The Lovely Bones--who read this?

[GranoLLLy-girl]

I just finished the book yesterday. I cried at the last paragraph, but I must admit, parts of the book left me frustrated and I don't know that I liked the mother too much.

For anyone who read the book--
What are your thoughts? Did you like it--why or why not?
Also, did you see the movie (I have not)--should I see it?

Please share--I don't know anyone IRL who has slogged through the over 300 and some pages of this book.

[Alyantavid]

I don't know. It was disturbing. I didn't think much of the mother either, but who knows how people react in those situations?

I haven't watched the movie yet, but I think I will once it comes out on dvd.

[GranoLLLy-girl]

So what were your thoughts on the whole Susie takes over Ruth's body and makes love to Ray? I don't know about that whole thing--why didn't she say: hey, my body is in the sinkhole?

And the way the author never tied up the death of Mr. Harvey to the family? In other words, the father was so frantic over finding him and when he finally dies, the author never connects the dots--having a police officer tell the family that he died in a freak accident? That really bugged me. I guess I was looking for some peace for the father and Lindsay.
What do you think? I guess what I am saying is: too many loose ends for me maybe. At least Mr. Harvey got what was coming to him. So there was some poetic justice in the end.

[Alyantavid]

Originally Posted by GranoLLLy-girl

So what were your thoughts on the whole Susie takes over Ruth's body and makes love to Ray? I don't know about that whole thing--why didn't she say: hey, my body is in the sinkhole?

I never got why she didn't tell anyone where her body was. Or why she didn't explain the whole thing to Ruth so her family would finally know.

I don't know, there was a lot I didn't like about the book. But I still want to watch the movie, however much sense that makes.

[ollyoxenfree]

Not sure if a spoiler warning is needed, but just in case....My thoughts are below.









I read it years ago. I was impressed by the author's ability to recreate a 14 year old girl's voice so authentically. I think she really nailed the era too. I really liked almost everything about the book. My only objection was the scene where Susie takes over Ruth's body. It seemed like an indulgence on the author's part.

Up until that point, I had accepted the entire concept (within the universe of the novel) of an afterlife and a consciousness that persisted after death and remained tied to the family and friends that the soul had known in its earthly life. The author handled this aspect well. By indulging in the whole bodysnatcher scenario, she introduced some inconsistencies and pushed things into the inconceivable and unbelievable. It was a serious writer's error and I really wish she'd had better editorial advice.

I kind of liked the fact that she didn't resolve things neatly like a typical murder mystery. Lots of people go missing every year, and their families never get answers. I admired the author for not taking an easy road to a tidy resolution ie. murderer gets caught, family gets closure. I don't think the author wanted to write a book about "closure". It seems to me her whole theme was that a new form/life has to be created when one is abruptly destroyed. Everyone has to find a way to fill in or move around the hole that's created when someone goes missing and they have to manage to keep on going somehow. I think there's a powerful message in the book that is much more meaningful because she didn't opt for the easy, tidy, typical ending.


JMHO, of course .

BTW, did you know that Alice Sebold, the author, was herself the survivor of rape. She's written about it in a book titled Lucky. I haven't read it, but I understand it's quite compelling.

[GoBecGo]

I've read Lucky. I read it before i read the Lovely Bones. To me the Lovely Bones was the author doing something which many people do after trauma to help them accept it - they imagine it was even worse to help themselves rationalise what they went through. Like if you're in a near miss and then live the panic of "i nearly died".

I didn't enjoy the book, i didn't think she said anything new beyond what she'd said in Lucky (i am an abuse and rape survivor) and i definitely don't want to see the film. I think the way she used her initial experience to feed into our already-unhealthily-obsessed society's interest in child rape/abduction/murder was really quite sad, and i found the storyline lacking in passion in the way one might expect if one was "trying out" a trauma.

[JollyGG]

The story also lost me with the whole taking over Ruth's body and having sex with Ray. I did figure she didn't say where her body was because that somehow wasn't the intention of the encounter or that it would have somehow changed things in some way that wasn't allowed. Basically, I didn't think she would have been allowed to.

