What do you think?
Rate this book
Crucial Conversations
"May Sarton's provocative novel is about a wife who has outgrown her husband, and after twenty-seven years of marriage decides that she has had enough. . . . she is altogether believable." ― The Atlantic Reed and Poppy Whitelaw's conventional and apparently serene life together is shattered when Poppy tells Reed that she has decided to leave him. In a series of encounters that follow the shock of this news, which affects not only Reed but also their children and friends―in particular Philip, who must learn why he is so invested in their marriage―Reed and Poppy struggle to make sense of their lives in this alien new terrain.
158 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1976
20 people are currently reading
240 people want to read
About the author
May Sarton
154 books597 followersMay Sarton was born on May 3, 1912, in Wondelgem, Belgium, and grew up in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Her first volume of poetry, Encounters in April, was published in 1937 and her first novel, The Single Hound, in 1938. An accomplished memoirist, Sarton boldly came out as a lesbian in her 1965 book Mrs. Stevens Hears the Mermaids Singing. Her later memoir, Journal of a Solitude, was an account of her experiences as a female artist. Sarton died in York, Maine, on July 16, 1995.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews
July 31, 2025
Reading through all the May Sarton novels I found while cleaning out my grandmother’s house… that woman was definitely gay
May 5, 2024
On the importance of being compassionate with yourself, uncompromising, hungry… May Sarton truly is a girls girl
September 9, 2012
I have been rereading or discovering for the first time many May Sarton novels. I enjoyed this one - the story line offered an unusual point of view and many things to reflect upon. After 27 years a wife has decided to end her marriage and the story is told by a friend of hers and her soon to be ex-husband. The story takes place during the time when my parents ended their marriage and I was able to see how Ms. Sarton saw society's role in marriage. I was 10 at the time and had no vision of the big picture. Thru Ms. Sarton's story I was able to consider what divorce means to people outside the two who are married.
March 19, 2015
While the details of this book are lost in the mists, I remember reading it at a time when I was struggling along with my own “real” life and finding it of great comfort and gaining insight into my own miasma of the moment. I love May Sarton’s writings and this one ranks high in my personal pantheon of works by Sarton. I keep many of her works close-by on their own shelf to be revisited from time to time.
October 22, 2019
Brett and Poppy have been happily married for 27 years. At least that’s what Brett and the couple’s best friend, Philip, thought. That is until Poppy decides she’s had it and wants a divorce. Everyone in the family deals with the impending divorce in very different ways. But, no one takes it quite as hard as Philip. If you like books that are short and introspective, then May Sarton is an author you may enjoy. Her books always give me lots to ponder.
January 26, 2023
Interesting novella (156 pages) about the dissolution of a 27 year marriage told in conversations with the wife, husband, best friend (of both), children, mothers. Written in 1975, the Vietnam War factors into the marital problems, as well as the wife's issue with being a homemaker and not encouraged, by her husband, to make her art (sculpting). What I found interestig was that these issues still prevail, in some marriages, today.
August 14, 2009
feels more like a neil labute play than a novel.
August 13, 2020
This is a book that is truly of its era - references Watergate as a near-contemporary event, so deep in the 1970's, upper crust white Boston society. There are cocktails before dinner, and a focus on women's weight as a reflection of their characters, and playing tennis on Sundays. The book unfolds from an initial chapter where the central female character announces her intention to divorce, through a series of conversations that their best (male bachelor) friend has with the various players: their three children, their mothers(-in-law), and the divorcing husband and wife. The friend is intended to be more able to be objective, and if not dispassionate at least able to see both sides. As the conversations progress, we get clarity on the wife's reasons and purpose for divorcing. The husband expresses a pretty standard opinions of the times (and likely still among that class) about women and marriage that I remember well as a teen in those years. ETA: reflecting as I read other reviews that the recent Netflix film Marriage Story treads a lot of the same ground in a more modern way.
