The Husband's Secret
discussion
Question about Story if you already read the book (Spoiler Alert!)
Yes, Tess's Mother Lucy did cheat on her father. That is the reason for their divorce. That is one of the reasons she did not want Tess to tell her husband that she had slept with her ex during their brief break up. Lucy's feared it would end her daughter's relationship if Tess was to come clean with her husband. I don't think Lucy's mother would've ever admitted to Tess that she had an affair which ultimately lead to the divorce. She seemed to have a very poor opinion of her ex (which she made well known to Tess). It was her secret and she wasn't about to share it and look like the bad guy. She wanted to paint him as the bad guy and her as the victim. I thought the ending was clever. The fact that all these bad events resulted in Jean Paul thinking he was responsible for killing Janie, when in reality he didn't murder her at all. It definitely was twisted; however, I thought it made the story that much more interesting.
I think Jean Paul most definitely killed Janie. By strangling her, he caused her death. Maybe it isn't murder because of her medical condition, but it certainly was aggravated manslaughter. If you punch someone with a heart condition or a brain tumor you can't claim ignorance when he drops dead. It's called the fragile eggshell liability.
That's the legal explanation. Morally, he was guilty as sin.
Interesting explanation. Thanks. Would it actually hold up in court? In the USA or in Australia?
I suspected early on that there was a medical reason for Janie's death (why else go into detail about her symptoms?)And I think Tom is right. If it could be proved that but for Jean-Paul's actions, Janie would still be alive he is guilty of killing her.
Good point Kristal about going into the details on the symptoms. And good point Tom about the Fragile Eggshell liability. It makes sense that it's still murder/manslaughter if the choking caused it, even if she would not have died had she been healthy. But it did allow me to be a little more sympathetic to Jean-Paul. Not that I would grab someone by the throat...I guess other's (so far) didn't find the parts about Tess's parents incomplete. It felt to me like the author was building up to reveal more details - maybe a confessional as to why she cheated by the mother to Tess at some point. Occasionally I skim parts and I felt I missed something.
I really expected her cause of death to come out somehow and absolve Jean-Paul of murder and his guilt. I hated the smug wrap up at the end.Jean-Paul living the life of the martyr was unbelievable. I did not think he was a real character at all.
Tanya wrote: "Yes, Tess's Mother Lucy did cheat on her father. That is the reason for their divorce. That is one of the reasons she did not want Tess to tell her husband that she had slept with her ex during t..."I don't recall that it was ever actually said Lucy had an affair. I think the conclusions you've drawn are logical but not necessarily correct.
@Tanya - yeah, I got the distinct impression her mother had an affair but it felt like there would be more coming. An explicit admission/conversation between her and Tess at some point. I kept waiting for it but never saw it and thought maybe I was spacing out and missed it.
Lucy definitely had an affair. In that brief section, she admitted to her husband that she only did it to get his attention. Her admission backfired, however and he left her. This is why she counseled Tess not to disclose her affair to Will. Lucy knew that if Tess revealed her affair it would ruin any chance of a reconciliation.
I think Lucy regretted the mistakes she made in her marriage. I think she also regretted not taking her child's feelings into account before deciding to divorce.
John Paul was responsible for Janie's death. The choking triggered her condition, resulting in her death.
I actually found the whole Tess story incomplete. Why was it even in the book? I kept expecting it to tie in more closely with the Celeste/Rachel storyline and it never really did.We discover fairly early that these two seemingly separate character stories are pretty intimately connected because of Jean-Paul's attack on Janie, but why was Tess in there? Yes, Connor knew Janie and so he tied into the story, but then why not make Connor the "lead" in that other storyline and not Tess. Is it just that the author couldn't write from a male perspective? It's such a tentative connection that Tess is just sleeping with some guy who knew this dead girl that it never felt fully satisfying and fleshed out.