I, like a previous, poster liked that she didn't tidy it all up and wrap it with a bow at the end. I thought it was her family finding their own peace with what happened even without the answers.

I do like how the author illustrated that the parent split was a long time coming even before Susie's death. It was clear to me that there was already some dissatisfaction and loss of personal identity that led to the mother leaving.

I did think that the mother came off as a rather shallow and superficial character. Even though we were told alot about her I never felt like she became a very developed character. But, maybe that was intentional.

I haven't seen the movie.

[Monarchgrrl]

I didn't like the book. I read it so long ago that I can't really say why. Mostly what other's have said here. Too many loose ends and I thought the writing was poor. I wanted to stop reading it but it takes a lot for me to put down a book. I wanted to see how it would end. I read the last half of the book pretty darn fast just to get it over with.

I'll probably see the movie someday, just to see if they did it better than the book, even though that's usually not the case.

[BookGoddess]

The story starts out strong, but it doesn't live up to the hype. It was such a frustrating book to read. It's definitely memorable though. I didn't like the fact the killer didn't get caught. It seems so wrong, yet I know things like that happen every day in real life so on one level I can accept that the author chose not to write a happy ending. It's her perogative. However, I can't understand why she put in that corny scene where Susie takes over Ruth's body to have sex with Ray. It was baffling. It seemed out of place in the story. If I'm dead and I know my whole family needs closure from my murder and I have a chance to do something tangible in the real world for a brief period of time, I wouldn't choose to have sex especially considering my last sexual experience so to speak was rape.

The book is better than the movie. The film is a very sanitized version of what happened to Susie.

[Juvysen]

I liked it, but it was disturbing... I read it before i had kids, though, I think I'd have had to stop after the first couple chapters, now...

[GranoLLLy-girl]

Originally Posted by JollyGG

The story also lost me with the whole taking over Ruth's body and having sex with Ray. I did figure she didn't say where her body was because that somehow wasn't the intention of the encounter or that it would have somehow changed things in some way that wasn't allowed. Basically, I didn't think she would have been allowed to.

I, like a previous, poster liked that she didn't tidy it all up and wrap it with a bow at the end. I thought it was her family finding their own peace with what happened even without the answers.

I do like how the author illustrated that the parent split was a long time coming even before Susie's death. It was clear to me that there was already some dissatisfaction and loss of personal identity that led to the mother leaving.

I did think that the mother came off as a rather shallow and superficial character. Even though we were told alot about her I never felt like she became a very developed character. But, maybe that was intentional.

I haven't seen the movie.

I agree with you re: parent split. BUT, I disagree about the finding of the murderer though--you see, he dies in the end (as you all know) and why at that point, when Len had gone through so much trouble to keep in touch as the years passed--well, for a while, anyway--that when Mr. Harvey was found dead--not alive--which makes my point more plausible, I think--that the family wasn't notified: hey, we found him (at that point they knew it was him)--but we found him dead.

I totally agree about the mother being superficial. I have a problem with this, too, because had she been really heartbroken over the murder of her daughter, I can see that she would have maybe somehow blamed the father--or God or someone--which gives her a catalyst to leave--I've seen this happen in real life, when a child dies....BUT as superficial as she was, it totally did not make sense for her to leave AFTER the daughter's death. That to me did not ring true. Heartbroken and leaving to heal, yes; not really heartbroken and leaving to do--what? Not so real, to me.

And the time period was OK in accuracy--I was born in the 60s and would have been maybe a little younger than Susie Salmon--but I didn't really see that MUCH of the period in the book. A mention of this fad or that, but I really wanted MORE of that to remind me of my own past--an "oh yeah, I remember those!" but I think that wasn't delved into deeply enough to really place the movie in ANY particular time period. Ya know?

And after the desperation of the dad trying to find Mr. Harvey--that seemed to just "die off" mid-novel, too--which I wanted to see more closure on--how did the dad start to make peace with time moving on? When I was a teacher, a very popular student of mine and her boyfriend were killed in a freak accident--almost 15 years ago now--and every year the parents of the boy STILL attend the high school graduation ceremonies at the school and STILL keep up with his friends--and it reminds me a lot of the dad in the novel--that obsession--that kind of stuff just doesn't go away--especially when you are that obsessed.

