Good point. I hadn’t thought about that. Although the paper with “Grant” written on it was delightfully confusing due to the guy’s name being Grant and all. Almost like a pun.
I loved loved loved this book while I was reading it. Now that we’re starting to talk about it, I’m seeing flaws. It doesn’t change my experience of it while I was reading it, but you all help me see things in the book that I didn’t notice at the time.
It was also pretty convenient that we didn’t know about Whitlam’s gambling problems until Falk had enough additional information to put two and two together. Maybe Falk should have chatted more with the bartender early on, who obviously knew a lot of stuff about all the townspeople.
I think it was deliberate to have the parallel slips of paper - but I hated it. Then I kind of liked it when he realized that he’d been fooled into assuming it was a person’s name - when really he’s the money man and should have been thinking money.
Aaron doesn’t really explore the crevice that first time. He knows he dropped the lighter in there, so that’s what he expects to find. As his fingers touch the lighter, “something invisible scuttled across his wrist, and he snatched his hand out.” He doesn’t explore further. Nor would I - shudder. The author anticipated readers questioning why Aaron doesn’t find the backpack the first time and takes care of the issue with the “something invisible scuttled.”
I thought the lighter turned out to be a great bit of foreshadowing:
He goes back for the lighter at the end because he feels uncomfortable leaving it there after all that happened, searches deeper and finds the backpack.
I liked this turn. It serves Grant right to have his name on a piece of paper this time … and, of course, shows that a name on a piece of paper can mislead. Like @mathmom, i particularly like that the ‘Grant’ written on the paper was not a name.
Joining the discussion after yesterday’s Easter festivities… Of course it was also April Fool’s, the celebration of which continues today as the snow accumulates outside – but I digress.
I really enjoyed the book, in spite of a few “overly convenient” occurrences. As someone who reads a fair number of mysteries, and can often figure out “whodunit” before the end of the book, this one kept me partially guessing. I say partially since I had pegged Ellie’s father as having killed her.
Agree with others that Luke is Lachie’s father. And I can’t remember the specifics – does Lachine as a young child no longer resemble Billy? Why don’t Karen or Luke’s parents notice the resemblance?
I read the book 2 weeks ago as soon as I got it from the library. Planned to reread but couldn’t make myself do it. It is an entertaining book, a page-turner but not one that I finished in one sitting. I liked Harper’s writing style, brief with no endless circling to get to the point. That being said, there were a few things I didn’t like as well. She has done a fantastic job of conveying the atmosphere of the place, fictional town though it is she makes us believe there is such a place. The drought is a major player — it colors the landscape, people’s emotions and actions.
Things I liked:
Effective Prologue — it set the story perfectly.
Short quick moving chapters.
Build-up of suspense and the twists to delay the explanation or solution.
I liked the way she created the character of Whitlam - likeable in the beginning and then the monster is revealed.
Great job at conveying sense of place.
Things I didn’t like so much:
The use of flashback as a device to tell the story and the importance of a scribbled note in both murders.
The character of Gretchen didn’t work for me. She seemed smarter in the flashbacks or at least of having some perspicacity which puzzled me why she made the choices she made later in life. I suppose the reasoning is that her obsession with Luke caused her to make some bad decisions.
The murder of Luke wasn’t foolproof. Whitlam’s flashback explains how he destroyed most of the evidence of the blow at the back of the head with his shot. But, it is clear the blow killed Luke and he was already dead when he was actually shot. ‘He felt no air. Luke had stopped breathing.’ I think forensics would be able to discover that.
Overall, I enjoyed this book. I have to admit I didn’t pick Whitlam as the killer till just before the reveal. Ellie’s father and cousin were the prime suspects for her murder from the beginning.
I totally agree with anAsmom. I felt clues were there from the beginning , but not avaiiable To,us readers. until,near the end. The last few chapters were exciting after a muddy middle.
Me, too — each time thinking, “I see what you’re doing here, Ms. Harper.” I knew I was being manipulated into turning that page and kept doing it anyway!
