Task: Sentiment Analysis
Input (English): If I could choose 0 stars, I would. . I recently borrowed this as an audiobook from the library because I need something to occupy my mind while I scan microfiche at work (boooorrring). I actually haven't finished this book yet, but up until what I listened to tonight, I hadn't made my mind up yet on how I felt about it. I was going to see it though, but now I'm not sure if I will.    I don't even know where to start about what I don't like about this book.    Before starting this book, Ms. Picoult should have spent a little more time researching laws and procedure regarding kidnappings, especially proceedings following such a great span of time. I'll be the first to admit that I don't know much about law, but it seems quite unrealistic that Delia's father Andrew Hopkins (or should I say Charles Matthews?) would be placed in maximum security prison in a matter of a week. I find it hard to believe that on his first day, he would get beaten and practically raped (I can't remember if he was or not). I could be wrong, but if 28 years have passed, wouldn't the statute of limitations passed, and even if they hadn't, wouldn't the mother need to press charges in order for anything to happen? And wouldn't it mean something that they were in a different state?    Now, even though everyone else seemed to love her, Delia was incredibly annoying (and the actress who read her "monologues" in the audio version was equally annoying). Women authors tend to make their female protagonists characters that supposedly have a lot of depth that usually have several men in love with her. I have seen many women in real life who pretend that they have this effect on men, but rarely ever do. It just seems like a fantasy of Picoults, and a very boring one at that. Ah, a love triangle, gee, like THAT's never been done before. One instance that sticks out is when Delia gets upset that Eric (her fiancee and her fathers attorney) doesn't tell her about a court appearing, however, Eric didn't even find out until ten minutes before it was about to happen. But, even the premise for that is questionable: would that really happen? I mean seriously!    I also hated how the book shifted "voices" -- this is not a play, I don't want to read monologues describing the same events from a different perspective. I didn't feel as though it was necessary to divide this book into several characters. I half expected a chapter to be from Sophie (Delia's four year old daughter) perspective. I could really do without the exaggerated and unrealistic jail scenes or the indian lore. I also hated how the entire book seemed to be composed of different memories or thoughts that really made no sense, and then later incorporated into the passage, also not making sense. For example, Eric narrates this dream he had about Sondra, who is some beautiful girl he imagined. She turns into a rabbit and runs into a bush. Later, Ruthann tells a story about a rabbit that shoots the sun with a bow and arrow and causes the earth to burn up. Somehow he connects the two because of the rabbit, when really they have no cohesive connection. Also, between the three childhood friends (Delia, Eric and Fitz) they talk about their memories constantly, as if that is the only thing that binds them together. Real friendships don't compromise of only discussing things that happened to them in the past... but it does in this book, because the author so desperately wants you to know that they are a really close group of friends. To me, it just seems pretentious.    What's also pretentious is the various passages that are supposed to reveal some new idea about life but really make no sense at all. One passage I remember is when Delia is talking to Fitz about memories and she suggests that maybe everyone has the same memories already in the head from when they are born, and maybe they remember things that never happened to them. I might have that a little wrong, because it's a bit confusing. It's confusing because it makes absolutely no sense. It doesn't even feel like it's remotely TRYING to make sense at all! The book is full of little things like this that just feel pseudo-intellectual, like Picoult is forcing her characters to have depth when they really want to be stereotypical.    All of the characters seem a little edgy and totally basket cases. Delia gets incredibly upset for not remembering what her life was when she was FOUR YEARS OLD. For goodness sakes woman, I have maybe 2 or 3 memories from when I was four years old or younger, and most of them don't make sense except for the fact that I know what my parents have told me. By the way she acts, you'd think she was 12 when she was kidnapped.  Also, she seems to recover memories all the time... man, I wish I could do that. It just seems a bit implausible, that's all.    The book is saturated in gooey, sappy imagery, metaphors, anecdotes, memories, subplots, and so on. I am not so quick to totally bash an author, but it's this type of pretentious writernese dribble that I loathe. If I wanted some sappy, melodramatic dimestore paperback I would have read one of those instead. I expected better from the synopsis on the back cover. Overall, and I say overall without even finishing the book (I haven't even gotten to the meth lab part with the father yet, but it sounds pretty ridiculous), that this is definitely one of the most horrible books I've ever read, bar none. Do yourself a favor and skip this one... and definitely don't pick up the audiobook. The voice actors and actresses are incredibly annoying to listen to
Output (English): NEG