Group Read - Before She Knew Him final comments Spoilers Welcome

[Ann]

This topic is for discussion of the entire book, spoilers welcome.
What did you think of the book? Will you or have you read other Peter Swanson books?
*No spoilers for other books here unless you mask the spoilers with html.

[Sumit]

Overall, I liked the book though I felt some tracks (like the Hen's husband's track) unnecessary. I wish there was some more story between Hen & Matthew. The ending felt a bit underwhelming. Still enjoyable..

[Sumit]

I have read The Kind Worth Killing The Kind Worth Killingand I really recommend it. It is one of the best thrillers I have read
.

[OMalleycat]

I enjoyed Before She Knew Him. I liked that it took standard serial killer motifs and turned them upside down. As Carol noted, we know who’s the killer and who is one of his victims from very near the beginning. The mystery is how it’s all going to play out and throughout the book Swanson stays off the usual plot pathways and creates a unique story.

When Matthew suddenly appears in Hen’s studio, it’s not to intimidate her but to initiate a conversation from which he derives some comfort. She isn’t so much repelled by Matthew as disquieted and intrigued. I liked Swanson’s use of Hen’s mental illness and past irrational acts to distort the trust of the police. It serves the purpose of the plot—Matthew remains unrestrained—but is believable. We understand the police’s distrust but it heightens tension because we know she’s right but her information is devalued. Unlike so many thrillers, all the characters have recognizable, if sometimes non-standard, motivations.

I most appreciated Swanson’s characterization of Matthew in the chapters from his point of view. While Matthew is definitely a sick puppy, we DON’T have to read pages of psycho repetitive gibbering. I hate that aspect of most serial killer books that include the killer’s POV. As heinous as these criminals are, many of those we hear about after their captures have held jobs and have families. If we lived next door to them we wouldn’t suspect anything unless we spotted their purloined fencing trophies. I think the image of ranting lunatic serial killers is largely fictional and I appreciate Swanson going beyond the cliche.

I liked the pacing of the book and haven’t lately read many books as well plotted. The pace is neither slowed by excessive exposition nor rushed by a race to the finish. It’s a nice, clean mystery/thriller, not trying to disguise thin plot by hectic action.

With so much to appreciate I was finding this a four star read until the last few pages. As I read I’d bought, without thinking about it, that Hen had lived on the same street as Dustin Miller and been obsessed with his murder. She then moves next door to his murderer: a coincidence, but for me within the boundaries of achievable suspension of disbelief.

So why would Swanson end with the revelation that Hen was acquainted with Dustin, went to his apartment, (saw the trophy), was nearly raped, was obsessed, then found herself next door to his murderer? Becoming obsessed with a crime that happens in your neighborhood is well within the realm of possibility. I think a lot of people might do so. But there’s a much smaller probability of having been a near-victim of the murderee and to add the improbability of moving next door to the murderer ratcheted down the odds to a degree I found unsustainable. There’s already a major coincidence with Hen moving into Matthew’s neighborhood. That’s necessary to get the plot going. That she knew Dustin (and knew him as a potential rapist) was too much for me.

This particularly bothered me because Swanson plotted and wrote with such a nuanced hand. Why include such a boneheadedly hard-to-believe revelation when it was entirely unnecessary? I felt Hen’s acquaintance with Dustin added nothing. It might have worked if she’d been shown to have a whiff of support for Matthew taking out men who victimized women—that would have added another complex layer to the relationship between Hen and Matthew.

As it was, this bothered me so much it changed my perception of the book and I docked one star. It’s a three star read for me—good in many respects but with a clunker of a final revelation.

[Barbara K]

OMalleycat wrote: "So why would Swanson end with the revelation that Hen was acquainted with Dustin, went to his apartment, (saw the trophy), was nearly raped, was obsessed, then found herself next door to his murderer? ..."

I also found the that ending something of a puzzlement. I agree that it isn't illogical for someone to become obsessed with the murder of a neighborhood resident, and that this could be one coincidence too many.

But I also wondered if the reason that Hen has such a strange bond with Matthew is that she knows she nearly fell prey to a man Matthew chose as a victim. It binds her to him, and by revealing it at the end, the author brings the story full circle.

But then again, I would have been happy without this addition at the end. It would have been 5 stars for me either way.

[Carol/Bonadie]

Sumit wrote: "I have read The Kind Worth Killing The Kind Worth Killingand I really recommend it. It is one of the best thrillers I have read
."

I agree with you on this, Sumit. Certainly the best of Peter's books. I'm waiting for news that it is being made into a movie or TV series. I would love that!!

[OMalleycat]

Barbara wrote: "But I also wondered if the reason that Hen has such a strange bond with Matthew is that she knows she nearly fell prey to a man Matthew chose as a victim. It binds her to him, and by revealing it at the end, the author brings the story full circle."

Barbara, I think this is a “different strokes for different folks” moment. I considered that Hen’s bond with Matthew might have been based on his killing a man who had nearly raped her, but it just didn’t ring the bell for me. For one thing, as Carol noted elsewhere, Hen was very open with Lloyd (and most everyone else) about generally whatever is going on with her. So it’s out of character for her to have not told Lloyd about being attacked by Dustin. I think she gives a reason for this—not wanting to alarm him, not wanting to look stupid, something along those lines. But when she accuses Matthew of Dustin’s murder it seems strange she wouldn’t tell Lloyd (or the police) at that point.

As I said in an above post, if Swanson had even hinted that Matthew’s motivation for killing Dustin had some personal meaning for Hen I might have accepted the twist ending. Since he didn’t, it just seemed like twist for the sake of twist—something I particularly dislike. It didn’t ruin the whole book for me but unfortunately since it was at the very end it does cause me to remember the book less fondly than I might have.

