-
Welcome
to BookAndReader! We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!
Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.
February 2010: Alice Sebold: The Lovely Bones
- Thread starter Libra
- Start date
Fantasy Moon
kickbox
This was my second time reading Sebold's novel. I loved it as much if not more than I did the first time.
sanyuja
New Member
Excerpts from my review:
The initial few pages are disturbing, that is where Susie describes her rape and murder. It is more so disturbing because the tone of the narrator is very plain, emotionless.
I loved the character of Susie’s father but her mother irritated me. I feel her actions were not justified. Another character, Ruana Singh, Susie’s friend’s mother is mysteriously interesting – was it intentional or the author just left out certain parts about this character? Susie’s grandmom is another person who stays with you for sometime.
What I liked most about this book is the author’s take on the heaven. She uses her imagination to create what heaven could be like and after you read her version, you feel that is exactly how heaven should be. I liked the storyline, but felt the author could have done better than this.
The initial few pages are disturbing, that is where Susie describes her rape and murder. It is more so disturbing because the tone of the narrator is very plain, emotionless.
I loved the character of Susie’s father but her mother irritated me. I feel her actions were not justified. Another character, Ruana Singh, Susie’s friend’s mother is mysteriously interesting – was it intentional or the author just left out certain parts about this character? Susie’s grandmom is another person who stays with you for sometime.
What I liked most about this book is the author’s take on the heaven. She uses her imagination to create what heaven could be like and after you read her version, you feel that is exactly how heaven should be. I liked the storyline, but felt the author could have done better than this.
I didn't like the part where the girl is back on earth and ends up sleeping with her boyfriend.
Fantasy Moon
kickbox
I noticed something this second time about ways that Susie refers to Mr. Harvey throughout the narrative. I don't remember her calling him her rapist, but her murderer. She only makes mention of her assault on two occasions past chapter one that I recall, when her sister loses her virginity and toward the end when she is in Ruth's body. It's kind of shocking to read the violence of the opening chapter. Sebold finished her memoir before finishing The Lovely Bones after writing its first chapter if I remember correctly.
I also liked Susie's father. He was most interesting. I liked the passage where Susie wanted her father to give her the revenge she craved, but she knew that it wasn't in his nature to do it like you see grieving heroes in the movies do it.
The police officers came across as such morons in the book. They're not going to check the man's story out that he had a wife named Leah, especially after a neighbor of the man's recalls him saying that his wife's name was Sophie?
I also liked Susie's father. He was most interesting. I liked the passage where Susie wanted her father to give her the revenge she craved, but she knew that it wasn't in his nature to do it like you see grieving heroes in the movies do it.
The police officers came across as such morons in the book. They're not going to check the man's story out that he had a wife named Leah, especially after a neighbor of the man's recalls him saying that his wife's name was Sophie?
eldog
New Member
I purchased this novel in 2006 after it had been perennially placed on a Top 100 list from a national bookshop. It lived on my bookshelf and despite calling to me was never picked up. During that period, many colleagues read this book and gave it mixed reviews.
January 2010 BOTM - finally its time had come!
I definitely enjoyed The Lovely Bones and have to agree that the characters were well written and memorable.
Overall I would say that The Lovely Bones is an interesting interpretation of death and the effects of grief on the remaining family members.
January 2010 BOTM - finally its time had come!
I definitely enjoyed The Lovely Bones and have to agree that the characters were well written and memorable.
One of the negative reviews that I heard recently from a workmate related to Susie's spirit taking over Ruth's body and the subsequent experiences she has with Ray. I didn't really have a problem with it although it was rather unnecessary and a bit silly. Ruth's ability to make contact with the other side was one thing but being able to facilitate love connections seems a bit far-fetched. A service like that would be invaluable and surely come with a sizable fee!
The scene with Buckley when his father suffers the heart attack was really heartbreaking for me especially considering how much he adored his father throughout the book. This scene is definitely the one that touched me the most and perhaps that was because he is a male character? I am interested to know if this is the case or not...
The scene with Buckley when his father suffers the heart attack was really heartbreaking for me especially considering how much he adored his father throughout the book. This scene is definitely the one that touched me the most and perhaps that was because he is a male character? I am interested to know if this is the case or not...
Overall I would say that The Lovely Bones is an interesting interpretation of death and the effects of grief on the remaining family members.
dude
Member
Caution - read no further if you haven't finished the book
Just finished it. This book had a lot of promise, but failed to deliver in most aspects. The style of writing itself is very bland. There were hardly any really great metaphors to make the scene or a character's actions jump off the page or come to life in a vivid sense. From start to finish it was a benign read. The story is somewhat compelling, but Sebold wrote it in a sort of dear-diary or journalistic form.
