to be slightly sickened by anyone who wants to see the movie of The Lovely Bones?

[Buckets]

I mean really, why would anyone want to see that?

thought the book was absolutely fabulous. Remembered that I staid up late to finish reading it. This from somebody who never ever watches horror films. Just felt that this was ethereal on another level that we will probably never know about. It touched something in my psyche that I haven't really felt since.

Message withdrawn

I hated this book. Is just my opinion, but I really couldn't understand why people said it was an amazing book, it sickened me - I had to hide it under the bed, and then throw it away (I am slightly mad about books that make me feel bad and have a system to make them go away) Oh dear, have made myself sound a bit weird now haven't I? Will defo not be watching the film though.

i loved the book and cant wait to see the film. i was moved by the sorrow for what susie had lost and would never experience. dont understand why people would be "sickened" by a desire to see it!

Am not sickened by other's people's desire to see it, just have no desire to do so myself. I don't like gore or violence in films - could never watch something like Kill Bill say, but am not sickened by other people watching. Just not my bag.

thats fair ellie. tbh i dont watch war films etc.

Can I ask anyone, when you heard about the book and decided to read it, did you have any idea how shocking the initial scenes would be? When you recommended it to others did you mention that or just that you cried loads? Everybody likes a good weepie after all but I have a theory that it sold millions by word of mouth because the shock of the first scenes have everyone in tears which is not that common outside the misery porn genre. Once you've read a scene like that you desperately need some resolution to ease your brain so you finish it, no matter what you think of the writing. So people were getting the misery porn shock horror and the powerful emotions that brings on but without prior warning. That's why I found it manipulative, kind of sneaking into a different genre.

i read it because i read the blurb in waterstones and thought it sounded interesting. whenever i recommend it i always tell them about susies rape and murder, but stress that its in no way gratuitous and forms the backbone of the story.

Genuinely, the shock of the first scenes isn't what I remember about the book. I remember the sisters determination to seek out the man who was responsible - her determination.

I didn't advise anyone else to read it, and I read it because there was a lot of general hype about it at the time...

I knew nothing about the book and brought it in a charity shop, so it wasn't when it was first published. I gave it to my sister to read and didn't mention the first scene as I didn't think that that was the main point of the book. My sister hated it.

mspontipine reflects my views perfectly.

And I included the reviews so that people who have not read the books didn't get put off by the posts that said the writing is bad. The writing is not bad. I can totally sympathise with people who are uncomfortable with the subject matter but the writing was, imo (and that of the critics ), superb.

I don't know about a movie but I hated the book.

Haven't read the other comments, but I found that book strangely uplifting. Definitely not unrelenting misery page after page. In fact there was justice. The guy who killed 'susie salmon' was caught, and althoguh it's not a happy story it wasn't 100% bleak because the family were starting to heal and the guy was behind bars.

Almost Noon, just read it, it was awful. Don't bother.

to explain, the worst that could possibly happen to a family happened to them, and they got through it.

NOT all the critics think the 'writing is superb'. From the Observer

"It is not exactly bad, and very readable, but ultimately it seems like a slick, overpoweringly saccharine and unfeeling exercise in sentiment and whimsy."

I hated it.

Wow what a harsh review.. That just shows how a review can be pointlessly analytical and in the process suck the life out of a book. A book can also be more than the sum of its parts so to speak.

I'm always amazed when people talk about being disgusted and horrified by the depiction of Susie's death in the book. As I recall, there is very little graphic description surrounding that part (which I found more difficult because it left so much to the imagination).
I often wonder if these people ever watch the news and how they feel about the gruesome and almost salacious reporting of real life tragedies such as the Baby P case.

How does anyone feel about that? I don't think I have a different opinion on that because I don't like to read fiction which includes descriptions (however gently put) about child rape and murder

I wasn't disgusted and horrified, I just wasn't expecting it and wish I could have 'unread' that part.

Liffey the bad guy wasn't caught, he died in an accident.

"Particularly hard to take is a morbid episode in which Susie falls to Earth and inhabits the body of a living girl, and makes love to the boy she liked best. He recognises her immediately, being Indian and therefore mystic (it is very much that sort of book). The revolted reader finds something familiar in all of this, and for me, that was the moment it all fell into place. What, actually, is one reading here? Ah yes, of course; the Demi Moore spiritualist extravaganza, Ghost.

The sentiment is an approximate imitation of feeling; the details are lazy and incredible (fingerprints on a buried bottle survive years on end, for instance); the overall moral of the triumph of love is one which any thinking person will resent and reject. It will, in short, do extremely well."

i wuv philip hensher. he's nailed it. it's just ghost with a dash of lurid sexual violence.