Entry tags:

books, let's get literate! 2010

I swore I was going to read one book over spring break that was not a British novel, was not by a dead white dude, and that I would definitely not be graded on. I went to the library, even though every library trip I have taken has failed, utterly failed! and has resulted in me checking books out but never having time to read them. I said, "Self, this time it's going to work. CHOOSE YOUR SPRING BREAK BOOK!"

So I did. Although, now I am uncertain about my choice because I am flat out bemused after finishing it. Irony: now I wish I had read this book for a class, where I could discuss it in a group of people! Because I am at once intrigued and lost! Justine Larbalestier has stated that the book can be read two ways, but boy I feel like there's more than that! As if this book contains multitudes of avenues to reach the real Micah, the one at the center of all the lies.

Micah is a liar. She owns up to in immediately and the title makes it impossible to doubt (unless you're like me and you get to the middle of the book and start to wonder what in the hell is happening and if even the premise of her as a liar should be questioned). I don't even know how to classify this book inside the YA tree. What branch does it go on? This is pretty smart writing and plotting; I've never read YA quite like it. The closest comparison I can think of, narrative wise, is I am the Messenger by Markus Zusak, and that book wasn't as confusing — it comes clean. Liar, on the other hand, is still turning over in my head. It's like a puzzle, and reading it is only a way to acquire the puzzle. Figuring it out involves thinking of it after the fact, or re-reading.

It's really impossible to discuss the book without spoilers beyond what's given as a summary of the book. Micah is a liar. Her boyfriend is killed, and things start to unravel. Then, when you think you have it figured out — surprise! Actually, you definitely do not and let the book turn you upside down and shake you. Hard. I find that I agree most with this:

The experience of reading a novel with a narrator who is known to be a liar is different, I think, from reading a novel in which the narrator is revealed to be unreliable. When you know from the beginning that the narrator lies, and that the lies are not white lies of the no-really-your-hair/dress/[fill-in-the-blank]-is-nice variety but outrageous ones, you read that much more closely, trying to parse truths from untruths. And yet, at the start of Part 2, Larbalestier shocked the hell out of me with what she did, and she made it totally work. It turned Liar from a somewhat intriguing book to utterly unputdownable. [source]

This is really true for me, because once I hit the second part I gobbled this book up. Whether I can say I liked it or not is one thing — I don't flock to unreliable narrators like others do, I think, because I am very picky with them. At times this book felt like a massive experiment in a taking a particular type of character and pushing them to the very edge. I mean, a few sections in it felt like it could get real gimmicky real fast, but for me it never hit that point.

However, it really is impossible to break this book down and really talk about it without bringing up the spoilers and the twists and revealing the maybe-maybe-not-lies. You really do not want to be spoiled for this book. It is not like other spoilers, where you know what happens, oh well. If you know, you fail to engage with Micah at all, and engaging with her is the point of the story — you're not just spoiled for the plot, you're spoiled for the entire journey through her mind, which I think is entirely different than a plot spoiler.

Although I would not mind people who've read it finding me in the comments of this post and going, "OMG!!!" with me. You know, if you want. >.>

In summary: a literary adventure! Although maybe I should just have done some catch-up reading on Nora Roberts on spring break, instead. Ha! Who needs a break from thinking, anyway?