|
|
#16
17th February 2007, 11:12 AM
|
||||
|
||||
minxminnie
7th January 2006 11:26 PM Hi everyone I'm so glad to have discovered this book group as I've just read WNTTAK and was dying to talk about it. It's a long time since a book has occupied my thoughts for so long after finishing it. I felt very ambivalent about it: on the one hand, I was horrified and gripped by the story and found the observation of Kevin very perceptive in places, particularly of the teenage Kevin (I work with teenagers). But at times I felt the characterisation did drift into caricature - of all 4 main characters - and I was reminded of those old cartoon strips in kids' comics where one child in replaced by a malevolent alien who seems innocent to everyone except the protagonist, who cops all the flak for the alien's misdeeds. Franklin did really annoy me, and in a way I loved Kevin's disdain for him and the way he sent him up. Someone said Eva and Kevin are alike - that hadn't occured to me, but yes, I can see that. Spoiler:
Like many people who works with kids, I think, I am a bit naive and think that they are essentially good underneath. This novel made me question that assumption. Maybe no bad thing? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hazel 28th January 2006 05:32 PM Whole thing in spoiler I am afraid, as I really don't want to spoil this book for anyone. Spoiler:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cathy 8th February 2006 11:18 AM I haven't hated a book as much as this one in a long, long time, I really truly absolutely hate it. I guessed from very early on that Spoiler:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hazel 8th February 2006 12:19 PM Blimey Cathy! I think it is great that you had such a reaction to the book, as it makes a change to hear a completely different viewpoint. I agree that the end wasn't really a shocker, ot a twist but I don't think it was meant to be I think the whole book was just shocking from Eva's feelings towards her first-born, Franklins indifference to Eva's feelings, and blinkered view of his son, to Kevin's behaviour and treatment of everyone around him. It was just a great portrayal of a dysfunctional family breaking down and culminating in some horrific events that are sadly being more common. It makes people question the 'blame the parent' theory, and certainly made me think more about the two young men I am raising and how I do it. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Last edited by megustaleer : 17th February 2007 at 04:48 PM. 
|
|
#17
17th February 2007, 11:17 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
These posts complete page 2 of the original thread
Mungus 8th February 2006 05:00 PM Wow! Excellent rant Cathy, glad you got it off your chest! Maybe this is one of those books that provokes reactions because the characters are so hateful - and unapologetically so. I didn't mind that I didn't like Eva and you're clearly not meant to like Kevin (although that would be an interesting reaction...). In your case, it seems that you did mind that you didn't like them and the lack of empathy affected you in a different way. And there's always the risk you take when people have told you that something is so fabulous that you just have to read it. I read this novel about a year ago and wasn't aware that there was a twist in the end, and I'm very gullible  . As for Shriver being childless, maybe this gives her a strange take on motherhood, but crime writers aren't murders but still usually manage to make a decent job of writing about them. In interviews that I saw and read, she seems to be an odd character anyway.I'm going through a bad book phase and it's really annoying me. I'm just about to abandon a book on page 418 of 698 because I need to read something enjoyable again. Hope your next book gives you more pleasure. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- megustaleer 8th February 2006 06:43 PM I don't think that the twist at the end was actually intended as a shock or surprise, it was pretty inevitable, but those of us who had been drawn into the story, and had been seduced by the letters into believing Eva's version of events, had developed a blind spot and didn't see it coming. That is the reason for the use of the spoiler tag, and if the reader has remained detatched, or has disliked the book as you did, it probably is obvious, and seems weird that the rest of us didn't see it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hazel 8th February 2006 06:52 PM Quote:
I think it is remarkable that she is childless, she wrote with such conviction and with a great deal of truth about motherhood, embarking on pregnancy, the change between lovers when a child enters the relationship. Some of what she wrote rang true for me, and even then I didn't feel as Eva did. Shriver must have done a great deal of research, asking prospective mothers their innermost fears. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mungus 8th February 2006 09:58 PM Quote:
And maybe non-mothers too. I am married but we have made an positive choice not to have children. One our reasons was that we didn't want our relationship to be changed by the addition of children. It's a selfish reason, but not to be under-estimated. Eva and Franklin's relationship was changed by the arrival of Kevin and clearly not for the better. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Cathy 9th February 2006 09:56 AM I've been thinking about the book some more, and the fact that Shriver clearly sets out to provoke by excluding a bunch of things which people normally turn to to find reasons for these school shootings: Spoiler:
Thank you for letting me rant on! I've calmed down now and am reading something much more enjoyable! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- megustaleer 9th February 2006 03:39 PM Quote:
Maternal guilt? Last edited by megustaleer : 17th February 2007 at 05:20 PM.
|
|
#18
17th February 2007, 11:19 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Meg, thanks for recovering this thread. It was the one that brought me to BGO, and a book that still seems to evoke a lot of discussion. I recently recommended it to my senior pupils as a possibility for their essay on personal reading, and I had about 5 essays on it, all taking very different stances.
|
|
#19
18th February 2007, 05:26 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Page 3.