As for the affair, I definitely got the distinct impression that her mother had an affair. I was expecting the author to flesh that out more and make it more full circle, like by having the other man be her twin sister's husband so that it's a parallel of Tess and Felicity. Again, the author just kind of dropped the ball on that story angle and it felt deflated.
My take on the epilogue was a little different. It left a bad feeling for me because it felt like the author was trying to excuse Jean-Paul. I actually don't hate Jean-Paul. He did a bad thing, but he tormented himself about it for decades after the fact and was willing to do the right thing. He eventually came clean to Rachel and put his fate in her hands. The epilogue almost felt like she was trying to excuse his actions entirely, even though he never excused himself.
The book was an enjoyable read, but it didn't quite achieve full marks in story development for me.
Well said Chelsea. That is pretty much exactly what I was thinking in most areas, especially regarding Tess's mom. The author seemed to start the story line then just abandon it. And Tess sleeping with Connor, I didn't really get that. It felt a little icky to be so lovesick over your husband one day and enjoying casual sex with a near stranger the next.I would say it felt like the author excused Jean-Paul but I was OK with that, I really didn't want him to be a bad guy. I wanted it to all be OK... I just wished HE knew he didn't TOTALLY choke some girl to death.
All my nit-picking aside, I really did enjoy the story very much, but I agree it didn't seem fully developed in a few areas.
It seems that most are bothered by the fact that Tess's Mother's affair wasn't more fleshed out. I don't see why it had to be or what it could've added to the story. I think the point of it was to warn Tess that she needed to keep the affair a secret and never come clean to her husband, even after they got back together. In regards to Tess sleeping with Conor, I think this type of scenario happens frequently with couples going through a separation (even if it is just temporary), especially if it is due to one partner having an affair. She felt incredibly hurt and angry. I think a small part was revenge, but it was mainly to prove to herself that other men still found her appealing. She was very intimidated by her best friend's new found beauty and how it had stolen her husband away from her. She wanted confirmation that she was still attractive and also to have a breath escape from the pain she was experiencing.
My thoughts exactly Gertt! They had a relationship a long time ago. He wasn't a complete stranger. He was someone she trusted. I don't think there was anything wrong with what she did. Her husband was the one who practically tore apart their family by having an affair with her best friend. They were separated and she was free to do as she wished.
I have plenty of questions... who loves whom? Tess? Will? who feels punished? John-Paul and Cecilia? who really is? the little Polly. Somehow, there is a weird morality which does not make sense. You guess J.P cannot be guilty because it would bring the book to an untimely end. But an aortic aneurysm? a bit unbelievable, no?Empty book for me.
Anne, thank you for those words "empty book." When I've tried to describe it, I used the word "silly," but that wasn't correct. Definitely "empty."I think the author hit the nail on the head when discussing what living with secrets does to a person/family, etc. I do wish she had written a better book using that theme.
I agree, Anita. There is an idea which deserved to be better exploited. The book s meant to ask questions about the effects of secrets, but ends up showing you how your actions trap you in a game without any satisfying answers. And mostly to look smart... No one except the readers will know that JP is not exactly guilty of murder. Think of living like that for his family?
yes, and that is why I think it is a mediocre book.
I do have a question and hope someone can help. I listened to the audio and I wasn't distracted, but did Rachel die in her sleep, while holding her grandson? She was holding her grandson and didn't think she could go back to sleep, but Janie said, "You can sleep now" or something like that. The Epilogue didn't say anything about it, so I was also wondering if JP got off the hook since (possibly) Rachel passed away in her sleep without telling anyone. I hate that this bothers me, not knowing.
I have to find the book to answer, or try to.
