Question D

[Jonetta]

The story transitions in time between the first time Meg and Nils meet, their meeting in Washington, DC when he’s there for a hearing about the extraction in Kazbekistan and present day beginning at the embassy. What worked/didn’t work about the shifting timelines? Was it helpful in better understanding both of them and the status of their relationship or could it have been accomplished differently?

[Anita]

One thing I really like about Suzanne Brockmann is that she shows you the couple's history instead of just telling you about it. For me, it makes for a much more interesting book. It is one think I often fault other authors for not doing.

[Robin]

Learning about Meg and Nils past was helpful in getting to know the characters. The shifting timelines weren't a problem for me because the author does a good job at letting us know what the setting is (Kazbekistan 3 years ago, etc.)

[Jonetta]

Well said, Anita and Robin. Brockmann is a master storyteller and those transitions were flawless. I ended up with a clear picture of both of them and their relationship. All of it worked for me.

[Sharon]

I agree with all of you. Brockman's writing techniques are excellent. I enjoyed the past and the present.