As for the story itself, I came away feeling nothing really. I almost think this book would have been better if the girl had just died on accident or from a disease. I don't mind the fact that it is told by a dead girl from heaven watching her family grow up and move on but I think the "murderer never gets caught" facet was unnecessary and distracted from what the book ultimately ended up being about. She would go for a long time talking about her family in one way or the other and then the detective or Mr Harvey would enter the story briefly which only served to remind me of the disjointed nature of the book. I would think, "oh yeah, there's a weak attempt at a murder-mystery going on too."
The characters were mostly lifeless and were never really described in much detail. I would often try to picture them on my own because Sebold wouldn't often describe much about them physically. You knew that Lindsey had short hair and was thin after going to college, but not much else and certainly not much before that. Buckley had a few mentions of being either fat or chubby, but only through vague means were you let in on that. Other than Samuel wearing army fatigues and having his hair slicked back when he was 12 or whatever it was, you really don't know much about how he looked, the same with Hal except that you knew even less about him. You don't even know what kind of dog Holiday was, unless it was very briefly mentioned at the beginning. The only person who was consistently described was Ray, but even that was shallow because it never went much further than his dark skin because he was Indian. The only character who had any memorable personality was the Grandmother.
As a few people mentioned, the part where Susie takes over Ruth's body was by all accounts, laughable. It was pointless and added nothing to the story other than confusion. The romance between Abigail and Len was contrived and forced. Not that things like that don't or can't happen, but it seemed like a cheap way for Sebold to have her leave the family and create that parental rift that would come into play at the end. And how exactly did the cops never find the secret hole in the ground? Did Mr Harvey fill it in or something that I missed? From the scene where he kills Susie, it seemed like it was right there, easy to find. Yet the police scoured the entire cornfield and never found it? And no one would have thought to do a little background research on him?
Not a bad book, but I never felt like I got to know anyone or any place. Several times I kept asking myself, "where is this set again? Somewhere cold, I know that." Eventually you figure out that it's somewhere in Pennsylvania, somewhat close to Philly I guess.
Just finished it. This book had a lot of promise, but failed to deliver in most aspects. The style of writing itself is very bland. There were hardly any really great metaphors to make the scene or a character's actions jump off the page or come to life in a vivid sense. From start to finish it was a benign read. The story is somewhat compelling, but Sebold wrote it in a sort of dear-diary or journalistic form.
As for the story itself, I came away feeling nothing really. I almost think this book would have been better if the girl had just died on accident or from a disease. I don't mind the fact that it is told by a dead girl from heaven watching her family grow up and move on but I think the "murderer never gets caught" facet was unnecessary and distracted from what the book ultimately ended up being about. She would go for a long time talking about her family in one way or the other and then the detective or Mr Harvey would enter the story briefly which only served to remind me of the disjointed nature of the book. I would think, "oh yeah, there's a weak attempt at a murder-mystery going on too."
The characters were mostly lifeless and were never really described in much detail. I would often try to picture them on my own because Sebold wouldn't often describe much about them physically. You knew that Lindsey had short hair and was thin after going to college, but not much else and certainly not much before that. Buckley had a few mentions of being either fat or chubby, but only through vague means were you let in on that. Other than Samuel wearing army fatigues and having his hair slicked back when he was 12 or whatever it was, you really don't know much about how he looked, the same with Hal except that you knew even less about him. You don't even know what kind of dog Holiday was, unless it was very briefly mentioned at the beginning. The only person who was consistently described was Ray, but even that was shallow because it never went much further than his dark skin because he was Indian. The only character who had any memorable personality was the Grandmother.
As a few people mentioned, the part where Susie takes over Ruth's body was by all accounts, laughable. It was pointless and added nothing to the story other than confusion. The romance between Abigail and Len was contrived and forced. Not that things like that don't or can't happen, but it seemed like a cheap way for Sebold to have her leave the family and create that parental rift that would come into play at the end. And how exactly did the cops never find the secret hole in the ground? Did Mr Harvey fill it in or something that I missed? From the scene where he kills Susie, it seemed like it was right there, easy to find. Yet the police scoured the entire cornfield and never found it? And no one would have thought to do a little background research on him?
Not a bad book, but I never felt like I got to know anyone or any place. Several times I kept asking myself, "where is this set again? Somewhere cold, I know that." Eventually you figure out that it's somewhere in Pennsylvania, somewhat close to Philly I guess.
eldog
New Member
Oops, February 2010 BOTM!
sanyuja
New Member
I agree with you on all points. When I read the blurb, I thought this was going to be one great book. As you said, it could have been a good book if the concept and the story line had been used well.
