Sarah's review

I hated this book as well! I could not figure out why everyone on the subway was suddenly reading it.

HAH. You've hit the nail on the head.

(And I would totally recommend this to my enemies, too.)

Sarah 'in the house'!!!

you GO girl

you are "off the hook" my darling!

(i know- let's bring them camping the next time you go for a buck- we'll make a party of it!)

There should be a goodreads Best Diatribes. This would be in the top ten I think. I don't wanna read The Luvverly Bones any more!

Terrible book. The farther away I get from the experience of reading it, the more I dislike it.

But Sarah darling, it's the restaurant she's buttering with her tears.

R

Oh my, did we ALL go to workshops with Brady Udall? How lucky we are.
So the point of the diatribe was? What we can learn from Brady Udall that Alice Seabold missed?
Can we start a book group just for artistes and hiss all over those books that entertained thousands if not millions of poor folks because they (the books not the unwashed by workshops) were emotional, had heart and were not pretentious smoldering piles of large warm words?
Sarah, have you considered sueing Sebold for possibly damaging your blogging skills? Maybe the new writers group could all chip in for a good attorney.
And for good measure, I liked "Lucky" too.

Hi Phillip

I like tons and tons of mainstream and best-selling writers - why do you think I was reading the Lovely Bones in the first place? Try looking at the other books I've read or, I don't know, perhaps getting to know me, before you break out works like "pretentious." I love pulp crime, pulp horror, chick lit, and science fiction in addition to the classics and more literary picks.

However, despite my love of similar authors, I consider this book a piece of crap. I'll forgive mediocre writing if the plot is moving or the characters or memorable and vice versa. But if the book has absolutely nothing to offer, like this one, I'm not sure why I shouldn't warn others.

Finally, when it comes down to it, my disliking books is based on MY OPINION and you liking books is based on YOUR OPINION. Have you ever thought that it is possible that one person could like an author and another person could dislike an author and both people could be "right"? It's called having different tastes. And writing book reviews is about sharing OUR DIFFERING OPINIONS.

Hi Ruth (three comments back) - you butter toast, not restaurants, and how do you butter a restaurant anyway, even if you might metaphorically wish to? I don't get that.

I have never read anything by Alice Sebold and this has definitely clinched it for me - I never will.

Thank you for my first real laugh of the morning. I don't think I will ever look at olives in quite the same way again.

From Sarah's review, Paul. She asked for coffee and toast in a restaurant and buttered it with her tears.”

R

NC - thanks for your sweeping generalizations and general stereotyping of writing, writers' workshops, and me.

And - I finished the book because I finish every book I start. I guess it's a habit.

Ruth - good point! it's baffling in so many ways!

Victoria - thanks.

Sarah - you must adopt the 100 page rule (itself quite generous) - if you don't like it by page 100, throw it at the wall. I used to be like you, but I changed. Life is better.

So "Phillip" or NC or whoever is Alice Sebold, right? Otherwise, I can't see defending this book. I mean, here's all the evidence you need: "She asked for coffee and toast in a restaurant and buttered it with her tears."

Boom. The person who wrote that sentence is not a person who is paying attention to their own writing. The fact that it "entertained thousands if not millions" is not really a defense, either.

This book didn't have heart; it had overblown sentimentality. They aren't the same thing. It was also wildly inconsistent within the world of the narrative. One minute she's in everybody's head and on the FACING PAGE she's wondering what someone is thinking. That's basic shit, there. If you can't keep your own narrative world consistent, what can you do? Entertain millions, I guess.

My, people get really pissy on bookster. I loved this review as I, too, read The Lovely Bones in its entirety perhaps in part because of how absurdly simple and, well, bad it was. For me, I guess I felt it would have taken more energy to put it down and kick myself for starting something I didn’t finish, than to just keep reading on, turning the pages, and feeling that similarly satisfying self-inflicted shivery pain that I used to get when chewing gum on my newly emerging adult molars or watching Bill O’Reilly for two minutes at a time.

As far as I'm concerned, here's the thing: this book seems like it would be profound or emotionally complex because it's narrated by a raped and murdered teenager. That it's not actually complex but rather exceedingly simple and trite I think gets little bit lost in the emotionally-charged (and tantalizingly macabre) subject matter.

But, whatever, not everyone cares about complexity and nuanced tragedy. Sometimes people just want a quick emotional fix or an easy, easy, page-turning read. And there’s nothing wrong with that. That's totally fine. I love that shit, myself, and I imagine Sarah loves it, too, sometimes. I think where it gets a little tacky is where the two (quick and easy vs. nuanced tragedy) get conflated based on an appeal to our emotions. I think a story about the brutal rape and murder of a teenage girl ought not be sentimental and quick. And I happen to think The Lovely Bones, with its overly simplistic description of character motivations and its extensive description of heaven, is sentimental and quick.

That said, I think whether you're reading The Lovely Bones on an airplane, a lazy Sunday morning, or with a critical eye (a writer’s eye or otherwise) makes all the difference (why do I keep talking about eyes? Damn you Sebold!). If you're reading it on the airplane, for example, you might well love it because it's super easy to read but the subject matter lets you feel a little bit like you might be reading something important. If you're reading it critically, however, you're probably going to end up feeling a little bit violated because when you scratch the surface of this horrible story looking for a core, you find there is nothing much of substance underneath.

