Two days ago it was Mothers’ Day. I was halfway through We Need To Talk About Kevin. While friends posted happily on Facebook about their special day celebrating the unique love between a mother and her children, my mind was full of the ‘worst case scenario’.

I had been warned by someone that the book was mostly boring until the end when it was horrific. Someone else told me that that the book was hard work until the last third. But, only halfway through on Sunday, I was affected enough to have a nightmare that night influenced by what I’d read so far.

‘Kevin’ is one of the best books I’ve read. With the exception of the mentions of American politics, I didn’t find it hard work. It’s powerful, disturbing and convincing. Although it’s extreme, I’m grateful that someone has written about motherhood without censoring the unpleasant parts. I get tired of the flawless depictions of motherhood in society and the media. This book is a breath of fresh air.

To try to answer the book’s central question of who was to blame: I think that the problems started because Eva was not willing to deal with a difficult child by putting that child before herself. Yes, Kevin was unpleasant but as a potential parent you have to be prepared to deal with that. (But it’s easy for me to say that since I’m not a parent.) The interactions between Eva and Kevin became a hideous game rather than a mother bringing up her son. I don’t think that that absolves Kevin of all responsibilty for his actions though- even if you’re not as bright as he is, at fifteen you must know, no matter how awful your mother is, that it is wrong to kill.

The most chilling aspect of the book is that Eva is so intelligent and articulate, charming even, but her actions are manipulative and selfish. Kevin takes after his mother, so which of them is the monster?

Lionel Shriver talked about the book for the Guardian book club when ‘Kevin’ was the book of the month.

(12th in 2012)

I read this book twice; as soon as I reached the end I started it again. The story flits between past and present and is narrated by different characters. Sometimes the same segment of the story is told by different characters. On the first reading I was kept wondering what the connections are between the past and the present. On the second reading, knowing how things turn out, it was delicious to discover all the clues left by the author en route. There is so much stuffed into this book: memories, happenings in the present and loads of characters. An added bonus is that the book is set in Cambridge and the area surrounding it; most of the places mentioned are familiar to me.

This is the first Kate Atkinson novel that I’ve read. I was impressed at how well the characters, particularly the females, are written. They all seem so real, possibly with the exception of Julia who is completely OTT. They are of all ages and temperaments and I was glad to read a book about women and it is definitely a book about women, in spite of the main character being male. I loved KA’s liberal use of echoes between different characters, which adds further connections between the interweaving plot strands. A few examples: Baking and knitting are done by both Michelle and Josie (after she took up with David). Brodie and Caroline independently don’t believe in ‘The One’ and think even if such a person existed they might never find them. Rosemary and Theo both have a favourite among their children.

So this book certainly held my attention, right through till the end. However, as a mystery, I don’t think it’s as good as some of the others I’ve read and loved, e.g. Gentlemen and Players by Joanne Harris and even The Behaviour of Moths by Poppy Adams. Case Histories isn’t particularly atmospheric so I wasn’t able to get completely lost in it, though I think it will lend itself well to the TV adaptation, which I look forward to watching. The only other downside was that I wasn’t satisfied with the conclusion to two of the three cases. One seemed highly improbable, the other seemed like a a bit of a cop out. Apart from that, a decent read and I hope to watch the programme if it’s repeated.

(11th in 2012)

This is a deeply unpleasant story. It’s about an alcoholic, drug-addled sex maniac. His sexual encounters and his neglect of his son after his wife’s suicide are simply awful. But there is something compulsive about the writing that kept me turning the pages and completing the book in a weekend. Cave takes the reader on a horrfic, unreal rollercoaster ride. The slow bits are those narrated by Bunny’s son and they are touching and heartbreaking. The book reminded me of Irvine Welsh’s Filth: a depraved journey in which, to the relief of the reader, the protagonist finally gets what he deserves.

The book has its own website and the Guardian interviewed Cave about the audiobook version to which he wrote a soundtrack. The audiobook sounds very interesting but, for now at least, I think I’d like to leave Bunny for something a little less horrible.

(10th in 2012)

I finished reading this book while sitting at the bar last night. Like Cold Mountain, The Sisters Brothers is set in America in the 1800s, only a little earlier (1851) so it seems natural to compare the two books. The Sisters Brothers is also something of an odyssey with lessons learned along the way but on a much smaller scale than in Cold Mountain. The mood is lighter too. Not that there aren’t some humourous moments in Cold Mountain, but there is less continual hardship and hunger in The Sisters Brothers.

This book is very easy to read. The story is fast-paced and swept me along with it. There are a few wonderful, thought-provoking passages which slowed me down a little. I think Cold Mountain trumps it in terms of scale and atmosphere but The Sisters Brothers is just as satisfactory a tale.

(9th in 2012)

I picked this up in the library because I had seen it reviewed on The TV Book Club. It is very easy to read and the references to modern middle class life are quite funny. But, although it passed the time, I can’t recommend this as a good read. Apart from all the mentions of blood it feels like it’s written for children, albeit older ones. It’s unconvincing somehow. Seems silly to be saying that since it’s about vampires, but The Time Traveller’s Wife is convincing and time travel is a fantasy too.

EDIT: Just found out it is in fact for teenagers from the Guardian’s review.

(8th in 2012)