J.D. Robb discussion
Archive - Series Group Read
>
The Unsung Hero by Suzanne Brockmann (Troubleshooters #1) - January 2016 (Spoiler Zone)
message 101:
by
Giulia
(new)
Jan 18, 2016 06:34PM
Well, I'm way behind everyone, little over ten percent in. So far this is not what I expected. It's not bad or disappointing. I just thought it'd be faster paced, and the storyline with Joe and Charles isn't one I anticipated.
reply
|
flag
I finished this book last night and loved it. Loved Tom and Kelly. I thought the WWII backstory was interesting, but could have moved forward a little quicker. Mallory and David's secondary romance was excellent.
Jonetta wrote: "Tom is on a forced 30 day vacation after his head injury and heads home to Baldwin's Bridge. He doesn't plan to stay long and is itching to get his team reassembled and back to work. Then he spots ..."I had no doubt Tom had spotted a terrorist at the airport. I just didn't know if he would be able to convince anyone else of what he saw.
Jonetta wrote: "Tom reports his sighting of the Merchant to his superiors. Good idea or bad idea? Hundreds of lives could be at stake, but if it's only a paranoid delusional his career is over."I think he had to report it, even if he didn't have any evidence. If he didn't at least try to let everyone know what he saw, hundreds could end up dead.
For his own self-interest, it was a bad idea - possibly a career ender, but because of his character, he really had no choice. Tom is a protector. Even as a teenager, he protected Kelly from himself. He could not put his own safety above the lives of others.
Mod
Mod
By the end of the book, what you know of Tom tells you this could never have been a delusion.
Both Charles and Kelly were very similar in their personalities and likely by virtue of their upbringing and environment in New England. But Kelly's nature seems less stoic and I like that she forces Charles to open up about his feelings. It is interesting that only Cybele and Kelly could tap into his true emotions. Brockmann leaves it largely unaddressed but I wonder if the loss of his son also had Charles closing off his emotions as well.
Jonetta wrote: "Robin wrote: "Jonetta wrote: "Tom is on a forced 30 day vacation after his head injury and heads home to Baldwin's Bridge. He doesn't plan to stay long and is itching to get his team reassembled an..."By the time he fixates on this sighting, you hope he has seen the Merchant because the author already has you believing that Team 16 operates as well as it does with him at he helm. You root for him and want him to be right so he can be reinstated at the end of his forced leave even if it means lives will be in jeopardy.
Jonetta wrote: "Kelly seems to have grown into a complicated woman. She's a pediatrician with a big heart and devotes a lot of time to her work. Unfortunately, her dad is dying and she wants to be closer to him. W..."Yeah these were the page I had the urge to tear out of the book. I was really glad for the ebook edtition. I wished I could take Charles and shake him or even better shove him against a wall to wake up. Nothing what ever a person went through gives him or her the right to hurt children the way he did on daily basis.
I think it was really brave and great she found in the end the power and word to voice what's important for their relationship before it was too late. I wish so much I would be able to stand up and talk to my father in a way he would listen - I tried few times but I think I really gave up.
I found it interesting that as Charles was driving away in the boat Kelly told him she loved him, but never said anything along the lines of " No don't do this." Was that because she finally got what she needed from Charles and since he was dying anyway it was for the greater good? As I read this part I thought even in the same situation I can't imagine not begging my loved one not to do that, even knowing it would save so many lives.
Mod
I really, really was hoping he could continue to lead the team.
Mod
I had similar feelings, Maggie.
Mod
I felt the same way, Maggie. I know that it was his choice, his way to end his battle while saving others lives, but I kept thinking that someone should be screaming No!
I wonder, as both a daughter and a doctor, whether she thought about his pain and how he was needing more medication to deal with it and that is why she did not speak up. But then again, part of it was the irony of his being the hero of Baldwin Bridge after all. If I remember correctly, don't he and Joe spend most of the book caught up in that debate? But yes, if I were her, I would not have just watched my father sacrifice himself like that with no word of protest. It does seem odd that they were all okay with it.
