Ed

[the_mad_chatter]

Fran knew that she was putting charges on the credit card that they couldn't afford.  I understand why they didn't sell the boat, I don't agree with the pretense.

What I find so surprising is that many will excuse Fran and Ed's flaws because of the disappearance.  But these were flaws before the disappearance so why would we be blind to them?

[Peppermill]

---

the_mad_chatter wrote:

Fran knew that she was putting charges on the credit card that they couldn't afford. I understand why they didn't sell the boat, I don't agree with the pretense.

What I find so surprising is that many will excuse Fran and Ed's flaws because of the disappearance. But these were flaws before the disappearance so why would we be blind to them?

---

Mad-chatter -- I don't see the discussion being at all about excusing or being blind to Fran's or Ed's flaws -- or strengths. I see it as about being and acting in the midst of those realities of their particular humanness. And certainly this discussion is causing some of us to look at our own habits of how we deal with and about other people -- including those that we don't know very well or who may be outside our usual "culture" or "community".

You have suggested that Fran's publicity efforts became excessive -- I have been wondering what should/could have been the role of those supporting her and ED, such as Fran's friend Connie, Father John, those they in turn spoke with, even the media contacts themselves to moderate or re-direct those to more productive possibilities -- whatever those might have been.

You (or someone else) also mentioned the short shrift Lindsay received and that therapy certainly was appropriate to consider, especially given Fran's hospital contacts. I passed that lack off to the Midwestern, small town locale of the novel, but I do think that would be an interesting question to pose to O'Nan.

Someone else's recent post wondered why Lindsay didn't get more attention sooner. I do think it appropriate to notice that her style had long been to withdraw into her own space. That doesn't "excuse" not reaching out to her, but it does suggest the plausibility of the dynamics. We do know that Fran wasn't particularly skillful at reaching into the lives of her adolescents at the very point they were drawing away from their parents and their community. Whether we like it or not, that is one of the challenges of busy (perhaps all) parents. While the problem is certainly not restricted to working parents, lack of time can impact the social connections that can arise and surround children. But those are matters of personality and familial backgrounds as well.

PS -- I didn't figure out how valuable is the boat Ed uses. Did anyone else?

[the_mad_chatter]

---

Peppermill wrote:

---

the_mad_chatter wrote:

Fran knew that she was putting charges on the credit card that they couldn't afford. I understand why they didn't sell the boat, I don't agree with the pretense.

What I find so surprising is that many will excuse Fran and Ed's flaws because of the disappearance. But these were flaws before the disappearance so why would we be blind to them?

---

Mad-chatter -- I don't see the discussion being at all about excusing or being blind to Fran's or Ed's flaws -- or strengths. I see it as about being and acting in the midst of those realities of their particular humanness. And certainly this discussion is causing some of us to look at our own habits of how we deal with and about other people -- including those that we don't know very well or who may be outside our usual "culture" or "community".

You have suggested that Fran's publicity efforts became excessive -- I have been wondering what should/could have been the role of those supporting her and ED, such as Fran's friend Connie, Father John, those they in turn spoke with, even the media contacts themselves to moderate or re-direct those to more productive possibilities -- whatever those might have been.

You (or someone else) also mentioned the short shrift Lindsay received and that therapy certainly was appropriate to consider, especially given Fran's hospital contacts. I passed that lack off to the Midwestern, small town locale of the novel, but I do think that would be an interesting question to pose to O'Nan.

Someone else's recent post wondered why Lindsay didn't get more attention sooner. I do think it appropriate to notice that her style had long been to withdraw into her own space. That doesn't "excuse" not reaching out to her, but it does suggest the plausibility of the dynamics. We do know that Fran wasn't particularly skillful at reaching into the lives of her adolescents at the very point they were drawing away from their parents and their community. Whether we like it or not, that is one of the challenges of busy (perhaps all) parents. While the problem is certainly not restricted to working parents, lack of time can impact the social connections that can arise and surround children. But those are matters of personality and familial backgrounds as well.

