Well, truth be told, I don’t think Luke was a great catch.
The early scene when the rabbit dies while in Luke’s care – when Aaron left the room to get something – was really creepy. Obviously Harper put that scene in there to make us think Luke was a bad guy who would kill bunnies. Even if he didn’t, his reaction to the rabbit’s dying was – creepy.
Assuming Luke was Lachie’s father – which I think we all agree on – his being at the hospital and having the photo taken is creepy, especially since Gretchen chose to remain in town with Luke’s love child. His being so distant with Aaron the last time they saw each other (five years before the murders) was creepy. His never telling Aaron where he was when Ellie died was really creepy.
Apparently he married some one who was much much nicer than him.
^^^ What @VeryHappy said! Count me in as another non-fan of Luke. Was Karen just caught up by his “Big man on campus” persona? As the years went by did she consider it to be a good, happy marriage?
@VeryHappy, you forgot the time that Luke played that trick on Ellie, Gretchen and Aaron, leading them to believe that he had fallen off a cliff. Individually, any one of those Luke-isms could probably be forgiven, but taken as a whole, I’m willing to go with “creepy.”
The only thing I’ll say for Luke is that although he was (apparently) a cheating husband, he did not seem to be an abusive or unkind one. I know that’s sort of damning with faint praise. But the flashback scene with him and Karen getting ready for bed and talking about the Whitlam problem seemed normal and affectionate.
I do not understand why Luke and Gretchen kept their whereabouts a secret from Aaron. They didn’t need to protect their (sexual) reputation from him. And there was no reason to think that Aaron would judge them for not pursuing Ellie in the woods, as he was in the same “guilt” boat – I think he, too, felt like he failed Ellie in some way.
I just finished last night, got a late start from the library. I do read a lot of mysteries and I was not fond of the reveal through the flashback. It almost seemed like cheating on the mystery part. I would need to go back and see if there was enough without reading that part. Otherwise you only needed to read the italicized parts. I found them somewhat distracting.
Question : 18. When asked for tips on how to better enjoy suspense as a reader, crime fiction writer J.T. Ellison said: “Stop looking for the twist.” Did you take her advice? When did you “know”?
If you stop looking for the twist - did you really know who did it before the flashback informing it? Looking at human nature and the tendencies of some to overreact to deflect responsibility, the actions of Mel and Grant begin to make sense and point to the solution. It could have been developed a little more, perhaps.
For me, the italicized parts worked, because they appeared in bits and pieces at each point where I simply had to know more. So yes, it was a little bit of cheating, but not so much that it kept me from eagerly reading on to find out what would happen next.
I didn’t guess that Whitlam was the killer, although I knew fairly soon that there was something “wrong” with him because he seemed to be at the bar every time Falk walked into it. What kind of grade school principal spends all his evenings at the local bar?
I figured that in a town like this, there was no other place to congregate except the bar. That’s where Aaron and Gretchen had to meet, in spite of being in full view of Mel, Grant and the other not-inspiring townspeople.
I had absolutely no idea that Whitlam was the killer. None. After I finished the book, I went back to reread it to see all the places Whitlam was part of the plot. Absolutely nothing in Aaron’s and his interactions indicated that he was the killer.
I didn’t realize there was something 'wrong" with him until the bartender mentioned his gambling problem, which is what got Aaron cogitating until he figured it out.
I didn’t suspect Whitlow. I did notice that the dynamic between Whitlow and wife seems … unhappy maybe, at least compared with Raco and wife or even Luke’s parents.
I can understand the local bar as gathering place. My husband is from a small farm community with the “town” consisting of 80 or so residents. The “tavern” in “town” is more a local meeting place than what I would think of as a bar. Farmers go to socialize - pick up something to eat. It might seem strange had Whitlow not gone at all. However, I guarantee that many a local would have picked up on the gambling aspects of Whitlow’s evenings and it would have been a source of gossip … I mean discussion. :)]
I really liked Raco. It was kind of a relief to have a character that you didn’t have to suspect (I suppose you could suspect him, but it would be ridiculously far-fetched).
On the subject of small-town gossip:
Are those fears about the discovery of Jamie’s homosexuality “understandable”? Seems rather like a fear from 20 or 30 years ago, but I live in a diverse urban area where it’s not an issue, so maybe things are different in rural Australia.
Perhaps the excessive secret-keeping is specific to Kiewarra. Let’s face it, there are not a whole lot of nice people in that town in whom one could comfortably confide. The place has got everything from child abusers to murderers to mean girls (i.e., that mom who confronts Gretchen at the playground).
I didn’t suspect Whitlow at all. That twist completely caught me off guard. I was suspicious about Mal and Grant for Ellie’s death. From the start they acted evil enough and defensive enough to be guilty.
There are places in America where homosexuality is an issue. I live in the bathroom bill state. We still have a way to go. I definitely agree it would have been an issue in Kiewarra.
Readers in my other book clubs brought up Australian expressions used in the book. To be honest, I noticed only occasionally but for fun I found this: https://nomadsworld.com/aussie-slang/
@Mary13, I felt the same way about Raco, a likable fellow, the only man above reproach.
I,agree, that most small town residents in USA would discriminate against Jamie, as would Kiewarra’s townfolk, so they had to be on the down low.
Interesting that Harper portrayed most of the female characters much less flawed than the males.
Luke’s mother - nurturing and warm, substitute mother to Aaron
Karen- honest and capable, caught Whitlow’s errors
Raco’s wife- well educated, smart, welcoming
Jamie’s mother-bit impaired but aware enough to know Jamie was lying
Ellie- tried to escape her abuse
Maybe Harper included those warm and nurturing background characters to mitigate the feeling that the town had more than its share of morally repugnant people. But still it’s the evil ones that stick in the mind, not the good.
Re the slang, all I noticed was repeated use of “mate,” which amused me because it’s sort of an Australian stereotype.
^^ I think those mentioning Australian expressions listened to the audio book.
I also liked Raco. In mysteries, the local police often seem inept or at odds with the big city police detective or FBI etc. Raco and Aaron are a nice turn away from that trope. Harper even manages to pull away from the inept deputy trope by making Barnes relevant by the end.
*The links aren’t quite what I was looking for but you get the idea. Anyway, I like that Raco was honest, hardworking, and gets along well with Aaron, who treats him with respect also. I have hopes that Barnes is not a total Barney (Fife).
Just read the Huntsman article. Ugh…but fascinating. I can’t help but think Jane Harper uses the creature in a metaphorical way. It comes into view, then disappears – the ugly answer that keeps eluding Falk as he works toward solving the murders: “Falk got into bed and turned off the light. He lay still for a long time. The huntsman had reappeared during the evening, and its shadowy figure now crouched above the bathroom door” (p. 185).
This description from ignatius’ link made me think of the way Whitlam waited for Luke, then attacked him:
And I also thought of Whitlam’s innocuous day job, which protected him, for a time, from suspicion:
@Mary13 - looks like we crossposted a minute ago but re different subjects.
Though I may posted the spider link, I certainly didn’t read it all the way through. A couple glimpses of those spiders was more than enough … and no way would I have slept with one in the room.
I like your comparison of the huntsman spider and Whitlam. I wonder if Harper did it intentionally; it fits so well.