May 29, 2024
Goes to show how long feminist ideas have been out there, how slowly some very basic ideas change, but also how much progress has been made. Set in the Seventies (fifty plus years ago). Point of view is that of a long time male friend of a married couple, not as one might expect of either the exiting wife (Poppy) or the angry husband (Reed). Much more interesting that way: Poppy knows exactly what she is doing--freeing herself from the husks of an old 1950s housewife role--Reed is just angry, feels betrayed, needs her back to have his dinner ready, iron his shirts, do up the dishes and bring his slippers. Ugh. But the friend (Philip) is the one who gains the most insight--that's the part I found most interesting. The kids from this marriage, seem to be mostly together. Interesting play between the external dialogue in these conversations and internal narrative. Short.
May 23, 2025
Bought my copy at Womb House in Oakland. Sweet little jewel box of shop.
Such an interesting structure and decision to insert Philip, and have Philip lead the investigation into the rubble a relationship. Philip! A friend who was so enmeshed in this marriage he takes news of the breakup harder than the grown children do! Not a direct relation of either partner so no possibility of bias, someone of an insider and outsider. Fascinating character who made the entire story possible.
My other thoughts are that Watergate and the Vietnam War sound like they really shattered the innocence of a dumb nation. So interesting what a looming presence those events have in this small domestic novel.
Such an interesting structure and decision to insert Philip, and have Philip lead the investigation into the rubble a relationship. Philip! A friend who was so enmeshed in this marriage he takes news of the breakup harder than the grown children do! Not a direct relation of either partner so no possibility of bias, someone of an insider and outsider. Fascinating character who made the entire story possible.
My other thoughts are that Watergate and the Vietnam War sound like they really shattered the innocence of a dumb nation. So interesting what a looming presence those events have in this small domestic novel.
April 6, 2017
Reed and Poppy's marriage ended because they are on different ends of the values spectrum, and Reed, the one with the money (being the breadwinner) has all the power in the relationship. For a marriage to thrive each person must be recognized by the other as an equal partner. Reed wants a traditional wife. Poppy is unwilling to continue in that role. They both deserve to have what they want. They just can't have what they want being married to each other. Taking place with the Vietnam War and Watergate as the historical context, the lies, corruption and sacrifice of ethical standards of the time provided a kind of mirror image of what was going on in the marriage. Phillip, their friend, had spent the last ten years completing the marriage. When Poppy left Reed, she also shattered Phillip's domestic peace. The crucial conversations in the book don't illuminate what's happening to each character because no one really hears or understands the others' point of view.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
November 18, 2019
Conversation(s) could have been one coversation- in the form of a short story.
December 8, 2020
The character development was excellent. Many readers will be able to identify with different asects of each personality, both admirable and not so.
February 12, 2010
"Do we always make our freedom out of someone else's bondage?"
