Kevin

[bonnieslilsister]

I might be a bit out of date but I have just finished we need to talk about kevin and loved it. What did you think and was it the Mum's fault or was Kevin 'evil'?

I can't really comment, as it is still on my bookshelf waiting to be read . But I didn't want you to think your post had been completely ignored :). Are you a member of Goodreads? We've got a smallish group of us on here who like to chat more about books over there. Link here if you're interested.

Thanks...on my way!

Oh, I love this book. It is difficult, she was a very cold mother but he was also very unlovable. The bit when he was sat on the toilet with the door open really disturbed me. I like to think it was him that was bad from the beginning, but happy to be convinced otherwise.

and what did you think Bonnie?

I don't know really but I am a foster carer and have been learning about the attachment theory and in the early days if a baby doesn't get, (I know you will know this but it is so fascinating!) what he needs from the mum (or some primary person), if he doesn't bond, those neural pathways don't develop and in severe cases the child can end up not having a conscience or being able to empathise and have borderline personality disorder....sounds like him. She was really cold towards him, wasn't she? I reckon the nanny had really neglected him, too. Poor baby!! Glad I'm not looking after him tho

Toilet scene was a bit gross! I worked with a child once who used to do that when he thought someone was walking down the corridor.....complete with noises (not when fostering) but then we weren't related. There is something particularly bad about performing for your mum!

I'm going to look at her other books now

The only bit I didn't like was the end when he said sorry.....didn't ring true for someone so bad; I would be more inclined to think he would forever think he was in the right.

Awful book, awful film, struggled to get half way through both.

Really five? I cant wait to see the film!

Loved the book, Is in my top ten all time favourites. Film was a bit of a disappointment. I think the boy was born a psychopath, he obviously had a "pretend" attachment with his father who gave him all the things a parent should so in my mind that rules out attachment disorder. I think the mum just knew there was something wrong from the start and that effected the way she related to him rather than her actions making him that way.

We do not need to talk about Kevin. I thought it a turgid pile of predictable nonsense.

Lionel Shriver's dislike of children and woeful misunderstanding of anything approaching psychology was awful. Even as an unreliable narrator it didn't work. Her other stuff is worse though.

rotten book
shallow characterisations
really didn't like it

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....

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

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

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

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 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 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 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 liked when she asked why he let her live he said why would he get rid of the audience (or something like that anyway) such a great book...... I hate finishing books

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

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

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

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.

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.