CAUTION review contains spoilers!! In many ways, I loved this book. But in many ways, I didn't like it. Lamott is a good writer. She is not the greatest novelist on the planet, but "Rosie" is what I might call a good modern novel, when a lot of modern novels today are junk. Lamott portrays life the way it is, even when we don't like what life really is. Her style of narrative often mirrored well the way that we take in the world--through senses. She is a sensory writer, and I loved her descriptions of objects, people, and places. She developed characters brilliantly. I had such strong perceptions of every character of the novel, and I connected with each of them, felt like they could be real people. The dialogue she writes also felt very real to me. And she does a fabulous job of incorporating thought process in between dialogue. She (for the most part...) shows, rather than tells. But, on this note, I did NOT like the beginning. After finishing the novel I went back and read it again, and found it distant, general, and summary-like. She summarizes Elizabeth through the perspective of the town-people, who don't actually matter very much for the rest of the story. And the information this provides doesn't feel necessary or relevant to who Elizabeth really is. The style of narration in the beginning doesn't resemble the rest of the novel, for me, and I don't like it at all. I also found the ending strange and abrupt.
First of all, with the ending, she marries the guy! Even though he cheats! She has a suspicion that he cheats on her, but doesn't investigate it, and marries him! I don't like what this communicates to the reader. Maybe it's realistic--yeah, guys cheat and we marry them anyway and put up with it a lot of times--but it felt like she was just marrying him because she was too terrified to be alone again. Lamott couldn't imagine breaking them up. James already wasn't a perfect guy to Elizabeth, I don't understand why Lamott felt that she had to write James as a cheater. I think this communicates a VERY damaging message to women reading the book. It's also inconsistent with the novel. Elizabeth counsels Rae through getting over her ex-boyfriend Brian, who is also manipulative and a cheater. So, if Elizabeth knows it's wrong (and perhaps Lamott as well...), WHY is it suddenly okay for her to be with a guy who will turn out to be a Brian later down the road? Not good, Lamott. Not good.
And another thing. The alcoholism. Throughout the novel, everyone is commenting on what a great mother Elizabeth is. Yes, she loves her daughter extraordinarily, and Rosie is wonderful and perfect, but Elizabeth is an alcoholic who is dependent on her daughter for happiness and stabilization! In real life, an alcoholic mother would have damaged Rosie and the relationship between mother and daughter more than what is portrayed in the book, I think. Also, this especially bothers me, Elizabeth doesn't even quit drinking on her own. She goes YEARS telling herself that she'll quit, and then doesn't. She can't quit drinking for Rosie's sake. She "tries." She doesn't. She needs James in order to quit. She needs him also quitting with her, before she can finally do it. I would have been more impressed with Elizabeth's true love for her daughter if she could have done it by her own will and strength.
And, she never gets a job. Great. The lady goes nearly her whole life not working, being miserable by not working, and then finally gaining "happiness" because she has a man again to fill up her time. What a great example that sets for readers. And what a great, strong, finish to the novel (NOT!).
Felt like this book ended with too many loose ends, or "ends" that I didn't like. But it's not just that I personally didn't prefer them, it's that I believe novels are supposed to teach us something about life that will improve us and help us become better people. If what I'm supposed to learn from this novel is that you can't quit alcoholism without someone to carry you through it, and that you need a man in order to be happy, and you can still raise a happy, fulfilled, brilliant child while being an alcoholic, and that it's okay to be lazy and sit around your house all day not working and sponging off other people's money, then fine. If this is the case, I will openly say: Anne Lamott, I don't agree with you and I don't like your book. But, granted, she can sure describe a child's perspective on the world in a way that is more amazing, beautiful, and accurate than I would have ever though possible. Kudos for that. I would like to have a conversation with Lamott. Maybe then I could work through the things I disagreed with about the novel.