Sign in with Facebook
Kiersten's Reviews > We Need to Talk About Kevin
We Need to Talk About Kevin
by Lionel Shriver (Goodreads Author)
by Lionel Shriver (Goodreads Author)
I did not like this book. Honestly, what was to like about it? The topic is horrifying, the characters are hateful (and not just the characters that commit mass murders) and the writing style is the worst of all.
From the first page I was SO irritated by the writing. I'll bet that the first purchase Ms. Shriver made after finding a publisher for this book was a new thesaurus. I'm positive that hers was absolutely worn out. It was like, "Hi! Let's see how fancy we can sound!" Especially for a book that is supposedly made up of letters written to one's estranged husband. The letter format was an especially poorly-chosen literary device. I get that we, the reader, needed background, but did Eva really think that her husband needed to be reminded, among other things, about all the random little details of his childhood? They were his memories, after all. Why did she need to repeat them to him, and in such an arrogant, condescending way? And the lists of other school shootings. Blah. I became extremely tired of reading about those as Eva ticked them off. I felt like I was hearing a lecture or a compilation of NPR news stories.
But speaking of arrogant and condescending, here's another problem that I had with this book. I happen to reject the idea that the parents are 100% responsible for their children's failures or successes. Some children have crappy parents and turn out great, and I've seen the opposite happen as well. However, if any parent could cause a child to go crazy/homicidal, it would be this woman. Hello, being bored=not a good reason to have a child. (Did I really need to say that?) Eva was mean, negative, and overbearing throughout the book. And again, I realize that with the letter format, we are only getting the viewpoint of one, limited, character, but that's not an excuse for making the characters so completely one-dimensional. Kevin was evil, Celia was demure, Franklin was naive, Eva was obnoxious, etc.
Finally, the question of the big reveal. And I actually do have a question about this. It was pretty obvious what was going on, that there was going to be a big reveal, after about page 3 of the book (and I'm not talking about the fact that Kevin killed his classmates. That was not meant to be a secret. It was written in the description on the back of the book). My question is this--was this just poorly written so that what was meant to be a big reveal was, well, not? Or did Shriver make it obvious on purpose, in order to make it more awful to read--we knew what was going to happen, and we didn't want to read it, but we were going to have to and were coming closer to it with each page. I'm going to give Shriver the benefit of the doubt on this one, because if that's what she meant to do, it worked.
From the first page I was SO irritated by the writing. I'll bet that the first purchase Ms. Shriver made after finding a publisher for this book was a new thesaurus. I'm positive that hers was absolutely worn out. It was like, "Hi! Let's see how fancy we can sound!" Especially for a book that is supposedly made up of letters written to one's estranged husband. The letter format was an especially poorly-chosen literary device. I get that we, the reader, needed background, but did Eva really think that her husband needed to be reminded, among other things, about all the random little details of his childhood? They were his memories, after all. Why did she need to repeat them to him, and in such an arrogant, condescending way? And the lists of other school shootings. Blah. I became extremely tired of reading about those as Eva ticked them off. I felt like I was hearing a lecture or a compilation of NPR news stories.
But speaking of arrogant and condescending, here's another problem that I had with this book. I happen to reject the idea that the parents are 100% responsible for their children's failures or successes. Some children have crappy parents and turn out great, and I've seen the opposite happen as well. However, if any parent could cause a child to go crazy/homicidal, it would be this woman. Hello, being bored=not a good reason to have a child. (Did I really need to say that?) Eva was mean, negative, and overbearing throughout the book. And again, I realize that with the letter format, we are only getting the viewpoint of one, limited, character, but that's not an excuse for making the characters so completely one-dimensional. Kevin was evil, Celia was demure, Franklin was naive, Eva was obnoxious, etc.
Finally, the question of the big reveal. And I actually do have a question about this. It was pretty obvious what was going on, that there was going to be a big reveal, after about page 3 of the book (and I'm not talking about the fact that Kevin killed his classmates. That was not meant to be a secret. It was written in the description on the back of the book). My question is this--was this just poorly written so that what was meant to be a big reveal was, well, not? Or did Shriver make it obvious on purpose, in order to make it more awful to read--we knew what was going to happen, and we didn't want to read it, but we were going to have to and were coming closer to it with each page. I'm going to give Shriver the benefit of the doubt on this one, because if that's what she meant to do, it worked.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read We Need to Talk About Kevin.
sign in »
Comments (showing 1-44 of 44) (44 new)
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Nancy S.