Mungus 9th Feb 2006 03:42pm Quote:
Nature vs. nurture? __________________________________________________ _______________ Hazel 9th Feb 4:16 pm Quote:
Very good point Mungus. And don't think that is a selfish decision after all, you can't be expected to consider the 'self' of someone who doesn't exist yet. I felt very much the same as you and was terrified I would never want children, but something changed and it was the best change I made to my life, but I am well aware that it is not for everyone and if only everyone thought as carefully and honestly as you, then there might not be so many little Kevins and Kevinettas running the neighbourhoods. I must add that when I was pregnant with our second, I was terrified that I wouldn't love it as much as the first, and I was terrified that it would be a girl as I knew in my heart that I wanted boys. I think a lot of mothers don't really own up to their true and possibly selfish feelings about pregnancy and children, and I think that's why this book came as a shock and is much talked about. __________________________________________________ _______________ Hazel 9th February 2006, 04:21 PM Quote:
I think the beauty of this book is it's simplicity, that Shriver doesn't rely on any crutches (like those mentioned in your spoiler), to explain Kevin's behaviour, It is just between him and his mother, and whether maternal love or lack thereof can be the most devastating thing in a child's life. It's so very different to Vernon God Little which highlighted each of those reasons for the events that unfolded. Shriver avoided, successfully, the paranoia, scapegoating nature of the media. I am glad you had a good rant - does you the world of good! __________________________________________________ _______________ Cathy Old 10th February 2006, 11:42 AM Me and Seraphina had a huge conversation about all this yesterday, in the BGO chat room, and it seemed a shame not to share it so we've saved it and slightly edited it to make it readable and cut out irrelevant bits. Please excuse us if its rough around the edges, we weren't writing for the message boards at the time and we sort of trail in to it at the beginning and out again at the end! And its going to be in two chunks as its so long, give me a bit of time to get it up here... __________________________________________________ _______________ Cathy 10th February 2006, 11:44 AM Part One:The kevin debate is ongoing…. [Cathy] 5:15 pm: i did get that it was about nature vs.nurture but i just thought 'yawn!' which is perhaps a bit dismissing and insulting to those who loved it? [Seraphina] 5:15 pm: what is yawn about nature versus nurture? it's an ongoing debate that hasn't been settled by scientists OR philosophers! [Cathy] 5:15 pm: Its just so pointless, its clearly a bit of both and we're clearly never ever going to get a satisfactory answer so what's the bloody point debating it? and it seems to me the only thing on the side of 'nurture' that was bad for kevin was his mother not being sure she wanted him, everything else was fine, so it seems to me she's saying 'NATURE' and not much else. [Seraphina] 5:15 pm: which in America is quite a statement, as the general consensus there seems to be nurture nurture nurture [Seraphina] 5:15 pm: just because people like me and you can accept that it's a bit of both doesn’t mean everyone does. Some people have a pretty warped idea of what makes kids the way they are, I didn't know this until my ex boyfriend told me how controversial the work he is doing actually is. [Seraphina] 5:15 pm: people have really been slated in the past for daring to suggest that parenting isn’t as important as we first thought. [Cathy] 5:15 pm: Well we're not America! Sorry, i just hated it so much...i'm not sure i'm even being fair...i wish people would write about how things really are you know, people have bad things happen to them and don't murder anyone, its just so middle class angst! I didn't know it was such a controversy. What gene is he looking for? the murder gene? [Cathy] 5:15 pm: And the whole mother-bashing element really pissed me off too, all those poor women who have trouble connecting with their babies, if i was one of them i'd be near suicidal after reading this and i guess i just think that's unhelpful. Mental health problems are treated hysterically in so much of the media! [Seraphina] 5:15 pm: well it was written in America! I agree with you about the mother bashing thing though, I'm not sure it was helpful, and if I had post natal depression it would probably push me over the edge - of a cliff! but those kind of events ARE treaded hysterically by the media - it was Marilyn Manson's music, blah blah blah, isn't it interesting (if scary and unpleasant) to see someone taking a different viewpoint and actually acknowledging (although perhaps going a little over the top about it) that it could actually be the fault of the people's genetic make up rather than something that can be fixed with nicey nicey psycho babble? [Cathy] 5:15 pm: Is that her only point then? It bugged me that it was too subtle, he was too subtly evil, i just didn't believe that to be true when lots of annoying and bad people are clearly bad and we know it clearly, we just aren't good enough at covering up like kevin does. [Seraphina] 5:15 pm: but there ARE people who are good at covering up their evilness. Think of the serial killers who are married and live a normal life, there are plenty of them. They are the scariest type of people! And also I guess no one ever really focuses on the mothers in these types of incidents, maybe it's interesting that she has? It was sensationalist and played mercilessly on a mother's fear of #$%^&* ng up her kids, but just because that's what she wrote doesn't mean that's necessarily exactly what she THINKS. Maybe she's just pointing out that there's more than one way of looking at these things when they happen. __________________________________________________ _______________ Cathy Old 10th February 2006, 11:47 AM Part Two:[Cathy] 5:15 pm: Well maybe that shows that it is nurture too and any of us could be driven to murder. Or at least some of us have the potential in us and most of us don't turn into murderers. But we're not secretly plotting from birth to murder anyone. Or we're born with clear signs of something wrong because babies aren't that good at concealing things. I mean, research is scientific and worth listening to because of that, someone just fantasizing worst-case scenarios isn't! [Seraphina] 5:15 pm: I think it IS nurture too, but i think it is mostly genetic. a person with the 'murder gene' if there is one could grow up to be a murderer or not, depending on whether his/her environment nurtured that gene. [Cathy] 5:15 pm: i do think most of us could be driven to murder by very extreme circumstances, i don't think its as fine a balance as Shriver says, there are people who do not love their children and abuse them and the kids still come out not being murderers. And if you were in mortal danger, do you not think you might kill? [Cathy] 5:15 pm: I'm not saying there isn't a gene that makes people more likely to murder purely out of hate or whatever. [Seraphina] 5:15 pm: i have thought about this many times! i don't even think i could poke my fingers in someone's eye if they were attacking me! although saying that, in the moment i probably could [Cathy] 5:15 pm: Exactly, if it came to it, if someone was trying to drown or strangle you and you got hold of a knife, would you not stick it in? [Seraphina] 5:15 pm: i don't know if i could. I guess so....that's not the point though, that's a completely different circumstance __________________________________________________ _______________ Cathy 10th February 2006, 11:49 AM So that's it...I don't know why we trailed off there it looks a bit weird now! Last edited by megustaleer : 19th February 2007 at 10:42 AM.
