Apr. 25, 2003 - 23:05:11
Dear Vincent,
I took one of my beat up travel notebooks with me when I went South this week. I am aware that should I not bring my notebook, I will have something I itch to write in it. Should I bring my notebook, all, and any, subjects that may prove worthy of being written will elude me. Sitting up Wednesday night I was jotting some things down when I realized it was the first time I'd actually, physically written something in a long time. I've become a rather rapid typist and the convenience certainly affects utilization. I marvel a how in the course of a year I went from loathing computers to becoming so reliant on one to write. It occurred to me, that in essence anything I type is very much like writing letters in the sand. Inevitably, they will vanish and there will be no evidence to prove any of things I've written will have ever existed. One slight slip on my part and entire pages vanish simply because I didn't click save. Admittedly, it unnerved me slightly that I have no hard copy of anything I've written recently. Upon arriving home I found a new ribbon for my typewriter and I plan on doing my writing on that for a bit. Not that paper provides a much more permanent guarantee. Maybe the Egyptians were right... stone's the way to go.
The Lovely Bones. I had to sift through the household chaos to find my copy. It turned up teasingly on my bookshelf downstairs. Exactly where I suspected it wouldn't be. I finished a while ago so you'll have to give me a little time to warm up to the dialogue Vincent. When I read it, I read it for sheer enjoyment, and I must confess I rather neglected to begin analysis in my head. (This is not to imply that I do not enjoy analysis.) In any case, I am sitting here with the book on my lap, and will do my best.
Something I've been turning over in my head is the significance of Susie's name. Many great authors name their characters with character clues. To step back to previous literary endeavors- Dickens does it. From Hawthorne and Fitzgerald to more modern authors like J.K. Rowling, and Gail Carson Levine. It's done in movies too, (one of which happens to be 'The Great Race.') So, maybe Sebold intended to suggest something in naming her characters the way she did, maybe not- but I look for it all the same. I wondered about the name 'Susie' pretty continuously. All through grade school whenever the teacher wanted to give an example she'd use one of several people; Joe Smo, Jane, John, Susie, Tommy etc. Many people associate 'Susie' as something of an 'example name'. It equates to 'Joe' really well. I often wonder if Sebold was trying to suggest the idea of 'Susie' as 'anyone.' As in, it could happen to anyone, this could be anyone's family grieving. Much more a stretch would be Susie's mother's name- 'Abigail.' Abigail being the classic crazed temptress from Miller's "The Crucible." It's all sort of interesting to turn over in my head.
Harvey's death was highly far fetched- but so was the whole novel. While you got the sense that Sebold was just trying to wrap the story up, I was rather left with the sense that she was not just trying to wrap it up, but she was trying to wrap it up as prettily as possible. I got the impression that she felt she had to somehow make things alright for the reader. If Harvey is not to come to justice in human hands than the next logical conclusion is to knock him off. The question is, was Harvey killed obscurely, spectacularly or both? Killed obscurely- "unwatched, unloved, unbidden" even by Susie, the girl he murdered. Killed spectacularly- how many people do you know who have been thrown off balance into a ravine by an icicle? I am almost inclined to say it is a fitting death for Harvey. He dies and no one notices. You mention the author's indifferent tone in describing Harvey's death. But if her intention is to give him no more credit than he deserves by dying in obscurity- then her tone is beautifully and brilliantly justified. Perhaps Sebold is attempting to match her tone to how she feels Harvey should come to justice- in obscurity. Death by icicle may refute this hypothesis though. Or perhaps the icicle is not meant to be slightly spectacular at all- perhaps it is meant to imply that the powers that be have a part in his demise.
I also think Susie's focus is masterfully crafted. Your wrote, Vincent, that you found your interest in the characters waned along with Susie's. Sebold wrapped you into her character. She wove the same spell with my interest. During the first third of the book I was intensely concentrated on the 'catching' of Harvey. The very thought of such a vile man getting away sickened me. By the end of the novel, like Susie, I found my attentions had wandered from Harvey. I was only mildly interested in what would happen to him, and if and when, if ever he would come to justice. Harvey is the original antagonist- but he is not the only, nor is he the most important. Therefore, it was almost natural that my interest died. Never the less I was impressed by how my emotional interest in the characters seemed to parallel Susie's.
Like you Vincent, I was thrown completely off stride by the Ruth/Susie switch (and I have in fact, seen 'Freaky Friday' and used to be a big Jodie Foster fan). This is where Sebold tried to end it prettily I think. Her mistake was not to end the book, but to end it nicely. She's trying to make the reader feel better about what happened to Susie. Trying to get rid of those 'bad' feelings of un fulfillment and getting cheated. Shouldn't Susie have something to keep her happy for all eternity? So Sebold throws in the switch. I'm not entirely sure how, if it is Sebold's intention, this incident is supposed to make me feel better. It didn't. If anything, I was left with the impression that one single event, Susie's murder, will preside over the rest of Ruth and Ray's lives. They will always be isolated because of it. And I find that tragic. Awful things happen- but people get through them. In the act of making us feel better about Ray and Ruth, I think Sebold heedlessly condemns them. She should have left Susie to continue to live the rest of her 'life' vicariously.
And then there's the sinkhole. I think Sebold really clutters up the story. The boats in bottles, the sinkhole, the little poem ("we all know who Susie misses..."), the red scarf, the picture, the razors and knives- Vincent, there's just so much stuff that has symbolic meaning and plot significance. It almost detracts from the characters struggles. I found myself sidetracked and slightly annoyed by the overkill in significant stuff. Then again, there were times when I appreciated it, if only because life is very like that.
But I will not talk about the whole book in an entire night, much to your relief. I should mention that I adored the poetry of Sebold's writing and that I enjoy pondering the plot intricacies even though sometimes they lost me.
I'm not going to buy the new Fleetwood Mac c.d. either. Though, it's mostly just because I don't really like the new song.
*"Destined to become a classic,"
Meghan
*This is one of the rave reviews printed on the back of my copy of "The Lovely Bones." It's Anna Quindlen.
what they said - what they will say
