Comments on: Imagining Kevin

By: Phil

Phil — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 09:00:31 +0000

What interests me about Proulx (who is surely only a couple of stops out of Stephen King Prolixity on the way to Thomas Pynchon Somewhere-Beyond-Prolixity, and nobody seems to think they’re dreadful stylists) is the name change. I like to think that she did a speaking tour in the north of England and got sick of people making the “Eee, Annie Proulx” joke.

By: Chris Bertram

Chris Bertram — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 08:15:42 +0000

I don’t think I’ve ever done one on a book I hadn’t read at all, but I did do a few on books I hadn’t read very thoroughly.

Well if I’m representative of the people who wrote stuff on piece-rate for the Children’s Enclyclopaedia Britannica (circa 1985) ……

By: dsquared

dsquared — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 08:05:26 +0000

I was confronted by two further pages with the title “Reading group questions that have arisen from publication of We Need to Talk About Kevin in the USA.”

I suspect that it’s going to worsen rather than ameliorate your irritation to find out that these don’t come from genuine book clubs are usually written by random hacks[1] for beer money.

[1]Including on a couple of occasions, me – I don’t think I’ve ever done one on a book I hadn’t read at all, but I did do a few on books I hadn’t read very thoroughly. On the other hand, I’ve been to a couple of book clubs and by casual empiricism, I doubt I did much marginal harm.

By: praisegod barebones

praisegod barebones — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 05:58:56 +0000

On the general topic of what’s a spoiler and what isn’t (and when it matters), some might find this thread interesting:

http://whatever.scalzi.com/2009/03/06/spoiler-statute-of-limitations/#comments

(potential timesink…)

Chris 18: You know the joke about the word spellcheck that alters EAP’s surname from Proulx to Prolix; and the reviewer who decides not to change it back?

By: lt

lt — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 23:47:51 +0000

#17 –
Um, yeah, that’s what I meant.

By: kid bitzer

kid bitzer — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 23:40:15 +0000

#17

“I found it incredibly compelling – not in the least because of the empathy she has for Kevin.”

odd—did you mean to write “not least because of the empathy”?
that would mean: the empathy was one reason—and a fairly major reason—why it was compelling.

what you wrote means: the empathy had nothing to do with why it was compelling.

i had never before noticed how “not least” and “not in the least” could act as functional antonyms in adverbial position.

By: Cian

Cian — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 22:36:08 +0000

Having skimmed the book in Borders I think I’d put Shriver up as a candidate; there did seem to be some astonishing overwriting going on.

Can’t comment on the book, but Shriver does have a habbit of saying mad things about parenthood on TV/radio. Actually mad things generally. Strange woman, probably best she didn’t become a parent.

By: Chris Bertram

Chris Bertram — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 13:09:29 +0000

Oh I thought the writing was very good. In fact I almost thought about a post in which I contrasted Shriver’s style with that of the dreadful Proulx (“artifice of “literary” fiction” indeed) who I think of as possibly the worst living writer in the English language, with The Shipping News as Exhibit A.

By: lt

lt — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 12:17:34 +0000

I read somewhere that Shriver was trying to decide whether to have children and wanted to write the worst possible scenario of motherhood. I found it incredibly compelling – not in the least because of the empathy she has for Kevin. It’s an interesting book to me in that the writing is pretty straight forward; she’s not going for some of the artifice of “literary” fiction, yet the real psychological problems at the heart of it are much more serious than in much “serious” fiction.

By: garymar

garymar — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 06:47:48 +0000

spoiler alert! Hamlet doesn’t survive and neither does Ophelia.

I’m with Z above: by all means have spoilers. Put a spoiler alert at top so that people currently reading the book can be warned off. However there are many many more books I’ll never read than I will so I like to have a synopsis of key points.

By: Z

Tue, 10 Mar 2009 06:39:01 +0000

What about people who likes spoilers? I enjoy very much listening to a good story told by people I respect, and I will in all likelihood never read this particular book, so I am all for a bit of spoiled fun. Pretty please.

By: Alan

Alan — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 00:07:58 +0000

I must say I saw the ending coming an absolute mile off. I did enjoy it though.

By: Phil

Phil — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 23:37:51 +0000

Not what the other half said.

By: Chris Bertram

Chris Bertram — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 23:06:53 +0000

#11: the former.

By: Phil

Phil — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 20:58:04 +0000

For what it’s worth, the ‘fake epistolary novel’ comment wasn’t about plot but about style. Not having read the book I can’t really comment, but – as a general point – if it reads like this:
“Dear John, So much has happened since I last wrote that I hardly know where to begin!
then it’s an epistolary novel.
If it reads like this:
“Dear John, It was a bright, cold day in April and the clocks were striking thirteen.”
then no, not really.