[Carol/Bonadie]

Here's an excellent interview with Peter Swanson on Before She Knew Him and other topics, at the Portland, ME Public Library.

http://www.ctn5.org/shows/member-high...

[OMalleycat]

Carol/Bonadie wrote: "Here's an excellent interview with Peter Swanson on Before She Knew Him and other topics, at the Portland, ME Public Library.."

Thanks, Carol. Great interview! There were a lot of interesting topics covered. Swanson is very articulate, which one always expects from an author but doesn’t always find.

When he was asked about his favorite authors I was ready to say Patricia Highsmith even before he did. Their works aren’t similar in details, but are very much alike in atmosphere and the moral ambiguity of the characters.

They (the interviewer is an M/T writer as well, James Hayman) talked a lot about book titles and how they are market-driven. I was interested because I’ve been peeved about book titles for many years now. So many are so similar and generic you can’t immediately discern what the book is about, so undistinctive that many titles in my Goodreads library do nothing to help me remember the book. The publishing houses are unlikely to change this, but I think it’s a bad trend.

They also talked about writing from the POV of the killer and including mentally ill characters, topics we’ve covered here.

Between the two authors they quoted having heard that 65-80% of mystery readers are women. Interesting! And they and the audience provide a little speculation as to why. Now we know why Dan, Barry, and Russ are our only male regular posters.

I’m thinking about Swanson saying that he realized in Before She Knew Him he’d planned to kill a character earlier and realized the character needed to stick around a while. Was it Lloyd? Matthew’s fellow teacher (whose name I can’t remember)? I can’t think of any other candidates.

Swanson described his next book with a plot involving a list of 8 best mysteries and a killer who is murdering based on the list. Sounds like a natural for our group.

Carol, I know I’m late to the party and you probably covered this a long time ago, but how do you know Peter? I’m glad you do so that we’ve all heard of him and his books!

The interview is a bit over 45 minutes if you want to budget your time. Once I started watching I couldn’t stop. :)

[Carol/Bonadie]

OMalleycat wrote: "I’m thinking about Swanson saying that he realized in Before She Knew Him he’d planned to kill a character earlier and realized the character needed to stick around a while. Was it Lloyd? Matthew’s fellow teacher (whose name I can’t remember)? I can’t think of any other candidates.

I may be misremembering but I think it was the interviewer who said this. The question was whether either of them had planned to kill a character but as they went along they found they couldn't do it. and Hayman said the above. I'll go back and check when I have time (squeezing this into a lunch hour).

Swanson described his next book with a plot involving a list of 8 best mysteries and a killer who is murdering based on the list. Sounds like a natural for our group.
I was so excited about the plot of this book. A bookstore owner comes up with a list of the 8 best ways to kill someone (and get away with it maybe) and the FBI contact him to say it appears someone has started to implement the list. Yikes!!! Definitely sounds like a group read. Unfortunately it probably won't come out until next February.

Carol, I know I’m late to the party and you probably covered this a long time ago, but how do you know Peter? I’m glad you do so that we’ve all heard of him and his books!
Peter was a co-worker for a number of years before he left to pursue writing full time. He credits his supervisor with supporting him in his writing and allowing him the flexibility in his hours so he could continue to write. He deliberately chose a job that he wouldn't bring home with him. I only see him at book signings but am so thrilled to follow his career, enjoy his books, and support him in person when I can.

The interview is a bit over 45 minutes if you want to budget your time. Once I started watching I couldn’t stop. :)..."
Yes, I started watching it while eating my breakfast and had to keep it playing on my drive into work, it was that interesting.

I don't know about you, but when Peter divulged in the interview that Matthew had killed his wife's first husband, I said "NONONO, that's a spoiler I wouldn't want to hear!" But it must be hard to go spoiler-free in an interview, and I admit to being particularly sensitive to these things.

[Paige McGuire]

I probably missed it in the book but I just have one quick question. The author says that Mira knew about Richard and she hated him. Did she know that Matthew was split personality? It’s probably super obvious in the book...

[Carol/Bonadie]

Paige McGuire wrote: "I probably missed it in the book but I just have one quick question. The author says that Mira knew about Richard and she hated him. Did she know that Matthew was split personality? It’s probably s..."

Paige, that's a very good question. It was my sense that she knew of him from Matthew but had never met him, but I'm not sure about that. I don't think she ever indicated that she knew about Matthew's split personality, which she would have done if she'd met him obviously. This knowledge would have been a huge part of her narrative I would think.

[Ann]

Paige and Carol: My take - I felt this question was unanswered through to the end of the book. If Mira did hate Richard then it would seem logical she had "met" him when Matthew was in the background. She apparently mostly saw Matthew though. The idea of a split personality seems like something you would find easy to ignore especially when the milder version of Matthew appears predominantly.

Is it possible that Mira's dislike of Richard was in Matthew's head? What if Richard was growing in power more recently and was previously hidden but Matthew himself knew he was acting like Richard and that Mira disliked when he was using the Richard persona?

Paige McGuire wrote: "I probably missed it in the book but I just have one quick question. The author says that Mira knew about Richard and she hated him. Did she know that Matthew was split personality? It’s probably s..."

Carol wrote:
"Paige, that's a very good question. It was my sense that she knew of him from Matthew but had never met him, but I'm not sure about that. I don't think she ever indicated that she knew about Matthew's split personality, which she would have done if she'd met him obviously. This knowledge would have been a huge part of her narrative I would think."