That said, I am really looking forward to rereading this one once I’m done with my (terrifying) stack of first reads. There are so many people so in love with this book, and they’ve given so many good (and impassioned!) arguments in favor of it that I really hope I can get out of my own way this second time.

For the most part, I think we are agreeing more than disagreeing, which is also exciting to discuss. There are always so many nuances and different facets to admire in these mini love fests. You know what I personally enjoyed, and didn’t mention in my review? His dreams. They were so fluid and dreamlike — really effective. Often in fiction dreams are just extensions of the story and don’t seem to be all that, well, dreamlike. But Lucky’s were: changeable, strange, a reworking of his everyday life. And they still contributed to the major themes and ideas in the book.

I do want to point out that he doesn’t just lie/omit the fact that he was the victim in the “banana incident” but also repeatedly denies ever having suicidal thoughts – obviously part of the same issue, but a more systematic unreliability throughout the novel.

Anyway, I don’t think it’s crucial to say that he’s lying about this or that, or this is the answer. The reason I think it’s interesting for the purposes of this discussion is to see the layers of thought and complexity that King has obviously built into the narrative. She wants us to think about how each of those 4 categories (or more) should be weighted, how they interact with each other, etc. And that tells me that this is a really remarkable novel.

About Lucky’s unreliability: that had occurred to me, but for me, based on my own read, I’m not sure I buy the extra layer theory. It has to do with what danah boyd talked about in her blog post that I linked to in the post — about how teens don’t really see themselves in bully/victim roles, don’t use that language, etc. For me, that false memory was a lie that he told even himself, a story that he preferred to the actual, true memory; that’s how he recast his abusive situation into more removed “drama.” I thought the false memory was a part of what made the first person narrative strong and deeply specific to Lucky. In the end, I think of him as unreliable in that we all are, to a degree, but not Unreliable. If you see what I mean. Put another way: I believe that he believes he sees ants.

A part of why I don’t quite buy it is for what it does to the narrative arc and all that lovely character growth Lucky goes through. If the ants are all in his head, if he’s ultimately that untrustworthy, then I’m not sure his hard-won development counts, either.

But all of that’s based on my single read, and I’m open to hearing more, especially since you’ve just revisited it!

One quick point on technology: he never uses a brand name, but it is pretty clear that Lucky is constantly plugged into an ipod or some other mp3 player – he is constantly talking about his “music.”

On second reading, I definitely agree that Ginny was underwritten compared to Lucky’s parents (especially his mom), aunt and uncle, and even grandfather. She even almost fell into the category of Manic Pixie Dream Girl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manic_Pixie_Dream_Girl) except for King’s very wise decision to it never even remotely possible that she would get together with Lucky.

One of the parts I had forgotten was when Lucky admits to having completely lied to the reader in an earlier passage, about a very important piece of information – the way he admits the truth is heartbreaking at the same time that it opens up his unreliability in crazy ways. Is he *actually* seeing ants? Is this a book about magic realism, or a book about a kid with severe hallucinations? Or both?

So many more thoughts, but I’ll leave off for now.

And Mark, you are absolutely right — it’s not fair at all to expect a balanced view of Nader from Lucky’s perspective. I was (totally unfairly) comparing Ants to Vera from last year where Charlotte was more the bully character, and did manage to be a more complicated character, largely because there were other perspectives from which to see her. That point would, of course, have no place at the table, and is neatly resolved by your comment!

Lisa and Alys, as far as the technology goes, I didn’t want Lucky to be a huge tech-head, I didn’t want the title devolve into some kind of lecture on cyber bullying, and I definitely don’t want Ants to feel dated, either, so I hear what you are saying. At this point, authors have a tricky job of incorporating technology (without it, or with too little of it, the book feels quaint and dated in its own way and too much is, of course, just too much!). I guess I feel like, once my windshield cracked, that was a slight element that felt off. As a reader, I would have appreciated just a little more attention, just one or two details. Did he take a cell phone on his walks — something small like that, you know?

And Jan (excellent to “see” you here, compadre!) thanks for chiming in!