I have to say that of all the major characters in the book, I found Charles the most problematic and honestly, the least sympathetic.He struck me as incredibly selfish in some ways. He had a major disappointment in his life so he wallowed in alcoholism was an emotionally absentee parent.
And yet we know he was able to maintain at least semblance of a close tie with Joe.
I just always felt so bad for Kelly because she grew up with this distant father who could not give her the sort of parent-child connection she obviously needed from him.
So now at the end of his life you'd think he'd be more reflective and at least try to meet her halfway. But even so he seemed still very begrudging about it. She really had to force the issue to get the smallish crumbs he finally gave her.
I am of the feeling that Kelly made peace with his decision to ride out in the boat because she knew he was already ready to go. Everything they were doing at that point was palliative and any extra time would have been more to their benefit than his. I think at that point she was thinking more like a doctor than a daughter.
I skipped past lots of posts since I'm only 32% in. I have a feeling this book isn't going turn out anything like I thought. I'll keep you posted! Sorry I'm so behind, had too many books squished in this month.
Tina wrote: "I am of the feeling that Kelly made peace with his decision to ride out in the boat because she knew he was already ready to go. Everything they were doing at that point was palliative and any extra time would have been more to their benefit than his. I think at that point she was thinking more like a doctor than a daughter. ."I agree Tina. I think Kelly knew her father had only pain ahead of him and he was ready to go. Her training as a doctor told her that begging him not to go would not do him or the town any good at all. He ended up giving up his life but saving a lot of lives.
Emerson wrote: "I wonder, as both a daughter and a doctor, whether she thought about his pain and how he was needing more medication to deal with it and that is why she did not speak up. But then again, part of it..."I think when I read this I didn't really think too much about it. Thought it was the shock of it and not having the time to stop it.
I hope it is okay to jump in here! I finished the novel yesterday morning and it was a reread for me. When I first read it I struggled with it and just found that it was jumping all over but I did like it and saw the potential for the series. At that time I rated 3 stars. I did want to continue the series but the In Death series came along in my life...and you can imagine what happened then. When I saw that we were reading this series I was so excited to continue. I decided to listen to the first book this time (as I didn't quite remember things) and my rating went up a star. I followed the story a lot better when it switched time and between characters. I am not sure if that was the audio or the reread. (I did have to speed the narrator up a bit). While I liked the look at WWII - I thought we could have less of it. I understand she was trying to show how Charles and Joe became friends and why they are the way they are because of the love they lost but I was less interested in it as a story.
I loved Mallory and David's story and to be honest thought they could have had a YA/NA book of their own. There is nothing I would change about this plot...I did forget a few times that this wasn't just their book when I was listening to a big chunk of their story, lol.
I liked how Brockmann handled the father and daughter relationship between Kelly and Charles...nothing was a big fix but yet due to his illness we were able to see how they were mending.
I liked Kelly and Tom but at times found it a bit annoying when they were trying not to love each other - realistic but annoying, lol.
Mod
Thanks, Sandra! Sorry for being so late to the all group reads.
Mod
Her attempt to be bad seemed to me really just a need to not have to repress her true spirit. If she wanted to be bad because she perceived Tom to be a "bad boy", then it is her misfortune that he is such a good man. As an adult, I don't think such labels are relevant but I think that Kelly needed to learn that because Tom's "abandonment" of her when she was a teenager, sort of left her emotional growth a bit stunted. She never got closure. Sixteen years later, she finally does.
I don't think even as an adult one grows out of wanting to perceived in a certain way. Labels, especially those imposed upon you during your formative years, still have the ability to affect you in your later years.I do think this question brings to mind the contrast between Kelly and Mallory and the importance of labelling and perception. Kelly is the "good girl" who wants to be bad. Being considered bad would be a thrill for Kelly.
