My Sister's Keeper (Hardcover)

1. Too many voices. No, I'm not dumb; I could follow the story. However, while some of the voices used are valid, others feel forced and are hard to really care about. Do we really need seven people telling the story?

2. Flat or unlikeable characters. I really didn't care too much about anyone in this book.

3. Huge stretches! (I'll leave it at that).

4. The worst ending ever! (No spoiler). I usually like her twists. I sort of predicted this one except that it came so late I began to doubt myself. However, it came out of nowhere and was too abrupt. Also, it was too simplistic.

So, in short, Jodi picked a great topic, and it was still interesting; however, she fell short in many areas this time.

Anna was born with a distinct purpose. To be a genetic donor for her sister Kate, who has a rare disease. At age thirteen, when her family schedules a kidney transplant without her consent, Anna takes them to court. Bad, unrealistic courtroom drama ensues (In a case like this, where she's basically accused of infringing upon Anna's human rights, her mother Sara shouldn't represent herself, even with a law degree), and honesty is sacrificed for more wooden metaphors.

Picoult tries too hard with said metaphors. At one point, about to testify, Anna looks at her skirt, and notices that it is unraveling a bit. 'Perhaps I will unravel the whole thing' she says. As if we couldn't tell that the unraveling skirt was a symbol of the story about to be told. Either Picoult thinks we're all idiots, or she's trying way too hard to be deep.

The story is told from multiple viewpoints; Anna, her mother, lawyers, etc. Instead of giving us everyone's feelings, it just leaves us confused. The author changes fonts to indicate another person speaking, as if that makes it easier. The result is that no character becomes truly fleshed out.

Probably my biggest gripe is the fact that Picoult chooses to go for 'heart wrenching' melodramatic metaphor over honest emotion. Honesty wins every time, but apparently the author doesn't know that. The greatest example is the big surprise at the end of the book. I can't say what happens, but it relates to a choice Anna's mother makes, and how quickly she makes that choice. Any mother put in the position Sara finds herself in would behave in a different, more human manner. But no, Picoult chooses to 'try to make us cry', which resulted in me feeling utterly disgusted and wondering if any editor stopped to consider how ridiculous and inhuman the scene was. Considering this author is praised as someone who understands human thoughts and emotions, I was shocked.

Tack on an obvious, schmaltzy ending with a very pat closing line and you've got yourself something wooden, unrealistic and seriously trying too hard. This isn't really bad writing. It's worse. It's an apparently capable writer passing on the meat of human emotions for lukewarm, metaphorically overladen erudite fluff. Very unappealing indeed.