The characters could have been made stronger. The murderer could have been made scary or mysterious by adding some more dimensions, some quirky behavior.
How keen are you on watching this movie?
Justin91
New Member
Do not read on if you have not finished the book...
Ok, I really like this book.
This book is not supposed to be a mystery, this is a book about tragedy and loss and how the living, as well as the dead deals with it. Five years ago, this book probably would not have moved me as much as today. It takes a major loss to really sink in and sympathize with the family. Sure, a good writer should be able to immerse her readers and dive them into the loss, but I give her kudos, as this is her debut novel for attempting to do so.
I thought Sebold did a great job in telling the story from the point of view of the dead girl. Did it feel emotionless, descriptive as well as how Dude put it...
And I think that the murderer not getting caught facet, was a major part of the theme of the novel...life is like that. Part of dealing with grief is answering questions, closing open ends. The father trying to get revenge and playing detective among who he feels as incompetents could be a normal reaction by anyone in this situation. But this is not a mystery novel. It is a book about life, immersed in a sudden death. Sure, Sebold gives the readers somewhat closure at the end, but does not for the family. Life, is like that.
I have to disagree with you Dude, I felt the Mother in law was a great character as well as the father. And if you hated the mother in some of the book, then she was a good character as well, because that was by design.
We all handle death differently, especially one brought about by sudden tragedy as well to someone way before their time. The struggle with the family in not really knowing what happens to their precious girl is driven hard to the reader throughout the book. Life seldom gives closure.
I have to agree with eldog, this is a very interesting study into how a family deals with tragedy, loss and dealing with not knowing what happened to the little girl.
The only part I did not like was the part where Susie takes over Ruth’s body.
Ok, I really like this book.
This book is not supposed to be a mystery, this is a book about tragedy and loss and how the living, as well as the dead deals with it. Five years ago, this book probably would not have moved me as much as today. It takes a major loss to really sink in and sympathize with the family. Sure, a good writer should be able to immerse her readers and dive them into the loss, but I give her kudos, as this is her debut novel for attempting to do so.
I thought Sebold did a great job in telling the story from the point of view of the dead girl. Did it feel emotionless, descriptive as well as how Dude put it...
And I think that the murderer not getting caught facet, was a major part of the theme of the novel...life is like that. Part of dealing with grief is answering questions, closing open ends. The father trying to get revenge and playing detective among who he feels as incompetents could be a normal reaction by anyone in this situation. But this is not a mystery novel. It is a book about life, immersed in a sudden death. Sure, Sebold gives the readers somewhat closure at the end, but does not for the family. Life, is like that.
I have to disagree with you Dude, I felt the Mother in law was a great character as well as the father. And if you hated the mother in some of the book, then she was a good character as well, because that was by design.
We all handle death differently, especially one brought about by sudden tragedy as well to someone way before their time. The struggle with the family in not really knowing what happens to their precious girl is driven hard to the reader throughout the book. Life seldom gives closure.
I have to agree with eldog, this is a very interesting study into how a family deals with tragedy, loss and dealing with not knowing what happened to the little girl.
The only part I did not like was the part where Susie takes over Ruth’s body.
dude
Member
My main gripe is with the way the story is written, the actual prose, not the story itself as much. Granted, I don't think the story is all that great anyway, but if you can make the characters come alive with vivid detail and memorable personalities, then it makes up for a mediocre story.
I'm completely fine with a story not having closure. Most of what I read is exactly that and it's why I'm not into crime thrillers and whatnot. I like stories about real life and this was true to that, no doubt. But ask yourself this, what if the Mr Harvey character was never introduced and the kill-scene wasn't in the book at all. You would still have the elbow, the hat, the blood in the field, everything to link her being missing to be being murdered and all of the unknown and open-endedness that comes with that. Susie is still narrating from heaven, the family still struggles with the day-to-day strife of moving on and all Susie has say when mentioning him is "her murderer" as she already does. Then you would have a book that is more about "life, immersed in sudden death" which I agree is ultimately what Sebold was trying to achieve here. But by adding the element of the murderer as a character that you follow (I use that word loosely as you hardly follow him at all after the murder) throughout the book, it becomes more than just about the family and friends trying to cope with the sudden loss of a teenage girl.