|
|
#20
18th February 2007, 05:27 PM
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Page 3 continued
Hazel 10th February 2006, 12:42 PM Quote:
I agree that it is both nature and nurture. Your point about people having bad things happen to them and don't go out and repeat that behaviour proves that. Some deal with trauma in early life well, and productvely, yet some react badly amd maybe do go out and commit crimes. That's down to nature. Would those latter people still behave that way if their nurturing had been different? I don't think they would - so their nature reacted to their experience of nurturing. The second point about the mother bashing presupposes that every mother is destined to want, desire, and be a good mother - if not then there must be some mental health issue. That is not the case. A lot of mothers don't want children, aren't maternal and don't do a necessarily good job of caring for their children and don't much question that. I for one, know of one woman who was tricked into having 2 children by her husband and is pretty much indifferent to them - that is not a mental health issue - that's just a woman who didn't want children. There are plenty of men who abscond on the kids and have no further contact and it is about time we realise that woman are capable of the same thing. Being pregnant and having a child is not always a wanted choice by a woman - and I think Eva illustrates that beautifully. Her story was about as far away from the Post Natal Depression theme as possible - she didn't want the child from the initial discussion of having a baby. Great discussion though and thanks for posting it! __________________________________________________ _______________ Hazel 10th February 2006, 12:46 PM Quote:
Premeditated murder or even chance murder is entirely different than killing in self defence. The latter is fed by our inbuilt human survival mechanism and a completely different part of the brain, psyche, whatever, takes over. I know I would be capable of it and the mechanism would extend to fighting for my husband and my boys. That doesn't by any stretch make me capable of murder. __________________________________________________ _______________ megustaleer 10th February 2006, 02:37 PM cathy and Seraphina, I'm not sure that I read the same book as you two! I didn't see it as primarily a nature v nurture debate. I didn't see that there was a 'reason' for Kevin doing what he did, or at least not a single, definable reason such as nature or nurture. As far as I remember it, (and it is fading, somewhat) the book consisted of a series of letters, giving a view of events from one single standpoint, that of a mother feeling guilty because of the way her child has behaved (which mothers do, with or without justification). Apart from the pre-pregnancy/pregnancy chapters, which I remember least well, but possibly including them, the book as I see it is Eva's attempt to shift the blame onto Kevin himself, because of his cold and manipulative personality, or onto Franklin for denying Kevin's evil character and so leaving her to cope with the problem unsupported. However much she tries to spread the blame, inside she still agrees with the universal judgement: 'It must be the mother's fault!' Does anyone else see the preparation of the room, and plans for welcoming Kevin home at the end of his sentence as an attempt to make amends (subconsciously) for the lack of preparation and welcome when he was born? __________________________________________________ _______________ Seraphina 10th February 2006, 03:28 PM Quote:
I don't think we were suggesting that it was ONLY a nature/nurture debate, as far as I'm aware we were only discussing this as ONE theme of the novel. I don't think we were trying to pin the 'blame' on one thing either, as this is clearly impossible in such a complex series of events. Quote:
I agree with the reasoning that Eva is trying to spread the blame, whilst still feeling deep down as if it must be her fault. She's writing out her version of events both to try and make herself feel better and also to try and sway the judgement of others, although my latter point is debatable as she doesn't appear to be writing for anyone except herself. So I guess we have to question what is her purpose in writing these letters? About the room thing. I guess it is Eva trying to make amends, she is obviously trying to rid herself of the guilt, but how much of it is inspired by love and how much by the sheer guilt she is feeling? The whole ending with Kevin coming home sits quite uncomfortably with me. If my child did that sort of thing I'm not sure I could welcome them back. Not being a mother I can't say for definite. I thought the preparation of the room might be Schriver's way of suggesting that it is Eva and Kevin's new start, they will live happily ever after, and if only Eva had welcomed Kevin in the first place, this might never have happened, something I completely disagree with. __________________________________________________ _______________ Hazel 10th February 2006, 03:55 PM Quote:
Yes it provides a nice framework for the tale as she ends up preparing to give birth to her son once again. __________________________________________________ _______________ megustaleer 10th February 2006, 04:00 PM Quote:
Maybe not, but if, deep down, you thought it was all your fault...? Quote:
I don't think Shriver is suggesting that, but maybe it is what Eva is feeling, or kidding herself it could be __________________________________________________ _______________ Hazel 10th February 2006, 04:02 PM Quote:
Well, the title of the book is "We Need To Talk About Kevin" yet throughout the whole book Eva doesn't really get the chance to speak to Franklin about Kevin - the whole interaction between them avoids it. So I think the letters to Franklin in part are a catharsis - but mostly her getting the opportunity to address the issue so long missing from her relationship with Franklin. It's a response to that need. I think the point is we will never know (if things would ahve been different had Eva welcomed Kevin), the events unfolded and they can't be relived. I don't think Shriver intended to come up with a argument on one side or the other - she just presented a tale and left us to discuss it. I also think she was pretty successful in that. __________________________________________________ _______________ minxminnie 10th February 2006, 04:58 PM Quote:
I read it as Kevin manipulating Eva so that he could torture her a bit more. I didn't think for a minute that Shriver believed in his redemption.
