We Were Liars by E. Lockhart: I think we were lied to

THIS REVIEW IS NOT SPOILER FREE. THERE ARE SPOILERS. DO NOT READ IF YOU HAVE READ THE BOOK. PROCEED AT YOUR OWN DISCRETION. DON'T SAY I DIDN'T WARN YOU. (Sorry I just want to talk about the ending and what that means for the book as a whole. If you want to know what I thought: I loved it, and it probably won't be a favorite but I don't have much to complain about either.)

(Also I would like to point out that I am going back to school tomorrow, and I know my blogging and reading time will severely decrease. I'll still be around, just not as frequently. It's been a great blogging summer, so thank you all!)

They lied to us.
They said this was a different kind of book.
It wasn't.
I'm pleasantly surprised.

Okay background first: I first heard about this book near the beginning of the year on Barnes & Noble's blog, where it was listed among the most anticipated releases of the year. I think it had an original release date of February something? Anyway, I can't say I was very up-to-date in the YA world (and now that I have a little more knowledge, this doesn't change), but it sounded right up my alley. Lockhart's other books didn't really interest me and I did pick up The Disreputable History of Frankie Landau-Banks, but had some issues with that one that I should really definitively write up somewhere. It didn't deter me from really wanting to read this, though.

From all the descriptions--which were all vague--this sounded like a tightly-plotted thriller with a twist ending where everything would fall into place. Lockhart in an interview even cited Rebecca Stead's When You Reach Me as an inspiration because of how everything clicks into place. When You Reach Me also happens to be one of my favorite books of all time, and I can verify that its plot is expertly complex and multiple events come together at a particular point. Code Name Verity was also well-done like that. (I suppose they both of "twists," but perhaps with less emphasis.) So, I was expecting a complex thriller about deception.

Instead, We Were Liars is a very different book. And it rightly should be.

It's bound to be controversial because of a) the hype, b) the experimental writing style (I didn't mind, and I liked some of the crazy metaphors), and c) the twist. Because a lot of people believe that once you know the twist or if you figure it out, it's not any good. For some things, this may be true, but I think when done right, it gives you a whole new perspective on the story. And that is what We Were Liars does.

I'm going to be honest with you and admit I never saw the twist coming like some others because I was under the impression for some reason that Gat saw her right after the accident and then sort of sullenly walked away, not speaking to her again. Well, there is a reason my mental image of "I never heard from him again" is one where he is still present

But the twist in We Were Liars isn't something that just suddenly makes sense, the key to the mystery. It just slowly unveils itself. And it puts a spin on everything you've read before, but more more subtly than "oh now suddenly all those disparate parts make sense!"

It reveals that this book is actually about grief, guilt, loss, tragedy, and maybe even mental illness.

It is carefully written so that nothing contradicts., though I wouldn't call the careful editing "clues". No one else explicitly mentions the other Liars as if they are present like Cady describes. Which brings us to perhaps the biggest question: what were they? My original idea was that they were a coping mechanism, inserted in her writing so she could help herself deal with it. I still kind of like that idea. I also really like Ariel Bissett's theory about hallucination. If it is all in Cady's head, then I like how Gat's feelings are more ambigious: did he actually really like her, or does she just wish that? The appearances are much more detailed than you'd think hallucinations would be, but not quite as contrived and convenient as ghosts. Maybe it's a combination of all three. I'm not sure it matters at all, either. The book informs you from Page 5 with a very violent metaphor that not everything should be taken literally.

In essence, actually, We Were Liars is an episode of The Twilight Zone.  It has a twist ending. It is an amplification of a fear, and it is ambiguous. The question of whether or not it's supernatural is kind of trite. Sure, it isn't a perfect metaphor; there is a creepy, mysterious tone to it all, but not quite to the "this is so wrong!" extent of The Twilight Zone. Still, I think the comparison points out how much of a small-scale story We Were Liars really is.

Perhaps I am struggling  to convey my appreciation for this little story, but I've got to say, I read it at the end of a summer that was probably my worst yet. I had hardly anything to do and when I thought about what I wanted to do, I just couldn't bring myself to do it. It got bad near the end, climaxing just before I finished this book. And I know this isn't about depression, not quite. But I could really sympathize with the way she behaved at times, and Mirren was also ill.

We Were Liars also touches a bit on classism and families, and how those with so much can be unhappy at the core--almost like The Great Gatsby in that way. It's a small story with a lot to say, none of which I expected, and none of which is overstated. Some people won't feel like it lives up to the hype, but I just think the hype was misguided.