(new)
Mar 31, 2012 05:07pm
Glad I'm not the only one who feels this way.
reply
|
flag
*
I thought the use of "big" words was on purpose so that the reader would get a sense of the Eva's background. It also demonstrated her downward spiral as she wrote, I thought. Just my two cents.
I don't think she needed to follow the traditional letter-writing style. She didn't need to tone down her writing for the sake of an audience, because she was mainly doing it as a form of therapy for herself. Her "arrogant and condescending" tone of writing stems from her own shame and guilt towards herself. She's not directing bitterness at her husband after the fact, but is recreating the emotions she felt as the events were happening so that she can make better sense out of them. And maybe the characters were a tad annoying, but that's what makes it real. Shriver focuses on the aspects of people's characters that serve as catalysts for tragedies. Franklin's denial led to absolutely no action toward helping Kevin throughout his life. Celia's helplessness made her an easy target for Kevin. Eva's aggression came from her background and also from her inability to decide what she really wanted from her marriage with Franklin. Kevin just happened to be her outlet most of the time. Also, in regards to your thoughts about Eva being the cause of Kevin's behavior, I don't exactly agree. It may be the point of the novel to demonstrate that YES, a mother can mentally torture her son to the point of insanity, so that shouldn't seem so far-fetched if that's what Shriver was trying to convey. And I would also disagree with the statement about the characters being one-dimensional. Kevin has many layers underneath, and there are several instances throughout the book that make that very clear, one being when he becomes very ill for about two weeks and actually wants Eva around. Franklin isn't just naive, he's defensive, in denial, and extremely biased. Celia may be "demure," but I would owe that to the fact that she's very young and does not have a strong personality at all yet- and never would because of Kevin.
About the big reveal: does it say on the back of the book that Kevin also killed Franklin and Celia? Does it say how Kevin killed everyone? Yes we know that Kevin does commit a massacre, but to what extent is not made clear until we reach the end of the novel.
I thought it was very well done, but I do see why some people would find this an annoying read.
Hayley wrote: "I don't think she needed to follow the traditional letter-writing style. She didn't need to tone down her writing for the sake of an audience, because she was mainly doing it as a form of therapy f..."I wrote that the fact that Kevin killed his classmates was written on the back of the book; I didn't say that the fact that he killed his father and sister was written there. What I was trying to say is that I felt that it was pretty obvious early on that Kevin killed Franklin and Celia as well, and I wasn't sure if the author meant for it to be that obvious or not.
Also, I do agree with your point on Eva causing/not causing Kevin's behavior. I don't think that she was the cause of it; clearly he had problems from the beginning; however, I do think she may have contributed. I would not be easy to grow up with such a resentful mother.
Thank you for you review! I began reading this book tonight, and found it a little off-putting. Now I will move on to something else instead. I didn't get far into the book, but the letter format had me suspecting Franklin was dead. (I didn't read far enough to know Celia existed.) The letters were just so long & rambling...
Where exactly after page 3 that you discovered the plot twist? Admittedly, I only suspected very late into the book, specifically when she came home from the prison after the massacre, finding the house unlit and she was about to switch on the lights! I was unsuspecting at all from the beginning and as such, I love the book for this very reason.
Peachy wrote: "Where exactly after page 3 that you discovered the plot twist? Admittedly, I only suspected very late into the book, specifically when she came home from the prison after the massacre, finding the ..."There wasn't any phrase or sentence in particular that clued me in. Maybe I've just read too many books like this. I just felt that it didn't make any sense for her to be writing all of this to her "estranged" husband, and I figured that there must be something else going on.
Peachy wrote: "Where exactly after page 3 that you discovered the plot twist? Admittedly, I only suspected very late into the book, specifically when she came home from the prison after the massacre, finding the ..."There wasn't any phrase or sentence in particular that clued me in. Maybe I've just read too many books like this. I just felt that it didn't make any sense for her to be writing all of this to her "estranged" husband, and I figured that there must be something else going on.
PS I don't think we can ever predict how someone, especially a parent, will react to a trauma that has to do with the children. There can be no judgment, just an attempt to understand.
I personally didn't see the twist coming until it was practically there - I guess I didn't want to see it coming...
Hi: I just started reading and I have to say I agree with the writing style. What the hell? I am only a few chapters in, but it is irritating. Who writes letters or talks like that? Anyway, will continue reading. I just finished reading Jodi Picoult for the first time and was so enthralled with her writing style, I find it difficult to engage in this one.
Read this book a couple of years ago. Have never forgot it because the author pissed me off and I vowed never to even pick up another book of hers. I have not felt this way about a writer before. If she could have just written her story and quit trying to impress readers it could have been good.