PS -- I didn't figure out how valuable is the boat Ed uses. Did anyone else?

---

[paula_02912]

Karen wrote: "What did you think of Ed, Kim's father? What makes him tick? How does he change over the course of the story? What are some of the transformative moments for Ed?

In what ways does Kim's abduction influence Ed's relationship with those around him -- particularly Fran?"

Karen, I think that Ed's character was a little weak at first...he seemed to do everything that Fran told him to do, and rarely wanted to argue with her...as I kept reading through the first 13 chapters however, I noticed that Ed just wanted to make things as easy for the girls as he could...he was the total opposite of Fran, which caused some friction in their marriage, but he learned to choose which battles to fight...I think that he loved his daughters, and he would do anything for them, and when Kim disappeared he felt he had to do something...he needed to go out and look for her right away, because it was the only way he felt, at that time, that he could do something to find her...maybe guilt drove him to act the way he did, just a speculation here, or maybe he felt that no one else would be able to find her as quickly as he could...it wasn't until he came home feeling "defeated" that he realized he needed to do more in his family. I think that Ed became more of an active participant in his family, rather than sit back and let Fran tell him what to do, as the story unfolds...He took charge of the search party volunteers; he became more attentive to his wife and Lindsay...I am not sure if things changed as you read further, but I am sure that I will find out more later on...

[paula_02912]

I thought it very interesting that Ed went to Sandusky. The first instance we heard of this place was when Ed was out searching for Kim on p.16. He was talking about how he was "a public person, who valued privacy," (sort of like Kim stated in the beginning chapter of the book). He also said how part of his job was to know secrets, both his clients and the towns...it is at this point where he mentions Sandusky. He said that "a registered sex offender lived on Sandusky..." On initial reading, I didn't think this line would have any significance, but I think that the line means much more now...he explains this man's crime, and it makes me buy into the idea that someone took Kim, rather than she just ran away...what is everyone else's opinion on this?

[paula_02912]

HannibalCat wrote: "At this point in the story, I see the emotions coming from fear, rather than grief. The fear of death, loss, not knowing, etc. is the driving force right now. When someone goes missing, the family left behind desperately need each other to allay their own fears. Here, they jumped right into emotional denial. And each member denied the right of the others to express their fear."

I agree the first part of your message here...I do believe that the reactions they displayed, like withdrawal stemmed primarily from fear of the worst, since there was hope that Kim will be found...however, I disagree with what appears to be a blanket statement about how people will react after someone goes missing that "the family left behind desperately need each other to allay their own fears"....is this the case for all families who have to deal with the disappearance of someone in their families?...I don't feel that each member of the family denied any one member to express their fears...I think that their reactions were typical of this particular family dynamic...

[the_mad_chatter]

Sorry I haven't posted earlier.  Been out enjoying Summer.  One quick thought, when calculating the boat's value let's also consider marina fees, fuel, insurance, etc.  As the boat is not a necessary expense, I really wished Ed and Fran would have sold it.  It would have signaled some perspective change on their part. 

Also, about my excessive comments...let me explain a little more.  When Fran went on line and researched "searching for a missing child"  she was amazed at all the information but she (or any of her close friends) did not consider if the information was good or appropriate for her situation.  She seemed to accept it as the gospel and went full steam ahead.  This was a warning flag for me.  If it's found on the internet it does not mean it's correct, valid, useful or the best information available.  I would have expected some suggestion of counseling on someone's part or on one of those checklists.  Did anyone else find this odd?  I was surprised that Fran's colleagues didn't suggest it being hospital employees or the person who diagnosed the Ambien.  There was no mention of it and I really found that surprising.  I don't recall a mention of Fran and Ed having that kind of relationship with their family priest either.  Finally, I am not condemning Fran for keeping the awareness of Kim's disappearance in the news and on the forefront.  I don't care for the "pagentry" of the awareness.  The bracelets in my eyes are the epitomy of passive activism (is everyone who has a yellow bracelet really "living strong"?  Is everyone who has a purple bow on their mailbox really doing all they can do for the troops?  No.)  The song of Kim's missing is a cheesy, over blown musak version of "Over The Rainbow"-how long before people go back to associating it with that car commercial?  Fran spent time finding the perfect color blouse that will strike the right chord with the viewing public.  Politicians do that.  It felt false.