His looks may have changed over the years, but I think Karen and Luke’s parents don’t allow themselves to notice the resemblance, so as not to have to deal with the world of hurt that would follow. Along those lines, what did you think about the fact that no one called Gretchen to tell her about the Hadler murders? If there had been affair-related animosity between her and Karen and Luke’s parents, that might have been a deliberate “oversight.” She doesn’t seem to have many friends in town.
I liked all the things @AnAsmom mentioned. What I didn’t like so much—or didn’t buy into—was that Luke and Gretchen would go to such lengths to keep their secret for so many years. It just wasn’t a good enough secret to merit keeping when a girl has died so horribly. Says Gretchen, “I made Luke promise not to tell anyone we’d seen her. I didn’t want anyone to know how badly we’d let her down.” Nope, not good enough. In reality, I think the knee-jerk response in hearing about Ellie’s death would have been an immediate “Oh my gosh, Luke and I just saw her in the woods!” (Then if they wanted to lie, they could have lied about what they were doing in the woods.)
Also, I’m surprised Grant Dow managed not to incriminate himself at any point. I realize his neck was on the line, but he’s not particularly bright.
Excellent point! Ellie’s diary and the other items in the backpack reveal that she was running away and not suicidal. If the diary also had details of her father’s abuse (along with the reason she had written “Falk” on the paper), then Aaron is cleared and all roads lead to Mal Deacon and Grant Dow. I guess it’s up to Raco to pursue. All we know at the end is that Falk “shut the diary and zipped it back into the bag with the other possessions. He stood and slung the backpack over his shoulder” and walked back to Kiewarra.
^ didn’t Gretchen keep the secret because she felt guilty about being complicity knowing that Ellie had been depressed, suspected abuse, saw her going to the river, and admitting they saw her and didn’t help would have tarnished her reputation.
^ didn’t Gretchen keep the secret because she felt guilty about knowing that Ellie had been depressed, suspected abuse, saw her going to the river, and admitting they saw her and didn’t help her would have been another scandal.
If Gretchen had genuinely been guilty of ignoring Ellie when she knew she was in trouble, I would understand her need to keep the secret out of shame. But when Gretchen and Luke see Ellie in the woods, her possible/supposed suicide is the farthest thing from their minds. They are in the midst of an angsty teen romance argument.
Keeping a lifelong secret because of what someone might erroneously think about you seems a bit extreme. Gretchen keeps a secret her whole life because she doesn’t want the townspeople to dislike her, and in the end it doesn’t matter because it’s pretty clear they dislike her anyway. Ironic.
This is not a criticism of the book; it’s a criticism of Gretchen.
I find it interesting that Grant and his uncle pushed the Falks out of town. Obviously they knew the Falks were innocent. I assume that they pushed so hard to keep the heat away from themselves. What I don’t quite get is the harassment twenty years later. I’d think they wouldn’t want to open things up again and have people looking closely at what might have happened. Yes … Grant is a bully with a target (Aaron) and his uncle has dementia but still. I can see some of it to an extent but hiring a lawyer does nothing but draw attention to a case that should be left dead and buried by those guilty.
^ wasn’t there bad blood between Falk sr and Mal because his first wife befriended Falk before leaving ?
Also, didn’t Gretchen admit to Aaron she had been aware of “something” going on with Ellie, and knew something was not right when she saw her nearing the river ?
^ I agree, but I suppose we could chalk it up to the behavior of a sociopath: “Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed.” https://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html
Hmmm. The first item in that list is “Glibness and superficial charm.” Luke. He may not be a murderer, but he’s no prize in my mind.
@SouthJerseyChessMom, Gretchen thinks that Ellie has been acting a little “off,” but she is not too concerned. She isn’t worried about her when they see her by the river. She tells Falk:
Have I been too hard on Luke? The way Gretchen tells the story, Luke keeps the secret for her benefit and for Falk’s, without much to gain for himself one way or the other. He just doesn’t strike me as the altruistic type, so it’s surprising that he would come up with this plan for his friends and hold steadfastly to it.
Gretchen and Luke were still HS kids. They concocted a story to cover their amorous life, then stuck to it. Neither had great maturity. Ellie’s family were bullies, so they went on the offensive. The fFalks were softies, So they made good targets.
I felt Luke deserved Gretchen, and was surprised Karen fell in love with him. She seemed so,pure.