My Sister's Keeper/Headscratchers

• Am I the only one who liked the movie ending better than the book ending? To me, the book ending seemed like a case of God saying "Screw you, you're parts and parts is all you'll ever be", making the whole thing needlessly nihilistic.
  • Hell yeah it was better. The book made Anne's court case almost completely pointless by killing her and having someone else choose to give away her organs. The entire point of the court case was that Kate wanted to die and Anne had the right to make her own medical choices, which is exactly what they got in the movie. I don't know what Jodi Picoult was thinking by killing her off.
    • I actually preferred the book ending. After watching the movie, I just walked away normally. A few weeks later, after finishing the book, I stared into thin air for ages just contemplating that ending (and nearly ran into a tree). It felt so much more poignant and emotionally moving this way.
      • I also preferred the book ending. The book ending gets the point of Anna's love for Kate across deeper than in the film. The book dose leave you staring at wall thinking quite hard about the moral and ethical values of the book.
    • I think both endings work well for the tone of the book and the film. The book keeps you guessing and makes you question the issues at hand, so the twist ending was in keeping with the rest of the book. The film had a much different tone; it was more fuzzy-feeling-family-drama than ethical debate. I think if they'd put the book's ending with the film as it was it would have felt like genre-whiplash. The changed ending fit better with the rest of the film.
    • I prefer the move ending better. Annie went through all the trouble to free from being just a medical thing, causing trouble in her family and grant her sister's wish of finally being released from the pain. And what does she get?!? She dies in the book ending! JEEZ JODI PICOULT! I like your books, but this ending is just as bad as Handle with Care where Willow drowned! What is the point of having so work so hard and that being taken from you! People should what they want if they work hard for it!
• What world is this, that Sara gets to act as lawyer in a case that involves her own family members? (On both sides, no less.) Is that even legal?
  • You're thinking of doctor, who are legally not allowed to operate on family members and friends. In the case of lawyers, it's ill advised but legal.
• In relation to the first problem stated...I was going to add my bit, but I didn't want to make it longer, as this will open up a different set of issues: The edition this troper owned contained an interview with Jodi Picoult after the very end. One of the questions she was asked was why she chose to end it this way. Her answer? Because it was the most "medically realistic" ending according to a nurse she talked to. I could go into incessant ranting about this, but...yeah.
  • Saying it is medically realistic isn't fair. The nurse would obviously say that this would be the right ending because she would always be on the side of the one who is sick, not considering anyone's else feelings.
  • I took "medically realistic" to mean that Picoult wanted Kate to survive, and the nurse agreed the only "medically realistic" way she would survive would be to get the transplant -- so bye-bye, Anna, tough cookies. I can't imagine any scenario where "medically realistic" = "be rendered brain dead in a freak car accident minutes after becoming medically emancipated after which your guardian agrees to have your organs harvested without a second thought". I certainly wouldn't want to be a patient at a hospital with that definition of medical realism...Mind you, I suspect that section of the interview was mostly an exercise in passing the buck for the Deus Angst Machina / Debate and Switch.