Peppermill wrote:

---

the_mad_chatter wrote:

Fran knew that she was putting charges on the credit card that they couldn't afford. I understand why they didn't sell the boat, I don't agree with the pretense.

What I find so surprising is that many will excuse Fran and Ed's flaws because of the disappearance. But these were flaws before the disappearance so why would we be blind to them?

---

Mad-chatter -- I don't see the discussion being at all about excusing or being blind to Fran's or Ed's flaws -- or strengths. I see it as about being and acting in the midst of those realities of their particular humanness. And certainly this discussion is causing some of us to look at our own habits of how we deal with and about other people -- including those that we don't know very well or who may be outside our usual "culture" or "community".

You have suggested that Fran's publicity efforts became excessive -- I have been wondering what should/could have been the role of those supporting her and ED, such as Fran's friend Connie, Father John, those they in turn spoke with, even the media contacts themselves to moderate or re-direct those to more productive possibilities -- whatever those might have been.

You (or someone else) also mentioned the short shrift Lindsay received and that therapy certainly was appropriate to consider, especially given Fran's hospital contacts. I passed that lack off to the Midwestern, small town locale of the novel, but I do think that would be an interesting question to pose to O'Nan.

Someone else's recent post wondered why Lindsay didn't get more attention sooner. I do think it appropriate to notice that her style had long been to withdraw into her own space. That doesn't "excuse" not reaching out to her, but it does suggest the plausibility of the dynamics. We do know that Fran wasn't particularly skillful at reaching into the lives of her adolescents at the very point they were drawing away from their parents and their community. Whether we like it or not, that is one of the challenges of busy (perhaps all) parents. While the problem is certainly not restricted to working parents, lack of time can impact the social connections that can arise and surround children. But those are matters of personality and familial backgrounds as well.

PS -- I didn't figure out how valuable is the boat Ed uses. Did anyone else?

---

[BookWoman718]

---

the_mad_chatter wrote:

Sorry I haven't posted earlier.  Been out enjoying Summer.  One quick thought, when calculating the boat's value let's also consider marina fees, fuel, insurance, etc.  As the boat is not a necessary expense, I really wished Ed and Fran would have sold it.  It would have signaled some perspective change on their part. 

I see the boat as an important part of the family’s life, for one reason or another which we might guess at, and I’m glad they still had the boat to add a bit of normalcy to their lives after Kim was gone. I’m sure a boat can be seen as an unnecessary expense but I’ve observed that people with discretionary income often spend it in ways that mystify others. Think of all the consumer goods and pastimes that you hear disparaged by people who just ‘don’t get it.’ I’m not a car person, so I won’t spend more than it takes to buy something modestly attractive and very reliable. But I spend a ton on books, and way too much on travel. Boaters are a special breed; they enjoy the companionship of other boaters and the privacy of being off by themselves. They like the quiet of lapping water or the roar and slap of a powerful engine or the flapping of the sails. They get whatever kind of boat they can afford, starting with something small and tow-able, and moving on up as they can afford. They would no more give it up than others would stop going to the theatre or playing golf. I was glad Kim’s family could reach back and touch something they still loved to do; in a time of unwanted change and chaos, it’s wonderful to have something familiar and beloved to soothe one‘s soul..

 

[the_mad_chatter]

What concerns  me is that Ed is cashing in mutual funds to keep afloat but still holds on to the boat.  Boats depreciate and mutual funds will generally appreciate in value.  It feels like he's liquidating the wrong things and this is what's causing me concern. 

