#picoult

Rating: 3/10

First look: “Don’t judge a book by its cover” As far as sayings go this particular one is quite useless, a cover is the first thing you see of a book and as far as covers go I like this one because it’s sophisticated. Unless you’ve read the book the image doesn’t seem relevant but I think it’s a very well executed concept, it’s simple yet gives a nice message. 

Intro: The contents of this book are quite unnerving and as do most books the back tells you nothing about the actual book so for starters I’d like to  say that this book should have had trigger warnings somewhere in the front of the book, but it didn’t so I advise anyone who thinks of reading this book to be aware it has sensitive topics. 

Actual review: I like this book but I didn’t like it, although I should mention I had to read it for school so that may have made me a bit biased about that aspect of the reading. I think Jodi Picoult has set up a lot of good ideas in the book but she didn’t execute them well or she introduced an idea and never furthered it. For example I’d like to use the main character’s boyfriend, Matt Royston, as is shown throughout the novel he is abusive and manipulative towards Josie. I think Picoult had a good idea in showing he was abusive, and later revealing that it wasn’t Peter who had killed the boy but rather Josie, but she doesn’t use this information, it just sits throughout the novel and the reader knows about it but it is never revealed that any other character learns of Matt’s behavior except for Peter. With this I think she sets up a great bit of information that can be dramatically revealed to other characters at some point but instead it leaves a reader wanting for more, and not in a good way. As for other poorly executed ideas I’d like to introduce the entirety of why Peter came to school with guns that day. During the trial we see all these characters telling us why Peter did what he did but the reader never gets a look inside Peter’s head to see why he did it, it’s mostly just what the reader infers and what other characters bring up that reveal why Peter did it but never Peter and it again leaves more to be desired.

 Now, as for romance in the book.I feel the relationship between Patrick and Alex was rather forced and unnecessary. The whole story is about a school shooting and here we are with a romance between a cop and a judge, while the romance isn’t necessary to the plot I can see why Picoult includes it and that is because Josie sees Patrick as some sort of father figure I suppose, she cries on his shoulder and he finds out about something she’s kept from her mother. I suppose it’s a useful way to reveal some things but it’s not necessary and a romance really didn’t need to be included in the story. 

Lastly, I’d like to discuss the main conflict in the novel, the school shooting. I really like how this is a morally grey point of focus in the work; Peter was a victim of bullying since he started school back in kindergarten and we can see how it affects him and we can possibly sympathize with him, but it still doesn’t erase the fact that he killed ten kids and changed a community forever. As Dr.Wah brings up Peter and a battered wife have a lot in common, they both have PTSD and even when a threat is neutralized they still see it as a threat which, in my opinion, is a great and subtle way to show that you should treat people how you want to be treated. Peter’s past is what brings up the moral greyness of the school shooting, he was an outcast and a victim and in the end he did what everyone was telling him to do, he toughened up and although Peter obviously makes a very bad decision an audience can easily sympathize with him because we get to see the reasons he did hat he did and it makes sense.