Little Bee discussion

I'm baffled by the ending of this book. Are others baffled too or did I miss something?

Help!

Me too! I hated the ending! I loved everything about the book until about halfway through. It seems like it was rushed and unbelievable.

I agree the ending was horrible. I really liked the book until the end and now I am mad I wasted my time!

Baffled?
She's good, and the men are bad and the English are ineffectual dilettantes who want to be good but not enough to really help. I wanted a happy ending too, but that's not the truth of this book. It's supposed to be a challenge to us spoiled first world citizens with our governments that are, if some times inept, at least safe & rational.

I agree..I was left wanting more? Or the possibility of a part 2. But interesting take on it Mark. That could very well be our reasoning for being baffled I suppose.

Oooh! I would totally buy a part 2!

Totally agree, I was left baffled and completely unsatisfied by this ending. I cannot figure out why people raved about it.

I thought the ending was totally true to life. What mother isn't going to protect her child over someone else? After all, blood is thicker than water (a little trite truism for you there!). And very predictable that the bureaucracy would return Little Bee to a dangerous situation instead of protecting her. Very disturbing, but true to life. Not a fairy tale ending.

I was baffled by the beginning too. How did two sophisticated, well-informed journalists get themselves into such a jam in Nigeria?

Cori wrote: "Me too! I hated the ending! I loved everything about the book until about halfway through. It seems like it was rushed and unbelievable."
I really liked the first half, but the second half was such a let down. Too many implausible things happened, mainly that they would go back to that beach. SOMEone should have had the good sense not to go, and in real life, someone would. Clearly the bribing of the police was an exercise in futility and Sarah should have known it would end badly.

Linda wrote: "I thought the ending was totally true to life. What mother isn't going to protect her child over someone else? After all, blood is thicker than water (a little trite truism for you there!). And ver..."
Hmmm....if a mother was going to protect her son, she should never have taken him to a place that she knew firsthand to be dangerous. That entire scenario just didn't ring true to me.

I thinkm that was my issue Arlene - I mean, she had had previous experience in Nigeria where she lost her finger; she obviously followed world events and things were getting worse there, yet she chose to take her son and put him in danger, along with herself and who knows how many others with her actions - what about the people who would have tried to save her if they had been kidnapped?

Brilliant book - the ending was clever. It made you realise who was the brave one. Also why the title change? In UK it is The Other Hand!

books are often published under different names in different countries

the first harry potter in the UK was Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone; it was changed to the Sorcerer's Stone in the US because they figured US kids wouldn't know the story of the philosopher's stone

Mark wrote: "Baffled?
She's good, and the men are bad and the English are ineffectual dilettantes who want to be good but not enough to really help. I wanted a happy ending too, but that's not the truth of thi..."

Good assessment. The taking of the little boy's costume off is symbolic of the Western world not being the superheroes we think we are.

You're expecting a sane reasonable decision from a woman who chooses a honeymoon in a third world country because it's cheap? She's proven that her decision making is weak at best. That said, once her child is threatened the maternal instinct kicks in. This is what is so true to life, in my opinion.

I liked the book, the whole book. The ending wasn't happy, but it didn't feel false. And who says life is full of happy endings anyways? It would have been nice for everything to turn out alright, but it wouldn't have been realistic. Some people don't live charmed lives. They don't get to go home to safe places every night. They no longer have parents, or families. They have to fend for themselves with no one to save them. Its nice for us to think about this happening far away in foreign countries rather than in our own back yards, that is disturbing enough.
I don't mean to sound cynical, but I read the book realistically I guess. Some people travel internationally to war torn countries. Sometimes bad things happen to people. We have a tendency to blame the victim ( if you weren't there, it wouldn't have happened to you). What about the idiots with the guns and the knives? Anybody want to just say stop the insanity?
The fact of the matter is that everything that happens in the book, could have happened and probably does happen in some countries every day. The author just shed some light on it for us to see. I thought it was a very good book and have picked up the authors other books available in this country to see what other stories there are......

Sherry wrote: "I liked the book, the whole book. The ending wasn't happy, but it didn't feel false. And who says life is full of happy endings anyways? It would have been nice for everything to turn out alrigh..."

You are right on! To me, this is exactly what the book is about.

see for me, i don't think the author did a good job of highlighting the issues in the niger delta region and that part of africa in general - he did a typicalize focus on the issues that white individuals see...even Bee with her escaping didn't seem real...a much better book about struggles in the area IMHO is Tiny Sunbirds, Far Away - how can we as readers expect authenticity from an author who hasn't lived in the area that he is writing about - i guess is my point

Marilyn wrote: "I agree..I was left wanting more? Or the possibility of a part 2. But interesting take on it Mark. That could very well be our reasoning for being baffled I suppose."

wanting more? i didnt want much more than the first couple chapters of this patronizing flat drivel.

I didn't like the book, I thought it was silly.

Dee wrote: "see for me, i don't think the author did a good job of highlighting the issues in the niger delta region and that part of africa in general - he did a typicalize focus on the issues that white indi..."

I really don't think that the book was about the problems in Africa. It was about looking at Europeans (and all Westerners) through the eyes of an outsider; remarking on their lifestyle, complacency about always having access to material things, safety, justice, freedom, and their entitlement to such things. Twice the Englishwoman blithely goes into a dangerous area, thinking that her race, wealth and nationality can protect her from the horrors that the third world populace faces every day. Although she is slightly maimed, it is the third world character who suffers, and sacrifices herself for the Englishwoman and her son. Removing the superhero costume from the boy is symbolic that the Westerner is no longer an impervious King of the world, and that the westerners should beware the coming uprising of the third world countries, whose time is coming, rightly or wrongly, into fruition.