Meanwhile, poor Mallory is laboring under a trait given to her that she hasn't earned. People think she's "bad". For her being bad isn't a thrill, it is a prison. She would like more than anything to be able to get away from that label and be considered, if not exactly "good" then at least respectable.
Mod
Reminds me of the proverb of the grass being greener on the other side of the fence.
I think part of Kelly wanting to seem like the bad girl is more of wanting Tom to not see her as that kid anymore, but an adult able to make the decision to have a sexual relationship and wanting one.
I'm only 3/4 ways through this, and am liking it. However, I can see that this is a first book. The WWII flashbacks seem to drag for me. (Almost painfully.) And the Tom/Kelly romance has many flaws. The whole "bad girl" speech just rang wrong. Up until that point the sexual tension was very enjoyable. Usually I appreciate the sexual scenes but I didn't care for this one. However, I have read one of her later books - THE ADMIRAL'S BRIDE - and it was much better. So, I'm giving her some leeway.
Like other have said, the Mallory and David scenes are great. They really ring true for me.
Maggie wrote: "I found it interesting that as Charles was driving away in the boat Kelly told him she loved him, but never said anything along the lines of " No don't do this." Was that because she finally got wh..."OK my brain is telling me it's kind of usual way of seeing at it though I can't really relate. Here I can really understand Kelly. If you are told again and again it's wrong to show emotions - espetially in front of people it becomes part of your nature. So even if she would like I don't think she would be able to react any other way than what's so deep in you - especially in a situation of deep emotional upheaval and the more people like Kelly fight it the less it appears possible - at least without some help. It's like a prison within you.
Jonetta wrote: "With a reputation for being a good girl, Kelly wants nothing more than to be a bad girl (or known as a bad girl). Do you think she was really a "good" or a "bad" girl? And as an adult, is it really important to be labeled as either?"I think it's not only not important to be labeled but even wrong. For one no one like fits only one box we have all different parts in us which make us very unique - in Kelly's example she wasn't only good. And there is also this ugly part that most labels tend to hurt people (even if not intended) and prevent an open aproach and the possibility to get surprised even by friends because we/people don't allow / register it when they behave in a different way.
In Kelly's case I would say Tom expressed it pretty well when she was convinced they have a casual sex-only relationship and he just asked how much experience she has in this area? None :-)
Being always the responsible and caring and whatever left her with little experience in being all the things she thought she needed to be able to have a relationship with Tom - whatever the price - even if it ment to deny her character and her personality. And that was something she tried and didn't manage.
I just started listening to this today. I'll start to read back in comments when I get further into it.
Mod
At least this is what I thought Kelly meant by being a "bad" girl...just being more sexually free when she was old enough to be responsible about it.
MsG wrote: "Jonetta wrote: "I'm not really sure what's meant by good or bad girl as they seem to have different meanings depending on your age. I think in this context, Kelly had a spotless reputation primaril..."Isn't it the problem of most of the daughters - or at least the first-born daughters. It's in the genes so she had no real choice. OK she's fictional character so there was a choice but still ;-)
So far, (I'm maybe a third the way in) I don't see Kelly as trying to be bad - just wanting what she wants and that doesn't fit Tom's straight laced picture he has of her in his head. She's thinking up against the wall and he's thinking if he ever did have her it would have to be slow and sweet. Reminds me of the song by J. Geils Band - Center Fold lol. Don't think he really SAW her.Does she walk? Does she talk?
Does she come complete?
My homeroom homeroom angel
Always pulled me from my seat
She was pure like snowflakes
No one could ever stain
The memory of my angel
Could never cause me pain
I'm very much enjoying Mallory and David. I love David's persistence and that he seems to be rather grounded for his age.
