The Time Traveler's Wife The Time Traveler's Wife discussion


561 views
How did you feel about Gomez?

Comments (showing 1-44 of 44) (44 new)    post a comment »
dateDown_arrow    newest »

Kassie Personally, I despised him. I have this whole thing of mean characters vs. evil characters. Evil characters, you expect mean stuff from, like Voldemort or Bellatrix. When they do bad stuff, I expect it and it doesn't piss me off or anything. But Gomez was, in my opinion, a mean character, and one of the meanest I've ever had the misfortune of reading about.
I mean, Henry REALLY trusted him. He couldn't even fathom that Gomez would do something so horrible as to trying to seduce his wife. The first time Henry really ever realized that Gomez was still going after Claire was when Charisse mentions that she is well aware that Gomez is in love with Claire.
I really despised Gomez. He was a very...MEAN character ( as you can see, I feel really strongly about him). How does everyone else feel about him?


Therese I agree with this, especially about the mean vs. evil characters. I have the same thing, and I always end up hating the mean characters more than the evil ones.

The main reason I hated him, apart from what you've already mentioned, was because of Charisse. She was so lovely and deserved someone better than him, someone who actually loved her.

It has been a while since I've read this book... I must read it again sometime


Andrew Hildreth The chapter where he took advantage of her was a really low point for me; I absolutely hated that chapter. I wish I could time travel back to before I read it and warn me to skip it!

Even though it happened after Henry died, Gomez was wrong for that. My thoughts of him were middle-of-the-road before that. After... complete jerk (and that's putting it mildly).


Killer Queen Ugh, he pissed me off too. I always didn't like him. But I love the book; I must buy it.


Jennifer I didn't like him at all in the book. In the movie they made him more likable.


Lizzie Bissett I thought the film was very disappointing...


Henry Le Nav Not to say that I liked Gomez, because I didn't, but I wouldn't characterize him as mean. He struck me more as self centered and underhanded, always ready to make a move on Claire and sacrifice his wife, family, and friendships and yet capable of maintaining a decency and basic kindness about himself at least on the surface.

What I thought was totally out of character was Claire's response, twice, to Gomez's seductions. That just came off far fetched to me. I don't believe that Claire would do that to her friend, Henry, or herself.

I do like your dichotomy of evil and mean. Like the old Dallas TV series. JR (Larry Hagman) was just plain evil and you didn't expect anything else from him. The other characters dabbled in a spectrum of decency to meanness that reminded you that these people didn't become oil barons because they are kind, empathetic human beings. I think the biggest factor in your dichotomy is betrayal. The evil characters do not betray you. They are out to kill you, fact of life. It is the same as a law of physics. Step off the edge of the cliff and the acceleration of gravity will kill you. But the character that betrays you seems especially despicable. They don't usually want to kill you in real life, they may just want something enviable that you have...a spouse, a job, a position, a title, an award...and they betray you to get it. It is the difference between a cliff, and an unseen rotten plank on a rope bridge that is otherwise in good condition. You didn't expect the rotten plank to fail and allow you to plunge thousands of feet to your death. One doesn't feel the same way about the rope bridge as they do the cliff. The rope bridge in a sense betrayed you, but the cliff did not. It is also why divorce hearings are far more messier and emotionally taxing than say appearing at the trial of the guy that mugged you. There was no sense of betrayal with mugger even though your life might have been at a far greater risk during the mugging. You are not going to jump to your feet and cry out "I trusted you, you bastard" to the mugger. I think it is Gomez's willingness to betray that we find despicable rather than just meanness.


message 8: by Mia (new) - rated it 5 stars

Mia Henry wrote: "What I thought was totally out of character was Claire's response, twice, to Gomez's seductions. That just came off far fetched to me. I don't believe that Claire would do that to her friend, Henry, or herself."

I agree. I think that last bit of the book is rather awkward (I also hate how it skips so many years of Clare's life until she sees Henry again, it gives the impression she never does anything but wait for him again which is horrifying).

I didn't really hate Gomez or think that Clare giving into those feelings through her grief was that odd, but the fact that Gomez was married to her best friend was nuts and really disappointing on both their parts with no apparent blacklash or purpose.


Killer Queen Jennifer wrote: "I didn't like him at all in the book. In the movie they made him more likable."

I need to see the movie!!!!


message 10: by Alice (last edited Sep 15, 2011 08:13AM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Alice Palmer I absolutely hated Gomez! at first I though he was a nice guy but then he started to move in on Clare a bit more obviously and i though to myself 'hey that's not what a nice guy would do!'


