Someone upthread said this book must have been a good choice because there was a lot to discuss. It sounds like much of that discussion is about how inconsistent and unbelievable the characters are, and how problematic and illogical the plot and relationships 
.
Anyway, I can tell I made the right choice to skip this book.
I think the strongest upside of the book is that nearly all of us were engaged in the plot – wanting to read on, despite how illogical it all seemed when stepping back to look at the big picture. In addition, I found Hall’s writing to be solid. Not flawless, but clean and clear enough that it made the novel an entertaining read. It certainly has given us plenty to talk about!
@Mary13 you asked about Jimmy ………… Broken, like everyone else
Yup–broken was a good name for the book–everyone was broken. 
I haven’t been contributing much because I read the book a while ago, but I recall that my pet peeve was that it really did not seem believable to me that Beth was able to slip out of her family home and spend multiple nights with Gabriel as a high school student (an at a Catholic high school even) and that not only were her parents not upset with this, but her mother got her birth control. That just seemed much too contemporary for that time period.
I did guess that Bobby was Gabriel’s child, and I was also astonished at how quickly Bet dated and married Frank — but I guess given the time period that makes some sense. I guessed that Jimmy was the one who died, but absolutely didn’t think it was Leo who shot him.
I liked the book enough to keep reading it, but like many others here, was very frustrated with most of the characters.
Beth was so messed up. I noted this passage.
“I listen as Leo tells Gabriel about the things Bobby could do. Milk cows, trill like a blackbird. He sounds almost proud of Bobby, a boy he will never meet. I feel touched by how much he has taken in.
But then Gabriel turns his gaze upon me and I see the question in his eyes. Why are you telling Leo about your dead child?”
Why indeed! She used Leo to grieve, not even Gabriel.
For that matter, why did Gabe come back when he still had feelings for Beth? Why did he hire her, knowing that would ensnarl them in each other’s orbit frequently? Just a lot of bad choices by adults who SHOULD know better and act like adults. The new puppy was one more link and another excuse to spend ever more time together.
Keep playing with fire and people will get hurt and there will be collateral damage.
Agree, many unbelievable elements. Agree, many unlikeable characters.
Agree solid writing, the time jumping did keep me going.
Yet also reflected after reading comments here, is there something broken in me, too? Who else would find me immature, selfish, ridiculous, unbelievable?
Actually @Caraid’s post has me thinking about the adults’ decision to cover for Leo. I found it hard to believe in their decisions, assuming that Leo would not have to go through a criminal trial. But now: I’m not saying the choice they made is the correct one, but I better understand why they made it particularly in the immediate moments after the shots were fired.
I posted earlier that I’m not sure the affair would have started if not for Leo. Leo drew Beth in at first. Yes, she still was attracted to Gabriel, but she bonded with Leo first.
This is an interesting perspective, and I think not far from what Hall had in mind. She has said that she grew to really love her characters, while recognizing that they were deeply flawed – as are we all. For most of us, those flaws don’t reveal themselves in such melodramatic ways – we’re not good novel material. But we do make foolish choices and hurt people we love. And if we’re lucky, we find redemption. Grace is the one unbroken character in the book, and her name is apt. The word (in Catholicism) means a gift bestowed freely, which cannot be earned by human works and flows completely from God’s benevolence.
I didn’t like the way Beth treated Frank – I didn’t like the way she treated us, by withholding key information! But I think her poor choices were brought on by intense grief that snowballed over time rather than dissipated. Who knows how a person’s decision-making skills and personality traits might change in the face of such a terrible loss? I don’t know how my own brokenness might manifest itself in such a situation, and I tried when I was reading to just let Beth be Beth. I have a sense from the end of the novel that going forward in life, she will be shifting course in a positive way.
Agree with @ignatius that caraids post about the legal issue might cause others to rethink their opinions now ?
I might be alone but I accepted that they needed to protect Leo all along.
I watched an interview and Clare Hall and she Mentioned the working title may have been “ savages “ ?..
perhaps someone could fact check me about that,
broken country is such a good title a depicting the
Class system
Women’s rights issues
Individuals so broken by losss
Frank got redemption nd “ Grace - which worked for me
She’s telling Leo about his brother, though only she knows that.
Based on the views of many here perhaps Savage Land may have been more apt title ? 
From Google
Title Evolution
I’m glad the author changed her mind. Broken Country is a good title – so much better than anything with the word “Savage” in it, which reminds of the .99 BookBub romance novel offerings, e.g.: Savage Series Books in Order by Cassie Edwards (Complete Series List) | FictionDB
(Broken Country already has romance novel overtones, so it was better to steer clear of that in the title.)
Thanks, @mtmind . You expressed more eloquently than I did, above, what bugged me so much about this book. “An artifice created for the reader alone.” YES
Yes, I will admit that Leo should never have been tried as an 11 year old and a system that would try him would be barbaric. I guess Frank’s sacrifice makes more sense knowing what laws err for minors in that time period.
I also agree that guns were too readily available to folks, especially young people with very little thought about tragic potential consequences.
I guess the birthday party with air rifles was chechov’s gun.
Reading posts here always makes me evaluate a book differently. I disliked the book so much that I wasn’t able to find any positives. But as many have pointed out, Hall’s writing was solid and clear and the plot was good enough to make most of us turn the pages until the end.
The title Broken Country is apt because most of the main characters are broken. Some of them are broken to fit the plot — Jimmy.
Beth is broken but is perhaps beginning to mend. Although I find it hard to like her even as she changes the direction of her life positively. My sticking point with her is that even before Bobby’s loss, she wasn’t fair to Frank. Her poor decision making after the loss is more understandable.
The first person account gives more latitude to explore the character’s thinking but also seems to underline the selfishness of their actions. Thought provoking in that a lot of what each of us does may be construed by another as very selfish even if not intended as such.
Leo is going to be one hell of a broken person because of what he did, and for not having to face consequences because of Frank’s sacrifice.
I don’t think Frank was broken. He is probably the only one secure in himself and his actions to not feel any regrets.
Nina could’ve been broken but was able to find happiness in the years after Jimmy. Perhaps her healing came after she was able to forgive Beth.
My husband and I call almost every lead detective in British police dramas “tortured”. They almost all are. So this could have been called Tortured Country.
The guns in the story didn’t bother me. We live in a small town in a rural area. So many of my friend’s children and grandchildren go hunting. Deer season brings lots of pictures of children with the deer that they killed. This is for food. The woman who did my pedicures had only venison in her freezer. 3 deer would feed them for a year. It is just how it is.
Yes, but gun culture in the US is very different to the UK - even back then afaik. For example, British police officers don’t routinely carry guns, and haven’t since the mid1930s. I can see that it might be different in farm country, but that would be relative. I was a little surprised about how the author described the party in that context, but I guessed that was why she chose air rifles, and I assumed she had done her research.