Well, I just finished reading it. I have to say I found it very intense, emotional and horrifying at the same time. I agree with another reader, it takes a while for the the book to get better around 75 pages in because the initial writing style is very off-putting. I really enjoyed it. I also have a degre in Criminology and thus studied a lot of cases of psychosis and I really don't find Kevin's mother to be especially despicable. There are a lot worse mothers out there and their children don't end up doing what Kevin did...
I agree. I just started this book on my kindle and am about 10% in and I hope the writing style gets better because most of the time, I get lost halfway through her sentences and have to reread them in order to actually understand what the hell is being said. I will keep reading though and hopefully it won't be a waste of my time.
I think it is important to keep in mind that the intention of the author is to have this mother seem very intense and intelligent. Her son is also very intense and intelligent. Finding it hard to read is because we want to judge this mother...imagine meeting her for the first time and this is how she was. Or imagine being on the jury and you saw this intense mother. In my opinion, what the author is saying, are we judging her because she is so intense? Are we disliking her because she is so intense? Even if the answer is yes to these questions, is it fair that she carry this burden of guilt? Intense people have children all the time. The author's intention is working because a lot of readers have a hard time understanding why the writing (or mother's written word) has to be so intense!
I believe that the author is also attempting to portray that the mother is trying to keep her dignity. Yes the big words are irritating, but you have to keep in mind that the character had lost everything, and this was her way of getting things off her chest. The big words were apart of the character, and apart of her personality. The author shows her to be a proud woman, and I thought that the intense words show that well.
I love the "big words" debate going on right now. Anyone read Jodi Picoult's Nineteen Minutes, very similar topic. You might enjoy it.
I am sorry (no I'm not), but you are wrong. You may not approve of the topic of the work but the writing style is simply genius.
Emanuel wrote: "... the writing style is simply genius."Thank you thank you thank you for saying this!
I think the point of the writing style was to annoy you. Her pretentious way of speaking was one of the things that Kevin makes fun of her for and his ability to describe how annoying she is was perfect. You get to the point where you start realising as you are reading that her entire attitude, has impacted him and in the end you see him saying exactly the kinds of things that she says, which goes back to the question of whether or not she is responsible. Also, he is dead, so in a way, her letters to her husband are meant to be a way for her to remember him. They aren't really literal letters to someone who has died, someone as intelligent as Eva must surely know he's not going to be able to read them. It's more a way for her to try and come to terms with what has happened.
It was painful. But Kevin's sister was the opposite of hateful. That poor kid-- thank goodness it was fiction because she deserved better.
Emmanuel, you may think the writing is genius, but this reviewer doesn't. It's not your review, so it's not your opinion, so "I'm sorry but you're wrong." Kiersten, thank God you wrote this review because I was starting to think I was the only person in the world who hated this book and the writing style. It was so pretentious and stilted and ew. And I figured out the big twist about 3 pages in as well, for the same reason you did. Ugh. I found this book to be painful but also painfully boring and LONG and did I mention boring?
I can't agree more about the pretentious writing style! I am curious though - does the style actually change after one is further into the book? Because I am about 60 pages in and CANNOT stand the voice in which it's written. I am trying to figure out whether it is an attempt to add a dimension to Eva's personality or if it is simply Shriver trying a little too hard to speak with erudition (like how I threw in that $10 word very unnecessarily?!). I immediately got a very similar sense as Kiersten regarding the overuse of a thesaurus.That said, the topic and interpersonal relationships and impressions do intrigue me. I find every validity in her choosing this subject and presenting this very ambiguous morality, I just wish she wouldn't antagonize her readers with an impossible vocabulary that has no flow.
Honestly, I am on the fence about continuing with this book... I'd almost rather just watch the film made from it and see if I can stomach the dialogue that way.
Linda wrote: "I can't agree more about the pretentious writing style! I am curious though - does the style actually change after one is further into the book? Because I am about 60 pages in and CANNOT stand the ..."I did watch the film. It was .... weird? I didn't get the WEIRD out of the book, but the movie did weird, "artistic" things like lots of close-ups on people eating or talking or biting nails and weird music... it was a typical indie film, pretentious in its own way.
However it was about the same as reading this book as far as my dislike level goes. Blech.
And no, the voice never gets better. She just goes on and on being all...erudite :)
Where does it say you have to "like" the characters in a book for the book to be good?I too found the prose in this book demanding but felt that Shriver cleverly used this style of writing to portray the character of Eva, flawed as she was...( aren't we all flawed??)