I keep seeing others mention the fact that Jean-Paul actually didn't kill Rachel's daughter, but this isn't really true. While the laws in Australia could be different, I'm pretty sure this would be the same as the US. Since Janie never would have died if it weren't for Jean Paul choking her, he still would have been guilty in the eyes of the law. It doesn't matter that her medical issue affected her death. In the law, they say that perps pick their victims, so whatever other factors are involved, it doesn't matter bc they picked the victim. There was a case of a man who assaulted someone at a bar. The victim went to the hospital but denied treatment on religious grounds. He died and the guy who assaulted him was convicted of murder, even though the guy never would have died if he had just gotten medical attention.Jean Paul's situation is similar. If Janie didn't have that medical issue, she wouldn't have died, but that doesn't matter. If JP never choked her, she wouldn't have died; therefore, he is guilty.
Like I said, there is a chance that Australian law is different, but US & Australian law are both based off British common law, so I'm guessing it would be the same.
wow! where did you read about such a case? i goes against any kind of law, whether British, Australian or Italian...
I'm a law student and had to research the case
The rule is called the thin skull rule or eggshell rule. I can't find the case I was originally talking about but here is a case of a man who stabbed a woman, who then refused the blood transfusion that would save her life. The man's defense said that her refusal was actually her cause of death, not the stab wounds. The judge ruled that those "who use violence on others must take their victims as they find them." The case is R v Blaue if you want to look into it. It is a well established legal doctrine so there is a ton of case law about it.
But do we know that Janie wouldn't have died if he hadn't choked her? I thought *maybe* her condition killed her and it was just really coincidental timing.
If you wound or kill someone who dies because of a previous weakness you were unknown on, you can be sentenced. But if the victim refuses medical treatment, it takes your responsibility away. Yes, if someone has a weak skull and you break it with a punch which would no have killed men with better skulls, it may be your fault.But if the victim has a broken arm profusely bleeding and refuses a blood transfusion for religious reasons, you are out of trouble. The difference is kind of clear.
With Janie, it would be complicated and experts would contradict each other and the jury would have to decide.
I worked as a lawyer for 20 years and you realize very few things are neat and clear. and clear.
those cases have to be studied to really understand what is behind...
That is interesting because I would think that even if you refused a blood transfusion, the person would still be in trouble because they put you in that predicament. They caused the bleeding and that killed you. Of course I also don't understand why the punishment for attempted murder is not the same as the punishment for successful murder. You still tried to kill someone. Why should you be rewarded for failing?
The punishment for attempted murder is supposed to be the same, but juries see things with more indulgence if the victim is still in good health. In many cases, it may be more difficult to put a murder 1 on the guilty person if his attempts bought no real body harm.And if you broke someone's harm, you would still be in trouble for causing bodily harm, but not for murder.
But you have the intention problem which plays a big part. If you meant to kill someone, and he dies, partially from the wounds you inflicted and from poor medical treatment or other, you are cause of the death, among others, but you may be sentenced. Attempted murder, if it has been stopped by something else than the wannabe murderer, could be sentenced the same way. So, the original question remains, did Jean-Paul intend to kill her? That is what I meant with stabbing someone in the arm. It should be possible to argue you never intended to kill the victim, but you got in a fight, you had to defend yourself, and it may end up as a max with involuntary manslaughter.
"But if the victim has a broken arm profusely bleeding and refuses a blood transfusion for religious reasons, you are out of trouble. The difference is kind of clear."Actually Anne, that isn't true. If you read my post about the woman who refused a blood transfusion, you will see that the man who stabbed her was convicted even though she would have lived if she had the transfusion. In the law, they say that those "who use violence on others must take their victims as they find them." She has the right to refuse the transfusion and since he picked the victim, he also "picks" her religious beliefs, medical conditions and whatever else. She dies, so he gets convicted. The case is R v. Blaue if you want to look into it.
I actually did a bit more research about Australian cases regarding this topic, just to make sure the law applied to Australia as well as the US, and it does. There were a few similar cases that occurred in Australia and the perps were convicted.
JP was choking Janie and she wouldn't have died in that moment if he hadn't been choking her. That is basically all that matters.