|
|
#21
18th February 2007, 05:43 PM
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
Page 4
Cathy 10th February 2006, 05:01 PM Quote:
But Eva did choose to have Kevin, it was her motives that were at fault. I agree, there isn't always a mental health issue but I disagree that this book had nothing to do with that, I don't think Shriver means to represent this phenomenon but I think that is the territory she is in and I suppose I'm taking issue with the fact that she isn't writing about real people (and I know you are probably screaming at your screen 'but it fiction!!!'!! But if her story has nothing to do with real people then what's the point? what is she trying to say? It just doesn't speak to me, I honestly feel its insulting to women.). Also, on issues people have had, bad experiences and childhoods etc. what really gets me annoyed is that if you have had these experiences in the media you are either a murderer or some kind of angel-matyr, and never somewhere in the middle, flawed but getting on with life. I'm going to have to leave it at that for now because I have to go because its time to leave the office! I hope we can still have a debate without it getting too you know, 'heavy' because these are all such emotional and evocative and personal issues and I hope i've treaded carefully enough and if I haven't i'm sorry and i'm trying to articulate what this book made me feel and probably not doing it very well! __________________________________________________ _______________ megustaleer 10th February 2006, 06:17 PM Quote:
Remember we are seing the whole of this story, first to last, through Eva's eyes. Whether or not Shriver, as the author, believes in Kevin's redemption, is not really relevant. She is not putting forward her point of view, she is telling it as Eva sees it. Does Eva believe in his redemption? I guess she has to, if she can't believe in that, there is no redemption for herself. __________________________________________________ _______________ Cathy 10th February 2006, 09:36 PM Quote:
It is amazing that the same book gives rise to such different reactions! PS I don't know if we're thinking along the same lines on one tiny thing, as although I did see Nature/Nurture as a theme, I didn't think there was much debate! __________________________________________________ _______________ Hazel 11th February 2006, 01:19 PM Quote:
Don't be silly Cathy, it is good to discuss these issues and I think it is phenomenal that we seem able to discuss this book so deeply. Do you really think Eva chose to have Kevin, of her own free, independent will? I don't, I think it was something she felt obligated to do for Franklin, to keep Franklin and because of societies expectations. I really don't think there is a mental health issue on Eva's part at all - out rationale mind wants there to be because we have to have a explanation for the lack of maternal bond. She regretted her decision to try for a baby the day after, she dreaded being told she was pregnant, and she was so unemotional about the pregnancy and the birth. She began to resent Franklin's interventions during the pregnancy which paralleled why she got pregnant in the first place. I don't think there is anything 'wrong' about not being maternal but society tries to find an explaination because it goes against 'God's greater plan'. Unfortunately, people who live normal, semi-dysfunctional lives after abuse don't make the headlines or even a blip in the media - it is only the two extremes of angel and devil. __________________________________________________ _______________ Cathy 11th February 2006, 01:54 PM I wonder if its one of those books where our opinions on the subjects it brings up are already set at the start and that decides how we react to the book? I reckoned of course Eva had a choice, at many points she could have gone back on her decision, she could have not tried to get pregnant, even had an early abortion, and once Kevin was born she could have talked to Franklin, she could have tried ultimatums and sent Kevin off to a correctional school or moved out herself. It was too frustrating seeing her let things happen to her. __________________________________________________ _______________ Hazel 12th February 2006, 09:43 AM Quote:
I think you are right - I began thinking that she was all consumed by her love for Franklin that to have Kevin was a 'gift' for him. Could have, should have...I think that is the whole point of this book - what Eva could have or should have done and with the benefit of hindsight the book ends with her having a fresh start with Kevin. Almost as if we get a trial run with parenthood. __________________________________________________ _______________ minxminnie 16th February 2006, 05:10 PM Quote:
Yes, of course - that was my point. I didn't read the ending as suggesting that redemption was possible for Kevin or that things could work out - I was haunted by it, as Eva seemed too willing to believe in a happy ending. Her role as the unreliable narrator was key to the ending: Shriver was, to me, exploring the parental gene that took Eva back to that destructive situation. __________________________________________________ _______________ supersexy007 18th February 2006, 05:12 PM I gave up on this book, but having read the passionate and thought provoking comments on here may go back and try again. I started it when my son was quite young, didn't get time to read it at length and found it a bit tedious and hard going in the beginning. I don't usuall stop a book half way through and am starting to wish I hadn't now! I'll posta agin when I've read it all!! __________________________________________________ _______________ Hazel 18th February 2006, 07:49 PM I must admit that I didn't really get into to it until at least a third of it passed - I found Franklin and Eva's relationship initially tedious. Persevere! __________________________________________________ _______________ megustaleer 18th February 2006, 11:17 PM Quote:
Ditto!
