Little Children by Tom Perrotta

Gut Instinct Rating - 1

Characters - 2

Believability for type and topics - 3

Similarity to other books - 3

Writing Style - 1

Excitement Factor - 1

Story Line - 2

Title Relevance - 2

Cover art - N/A

Dust Jacket Art - 2

To read or not to read? Don't waste your time.

Goodreads users gave this book a 3.60. I think it was more deserving of a 1.89.

---

Published in 2004

Pages: 255

Publishing Company: St. Martin's Press

Number of books by author: 21 Novels

Genre: Fiction, Contemporary, Adult Fiction

Really, just don't waste your time. It was boring, repetitive, and jumpy. The characters felt so similar across the board, aside from the odd-secondary characters (football players and skateboarders), everyone was basically miserable. It paints a pretty horrid picture of a future if you're married, want to be, or are going to be. If you're a divorcée, maybe this book resonates with you entirely. Affairs happen, but does everyone have an affair? That's the picture this book paints. Not to mention, if you're not an adulterer, you're a child killer. In general, this book was unique, but it wasn't unique enough to tell a new story, nor was it similar enough to anything to be a re-read of 100 other books. The writing style was probably the biggest point of blame in this meek 2 stars. It was just so jumpy... it was hard to follow. One minute, I'm following adulterer A, then I'm following a pedophile, then I'm following a porn star/escort (I haven't really figured out if she qualifies as a swinger anymore). The book was just incredibly boring. Nothing happened. I mean, I guess we followed a series of individuals on their midlife crisis, but other than that... I mean, what happened? I didn't really get the title, either. And someone, for the love of God, please explain to me what this cover actually means. The movie, well, it was almost identical to the book. Which isn't easy to do. So I was at least pleased with that. I would've rather watched than movie than ever watched the book, but I don't think I would've ever sought out the movie if it weren't for the book.

1. Is Little Children an appropriate or deceptive title for this novel? Can you think of the different ways the phrase is employed within the book? To what characters does it best apply? In the end, is the title simply descriptive, or does it work on multiple levels? This title just doesn't resonate with me. I mean, I get it - there's children involved, but they're not really the main story.

2. Which characters do you sympathize most with in the novel, and why? Which characters are the least sympathetic? Do your sympathies shift over the course of the novel? I definitely sympathize with those being cheated on. But, that gets a bit sticky, too. Richard, for example, doesn't do anything to help himself in this marriage. But, neither does Todd. Complacency isn't an excuse for cheating by any means, but you also have to take part in your marriage and relationships. The kids also became a pawn in both marriages - to stay or to go, either way; the children always suffer in these toxic relationships, so it's only reasonable to feel something for Lucy and Aaron. I also feel sorry for Mrs. McGorvey - I think it's pretty explainable as to why any pity should head that direction. But throughout the entire thing, I was always stable in where I felt.

3. What does Todd want from Sarah? What does Sarah want from Todd? Are they in love, or simply using each other to escape from bad marriages/unhappy lives? I think they both wanted (and needed) someone to share themselves with. BUT, again, cheating is no excuse. This could've been done outside of the marriage. I think, the ending is a perfect example of whether they're in love or not.

4. Very few criminals in our culture are more vilified than pedophiles. What do you make of the portrayal of Ronnie McGorvey? Is he a uniquely evil character in the novel? Or is he more similar to the other characters than they'd like to admit? Is he treated fairly by the people in town? I think they did a fantastic job of showing the extremes of releasing a pedophile from prison; showing how a small town can respond to such an event. (The second question I don't really have a response for.) I think everyone in this book is looking for affection, or at the bare minimum, someone to care for them, and he was looking for that, too. If someone can live with the person he is, and they can love him, then who are we as readers to exclude him from that relationship? I also think the treatment of people in town was a bit extreme. I mean, every where you looked in the background, you saw his face. But, legally, that'd never hold up. It makes for an interesting question about how he's able to function as a released prisoner, when there's really not any give. No matter where he lives, he's exposed to children. So, I wish the book would've shown a different end-outcome to how that is supposed to take place.

5. Is Larry justified in his obsession with Ronnie? Are his methods simply unorthodox, or is he just a bully who's lost his moral compass? In the end, does he do more harm than good? I think Larry's obsession stems from two things - he's a retired cop, but he's a retired cop who killed a kid in the line of duty. I think his obsession with protecting children stems from that. We didn't really get a drunken confession about that, but we got bits and pieces that give you that kind of conclusion. I definitely think Larry caused Mrs. McGorvey's death, even if indirectly. And I think the town uproar and panic would've been minimized if he had just allowed the active officers to do their job.

6. How are children portrayed in this novel? What do you make of such details as Aaron's jester's hat, Big Bear, and the games Train Wreck and Car Doctor? Do Todd and Sarah have different attitudes toward their children, and toward themselves as parents? They're innocent, but observant. And I think their subtleties are played out better in the book by far. The movie becomes much more direct with the children's responses and behaviors towards the affairs and their primary parents' relationship collapsing around them. I never really looked further into the jester's hat or Big Bear anymore than child's play. I do think the Train Wreck and Car Doctor were symbolic (maybe not while reading, but once the question is posed, it makes perfect sense) of the corruption and turmoil around them. I definitely think Sarah resents Lucy because she resents her marriage; but I think Todd, he loves being a father, and that's what causes him to make the final decision in the book.

7. What role does sports play in this novel? Why is Todd so fascinated with the skateboarders? What need does football address in his life? I have no idea. I thought it was all pointless...

8. When Sarah and Mary Ann argue about Madame Bovary at the book group, what are they really arguing about? Which one makes the most convincing argument about Emma Bovary, and by extension, about the characters in Little Children? It was definitely them speaking to one another in code about Sarah's affair. In the end, I think they come to an unspoken agreement about their behaviors and feelings toward one another and the affair.

9. How do the characters' pasts influence their behaviors within the novel? Who is trying to escape the past? Who is trying to relive it? Who is simply repeating it? I definitely think Roger is repeating his past, reliving it, repeating it. All of the above, really. Sarah I think is trying to reinvent herself, become a new person. Todd, he was simply trying to relive the golden days in association with his future.

10. A critic has suggestion that "all the noncriminal characters in this story are better off in the end than they were at the start." Is that true? Can you think of any exceptions? I think they're all a mess. Larry may be the only one who showed real promise and growth in accepting his life and moving forward.

11. Critics have differed a great deal in characterizing the tone of the novel. One called it a "gentle satire," while another claimed that "Perrotta has moved into the suburbs with a wrecking ball." Which critic do you agree with? How do you account for this discrepancy in this descriptions? I think this a mixture of both. I think on some level, it's a satire piece on the suburbs. I think they both capture the ridiculousness of it all, as well as what happens in a small town.