When did I say I hated the mother? I just said that the romance between her and the detective was contrived, and predictable by the way. Predictable in the sense that when a tragedy happens involving a married couple's child, it's hard for them to move on together. In stories like these, someone generally ends up being the weaker one and can't handle it anymore and runs off which means that kids will grow to resent that person, but they can't understand what they're going through because they're just kids. It was quite textbook the way the mother ran off and then came back only to be greeted by a "f*** you" from the youngest child. Of course, this is Sebold's debut book, so some amateurish things are bound to happen.
I'm completely fine with a story not having closure. Most of what I read is exactly that and it's why I'm not into crime thrillers and whatnot. I like stories about real life and this was true to that, no doubt. But ask yourself this, what if the Mr Harvey character was never introduced and the kill-scene wasn't in the book at all. You would still have the elbow, the hat, the blood in the field, everything to link her being missing to be being murdered and all of the unknown and open-endedness that comes with that. Susie is still narrating from heaven, the family still struggles with the day-to-day strife of moving on and all Susie has say when mentioning him is "her murderer" as she already does. Then you would have a book that is more about "life, immersed in sudden death" which I agree is ultimately what Sebold was trying to achieve here. But by adding the element of the murderer as a character that you follow (I use that word loosely as you hardly follow him at all after the murder) throughout the book, it becomes more than just about the family and friends trying to cope with the sudden loss of a teenage girl.
When did I say I hated the mother? I just said that the romance between her and the detective was contrived, and predictable by the way. Predictable in the sense that when a tragedy happens involving a married couple's child, it's hard for them to move on together. In stories like these, someone generally ends up being the weaker one and can't handle it anymore and runs off which means that kids will grow to resent that person, but they can't understand what they're going through because they're just kids. It was quite textbook the way the mother ran off and then came back only to be greeted by a "f*** you" from the youngest child. Of course, this is Sebold's debut book, so some amateurish things are bound to happen.
DaoJones
kickbox
A very mediocre book. Good enough I didn't give up on it but at the end a disappointment. I kept waiting for it to get better or grab me in some way like other novels have done as I kept reading til the end. Sometimes I can tolerate bad writing if the story pulls me in but in this case it never happened. Big problem was the author really stretched the limits of believability in the first place with the unusual narrative but then the main character's spirit is allowed to jump into the body of another living person! Totally ridiculous. Most of the characters didn't behave in ways that were realistic either. All in all not a great effort. And I really wanted to like this book. Just couldn't, too silly.
Justin91
New Member
Sorry Dude, when I wrote the "you hate the mother", I was speaking generally to all readers of the book. I really should have edited my post a lot better:whistling: I was in a real hurry and posted it too soon. You did make some really good points and I enjoyed reading your take on the book.
A faux pas I did commit with this book is I usually like to digest a book for a while once I have readit. This allows me to see if there are any lasting impressions. I posted as soon as I finished reading this one...
One thing I really did like about this book and I forgot to mention in my original post, was Sebold’s use of foreshadowing to keep the reader moving ahead. I guess that could be disappointing, because her foreshadowing usually was a little more dramatic than what the foreshadowing led up to.
A faux pas I did commit with this book is I usually like to digest a book for a while once I have readit. This allows me to see if there are any lasting impressions. I posted as soon as I finished reading this one...
One thing I really did like about this book and I forgot to mention in my original post, was Sebold’s use of foreshadowing to keep the reader moving ahead. I guess that could be disappointing, because her foreshadowing usually was a little more dramatic than what the foreshadowing led up to.
Libra
Active Member
My perception was that when going through such a traumatic experience,victims sometimes separate from what is going on like it was someone else going through it than themselves,in order not to feel or re-live it.
I don't think there is a right or wrong way to grieve,couples sometimes support each other or they each deal with the pain thier own way and alone and it splits them emotionally.
Leaving her other kids is what bothered me.
Like someone else said,I liked the way it dealt with emotions and how each character handled thier pain.
What I also didn't like was the police work was stupid,and the ending,if it was just to get a kiss,I could deal with it,but the rest was weird.
dude
Member
Sorry, I missed this.
I'd like to see the movie, because in the visual form of a movie, much of what I complained about is easily fixed when you can actually see what's happening. In fact, the book could make for a pretty good movie script.
sanyuja
New Member
I know what you are talking about. The victims usually go into a denial mode where they believe the 'thing' happened to someone else. This works well with the rest of the book, but I was particularly disappointed with the narration of the actual rape and murder. Even when you are watching such a violent scene on TV, your heart rate goes up. You know it's all happening on television, but you still sweat just a little. This scene atleast could have used some emotional tone, but the girl narrates it as if she is listing down ingredients for a recipe.
sanyuja
New Member
Sorry, I missed this.
I don't know how different the script will be from the book, but if they add some layers to the characters, the movie will be good.