# [Reading Group] SPOILERS June 2014: Gone Girl  by Gillian Flynn



## Philip Overby

Our June 2014 non-fantasy pick will be _Gone Girl_ by Gillian Flynn.








This novel is one that is hard to discuss without spoilers, so I'd suggest if you're going to follow along, it's best to keep up or avoid this thread. I have a friend that's read the book and he almost spoiled some stuff.

Anyway, this book is a little over 400 pages and is a super quick read. It's one of those "hard to put down" books in my opinion. I abandoned _The Name of the Wind_ once I stared reading this, but fully intend on finishing. It's just this book has been easier to read on my various commutes. 

There aren't chapters, per se, so let's aim for this (or thereabouts):

Week 1 (June 1st-7th): Part 1
Week 2 (June 8th-15th): Part 2
Week 3 (June 16-23): Part 2 (Cont.)
Week 4 (June 24-30): Part 3

If you do post any spoilers, please make sure to give it spoiler tags. Looking forward to this discussion!


----------



## Steerpike

I am done with it already. Great book.


----------



## Philip Overby

For those that are on the fence for this one, I really enjoy it a lot so far. I've lost some sleep actually staying up late reading it. I haven't done that in quite some time. It's pretty graphic in some parts, but if you don't mind that then it's quite the book.


----------



## Steerpike

I'm interested in the discussion starting in June. One question I have is why fantasy novels never have characters this well developed. I'm also two chapters into Dark Places.


----------



## Philip Overby

That's a very good point, Steerpike. The characters are so well done in this one. Without getting too much into it yet (I'll save it for June) I think fantasy novels tend to like to focus on big events and multiple characters, so there isn't as much time to do deep character development like this. This novel focuses on one event with little side events that feed into it.

I hate to build it up so much, but I have really enjoyed how well this book is done. I hope I can learn some things from it.


----------



## ACSmyth

I'm just finishing off a couple of other books I've got on the go (not Name of the Wind, for now) and then I'll get onto this one. It's borrowed from a friend and I've had it for months, so I really need to get it back to her!


----------



## Philip Overby

My Kindle version actually comes with reading group discussion questions, but some of them are spoilers. I may look at some of them and try to post some version of the questions here to initiate discussion. There's a lot to discuss with this book, so I feel like we should get a lot of mileage. 

I also started reading Flynn's book Dark Places. I may have to go on a thriller/mystery tangent to cleanse my pallet of fantasy for a bit.


----------



## ACSmyth

I've all but stopped reading for the past few days, since I discovered the lures of Storium. I really must get back to it...


----------



## Philip Overby

OK, I'll bite: what is Storium? I think I heard you mention it before, but I guess it's some kind of website for stories? Anyway, still got time to read and I think this book will be a breeze to finish. It took me a little under a week and I'm a super slow reader. Seriously, it takes me forever to even read a 30 page short story sometimes.


----------



## ACSmyth

It was a Kickstarter a few weeks ago.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/stlhood/storium-the-online-storytelling-game

There are two videos on there that give a flavour of it.

It's sort of a cross between an RPG and collaborative storytelling, and I'm totally hooked. I'm in three games. One I'm playing in is very slow and a bit like pulling teeth, and that's not much fun. Another is a fantasy with a lot of intrigue and assassination and stuff (a bit like Game of Thrones meets Kushiel's Dart). I've deliberately created a weak character who basically has a target on his back to see how long I can keep him alive.

Then I'm narrating (a bit like being a GM) an urban fantasy I'm running for a bunch of friends. They didn't back the Kickstarter, but I can invite people into a particular game via email, at least for now. They are hooked now too. The first day we wrote 4.5K words between us and had a lot of fun.

I'm normally OK with plotting, but I'm not as good at characterisation, so this is an easy way for me to play a lot of different characters and work on how to make them a real character as quickly as possible through character voice, etc. And one of my friends had been really struggling to write, but she's itching to get back to it now.

I've seen a lot of people talk about it on G+ and Twitter, and there are a ton of authors involved, both with development and the extra worlds that were backed in the Kickstarter.


----------



## Philip Overby

Cool, I may seriously consider trying it out in a couple of months once work is on break. I could use something fun like that as a distraction. 

OK, so here are the first questions for discussion for Gone Girl. Please feel free to add your own to increase discussion. This first week is dedicated to Part I:

*1. What do you think of Nick's character? Does he come off strange or aloof?

2. How about Amy's character? Do you feel sorry for her situation?

3. How do the supporting characters play any significant role (Amy's parents, Go, and Nick's father)?

4. Did the story catch your interest early on? Why?

5. Since this is a non-fantasy month, what do you think Flynn does with characterization and plot that you don't often see in fantasy novels? *


----------



## Philip Overby

Just checking in with folks about this book. Haven't heard anything yet, so I'll offer some thoughts:

1. What do you think of Nick's character? Does he come off strange or aloof?

I would say Nick annoyed me at first, but as the story goes on I started to like him a bit more. Despite the fact he does some questionable things, he feels like a real, flawed guy. 

2. How about Amy's character? Do you feel sorry for her situation?

I would say at this stage of the book (Part 1) I found Amy to be sympathetic in some ways, but perhaps too, what's the word, precious? Like she wants everything to be like a movie or like her parents when things simply don't work that way in most relationships. 

