Lionel Shriver: We Need To Talk About Kevin

[jay]

Occasionally an email or PM comes my way due to my recommending this novel, so I thought I’d start a thread for some conversation around it to be held.
For those curious, here’s what I originally wrote:

http://forums.thebookforum.com/showpost.php?p=104982&postcount=747

 

[clueless]

This was originally a PM and not a post. I have not checked it.

I did not expect to get the book until August, but it arrived two days ago. I have only read the first letter so far, so the only aspect I can comment on at the moment is the language.

I found myself stopping to reread a sentence or an expression every 3 lines. I often do that when I like an expression, but that was not the reason. If I thought of words as drops of water, they did not flow like a river; they rather fell from the guttering in the roof hitting a metal barrel. It make me stop to check metaphors, similes and adjectives not because they were new, but because they made me think, ‘Is this true?’ and in many cases it wasn’t. I thought she was trying too hard to appear clever and creative, to prove that she was not using the same old clichés. I don’t think it is done like that. New similes spring to the mind of a writer because he/she associates the terms being compared. They may sound unusual to other people, they may not have thought about it before their experience is different, but once they think about it, they can see them. They do not make them stop reading. This is more like syncopated reading.

I disagree with much of the modern publishers recommendations about the use of adjectives and adverbs. I think that, as grammar is not taught in English schools, they have not a very clear idea about what adverbs are – most of them must think that adverbs are only words with a –ly ending. But Shriver uses far too many adjectives, whether they are needed or not.

I did found one good simile in page 2. ‘sharply cornered and glossy as if commercially gift wrapped", and several that did not work:

(pg.1) ‘the way a cat might lay mice at your feet: the small, humble offerings…". They may seem small, humble offerings to the cat’s owner but to the cat, they are trophies. The simile would only make sense if Eva spoke about her achievements on that day, rather than just curiosities.

(pg. 1). ‘no one wants to hear stories from abroad, really’. This is only true of people who had been away for years. When they come back people want to talk about their old acquaintances and how life has changed in that period; they don’t want to hear about people they don’t know and every day life that is alien to them. On the contrary, when someone returns from a business trip or a holiday, people want to know all the anecdotes, especially if the traveller returns from another country.

(pg.2) ‘no sense of history’ and ‘amnesia’ refer to America early history, that Americans seem to want to forget or deny. I have never heard any mention of Americans forgetting last year events or what happened 50 years ago. Think of the Vietnam issue, for example.

And why use ‘cilantro’ in page 5. I know what cilantro means but how many people would. I knew it was not used in the UK; however, I consulted two dictionaries in case it is used in America. It is not. Why use it? To give an exotic feel? I really cannot see the point, as I cannot see the need of mentioning Kafka. I thought she wanted to say ‘Hey, look at me. I have even read Kafka. You should take me seriously. I am a clever girl.’

Sorry about the length of the message. I am interested to see how she develops the characters and the relationships between them, in spite of the style.

 

[jay]

I am interested to see how she develops the characters and the relationships between them, in spite of the style.

Interesting comments! And people say *I* dissect too much!
Anyway, keep in mind the “style” is letter format. So it’s not being narrated to us, it’s simply a letter from a woman to her husband. A ‘regular woman’, not a writer’s voice.
At first I was critical, wondering if the letter-thing would work. For me it did.
And I’d rather see a simile that is clever and _could_ work (I personally never think from the point of view from a cat).
Also, I very much agree with Eva that American’s has ‘no sense of history’. And this even includes “911”. (although if I'm not mistaken these "letters" are before "911" (I dont have the book here at work)).
But that aside, you’ll see that Eva is continually giving her thoughts on America. They may not be right (or “right”), but they are hers.
And cilantro, for anyone that’s done some creative cooking, is not an obscure term at all.

Let it unfold a bit…j

 

[novella]

clueless,

Thanks for the comments here. What you say about adjectives and adverbs is true: overuse of descriptives is drummed into kids in early school, but it makes for tedious writing, so anyone who want to be a decent writer has to unlearn that bad habit.

Just want to say that cilantro is absolutely commonplace in the US, referring to the coriander leaf as opposed to the seed. Because it is referred to as such in Mexico and there are so many Mexican restaurants and food outlets in the US, more people probably say 'cilantro' than say 'coriander.'

