The Boy in the Field

3.5 stars

This book emanates superficiality intentionally. Based on the New York Times review and a certain quote (that is probably the climax of this book for which I wish it wasn't because it was this particular quote that drew me in), I tried not to set my expectations beyond picturing a small town mystery that disturbs the inner peace of a nuclear family. And in a way that is what this book entails, however, the story is zooms in so ostensibly that we only see the perceptions-not the thoughts and feelings-of the three siblings that discovered the boy in the field.

There were instances of common family-drama type challenges that were made to bring in points of tension but seemingly wrapped up swiftly enough and with such a perfect bow that it's hard to believe the author wanted us to remember the characters' names, let alone their experiences. The only reasoning I can find behind the Birdseye view of the entire story is the symbolism of the view Duncan so when they stumbled across the boy in the field. Each of their recounting's of the discovery held a sense of detachment and therefore each character seized the opportunity to fill in the blanks with their interpretation of what might have/did transpire. The title did not name the boy in the field because it's about the portrayal of the main characters' perceptions; not only about the boy/what happened to the boy but every social interaction and consequence thereafter.

This would honestly be a perfect book to study in a classroom setting. It provides many opportunities to discuss how the characters see the same actions and hear the same words but ultimately each has a unique understanding of what occurred.

There was one conversation between the eldest sibling and the detective that made me think differently about capital punishment and for that alone, I need to buy a physical copy. :)