|
|
#22
18th February 2007, 05:43 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Page 4 continued
megustaleer 22nd February 2006, 10:07 AM My RL Bookgroup finally got round to talking about Kevin last night. Unfortunately I forgot about the meeting until I got a phone call asking where I was, so by the time I arrived most of the discussion of this book was over. I was in time to hear the question they finished with, though, and I don't think it has been addressed here: What significance might there be to Kevin keeping a photograph of Eva, and to the memento he kept of his sister? __________________________________________________ _______________ Hazel 22nd February 2006, 10:50 AM Quote:
Well, I think we have previously discussed the salience of Eva in Kevin's life, so it's not so surprising that he has a photo of her. As for the memento of Celia - I can't remember that - refresh my memory? __________________________________________________ _______________ megustaleer 22nd February 2006, 11:12 AM You don't remember?!! There was an 'accident' earlier in the book, and she lost an eye...memory jogged now? __________________________________________________ _______________ Hazel 22nd February 2006, 01:37 PM Quote:
Aah...I am having the worst week of my life; me and the boys have stinking colds, my monthly visitor came, I am in the middle of an email argument with my father and I have an essay due in for Friday. In other words, my head is in complete upheaval. I remember now and dependent on your view of Kevin at the end the trophy is either a macabre reminder of his worst act or a reminder of his darkest moment which he is coming out of. I think it began as a badge of honour and ended up as a symbol of his penance. __________________________________________________ _______________ megustaleer 22nd February 2006, 08:45 PM That is the most positive view that anyone so far has had about Kevin.
|
|
#23
19th February 2007, 10:22 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Page 5 of the original thread
Hazel 23rd February 2006 08:59 AM Quote:
What was your view? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ megustaleer 23rd February 2006 07:29 PM I like to think that there is the possibility of redemption for even the worst of us, so I want to think that Kevin is developing a conscience, and can face up to what he has done. I suppose that I saw keeping the photograph, in the context of when he reveals it, as a hopeful sign for the future of his relationship with Eva. But the other...I found that a bit of a shock, and didn't actually think about what it signified. Nothing Kevin did was random, so he must have had a reason. I am ambivalent about all three main characters, depending on whether or not I am remembering that this is a biased account, and the longer I spend on this post, the more I think that Kevin is manipulating Eva again. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mungus 27th February 2006 02:32 PM I see that this month's Book Club on Radio 4 is about We Need To Talk About Kevin. Lionel Shriver will be taking part, the format is usually an informal Q&A so hopefully some of our Q's will be A'd. Sunday 5th March 4pm, or Listen Again online any time in the following week. http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/arts/bookclub/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Flingo 3rd March 2006 02:07 PM Just received the newsletter about the show. It looks like it will be a fascinating show - they went well over time, and had to cut out a lot of interesting material too. I'm just sorry I won't have time to read the book before Sunday! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ megustaleer 5th March 2006 04:38 PM Very interesting interview, but much too short. For those that missed it, there is a repeat on Thursday at 4.00pm, or, of course, you can listen to it during the coming week on Listen Again. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mungus 5th March 2006 07:50 PM It was interesting wasn't it. I took her point that if she were a mother with a son, she probably wouldn't have been able to write the book for fear of upsetting her son terribly! I think the newsletter said that they recorded 80 mins of Q&A and had to edit heavily, shame, I'd have like to hear a lot more. She's certainly a strong character, old Lionel, brings to mind Lillith, Frasier's wife in the US comedy. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- megustaleer 5th March 2006 08:54 PM Lionel Shriver is to be one of the writers attending The Cambridge Wordfest in April. I guess it will sell out pretty quickly. ETA: just booked my seat on the front row! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.InBetween 21st March 2006 12:48 PM It’s absurd that ‘Kevin’ is only listed as a Crime book, but vote for it anyway. http://www.britishbookawards.co.uk/bba/pnbb_vote.asp ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- megustaleer 21st March 2006 05:07 PM Thanks for the link, Mr InBetween. Welcome to BGO. We'll try not to mess with you, 'cos we do like to accentuate the positive. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.InBetween 22nd March 2006 03:16 PM Quote:
Thanks. Nice ref-catch. I’m sure the ghost of Johnny Mercer is smilin’ down on you. And here's a recent Shriver article about this-here book: 'It pains me that I can no longer feel sorry for myself' http://books.guardian.co.uk/orange2...1729668,00.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- katrina 21st May 2006 02:52 PM Hey This is a book I never even thought to pick up till I join BGO, I managed not to read the thread till I had finished the book. This actually took over 2 weeks to read, which is a really long time for me, although I can't put my finger on why it took so long as I really enjoyed it. Spoiler:
Nobody commented really on the earlier things that Kevin did, I actually thoroughly enjoyed the fact that he destroyed those maps, I thought Eva was just highlighting her self sacrifice by creating that room, he was just showing her that she had to make that sacrifice completely. I wasn't surprised that she didn't take the maps down after they were ruined, she saw this as even more of a sign of her sacrifice. I don't have kids but found the young version of Kevin and Celia as completely unbelievable, surely no kid is that bad (I'm sure it must feel like that sometime but not all the time) or that good. She didn't really seem to like the daughter either, she was just a posession to protect her after she had lost Franklin to Kevin. Franklin was just TOO American Dream family for me, if he really thought about this dream family he would have worked closer to home and came home earlier to be with them. I personally know I won't be even planning having kids for years but even now I worry about whether I will like them. There has been kids at school that just bug me by being there, and there bad behaviour is escalated in my mind by this dislike, what if you were constantly irritated by your own kids? Spoiler:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hazel 21st May 2006 07:14 PM Quote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ange 5th June 2006 10:06 PM I had heard about this book, and saw a review in the press. It