 

[clueless]

clueless,

Thanks for the comments here. What you say about adjectives and adverbs is true: overuse of descriptives is drummed into kids in early school, but it makes for tedious writing, so anyone who want to be a decent writer has to unlearn that bad habit. [\Quote]

There are some writers with a very Baroque style, but three adjectives per noun would be too much even for them. All those adjectives and I can see the place, but I cannot get the feel of it.

Just want to say that cilantro is absolutely commonplace in the US, referring to the coriander leaf as opposed to the seed. Because it is referred to as such in Mexico and there are so many Mexican restaurants and food outlets in the US, more people probably say 'cilantro' than say 'coriander.'

I just found out. My mistake was using dictionaries instead of the web. In the UK is just called coriander.

 

[StillILearn]

clueless, ...referring to the coriander leaf as opposed to the seed. Because it is referred to as such in Mexico and there are so many Mexican restaurants and food outlets in the US, more people probably say 'cilantro' than say 'coriander.'

Now, how in the world did you happen to know that esoteric bit of information? I can hardly wait for the opportunity to use it in one of my own conversations:

"Oh yes, I do like to add just a tiny pinch of corander to my huevos rancheros, along with the requisite garnish of the mature plant."

Nero Wolf might say something like that.



(I'm looking forward to reading this book sometime in the near future .)

 

[Jennifer]

I've not read this book yet, but I'm intrigued after seeing the author interviewed. She seems to be dealing with some controversial and interesting topics; in fact, when I saw the interview, I'd just finished a story much along the same lines and got rather depressed that she'd beaten me to it. She was also very vocal on the subject of women in the business (there was some discussion over her assertion that she expected to win, and that if a man had said this, he would be lauded for his confidence, whereas she was vilified. I think she wrote an article on the issue for the Guardian.)
However, I may be judging the book by its author, but I did get the same sense that clueless mentioned; she knew exactly how clever she was and wanted you to know too. I'll have to read the book to decide whether this is justified, or whether she has caught Dan Brown disease.

 

[jay]

when I saw the interview, I'd just finished a story much along the same lines and got rather depressed that she'd beaten me to it.

Heh. Been there on many different occasions, but not with writing (necessarily).

I think she wrote an article on the issue for the Guardian.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1504973,00.html

However, I may be judging the book by its author, but I did get the same sense that clueless mentioned; she knew exactly how clever she was and wanted you to know too.

I get lost on this a bit, so if an intelligent person writes a book they shouldn’t write it as they would normally?
It does seem like everything is getting Dumbed Down of late, but this would really be a shame…
Also, as I should have and meant to go into more with Clueless’ post -and Jennifer, as you say you write I’d certainly hope that you never want to be confused with your characters. Yes, the slightly biographical sometimes slips in, but the character in this book is named “Eva”. Not Lionel.
LS herself:
“Any number of readers and reviewers have conflated me the author and Eva the narrator. But we are not the same person. We have completely different family histories, and Eva, to me, is a discrete creation.
Nevetheless, I did stick the poor woman with some of my own least attractive qualities, which I carved out and put on the table for dissection. For example: It has taken me many years to come to terms with being American and to stop apologizing for my nationality (hey, everyone has to come from somewhere, there’s something wrong with every country, and we don’t get to choose where we’re born).
So I gave Eva an arm’s length, superior attitude toward her countrymen, a disdain that her son learns fatally to ape. I am fully aware that being ashamed of your origins, and imagining that you can opt out of your own culture by acting haughty about it, is unattractive. Yet I find that especially among leftwing Americans this self-hatred-disguised-as-elitism is endemic, and therefore worthy of inspection. The fact that I have erred in this direction myself on occasion gives me a sense of access. But you make a big mistake if you think that the author and the narrator are one and the same.
I recently heard a couple of TV reviewers declare fiercely to camera that not only did they not like Eva; they personally disliked the author. I laughed aloud. (It’s impossible to take it personally when someone claims to have taken a scunner to you and you’ve never met.) Eva = Shriver is a naïve reading of the novel. Like most of my fictional characters, Eva is a casserole, made of a variety of leftovers in my psychic fridge - a drizzle of acidic dressing, a few ambrosial florets of broccoli with orange sauce, and (since she is a fearful woman at core) a chunk of cold chicken.
As for Eva’s unreliability: she is not deliberately dissembling. She is telling the truth as she understands it. But she is, as are we all, compulsively self-justifying. It suits her purposes for Kevin to seem out of kilter from birth. Her story is rigged.”

