How do the two timelines shape the reader's understanding of events, as well as of the characters?

There are two timelines in the novel: one that begins at the start of the retreat and another that begins five days later, after Alice has gone missing. How do they shape the reader's understanding of events, as well as of the characters?

Each time we saw a flashback we learned a little more about the women and what was actually going on. It kept some of the surprise although I was pretty sure what had happened to her. The way it was presented gave a little twist because I wasn't sure who had done it.

Having two timelines kept it very suspenseful; we would learn something before Falk did, but only just a little. We could see where he was on track, and where he was going wrong.

At first, I found the two timelines annoying - mainly because I felt the 'old' timeline was going too slow. But I shortly found this method an impetus to keep reading. What appeared as a warm, happy woman in a picture, was certainly not the character we discovered. I'm not sure we would have understood the complexities of the relationships she had with each character without the dual timeline.

Having the two timelines allowed the reader to experience both as they were occurring. I think Harper did a fantastic job of deciding how & when to end chapter in each timeline. There were quite a few cliff hangers that left me eager to get back to both timelines.

I was thinking about this after reading the threads. I forgot how confused I was at first with some of the women characters. At first, I couldn't keep the twins straight. Maybe I was reading while a bit distracted with Christmas prep but I know I was definitely struggling.

Shifting time frames with each alternating chapter seems to be a bit of a trend in novel writing currently. Here Harper moves from the women in the field and the developing mystery in one chapter to the searchers and Falk and Carmen in each following chapter. Her timelines are somewhat current - both dealing with a present situation. Often novelists shift historical periods such as Barbara Kingsolver did in her recent novel, Unsheltered. I think it keeps concurring events ordered more for the reader, but I don't want to find it in obvious use in lots of novels I read or will read. As I read, I came to expect this back and forth shift, and I found myself looking for it. I would rather that not happen. It detracts from the plot itself. I wonder if it is a help for writers to keep plot lines straight - if this is an obvious aid for them. I hope it does not become a heavily used trend.

The switching timelines technique bothered me a little at first so I wrote down the names of the characters to keep them straight. I liked the information was presented in small bits. It kept me interested to learn who did murder her, who I assumed it would be one of the 4 coworkers.

I agree with susiej that this dual thread in books is becoming more prevalent. Sometimes it doesn't work and it confuses me and ruins the flow of my reading--it has even once or twice made me give up on the book. Harper, however, handles it beautifully--I thought she made the shifts quite well and I looked forward to getting back with the women to see what was happening when there was a bit of a break or hang up in Falk's investigation.

At first when I realized she was going to do this back and forth I was a bit worried I'd hate the book, but I was pleasantly surprised at how well it worked.

Like rosannes, I also read the book in bits and pieces during the holidays and while taking care of my mother. I did like the dual timelines and how it slowly revealed what was really going on with each characters. I also found myself wanting to get to the next chapter to find out what was going on between the women.

(Sorry Falk, but I think this book wasn't as much about you as the first one, which I kind of missed that.)

The timelines were well integrated and, as previously stated, revealed each storyline bit by bit. The two timelines continued to intrigue me throughout the story and I continued reading into the late night to connect more information.

I usually do not like the changing time lines, which happen to be the trend today. I did, however, like it in this book. The author did an excellent job of doing it. I like that we found out so much more about the characters during this time.

So many authors use the two timelines narrative these days that I occasionally find it annoying, but I think it worked well in this book. It adds to the tension.

I thought the two timelines worked well in this book. It did give more information to the characters each time. I also agree that this is a prevailing trend in novels today.

It bothered me. However, I learned to adapt to it. I do understand the reasoning of why the author did this.

A lot to agree with above. I also have observed that the shifting timeline structure is quite a trend. Sometimes it becomes difficult to follow but this was not. I felt as if Harper was peeling an onion - telling the story layer by layer and the style really worked for me.

I agree with others about the shifting timeline trend. I haven't liked it in other novels but felt it worked well in this story and wasn't a distraction. The 2 timelines helped me understand the whole story better. It made the story more suspenseful for me and helped me understand the whole timeline better. I liked that the true nature of each character was not revealed all at once.