3. How do the supporting characters play any significant role (Amy's parents, Go, and Nick's father)?

I like Go a lot and I think she grounds Nick in a lot of ways. Nick's father appears as the exact thing Nick doesn't want to become: a woman-hating jerk who has become kind of this shadow haunting everyone that won't go away.

4. Did the story catch your interest early on? Why?

Definitely. I haven't gotten this attached to a story so quickly in some time. It actually kind of made me feel weird. Like in some way, am I meant to be mostly reading thrillers? I guess no one can be meant to be read one style of fiction, but I feel like I'm going to definitely start reading more of these fast-paced stories. I'm reading Dark Places now and it's very similar in style. 

5. Since this is a non-fantasy month, what do you think Flynn does with characterization and plot that you don't often see in fantasy novels? 

I guess what I've noticed is that each character is given time to develop through dialogue and narration. Of course Nick and Amy get the most since they're PoV characters. I like how the cast is small, so it gives plenty of time for each character to get some "page time" so to speak. With fantasy novels, I feel some of the casts are so huge, that it feels like characters are just serving a role (the warrior, the old man, the love interest, etc.) so they're not developed as much. Each scene lets the characters do a lot of work and the plot is constantly moving forward. This means each character has to be significant. There isn't a lot of time for characters that don't figure into the plot one way or another.


----------



## Kaellpae

I agree with most of what you said. I had trouble getting into the  book, though. I could relate a bit to Nick, but Amy seemed really fake. Once I neared the end of part one I finally got into it and read the rest of the book last night. I was happy with part 2, but I want happy with the ending. 

One thing though. I was 100% sure before I started reading the book that Nick was innocent purely from his name. 
Nick Dunne. Dunne, Nick. Dunnit. It doesn't seem like it was supposed to be any sort of actual clue, but that was how my mind put it together, and I figured if his name was pointing toward him doing it, as is all the evidence they have through part one and who Nick seems to be, I just can't see him as the wife killer. But that was my thoughts before reading and through Part 1.


----------



## Steerpike

*1. What do you think of Nick's character? Does he come off strange or aloof?

*Nick definitely comes off as flawed. I went back and forth on him a bit, sometimes feeling a bit of sympathy toward him, other times finding him just "off" enough to wonder what was going on with him, and other times not liking him as a person in the least bit.  *

2. How about Amy's character? Do you feel sorry for her situation?

*Amy was more sympathetic to me, at least early on. Her POV, presented through her diary entries, builds some sympathy. And I did feel sorry for her and her situation.* 

3. How do the supporting characters play any significant role (Amy's parents, Go, and Nick's father)?

*I like Go. I agree that she is a grounding influence for Nick. In fact, one thing that made Amy seem a bit off to me is that Amy and Go don't like each other. Amy's parents seem a bit like oddballs, though much of that comes from Amy's POV of them. I didn't like Nick's father much. I think they all play significant roles, though. Go and Amy's parents coming from the outside, as it were, and impacting the viewpoint characters. Amy's parents and their books were obviously a significant factor in Amy's childhood. Nick's father was one of the first people I thought about as a possible suspect. *

4. Did the story catch your interest early on? Why?
*
Yes, it caught my interest right out of the gate on the strength of the writer and the author's voice (or, perhaps more accurately, the narrative voices of the viewpoint characters).  *

5. Since this is a non-fantasy month, what do you think Flynn does with  characterization and plot that you don't often see in fantasy novels? *

Fantasy novel writers don't seem to get into the same level of detail with characters. Maybe it's because they have to do so much else in terms of detailing the world and everything in it. But even in fantasy novels set in the real world, you're not likely to see this kind of depth in terms of delving into characters and their psychology. I'm not sure why.


----------



## Philip Overby

> Fantasy novel writers don't seem to get into the same level of detail with characters. Maybe it's because they have to do so much else in terms of detailing the world and everything in it. But even in fantasy novels set in the real world, you're not likely to see this kind of depth in terms of delving into characters and their psychology. I'm not sure why.



I'm interested if you've ever read any fantasy novels that come close to doing this. Perhaps the Dresden Files books?


----------



## Steerpike

Philip Overby said:


> I'm interested if you've ever read any fantasy novels that come close to doing this. Perhaps the Dresden Files books?



I don't think The Dresden Files get to the level of Flynn. Peake gets pretty deep into characters in the Gormenghast books, though in a more descriptive and poetic manner, and less in the straightforward psychological manner of Flynn. 

Actually, there is an author in Fantasy who gets into characters like this - Caitlin R. Kiernan.


----------



## Philip Overby

I often find here on the forum (and elsewhere) that fantasy writers and readers often say characters are more important than other things for them. However, I do see more focus about discussions of world-building, cliche plots, etc. I think the best way to have such great characterization is, like you said, to maybe focus less on cool magic and such. That and to have tighter plots that need less characters. I think Flynn does well because she only has really a cast of ten? Most of the focus is put on Nick and Amy, but I think the little details of the minor characters (Amy's parents always seeming perpetually interlocked, Nick's dad a grumbling shadow, etc.) helps build the two main characters the most. Nick's interactions with Go show him as a mellow, laidback guy, while his interactions with Amy paint him as a distant, neglectful husband. Perhaps that is the key to make fantasy characters stand out more? Allow their relationships to flourish (or stagnate) in different ways?