From: http://www.orangeprize.co.uk/2005prize/winner/interview.html

I'll have to read the book to decide whether this is justified,

Please do. I’m curious what you’ll think.
j

 

[Jennifer]

I get lost on this a bit, so if an intelligent person writes a book they shouldn’t write it as they would normally?
It does seem like everything is getting Dumbed Down of late, but this would really be a shame…
Also, as I should have and meant to go into more with Clueless’ post -and Jennifer, as you say you write I’d certainly hope that you never want to be confused with your characters. Yes, the slightly biographical sometimes slips in, but the character in this book is named “Eva”. Not Lionel.

Possibly I was being over-judgemental, not having read the book. I do think it is possible for an author to impart a sense of their own high opinion of themselves through their writing, even if the narrator is a character entirely separate to the author. They might use unnecessary vocabulary, or spend pages on an obscure branch of knowledge they just so happen to be an expert on, in case you didn't know.
I think that there is a serious lack of very intelligent authors, and I agree that intelligence in literature should be encouraged (we've been typing that word frequently around here lately...), and I would never try to imply that writing an intelligent book is somehow wrong. I just think that some authors (and again, I haven't read Shriver so this is general) place themselves firmly above their reader, like some kind of demi-god imparting their arcane wisdom to the masses. My favourite Mr Brown springs to mind, but it would be cruel to bring him up all the time.. wait...
So I'll reserve judgement on Kevin til I've read it. And I appreciate the difference between author and narrator; I was referring more to a general, indefinable sense you get from some books, rather than to the specific views and words of the narrator.
Thanks for the link and the quote.

 

[Occlith]

I didn't know Lionel Shriver had written anything recently. I have read Checker and Derailleurs and The Female of the Species. Thanks for reminding me about this author.

 

[jay]

I just think that some authors (and again, I haven't read Shriver so this is general) place themselves firmly above their reader, like some kind of demi-god imparting their arcane wisdom to the masses.

I see where you’re coming from. Only in a few cases would I question it though. Although I like him, I’d wonder exactly how a conversation with Thomas Pynchon would go (not that he has any with many – that we know of).

Sometimes maybe one just has to wonder who the writer’s ‘reader in mind’ is. With, say, an Amy Hempel she states she pictures her reader being a small group of fellow writers. With a Chuck Palahniuk, I’m not sure what his answer would be, but of late I’d say his target audience is a group of 15-year olds.

My favourite Mr Brown springs to mind, but it would be cruel to bring him up all the time

Not _too_ cruel. But with him I’d have to think he’s writing the book version of a pop song. He may do some research and attempt a “complex” plot but with the writing skills below that of long out-of-print mediocre pulp hack, he’s not going to come off as to lofty. Which is why it’s no surprise that he’s endeared, you know, The Masses.

But as you say, we’ve had and have this kind of talk going on elsewhere, let’s shine the light back on Shriver:

I didn't know Lionel Shriver had written anything recently. I have read Checker and Derailleurs and The Female of the Species. Thanks for reminding me about this author.

Those are her first two (in switched order). She’s popped out some other stuff since then:
The Female of the Species (1987)
Checker and Derailleurs (1988)
The Bleeding Heart (1990) - later re-titled Ordinary Decent Criminals (1992)
Game Control (1994)
A Perfectly Good Family (1996)
Double Fault (1997)
We Need To Talk About Kevin (2003)

Since I had not read her before (and I believe I’ve never even heard of her mentioned in the past, which is disappointing) and I quite liked ‘Kevin’, I have been picking up these older books. I like to read in order, if I can, to see the maturation of technique and thought. So I’m on ‘Species’ (31.1% into it, for you math geeks) now and quite liking it. The writing ‘style’ is not like ‘Kevin’ and I don’t feel like she is trying to be highfalutin in any way (am I being highfalutin by using “highfalutin”?) – but then again I didn’t think that with ‘Kevin’.
j
[late edit was to merge the titles of the 3rd novel, which I was originally to believe were 2 different books]

 

[clueless]

I will not make any more comments about language, since I have not read any other books by the author.

