Now because I’m still in the middle of this book I’ve been carefully analyzing the author’s craft. But so far this story’s about a serial killer kidnapping, molesting, and eventually murdering little boys who has earned the name ‘The Chocolate Man’. He is then revealed to be suffering from obsessive-compulsive disorder and a horrid past which proves that this little girl, Emily’s, abduction was an accident considering the exactness of all the previous cases. Now as she writes these texts, I question the purpose in the information she’s giving us.
For example, when she gives background information on things that have happened in Emily and her mother’s previous lives. She tells us that Emily’s father has left. She also informs us that her mother does everything in her power to make sure Emily has a happy childhood because she was violated and lost her father as a child and she doesn’t want her to also feel that way. How I respond is I see how that applies to the story but I don’t feel that interested in her concept because I’m more focused on the serial killer and what his motive is.
Also, the author informs us on a little bit of background behind the killer as well. She tells us about the killer’s family through quick flashbacks, and his life after he attempted to burn them in their house. And I can see that the author is trying to get us to better understand the motive behind the killer. But I just end up feeling even worse for the killer than the kids he is actually victimizing throughout the book.
And I get to the point where I’m questioning who’s fault it really is, and whether or not the author intended for me to comprehend the book the way I did, or if my point was extremely farfetched. But I guess it all depends on different readers and there really is no one way to interpret a book.
No comments:
Post a Comment