Book Review: We Need to Talk About Kevin by Lionel Shriver

I recently read We Need to Talk About Kevin by Lionel Shriver. I checked it out on my mother's recommendation.She liked it a lot. I thought it was so-so. I'd give it about 3 stars.

It was pretty hard to get into at first. I feel like the beginning of the book really dragged. Shriver talked A LOT about the "past" and I think it could have benefited from some editing. Some of it was important to build up the context, but some of it just went on forever and ever seemingly without end. I figured if my mom really liked it I should continue plowing through it but it was difficult at first. I'd look at it every night on the nightstand and sigh. About halfway through the book when more of the "action" started to happen I stopped dreading it so much.

The good: the topic was of course interesting. With this rise in school shootings it gives you a lot to think about. I read Jodi Picoult's 19 Minutes which was also about school shootings and I liked it a bit more. It told the story from all different sides (rather than from just the mother of the perpetrator like this one). Of course, like all Picoult books, the ending kind of sucked so it wouldn't get 5 stars either. I did like that it gave the perspective of the mother of a shooter which I think is something we often don't get to see or think that much about. I just wish the writing would have been a little better so that I could have enjoyed that perspective more. 

The "bad"/things I have questions about:

1. The family seemed inauthentic. Why didn't the family have an intervention earlier? Clearly Kevin was NOT normal and was very disturbed. I find it hard to believe that the father would excuse EVERYTHING away and that the mother wouldn't have tried harder to get some professional help. If his personality "disorder" or whatever wasn't SO exaggerated I would have bought this plot/story line more. But he seemed so extreme that I find it hard to believe that it would go on like this until the shooting happened. With the real school shootings that happened many of them did have interventions of some sort or the personality flaws weren't as exaggerated. They still missed a lot of signs but for most of them they weren't life-long issues like Kevin was cast to have in this story. 

2. The whole writing letters to Franklin thing got old and was pretty predictable. At the beginning I thought maybe they were divorced but by the middle of the book I knew he was dead and it was more of a journaling exercise. I think that it was maybe a good idea but not executed well. Especially when there were dialogue portions, etc. No one would actually write like that in a letter. Maybe an infusion of letters in-between standard chapters of "story-telling" would have been more effective. 

3. Going along with point #1, I felt like the mother self-sabotaging came off very inauthentic. Even if the unimaginable happened I would have found many of her behaviors questionable. I can't of course say for sure, never having been in that situation, but I just find it hard to believe that she would try and ruin her life even further by acting like such a bozo (especially in the civil court case-related parts). 

4. I hated the ending. Why did she make a sudden change of heart happen for Kevin? Shriver built him up for the whole book to be a cold, calculating person. And at the end, through no medical or psychological intervention, he suddenly has regrets? He was horrible the whole novel, blinded his sister and all of a sudden he has a change of heart in the juvenile lock-up? I just groaned at that part. It would have been better if he would have stayed cold through the end. It would have left a bigger impact to have to think about him being so cold and sociopathic and to think about him getting out and going to live with his mom after that. Instead she tried to leave us with some hope that he was actually a nice kid who made a mistake...we don't always need a happy ending.

Too bad my lame sister has gone AWOL. I would have liked to hear her perspective about the book. Usually my mom and I agree on books fairly well but this time I think our opinions were very divergent. I would have liked to hear Leslie's perspective. I guess I'll have to read other online reviews!

Review: House Rules by Jodi Picoult, The Trial

Rather the review specific chapters, I thought I would look at the trial that Jacob goes through starting with his arrest. Once Jacob understands that he needs a lawyer while being questioned by Det. Matson everything gets crazy! His mother and his new lawyer bust into the Det. office but it's too late. Jacob has said some things that seem pretty suspicious; almost a confession even.

Jacob is then sent to jail to await arraignment which doesn't go well. Once his cellmate touches him, he goes berserk, banging his head on the bars until he is finally stopped by guards and brought to a padded room. The time he spends in the padded room is told from his point of view. He describes that when he normally goes to another place to get away from it all, it's like another planet. Once he wakes up in the padded room though, he thinks he's dead until he goes through a list of question like asking himself why he would be breathing if he were dead. He gets frustrated that he can't be like everyone else and cry.

Once his mother and his lawyer find out how jail has been for him, they find a way to go back to court to request he be released. They manage to get him out which makes me wonder about real life. If this book were nonfiction, how would the real Jacob deal with staying in jail rather than being released to his home? I cannot imagine what would happen. What would inmates do? What would be his mental (or even physical) state once the actual trial started several months later? It makes me sad to think someone like that could potentially end up in jail while waiting. 

Before the actual trial finally starts, Oliver (the lawyer) manages to negotiate some accommodations to help him through the trial. He has a sensory room in the courthouse which can be access at almost any time. The trial is separated into shorter time frames and a shorter day. His mom is also allowed to sit at the bench with him although she isn't allowed to speak. These things actually allowed Jacob to have a mostly smooth trial. He had a few meltdowns but they were all triggered by things he had a lot of trouble with normally (crumpling paper, missing Crime Busters).

The whole time they are prepping for the trial and proceeding in the trial I was a little annoyed that Jacob didn't get to talk about his actions or that no one ever asked him what actually happened. I understand the whole lawyer/perjury thing but no one else asked him. Picoult put so much emphasis on how he always told the truth yet the one time he needed to say the truth, no one asked!

As the book nears the end, the jury goes into deliberation. Three or four days pass and Theo has a birthday. Jacob gives him a special gift that changes the whole trial! As the family and Oliver rush to the courthouse to stop everything I wonder again about a real life trial. Would they have convicted Jacob? The longer a jury takes, the harder I (usually) think it is to come to a decision. Of course I was glad that Jacob didn't actually commit murder but I kind of wished she would have included what happened next. The last case she included helped the outcome become a little clearer.