I think Jay said something about wondering whether an epistolary structure would work. I have read novels written as an exchange of letters and they work. I cannot remember reading a book where the letters come from one person. I am not sure it would have worked if it had been done properly. It might have done, perhaps leaving some gaps for the reader to fill or using other resources to try to fill them.

I don’t think it works here because

• If I write a letter to you, I might say ‘remember when we did …’, but I would do that just to prod your memory and they either link that story to something that has just happened, talk about how I felt about it at the time or later, ask what your feelings where, etc. I would not need to recount the whole event unless you could not remember it and even if you didn’t, a few relevant sentences to throw a light about what I am going to say next would be enough. You were there.
• I would not write to you and tell you what your feelings, thoughts, likes and dislikes were. You know; there are yours.

She could have sorted this problem by converting the letters into diary entries and replacing you with he. It’s that simple.

 

[jay]

[*]If I write a letter to you, I might say ‘remember when we did …’, but I would do that just to prod your memory […] I would not need to recount the whole event unless you could not remember it and even if you didn’t, a few relevant sentences to throw a light about what I am going to say next would be enough. You were there.

Without getting into spoiler territory:
I would agree with you to a certain extent, but with never having been married, raising a kid or even given so much of my life to anyone (or anything) and then losing it all, to me, hammering out every detail seems…therapeutic. I do it in my head, why not on paper?
I see these letters as not only to her husband, but also ‘to’ herself.
She herself doesn’t call it a correspondence but a “respondance”.
Responding not just to a situation, but many situations. Maybe all of life.

I would not write to you and tell you what your feelings, thoughts, likes and dislikes were. You know; there are yours.

Same as above.
And/but also, how many times have you re-counted a past story to someone that *was* there and told them how they felt/reacted/what they said and they retort, “I did not!”?
Oddly enough it happened to me this morning (before reading your post) here at work; a colleague didn’t recall his exact first-impression of an idea. I told him why he reacted that way and then he admitted, “oh yeah”.
Not unheard of. Espeically in a ‘he said/she said’ situation(s).

She could have sorted this problem by converting the letters into diary entries and replacing you with he. It’s that simple.

While not a true spoiler, I’d say if one hasn’t read the book, don’t read this part:

Spoiler

While this may have been fine, it would have made the ending less impacting and more potentially revealed as things moved along.

j

 

[Chixulub]

No Spoilers For Me!

I haven't read the thread, really, because I'm on page 24 and I'm pissed that I read the back cover blurb about what exactly Kevin did.

A very generous and thoughtful friend sent me the UK trade because the American cover didn't suit him. The main thing I noticed about the American one is the 'a novel' attribution that seems required on fiction covers nowadays. Mildly annoying but never turned me off. It would have been helpful with Mike Magnusson's 'Lummox,' which was a disappointing read, but that I forgave too many sins in by taking it to be a memoir. Lives don't always plot well, so I was disappointed to find out it hadn't accidentally been filed in 'ficiton.'

'We Need to Talk About Kevin' has its hooks into me big time. I hesitate to rave 24 pages into a 400 page book, especially since most of the DaVinci Code recommendations I've heard have been from people in the first hundred pages. Only one or two finished Brown's commercial Gargantua with enthusiasm. So I don't want to find out I'm guilty of give great Word of Mouth to a book that doesn't pan out.

But so far, Shriver could probably coast on style. I've been accused in workshops of 'comma abuse,' but her convoluted compound sentences actually convey the conversational tone mine seem to fail at.

I remember Palahniuk's endorsement of 'Contortionist's Handbook' was made to the effect that he knew early on it was the best book he'd read in five or ten years. I won't say that at page 24, but if it keeps getting better like this I may end up there.

I'd started 'Geronimo Rex' when this came, but it hadn't hooked me. And it was a Faulkner Prize winner, and I liked 'Ray,' the other Barry Hannah book I've read.