The dissolution of a middle-aged couple's marriage in the upper middle-class suburbs toward the end of the Vietnam War era; the book attempts, interestingly, to link Vietnam and Watergate to a degradation of the private ethos in America--or the tunnel vision that comes with being in a coterie in which decency and honesty become secondary to illusory or petty goals. Such things beget unholy alliances, or marriages, and self deceptions and delusions. And most importantly, dishonesty--the failure to see what's real rather than idealized, or merely convenient to leave as is. (History repeated itself during the self-delusional "Mission Accomplished" Iraq War era, of course). The book's POV is from Philip, an architect and best friend to both the separating man and woman (he, Reed, a type-A driven successful conservative businessman and she, Poppy, an unpredictable left-leaning budding sculptor). Philip plays a game of tennis in his mind (tennis, as it happens, is a motif), batting back and forth the viewpoints of his friends during the agonizing breakup. Philip (nicknamed Pip, in reference to Dickens and sort of the same kind of outsider), is an odd duck, possibly a bit too much of a literary conceit, a confirmed "bachelor" of the old school--with no gay implications to that--who exists more or less as a sounding board--a part cipher despite his thoughtfulness and Sarton's attempts to give him a background and identity--incomplete apart from the broken couple about whom he comments as he tries to figure out the estranged parties. It's a trying process since he is exceedingly loyal to both of them, and their separation thus engenders conflict for him. All three, it seems, have failed to grow--almost petrified in a state a quarter century old--and only the wife who's doing the leaving seems to realize it, though in something of an impetuous, childlike way. The "conversations" of the title are a series of mostly lunch meetings in which the impending divorce is the central menu item--consumed between Philip and the separating parties, their relatives, offspring and his own semi-platonic lover, Kathy. Philip has to walk a tightrope of being friends to two people gearing up for enemy combat; it's a rock and a hard place--having the confidence of both and under pressure to betray neither to the other. The book gets at some insights about the nature of married relationships where, as in most cases, the partners are strangers with different agendas. The ruminations on the obligation to work at a marriage vs. uselessly treading water in a hopeless one are interesting--particularly to me. A lot of ground is covered over the book's short length, including what is meant by "success" in a money grubbing culture. Sarton seems to enter Updike territory at times, though her prose is far less flamboyant and more direct. It's extremely well written and moves right along. The authorial sensibility is perhaps a bit too erudite and civil for my taste. The final scene, though, between the three has tension and authenticity. It's no great shakes--I prefer more of the raw inner turmoil of a book like Lois Gould's Such Good Friends--but it's perfectly respectable and seems to well balance a middlebrow sensibility with a tolerance for diverse viewpoints. A solid, satisfying piece, with the issues well considered and well stated; though it never really achieves greatness.
The dissolution of a middle-aged couple's marriage in the upper middle-class suburbs toward the end of the Vietnam War era; the book attempts, interestingly, to link Vietnam and Watergate to a degradation of the private ethos in America--or the tunnel vision that comes with being in a coterie in which decency and honesty become secondary to illusory or petty goals. Such things beget unholy alliances, or marriages, and self deceptions and delusions. And most importantly, dishonesty--the failure to see what's real rather than idealized, or merely convenient to leave as is. (History repeated itself during the self-delusional "Mission Accomplished" Iraq War era, of course). The book's POV is from Philip, an architect and best friend to both the separating man and woman (he, Reed, a type-A driven successful conservative businessman and she, Poppy, an unpredictable left-leaning budding sculptor). Philip plays a game of tennis in his mind (tennis, as it happens, is a motif), batting back and forth the viewpoints of his friends during the agonizing breakup. Philip (nicknamed Pip, in reference to Dickens and sort of the same kind of outsider), is an odd duck, possibly a bit too much of a literary conceit, a confirmed "bachelor" of the old school--with no gay implications to that--who exists more or less as a sounding board--a part cipher despite his thoughtfulness and Sarton's attempts to give him a background and identity--incomplete apart from the broken couple about whom he comments as he tries to figure out the estranged parties. It's a trying process since he is exceedingly loyal to both of them, and their separation thus engenders conflict for him. All three, it seems, have failed to grow--almost petrified in a state a quarter century old--and only the wife who's doing the leaving seems to realize it, though in something of an impetuous, childlike way. The "conversations" of the title are a series of mostly lunch meetings in which the impending divorce is the central menu item--consumed between Philip and the separating parties, their relatives, offspring and his own semi-platonic lover, Kathy. Philip has to walk a tightrope of being friends to two people gearing up for enemy combat; it's a rock and a hard place--having the confidence of both and under pressure to betray neither to the other. The book gets at some insights about the nature of married relationships where, as in most cases, the partners are strangers with different agendas. The ruminations on the obligation to work at a marriage vs. uselessly treading water in a hopeless one are interesting--particularly to me. A lot of ground is covered over the book's short length, including what is meant by "success" in a money grubbing culture. Sarton seems to enter Updike territory at times, though her prose is far less flamboyant and more direct. It's extremely well written and moves right along. The authorial sensibility is perhaps a bit too erudite and civil for my taste. The final scene, though, between the three has tension and authenticity. It's no great shakes--I prefer more of the raw inner turmoil of a book like Lois Gould's Such Good Friends--but it's perfectly respectable and seems to well balance a middlebrow sensibility with a tolerance for diverse viewpoints. A solid, satisfying piece, with the issues well considered and well stated; though it never really achieves greatness.
