Kevin

I never read any other book by Shriver, I couldn't summon up much enthusiasm for the plots of her other books.
Therefore, I am not sure if she is a good writer or not. I think Kevin is a very interesting book, which can be read in a few days.

I have noticed that it doesn't get many good reviews on MN, and that is mostly because Eva is perceived as an awful, egoistic mother who is up her self. I don't think she was, she had very realistic ambivalent feelings towards motherhood, suburban living etc.

Mary I think the whole point of the book was the EVe was telling her side of the story only and that we knew she was an unreliable narrator.

Every thing Eve told us may have been an outright lie or at least given her own spin.

That's the joy of the boo. We, the reader, really have no real idea what is truth and what is not.

I agree, the husband was lame and pathetic.
I felt sorry for Eva, though.

Yes, I agree that most mothers in RL don't think their small children are evil, but this is fiction. Most women who have affairs don't end up like Madame Bovary either!

On the other hand, it can be a very extreme version of ambivalent feelings that some women have (and not just women with PND) towards their first children.

But from the description of Kevin's early life, we are left to wonder whether those are the feelings of a woman who has a major case of PND, or of a woman without PND but who is really struggling with motherhood, or - given that this is FICTION - with a woman who is parenting an extremely difficult child.

Eva was clearly struggling and the husband was useless.

I really enjoyed reading WNTTAK. It is not a masterpiece, but it is a good book.
I agree with wordfactory, and I also didn't dislike Eva at all. Poor woman.

See SM I'm going to defend the characterisation as not poor but deliberately misleading. Shriver tells us very littel about each character and we have to work out their motivations for ourselves.

This is a high risk strategy. Most books tell us what motivates the characters, as this is what primarily ensures the reader empathises. Here, Shriver throws caution to the wind, daring us to dislike them all.

For that level of bravery, I salute her.

no wasn't just the dad,they were all dysfunctional and unlikeable
this want a poor Eva,bad husband vibe.nor was it a hard done to women thing
they were all shallow and mono-dimensional frankly
that's the failing of the book,plodding,obvious characterisations

First time I read it, my personality changed for the few days I spent reading it - I could feel myself getting tense and annoyed and bitchy to my family In that sense, I didn't really enjoy the experience of reading the book, but thought it was fairly good and reasonably shocking

I read it a second time and thought WTAF?? Shriver really did not know a thing about children and yes, agree with Maryz, the father was very much at fault.

My disbelief in the characters peaked in the scene when the mother has to change the nappy of the 6 year old Kevin and clean him up...there is NO way a real person would have projected that he was enjoying the experience. It made me feel a bit sick, tbh

I loved this book but agree the tennis one was a dud

I agree with you, wordfactory.

In fact, I think Lionel Shriver isn't a good writer. Did anyone read her book about tennis? Something Doubles. That was the most boring book I've written.

However, I was gripped by Kevin. I loved how we could only see her point of view; we never knew whether they were both monsters, whether he would've been OK with another mother or whether she would've been OK with another son.

And the way he killed his father and sister - utter contempt - but stayed alive to deal with his mum. When he said he couldn't remember why he'd done what he did - that really moved me.

I think the book works on so many levels.

First, the narrator is entirely unreliable. We only hear from her POV, yet suspect all along that there may be so much more to it.
The fact that Shriver leaves us none the wiser is a brave move. A lesser writer would have spelled it all out by the end.

It also has a fascinating structure, moving back and forth through time in a slippery way. Even the choice of making it epistolary, works (usually the kiss of death for commercial fiction).

And a book in which no character is sympathetic really is brave.
The Mother and Kevin are both monsters in their own ways and the father is weak and ineffectual, helping neither Mum nor Kevin. Shriver culd have used the little girl to add 'sugar' but she doesn't. She deliberately keeps her undercharacterised.

A brave, uncompromising book.

I understood feeling no immediate connection and like you've got a disagreeable job to do with a screaming bag of needs... admittedly it did get better when he started smiling at me and began to sleep through. I'm not sure I would have coped if my DH hadn't mucked in so much. I suppose I resented the fact that my life was no longer my own (it still isn't, but now I wouldn't change that for the world)!

In summary I think it was the shock of an unmaternal woman trying to cope in a very 'Oh, you must feel so WONDERFUL to be a MUMMY' world that I empathised with. For various reason new mums seem to feel the need to preface even vaguely negative remarks with 'Of course I love him and I wouldn't change him BUT....' when I usually just assume all that anyway and wish they'd vent a bit and feel better. I liked the straightforward honesty of the mum's viewpoint (I appreciate everyone's experience is different, but hers seemed to resonate with mine).

I'm not making any claims about the quality of Lionel Shriver's writing though :)

I know sm. I was agog. Writing by numbers has been invented after all. And why bother with characterisation when you can waffle on and try and create a veneer of realism to hoodwink your readers through wordy prose. I think it annoys me precisely because it's no better than the shite that you buy in a railway station with a hero, an anti hero and a simpering woman gadding about in a caricature like fashion. Except it's dressed up as a proper book. Predictable pile of rubbish. I'd still like to see the film though. I like Tilda Swinton and it would be interesting to see if she could inject something a bit interesting into the whole affair.

I'm genuinely amazed this book unsettled or seemed realistic to any readers
for me none of it resonated
it was a schlock by numbers
and the twist was inevitable and obvious

saw the movie, not follow the book. skipped the nanny stage
but it was aesthetically v beautiful and yes swinton looked physically like I imagined Kevin
but overall can't polish a turd so film was limited

cerys, can I ask what about it you thought was realistic?

wish I hadn't read it until all my sons were older than Kevin....

I actually found it really good and disturbingly realistic (to the extent that I deliberately didn't re-read it when my DS was a fortnight old because I was worried I might empathise with the mum's POV too much). In the event my DS and I have a lovely relationship so I needn't have worried :)

IMO Kevin was born as he was and the mum was just struggling to cope with it (as well as possibly not being the most maternal person in the world, which does, astonishingly, happen in RL).

Haven't seen the film, although I think that if anyone would portray the mum perfectly then it'd be Tilda Swinton....