TheLunatic I found him rather pathetic. I didn't like him at all. He was constantly throwing onto Clair, which I found to be disgusting.
His wife was Clair's best friend and he had children with her. No man with a RIGHT head on his shoulders would do such thing. He didn't possess any morality and didn't respect his wife and children. He was gruesome.


Kassie Henry wrote: "Not to say that I liked Gomez, because I didn't, but I wouldn't characterize him as mean. He struck me more as self centered and underhanded, always ready to make a move on Claire and sacrifice hi..."

You pretty much just summarized exactly what I mean by the evil vs. mean thing. It's the whole betrayal idea, someone who is supposed to be an okay person who does really bad stuff. And you said it more eloquently that I could have ever said it.


message 13: by jenn (new) - rated it 5 stars

jenn reads fiction In the book, he was kind of like a dirty sneak. And even after everything, i.e. Henry, I could picture him trying to put the moves on Claire.


Brenda Whiteside I didn't like him either but he added a great dimension to the book. I'd say the author succeeded since so many feel so strongly about him.


message 15: by Mo (new) - rated it 4 stars

Mo I wonder if Gomez married Charisse just continue to be in Claire's life or whether he did love Charisse in some way despite his infatuation with Claire.


And yes, I loathed him.


Orville Tagtag Ugh. I loathe him, every time he appeared I always got so stressed. Especially when he tried to take advantage of Clare one last time. It really was a mood whiplash. I guess writing this is a way for me get some catharsis.


message 17: by Goddess (last edited Jul 05, 2013 07:25AM) (new) - rated it 3 stars

Goddess Kassie wrote: "Personally, I despised him. I have this whole thing of mean characters vs. evil characters. Evil characters, you expect mean stuff from, like Voldemort or Bellatrix. When they do bad stuff, I expec..."

I blame the author on this. I think sometimes they try to illustrate how wonderful The Hero is by having a really sh*tty character as a foil. Generally the hero is this tall dark handsome wonderful guy while the anti-hero is a creepy or mean blond guy. Its a very clichéd plot line that has become very tiresome and appears mostly in chick lit as far back as Jane Eyre.

I think the story would have had more credibility if he was just a guy who loved her.

Many people had issues with the Hero being a creep you see. Hence, I don't think the characters in this book were received well generally


message 18: by Linda (new) - rated it 1 star

Linda I didn't like this book at all. I didn't finish it. I thought all the characters, with the exception of Clare, not to my liking. I do not understand this book's popularity at all - maybe that is why there were so many available at the second hand store.


message 19: by Kate (new) - rated it 4 stars

Kate Orville wrote: "Ugh. I loathe him, every time he appeared I always got so stressed. Especially when he tried to take advantage of Clare one last time. It really was a mood whiplash. I guess writing this is a way f..."

Gomez made me stressed/nervous too. For a while, I was convinced that Gomez would somehow lead to Henry's demise. Their friendship seemed fake, with Gomez lurking in the shadows to rush in and steal Clare. It frustrated me how much Henry trusted him, but then again, with his time traveling, a friendly face was a friendly face and could help him get his bearings.


Kassie Goddess wrote: "Kassie wrote: "Personally, I despised him. I have this whole thing of mean characters vs. evil characters. Evil characters, you expect mean stuff from, like Voldemort or Bellatrix. When they do bad..."

Oh yeah I agree when it comes to the writing of the characters. I think there was a lot of potential but it just felt like she knew what she wanted to write but didn't know how to get there. So we get a lot of creepy characters or underdeveloped characters and a lot of weird moments in the plot that weren't necessary or where unbelievable. The book had a lot of potential and the idea was good - and who doesn't love doomed time travel romance right? - but the characters weren't all that likable and it fell flat.

And I have to say I love characters that are foils of each other - if they are written well. No one is wholly good or wholly evil and she kept trying to shove Gomez and Henry into that which made it very unbelievable.


message 21: by Doug (new) - rated it 5 stars

Doug Green Bit of a sleeze ball...to say the least!


Naomi Definitely, not a person you want as a friend or husband.


message 23: by Doug (new) - rated it 5 stars

Doug Green Clare was always struggling uphill. She has Henry who is neither here nor there, whom she ought to have (probably)left when in her twenties when she was old enough to know. She was like a victim of circumstances for a transcending mind - the mind of Henry who wasn't always there.
She was kind of trapped in a warped environment.An environment of expectations.


Melanie Gomez was an a**hole!! Very good book, but movie was not all that.


