I really enjoyed this book. I was surprised to see that it had quite a few negative reviews. A lot of the reviews did not appreciate the fact that the author led the reader into thinking that (view spoiler)[Charlie was Emily's son and not her dog (hide spoiler)]. At first I wasn't sure why the author had decided to go with this deception. I didn't understand the point of it, it seemed counter-intuitive to create such a big misunderstanding. However, after giving it some thought, I find it quite clever. It goes to show that our minds are always interpreting what we see or read or hear. I never once questioned (view spoiler)[whether Charlie was a little boy (hide spoiler)]. And yet, at the very end of the book, with one single sentence, the whole misunderstanding is cleared up and my vision became clear. I think there is a parallel here with the communication difficulties between Emily and her husband. I read other reviews complaining that if Emily and her husband had just communicated properly after (view spoiler)[ their son's death (hide spoiler)], the whole book could have been avoided and they could have just kept on going with their lives. The (view spoiler)["Charlie" (hide spoiler)] misunderstanding underlines that it's not always that simple. Sometimes things seem absolutely crystal clear in people's mind and they are so convinced that they are correct, they don't even think to question it. I never questioned (view spoiler)[whether Charlie was Emily's son or not (hide spoiler)]. Had I questioned it, yes, the misunderstanding might have easily been cleared up. Had Emily been less convinced of (view spoiler)[her guilt, of her husband blaming her for the death of her two children (hide spoiler)], maybe she would have tried to verbalise her fears. But she was convinced, so she reacted to what she truly believed to be the truth.