Yes, you make total sense. Thank you!

Mark wrote: "Baffled?
She's good, and the men are bad and the English are ineffectual dilettantes who want to be good but not enough to really help. I wanted a happy ending too, but that's not the truth of thi..."

i would have liked them to go back and live happily ever after but the world is not good.

however, to me, he could have done that with Sarah's section but at least to me, you can't truely understand why Bee did what she did, without understanding the politics in the area, and the fact that westerners are targeted in that area...its a huge problem - you can find that out just by googling...they are always targeted in kidnapping campaigns...so the fact that that information was theoretically available and Sarah and her hubby/ Sarah alone - chose to ignore it, shows ingornance to global issues when she is supposed to be a journalist

Susan wrote: "Dee wrote: "see for me, i don't think the author did a good job of highlighting the issues in the niger delta region and that part of africa in general - he did a typicalize focus on the issues tha..."

This book sucked. Tell me how annoying that little boy was... anyone who has a child knows that kids don't speak like that.

And what was up with them standing around on the beach? if there is something potentially violent about to happen you get the hell out of there.

the whole thing was irritating to me.

It really wasn't one of my fav's nor I think I would read it again. But it was good.

I loved the book, but the end left me baffled as well. I would totally be into buying a sequel to find out what happened. And I agree with the reader that said that the second halfseemed a bit rushed. I never understood why the woman took her son with her to such a dangerous place.

It promisses too much and then it´s over

All of your posts descsribe why I was unsettled and undecided. I understand the whole point and maybe the point was to leave the reader in a disturbed state.

Too confusing and yes, it was unbelievable on so mnay levels. I kept hoping it was going to go somewhere that made some sense but it never did.

I loved the voices wrought by Cleave in this book (at least the women; the men were given short shrift). The were clear, distinct and beautiful. But I found Sarah to be entirely unappealing—a thoroughly selfish woman who continued to make bad choices throughout the book, leaving death and destruction in her wake without ever seeming to grow as a person.

Loved the first seven or eight chapters -- the rest, not as much. Wasn't bothered by the end though...

Had a hard time understanding why Sara would return to the beach--"the scene of the crime" considering it promised no more safety than the last time--and this time with her son in tow. I liked the book--thought the writing was beautiful, but the end seemed off and incomplete. By the way--there is no way to know for sure that the soldiers let Charlie and Sarah go...

I have to agree, the ending made me sad. I wanted more for her.

I didn't care for Sarah as she revealed herself more towards the end. Thinking her intentions were valid, when she encouraged LB further south for stories, I thought, wait!! Sarah not only endangered LB but also her 3yr old son. Really, you would take him alone with LB into a volital region!! She may have given her finger to initially save LB, but in the end, she enabled her capture. Sad.

Mark wrote: "Baffled?
She's good, and the men are bad and the English are ineffectual dilettantes who want to be good but not enough to really help. I wanted a happy ending too, but that's not the truth of thi..."

I have to agree with you Mark. Don't we wish for happy endings, but this old world does not give happy endings to most people on earth.

To those who scoff at happy endings: I like them. That's why I read FICTION

A sad ending in a novel should at least mean something. In this book, Little Bee's life seemed ineffectual and futile, despite her Herculean efforts.

If I want sad endings like that, I can read the newspaper.

so true...I was sooo disappointed with the ending....I was like uhh that's it haha.....I loved the book but the ending was sad

I found the ending to be flawed. An unaccompanied minor would not be deported. The real-life event that triggered the author to write this specifically explained how minors will not be deported. Why in the world, then, was Little Bee deported?

There is nothing more disappointing than the way the story ended - especially for Little Bee.

I think the point of this book was exactly that the world can be a really crappy place where really crappy things happen. Where insulated European & Westerners alike are ill-equipped to comprehend, let alone deal with those crappy realities. LB winds up being the most grounded of all the characters in the book, having dealt with those realities as daily fodder.
No the book doesn't end happily, but for hundreds of thousands around the globe, that is their crappy reality.

Amendment: I do want to add that I also did not understand Sarah returning to the beach with her son. What kind of mother would DO THAT????? Not one single mother that I know.
Still..... 5*s even if Sarah was the most profoundly stupid female alive.

Amy wrote: "I found the ending to be flawed. An unaccompanied minor would not be deported. The real-life event that triggered the author to write this specifically explained how minors will not be deported. Wh..."

What was that event?

Read it in the foreword.

Ginger wrote: "I'm baffled by the ending of this book. Are others baffled too or did I miss something?

Help!"

I was baffled a little also. I wondered if in the end Sarah betrayed Little Bee as revenge for her husband's suicide and the fact that she knew little Bee objected to her relationship with Lawrence. It was weird but maybe not to Sarah's way of thinking.

Sarah was too stupid to betray Little Bee. Sarah was a stereotyped white Western person as seen by a stereotyped person of the third world. Sarah was depicted as entitled, privileged, naive, ignorant of what was going on in the world, unable to make logical decisions for or to protect her own child. Little Bee was the dark skinned servant who ends up protecting and sacrificing herself for the white child. That is what the book is about, not two individuals for whom there will be a happy ending. Also, to Julia above, all fiction not about happy endings. If you want that, don't stray out of the romance section of the bookstore. Some fiction, good fiction, presents complex issues for the thinking reader.

I was disappointed by the ending too and wanted Little Bee to be saved somehow but then I remembered a quote from the book, about the story telling us not the other way around.. we cant choose just like Little Bee couldnt