I guess the safe endorsement would be that 'Kevin' is the best book I've read since 'The End of Alice.' I finished that last week, so I don't think I'm overextending myself there...

Also, from the spoiler stuff on the back cover I wish I'd avoided, I gather this is an interesting counterpart to 'Hey Nostradamus!' Not Coupland's best work, but the same topic in a way. I felt like Alice Sebold's 'The Lovely Bones' did a better job of what Coupland was going for.

I have a relative in prison, also a former school-chum. An acquaintance who's son was the object of an 'Operation 100' and later murdered by a jealous ex. So the mother of the monster is a point of view I can key in on, because when that shit happens, I always think about what it must be like for the parents. Or what the kid's childhood must of have been like. Etc.

Think about it: it's cute when the President's daughter gets in trouble drinking, but the families of these people. Imagine being Chelsea Clinton, having a father who womanizes and is the figure-head of the free world. And a Mom who's a power-hungry cunt. Imagine your Dad was the CEO of Enron or Global Crossing; the head of a team of accountants that brought down Arthur Anderson. Or your brother blew up a federal building in Oklahoma City after playing with explosives on your farm.

Tell these stories with some sympathy and you've done something IMHO.

 

[jay]

and I'm pissed that I read the back cover blurb about what exactly Kevin did.

Sadly this is the main selling point to the book, so I don’t think it’s big secret to many. Although it’s fairly quickly brought up, so not really a spoiler. But yes, those kinds of things always tick me off. I never even read dust jacket blurbs or synopsis. I don’t need some goon trying to draw me in; a good book speaks for itself. Cormic McCarthy has a new books out; that’s all I need to know. And I detest those assheads that always say “and the shock ending” which of course implants some little signal in the brain that goes off mid-way through the book and I –even though I don’t like to think ahead of a book- may start to think, say, “oh, the butler *didn’t* do it!” since we know there is some supposed “shock” to come.
Imagination: the last frontier.

The main thing I noticed about the American one is the 'a novel' attribution that seems required on fiction covers nowadays.

Yes. I can see it being used from time to time, though.
I do, I think, wish Amy Hempel’s _Reasons To Live_ had some kind of “stories” thingie on the cover. More than a few times I’ve had a copy in a cafe and I imagine people thinking, “that ugly boy is gonna kill himself!”
Not that they ever even offer to by my coffee for me…
And a few times I’ve suggested people read this collection and they reply, “I’m not THAT depressed, don’t worry.”

'We Need to Talk About Kevin' has its hooks into me big time.

Great to hear.

I felt like Alice Sebold's 'The Lovely Bones' did a better job of what Coupland was going for.

I haven’t read that Coupland, but all Sebold did, in my view, was waste paper, badly I might add, and my time. That said, I didn’t get past page 100. I can think of better ways to be bored.

Hope the pages are flipping well for you…
j

 

[Jennifer]

Right, I've finished it.
Ooooh, it was good. Eva was caustic and unpleasant, and I didn't trust her at all (how modern...). Notice how she messes up Kevin's "half-cocked" smile a few times? First it's on the right, then it's on the left. This may be the author, but I prefer to think it shows Eva's shaky grasp on her memory.
Having said that, I don't blame her for being biased against her son, especially since

Spoiler

we find out about Franklin and Celia being dead. This then makes everyone else's blame of Eva the more harsh

Speaking of, that second to last letter hit me right between the eyes.

Spoiler

I had wondered why Franklin never replied, how he'd managed to get custody of Celia etc. And there were some fairly broad hints about similar cases where the parents were killed. But I played right along with Shriver's intent, so I couldn't quite believe it when I reached the image of Celia on the target.

It was interesting how Eva's coworkers and other people around her were so fascinated with her situation, and Kevin's take on the documentary reflected that weird human obssession with other people's tragedy. Maybe the media were the real enemy in this tale, in giving Kevin a sense of the celebrity surrounding these cases, and a sense of competition

Spoiler

even in his choice of weapon. Which, incidentally, I think suits his character - a gun puts the killer at a distance; with a crossbow, people die directly as a result of your own skill.

