​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

It was agreed that the characters were not explicitly likeable. They all had some sort of flaw which developed throughout the narrative i.e. Rachel, as the main ‘protagonist’ is an alcoholic prone to what she calls "black outs". Hawkins plays with the idea of unreliable narratives with all of the narrators, but it is Rachel’s that takes the reader with her through the blanks, so that we are as unaware of the outcome as she is. It was concluded that concepts of reality and perception were at play here.

​

There was an all-round agreement that women held a prominent position in the novel, given that the narrators were all female. However, there was the idea that none of them were typical or traditional feminine figures. The lack of maternal instincts, and reckless adultery from Megan; Anna's lack of sympathy towards stealing a married man, her confession that she would rather work than care for her child, and the paranoia over Rachel’s insistence to contact her husband; and Rachel’s unambitious traits and inability to help herself in drunken situations seem to counter the idealistic woman.

​

In terms of patriarchy, the men in the book all seem to have a hold over the female protagonists. Rachel is still in touch with her ex-husband Tom, who is married to Anna. While the former two were still together, Rachel’s black-outs would be explained, by Tom, as violent break-outs. Again, the theme of truth and perception occurs; it was later revealed that Tom was lying, when he was the source of abuse, and the reason for her injuries.

​

One topic that got us all wondering was the significance of the ‘red-haired man’ from the train. We know that he got off the train with Rachel on the night of Megan’s murder, but the next time we see him, he is sat grinning at Rachel a few days later. Rachel reveals that she remembers him helping her after falling on the stairs, but thanks to the ‘black out’, we know nothing else about him. Did he murder Megan? Did he rape Rachel? Or something else? Paula leads us to think there is something more to him, but as we hear nothing more from him, the group concluded that he was merely a figure to advance the plot line, a foil to get the reader thinking. This is a common feature in murder mystery or crime plots.

​

The discussion ended with who we initially thought had murdered Megan, and how this changed as the novel progressed. Many of us said Rachel. The black outs, unreliability and the paranoia that builds up in her voice in the latter half were thought to be unconscious waves of guilt and panic. Scott was also a potential, some thinking that he was acting the grieving partner, especially after his violent reaction to finding out that Megan was pregnant with another man’s child. Of course, we were wrong, but we said that the author leads the reader to think any number of characters could have done the deed. Again, a foil to hinder our path to the truth until the right moment.

​

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

• Did you enjoy the narrative structure of the book? Do you feel like the author held back too much, or do you feel like the structure helped build the suspense?

• On the topic of lies: We all lie to ourselves a little bit, but do you have an example of a real-life lie gone too far? Do you think, deep down, the women in the novel knew the lies they were telling themselves?

• What are the comparisons you found between The Girl on the Train and Gone Girl?

​