I find this to be a very interesting point that I've been thinking about a lot. I'm often told my stories don't "sound" like fantasy stories. I try to make my characters sound more like people I see and meet in real life (I hope.)


----------



## Philip Overby

Haven't had as much discussion this month as I expected since this book has loads to talk about. Maybe once we get to Part 2 it will pick up. 

Feel free to jump in at any time.


----------



## ACSmyth

I've only got to the bit where he gets home and she's gone, so I'm trailing behind as usual.


----------



## Philip Overby

I totally forgot we can discuss Part 2 now. I'm pretty sure a lot of pretty crazy stuff happened in this section, but I'll have to go back and see. 

I just finished Dark Places, so that book is sticking with me more at the moment. I think Gone Girl is the better of the two, but both are wildly engaging for me. 

One thing I can bring up:

What do you think about the developments in Part 2? Did you expect the twist?


----------



## monyo

I started reading late as well but am enjoying it so far. Regarding character depth, part of it might be that the characters and their world are just more relatable to the audience. It would make it easier for both the author to come up with clever subtleties that elaborate on who the characters really are, and easier for the audience to get something meaningful out of it. As compared to writing about a werewolf and his beloved horse or some such. Less connections get invoked when showing some aspect of the latter relationship, whereas what I've read so far is almost cringe-worthy in how it reminds me of all the love/hate relationships and marriages I've actually seen. An off-hand comment about their relationship gives you deeper insight into all the things it implies, compared to more fantastical characters and worlds where you're already bringing in a good deal of suspension of disbelief, and changing the rules to allow for larger-than-life characters. Consider the amount explanation that has to be given to the audience of how things worked in some far removed time and place. That's only necessary because those connections aren't already in their mind waiting to be invoked with some clever quip. Of course great writing can cram a lot of meaning and context into very few words, even starting with pretty far fetched premises, but it does seem harder than when writing about more familiar situations.

Though I think the focus on characters vs. things like worldbuilding, concept and plot, and the fewer characters = high wordcount per character is a pretty good explanation. The fantasy genre still seems a lot better off than the scifi genre in this regard. Maybe it's just the stuff I've read, but writing quality and character depth have definitely seemed to have a higher average in fantasy than scifi. It'd be interesting to compare things like that across genres and see what variables are changing to cause the effect.


----------



## Philip Overby

> Though I think the focus on characters vs. things like worldbuilding, concept and plot, and the fewer characters = high wordcount per character is a pretty good explanation. The fantasy genre still seems a lot better off than the scifi genre in this regard. Maybe it's just the stuff I've read, but writing quality and character depth have definitely seemed to have a higher average in fantasy than scifi. It'd be interesting to compare things like that across genres and see what variables are changing to cause the effect.



I think that would be an interesting experiment to conduct. Gather some well-read people together and have them rate which genre does which thing best. One reason I love fantasy so much is because it explores the impossible. If it's too realistic, it sometimes puts me off, but I know some people really like that. I do like Flynn's writing because the smaller cast equals, as you said, a higher word count per character. That way there is more time invested into the main characters and each supporting character has weight or purpose to the plot. 

For example, the "groupie" (I forget her name off-hand, but she takes a selfie with Nick), is integral to the plot because it shows Nick to the public as being this detached weirdo. I do love how often the public opinion changes on Nick throughout the novel. I believe it's somewhat of a critique on just how fickle the public is when it comes to these cases. 

I also like that no one is really innocent in this book. This an element that has bled over to fantasy fiction: the gray or morally ambigious character. Nick is definitely no saint and Amy...geez, I don't even know where to start about her.


----------



## ACSmyth

I'm somewhere between 1/4 and 1/3 of the way through (they have gone to the abandoned mall at night time, and the guy has recognised the picture of Amy).

I struggled a little with the beginning, as I wasn't getting on with the relentless snark and clever comments/allusions. Then last night I wondered if this was maybe a New York thing. Sorry, New Yorkers, but I can imagine people from there being quite sharp and wise-cracky. I know it's setting characterisation and the tone of their relationship, but to me it was laid on a bit thick. Or again, maybe that's because I'm used to fantasy and I was uncomfortable with that level of characterisation? Don't know. Could even be a Brit thing on my part. Now that I've told myself it's a NY thing (even if that's not true), I'm living with it a bit better.

Anyway, they are both very unpleasant people. As are their families.

I make take a while with this one, as I've got my Hugo packet, and I really want to be able to make informed choices, so I have a ton of reading to do.


----------



## Ophiucha

As a New Yorker, I'll accept and confirm your characterization of my people.

On that note, my father emailed me plane tickets about two days before the first of the month for a trip to visit him back in New York, which is why I'm way behind on my reading. I'd have said something before leaving if I'd had more time to prepare. 

Anyway, I'm about a third of the way through the book. I'm struggling with some of Nick's sections. He's an interestingly written character, perhaps moreso than Amy (at least so far), but I find his perspective kind of... dry, I guess? As a character, I prefer him, as a narrator, I am bored by him. I don't like Amy as much, but the way her journal is written is much more enjoyable to read. Otherwise, I like it so far. Better than many thriller/mystery sorts of novels I've read, anyway.