Sparrowlicious I disliked the chain-smoking.
Other than that ... well, he was alright. It would be boring if all characters were likeable.


message 26: by Doug (new) - rated it 5 stars

Doug Green Yep, there are good and bad characters all over the place. It's called life. But...we still have choices as to whom we mix with. So Claire could have said no to Gomez and Gomez could have been more faithful to his wife.But that's the job of the author. To give us something we can get our teeth into.
Clare and Gomez? Dont think so. Clare and Henry? Pretty tolerant woman Clare.


Isabel Arami I actually liked Gomez, and I find his situation kind of heartbreaking. He was in love with someone who was fated to marry someone else because it was fated. But he didn´t know that, so he settled for the next best thing hoping that one day Clare would feel the same way about him as he did for her. And he wasn´t exactly being unfaithful to Charisse because she knew that he loved Clare, she knew what she was getting into, maybe not when they got married but definitely further along in the relationship she knew it.

Gomez was an opportunity for Clare to exercise her free will, and just like when she scratched out the date on the picture she drew of Henry so as to not change the timeline I felt kind of disappointed when she didn't at least try to do something with Gomez.


Raissa I think Gomez and Charisse were the kind of people everyone would say are right for each other--same interests, especially their leftist leanings. But what do you expect of someone with a rebellious spirit but to go for something he's not supposed to have, that nobody would think is right for him? Even before he knew Claire was fated to marry someone else, he knew her as a member of the privileged class he despised. His choice of like-minded Charisse was more a head thing and his attraction to Claire a heart thing.


message 29: by Jim (new) - rated it 2 stars

Jim Thornburg The characters were so 2 dimensional it was hard to tell them apart. I hated everybody equally.


Lavender Brooke I hated that Gomez, rather than help and support Henry and Claire, slithers in and takes advantage of the situation. I found him utterly loathsome!


message 31: by Omar (new) - rated it 5 stars

Omar Isabel wrote: "I actually liked Gomez, and I find his situation kind of heartbreaking. He was in love with someone who was fated to marry someone else because it was fated. But he didn´t know that, so he settled ..."

This is a pretty interesting point of view. I never thought about him and his relationship with fate. Certainly adds something to a character I loathed.


Lauren Marie I didn't find Gomez to leave a huge impression on me - he was a bit of an annoyance, I did think it was pretty pathetic when he took advantage of Clare after Henry died...I'm sure it could be looked at as his own desperation to have that intimacy with her - that whole "Maybe if she just gave it a chance.." but it was a fail. Made his situation that much worse, I imagine.


Goddess The book had a lot of potential and the idea was good - and who doesn't love doomed time travel romance right? - but the characters weren't all that likable and it fell flat."

I agree with you. The plot cliches, cliched characters and so forth are childish. It's poor writing. However, I think Chick lit generally does really well compared to real literature hence not surprised why so many people (particularly women) enjoyed it.


Sandie Goddess wrote: "The book had a lot of potential and the idea was good - and who doesn't love doomed time travel romance right? - but the characters weren't all that likable and it fell flat."

I agree with you. Th..."


I am surprised that you thought of the writing as poor and the characters as cliched and yet you rated the book 4 stars. I would also be interested to know who decides what is considered 'literary' and what isn't?


Goddess Sandie wrote: "I am surprised that you thought of the writing as poor and the characters as cliched and yet you rated the book 4 stars. I would also be interested to know who decides what is considered 'literary' and what isn'tt.""

For chick lit - I don't base my score completely on the writing. It's how much I enjoyed reading the book.

As for who decides - well experts in this field - English Professors, highbrow book award people, top reviewers, etc etc

Examples (these are actually quite nice):
Most reviewers were impressed with the premise of the novel, but critical of its melodramatic style. While Griffin praised the plot and concept as "clever", she complained that Niffenegger's writing is usually "pedestrian" and the story at times contrived.

Heidi Darroch of the National Post agreed, contending that the story has an excess of overwrought emotional moments "which never quite add up to a fully developed plot".

Writing in The Chicago Tribune, Carey Harrison praised the originality of the novel, specifically the intersection of child-bearing and time travel. Despite appreciating the novel's premise, Amidon complained that the implications of Henry's time-traveling were poorly thought out. For example, Henry has foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks but does nothing to try to prevent them. Instead, on 11 September 2001, he gets up early "to listen to the world being normal for a little while longer".

Amidon also criticized the novel's "overall clumsiness", writing that Niffenegger is "a ham-fisted stylist, long-winded and given to sudden eruptions of cliche"


message 36: by Lavender (last edited Sep 16, 2013 01:00PM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Lavender Brooke Goddess wrote: "Sandie wrote: "I am surprised that you thought of the writing as poor and the characters as cliched and yet you rated the book 4 stars. I would also be interested to know who decides what is consid..."

