posted
I just finished reading lost boys. That book is excellant. Except I have a few things to discuss with people.
Did anybody else find the story seemed to have a bit less direction than it should. It just seemed to go off in differant directions. For example, what did glass have to do with anything. Did Orson scott card just decide to put a child molester in for no apparent reason? maybe I missed something that connected the people.
It makes me wonder if the title lost boys had more to do with the book than just the lost boys. Maybe the title is refering to the the lost souls of Glass, and mrs. Jones and Sister whats her face.
Anyway, any thoughts? Comments?
Posts: 247 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think maybe those character might have been there to show why the family didn't want to stay there. Maybe some of them were there so that when they ask Step for a list of possible suspects he''l have some names to put down. It could be that all of them were "bad" people right out in the opne, while Bappy seemed so sweet, kind of saying "It's always the quiet ones" Personally I like your idea about it being more that the whole book was full of lost souls, maybe to remind the reader that all these adults who did terrible things were once as innocent as the children who went missing, like Boy was once at the beginning. Or maybe like you suggested they were there for no reason. Posts: 2332 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hm. intersting that you liked that. see, I just couldn't find a point to it. And that bothers me for some reason.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem is likely this--you're probably not a "horror" or "suspense" fiction reader. You're looking for a sci-fi style conflict, or a fantasy-style conflict, where in the first couple of pages or chapters you get a definite driving conflict to carry you through the story ("Aliens have killed two men and scattered thier organs in geometric patterns! Why?" or "A strange voice is calling me from yonder mountain! I must go find it and confont it!").
In suspense / Horror fiction, the conflict is more inside the reader. It comes from knowing, simply by the nature of the genre, that terrible things can and may happen at any moment. It infuses even simple things with terrible conflict, and gives seemingly innocent scenes far greater meaning and power.
However, if you haven't been "trained," through experience, to the convetions of the genre, you probably will find it dull. Much like someone who hasn't been "trained" in the conventions of romance (like myself) will often glance over clues, passages, and moments of sexual and/or dramatic tension that the long-time reader (like my wife) would find refreshing, or cliche, or whatever.
A horror writer could have a scene where a character goes out to the freezer in the back get some ice-cream that seems silly and extraneous to some readers, but those familiar with the conventions of the genre may recognize it as a game--they were being set up to believe a monster would be waiting there, and then there was none. The clues that made it a game would be glossed over by the unfamiliar reader.
So it could just be that the conflict in lost boys (which, although there was a certain degree of mystery element to it, was mostly suspense) was of a flavor you're not used to, and in a place you're not used to looking for conflict.
Forgive me if this isn't the case--I'm certainly not trying to cast any shadow on anybody's literacy in horror/suspense fiction. It's just a theory that does explain some cases, and may explain yours.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well I really enjoyed the story because it seemed to be just one family life, with bad things happening to them, but still just plain normal things (until the climax at the end). I can't say I know why OSC put Glass into the mix, but I really liked him (in the story, I don't appreciate most child-molesters ). I think part of it was that we see that Glass has some terrible fantasys and he's come close to playing them out (and has played them out on a smaller scale) but he isn't a monster. The real murder is what Glass could become but wassn't destined to become. He had the choice to end it, to stop what he was doing and make a valuable contribution to society. I think much of Glass's purpose in the story was summed up when Step said (thought) that he wouldn't be justified in killing Glass because it would keep him from chaning his path, it would put him permanently on the wrong road.
The book, in my opinion, is about several things. One of them is the psychology and effects of Bappy - that might be the main conflict, in the previously referenced sense. I feel like a majority of the book, though, gives us the milieu in which Step & Co. live. This takes them from being plot vehicles (unconnected adolescents, whatever their age) into being people who are "real". This book is like an _Anna Karenina_ in that sense - a lot of throwaway facts and characters that don't seem to matter... until they do. I cite _Anna_ because both are books whose characters I wind up caring deeply about. I can't feel the same about, say, Ender, or Gandalf. When I weep at the end of Lost Boys, it's because I feel and love the people who are 'suffering'. I think much of that is due to the Dickys and Dolores and Mrs. Joneses and Glasses in the book (who all, BTW, had little to do with the "plot").
Sometimes a book has a great deal to say and many plot points to get through. Main characters and necessary associated characters are all that one has time for. Lost Boys is simple, plot-wise. Step moves, has problems. Serial killer is on the loose, Stevie communicates with the murdered, and dies himself. All are sad. Finite. 70 pages, max. And, frankly, it's been done a million times. The distinctive beauty of LB lies elsewhere. Read it again and try to pick it up. Take some time - it's not a race.
quote: A horror writer could have a scene where a character goes out to the freezer in the back get some ice-cream that seems silly and extraneous to some readers, but those familiar with the conventions of the genre may recognize it as a game--they were being set up to believe a monster would be waiting there, and then there was none. The clues that made it a game would be glossed over by the unfamiliar reader.
The thing was, in lost boys, he had entire plot lines going on only to drop off a cliff while one kept going. It just doesn't make sense to me.
Its true, it was about a family going through hard times, but if that in fact the main plot, then it wasn't consistant. All of a sudden it changed into something about murderers. He didn't end it as a family coming out of hard times or all dying to there hard times, it was something completely differant.
Anyway, those who didn't read my post carefully, I quote myself "I thought the book was excellant".
Mind you, there was probably more errors the first time I said it.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Its true, it was about a family going through hard times, but if that in fact the main plot, then it wasn't consistant. All of a sudden it changed into something about murderers. He didn't end it as a family coming out of hard times or all dying to there hard times, it was something completely differant.
Then again most people that have a family member murdered don't have lifes that are closely linked to murder. It kind of comes out of the blue, well hopefuly anyways.
posted
I read LB after reading the short story by the same name. The short story gave me the same sense of dread and sadness, but I didn't understand how people who are caring and careful could "lose" a boy until I read the book.
For me the sadness was in the way they lost their son long before he died. I read all the separate plot lines as examples of the conscerns the parents had to face that took their attention away from their eldest, yet modelled how a responsible person should approach challenges. It helped explain how the parents "lost" the ability to mold his world into a safe perfect place by encouraging his independent thought.
I believe that the parents thought that the best way to "protect" the son was by making sure that he could trust his own inner voice and faith. Of course, doing this meant letting him go. He made decisions, he was noble, he was loyal, he battled to protect those who couldn't protect themselves. It's easy to believe this child would behave this way after having read through the subplots of how his parents approached their own challenges.
I also felt that the subplots gave me a sense that "Bappy" wasn't the only thing the parents had to protect their children from. They had to protect them from overbearing authority figures, "friends", destructive thinking, being hit by a car, poor health, etc. There was no choice but to continue living after their son died. They couldn't sit back and say, "Well, the bad guy's in jail now. We can afford to wallow in our grief." There was still so much work to do; so much to teach their children; so many good memories and so much love to embrace. The subplots gave me a perspective on the family's approach to the loss of a son that I would have never had. I felt a great sadness, but also a celebration that he was not just a "lost boy" but a man who had found his own voice.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
). I think part of it was that we see that Glass has some terrible fantasys and he's come close to playing them out (and has played them out on a smaller scale) but he isn't a monster. The real murder is what Glass could become but wassn't destined to become. He had the choice to end it, to stop what he was doing and make a valuable contribution to society. I think much of Glass's purpose in the story was summed up when Step said (thought) that he wouldn't be justified in killing Glass because it would keep him from chaning his path, it would put him permanently on the wrong road.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