----------



## Philip Overby

Amy is from New York and Nick is from Missouri. I feel like Nick is painted as being sort of dry because he's from this small town in Missouri, whereas Amy grew up having a character based off her likeness in New York. I think there's a reason Amy is painted as the one who "tries more." I highly recommend anyone that has struggled with the beginning to stick with it. Although I do find the ending quite disappointing (we can discuss that later). By disappointing I don't mean bad, it just made me feel, I don't know...I'll say later. 

Strangely enough (or maybe not) I'm seriously considering trying to write a thriller as my next novel (after I wrap up my current one(s)). I always wanted to dabble in different genres, but this book really made me think about how I could put my own spin to whatever genres I come across. I really look up to China Mieville and I think he's an author that does this: tries writing in different styles and genres but with his own unique flair. 

I'd really like to read more stuff like this although I'm not really sure where to start. I always have that problem with certain genres.


----------



## ACSmyth

LOL! Sorry, Ophiucha. One of those broad generalisations, like Londoners are rude and Scots are mean. I've probably just seen too many American sit-coms where they all have the quick comebacks! 

So far I'm liking the relationship with the Nick and Margo best, as they seem more honest with each other.

I was a little bugged by the "how many lies he's told" thing. I got that. He hadn't booked a restaurant, but he told the police he had. That establishes that he's prepared to lie. I'm smart enough to work that out.

And Philip, good luck. I couldn't write a thriller to save myself.


----------



## Philip Overby

Well, maybe not a thriller, but something like it. 

Nick and Margo's relationship is one of the few that paints Nick as a good guy. It seems almost all of his other interactions with people make him look like an aloof jerk. That's part of why I like a lot of the characters in this book. Nick isn't painted as this innocent everyman. He's flawed and his fears of becoming like his father. If anyone reads Dark Places, the MC Libby is also enormously flawed. That's one thing Flynn does very well.


----------



## Ruby

Hi fellow readers!

I've started Gone Girl several times during the past six months and then gone off and read other books. 

(I've just noticed there's a bit of a pun there.)

I bought it because it was recommended to me and also the cover says it's the thriller of the year. 

So far I don't like any of the characters. It seems to be a portrait of a bad marriage.

I've just started part two where we (the readers) begin to discover what's happened to Amy. 

I must admit I have cheated and briefly glimpsed the ending.   

I have a feeling I'm not going to like that either!


----------



## Philip Overby

Perhaps this is because I don't often read thrillers, but I found the flawed characters interesting. I don't necessarily feel like I have to connect to characters to enjoy a book although I can understand why some readers feel that way. I certainly didn't connect with either Nick nor Amy, but I could connect to the situation. I imagined, "If this happened to me, I'd probably go insane." The fact that many of the chapters end on cliff hangers kept me reading. 

I think one reason this book is so intriguing is because of Amy. She truly is "amazing."


----------



## Ruby

I'm enjoying reading the book now. Part two is more interesting than part one. I may actually finish it, soon!


----------



## Philip Overby

Yeah, I agree Part 2 was my favorite of the book. That's when all the chaotic stuff starts happening. I would like to talk about the whole book after we finish out the month. There are a lot of things i want to say but I don't want to spoil anything.


----------



## Steerpike

Yeah, I've been refraining so as not to post spoilers. As to whether I saw it coming - not exactly. It was one possible option that I had running through my mind, but it wasn't the top contender, and honestly I had at least three or four scenarios in mind by that point and I didn't know which one would turn out to be right.


----------



## Ruby

Hi,

I've just finished reading Gone Girl.

I found the second half of the book more interesting than the first.  It's quite a clever book and well written, but I didn't like any of the characters. It's not a book I'd want to read again. 

'Go' was a confusing and tedious name for the poor reader to cope with.

I didn't like the ending. 

Weren't there flaws in the plot? 

It's difficult to discuss the book without making spoilers. Has everyone else finished reading it yet?

Thank you for setting this as the book of the month, Phil. It's the main reason I persevered and finished it, and I did buy it several months ago.


----------



## Steerpike

There's no way to discuss this book without spoiling it. Maybe a separate thread for Gone Girl spoilers, so we can talk about it without ruining things for those still reading?


----------



## Ghost

Maybe we can discuss the book at the end of June? There could be a cutoff post in the thread after which there will be spoilers. I don't like the idea of a separate thread since this thread seems set up for discussion.

I finally finished the book. I have things to say now. :nerd:


----------



## Philip Overby

I agree that this is a really hard book to discuss without any spoilers. I think it's best for us to wait until the end of June maybe. Let's say the cut-off is June 28th? Then hit the spoilers!

I'll even edit the thread to say "SPOILERS."


----------



## Philip Overby

*For those that have no finished the book, please turn away now!*

OK, I changed the thread to read SPOILERS now and we're in our final week of discussion. Feel free to say whatever you want. Those who have not finished, you've been warned!


----------



## Philip Overby

OK, I'll crack this open.

Last SPOILER warning!

Amy is probably the craziest character I've seen in a novel since Ramsey Snow. The ending for me was pretty disappointing, but there was that one line that Nick got in at the end that made it a little more satisfying.  Nick's urge to be a father outweighs any fakeness he has to put up in order to continue functioning. I think this may be Flynn commenting on how a lot of marriages are full of fakeness. That no one ever is satisfied his or her mate mate in some way. 

Some of the things Amy did seemed almost cartoonish though. I don't mind that too much, but some of her behavior in the end is just like, "OK, Amy is the most diabolical person on Earth."

Any thoughts?


