What's Up with TOM?

[Brantford]

The author doesn't really give us much information about Tom or his situation. We find out he is a compulsive liar but we are never told why he does this or what his background is.

Is he a sociopath? Were you unfulfilled that you never got a diagnosis or an explanation about his behaviour? Do you think it would have added to the depth of the story if we had been told more?

[Karen]

I think it's all part of the mystery; we're left to make up our own minds. Since we are given little information about his childhood, parents that (if I recall correctly) neither wife has met, I figure he is as you say Anna a sociopath. He obviously has charm since he has been married twice. I think Tom shares some of the same characteristics as Ted Bundy. Frightening.

[Kathryn]

I thought it was good the way this developed. At the beginning you feel sorry for him that he has this alcoholic ex wife who torments his new family. But then little by little near the end of the book this is all thrown into question. He becomes very creepy which I think adds another layer to the action. Because the reasons for this are left to the imagination a good screenwriter could build this part of the story up to make a film even more suspenseful.

[Colleen]

Karen wrote: "I think Tom shares some of the same characteristics as Ted Bundy. Frightening."

This was my exact thought through out the book as well. I had a hunch it was going to turn out this way, just based on how "charming" they character was written, although the fact he had a huge affair definitely gives insight into his actual character. I felt the author could have written his character quite a bit better. Leaving him so vague was extremely annoying based on his significance to the book. It almost seems like she wasn't able to write his character without giving away the ending so she just didn't write much.

[Anna]

It might have been nice to find out more about Tom at the end of the book after we found out what happened. However the style of this book really wasn't built around character development. Except maybe a bit of development with Rachel, but otherwise it was really focused on unraveling the mystery. The characters were just a means to tell the story.

[Colleen]

Anna wrote: "However the style of this book really wasn't built around character development."

When you put it like that Anna, it actually makes me feel a little less annoyed with the book. I personally far prefer character based novels, so being reminded that this is a plot driven novel, it makes a bit more sense why the author just didn't bother filling in blanks.

[Amanda]

I didn't really like how Tom never received a good amount of the story until the end. I wasn't surprised it was him because the story never really added up to me. I kind of wish there was a couple more clues about his strange behaviour