I don't know--about 3/4 of the way through I started to think: she should have ended this novel by now. But, I wanted to finish it to see if I was right about my feelings--LOL!

[Oriole]

I had a friend who died in a similar way, and I have to say, I liked the ending, because "Mr. Harvey" of my friend's murder was never found, and I'd like to think "poetic justice" was served in some way, yk? I'll take an icicle as a possible solution, although, doesn't seem quite enough.

I liked the book (didn't like the mom).

[JollyGG]

I gotta say, I'm really enjoying this discussion.

I got the impression that Mr. Harvey was going by an alias at the time he murdered Susie. It seemed to be one of many aliases he had before and after the murder of Susie. So I didn't assume that Len knew Mr. Harvey had died.

I figured when the body was found he just became another John Doe or was buried under the name of whatever ID he was carrying with no next of kin located. If there was never anything to connect the dead body to past murders there would never have been any way to identify him as Mr. Harvey.

I did think that they covered the fathers gradual move away from seeing Susie in everything. I also did think that his obsession with finding Mr. Harvey did die kinda abruptly.

I was kinda left wondering about the authors alluding to Ray's Mothers (can't remember her name) marital unhappiness. It seemed like it was brought up a few times and then left hanging. I never could figure out it's significance in the story. What was the author trying to do with it? It just didn't seem to fit.

I didn't like that the Mother came back and the whole family was back together. I kinda didn't think she deserved to be welcomed back with open arms (by the Dad if not by the kids) as cynical and mean as that sounds. Plus, I didn't understand what she left to do, but whatever it was I didn't feel like she got it done. Her return seemed just as hallow as her leaving.

[limette]

Originally Posted by ollyoxenfree

Not sure if a spoiler warning is needed, but just in case....My thoughts are below.









I read it years ago. I was impressed by the author's ability to recreate a 14 year old girl's voice so authentically. I think she really nailed the era too. I really liked almost everything about the book. My only objection was the scene where Susie takes over Ruth's body. It seemed like an indulgence on the author's part.

Up until that point, I had accepted the entire concept (within the universe of the novel) of an afterlife and a consciousness that persisted after death and remained tied to the family and friends that the soul had known in its earthly life. The author handled this aspect well. By indulging in the whole bodysnatcher scenario, she introduced some inconsistencies and pushed things into the inconceivable and unbelievable. It was a serious writer's error and I really wish she'd had better editorial advice.

Yes to all that. It was good until the end. I found the ending rushed and just completely out of left field. I was not happy at the end.

The movie was okay. Thought it was a poor rip off of "What Dreams May Come".

[GranoLLLy-girl]

Originally Posted by JollyGG

I gotta say, I'm really enjoying this discussion.

I got the impression that Mr. Harvey was going by an alias at the time he murdered Susie. It seemed to be one of many aliases he had before and after the murder of Susie. So I didn't assume that Len knew Mr. Harvey had died.

OK, I see where you are going with this...not sure if he had an alias or not--but certainly by the time of his death, the 1980s, DNA testing or at least identifying by more old fashioned means--dental records--would have been available. And I also thought that with Len showing up years later just to hand off a charm would have been more believable if it were followed up by the finding/identifying Mr. Harvey---in other words, one action seems to justify the other, yes?

I figured when the body was found he just became another John Doe or was buried under the name of whatever ID he was carrying with no next of kin located. If there was never anything to connect the dead body to past murders there would never have been any way to identify him as Mr. Harvey.

I did think that they covered the fathers gradual move away from seeing Susie in everything. I also did think that his obsession with finding Mr. Harvey did die kinda abruptly.