Ejvj wrote: "Where does it say you have to "like" the characters in a book for the book to be good?I too found the prose in this book demanding but felt that Shriver cleverly used this style of writing to port..."
personally, I look at characters in books as my friend (especially main characters.) I am happy to accept their flaws, just as I am happy to accept my friend's flaws. But some people I just don't like, and some books have characters that I just don't like. I don't want to hang out with them, I don't want to read about them. Doesn't mean the book isn't good for you, although it would be awesome if Goodread members would remember that reviews are OPINIONS and therefore subjective to the reader.
I couldn't agree more. We are all entitled to our opinion. My aim in sharing my personal opinion was not to devalue yours. For me the book was an uncomfortable and dark read however overall I enjoyed it. I understand that you didn't and that's fine.
This is a brilliant review of the book. I'm so glad that someone agrees with me about how terrible this book is.
I loved this book and totally disagree with the negative posts! Yes the subject matter is disturbing if it doesn't disturb u that would be scary. Couldn't put this one down!!!
I'm about halfway through the book and its difficult to read, yes. But I think that is not the fault of the author. She is painting a woman who feels entitled, privileged, and the writing is pretentious because EVA THE CHARACTER is pretentious. At least that's what I am getting out of it. I have written first person fiction before and when I get an idea of how I want my protagonist to act, I therefore write speaking as they would in my mind. Shriver has done a good job, I think, of portraying Eva as a wealthy, pseudo intellectual. Its the character, not the author trying to say, "I'm smarter than you and have big words to prove it". Haven't you whom dislike it that badly read fiction enough (especially from first person) to know that authors speak as their CHARACTER?
Although I enjoyed this book I totally see where you are coming from, I actually stopped reading for a while due to the overuse of pretentious language and then started the book all over again and willed myself to plough on through it because so many people were raving about it. I'm glad I did as in the end I thought it was a shocking but fascinating story. But I know exactly what you mean, Eva really grated on me at times. However I thought about it after reading and came to the conclusion that maybe Shriver did this to give you a choice as to wether to side with Kevin or Eva. It's all too easy just to believe everything the narrator has to say, but by making her an irritating character herself, you are forced to consider how Kevin may have viewed her and that perhaps his actions were a result of less than perfect parenting. I don't know, but it is a very thought provoking book.
Terrible review. You missed the point, and all the points along the way. Your review simpers with a bible-thumping undercurrent.
Another thing, not even in the most literal sense does this book say, "that the parents are 100% responsible for their children's failures or successes.” So, for you to disagree with a non-existent thesis makes me wonder if you read the book!
David wrote: "Another thing, not even in the most literal sense does this book say, "that the parents are 100% responsible for their children's failures or successes.” So, for you to disagree with a non-existen..."That's interesting. Where did you get the bible-thumping vibes from? Anyway, I have to clarify: I did not mean to state that the book says that parents are responsible for their children's behavior. I just used that to preface my comments about Eva. Sorry for the confusion.
I'm sorry if my comments were crude. I just get frustrated when people give books poor ratings because they don't like the characters in them. Somehow I associate that book rating style as more common among followers of an organized religion. It's poor of me to assume that or use the word "bible thumper," however. I apologize.The fact remains, there are "hateful" people in this world (Eva, Kevin, and the Husband as far as I'm concerned lol); to write those characters well is extremely valuable - to all of us.
I agree there were a lot of "big" words. But that was Eva's condescension. I didn't find any of them misplaced or poorly used.
Eva had to tell her husband all of the stories because she was there and he wasn't. Plus, her version was ALWAYS polar opposite to his - and I think their communication was totally broken down during the marriage. I think Eva actually gets kinda vindicated in this book.
Anyhow, no harm. Sorry I got a tad personal. That's never good. Hope you stay well and enjoy continued reading and reviewing in 2013. Cheers.
Let me just ask you this in closing: does this book, that eloquently sheds light on a number of very difficult, if not evil, issues in the USA (and to a lesser extent other developed countries), really deserve only one star? Isn't one star better reserved for some trashy romance novel or the like?
cheers!
I didn't think you said anything crude or even out of place, I was just wondering where you got that impression from. I think you make some valid points about the characters. I still have a hard time with the way Ms. Shriver wrote Eva's voice. It doesn't feel authentic to me, but I have a hard time understanding Eva as a character, so that might be the cause of that. And I think you bring up a really interesting point about the rating system. Goodreads says that one star means "didn't like it." I didn't like this book. However, I think that it is a thought-provoking book. I certainly think it's much more worthy of someone's time than a trashy novel.
When I wrote this review, I was looking at the book as a piece of fiction and a vehicle for entertainment. It's strange to think back on it now, with what's gone on recently, and look at it as a piece of social commentary. Thanks for your thoughts.