I like the epistolary structure. It puts Eva on the defensive, makes her perhaps more inclined to skew events, but also makes her more truthful about her feelings than she might have been in conversation. And I'm lying when I say I didn't trust her;

Spoiler

added together, Celia's eye, Violetta, the map wallpaper, the bike, the teacher, all made me want to shake Franklin and say "your son is obviously deranged!" But Shriver is careful not to give the reader any real evidence about Kevin's involvement, so we are once again required to trust Eva. And while I'm under the spoiler thingy: it was clever to conceal Celia's existence until halfway through. If we knew about her before, we might have asked questions about her whereabouts far too soon, and maybe guessed the reality. But she was introduced when we were already caught up in the backstory, rather than the present.

It struck me that Eva and Kevin are more similar than they realise. They share a sense of superiority, and as Eva says, very little separates the normal person from Kevin's actions - just a barrier which may be a myth. And I loved the ending for two reasons; there was a sense of resolution in their acceptance of each other, and you wonder how cold Kevin really was throughout his life.
So yes, thank you for the recommendation, it was excellent.

 

[jay]

Nice post, and needless to say I’m *very* pleased you liked it, and on various levels.
Good use of spoiler-thingies. I like to leave the thread fairly open so that it may entice other readers without having blown plot-stuff.
Eventually we’ll probably have to just open it up as conversation though.

Very nice catch on the rotating of smile. I have 2 pages of notes and did NOT catch that.
And yes, I agree that

Spoiler

the reveal of Celia later in the story was really well done, and difficult to pull off. She’s, I believe, introduced by Eva saying she “admired” (? – I should keep a copy of the book here at work) Celia, and at first we are saying, “who the hell is that?” And then we’re taken on the slippery slope of somewhat thinking/yelling, “Jezuz, you’re gonna have *another* kid after all that!?”

Well pulled off.
j

 

[Jennifer]

But it also seemed like

Spoiler

Celia was the best thing that happened to the family. Eva had a focus and someone to love who wasn't judging her, Kevin seemed to loosen up a bit at first, and Franklin had an excuse to pamper Kevin like he really wanted to, so he wouldn't feel left out. And speaking of Celia, the period where Kevin is ill is as interesting as the end, to me. Does Eva just perceive him as heartless, whereas it was all an act that came apart when he was ill? Or was he actually a changed character who loved his sister and his mother (the mother who, incidentally, he defends in that documentary, keeps a picture of, and seems to identify with)?

I'm not sure how much of that is really spoiler, but I wouldn't read it before the book..

 

[jay]

But it also seemed like

I totally agree. I don’t think the story would work if

Spoiler

she wasn’t a part of it. She gave a whole new perspective to Eva, brought even more hi-lighting that Franklin is a tunnel-visioned fruitcake (I’m being nice) and gave the Kevin-factor a whole new range of development (or un-development)

Spoiler

the period where Kevin is ill is as interesting as the end, to me. Does Eva just perceive him as heartless, whereas it was all an act that came apart when he was ill?

Excellent question/observation. It raises and issue I hear from time to time, when people think I beat the hell out of the keyboard with rage (I’m not) or seemingly break pin nibs with letter-written rants, the whole ‘why not just be happy; it takes so much energy to hate’ thing comes up. Nonsense psychobabble, but something we could ask in this case:

Spoiler

is Kevin expending what would seem to be a lifetime of energy in being the little tyrant (surely how could have pissed in the toilet at any time he wanted too) and it took a strong illness to push him to the point of having no energy to continue the charade?
Hard to say, and of course we’ll never know.

I'm not sure how much of that is really spoiler, but I wouldn't read it before the book..

I agree. I think knowing as little as possibly is a nice key to enjoying most anything.

That said, to those going to see the new Burton/Depp flick: *Charlie* gets the Golden Ticket!!
Hahahahahahaha!
j

 

[Jennifer]

That's another thing as well -

Spoiler

is Eva just paranoid about the toilet thing, or is he really being spiteful in not learning? The bit where she threw him across the room made me shiver, but I could also understand it. And it's interesting that it was at this point that Kevin started to see his mother as "interesting", similar to himself, maybe a possible threat to his charade. This was continued with the computer virus, where they were almost bonding over their respective oddities.

*Charlie* gets the Golden Ticket!!

That's so cruel! How could you be so nasty.