DISCUSSION OPEN - GONE GIRL - 2013 Group Read #1

[Jane]

Well, guess it depends on what u mean by "believable"...writing a book (story) about the average joe isnt very interesting. But finding exceptional, extraordinary, quirky etc does make for a better story. In my humble opinion anyway. I like escapism, entertainment, a WOW element. Not just in thrillers. Dont read much " I'm OK , you're OK ", "find yourself & identify" stuff etc. So preferring the first part of Gone Girl (& not liking the 2d) was surprising. I thought the first humdrum part was aimed at setting us up for the 2d Wow part. It worked beautifully. We were no longer in the realm of ave/normal people. & no i did not "identify" with those characters. I'd be really worried if i did! Great Read... Kept me right on the edge! Good Thrillers should do that!

P.S. So let's say "well developed unbelievable" characters...

[Ruby , Mistress of Chaos]

Yeah - I'm going to have to keep disagreeing. That seems like a simplistic way of looking at books: it's either "wow" or "I'm okay, you're okay". I've read many, many books that have both well developed characters and escapism.

I think I'm starting to understand why people use the term "genre fiction" - that idea that there are certain rules to certain genres. I'd be bored to tears if I read books that all followed the same set of rules.

I also can't stand the idea of "normal people". Nobody's normal. If people could just accept that and move on, the world would be a much more pleasant and interesting place. Every "average joe" has their quirks and their exceptional stories. A good writer can present that in a way that's entertaining, as well as relatable.

For that reason, (among others) I don't think there's anything wrong with identifying with the characters in this book. I could absolutely relate to Amy, although I probably wouldn't have actually killed anyone or tried to have them done for my murder. I'd have considered it though. I think that's what makes her character so creepy - that feeling that she could be any of us, given a certain set of circumstances, and if we indulged our desires to the same degree.

[Jane]

Agree totally. But we've lost the thread! I was reacting to a few comments which preferred the first part of the book but then lost interest when the weirdness picked up ("couldnt relate to characters" etc) I just thought it worked perfectly & the second part was the essence. (Thought it might get some attn!). No time & not enough space to discuss "normal). Sorry.

[Jessica]

I think I get what Jane is saying.

You can identify with unlikely characters. For example, you could identify with Amy -empathize with her feelings about being cheated on, feel for her need to be perfect, her complicated feelings for Nick. But it's rare to run into a person that would go to the lengths she went to as a reaction to being cheated on, not being perfect, etc. Most of of would take it as far as slapping Nick, or divorcing him, or some might even just tick around. But it's much more fun to read about a fake murder than it is to read about a good slap. Sometimes.

[Jane]

Good point. But, no, identifying with/finding myself in, is not essential (to me) in well developed characters. We all eat, sleep & pee, so yes there are always basic common denominators (redundant). If you are reading "Fried Green Tomatoes" or "How to make an American Quilt" (great reads too), this criteria might be much more important (is this a genre? Which one not sure). But reading about the Boleyn Sisters (and depending which version/author) maybe not so important vis-a-vis the greatness of the book/story.
Sometimes.

[Karina]

My issue with the book wasn't about the characters being relatable or believable. It was that I started to despise them around the 2nd half of the book when all the big reveals started happening. I started losing interest pretty fast after that once I really didn't care what happened to Amy or Nick.

I think good authors make characters relatable even if they are extraordinary. Amy could be like any betrayed wife just to the extreme and there are men that I know that remind me of Nick. The character that I most identified with was Go. Maybe that's why she's one of the few characters I didn't dislike or maybe it's because she wasn't in the book nearly enough.

I am kind of upset I already returned the book or I would have loved to read the thank you section. I'm not very good about reading those but now I wish I had so I could have laughed at the amazingness of it.

[Ben]

Karina wrote: "My issue with the book wasn't about the characters being relatable or believable. It was that I started to despise them around the 2nd half of the book when all the big reveals started happening. I..."

