Sarah's Reviews > The Lovely Bones
The Lovely Bones
by
by
![48216](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1392259462p2/48216.jpg)
The Lovely Bones has got to be the most baffling, poorly written, jaw-droppingly bad book that I have ever set my eyes on. It is truly a black, black tragedy that the words in this book were placed in that particular order, published, and distributed. How could this have ever possibly been popular? Is it for the same reason that the song “My Humps” hit number one? I mean, I don’t technically believe in burning books, but this novel really got me thinking. About burning it.
If it serves any use at all, it might be a perfect guide on how not to write a book. Here are some of my gripes, problems and issues that we can hopefully use to prevent something like this from ever happening again to us, our children, or our children’s children:
It is filled with some of the worst sentence-level writing that I have ever encountered. From bad description to horrible grammar to utterly confusing metaphors, Sebold covered it all. A tell-tale way to spot a weak writer? They can’t stop weirdly describing people’s eyes. Don’t believe me? Try this sentence: “Her eyes were like flint and flower petals.” Or this one: “The tears came like a small relentless army approaching the front lines of her eyes. She asked for coffee and toast in a restaurant and buttered it with her tears.” Really? She buttered the coffee and toast with her tears? Or this one, this time about someone’s heart: “Her heart, like a recipe, was reduced.” What the hell?
And here’s my favorite eye description in the book: “Her pupils dilated, pulsing in and out like small, ferocious olives.” That’s right. Ferocious olives. I’ve read MadLibs that make more sense than that.
It seems to lack a plot. You know, that thing that books are supposed to have. I’ll never forget my first workshop with Brady Udall, in which he threw my story onto the table and said, “This isn’t a story, Sarah, it’s a situation.” And as much as I despaired when I got home, he was right. Sebold has the same problem: her book is a really long situation. A girl dies and watches her family from heaven. Okay. That’s nice. But what do the characters want? What drives the story forward? Nothing. The characters get older and keep bumping into each other. Things change, and things often do, but there is no forward movement and certainly no building of suspense.
Since there’s no plot, the ending is just a bunch of weird stuff happening. I read the last thirty pages on the train this morning, and couldn’t stop a few outbursts: “Oh, no she didn’t!” I’d say, talking to Alice Sebold and her crazy ways. She is just plain bold when it comes to doing whatever she feels like, and she feels like doing the weirdest stuff ever. It’s not that I don’t want to write spoilers here, it’s that I can’t even explain to you what happened at the end of the book. And I bet she can’t either. I’m not exaggerating.
Her characters never have interesting or complex thoughts. Not even the serial killer or the mother whose daughter was murdered. It seems that Sebold’s characters do one of two things: they laugh (which means they are happy) or cry (to butter their toast, somehow, when they are sad). As you might guess, there is a lot of laughing and crying in this book. When a character is confused, they laugh and cry at the same time. This also happens often.
I feel a little better after venting. But I’m still deeply sad and angry. I feel like my own writing might have been permanently damaged by reading this book… like a couple of… ferocious… olives?
If it serves any use at all, it might be a perfect guide on how not to write a book. Here are some of my gripes, problems and issues that we can hopefully use to prevent something like this from ever happening again to us, our children, or our children’s children:
It is filled with some of the worst sentence-level writing that I have ever encountered. From bad description to horrible grammar to utterly confusing metaphors, Sebold covered it all. A tell-tale way to spot a weak writer? They can’t stop weirdly describing people’s eyes. Don’t believe me? Try this sentence: “Her eyes were like flint and flower petals.” Or this one: “The tears came like a small relentless army approaching the front lines of her eyes. She asked for coffee and toast in a restaurant and buttered it with her tears.” Really? She buttered the coffee and toast with her tears? Or this one, this time about someone’s heart: “Her heart, like a recipe, was reduced.” What the hell?
And here’s my favorite eye description in the book: “Her pupils dilated, pulsing in and out like small, ferocious olives.” That’s right. Ferocious olives. I’ve read MadLibs that make more sense than that.
