If there was ever a book, much less about ‘content’ than about ‘context’, this is it!!!!
But the ‘content’ is what makes us book so deliciously intoxicating to devour it in one or two sittings.
The unlikable characters are fascinating!!!
They are filled with fury, indignation, anger, covert and overt hostility, guilt tripping, shaming, aggressiveness,
entitlement, and condescending behaviors.
The main characters are either intellectually elitist or unassuming passive.
They may be:
Silenced….
Repressed….
or
Closeted individuals….
Tessa, Milton, Charlie, and Wah….take us on a ride I wouldn’t have wanted to miss
I can EAT BOOKS LIKE THIS!!
The philosophical and psychological quandaries run deep….diving deep into our own psyche…..leaving us (readers) with much to contemplate….and question.
We get to examine our own opinions, prejudices, fury, along with our delusional selves…. Yippy! right?/! Or…. at the very least, if one does not want to take this book seriously….it’s at least entertaining as hell! I found it — both: entertaining….yet seriously important.
Charmaine Craig is a writer after my own heart …. I couldn’t respect her more for writing this book. She explores womanhood, parenthood, marriage, gender roles, feminine and masculine hypotheticals, intellectual needs, physical desires/ lust, with masterful skill. ….
The tension builds throughout.
There is a LOT of THINGS to think about!!!!
I appreciated ‘somebody’ (thank you Charmaine) examining peer relationships between women!!!
Women friendships can be the most cherished of all relationships in the world …..and/or can be extreme and complex.
The origins of female rivalry can be quite manipulative…. undermining each others success.
Female rivalry may not look as direct as with male/male competitiveness, but they are less likely to fizzle away easily.
Why women hold grudges longer than most men — is a puzzle I still wonder.
I’ll admit being an ugly culprit myself at times, too.
It seems to me that women are less prepared than men to resolve conflicts with same-sex peers….than men with men.
Charmaine does a brilliant job exploring sabotage, boasting, mimicking and discrediting others in front of others. Ouch!
At only 147 pages ….this slim-jim is actually a hearty-husky-hunky……substantially satisfying and stimulating: powerfully written!
Tons of excerpts on every page intrigued me.
I’m going to include a lot of long excerpts ….
…. not necessarily for others to read —
but I’m selfishly including these excerpts because I want to come back and read them again — in a few weeks from now — or at the end of the year ….(have them here easily at my disposal).
“His first letter to me, routed by email through my publisher about nine months prior to all this, was a response to my essay on the question of Camus’s relevance. It’s not often that I allow myself to feel flattered by appreciative words from readers; I think, if you are honest with yourself, you will agree that flattery should be allowed to mean something primarily to the flatterer. But with the first lines of Charlie’s admiring letter, I understood that our minds could keep a certain, rare company. I soon broke my policy of not googling people whose work intrigues me, and after some searching, I saw that he was a decently, published philosophy, professor at a research, university near L. A. and, by any contemporary, metric, practically invisible online. There was just one photo of him, on his department website: a candid-looking shot of an approachable, disheveled, frankly, sexy man of middle-age”.
“Understand me: my swift response to his letter, wasn’t a matter of loneliness, sexual or otherwise; my husband, of seven years, Milton, and I still enjoyed various forms of camaraderie, but when a darkly, attractive man from a similar desert of intellectual, isolation comes bearing a cup of consolation, one drinks!”
“We were three, to be sure, but none of us would have deny that I was the glue that made us three stick”.
—Tessa
When Tessa’s daughter, Eleonore, was ten years old, in the fifth grade — she had an urgent need for her mother to volunteer at her school regularly.
The role of parent volunteer wasn’t something that was natural for Tessa.
“That day, I’d spent several hours manning a snack table on a hot patch of pavement, swinging between feelings of resentment and judgment and envy. None of the other mothers present seemed to be conflicted about having given up hours of their day; in suits or jeans or summer dresses, they dashed around refilling platters, and organizing children into lines, as if to proclaim, ‘We got this!’ Or, no: ‘We love this!’ But that wasn’t quite yet, either.
‘We are this!’ Yes. ‘We are this!’ ‘This’ being the amalgamation of types, roles and ideal they appeared almost effortlessly to embody: graceful, homemaker, ass-kicking professional, tireless child advocate. In other words, the contemporary, feminine icon of success, poised down to her manicured fingers, never a gray hair showing, plucked, fit, content to manage logistics in the kitchen or boardroom—or the bedroom, presumably. One has to wonder if the extent to which women willingly play various roles (such that the roles themselves appear to to find them) is not itself a powerful example of perspective, bending. How else do so many of them succeed at over looking the fundamental injustice of having to do and be just about everything? Men get to act; women, to play at our risk ruin”.
“There aren’t so many people anymore, whose lives are about real connection, a real exchanging of ideas and revelations, even difficult ones. We are family, we have our computers and our phones and the things we do with them. But to be drawn into Charlie’s world, which one to become part of a very deep and ongoing conversation, to be pulled along the currents of his innermost, thoughts and conflicts, had to be attended to intimately in ways of the heart and mind—and soul, if I’m honest. I had only to say three or four words to him for the facet of his intimacy to turn on. He was right there, his rushing closeness, right there. And then suddenly it was not”.
“Lately, I’ve been meditating again on the question of femininity and motherhood, and I’ve found myself thinking of the way Camus described his mother, who was deaf and nearly mute. In his writing, she is always impossibly beautiful, in-assessable, passive, compliant, a sort of Cinderella, doomed by poverty and disability, to scrub others’ houses and watch in helpless grief when her children are subjected to the blows of injustice. In other words, she is the epitome of the feminine ideal, but not the ‘maternal’ ideal, for in a sense her solipsism betrayed him as a child. She was everything, and she was utterly unattainable; and it is tempting to blame her for Camus’s subsequent ravenousness for women: It is tempting to say something like: the condition of motherhood is a tragic one, or to be self-interested, or self-contained, is to doom one’s child. But I reject that out of hand. Look what became of Wah”.
“I had a sense of arriving at a vantage point from everything between us (including my irritation with his Don Juanian fixation on femininity) appeared to be justified. Our friendship wasn’t an ill-fated exercise in mutual vanity, two egos’
Sisyphean rehearsal of arrogant, and blasphemous lines; rather, we were ‘getting’ somewhere— if nowhere, other than closer to publishable articulation of his experience as a man”.
“If I still held you in a certain trust until a moment ago, now the precious membrane of our togetherness has been irretrievably torn”.
***Nemesi***….
“A goddess usually betrayed as the agent of divine punishment for wrongdoing or presumption”.
Perhaps I’m a masochist? Ha.. ha! ……but I admire this book …..and sure enjoyed it.