The acknowledgements section wasn't anything special, I thought. It was a little long winded, a touch pompous, and full of inside jokes; just par for the course of author acknowledgements.

[Dara]

Karina wrote: "My issue with the book wasn't about the characters being relatable or believable. It was that I started to despise them around the 2nd half of the book when all the big reveals started happening. I..."

Karina, I had the exact same issue with We Need to Talk ABout Kevin. By the time the author got around to the meat of the story (the last 100 pages) I disliked the author characters so much I still somewhat hated the book. Even though it did all come together at the end.

[Lesley]

But sometimes that is what makes me love a book when I despise the characters!

[Dara]

I won't disagree with that Lesley...but Kevin, for some reason, I just really detested the characters and the author.

[Karina]

Sometimes despising characters works for a book. In this instance, it didn't work for me. I bought Kevin to read and then my dog peed on it before I could start it. Maybe he was trying to tell me something.

[Ajay]

I read this a month back and discussed it in the other group. I just wanted to know what you think about Amy's parents role in her psycho behavior. Some think her parents just wanted a good role model for Amy to grow up with, that's why they created Amazing Amy. I am of the opinion that because of Amazing Amy and the constant comparison to normal Amy, it led her to be psychotic. Also, i believe even without Nick cheating on her this marriage was heading for a disaster.

[Helen]

This was great! Very readable. One of the few bestsellers in the last two years that has stood up to the hype. It's an interesting, quick, engrossing read. The character development very well done by Flynn. I was taken in by Diary Amy but she showed a few flaws, giving you hints that maybe she's not the Cool Girl she would like us to think. Exposing the whole "Cool Girl" phenomenon made me angry: are we no better off than the characters in The Women's Room? I disagree with a lot of the comments that the book became less enjoyable after the big "reveal". I couldn't wait to get back to it after that point. It's a look into the intricacies of marriage, albeit an extreme marriage. I give it four stars because I had some issues with the post-reveal mystery details. But, overall, engrossing, interesting, smart.

[Karen]

Helen wrote: "This was great! Very readable. One of the few bestsellers in the last two years that has stood up to the hype. It's an interesting, quick, engrossing read. The character development very well done..."
I feel the same and did not notice any 'slow down' or break between the first half and the second. I think there is probably a little of that 'cool girl' and all of us girls.

[Ruby , Mistress of Chaos]

Helen wrote: "I had some issues with the post-reveal mystery details. ..."

Me too. Some of the small details just didn't make sense. I found myself keeping a list!

[Helen]

Karina wrote: "My issue with the book wasn't about the characters being relatable or believable. It was that I started to despise them around the 2nd half of the book when all the big reveals started happening. I..."

I didn't like any of the main characters in the book. They're pretty despicable and psychotic. I didn't even like Go that much. But I enjoyed this book a lot. I'm going to have to go with John Green's point: "Books are not in the business of creating merely likeable characters with whom you can have some simple identification. Books are in the business of crating great stories that make your brain go ahhbdgbdmerhbergurhbudgerbudbaaarr."

[Helen]

Karen wrote: "I think there is probably a little of that 'cool girl' and all of us girls. "

You're so right! That's probably why that bothered me so much! Flynn just shoved it in our faces - "We all do this/have done it!" I keep hoping that we women have moved past doing things like pretending to be the Cool Girl. But she's in there...stupid, stupid, stupid girl.

[Jane]

Helen wrote: "This was great! Very readable. One of the few bestsellers in the last two years that has stood up to the hype. It's an interesting, quick, engrossing read. The character development very well done..."

Very well put!

[Helen]

Ajay wrote: "I read this a month back and discussed it in the other group. I just wanted to know what you think about Amy's parents role in her psycho behavior. Some think her parents just wanted a good role mo..."
An excellent point. I'm with you on this..sort of. I don't think that she ever would have been a "normal girl", as she calls it, even without the Amazing Amy image. Yes, I think the books helped create this sociopath. But I also think she was born with a proclivity to psychopathy. They do say that some people are born socio/psychopaths and it has very little to do with the nurture element. She doesn’t seem to have a conscience or empathy; it’s all about her. She felt entitled and superior, mostly because of her incredible intelligence. And because of that intellect she decided to manipulate these “lesser/ boring/ mediocre” humans, getting what she felt was her right. All I can say is she is one scary, brilliant psycho.