It seems to lack a plot. You know, that thing that books are supposed to have. I’ll never forget my first workshop with Brady Udall, in which he threw my story onto the table and said, “This isn’t a story, Sarah, it’s a situation.” And as much as I despaired when I got home, he was right. Sebold has the same problem: her book is a really long situation. A girl dies and watches her family from heaven. Okay. That’s nice. But what do the characters want? What drives the story forward? Nothing. The characters get older and keep bumping into each other. Things change, and things often do, but there is no forward movement and certainly no building of suspense.
Since there’s no plot, the ending is just a bunch of weird stuff happening. I read the last thirty pages on the train this morning, and couldn’t stop a few outbursts: “Oh, no she didn’t!” I’d say, talking to Alice Sebold and her crazy ways. She is just plain bold when it comes to doing whatever she feels like, and she feels like doing the weirdest stuff ever. It’s not that I don’t want to write spoilers here, it’s that I can’t even explain to you what happened at the end of the book. And I bet she can’t either. I’m not exaggerating.
Her characters never have interesting or complex thoughts. Not even the serial killer or the mother whose daughter was murdered. It seems that Sebold’s characters do one of two things: they laugh (which means they are happy) or cry (to butter their toast, somehow, when they are sad). As you might guess, there is a lot of laughing and crying in this book. When a character is confused, they laugh and cry at the same time. This also happens often.
I feel a little better after venting. But I’m still deeply sad and angry. I feel like my own writing might have been permanently damaged by reading this book… like a couple of… ferocious… olives?
3551 likes · Like
∙
flag
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
The Lovely Bones.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
Started Reading
September 1, 2007
–
Finished Reading
September 24, 2007
– Shelved
Comments Showing 1-50 of 518 (518 new)
message 1:
by
Pdxstacey
(last edited Aug 25, 2016 12:41PM)
(new)
Sep 24, 2007 03:50PM
![Pdxstacey](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1184127817p1/135907.jpg)
reply
|
flag
![Nikki](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1196557191p1/602540.jpg)
you GO girl
you are "off the hook" my darling!
(i know- let's bring them camping the next time you go for a buck- we'll make a party of it!)
![Paul Bryant](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1224113172p1/416390.jpg)
![Ruth](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1718806531p1/335159.jpg)
But Sarah darling, it's the restaurant she's buttering with her tears.
R
![Phillip](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1442465222p1/385180.jpg)
So the point of the diatribe was? What we can learn from Brady Udall that Alice Seabold missed?
Can we start a book group just for artistes and hiss all over those books that entertained thousands if not millions of poor folks because they (the books not the unwashed by workshops) were emotional, had heart and were not pretentious smoldering piles of large warm words?
Sarah, have you considered sueing Sebold for possibly damaging your blogging skills? Maybe the new writers group could all chip in for a good attorney.
And for good measure, I liked "Lucky" too.
![Sarah](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1392259462p1/48216.jpg)
I like tons and tons of mainstream and best-selling writers - why do you think I was reading the Lovely Bones in the first place? Try looking at the other books I've read or, I don't know, perhaps getting to know me, before you break out works like "pretentious." I love pulp crime, pulp horror, chick lit, and science fiction in addition to the classics and more literary picks.
However, despite my love of similar authors, I consider this book a piece of crap. I'll forgive mediocre writing if the plot is moving or the characters or memorable and vice versa. But if the book has absolutely nothing to offer, like this one, I'm not sure why I shouldn't warn others.
Finally, when it comes down to it, my disliking books is based on MY OPINION and you liking books is based on YOUR OPINION. Have you ever thought that it is possible that one person could like an author and another person could dislike an author and both people could be "right"? It's called having different tastes. And writing book reviews is about sharing OUR DIFFERING OPINIONS.