I was kinda left wondering about the authors alluding to Ray's Mothers (can't remember her name) marital unhappiness. It seemed like it was brought up a few times and then left hanging. I never could figure out it's significance in the story. What was the author trying to do with it? It just didn't seem to fit.
YES! I agree--I think her name was Ruana--anyway--I, too, thought that the author shouldn't have brought up her marital issues if she didn't plan to do much with them. I took a writing class once years ago and the prof said: anything you introduce in a text (novel, short, etc.) you need to do something with--you have to us it--don't introduce a bus if you don't plan to use it because you force your readers to carry that bus a long way. Another example of this to me was the baby photo shoot the mom came upon when she arrived at the beach on the California (I think it was) coast--why on earth spend a page about that with no connection to anything apparent?

I didn't like that the Mother came back and the whole family was back together. I kinda didn't think she deserved to be welcomed back with open arms (by the Dad if not by the kids) as cynical and mean as that sounds. Plus, I didn't understand what she left to do, but whatever it was I didn't feel like she got it done. Her return seemed just as hallow as her leaving.

I agree with this, too--I think the biggest thing here was the son swearing at her in the car and then-poof-family reassembled. Nah, didn't work for me.

See my comments in bold--I, too, am glad to have this discussion--it helps me to see that I am not alone on some thoughts and to see what others "read into" things that I didn't "see".

[limabean]

I had read Lucky first, and had heard a few interviews with Alice Sebold (who attended the UC Irvine MFA creative writing program, which my friend also attended and which Geoffrey Wolff, whose writing I love, teaches in, and so I have a soft spot for it). I tend to get swayed towards liking someone when I hear them speak about their life and their creative process, and I really liked what she had to say, so I was predisposed towards liking her writing before I ever read The Lovely Bones, and sure enough I really liked it!

I thought the descriptions of heaven were interesting, and her ability to get inside a 14yo's mind was wonderful, IMO. The terror of the murder scene completely absorbed me, and of course brought me back to that tunnel where Alice was raped and could have been killed. I was frustrated by some aspects of the family's search for the truth, but that frustration is true to life -- I've had a family member die under mysterious circumstances, and our family certainly never achieved tidy closure, as desperately as we wanted it.

[Caneel]

Originally Posted by Monarchgrrl

I didn't like the book. I read it so long ago that I can't really say why. Mostly what other's have said here. Too many loose ends and I thought the writing was poor. I wanted to stop reading it but it takes a lot for me to put down a book. I wanted to see how it would end. I read the last half of the book pretty darn fast just to get it over with.

Me too. I read it when it first came out and just didn't like it. I will not watch the movie.

A big reason why was the subject matter. I don't care how clever it is presented, what point the author is trying to make, I just don't want to read about fictional violence. Or non-fiction for that matter

[kama'aina mama]

I really hated the book and the movie.

[GranoLLLy-girl]

Originally Posted by kama'aina mama

I really hated the book and the movie.

LOL-- I think if I had hated the book that much I wouldn't have bothered with the movie!

As for the finding of Mr. Harvey--it occurred to me (when I was reflecting on some of the comments here) that Mr. Harvey was not just a murderer but a SERIAL KILLER--and based on the number of murders that the folks on earth started to attribute to him as more evidence became available, as the book went along, that it would be very unlikely that he would just disappear into oblivion. Especially when you consider the number of girls and women he killed--that would be like a Dahmer (spelling?) killer---a lot of people. If nothing else, that would be a media circus! I don't think the author took that into consideration. Had Susie been his only victim, I would probably be more likely to believe it. Anyway 2 cents...

[kama'aina mama]

Originally Posted by GranoLLLy-girl

LOL-- I think if I had hated the book that much I wouldn't have bothered with the movie!

As for the finding of Mr. Harvey--it occurred to me (when I was reflecting on some of the comments here) that Mr. Harvey was not just a murderer but a SERIAL KILLER--and based on the number of murders that the folks on earth started to attribute to him as more evidence became available, as the book went along, that it would be very unlikely that he would just disappear into oblivion. Especially when you consider the number of girls and women he killed--that would be like a Dahmer (spelling?) killer---a lot of people. If nothing else, that would be a media circus! I don't think the author took that into consideration. Had Susie been his only victim, I would probably be more likely to believe it. Anyway 2 cents...

My lover and I try to see everything that is nominated for an Academy Award, so I watched it to see Stanley Tucci's performance. Probably silly, I know.