[Helen]

Ruby wrote: "Discussion Open!

I loved that Flynn showed how a psychopathic character could be that relatable - almost as if she could be anyone you know."

That's exactly what I thought! Amy is so brilliant and such a high-functioning sociopath (or psychopath?) that she can become anybody she wants. She becomes whomever she thinks you want her to be. It's frightening. SHE'S frightening!

[Helen]

I became mildly obsessed with Gillian Flynn for a short time after reading this book and was delighted to find plenty of material on the internet so could stalk/learn as much as possible about her. I particularly enjoy it when she talks about women exploring our dark sides and how this is somehow taboo: http://gillian-flynn.com/for-readers/

Inspiring and thought provoking. And don't worry - I'm mostly over it now ;-)

[Ruby , Mistress of Chaos]

Helen wrote: "I became mildly obsessed with Gillian Flynn for a short time after reading this book and was delighted to find plenty of material on the internet so could stalk/learn as much as possible about her...."

Oooh. Thanks for that. Bookmarked for when I have glasses and can read for more than 20 minutes at a time. Sigh. Yup - glasses. :(

[Julie]

I loved the first half of the book, and just before the big left turn out of nowhere, I started suspecting Amy faked her own death, but had NO idea to the extent that she did! The second half I still liked, but there were little things here and there, that just seemed really implausible. The biggest thing was the defense attorney. He was so quick to believe Nick's story and completely back him, with almost no hesitation. Of course the story was true, but lets face it, this guy defends guilty people. Wouldnt he be just a little bit more jaded than he was? And for the amount of money he was being paid, why was it Nick that was coming up with most of the solutions? I know nothing about fertility clinics, but wouldnt the clinic require authorization from both parties before proceeding with the pregnancy? I suppose that maniacal beast could have forged Nick's signature.
I have to say I was relieved when Nick found all that stuff in the shed. At first I thought he was going to find a dead fetus in a crib. I'm actually surprised he didnt. That was one crazy you know what!
I would've liked a different end, but I guess that was Flynn's last surprise for us.
Very good book.

[Whitney]

Ruby wrote: "Jane wrote: "Not really looking for the veracity of characters... Just a terrific, quite original thriller. (Would one look for a believable character in Hannibal Lecter? Hope not)..."

Yes. I definitely would..."

I agree, but I think there's two different points being made. Could a Hannibal Lector actually exist in the real world versus is he a believable (and consistent) literary character. The conceit of the book is the existence of this fantastic and unlikely character, and the challenge is selling him to us as believable, (which I think Harris did brilliantly in 'The Silence of the Lambs' but fell short on in the sequels).

I've heard the argument before that because a book is labeled 'genre' it's somehow freed from criticism for its inconsistencies but I don't buy it, especially today when the line between 'genre' and 'mainstream' is getting blurred into non-existence.

[Whitney]

Karina wrote: "The whole time, to me anyway, I felt like he was getting set up. It wasn't until the police started talking to Nick about the fake crime scene that I realized Amy was the one setting him up. I mean who else would go through all that trouble..."

There was a definite hint about what was going on in the references to Hannibal, MO and Mark Twain, for those who remember their Huck Finn. One of my favorite books and I'm sad to say I didn't pick up on it until after I finished the book.

[Ruby , Mistress of Chaos]

Whitney wrote: "I've heard the argument before that because a book is labeled 'genre' it's somehow freed from criticism for its inconsistencies but I don't buy it, especially today when the line between 'genre' and 'mainstream' is getting blurred into non-existence. .."

I agree. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect believable and/or well developed characters in a book, regardless of any label that might be put on it.