![Paul Bryant](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1224113172p1/416390.jpg)
![Vicki](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1583265847p1/627764.jpg)
Thank you for my first real laugh of the morning. I don't think I will ever look at olives in quite the same way again.
![Ruth](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1718806531p1/335159.jpg)
R
![Sarah](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1392259462p1/48216.jpg)
And - I finished the book because I finish every book I start. I guess it's a habit.
Ruth - good point! it's baffling in so many ways!
Victoria - thanks.
![Paul Bryant](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1224113172p1/416390.jpg)
![Ben Fowlkes](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1279290583p1/49229.jpg)
Boom. The person who wrote that sentence is not a person who is paying attention to their own writing. The fact that it "entertained thousands if not millions" is not really a defense, either.
This book didn't have heart; it had overblown sentimentality. They aren't the same thing. It was also wildly inconsistent within the world of the narrative. One minute she's in everybody's head and on the FACING PAGE she's wondering what someone is thinking. That's basic shit, there. If you can't keep your own narrative world consistent, what can you do? Entertain millions, I guess.
![Lesley](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1374952997p1/428585.jpg)
As far as I'm concerned, here's the thing: this book seems like it would be profound or emotionally complex because it's narrated by a raped and murdered teenager. That it's not actually complex but rather exceedingly simple and trite I think gets little bit lost in the emotionally-charged (and tantalizingly macabre) subject matter.
But, whatever, not everyone cares about complexity and nuanced tragedy. Sometimes people just want a quick emotional fix or an easy, easy, page-turning read. And there’s nothing wrong with that. That's totally fine. I love that shit, myself, and I imagine Sarah loves it, too, sometimes. I think where it gets a little tacky is where the two (quick and easy vs. nuanced tragedy) get conflated based on an appeal to our emotions. I think a story about the brutal rape and murder of a teenage girl ought not be sentimental and quick. And I happen to think The Lovely Bones, with its overly simplistic description of character motivations and its extensive description of heaven, is sentimental and quick.
That said, I think whether you're reading The Lovely Bones on an airplane, a lazy Sunday morning, or with a critical eye (a writer’s eye or otherwise) makes all the difference (why do I keep talking about eyes? Damn you Sebold!). If you're reading it on the airplane, for example, you might well love it because it's super easy to read but the subject matter lets you feel a little bit like you might be reading something important. If you're reading it critically, however, you're probably going to end up feeling a little bit violated because when you scratch the surface of this horrible story looking for a core, you find there is nothing much of substance underneath.
![Jessica](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1289534648p1/419287.jpg)
Anyway, I've never read anything by this writer, but everything I've heard about her books has made them sound horrible. The Times reviewer basically threw up all over her newest book, and then published his vomit-stained copy as a sort of warning to us all. People really seem to hate her stuff, but I guess some other people really seem to like it, and to get their panties in a real twist if anyone makes any unkind comments about her writing abilities. I guess Fergie has a lot of fans also, though I wonder if they're equally loyal, or equally unpleasant.
Wow! Anyway, I'm really starting to hate this site. At first I liked it because it seemed so sweet and dorky, but seeing people get so nasty all the time is very depressing. I feel like there are many more appropriate forums for people to blow off steam by being rude and insulting to people they don't even know. Sigh. Oh well....
[edited to preserve civility]
![Paul Bryant](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1224113172p1/416390.jpg)
I just finished The Poisonwood Bible, however, and I'm *not* posting a real review of that one as I know it would call down upon my innocent head great Goodreadin' wrath, imprecations, curses and meditations on the dubious nature of my parentage. So I guess you need to qualify honesty with the knowledge that many people - especially we may say the passionate bookreaders of Goodreads - take their favourite books very personally and if someone writes "you must be an idiot/misogynist/nazi if you like this stuff" - as i have done - they feel somewhat ruffled and they bite back.
I take that to be the nature of debate everywhere, so Jessica, don't leave us.