----------



## Ruby

I thought that the book was clever in many ways.

Amy is the Gone Girl. She's married to Nick and has disappeared.

Amy's the much wanted and only child of a couple who had loads of miscarriages before her birth. Her mother can't have any children after her as Amy's birth destroys her womb. Her parents write a series of successful books called Amazing Amy based on their daughter. They become very rich.
Later, they lose money and borrow from Amy.

Nick is an unreliable narrator. We're quite far into the book before he reveals that one of his students is his mistress.

Then we discover that Amy's diary is a fake. She has written it to frame her husband. She's also an unreliable narrator.

We get the feeling that this couple have never loved each other.  Nick has used Amy's money to buy a bar. His sister Go works there. He's moved Amy away from the city.

The book is written in the form of alternate chapters from the two narrators. Nick writes about current events and how he's being framed for murder. Amy's is the diary.

Then, in the second part we find out what's really happened and where Amy is. Amy had pretended to be a 'cool girl' to attract Nick. During the book, Nick discovers how evil she is and how she destroys people who cross her.

I thought the ending was improbable. Why would Nick go back to her? Why did she want to continue the marriage after this amazing attempt to destroy him? Why would he want her when he knows she's actually committed murder and is crazy? How could he possibly continue their marriage? He wouldn't really want to have a child with her.

The police are supposed to suspect her of murder but are unable to prove it. I thought there was a flaw here, because while on the run she was recognised by two people who robbed her and who could disprove her alibi that she was kidnapped.

Thanks to this group I managed to finish reading Gone Girl at the fourth attempt!

The book is cleverly plotted and well written. 

I've already passed my copy onto someone else to read! It's my Gone Book!


----------



## Philip Overby

> I thought the ending was improbable. Why would Nick go back to her? Why did she want to continue the marriage after this amazing attempt to destroy him? Why would he want her when he knows she's actually committed murder and is crazy? How could he possibly continue their marriage? He wouldn't really want to have a child with her.
> 
> The police are supposed to suspect her of murder but are unable to prove it. I thought there was a flaw here, because while on the run she was recognised by two people who robbed her and who could disprove her alibi that she was kidnapped.



I felt that the ending was pretty probable as well. It felt like it was going into surreal territory in some sense because of Amy's over-the-top villainy and Nick's "Well, fine then" sort of attitude. I really loved this book, but toward the end I kind of wondered why she went with that ending. I felt it was going more for a parable kind of feel rather than a realistic ending. Kind of like "be yourself or else bad shit happens to you."


----------



## Ghost

*1. What do you think of Nick's character? Does he come off strange or aloof?*

I liked Nick better than Amy, or at least I found him the more relateable of the two until Amy's diary entry for July 5th, 2010. He doesn't seem fully engaged. It's like he's an actor in his own life. His disclosure that he hadn't slept with his sister weirded me out because the thought hadn't entered my brain until he said it. 

*2. How about Amy's character? Do you feel sorry for her situation?*

Diary Amy was super! melo! dramatic! The July 5th entry changed things for me by making her pitiful but not necessarily likeable. She reminds me of Kitty from _Pride and Prejudice_. "I am fat with love! Husky with ardor! Morbidly obese with devotion!" Just imagine those lines being read by Carey Mulligan. Remember when Kitty was gleeful about being able to sign her letters as Mrs. Wickham? I had serious echoes of that when the name on the diary entries changes from Amy Elliott to Amy Elliott Dunne.

I felt sorry for her up to Part Two, although I wondered why she didn't just leave Nick.

I feel like there could've been greater differentiation between Nick's and Amy's styles of narration, particularly in Book One.

*3. How do the supporting characters play any significant role (Amy's parents, Go, and Nick's father)?*

They seem like caricatures to me. Amy's parents rarely acted like real people. Sometimes Go and Boney seemed kind of similar, like Boney was a slightly older version of Go.

I didn't care for the dialogue. I said the narration seemed kind of samey to me. The dialogue had a similar effect for me. Everyone's dialogue was too cute and well-packaged. People used similar metaphors and turns of phrase. I realize this could simply be Flynn's voice. I wasn't into it. Another thing that bothered me was that, at times, it seemed like characters said things that came across as generic. This is how old ladies talk. This is how country bumpkins talk. That same person would then utter a metaphor or a quip more in line with how someone from Amy's demographic would talk. It didn't seem as bad in the second half. Maybe I had less of a desire to nitpick after things finally got interesting.

Flynn would present someone as a stereotype, then shift it a bit so they did or said something counter to the stereotype. I understand why: it's easier to put a stock photo in the reader's mind then adjust it accordingly. For me, it was clumsy because it was done often and without subtlety.

*4. Did the story catch your interest early on? Why?*

No. It was too mundane and the characters too unlikeable. Nothing seemed to happen during Nick's side of things. Even though I liked Amy's character less, her diary entries weren't as slow. Amy's story got progressively more ominous, which was good because it felt like I was getting somewhere. The characters aren't unrealistic. I've encountered people online who have a Diary Amy kind of mentality or a Nick-like demeanor. Still, if they're going to be unlikeable, I want them to fascinate me. After being stuck on page 103 for a while, I decided to try again before dropping the book off at library. A few chapters before Part Two, the story picked up.