took me two weeks to actually get past chapter 4. The print was so small it was making my eyes hurt, but I wanted to read it. I'm glad I stuck with it. Eva though sometimes got on my nerves, it didn't seem as though she liked the children, just tolerated them. Franklin too was a very difficult character to get into, whether it is because he didn't want to hear the truth. Having two boys, it is easy to relate to how frustrating sometimes to get through to them. How difficult must it be when you are the parent of Kevin to have to live with what he did, and try to find a reason for it. It could have been a bit of a depressing book, especially with the crime Kevin committed, after all, we have had news of several school shootings, so we know it isn't fiction. This can really happen. But it gives you an overall view of what can happen to the family of the student who did this. However hard it was to like Eva and Franklin, you had to feel some kind of sympathy for them. I can't say I enjoyed it, but it certainly gave me a lot to think about. -------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
#24
19th February 2007, 10:25 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Flingo's last two posts from page 5
-------------------------------------------------------- Flingo 10th August 2006 11:31 PM We discussed this at our book club last night, so I finally got around to reading it. What a powerful novel. Like Katrina, I had avoided most of this thread before, so have just spent a very intriguing 30 minutes or so reading through it. I'm amazed at Cathy's passionate dislike! While I agree that it wasn't a comfortable read, I thought it was well-written - too well written in places and maybe that seemed out of character? I listened to the Radio 4 Bookclub interview this evening, and found that really interesting. I particularly responded well to the comments about the reading group questions printed at the end!!! They were rather twee, forced and predictable weren't they? I think I will spoiler the rest as I talk about the plot, as I want to talk freely, and I fear I may forget myself and say something! Spoiler:
To repeat some of the earlier comments on this thread, this was an incredibly thought provoking book (even if you hate it, there is still a lot of scope for debate!). It is certainly one I will be recommending to various people, and will be up there with my top reads. Amazingly, I don't think it has changed my opinion on having children though. I still don't want them now, but think there is a possibility that I will in a few years time. We shall see! I don't think I will be re-reading Kev around decision time of will I or won't I though!!!! -------------------------------------- Flingo 10th August 2006 11:42 PM I knew I had a lot to say about this! The other thing that I wanted to mention was my surprise at where this sits on the literary scale. I think I was expecting something Jodi Picoult-ish - controversial, news worthy subject matter, looked at in a new way, from the point of view of what is potentially a minor character in the main plot (if you think of a school shooting, you immediately think of the shooter, class mates and teachers before the parents). This is so much more than Jodi Picoult - much grittier and evaluative. While Picoult is relatively easy to read, Shriver forces you to read and weigh every word. Her sentences have been structured with a lot of though, there was nothing that could have been cut from Kevin without losing something essential to the plot and the logic. I'll leave it at that for tonight! Last edited by megustaleer : 20th February 2007 at 09:26 PM.
|
|
#25
19th February 2007, 10:27 AM
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Page 6 from original thread
Harriet 11th August 2006 06:47 AM This took me a long to read as well, I plodded on with it for a good 2 weeks - which was odd as I usually finish a book that i enjoy that much in a day or two. I initially found it quite difficult to get into, I mostly dislike novels comprised of letters or diary entries, I don't find them very easy to identify with. But I'm glad I stuck with it. The character of Kevin once he hit his mid-teens completely fascinated me, he wasn't just the annoying little kid anymore, he turned into such an interesting person - though not in the best way of course. But his views, opinions and actions really fascinated me in a sort of morbid way, especially the incident when he and Eva sit down to have dinner together. He did actually make a lot of sense to me, though obviously not completely, as I'm not currently planning on killing a group of my classmates. But in some ways I agreed with a few of his views and the way that he was so sure of himself was kind of admirable. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hazel 11th August 2006 08:00 AM Quote:
I agree Harriet, but at the end do you think he was quite so sure of himself? Or do you think he had reached the end of his 'teenage rebellion/attitude' phase? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Harriet 11th August 2006 08:24 AM That's a good point actually, and I probably neglected the whole point of the book by not noticing that.. But most people don't enter their teenage rebellion phase from the word go? It seemed like he was constantly in rebellion - surely there's some point in your childhood where you just accept whatever your told? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hazel 11th August 2006 11:02 AM Quote:
Yes. I agree, I think Kevin was already on a steep gradient of rebellion. But his crime against his classmates could be construed as an exaggerated version of what most teenagers go through - but just a logical next step for his personality. I liked to see the end as him finally growing up and shedding all that attitude and angst. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flingo 12th August 2006 12:17 AM Quote:
I think I'd agree with that. He seemed to show genuine remorse - by not caring about the names of the other school shooters any more, and his fear of going to "big prison" shows a lot about Kevin that we hadn't previously seen. There was almost a dejected air about the way that Eva portrayed those final sentences he had spoken at the visit. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hazel 12th August 2006 07:56 AM Quote:
He seemed quite despondent and as if he didn't know where to go from there. I like to think he was thinking about the future and how he could have a life with this huge thing weighing him down. He just wasn't that boy anymore. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ minxminnie 12th August 2006 11:27 AM It's a few months since I finished this book, but at the end, I thought he was being manipulative by seeming to have matured a bit. I just thought he was reeling his mother in to support him when he got out. But I seem to be alone in that reading of the end! =----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hazel 12th August 2006 12:00 PM I suppose you could read it either way Minxminnie, but I felt he was genuinely at a loss to explain what went wrong and where he went from there. Of course, the master manipulator that he was, his desolation could be just a way of getting support from his mother as he faces 'proper' jail - where he is all too aware his big man attitude would get him nowhere. A little fish in a big pond. But then, what could Eva do to help him? Maybe he just didn't want to be alone. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ katrina 12th August 2006 12:15 PM Kevin had always been the main point of attention throughout his life he had all his parents attention and in the Young Persons Prison he was 'the main man' the person everfyone feared, whilst in real prison he'd just be some little screwed up kid fading into the background. He would lose all the respect he always had - his mother was amazed by the way he could scream for hours, manipulate har and his father and destroys nannies, in Youth Prison the other kids respected his actions. Yet grown men, with a life of crime aren't likely to respect an overly priviledged kid who screwed up in an act of teenage rebellion. I love this book I currently have my Mum and my sister both reading it megustaleer 12th August 2006 01:19 PM Quote:
But it was the way Eva portrayed them, and we mustn't forget that she had an agenda of her own. Hazel 12th August 2006 02:19 PM Quote:
Very true, we must consider how reliable Eva was as our Narrator - she would want Kevin to be remorseful and in need of her - especially after Spoiler:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- minxminnie 12th August 2006 03:02 PM Quote:
Yes, that was what I found quite chilling about the ending. I thought Shriver was aiming to make Eva present Kevin as more mature, because she was desperate to redeem herself as a mother, or in his eyes, and if he needed her at last, then all would be well. But I thought there was a touch of irony going on here - that he knew that was what she wanted and was playing with her feelings. I thought Shriver was giving us more insight than Eva. Does that make sense? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mungus 12th August 2006 04:00 PM It does make sense Minxminnie. I think one of the most impressive things about this book is how it first of all makes you think about the story and they makes you step back and re-assess once you realise that you're only being told one version of the story. Plenty to chew over. I like to think that Kevin does feel some remorse at the end. Maybe that says something about me too - I can't handle the thought that he is just pure evil. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- minxminnie 12th August 2006 04:53 PM Quote:
Absolutely - it's months since I finished the book, but here I am still talking about it. In fact, it was this book which led me to this site, because I had to find out what other people thought about it! Which makes the title very appropriate, really ... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ crayon 17th August 2006 05:24 PM I found that I read this very very quickly because it was so hard to read, I didn't want it to go on any longer than it had to! The more I think about the story being told, the more I'm inclined to say that Keving truly was his mother's son. I simply can't imagine a baby so young that it can't hold its head up by itself trying to drive a vindictive wedge between his parents! Eva attributes so many malicious thoughts and deeds to him - which she herself admits were proven to be wrong on occasion - that I wonder if Kevin was ultimately influenced by his mother's view of him. I don't particularly want to get drawn into a debate on nature/nurture ( ); but I will say that I'm not even a little convinced that he was born as a being of pure evil! Having said that, I did learn yesterday that Ted Bundy allegedly "appeared at his aunt Julia's bedside, smiling as he brandished several knives and laid them beside her on the bed", so the evil-from-birth idea may not be out of the realms of possiblity!Last edited by megustaleer : 19th February 2007 at 10:37 AM.
|
|
#26
19th February 2007, 10:29 AM
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Page 7 from the original thread
Grammath 18th September 2006 01:26 PM Quote:
Interesting point. I just finished this on audiobook on my way into work this morning. The audiobook comes with an interview with Shriver tacked on the end in which she suggests that Spoiler:
I thought this an excellent novel, not just for daring to comment on a taboo subject but mainly for its ambiguities. All the way through, I was very conscious that, deliberately, I was only seeing one side of the story, so I did wonder at some points how I could judge Kevin fairly. Was he as nasty as his mother portrays him? Spoiler:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hazel 18th September 2006 03:00 PM Quote:
I would agree with that Shriver quote. Well, ultimately Kevin did commit the crime at the school so his portrayal wasn't completely influenced by Eva's narration - but yes, we did only get one side to this story. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Grammath 18th September 2006 05:15 PM Quote:
Should have phrased that better. What I meant was that Eva attributes a scheming nature to Kevin virtually from the point he was born. In the interview, Shriver especially cited the way Eva portrays the incident at the kindergarten involving Violetta, the girl with eczema, as an example. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- barblue 30th October 2006 09:07 PM Having just finished reading this novel, I have also read through this thread. There are some fascinating comments which have added to my reading of the book. As a mother of two, now adult, sons, I read the narrative from Eva's point of view whilst at the same time trying to see it from Kevin's. For me the narrative echoed memories of some of the difficulties encountered as a parent, when trying to keep lines of communication open with a very clever, very emotional and therefore difficult child. This was a very powerfully written piece, in my opinion, and as this thread testifies opens up so many lines of discussion. I was particularly interested to see Eva named as an unreliable narrator. I too had this thought. Spoiler:
I am also intrigued with the idea of re-birth of Kevin for Eva. I think this has a lot of truth to it. Many thanks for this thread, it's made a good book even better. .............................. I have edited this thread to add spoiler tags, as we have avoided any hint of this development in previous posts. megustaleer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- kelmarie 14th November 2006 09:07 PM i thought we need to talk about kevin started off slow,but got good halfway through ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- yorkshire rose 14th November 2006 09:58 PM I finished this book this afternoon for my book club tomorrow night. I've been putting it off for ages. What did I think? I thought it highly manipulative, I know all books are and it's a conspiracy between the author and reader to let that happen, but here I felt as though I was being hit by a sledgehammer. I'm not a mother (although not by choice) and I found all the whinging about being pregnant a complete pain. I didn't think it particularly well written - the section about Kevin's reaction to Celia's accident is dreadful. Did we really need the repetition of the word 'eye' three times on the previous page, then all the lychee business? I think not. Franklin and Celia are wooden in the extreme, they are there to make a point. The only thing that really interested me was the dichotomy between Eva and Franklin's political and world view on the one hand and and their attitude to children and family on the other. I felt the whole thing was written by numbers, ie the author thought 'how can I write a novel that contains X,Y and Z' as if it was some elaborate parlour game.The best thing I can say is that it is a book that provokes passionate discussion and polarised reactions - good for book groups! I did a bit of internet searching on the reviews that came out when it was published. Almost all were favourable, like the discussion above, but The Guardain hated it. Interestingly the Orange prize jury were also very divided. Apparantly the sentimental end almost lost it for Shriver. Anyway the discussion is tomorrow night, I'll add another post if we come up with any startling new thoughts! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Flingo 15th November 2006 12:04 AM Quote:
Be interested in hearing the groups overall opinion as well, Yorkie! It went down very well with our group, so I hope that you have an equally worth-while meeting. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hazel 15th November 2006 07:43 AM Quote:
I agree, they did seem a little one dimensional compared to the complex characterisation afforded to Eva and Kevin. But they were merely pawns in Eva and Kevin's story and there simply as walls to butt up against. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- yorkshire rose 16th November 2006 05:10 PM My book group on Kevin * well I thought we'd divide between the mothers and the non mothers, but we didn't! There were 7 of us last night, one thought it absolutley brilliant (a mother), one hated it (me) one didn't like it(a mother), and 4 (2 of each)thought it was really good. The discussion ranged around the manipulative power of writers (Zoe Heller's Notes on a Scandal got referred to there). where the boundaries of description should be - especially in relation to poor Celia's fate, who we felt most sympathetic towards, whether Kevin was being manipulative at the end and how realistic Eva's declaration of love for Kevin was. The only thing we all agreed on was that in a real situation like that, we would all have moved away. Why didn't Eva? Oh and our resident osteopath said Kevin would have benefitted from cranial oseopathy as a baby, and that 'floppy' babies don't usually turn out to be problem children....... (we're big on complementary therapists in our book group - this is west Cornwall after all) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Last edited by megustaleer : 19th February 2007 at 10:39 AM.
|
|
#27
19th February 2007, 10:58 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
We now seem to have the whole "Kevin" thread restored, and in date order, although I am surprised that nothing was posted between mid November and mid January (which seems to be the last time Google cached anything). If anyone finds posts following on from these, please add them, and if anyone has posted here in the last month, please would you re-post your thoughts for us.
If you spot anything wrong in the restored pages (eg: mis-attributed posts, repeated pages etc) please pm me so that I can correct it.
|
|
#28
21st February 2007, 03:15 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
We Need To Talk About Kevin is currently being discusse as th Book of The Month on the Ship of Fools message board
A question has come up that we have not discussed here. What significance might there be in Kevin's preference for wearing clothes that are too small for him? Sorry, I can't link straight to the discussion, but it is in 'Heaven"
|
|
#29
21st February 2007, 10:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
My real name this time (the poster formerly known as mjple)
Well I have decided this time to use my first name.
How disappointing to have lost all of my posts. I apologise if my spelling or grammar is slightly askew but I have been enjoying some late night refreshment. Overall, I was a little underwhelmed by this book. I am continually surprised that books shortlisted for prizes continue to disappoint me. A good example would be Graham Swift whose works I find unispiring and if totally honest a little dull. I read this whole book with a growing sense of unease. My points as raised before were to suggest that the relationship between Kevin and Eva was not believable. I think that too much is excused based on this being the account of one person. For example we have husband and daughter playing minor parts. I believe that this is because they are not central to the story or extraneous, however if this is the account of Eva, surely she would refer more to her preferred child and her husband. Elements of the story are portrayed with too much detail, for example the gym hall sequence. If this story only represents Eva's view, then how could she know what went on, particularly as such detail is used. This just seemed to be a tool employed by Shriver to generate a little more horror of Kevin. As a personal rule, I always look for a story to provide me with something. Life of Pi I found life affirming, In Cold Blood showed the emotional aspect of the perpetrator and the crimson petal and the white gave me many things but for convenience sake lets call it an insight into old London. I ask myself what this book provided for me and the answer is nothing. I did not believe in this concept that Kevin was evil from birth, I did not like the wholly sterotypical image of the good ol boy redneck husband and I certainly did not belive in Eva whose personality or character foundation seems non-existent. The daughter might as well be an imaginary friend. She seemed to me invented purely to add to the unpleasantness of the end. If I were to hazard a guess and I apologise if this offends, Shriver has written this story with an underlying fear of children. I know that someone mentioned that she had not had children, I wonder if this book is a way of dealing with that decision. Finally, a previous poster mentioned that the end was not meant to be a shock. I really disagree with this. In my opinion it was a calculated mechanism to ensure that the book ended with a bang and I find it manipulative and uneccessary. I do not belive it added anything to the story and in my opinion it had the fake plastic feel just as the laughable lychees sequence did. Sorry to struggle against the stream of opinon here. There were many good qualities but I would not describe this as excellent.
|
|
#30
21st February 2007, 11:03 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Welcome back MJPLE/James! It's gutting to have lost so much, isn't it? I'm sure it won't take too long to build up again though!
Talking of which, it's too late now to read through your detailed post above, but I will check back and read more closely tomorrow! In the meantime, to save confusion about who you are, you might like to pop something in your signature (accessible via Your Settings)! 
|
 |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
| |||||||||
|
|
Linear Mode
