This is really a hard review for me to write mostly because those I know who have read it liked it and most of the reviews I have read loved it. I just don't understand WHY! I feel like I did not read the same book.
First, I think that it did not help that I read this book at the same time we were reading To Kill A Mockingbird. I do feel like this was a poor homage to To Kill A Mockingbird on some level -- two precocious kids, court room drama, evil protagonist. Sadly, David Baldacci is no Harper Lee. He can be descriptive and he can do it well but sometimes it feels like he is just droning on - you know like the person who goes on and on and pays no attention to whether anyone is listening ... "It was very early morning, when the birds had barely awoken and thumped their wings to life, and cold mists were rising from the warm ground, and the sun was only a seam of fire in the eastern sky". The man can turn a phrase but sometimes less is more.
Another issue for me was that he never really vests me in the characters. One example of this would be the character of the dad. (spoiler) He kills him off in the first chapter. We know very little about him except that he is a poor but respected writer. We don't really ever get a sense in the next 400 pages of why we should even care except that he dies tragically and his children miss him. He tries to evoke memories of him by hitting us over the head with his poetic nature via letters he had written to his great grandmother or his wife (one section even uses his writings from childhood) but it really does not work.
Which brings me to the issue of the kids -- I am a kid and neither I or even my smartest friends talk like this! He writes for children like how he thinks children would sound like ... When Cotton tells Lou something, she snaps at him and says something to the effect of "I can't look back anymore. I need to look forward and to take care of Oz (her brother)". She is 12! No 12 year old is that thoughtful - we are selfish creatures. My cousin lost his dad at a young age and before his dad died he was asked to take care of his little sisters - as thoughtful and sweet as he is, even HE doesn't talk like that. By the second chapter, Lou and Oz have lost one parent (in front of their own eyes) and another is in a coma. They get shipped off to rural VIrginia to do hard labor on a mountain farm. They go from New York City where they had museums, music, running water, and electricity to living with a great grandmother they never met or heard much about and they NEVER complain ... not once, not ever. Also, right away they acclimate - never would have happened that fast.
Don't get me started on the panther - they talk vaguely about this panther throughout the book and then all of a sudden it shows up one night and then is never seen or even mentioned again. Lou goes out on her own after (spoiler) Diamond dies and she is randomly attacked by a pack of wolves. What?? In the entire book, Lou and Diamond go out at night and they are never bothered by a pack of wolves ... wolves are never heard or EVEN mentioned as a potential problem while traversing the mountain at night. Lou goes out and she is attacked by the wolves and is saved by the panther ... you know the panther that all the farmers say is bad and evil. After that happens, Lou mentions it to no one and it is never discussed. Is the panther an angel, is it her father reincarnated to protect her ... who knows, no one because it is NEVER explained.
The characters are all standard and contrived ... salt-of-the-earth great grandmother Lou; honest, hard-working lawyer, Cotton; tough, yet sweet, school-of-hard-knocks kid, Diamond; and evil, (if he had one) mustache-turning evil neighbor, George Davis ... every last one unoriginal and stereotypical. I read that they made this book into a movie and that is perfect. It is an unoriginal, predictable, happily-ever-after clap trap they like to make in Hollywood.