*5. Since this is a non-fantasy month, what do you think Flynn does with characterization and plot that you don't often see in fantasy novels?*

I think the things you all mentioned apply. Usually, fantasy novels and series have larger casts of characters who get less face time. You have to be adept at showing the inner workings of a character when we spend 1/4 of the book, or less, with him or her. I think first person perspective lends itself to a deeper sense of the POV character's personality. This is why YA and paranormal romance/"chick lit" do first person so much. It's all to capture that elusive voice people want. (I'm not saying it can't be done with third person, btw, particularly with a close POV. It's just that I think a lot of authors unintentionally try to make the narration more objective when it's in third.)

Another thing that's different to me, given how little I liked the secondary and minor characters, is that contemporary, real world settings allow a greater diversity of stereotypes to draw from and more ways to twist those stereotypes. You can have a homeless guy quoting Ayn Rand or a head of the Women's Studies department who has body dysmorphic disorder or a priest who listens to Lady Gaga. In fantasy, you have fewer categories of people that readers have on tap, and maybe they're most easily twisted out of the stereotype through their behavior and temperament. It's takes a little more effort to show why your character, the knight of the Doomwatch, is unusual for worshiping the Lord of Ash because you have to provide all the context yourself. You can't assume the cultural references will be understood without setting them up, unless you do something hokey with the names.

As for plot...I think that because the plot relies on the characters' actions, it has a different dynamic than a lot of fantasy. External events drive the plot in most fantasy. Some writers proclaim they're writing character-driven fiction when they're not. If you can switch out characters and have roughly the same events play out, the character isn't driving the plot. It's like making a maze with no branching paths, having a rat run down the corridor, and then saying that the rat chose its route. There was only one path for that rat to travel because of the stage you set.

If you strip away the characterization and briefly summarize the plot of Gone Girl, I don't think it stands out that much. Flynn's voice and the view into Nick's and Amy's heads are what make it what it is. I can easily imagine a mediocre version of this novel where the characterization takes a back seat to the events and the author heavily relies on the dramatic twists, essentially saying, "Look, look here! Aren't I clever?"

I find myself wondering about the setting when thinking about this question. I don't remember any detailed descriptions of the setting. I know there was a sense of places that weren't well cared for: the mostly vacant development the Dunnes called home, Nick's father's house, the neglected park where they held Amy's vigil, the lake by Desi's mansion. But my images of the setting were formed by assumption. This is what I think a brownstone looks like. This is what I think the banks of the Mississippi look like. This is what I think one-week rental cabins look like. This is what I know about Missouri and the Ozarks. That alone frees up a lot of space to focus on character. You can't do that in secondary world stories unless you're going super generic.

Even if it's set in this world, I like more detail about setting. Not necessarily a litany of objects and landscapes, but a sense of what it's like to be there and what the people are like there. If you leave it to the reader to draw from popular images, I think you miss out on giving your particular take on a place and cementing the setting in the reader's mind. A lot of contemporary novels cop out this way. You know what? I've never been to New York. I haven't spent much time in bars. I've only driven through the Ozarks. In fifty years, a hundred years, these places might be very different. How will readers be able to imagine the world around your characters if you don't bother describing it in an evocative way?

I don't think I got a strong sense of "this is Missouri and nowhere else" which is kind of lame or "this is what New York is like" which is fine since we hear about it through a diary and through Nick's visit...He did go to New York at one point, right? Or was that another city? I don't remember his reaction to being back, even if it was temporary. I don't remember much about the other city we saw. Kansas City? St. Louis? Alright, I think this is another weakness of the novel. Or possibly a weaknemy memory. Either way, the places weren't memorable or as entwined with the characters/plot as they could have been.


----------



## Ghost

Maybe I'd like the book better if less was held back in the beginning. I understand it's for suspense! and mystery!, but the scarcity of enjoyable characters put me off enough that, had it not been for the reading group, I'd have quit. I also felt cheated a few chapters in since things were clearly being kept from me. I could feel the author's hand in that There were enough secrets that revealing a few wouldn't have hurt, I think. Maybe it wouldn't have helped at all.

Even with the similarities in narration style, I thought Nick and Amy were very well-developed until the end. 

I would have liked to see Nick interact with men his age who had nothing to do with Amy. His father was like a Victorian phantom hovering in the background, clanking his chains, moaning, reminding Nick of who he was capable of becoming. Rand was...weird. Cartoony. Most of Nick's relationships involve women, and most of those women "betray" him. I thought of that after Go began to doubt him, and a few pages later he himself lists the names of the women who've turned against him. He seemed to work hard to for women to like him, but I don't know that that effort was equal when it came to men. The way he resented Desi Collings and appealed to Boney instead of Gilpin fits that pattern. Maybe he acts that way because his mom was the one who loved him and babied him where his dad was someone to avoid, to be afraid of. Maybe he's just a jerk and his tactics don't work on men, so he doesn't try with them.

The fact that I can analyze Nick like this (even if my analysis is wrong) says a lot about how nuanced his characterization is.

I was disappointed when he had a "realization" that no other woman will do for him. If it was meant to represent how much he and Amy needed each other or fixated on each other, I don't think it worked. We had hundreds of pages of setup to understand the basics of their relationship and in the span of a few pages we're supposed to go along with "Yep, she's the only woman for me"? No. It seemed sudden and false. _If_ it was meant to show Nick continuing his pattern of becoming whatever a woman wants him to be, I think it could've been made a little clearer.