[paula_02912]

the_mad_chatter wrote: "

What concerns  me is that Ed is cashing in mutual funds to keep afloat but still holds on to the boat.  Boats depreciate and mutual funds will generally appreciate in value.  It feels like he's liquidating the wrong things and this is what's causing me concern."

I think that the boat symbolizes normalcy for Ed...he doesn't want to let it go because it holds many wonderful memories of him and his family before it was broken...to get rid of it would force him to acknowledge that fact that Kim will never return, thus leaving his family a broken one...He still held on to the hope of finding Kim, and he wasn't ready to let that go...as you read the to the end, you see that the boat plays a part in "mending" his relationship with Fran to an extent...at this point he started to see her as the girl he fell in love with and the woman he married...he felt a sense of normalcy...he knew his role and was ready to play it...it made him feel somewhat useful, but then the body was discovered, Ed loses himself again and begins to go through all the phases that both and Fran went through...imo, it is understandable why he doesn't get rid of the boat, since it helped to define who Ed was...if he got rid of it, who would he be?

[fordmg]

---

the_mad_chatter wrote:

Fran knew that she was putting charges on the credit card that they couldn't afford.  I understand why they didn't sell the boat, I don't agree with the pretense.

What I find so surprising is that many will excuse Fran and Ed's flaws because of the disappearance.  But these were flaws before the disappearance so why would we be blind to them?

---

We aren't being blind to them - we are showing empathy.

MG

[detailmuse]

It took me till page 108 to feel any connection to Ed in this story. It came when he was in the Sandusky motel, wanting to go home to Fran, losing hope about Kim. So he's found a little ritual to "fool himself into believing again. The trick was simple. Before he pulled off his shirt he unpinned his [Kim] button, angling it on the nightstand so that the last thing he saw as he reached for the light was her face." Sweet and tragic.

[bentley]

---

detailmuse wrote:

It took me till page 108 to feel any connection to Ed in this story. It came when he was in the Sandusky motel, wanting to go home to Fran, losing hope about Kim. So he's found a little ritual to "fool himself into believing again. The trick was simple. Before he pulled off his shirt he unpinned his [Kim] button, angling it on the nightstand so that the last thing he saw as he reached for the light was her face." Sweet and tragic.

---

I could really identify with Ed when he did that. I guess it was Ed's way of keeping Kim alive in his heart. That ritual struck a chord with me as well. I really grew to like Ed more and connect with him finally.

[detailmuse]

Regarding Ed, was anyone else reminded of Ed Smart (father of the abducted -- and recovered -- Utah teen)?

I also noticed that the detective's name was Ronald Holloway (p23), and a specific reference was made to Natalee Holloway (p227). Seeing Natalee's name on the page startled me ... and worried me a little that, in a novel, it seemed insensitive. Then on these threads, someone commented that there is a real-life Mimi-type person.

Now I wonder if O'Nan included these names and characters as a sort of homage? Did anyone notice others?

[Peppermill]

---

bentley wrote:

---

detailmuse wrote:

It took me till page 108 to feel any connection to Ed in this story. It came when he was in the Sandusky motel, wanting to go home to Fran, losing hope about Kim. So he's found a little ritual to "fool himself into believing again. The trick was simple. Before he pulled off his shirt he unpinned his [Kim] button, angling it on the nightstand so that the last thing he saw as he reached for the light was her face." Sweet and tragic.

---

I could really identify with Ed when he did that. I guess it was Ed's way of keeping Kim alive in his heart. That ritual struck a chord with me as well. I really grew to like Ed more and connect with him finally.

---

Ed's reaction to the black scrunchy around the base of the stick shift in the Corolla on the shoulder of the road got to me. (p. 20) I would have been the same way if it had been my daughter, even though it was the wrong car.

[wendyroba]

SPOILER AHEAD.....................






YES! Sweet and tragic - that describes how Ed comes across. I wept for him at the end that he could not be the one who found her...it just seemed (to him) to be another failure as Kim's father.

