Room: Film tie-in

by Emma Donoghue

WARNING:
My review contains SPOILERS. I have chosen to hide this review so I don’t ruin the book for other readers. If you are reading this sentence than you have chosen to “unhide” my review, and you’re doing so at your own risk.

—�—�—�—�—�—�—�—�—�—�—�

The concept of this story is an intriguing one; the narrative voice written as a 5 year old boy is unique, but it does comes with some presentational drawbacks that ultimately decided my star rating.

Jack knows big vocabulary words and seems to rationalize pretty well for a 5 year old. He also shows some typical toddler curiosities that have some believable aspects to his character, particularly with his naiveness and lack of experience in the “Outside” world - but what wasn’t believable was the inconsistency of his speech.

Ma doesn’t speak to him like he’s a baby at any time in the story, nor does anyone else for that matter; and yet, Jack’s language goes from intelligent vocabulary to using made up adjectives and words to describe his thoughts; sometimes in the same paragraph. I know he’s 5 years old, but the author did a poor job keeping Jack’s character consistent. I don’t mind if Jack was delayed, or intelligent, or average, ect. But at least keep it consistent.

I also felt that the author could have given more detail on the emotional aspects of such a traumatic event. We get a lot of descriptions of how rocks feel and what trees look like and how people move and how airplanes fly, but I wanted more depth of the story; not objects. I kept reading, thinking that I’ll eventually get to know the characters on a personal, emotional level. I was disappointed.

Jack’s character is not the only one to have flaws though. Every character of the book felt flat to me. Ma felt detached, therefore I felt detached from Ma. I understand she was going through her own trauma and Ma’s character was only given to us from a 5 year old prospective, but this is where more emotional depth of the entire story would have been good to have. We know absolutely nothing about her besides how she functions day to day in a zombie like state, who’s occasionally “gone” into a depression, who attempted suicide once they were “Outside”, and I don’t even know the reasonings behind her behavior. I understand that the concept of the entire story is to be assumed that being a hostage explains the why’s. But that’s not an answer.... it’s only the cause, and I wanted much more than just a cause.

I also didn’t understand why Ma would tell a 5 year old boy the sad details of a previous stillbirth to a child who’s already been traumatized. This came up because Jack overheard Ma tell the doctor about another baby born prior to Jack, but we (the readers) did not know the details of that stillbirth until Jack asks Ma about it later. Details of the umbilical cord strangling the baby explained to a 5 year old doesn’t seem realistic to me considering the circumstances.

Everything we know in this story is through Jack. This includes overheard conversations between other people. There are many incidences where Jack doesn’t fully understand a situation he sees or hears, and Ma is vague with her answers to him. Yet we already know the details of those situations because they were revealed previously to us at the time Jack overheard (or saw) it. So why was this situation different?

If the author was consistent with the characters then Ma (who is perceived to be protective and somewhat elusive to questions) would have kept her answer to Jack a simple one; “you once had a baby sister who went to Heaven”. We would have known the details in another way.

This is where the challenges of having a 5 year old tell a story are most obvious and can lead to flaws.

In captivity “Ma” tells Jack how close her and her brother (Paul) were, and yet, they hardly talk when she’s free. Why even have a brother if he’s never actually introduced?!

The grandparent’s played some key roles on the “Outside”, but we only get a glimpse of their relationship with Ma and Jack. Especially when it comes to Ma’s father, who’s briefly introduced. There’s some tension revealed, and then he’s gone, never to be brought up again. I took the dad situation to be that they likely moved apart, maybe never to speak to one another again..... but who really know for sure anyways.... we never got to truly know these characters so it’s hard to predict their outcomes, good, bad, or indifferent.

What this book lacked was emotions. The raw revealing and healing process. The struggles and connections formed and reformed, made and remade and established and reestablished with relatives, with each other, and with themselves.

This story could have been extremely moving and touching, but in the end it fell flat and condensed. Even boring at times, especially during the “Outside” part of the story. The bulk of the plot felt rushed and yet the mediocre fillers of it felt excessive.

Despite its flaws, I don’t regret reading the book. I just think that the concept had potential that wasn’t tapped in to.