The idea of being a victim comes up for both Nick and Amy. I think Nick acted like a victim while trying to portray someone who wasn't a victim. He wanted women to adore him, so he couldn't very well be forthright in his blaming of others. Still, it found its way in. I liked that his father's relationship to women influenced his own attitude. He blamed Amy for how terrible their marriage was when he's the one who took her life savings and invested it in something she wasn't a part of. He's the one who acted strange and had secrets, so when people picked up on that he acted wounded, like it wasn't obvious that they'd come to dark conclusions. He's the one who played Mr. Nice Guy while seething inside all the time. He shouldn't have been surprised that Marybeth "betrayed" him given the lies he told and the overwhelming evidence against him. (Not saying it wouldn't hurt to have someone you trusted think the worst of you, but it's not like it was out of left field.)

Amy was the opposite. She didn't think of herself as a victim, but she played one throughout her life. That's the story she told people. She told Desi her father sexually abused her. She told her parents and her school that Hilary Handy stalked her, and she told her parents that Desi Collings had as well. She told the police she was raped by Tommy O'Hara. She lied to the world about Nick. When she went into hiding, she decided her story was that of a woman who'd run from a violent man. She lied again to Desi about Nick's treatment of her, then turned around and lied that Desi violated her. Despite all that, she saw herself as the winner of a game. She didn't think she was a victim. Even her dislike of her parents for playing a part in how she turned out wasn't founded on pain. It was more disdainful than anything. It's interesting to me, both characters' relationship to victimhood. They're both pretenders, either way.

Since people said there was a twist, I figured Amy faked her death and was in hiding somewhere, watching things unfold. (That or she'd killed herself to make it look like Nick had done it.) But I'd bought into Diary Amy, so I didn't expect real Amy at all. I didn't expect the convoluted parts about her money being stolen or her stint at Desi's mansion. I didn't expect the novel to end with Amy getting the upper hand.

The part about her money being stolen seemed silly. It pulled me out of the story somewhat, but I excused it because of Amy's background. Thinking about it now, it still seems like she'd know better than to flash cash. Anyway, the personas she made–Amazing Amy, Cool Amy, Diary Amy, etc–were based on the kind of life she'd lived and people in her circle. Without Nick she couldn't have created Ozark Amy. It's interesting that she couldn't maintain Ozark Amy. _She_ was the one who got tricked when she was in that persona. The people who stole her money swindled her, and if you buy that she believed Nick still loved her, I guess that counts, too. That felt contrived to me, actually. And the whole "I impregnated myself with the sperm you had in storage, mwahaha" part was straight out of a soap opera.

The beginning was essentially setup with little happening. The end was stuff happening with little setup. It seems like a better balance could've been struck.


In this interview, Gillian Flynn says,



> People think they would find that satisfying, if she were caught and punished. You know, when I’m at a reading or something, people will come up to me and are very honest about saying, “I hated the ending!” I always say, “Well, what did you want to have happen?” And it’s like, “I wanted justice!” I promise you, I just don’t think you’d find it satisfying for Amy to end up in a prison cell just sitting in a little box.



What do you think of that? I could see why she'd feel that way, but I don't care for the ending. Flynn says she couldn't kill Amy off because Nick wouldn't do it and having any one else do it would let Nick off the hook. I buy that part. I actually would've preferred that Amy be implicated but for her to get off on a technicality. That would've revealed her true nature while leaving her at large. You'd have some of the public on her side anyway, especially after the endless lies she and Nick have told. It would be less ambiguous for the readers while showing the readers that, in the public's mind, it won't be fully resolved. Plus, Amy's stupid parents would have to face some discomfort raising Amy the way they did. I'd like that.



Philip Overby said:


> I do love how often the public opinion changes on Nick throughout the novel. I believe it's somewhat of a critique on just how fickle the public is when it comes to these cases.



I like how Flynn doesn't focus too much on any one aspect of the media circus, the groupies, the distrust Nick experiences, or the investigation. It could've been tiring if it was all about the Nancy Grace stand-in or the police interrogations.


----------



## Philip Overby

Wow, that's a lot, Ghost!  You make a lot of great points though. Especially about the ending, which I think leaves a sour taste in a lot of people's mouths. I do think that Flynn's ending works in some way because "justice" wouldn't make a lot of sense in this story. I think Flynn was going for a story where you weren't sure who you should be rooting for. Nick is wholly unlikeable throughout most of the story, but I felt some pity for him because it felt like he was just another dolt that got stuck in Amy's web of lies.


----------



## Steerpike

I liked the ending, though not initially as I was kind of angling for the "justice" angle. I think both Nick and Amy have serious mental problems, and I don't find Nick's realization about he and Amy at the end (however sick it is, on some level) to be out of character. I do think it would have been more effective if the realization had been drawn out a bit more. I agree with Ghost in that it seemed abrupt. I think it was a natural end point for Nick, but he got there too fast. I guess with the main action of the story over, Flynn didn't want to draw out an anti-climactic ending just to bring Nick to his conclusion more slowly.

By the time it was all said and done, I didn't think Nick was really any better of a person than Amy. Maybe not quite a sociopath, which Amy clearly is, but not any better of a person.


