The Girl on the Train - Paula Hawkins

Gut Instinct Rating - 4.5

Characters - 5

Believability for type and topics - 5

Similarity to other books - 4.5

Writing Style - 3

Excitement Factor - 4.5

Story Line - 5

Title Relevance - 5

Cover art - 5

Goodreads users gave this book a 3.88. I think it was more deserving of a 4.61.

---

Published in 2015

Pages: 323

Publishing Company: Riverhead Books

Number of books by author: 2 Novels

Genre: Mystery, Fiction, Thriller, Crime, Suspense

First off, if you want to compare this to Gone Girl, don't. I didn't read Gone Girl, but I don't think you should be comparing it to Gone Girl anyways. Sure, they're both fucked up and as far as female characters goes, there's some similarities, but, other than that, please stop. Why am I referencing a three year old book at the start of my review you ask? Well, I was surprised when I added this book to my website and book journal that it only received 3.88 stars... everyone on bookstagram was raving about it in 2015. It made it to the big screen. It was a NY Times Best Seller (which doesn't always mean anything). Why were the reviews so low? So I wanted to find out more. So, I read the book yesterday. I spent the day battling my mom's incessant complaining about nothing being on TV and her constant comments about so-and-so on TV being related to so-and-so or asking me to look up what other work they've done while I politely reminded her I was trying to find out what happened to Megan Hipwell!

So I finish the book late last night and this morning, I look at the reviews... no wonder everyone hated it! They were comparing it to another book, another author, another movie. So, go into this book blind. Know nothing more than she's a girl on the train who gets herself wrapped into a missing persons case. Then you'll be just fine, so long as you like fucked up characters and a bunch of twists. The book itself, was good. I enjoyed it. Really. (Maybe it helps I didn't read Gone Girl; although I did see the movie...)

The characters in particular is probably what made me love it. I wasn't entirely in love with them. Rachel - she's a problem case. Maybe fueled by alcoholism, but she's a problem case anyways. And Anna, well, she's just a problem. And then you learn more about Tom, and the kind of man he is. And then you learn more about Megan, and you wonder if she's really what you expected. And then you keep learning things and learning things, and then you don't know who to pity. Is it Scott, Megan's husband? Is it Rachel? Is it Megan? Is it the suspect? There's all these story lines that develop and you kind of hate everyone with a deep passion at some point. You understand it, but you hate them. And it takes a special author, a special set of words turned phrases to make that happen. Even the secondary characters, like Andy and the detectives, without a backstory, you had a feeling for them.

If you've been around RR for a while, you know that I like; I need a story to be believable. This was there. It was unexpected. The ending, the twists in the middle, it all was just unreal. But it was so believable. It all made since. If it hadn't already been made into a movie, I would've said this would be the perfect Lifetime Movie that you watch on a rainy Sunday after a bad breakup.

It was unique enough, too, that you didn't have to hear the same story line. I knew it was inspired by a million different things and people. Surely, Rachel was inspired by a drunk in Hawkins' life; and Anna, she was the other woman at some point. Tom, probably an ex that ruined someone she loved. It's all there. But, the story line at it's rawest - a woman, who people watches from a train, into the homes that she sees from the train; who fixates on a particular couple; and places herself into the investigation when the woman goes missing. That's a story.

The writing style was dreadful. It was all over the place. It was repetitive. We got all three viewpoints; Rachel, Anna, and Megan. I didn't need all three viewpoints. I needed one. Rachel's. I could've gotten everything I needed from Rachel's viewpoint. The movie certainly won't pause, rewind, and go back. So why does the book need to? (Again, if you've been around RR for the last year, you know I really hate this writing format... it's so annoying. And it takes a special talent to do it well.) But the real problem was that it was jumpy at the beginning. Until the investigation started, none of it was really relevant nor did it hold together. Until the investigation, it was all kind of a blob of statements. This didn't impede on the story line itself; it was a page turner as far mystery/thrillers go. But the writing style impeded on the story's comprehension and capability. The only thing I could've liked to see more out of the story was in the ending. I would've liked more about Anna and Rachel; more about if Scott was having Rachel followed; what happened to Scott (specifically, anyways).

Both the title and artwork were on point. I had a few options when I purchased the book as far as artwork was concerned since the book had just become a movie; and I chose the movie-artwork cover (seen above) because I felt it was more mysterious than the original artwork.