emotional impact, not for ideas, not for accuracy of detail. It
succeeds at its purpose.
Francis A. Miniter