J.P.

[Peppermill]

---

m3girl wrote:

Yes, I do agree. It seems like each one of her family members and close friends carries some feelings of responsibility for her disappearance and death - whether it is justified or not. Sometimes people get into trouble regardless of what their family or friends do or would have done...and sometimes they are the victim of a random act of violence. The thing that makes me feel so unsettled about the ending is that I still do not know what happened to Kim...and I want to know - I need to have that resolved. Perhaps in an epilogue. There have been some interesting (however short lived - but don't get me started on that) television shows where they show what really happened after the trial and the verdict - sometimes the verdict is accurate and sometimes it is not. I would have liked something like that at the end - so I would have some resolution. The family may never know but the reader should.

Susan

---

Isn't it a part of the awfulness of stories like these that sometimes the "truth" is NEVER known? And, yes, certainly there are other stories than the one in which we participate here.

[HannibalCat]

I guess what I mean is that I was able to read this book and interpret it my way (kinda like Frankie Blue Eyes). I wouldn't call it deception, rather interpretation. A writer can't be a mind reader, neither can the reader. So, speaking for myself, I saw it as if I were experiencing it, and the emotion was as I would feel emotionally. I'm probably still not saying this the way I want to, but its the best I can explain what I meant.

One member of our group has a tag line that says everyone reads a different book?? (everyone reads a book differently??). Vive la difference!

---

Peppermill wrote:
HannibalCat -- please distinguish between wanting the story to be "emotional" versus wanting to understand the feelings and the emotions of the characters, rather than having to guess or intuit them primarily or solely from their actions. Some of us have been trained that it is very important to not deceive ourselves into being mind readers, and we carry that over into our book reading habits. We don't necessarily want the story to be "more emotional."-- it might actually be less than our projections would tend to sway it.

Pepper

---

HannibalCat wrote:
KxBurns wrote:

It's subtle but I think we are left with some indication of how things turn out for each character, and I found it was just enough information for me. What do you think? Satisfying, or would you rather know more?



KxBurns, that's it in a nutshell. That's exactly how I feel about O'Nan's writing. Reader's talk about how it is not emotional enough for them. I know, I know - even those that are saying it is emotional, but not connecting enough. It is those little, subtle scenes where O'Nan makes his connections. It is just enough for me, too. I think I get more out of those kinds of scenes than pages of explanations. I have read Last Night --, Circus fire, and Songs. They are all similar in this writing style. I cried reading Circus Fire. How much more emotional should it be! I love his style and I will definitely read more of his books.

---

Message Edited by Peppermill on 06-23-2008 11:51 AM

---

[Peppermill]

---

HannibalCat wrote:
I guess what I mean is that I was able to read this book and interpret it my way (kinda like Frankie Blue Eyes). I wouldn't call it deception, rather interpretation. A writer can't be a mind reader, neither can the reader. So, speaking for myself, I saw it as if I were experiencing it, and the emotion was as I would feel emotionally. I'm probably still not saying this the way I want to, but its the best I can explain what I meant.

One member of our group has a tag line that says everyone reads a different book?? (everyone reads a book differently??). Vive la difference!

---

Peppermill wrote:
HannibalCat -- please distinguish between wanting the story to be "emotional" versus wanting to understand the feelings and the emotions of the characters, rather than having to guess or intuit them primarily or solely from their actions. Some of us have been trained that it is very important to not deceive ourselves into being mind readers, and we carry that over into our book reading habits. We don't necessarily want the story to be "more emotional."-- it might actually be less than our projections would tend to sway it.
Pepper

---

---

Interpretation is probably the better word, Hannibal. It is clearly time for me to stop harping about this particular aspect of O'Nan's writing. I do agree that SFTM can be quite satisfying if one is willing to interpret the characters from their actions -- in fact, I think that is one reason that I liked the novel. As O'Nan said at one point, he had to understand his characters well enough to decide what they would do, given the possibilities. My own gut reaction was that he did that very well. Nonetheless, perhaps I have been over-trained recently to listen for more than actions alone, however much actions may speak louder than words.