These are the subjective opinions of a few critics, you could just as easily have come up with reviews and 'literary criticims' that were diametrically opposed to the ones you chose.

And that is the problem with literary criticism it is subjective and relies heavily on what is fashionable or considered 'high-brow' at a particular time.

When Jane Austen was first published her books were written off as popularist nonsense. There are critics today who still call her books 'the chick-lit of the 18th century'. In fact her work was not considered 'literary' until well into the 20th century; when it had reached a new audience with different tastes and new notions of what was considered 'literary'.

Charles Dicken's had his fair share of critics: Oscar Wilde, Henry James and Virginia Woolf complained of a lack of psychological depth, loose writing, and a vein of saccharine sentimentalism in his writing.

I would also question what right someone has to decide whether a piece of work has literary merit simply because they are 'English Professors, highbrow book award people, top reviewers, etc etc '

Who decided that they were 'highbrow' or 'top' other than other people with similar opinions. In a few years time these people will have been replaced with others who will be considered 'highbrow book award people' (whatever that might mean) and then 'literary' will mean whatever they have decided it means.


message 37: by Goddess (last edited Sep 16, 2013 02:26PM) (new) - rated it 3 stars

Goddess Lavender wrote: "These are the subjective opinions of a few critics, you could just as easily have come up with reviews and 'literary criticims' that were diametrically opposed to the ones you chose...."


good for you. I consider is Pride & Prejudice chick lit (albeit well written chick lit).

Also, I haven't found any reviews (by acclaimed reviewers/authors) that praised the writing style.

And there's plot holes e.g. the Sept 11 attacks the other reviewer pointed out is an example as well as using a payphone without carrying coins.

I also think the character development wasn't great and some of the cliches were annoying. But that's my opinion and no one need follow it.

But as you rightly pointed out - each other their own. Should someone think the Time Travelers Wife has prose to rival The Great Gatsby - that's their prerogative. Everyone has diff standards.

This is no personal attack on anyone! I really am indifferent! :-)


message 38: by Corwin (last edited Sep 22, 2013 04:15PM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Corwin One man's sleazeball is another man's misunderstood or misguided friend. Gomez is just an example of how low unrequited love can bring a person, and in reality he wasn't any worse than a lot of our friends and neighbors. I take more issue with Claire being depicted as a willfully blindly romantic long-suffering saint.

I agree with detractors of the book. I didn't think the book was all that, but then again I also dislike wading through tedious dynastic stories like the kind you get from the likes of Tolstoy and Dickens, which is me pooh-poohing a lot of what's considered great literature.

And, as a stickler for plausibility, that whole idea of some kind of genetic disease causing people to get flung to and from instances in time? How contrived can you get!

I guess for me it was a good enough story, one that I could overlook the flaws of for long enough to read all the way through, but only once. Like The Handmaid's Tale, this isn't something I'm likely to pick up again.


Maria I did despise Gomez. I mean, sure, he helps Henry out quite a bit, but Gomez knows how much Henry loves Claire. So he marries Charisse, and then cheats on her after Henry is out of the way, and therefore won't feel quite so guilty for having sex with his friend's wife.


Imani Phillips Honestly, I hated Gomez. He was sneaky & it disgusted me. I think Charisse was a good woman & he shouldn't have done her the way that he did. He was Henry & Clare's "friend," yet wasted no time having sex with Clare when her husband died. What kind of a friend is that???


Grace Herondale Ugh. Just Ugh.


Christopher Everest Clare is grief-stricken. Gomez takes advantage. I am not so sure that physically Gomez is even present during sex : It is described in a style that suggests to me this is about Clare's recovery and how to deal with Henry's death. Clare is distraught for Henry and in using the wrong name to Gomez punishes him far worse than anything else. If he thought he ever mattered to Clare he knows now he doesn't. He is not a good friend but Henry kind of understands that. Clare also needed to know to herself that Henry WAS/IS irreplaceable and Gomez is made to acknowledge it too. She's sad - She makes Art.


Alanpalmer He was a comlex charachter. Just what a deep multifaceted charachter should be. He was mean sometimes and fairly obnoxious ("Library Boy") but also helped Henry out on several occasions. then he tried to Seduce Claire. OK as a person full of flaws but as an interesting charachter something to spice the story up, much better than the one dimentional charachters in lots of books.

OK if I knew him in real life....I'd hate him!


Derek He was nothing more than a convenience for the main characters, and easily forgotten.


back to top

all discussions on this book | post a new topic


Books mentioned in this topic

The Time Traveler's Wife (other topics)