October 18, 2011
I did not realize that there were such differences between the way that men and women think until I read this book. Unfortunately, that's because the author didn't understand those differences when she wrote the book.
Every character in this book is a woman. Some are called men, but they very much act and think as if they were women. I'm not even sure why she bothered calling them men at all; the way it's written, the story would make more sense as the breakup of a lesbian relationship.
The relationship at the core of the story breaks apart because the wife (that is, the woman she calls a woman) is bipolar. The author doesn't call it that, preferring instead to pretend that her manic episodes are just the whims of an artist, and her depressive episodes are solely because she is stuck in a marriage with a man who doesn't understand her. I have to believe that much of this is based on real events, as she gives a perfect description of a sick woman and never once realizes it.
The woman she calls a man would be the true hero of the story if Sarton had any awareness of the story she was writing between the lines. His wife brings him nothing but misery, and all he wants at the end of the day is to stay married to her. But she has to leave him, you see, because she'san artist sick, and Watergate was so jarring delusional. One can only hope the person she describes eventually sought help.
This has the distinction of being the worst book I have ever read.
Every character in this book is a woman. Some are called men, but they very much act and think as if they were women. I'm not even sure why she bothered calling them men at all; the way it's written, the story would make more sense as the breakup of a lesbian relationship.
The relationship at the core of the story breaks apart because the wife (that is, the woman she calls a woman) is bipolar. The author doesn't call it that, preferring instead to pretend that her manic episodes are just the whims of an artist, and her depressive episodes are solely because she is stuck in a marriage with a man who doesn't understand her. I have to believe that much of this is based on real events, as she gives a perfect description of a sick woman and never once realizes it.
The woman she calls a man would be the true hero of the story if Sarton had any awareness of the story she was writing between the lines. His wife brings him nothing but misery, and all he wants at the end of the day is to stay married to her. But she has to leave him, you see, because she's
This has the distinction of being the worst book I have ever read.
September 7, 2016
Since my family is no stranger to divorce I felt this would be an insightful read. It was if anything an interesting gossip in my opinion. The main character, was strangely apart of his best friends marriage and though not in a romantic way, he helped it work until the wife had enough of her empty life and decides to leave. This book shows the feels of this sudden seperation from her husband, family...and strange third non romantic friend partner....yeaah.It was a weird dynamic that I had a hard time grasping and was a bit unrelateable. I will say that it showed the importance of people being two WHOLE people before entering marriage. So for me at least it was a short read, weird interesting story BUT not a favorite and didn't make me a fan. :/
January 2, 2015
I knew enough about this book to recommend to many of my clients over the years, but I felt I should actually read it to know exactly what I was recommending. I was very pleased with what I found. The concepts are easy to understand, are extremely helpful, and are presented in such a way that they are user-friendly enough to put in to practice immediately. I guess I'll continue to recommend it!
December 19, 2015
As I read on, my feelings regarding the dialogue and plot didn't change (I still am not very keen on the story itself); however, I was pushed to consider some challenging thoughts about marriage and independence. I rated it three stars, but in reality it's really a two and a half.
July 31, 2008
Nothing new. Pretty basic stuff. Essentially the message is 'grow a pair and say what has to be said'.
Want to read
May 26, 2009GIFT FROM MARILYN !!
July 27, 2009
an amazing topic of divorce and how we forget what the Vietnam war and Watergate did to all of us
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews