I need to talk about We Need to Talk about Kevin (warning - for people who've read it - spoilers possible)

[hatwoman]

I have just finished it and thought it was fantastic. I had so many conevrsations with myself about the relationship between mother and child, about the old nature v nuture thing, about father and child, siblings etc etc. it was moving and thought provoking. and there was something like an uplifting irony about the end

i agree DP - and I think that's why it works. It's a book that is so much richer for being written "by" Eva. it leaves so much room for debate. You know it's only one version of the story. I think Eva is a very interesting - and very real - character - not one I liked that much but one that at times I could relate to. It's a device used well - both because the subject matter is just too difficult to address objectively - ie from the third person; and because it gives you a very close intimate view of one particular character

Oh I'm glad I found this thread as I was gripped by this book and needed to talk about it!

I think one of the most interesting aspects is how much to 'believe' bearing in mind who the narrator is. As it is not written by a neutral commentator, the reader is left analysing how much Eva is rewriting history or slanting the 'facts'.

Not sure that the author does not just dislike children, though, I can't think of a single sympathetic character.

Cross posted with you, hatwoman, I completely agree with you.

With reference to your OP though, hatwoman, not sure I found the ending uplifting.

Rather filled with horror at the thought of these two, similar characters, locked into permanent intimacy with little chance of respite.

interesting amateurmum. I just thought how incredibly sad it was that it seemed it was only now that she realised she could love him. and really all he seemed to want all along was emotional interaction. the fact that he had finally got it was a hopeful thing I thought - a glimmer that something good could come out of such horror. a chink of light breaking into the bleak emtionless outlook that had led him where it did.

Sorry - frantic posting then long pause (wakeful children).

But I thought she loved him all the way throught.

She was angry about the practicalities of parenting and the restrictions it placed on her.

She did not like the changes it wrought in her relationships.

But a feeling of love for him pervades in the details, especially when he is ill or when she feels she has perceived his 'true self'.

If she had been the father, her actions would have been viewed differently, but I feel the book discusses her suitability as a mother and the particular expectations she and others have of that role.

I heard the author on the radio saying that Eva hid behind her honesty....

Not sure I understand what the means, lizyjane.

Not sure I do either - but I am intrigued...

I think she meant that by being so honest about her failings (Eva is very open) this would distract from the fact that she was guilty of making Kevin into a monster. In effect she spent the book saying Look at me, i'm this bad, but not so bad that I turned my son into a serial killer.

I finished the book the first time being very pro-Eva, then on subsequent readings have become more ambivalent about who might be to blame.

That is what makes it such a brilliant book.

This book was brilliant because we are all saying "oooh he was born that way/or not" and of course REALLY it was Lionel Shriver writing her justification/fear of having a child herself. But the reason the book is so brilliant is that you start thinking it is all TRUE and questionning things.

Because she is open about her failings this self awareness becomes a positive quality and goes some way to neutralising her actions?

Hmm ... will have to think about that one for a while ...

I don't think L S meant that it neutralises Eva's actions, just that it was a technique Eva used to distract from her culpability.

This comment made me read the book again with a more critical attitude to Eva.

I agree with Hatwoman - the most interesting thing about this book was the fact that it was written only from one person;s perspective adn so there is so much possibility to think of the story that might have been told from the perspective of all the other characters.

You see examples of it here all the time - parents writing of methods of discipline or other inteactions with their children on the basis that 'it hasn;t done them any harm' when one wonders how the child involved sees the treatment. How easily a parent can dismiss the feelings of the child as if they were totally insignificant or possibly non existant.

I found it a disturbing but nevertheless interesting read.

FWIW, I think Kevin loved his mother, but that she had some difficulty meeting his needs. His final act was to deprive her of her love for her DD and dH, as an act of revenge because she loved them and not him, in his mind.

morningpaper, yes, one of the things that rang chillingly true was the discussions Eva and husband have about why to have a child: 'for plot', Eva decides.

For me, and I suspect many others, having chidren is an emotional/irrational desire.
I talked about this book with a gay colleague who really related to LS's writing about this - because, for her, having a child is not something that might 'just happen' but a decision to be made, she felt very strongly that LS was making a valid point here.

Lizyjane, what an interesting layer you have added to my reading of this book - will have to get it out again.

I don't believe that anyone (including Kevin) is 'born bad'. I guess Freud would say that all his actions could be traced back to some kind of significant event that happened in childhood, and to his childhood relationship with his mother. I also found it disturbing (and also read it while pregnant although I didn't know I was thankfully or I would have probably put it down). Most of all I think it does what our society shys away from, which is to present a mother who is ambivalent about being one, and not make her into a monster. It's like the last taboo really, cos surely every woman is dying to be a mother no?

I know its an old thread but just read this book and its rattling round and round my head. Brilliant book but so disturbing (perhaps not the best choice with 5 month old PFB)
I found myself gradually doubting Eva's account more and more and in the end believing it was more about nuture.

Who hasn't felt that a baby's colicky crying is directed at you personally? I think initially she believes he is evil and it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

I read this book having listened to a very interesting interview with Lionel Shriver who seemed to be one mixed up American lady! She came over as frighteningly clever & self-analytical. She decided to not have children in case she had one less than perfect, in which case she thought she wouldn't be able to cope,or end up resenting the child so didn't want to risk it (?!)

She said the research led her to talk to lots of women who didn't LIKE their children, & what a big taboo this is & the guilt it brought up. Fascinating interview & therefore I "enjoyed" the book that much more. I found it one of the most thought-provoking books I'd ever read & our book club had one of the best discussions ever after reading it as it lead on to all sorts of feelings & comments & digressions!

I think the fact that everyone has such polar opinions shows what a thought-provoking book it is.

It is distressing and I'm not sure if Kevin's character is believable. I read it when I'd just given birth to my son, and it did make me worry!

You can tell that Shriver's a bit weird about kids though. I like it because it doesn't offer any answers but makes you think.

I think this is a very intriguing and thought provoking book, both in terms of Evas personal portrayal of the situation and her journey however flawed that may be and also the interesting anfd very real themes it throws up. I.e that you're "supposed" to love your child unconditionally, that this intense bonding thing with DEFINITELY happen at the moment of birth and the perceived "unnaturalness" of the mother if these things don't automatically follow.

it also contains an intersting debate as already mentioned on resentment of the child for interupting her perfect life, not wanting their perfect 2 to become an competitive and awkward 3 and her husbands defection from her in her eyes as the most central person in her world. These issues are real to many women and need to be spoken
about.

kevin IS an extreme example of dissafected, volatile and hostile youth, but I think that was deliberate on LS part. Ithink she wanted to shock. I've met children like Kevin through my work some of whom have committed some pretty gruesome acts (though not quite as awful but in a couple of cases nearly). Their complete lack of empathy, emotion and utter boredom with life does give the impression that there's actually something wrong with their brains. All of them have had attachment issues so nature or nurture who knows?

so glad to have found this thread - I agree with the poster who said that the narrator wasn't suuposed to be that flawed. I found it an intensely uncomfortasble book to read, but couldn't not finish it, and 5 months later I am still disturbed by the last chapter. I never felt the need to analyse Kevin from a parental point of view, which is maybe why I didn't get annoyed by his demonisation (in fact, I found it liberating and could empathise with the fact that she felt helpless as his mother). I read it immediately after Nineteen Minutes, by Jodi Picoult, and that was an interesting parallel novel to read in tandem

I'm glad to have found this too. I actually didn't finish the book - I found it too disturbing and unpleasant. I read it with a book group and the resulting discussion was very difficult too - I think (as someone said above) it brings up such tough issues, especially about reasons for having children and liking your children.

Although I found the characters so unsympathetic and unpleasant I was intrigued by the idea of Eva being an unreliable narrator.

Someone said:

"Nasty, nasty book I thought, but uncompromising too in a good way. MB you're being too kind, the point of the book is that the mother wasn't wrong, what Shriver is saying is that he was born bad and is bad. Honestly, I really think that! Is telling I think that Shriver hasn't had children - "

I really don't agree, especially not after reading author interviews - I think the the point of the book was that Eva had a million and one fears about becoming a mother, so much so that she, in paranoia, projected them on her child and started to imagine they were really coming true (particularly like the thing with throwing the bricks over the bridge when she realises in the end that he was telling the truth and didn't actually do it), I think he was actually abused in school too and wasn't just making it all up, and he could feel her instant hatred all his life, he could feel the way she did all the 'read it in a book' mother things, baked cookies, joined the PTA, etc. but all of it was false, like when he tells her when she threw him it was the first honest thing she ever did with him - and he could feel how empty things were with his dad, because his dad may have paid him more attention and showered him with move 'love' but Eva actually understood him better because his dad didn't really want to know who Kevin was, he just wanted to live the American dream and have a son he could call 'sport' and play ball with (I'm originally American btw so the dad really reminded me of a lot of people I knew), like something off of a US soap opera, but he completely missed the fact that it's a different world, different generation and Kevin's not something from 'Leave It to Beaver'. I think also Kevin could see how Eva obviously wanted a daughter, not a son, she always wanted a daughter right from the start, before she knew she was having a boy, so she did things 'right' with the daughter, and in the meantime his sister and his dad are the only ones in the house getting any love from his mother and he's been branded as 'evil' and nothing he can do is good enough, he's never believed on anything, and he grows up angry as hell and just wants to destroy everything because of how little he has himself, and I think also wants to get rid of the 'competition' in a way, because the fact of the ending is that he wins!

I also have to say, though, man I couldn't stand her husband. In so many ways, he drove me insane, I just wanted to slap him through half the book, he was so clueless and unsupportive to everything that went on. But yeah, I think the point of that book actually wasn't to say it's all the parents fault OR kids can be born bad, I think it was just meant to portray something that actually happens in reality and let you make your own mind up about it, and I think what it really said to me was that parents REALLY shape what their children become, but also that it's human nature to turn to destruction when you have no sense of stability/safety/love in your own world, so children can become monstrous things when they lack those things.

but in some twisted way I found the ending so moving, I just smiled at how clever and unexpected and shocking it was, and at how yes it's true, no matter what your children do, they're your children, and there's that strange inexplicable unbreakable love there, isn't there?

Good analysis, Thyme. I really disliked the book when I started reading it, but was gripped by it from about 1/4 of the way through - so powerful. And using the device of the unreliable narrator was very clever.

I don't think Shriver gives us any answers about why Kevin was the way he was, she leaves it up to the reader to decide. Much more interesting than an omniscient author.

thymeoperator, I thought your analysis was perfect. I mean thats how I viewed the book. I felt sorry for the child, Kevin, who was accused of "rejecting" his mother as a tiny baby when he refused the breast. I see a lot of projection of adult emotions onto babies in my daily life. Especially ideas that infants are "manipulative".
But then it begs the question of whether the author is saying that the mother is to blame. I personally don't think Shriver was trying to say that, and in an interview with her I heard her say that was not the case. But I think anyone who has had a baby (and is generally mentally healthy) knows that babies aren't "born bad". THey're all born good and adorable.
I think people can be born with behavioural "tendencies" but then if their infantile needs are met, they're unlikely to go on to do anything drastic. But some mothers aren't able to meet their child's needs for various reasons, but does this really make them evil or bad?
I thought it was a very clever book, and she is an amazing writer.