![Lesley](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1374952997p1/428585.jpg)
![Sarah](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1392259462p1/48216.jpg)
NC - I can't say I like your attitude, but I'll try to keep an open mind... we have Oscar Wilde and Annie Proulx in common - perhaps we should try to get off on a better start.
![Charity](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1614437330p1/129343.jpg)
![Dana](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1202606878p1/891489.jpg)
![Paul Bryant](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1224113172p1/416390.jpg)
Whilst I'm a big fan of Sarah's review I'd like to ask if Brady Udall's comment is especially meaningful, having read many modern short stories and novels in which plot (story) is nonexistent and situation is everything. For instance, every story in Joyce's Dubliners describes a situation, not a lot actually happens.
![David](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1345482402p1/166376.jpg)
Paul - I disagree with your comment about the utility/necessity of plot. If someone writes a novel and expects to hold my interest as a reader, then something had better happen. True for short stories as well, for that matter*. And, without having specific examples at hand, other than "The Dead", I would argue that it is a mischaracterization of Joyce's stories to say that not a lot happens. Of course, since I live my life way too much in my head, I do consider stuff that takes place in a character's head to be legitimate "action". Emotional volcanic eruptions generally being more interesting than the geological kind.
*: Probably the reason I tend to have difficulty liking 'short short stories'. Which usually are more about demonstrating the author's 'cleverness' than anything else.
![Paul Bryant](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1224113172p1/416390.jpg)
![Lesley](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1374952997p1/428585.jpg)
In my fascist state, I would outlaw the drawing of even the most vague and tenuous comparisons between James Joyce and Alice Sebold. Effective immediately.
![Karen](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1273123803p1/145335.jpg)
![GB](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1535234491p1/564956.jpg)
![Paul Bryant](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1224113172p1/416390.jpg)
![Jessica](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1289534648p1/419287.jpg)
Actually, Georgia's written some pretty good reviews herself. At least, I think she wrote them. One can't ever be sure with you guys.
![Ainsley](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1195355490p1/626832.jpg)
![Kate Zirkle](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1583513736p1/974461.jpg)
And you know what, don't worry about the people on here who post comments containing personal, needless digs at you because "those who hurt... are hurting" as in you should just shake your head and feel bad for them.
![Christine](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1202426995p1/886298.jpg)
Will look forward to reading more of your write-ups in the future. This one was fun to read!
Good review...and funny. Reminds me of my reaction to Valley of the Dolls years ago. After ten pages and then tossing it in the trash where it belonged I said how can she actually SELL this crap, and why would anyone read it?
![Paul Bryant](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1224113172p1/416390.jpg)
"If you haven't read this book, I suggest you quit dicking around on the internet and do absolutely whatever it takes to snag yourself a copy this instant. Granted it's probably not for everyone, but I gotta tell you, this is seriously among THE MOST VASTLY ENTERTAINING books I have ever read in my life. "
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
![Lorraine](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1186165454p1/229794.jpg)
![Anna](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1676047832p1/339759.jpg)
And I really hated this book too. Utter trash.
![Brian](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1494980137p1/763505.jpg)
![Brian](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1494980137p1/763505.jpg)
![Carolina](https://cdn.statically.io/img/s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/f_25x33-d79c46f9428d2aea1444d67c091766a6.png)
![Ruth](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1718806531p1/335159.jpg)
R
![Glenda Burgess](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1529605412p1/372173.jpg)
![Patty](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1310059607p1/945840.jpg)
![Julie](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1518107210p1/1066511.jpg)
Having said that, everyone is entitled to their opinion and everyone can feel free to go on hating the book, or really liking it. :)
![Paul Bryant](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1224113172p1/416390.jpg)
![Ruth](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1718806531p1/335159.jpg)
Writing well from the POV of a 13 year old does not mean writing like a 13 year old. It means handling language so that we are swept into the mind of a 13 year old, and are not distracted clumsy writing, cliches, or confused by sentences that don't make sense, or bothered by metaphors that just don't work.
R