The Girl on the Train

''One for sorrow, two for joy, three for a girl, four for a boy, five for silver, six for gold, seven for a secret never to be told.''

When I started The Girl On The Train, I had no expectations at all. I had read some reviews, but I've learned my lesson. I try to approach hyped books with indifference, because in 8 cases out of 10, I end up hugely disappointed. It didn't happen with this one.

Let me admit that one of the first things I noticed was the fact that Hawkins makes fun of the ‘‘hands-around- Starbucks'' culture that seems to be the hype of our times. It was a big plus in my book. Superficial? Perhaps, but one needs to be honest.

Now, the characters. Allow me to enter the state of rant here. (Don't worry, it's going to be low on the Richter scale, I promise.) I don't care much whether a book is loaded with unsympathetic
characters or not. Where thrillers are concerned, I don't care whether I connect to them. (I'd be worried if I did). For various reasons. First, I don't want to marry the characters, I want to read about them. Then, I believe that they are much more realistic. The world is full of ‘‘unsympathetic'' people, we're not in Paradise. After all, I remember something that the great Ian McShane has said: ‘‘We don't call them evil characters any longer, thank you, we call them complex individuals.'' So, as long as they're not cut-out villains, I am fine with them. And it is crime fiction we're talking about.

This book is choke-full of people that are anything but sympathetic. And it's okay. However, with one exception, the rest are disturbed, highly problematic individuals. Rachel is the unreliable narrator, and as such, she works wonders, because there were many instances where I simply couldn't believe the slightest thing she said. In my opinion, she is a really memorable character. Her mind is full of jammed memories, questions and thoughts, and she contradicts herself all too often.

And this brings me to the last thing I want to focus on. The writing. I appreciated the fact that Hawkins uses a clear, sharp language each time we enter the thoughts of a POV character. There are no frivolities in those inner monologues, the prose is eerie, almost haunting in parts. BUT. There is a significant BUT. The dialogue isn't on the same level, in my opinion. I wanted it to be equally sharp and minimalistic. Instead, there are many occassions where a character talks to the point of exhaustion, in a language that is uninspired, almost wooden. When someone would hesitate, you'd read examples like these: ''I just...just wanted to help'' or ''I remember something...something that...'', etc. It may work in the context of the oral language, but it becomes really annoying in its written presentation. Especially, when it is repeated again and again.

So, a thriller is a thriller. It it makes me care for the completion of the story, for the fate of the characters, then I consider it succesful. Is The Girl on the Train a masterpiece? Certainly not. Is it interesting? Absolutely. I don't know if the hype is justified, but I know that I had fun reading it.