I've read your post, and looked at the comments made under R v Blaue. The decision makes you wonder. There must have been a will to kill... I could not find the practical details of the case, just the sentencing, which was not for murder, but manslaughter. quite a difference, no? And the guy's actions were not very nice -to come in someone's house to rape and stab to kill when he could not get what he wanted... Attempted murder is the UK has the same sentences as murder -with the R v Morrison possibility of grievous body harm, in the case the victim did not die (because a jury might be reluctant to sentence fro attempted murder when the victim is standing next to them). Anyway, to put it differently, someone convicted of murder must have had the intention to kill -mens rea. That makes attempted murder hard to prove...In cases like R v Blaue, most of the time, I don't believe the Crown would go for murder, because it seems possible for the defense to contest having played an equivalent part in the death of the victim. Think of the notion of accident, e.g., as accepted or refused by courts. A man stung by a bee losing control of his car and dying from the crash is the victim of an accident, a causality exterior to him. But a guy fainting from a very minor heart problem, getting in a car crash because of his loss of consciousness is not dead by accident, say the insurance companies and the courts have followed...
When I speak of stabbing someone in the arm, you won't find the mens rea. Unless you can prove I knew the victim was hemophiliac, normally, there is intention to cause bodily harm -or self defense, or many other things, but no murder lust.
Now, you have a lot of "agreements" ( no plea bargains) between the prosecution and the defense. I remember a guy learning his wife had a lover when in the kitchen, he grabbed a knife and stabbed her. then called an ambulance, cried, etc... The prosecutor agreed to look for voluntary body harm, and he defense lawyer had to agree with the voluntary and not discuss it or it could have been requalified in attempted murder. 3 years as a sentence...
Let us say that practically, most cases have to be solved as fast as possible. And a lot of principles are twisted in real life. In January 2015, an aboriginal girl of 11 died of leukemia, because her parents did not want chemo for her, but relied of ancestral wisdom. A judge allowed them. Does it make it right?
That is when common law shocks me deeply. I could say that if those decisions remain famous, it is because they are extreme. Sure, they create precedents. But to answer your R v Blaue, you have R v Jordan, or Kennedy 2007 and certainly many others. The chain of causation must remain uninterrupted. If medical mistakes or inaction become the more substantial cause of death, the defendant is not responsible anymore. R v Blaue has been criticized and made almost ridiculous by playing on the time element. If the victim had survived a few days, it would have broken the chain even if an infection had then killed her.
Anyway, it shows how complicated it is to know to outcome of a criminal process.
And I would add, how weir and unfair common law may be -the more money you have, the more time can be spent searching precedents.
ps I don't disagree about jp, it is a twist to "absolve" him without much results.
So, do you believe that JP would have been convicted of murder? or even manslaughter?It seems like the author put that information about Janie to make readers think he was innocent all along, but I don't see how he would be. If he hadn't choked her, she'd be alive. Choking is a violent act and a reasonable person knows that choking can result in death. Her medical problem shouldn't be relevant.
I'm interested to know if I'm alone in that thinking.
If his actions were known, and he was offered a manslaughter sentence or the risk of going for murder... I think he should jump at the -maybe involuntary manslaughter. Don't you?
an interesting case: a guy took a life and unability to work insurance. No a big one, about $40,000. Close to 60 he has a bad heart attack and got Crohn's disease. The insurance said no...The ourt named an expert, a roster doctor from their usual listing. The doctor said he could work...So, I had to tell hem I disagreed. I said everybody could work, five year old can knot wool on teppiches, Christopher Reeves worked when totally paralyzed, I knew a guy when I was a kid selling lottery tickets legally, he was blind and only had one leg. I sustained no one will ever give him a job, which was obvious and would make him unable to work. Subsidiary, I invoked the nullity of the insurance contract, which was more expensive than a simple life policy and promised services they would never pay. The ex-directer of Elle, Jean-Dominique Bauby though suffering of locked in syndrome was able to dictate a book, made into a movie, the Diving Bell and the Butterfly. I won, and the insurance company appealed it. The rule was to let the colleagues from the court of appeal plead the cases. It was lost on appeal, and no reason, no possibility to go in cassation. The problems were de facto. The poor guy just lost any money from 55 to 60, though he mus have collected unemployment. But justice? that is a joke!
