OnlineBookClub.org

Though, Hiram has cheated Michael by promising him to make him as a executive director. I still feel that even Michael has done a mistake by deceiving the votes. What is your opinion on Michael's character.

I think Michael is the typical career person. He was in for the expected benefit. When that didn't materialize, he wanted to inflict harm. But Hiram wasn't totally clean, too.

Michael felt betrayed, therefore he felt he had to get "justice" by putting Hiram down. It wasn't right but he's a career oriented person and he would do anything not to lose on that stage.

I expected Michael to play a larger role in the book. I cannot say I blame him at all for wanting revenge on Hiram, despite his own moral mistake; I am sure there are many who would have made that arrangement and the betrayal must have hurt.

I think Michael was basically ambitious but pretty honest at the start of the book. Then he seemed to parallel Hiram's character a little bit after he was betrayed. He's so angry that he pressurised the former researcher to look into the falsified results of the trial even though she is clearly reluctant, which is exactly what Hiram did to him when he pressured him to round up votes for him. Hiram convinces himself he wants the directorship for selfless reasons even though it is clear that it is for selfish reasons. Michael also engages in this a bit as he claims he wants the former researcher to investigate as he doesn't want more people put at risk in fraudulent clinical trials - but he doesn't really care about that and just wants revenge.
To me the difference between the two is that we can kind of empathise with Michael but not so much with Hiram. In the early part of the book, we almost hate Hiram to the extent that we will forgive Michael for displaying the same traits as long as Hiram gets his comupance.

Micheal is our every day dubious politician seeking to do things that will only favour him. Yet he is cheated just as the case here, he for all out suing every means available to him to tanish the image of his perceived enemy.

Michael who has a small part in the story did not seem a negative character. He wanted to avenge McDowell who did not have best intentions for him.

Yes, Michael felt cheated and wanted revenge. And he was cheated. He assisted Hiram on the unwritten understanding that he would be rewarded. Hiram broke this unspoken rule. If he could do that, what else could he do? It is possible Michael felt not only that he deserved to be taken down, but that he should be, because he could not be trusted.

I think Michael was being nice or doing Hiram a favor, who later betrayed his trust.

I do not fault Michael. He was only trying to avenge himself on Hiram for not coming through with his promise. Hiram having deceived him, also deserved a taste of his own deceit in my thinking.

Michael was doing what he thought was right, although he was wrong, he had to do what had to be done.

Michael seemed like an honest and straightforward person who expected Hiram to behave the same as Michael. So he may have felt particularly betrayed and hurt when Hiram did not fulfill his side of the bargain.

I think Mike was naive. How could he fall for Hiram's trap? He showed exclusive support to Hiram only to be left out in the game.

I think Michael just proved he was human being--he had the capacity to get annoyed and ability to revenge. Although I don't see what he did as the right thing, but still I can't blame him because sincerely what Hiram did was unheard of.

I think Michael got taken for a ride by Hiram and that he felt justified in wanting to take Hiram down.