----------



## Philip Overby

Steerpike said:


> I liked the ending, though not initially as I was kind of angling for the "justice" angle. I think both Nick and Amy have serious mental problems, and I don't find Nick's realization about he and Amy at the end (however sick it is, on some level) to be out of character. I do think it would have been more effective if the realization had been drawn out a bit more. I agree with Ghost in that it seemed abrupt. I think it was a natural end point for Nick, but he got there too fast. I guess with the main action of the story over, Flynn didn't want to draw out an anti-climactic ending just to bring Nick to his conclusion more slowly.
> 
> By the time it was all said and done, I didn't think Nick was really any better of a person than Amy. Maybe not quite a sociopath, which Amy clearly is, but not any better of a person.



I'm no fan of Nick, but I find it hard to say they were equal. Amy framed several people throughout her life, including her own parents, to get what she wanted. She was like some sort of social chameleon. And then one person who loved her unconditionally, Desi, she killed. Amongst others things.

Nick cheated on his wife and was kind of an aloof ass. I can't really compare the two. 

Neither of them are good people in the end, so I guess what Flynn is saying is that in life you get what you get so make the best of it. Nick's overwhelming urge to become a father supersedes any common sense or self-preservation. 

That said, the characterization is so well done in this book, I forgive a lot of the issues I have with the plot. 

If we can analyze craft for a moment:

What methods does Flynn use for characterizing? 

What makes the characters in this book, despite being unlikeable, more appealing than other characters you've read that you didn't have any investment in?


----------



## Ghost

Sorry, Phil. I meant to reply to this. Better late than never, right?



Ophiucha said:


> Anyway, I'm about a third of the way through the book. I'm struggling with some of Nick's sections. He's an interestingly written character, perhaps moreso than Amy (at least so far), but I find his perspective kind of... dry, I guess? As a character, I prefer him, as a narrator, I am bored by him. I don't like Amy as much, but the way her journal is written is much more enjoyable to read.



I'm glad I'm not the only one who felt that way. It's strange to realize the character I like more (or dislike less, to be accurate) is somehow _less_ readable.



Ruby said:


> The police are supposed to suspect her of murder but are unable to prove it. I thought there was a flaw here, because while on the run she was recognised by two people who robbed her and who could disprove her alibi that she was kidnapped.



I hadn't even thought of that. Those people totally would've tipped the police off to Amy's whereabouts for a bit of cash. I'm not sure they actually recognized her, though. I wasn't quite clear on how much of that was paranoia on Amy's part.



Philip Overby said:


> What methods does Flynn use for characterizing?
> 
> What makes the characters in this book, despite being unlikeable, more appealing than other characters you've read that you didn't have any investment in?



I wouldn't say they were more appealing than other characters. It was a real slog for me, and I didn't like this book. (Which is probably why I had so much to say about it.) I'm already forgetting things like the voice and sentence construction, so my take probably misses out on some technical aspects.

I still say first person POV helped with deeper characterization in this book. While in that mode of narration, you can provide internal reactions to things as they happen in the novel. The POV character can speak her mind, unfiltered, via narration. Every bit of description or speculation put forward by a first person narrator adds nuance to her voice and to her way of seeing things. You can do the similar things in third person, but as a reader third makes me feel like an observer. It's less intimate.

Flynn used a lot of anecdotes and memories, I think. The POV character would briefly recall an interaction or compare the past to the present. I think there were longer flashbacks, but there were also shorter ones (maybe a paragraph long) interwoven with what the character was doing or thinking. It helped provide context without becoming overwhelming. You slowly and casually get more information as the story progresses. In a book where I'm not kept in the dark about so much, I could enjoy this effect. There is mystery, but you still get some pieces of the puzzle. As you learn new details more possibilities arise, complicating what was a straightforward interpretation. It can make the main characters seem more dynamic.

Something you get more with literary novels is the focus on interiority. I think–and this is just a theory–genre fiction often tries to immerse you in the character's sensory experience and literary fiction often tries to immerse you in the character's mental and emotional life. I don't think it's a dichotomy, though. You can do both, but I think many writers tend to focus on one while paying lip service to the other.

I'd say you can weave together the character's past experiences, his current actions, his fears, and his desires (attainable or not). Those things _and the tension between them_ add dimension and subtlety to the character if done well. I think Flynn mostly did this, although maybe not so much in the end.


----------



## Steerpike

Ghost said:


> I hadn't even thought of that. Those people totally would've tipped the police off to Amy's whereabouts for a bit of cash.



Maybe, but maybe not. They robbed her, after all.


----------



## Ghost

They didn't seem smart. Plus, it was cash. Wouldn't it be hard to prove they robbed her? And one could blame the other for the robbery while trying to get the reward. They hardly knew each other.

I doubt they knew it was her, though.

I might've liked this book from Boney's perspective.


----------



## Steerpike

Ghost said:


> They didn't seem smart. Plus, it was cash. Wouldn't it be hard to prove they robbed her? And one could blame the other for the robbery while trying to get the reward. They hardly knew each other.



Might be hard to prove it, but I don't know that those two would be thinking along those lines. Didn't seem like the type who would be interested in having the police dig around in their business, and with all the publicity surrounding Amy's disappearance, you could bet that anyone involved in the case in any way would be a target not just for police but for journalists and others. I didn't find it implausible that people like those two would stay well away from a high-profile case like that if they had something to hide. It could have gone the other way as well, and I think you could make an argument to support it, but it didn't bother me that they didn't make a report because I also found that plausible.


----------