Anne said: "No a big one, about $40,000. Close to 60 he has a bad heart attack and got Crohn's disease. The insurance said no...The ourt named an expert, a roster doctor from their usual listing. The doctor said he could work..." I have thought of getting disability insurance in the U.S. but you have to be so bad off to collect on it it seems like a scam. You must lose TWO eyes, or TWO limbs, etc.
Getting back to the book - I do not think Jean-Paul intended to kill her but if his choking contributed to her death I think he would be guilty of at least manslaughter in the US. As a reader of the book, I just wanted him to be innocent. I felt bad for everyone, the girl's mom, Jean-Paul and his wife the most. He did not seem like a bad person. (I mean who amongst us hasn't grabbed someone by the throat? Just kidding!) But one rash action can change your whole life.
I just read Fragile by Lisa Unger and it had that same type of theme - how an isolated incident in teenage years can change the trajectory of many lives.
I agree, I don't think Jean Paul is a bad person. He was a kid and made an awful mistake, but he obviously felt horrible about it. On an unrelated note- the summary of the book claims that Rachel and Tess are also heavily affected by Jean Paul's secret. We all know that Rachel is affected but seriously, how is Tess affected by it? All I can see are very minuscule connections such as, Will witnessing the car accident. Am I missing something?
I had the (wrong) feeling there was more coming... like no one knows about JP. Tess should not be seriously affected, but she is mentioned. As if a couple of chapters were missing.
I don't think LM intended JP to seem innocent. In the epilogue, she writes that had he choked any other [healthy] girl under the same circumstances, she would've run away and reported him to the police and his whole life would've taken on a different trajectory. He could've been charged with attempted murder and even if found not guilty, that would hang over his head forever. Yes, he felt bad and he suffered, insofar as we know, only three other people knew what he did and he never had to face all that went along with facing the consequences of his actions. I didn't feel bad for him. As Celia says, by writing that letter, he dumped it all in her lap. What a nice surprise to give your beloved spouse on the day you die-the knowledge that you were a murderer. Grief isn't enough, now she would have guilt and despair and self doubt on her plate.Tess is definitely connected. When she first dates Connor, he is still feeling the effects of his mother lying for him about his whereabouts on the evening of Janie's murder. He knows his own mother believes he is capable of murder. What would he have been like without that weighing on him? How would it have changed his relationship with Tess? Also, Will witnessing the accident causes Tess to be more careful with him in her reactions to all that happened. Will has the importance of his own child thrust under his nose by witnessing Polly be struck by the car-who knows how he would've acted had he not seen it?
This was a complex story with so many themes running through it, secrets, lies, heat of the moment actions, choice, consequence. What it lacked for me was emotional intensity. This is the first LM that didn't grip me. The strongest emotion I had was being aggravated with Tess for being so willing to be easy on Will and Felicity, the two people she trusted most who betrayed her and worse, with each other.
I don't think Rachel died-it reads that she fell asleep. Hearing Janie talk to her in that way was like release-she was letting go of the past.
Yes, there were loose threads. I would've liked more on Lucy and Tess' dad. I would've liked more on Rachel apologizing to Rob for having been a crappy mother after Janie died. Connor was an interesting story. And good grief-imagine the story of Polly, growing up with a father torn apart by grief and guilt that he was the initial trigger in the events that caused her to lose her arm and Celia, who could've told Rachel or the police and changed the course of things. Imagine who Polly would become... but a book can only be so long.
@sublimosa, that's a great review/comment. I read the book so long ago now I'd forgotten how much went on in the story. I didn't even remember Polly losing her arm! Though I do vaguely now that you mention it.