This is a lovely review. I must say, I'm pretty baffled by some of the unpleasant people on this site, but I guess I'm aware by now that there're a lot of unpleasant people out in the world, so it makes sense they'd pop up in cyberspace, too.... Huh. Maybe they hate you because you're a girl and a good book report writer? A lot of dudes, especially older, embittered ones, seem to hate that kind of thing. This seems like a very stupid explanation, but I can't think of another one to explain all this seemingly baseless animosity. I mean, it's weird, right? Isn't the point of this site for people to share their opinions about books they've read? And shouldn't that include negative opinions? I mean, if we were all at a cocktail party and you'd just rushed up to Ms. Sebold and called her a crappy writer to her face, that would've been rude and they'd be right to call you a jerk, but that's not exactly the situation here.... hm. Well, it takes all kinds! (Unfortunately.)

Anyway, I've never read anything by this writer, but everything I've heard about her books has made them sound horrible. The Times reviewer basically threw up all over her newest book, and then published his vomit-stained copy as a sort of warning to us all. People really seem to hate her stuff, but I guess some other people really seem to like it, and to get their panties in a real twist if anyone makes any unkind comments about her writing abilities. I guess Fergie has a lot of fans also, though I wonder if they're equally loyal, or equally unpleasant.

Wow! Anyway, I'm really starting to hate this site. At first I liked it because it seemed so sweet and dorky, but seeing people get so nasty all the time is very depressing. I feel like there are many more appropriate forums for people to blow off steam by being rude and insulting to people they don't even know. Sigh. Oh well....

[edited to preserve civility]

Sarah this was a great review. Don't let the bastards get you down. I live in Orange County where Ms. Sebold, Chabon and others are considered deities. I've taken good writing courses at both UCI and Cal State Fullerton but i've also taken soulless cookie-cutter bullshit ones that made me rue the day I ever picked up my pen, classes where Ms. Sebold was held up as a great artiste. Bleech Bleech Bleech. She needs an army of editors and her bad taste brainwashed out of her. Her view of heaven was about as three-dimensional as a jr high presentation of `Our Town'.

And great posting as usual Jessica, your bullshit detector works better than most, may it always serve you well.

I loved Sarah's review *because* it was so scathing. I occasionally allow myself to take the gloves off, and I find the same very hostile reaction (as in this knockabout with American Psycho http://www.goodreads.com/revie...

I just finished The Poisonwood Bible, however, and I'm *not* posting a real review of that one as I know it would call down upon my innocent head great Goodreadin' wrath, imprecations, curses and meditations on the dubious nature of my parentage. So I guess you need to qualify honesty with the knowledge that many people - especially we may say the passionate bookreaders of Goodreads - take their favourite books very personally and if someone writes "you must be an idiot/misogynist/nazi if you like this stuff" - as i have done - they feel somewhat ruffled and they bite back.
I take that to be the nature of debate everywhere, so Jessica, don't leave us.

Nathan, I'm pretty sure that's not actually what she said. But I suppose, at this point, that's neither here nor there.

Wow - even though I seemed to have somehow offended people with my review, I'm glad I posted it because it's led me to so many other great reader - Jessica, Paul, Lesley, Donald, etc. I must have spent an hour going through your books and reviews. Thanks.

NC - I can't say I like your attitude, but I'll try to keep an open mind... we have Oscar Wilde and Annie Proulx in common - perhaps we should try to get off on a better start.

Can I just say...Kudos to you, Sarah! I finally feel like I am not alone in my loathing of this book anymore. It has always been my 'Titanic' of books...everyone else loved it, but I must have missed all the 'great' moments because of all my eye rolling. :) Oh well! I guess the cheese stands alone sometimes. Thankfully, this is no longer one of those times. Whoo hoo!!

Brilliant response(s).....and book review too. You really did put into words accuratly what I felt while reading. I'm in a family full of people giving this book 5 stars!! *gasp* I actually trusted them and spent money buying this book. Thank you for your specific and detailed examples proving what should be so obvious to all......The Lovely Bones is anything but lovely!

"It seems to lack a plot. You know, that thing that books are supposed to have. I’ll never forget my first workshop with Brady Udall, in which he threw my story onto the table and said, “This isn’t a story, Sarah, it’s a situation.” "

Whilst I'm a big fan of Sarah's review I'd like to ask if Brady Udall's comment is especially meaningful, having read many modern short stories and novels in which plot (story) is nonexistent and situation is everything. For instance, every story in Joyce's Dubliners describes a situation, not a lot actually happens.

Oh, boy, I hated this book more than any other I've ever read! I hated it so much I was literally *raging* by the end of it, furious that I'd wasted my precious time on it! The lack of plot isn't a problem for me, but the saccharine, marshmallowy awfulness of it is. I found it a fundamentally dishonest book, that's my biggest gripe. Plus it's poorly written (IMO), which surely doesn't help. I'm always totally delighted whenever I find someone who hates the book as much as I did :D

Sarah: I just came across your review and loved it. I've never read "The Lovely Bones", but I know a smart review when I see one.

Paul - I disagree with your comment about the utility/necessity of plot. If someone writes a novel and expects to hold my interest as a reader, then something had better happen. True for short stories as well, for that matter*. And, without having specific examples at hand, other than "The Dead", I would argue that it is a mischaracterization of Joyce's stories to say that not a lot happens. Of course, since I live my life way too much in my head, I do consider stuff that takes place in a character's head to be legitimate "action". Emotional volcanic eruptions generally being more interesting than the geological kind.

*: Probably the reason I tend to have difficulty liking 'short short stories'. Which usually are more about demonstrating the author's 'cleverness' than anything else.

David - well then, if stuff that takes place in the character's head counts as story, surely The Loverly Bones is full of story. But apparently it isn't. I think I'm confused.