Jonetta wrote: "I'm not really sure what's meant by good or bad girl as they seem to have different meanings depending on your age. I think in this context, Kelly had a spotless reputation primarily because she wa..."Again, I'm only a short way in, but she's mentioned a couple of times that showing emotion was not allowed in her family. Her father would say "Get a grip" whenever she lost it as a kid. Sounds like he wasn't comfortable with it and so she learned to bottle everything up and keep it on the inside where others didn't see it.
MsG wrote: "He was a mean drunk."I don't get why he doesn't seem to care for her. He can care for other people to a degree.... What makes him particularly mean to her?
I hated when Mallory left with Brandon.
Penni wrote: "I hated when Mallory left with Brandon."I struggled with that too but it fit with her character's insecurities at that time. I like how she saw past that facade but took it for what it was, an ego boost that he was paying her some attention.
Mallory's a smart girl and a pretty good judge of character, as shown by her reaction when Brandon abandoned her and Tom at the fairground.
Penni wrote: "MsG wrote: "He was a mean drunk."I don't get why he doesn't seem to care for her. He can care for other people to a degree.... What makes him particularly mean to her?"
More so than any of the other characters, I really did not understand Charles at all. I feel as though with the triple storyline, it was difficult for Brockmann to really characterize Charles and Joe well for the readers. The storyline involving their love triangle with Cybele is compelling but doesn't really come to fruition because Charles loved Cybele and she loved him. Joe was kind of taken advantage of and then somewhat akin to a saint because he continued on as Charles' friend in a relationship that lasted longer than the one he had with Cybele.
I'm not sure why he was such a mean drunk unless he was just so discontent with his life. But he was like that before he met Cybele too, so I'm not sure how to gauge his development, if any.
Mod
What bother me about Charles was the fact that he cheated on his wife. He didn't love her as he thought but that doesn't negate/justifying cheating. The Joe/Charles dynamic gave a glimpse in to whom they each became after the war, and the effects of one woman changed them, not sure if it was for the good either. Charles was disconnected even from his daughter. Joe never married or had a lady friend, which was rather sad. I felt bad for Joe, and annoyed with Charles and Cybele. I skimmed their flashbacks.
Emerson. Thanks for the insight. I'm only a third way through I was hoping I'd get something more worthwhile into his reasoning and see something redeeming. I'll have to see. He kept telling Cybele not to idolize him but boy she seems to be. And joe if he sticks by this guy this whole time with nothing redeeming him I'm not sure what that says about him. Hmmmm. Hope to get more listening time today
Jonetta wrote: "Speaking of Charles...The sub-plot involving Joe and Charles during WWII...did you enjoy these flashbacks or find them distracting?"I kind of wish this had been its own book. I mean there is so much about Joe and Charles we still don't know all that much about. Sure, it is kind of funny that Joe is his gardener when everyone who counts know he is so much more. But what was coming back to the U.S. like for them after the war was over? How did they settle into the friendship they had? Did they just never talk about Cybele ever again and play chess? Lots of questions left about them. Not to discredit the book though. It was a great start to this series.
Quynh. I am not liking the flashbacks either. I don't like how Cybele is acting /seeing things. I know human right? But really. Again I'm not far in just to the point Charles dawned socks with her but I can see it coming.
Right now I'm irritated with Roma thinking about jelly. Irritated with Charles and joe. Mad at Mallory but most interested in her and David's story lol
That's supposed to be tom and kelly instead of Roma and jelly.
Mod
LMAO! It's been awhile since I read this but, these threw me.
Me and my phone lol. A match made in heaven. NOT
Jonetta wrote: "Speaking of Charles...The sub-plot involving Joe and Charles during WWII...did you enjoy these flashbacks or find them distracting?"In the beginning I was just curious and hoped to understand the ambivalent relationship between Joe and Charles which Tom described on his way to Baldwin's Bridge: 'Mr Ashton was Joe's crotchety best friend or arch nemesis, depending on the two old men's moods.' (page 13 or Pos. 232)
After a few of the flashbacks I started to dread them and I think they were one of the main reasons it took me so long to finish the book.