Laura, I think this is one of the blessings of GoodReads and bookclubs if you are fortunate enough to be part of one-we get to hear what other people saw, what we might have missed, how people in different circumstances than ours react to the same words. I look to these threads to enhance my experience of a book.
The Lucy affair not clearly disclosed seemed like a storyline started but left abandoned. Not that it would made much diference to the resto of th story, but still a hole in the story.The epilogue, to me, was made to show that life is made of "if´s": if this would have been knowned/ if this happened etc - no more, no less.
But really Tess didn´t seem to have much tie-in to the rest of the characters.
You raise some good points, sublimosa, and I want to add in one more major tie in for why Tess was her effect on Connor. He wouldn't have been around to attract Polly's attention if he wasn't heading to the park to meet Tess and her son. If Tess' perspective hadn't been present in the book, putting him right there by the street would have seemed very forced and unreasonable, but, with his plan to go fly a kite, he has a motive for being right where the action's happening and acting as a catalyst for events. She also keeps a fresh perspective that retains some mystery to it during the first part of the book. We don't know if Connor is the murderer or not, so his interactions with Tess in combined with the certainty Rachel has in her own correctness adds tension up until the letter's reveal. Tess is also instrumental in the letter chapters in a secondary way. We needed a third character to space out the two deeply involved ladies in the story. At the start, you could even argue that Cecilia has very little purpose in being around, so, without Tess, we'd already know that Cecilia and her family has something significant to do with the plot of the book.
It's less of an active role, but, I find it important none the less.
yes, when a book creates comments worth reading, it is really nice. Just sad it does not happen more often!Now, I want to go through the big number of books I have and find this one to read it again. Many of the memories I have of it are getting blurred. I read it more than a year ago, and went through 500 other ones in between, and it makes it complicated to remember the details.
Do you have this kind of discussion on other books? so far, I haven't found that many.
Anne, with all the book groups on Goodreads, I think you can probably find one with the discussion you are looking for.
I can find plenty, I have found plenty. Let us say this one is really interesting.
I found it interesting that all three husbands in the book had secrets which drastically affected the destiny of their families. Will's midlife crisis and infatuation with Felicity, Ed Crowley's secret tennis lesson when he was supposed to be with clients (on the day Janie was killed).
Good point, I didn't even think of that.
Several times it was mentioned that Cecilia witnessed the little Spider-Man. It was never talked about more than a passing thought. Why were the events of that day not talked about, and why was it brought up at all in the book?The Tess connection was my other question. Great answer, that she put Connor in that spot with the kite. Besides that, I felt Tess's story to be very satisfying. She had less interaction with Rachel and Cecilia, but her story was a very painful one and deserved to be explored. I'm glad that was part of the book; how she coped and how her story with Will concluded was well worth the read. Whether some agree with her decision or not, it shows that we are human and we can move beyond mistakes.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
SPOILER ALERT if you haven't read it yet:
In the book, Tess's parents are divorced. There is a short scene that flashes back to their break up where Lucy says something like "I only did it so you would look at me." and the dad says something like "I just don't care." I got the impression the mom cheated on him, but I couldn't tell if it was because he didn't really love her, or if the cheating caused his indifference. Later Tess remembers her dad always saying "ask your mom" when she questioned the breakup.
It felt like something we would learn more about. I kept expecting Tess to have a conclusive conversation about it with her mom, but it never came. Did I skim and miss that? Did I put too much importance on it for the point of this story? I'm interested in any thoughts about it.
Also, totally different topic, I found the epilogue where we learn that Jean-Paul actually did not kill Janie disturbing. I don't like to think of him and everyone never knowing that. I felt like it let me, the reader, off the hook in knowing he didn't get away with murder, but it also left me with a really bad feeling to think he, his wife, and Janie's mom will go to their graves thinking he did. OK, I suppose you shouldn't go around grabbing people by the throat, but I didn't like knowing her death was actually unrelated with the characters left carrying that burden. I'm curious what others think.