---

detailmuse wrote:

It took me till page 108 to feel any connection to Ed in this story. It came when he was in the Sandusky motel, wanting to go home to Fran, losing hope about Kim. So he's found a little ritual to "fool himself into believing again. The trick was simple. Before he pulled off his shirt he unpinned his [Kim] button, angling it on the nightstand so that the last thing he saw as he reached for the light was her face." Sweet and tragic.

---

[KxBurns]

---

paula_02912 wrote:

the_mad_chatter wrote: "

What concerns  me is that Ed is cashing in mutual funds to keep afloat but still holds on to the boat.  Boats depreciate and mutual funds will generally appreciate in value.  It feels like he's liquidating the wrong things and this is what's causing me concern."

I think that the boat symbolizes normalcy for Ed...he doesn't want to let it go because it holds many wonderful memories of him and his family before it was broken...to get rid of it would force him to acknowledge that fact that Kim will never return, thus leaving his family a broken one...He still held on to the hope of finding Kim, and he wasn't ready to let that go...as you read the to the end, you see that the boat plays a part in "mending" his relationship with Fran to an extent...at this point he started to see her as the girl he fell in love with and the woman he married...he felt a sense of normalcy...he knew his role and was ready to play it...it made him feel somewhat useful, but then the body was discovered, Ed loses himself again and begins to go through all the phases that both and Fran went through...imo, it is understandable why he doesn't get rid of the boat, since it helped to define who Ed was...if he got rid of it, who would he be?

---

I agree, Paula, that the boat has always been a source of peace for Ed and after Kim's disappearance, it provides a little bit of solace. (I hope when you finish the book, you post your thoughts over on the "River" thread, which deals more broadly with the symbolism of the water in the lives of the characters   )

Unfortunately, our financial choices are not always simply based on logic, but are emotional as well. In Ed's financial dilemma we see something that many modern fathers/husbands (and mothers/wives!) struggle with: he is stretched beyond his limits but is doing the best he can to protect his family from the reality of the situation, to preserve their comfort and their illusions of the security of their lives. His efforts to protect his family have required him to be less present than he ought to be and, in time, he comes to feel this distance keenly and painfully.

I think this mirrors his emotional response to the Kim crisis as well.

[KxBurns]

---

Demira wrote:

I also liked seeing the kindness and concern he showed for Kim's boyfriend, as he seemed to take that particular kid under his wing, worrying about the boyfriend's footwear.  Was he trying to get close to Kim by being close to the man she supposedly loved?  Most fathers would probably not be too concerned about the boyfriend's welfare (and might even consider the boyfriend a "suspect").   

---

I, too, thought this was a touching moment.

[KxBurns]

---

m3girl wrote:

Morning,

I like the references to TV Crime Solving shows - where the crime is solved and the offenders prosecuted - all in an hour or so...  They do provide an unrealistic view of what happens in real life - but would be on anyone's mind in this type of situation.

susan

---

You're absolutely right -- one the one hand they may offer some hope, but they also set up unlikely expectations of a quick resolution. One of the aspects of the book that I find really impressive is the depiction of the business of missing persons. I wouldn't call it an indictment, but O'Nan does turn a critical eye on it as an industry, albeit a necessary one...  

[KxBurns]

---

ROCKETRAY55 wrote:

Peppermill- I fully agree, I was waiting for something romantic to happen between Ed and Sgt. McKnight. I am glad it did not but I was waiting for it.

-Ray

---

Peppermill wrote:
JD -- your post reminded me that when Ed was in Sandusky, I half expected a relationship to develop between him and Sgt. McKnight. I think it spoke to his decency and her professionalism that it did not, in such a highly emotionally charged environment. I was grateful O'Nan developed their characters as he did.

---

---

You know, I thought the same thing when he met with the woman who wanted him to sell her mother's old house (Chapter 21) and, like you, I was relieved when nothing came of it. I wonder if O'Nan set up these small moments of suspicion on purpose, to alert us to the fact that Ed is precariously close to reaching out, to anyone. But in the end he doesn't cross that line.