Some of the flashback scenes are shown to the reader a second time in a more expanded form as the novel progresses. What does this device show us about the reliability of the assumptions we had already made?

Some of the flashback scenes are shown to the reader a second time in a more expanded form as the novel progresses. What does this device show us about the reliability of the assumptions we make about the events and the characters?

Just like the saying, "Don't judge a book by its cover", expanded flashback usually prove that we make a lot of assumptions based on limited information.

I think the developing flashbacks underscore why you don't always want to go with the obvious reason. They are a vehicle to demonstrate that we must dig deeper to achieve better understanding. I also think it moved the book forward in a very interesting way: like peeling an onion!

Obviously people do not see what they "see" the first time. Assumptions are made that might not be true. Seeing things a second time and in a more complete way brings a lot of new information to light.

The expanded flashbacks also reinforced my thoughts about the people of this small town. They were narrow minded and not accepting or open to looking at things in a different way. The second look shows us the need to be less judgmental and look twice to be better informed.

A lot of the flashbacks made me jump to false conclusions. It's absolutely a picture of a certain time but not the entire story.

As I said in a previous post, I thought this was an interesting tactic employed by the author to keep the reader engaged and to create doubt in the reader's mind. I agree with the other posts on that it became almost like peeling back different layers of the story.

I really liked this technique a lot. Since it wasn't narrated the reader knew it was the truth, and so it shed light on the mysteries.