posted
So, some women at my church were doing a book study on My Sister's Keeper by Jodi Picoult. I wasn't a part of it, but one of them recommended the book to me so I read it.
The premise: Kate was diagnosed with a form of leukemia when she was two. Her parents undergo genetic evaluation and in vitro fertilization to produce another daughter (Anna) who is a donor match for Kate. Anna's cord blood puts Kate into remission, but a few years later she relapses. Several other transplants are required over the years to treat Kate, including a bone marrow transplant. Now, Kate's kidneys have failed, and the family wants Anna (now 13) to donate one of hers. She sues her family for medical emancipation.
I'll save the topic of Picoult's writing choices for the writing forums. Here, I'm most interested in discussing the issues and events of the story.
*SPOILERS*
I felt cheated by the ending. Anna has won medical emancipation, so she can now choose whether she's going to donate a kidney or not. If she doesn't, Kate will die. There is a huge choice with serious consequences ahead of her. And then Picoult does the easy thing and kills her in a car accident so that the choice doesn't have to be made anymore. I was so disgusted. I mean, if a family really was in that situation, they can't exactly hope for a car accident to happen at just the right moment so that they don't have to take responsibilty for their choice.
posted
I also felt like the ending pulled the rug out from under everything that came before.
But... I actually enjoyed the book a lot anyway. It was well written and well done. Except for the ending. And I'm a Heinlein fan, so I've had a lot of practice enjoying excellent books despite their lame endings.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's been about a year since I read it, but... I think Picoult thought that, by including the prologue, which suddenly makes sense when you have read the ending, she was avoiding a deus ex machina situation.
She wasn't. I hated the ending, and it totally ruined the book for me. What was the point of going through all of that with the family when the author had a lame trick like that up her sleeve the whole time?
I do like Picoult's writing, while I'm reading it, but somehow after I've finished the book I'm always left with a slightly bitter aftertaste. Yet I still keep reading them...
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because we will be left unsure of the choice that she might have made, and it allows the discussion about the issues raised to continue while also showing the importance of organ donation?
quote:we will be left unsure of the choice that she might have made
But IMHO, Picoult might as well have just ended the book with Anna walking out of the court room, wondering what she would decide to do. She would have won her freedom, but now it would be her own responsibility to decide whether or not to save her sister. The melodramatic ending seemed to be there just for the sake of a 'twist'.
Bearing in mind that I actually enjoyed 'The Village', it takes a pretty serious ex machina situation to annoy me. Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right....It did raise other issues though, about organ donation, and was a very ironic ending, which could have been the whole point of the book.
Often I find that when I write a story the beginning and the ending seem evident to me right away...and are often the ideas that make me want to write the story in the first place!
The middle is where I tend to get suprised. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
