Le ragazzacce

by Susanna Moore, Silvia Piraccini (Translator)

Ci sono i carnefici e ci sono le vittime, i carcerieri e le carcerate. C’è la cella d’isolamento con i suoi tentati suicidi, le regole ferree della convivenza tra le detenute e la stretta sorveglianza delle guardie; tanto stretta da arrivare spesso fino al sopruso e alla violenza. E poi, naturalmente, c’è il fuori, la città con le sue strade, i suoi pub e i suoi appartamenti, le persone libere, la vita che dovrebbe essere normale. Louise Forrest appartiene a questa vita, alla città: ma per il suo lavoro di psichiatra appartiene anche un po’ al carcere in cui lavora da qualche mese. L’incontro con Helen, la più fragile delle detenute, con un passato misterioso e terrificante fatto di indicibili violenze prima subite e poi perpetrate, che emergono lentamente dalla memoria, cambia la vita della psichiatra e tutto improvvisamente precipita.
Non c’è più nulla del passato che si possa tacere: nessuna crudeltà, nessuna sofferenza, nessuna orribile bugia. Un romanzo dove non c’è redenzione possibile né dal dolore né dalla violenza o dalla colpa: nonostante gli sforzi per incontrarsi e per capirsi, nonostante la fiducia e il desiderio di non lasciarsi sole, le donne si muovono in un mondo da cui pare bandita l’innocenza, in cui tutti sono vittime e tutti sono carnefici, di se stessi e degli altri. Un’immensa, sconfinata prigione.

Genres: Fiction, Mental Health, Contemporary, Literary Fiction, Mental Illness, Female Authors, Adult Fiction

234 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2007

About the author

Susanna Moore is the author of the novels One Last Look, In the Cut, The Whiteness of Bones, Sleeping Beauties, and My Old Sweetheart, which won the Ernest Hemingway Foundation/PEN Award for First Fiction, and the Sue Kaufman Prize for First Fiction from the American Academy of Arts and Letters. Her nonfiction travel book, I Myself Have Seen It, was published by the National Geographic Society in 2003. She lives in New York City.

Reviews

[Alex Black · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is one of those books that the whole time I'm reading it, I kind of just wonder why it exists. My feelings ranged from bored to annoyed and not a whole lot else.

My biggest issue was that it's told in first person by four narrators, each section lasting anywhere from a paragraph to a couple pages. It's designated when the POV switches by an extra paragraph break, but doesn't ever identify the narrator. Which meant that for each section, instead of just reading it, I'd be looking for context clues to figure who was speaking. It wasn't too difficult most of the time (though there were a couple of sections I either couldn't figure out or didn't realize who it was until the end), but it was just an annoying way to experience a book. It may not have bothered me as much if there were long sections, but since they were all so short, I had to do it every page or two. By the time I figured out who was narrating, the section was almost over.

Apart from that, I was mostly just bored. I couldn't get into any of the characters, probably because of that, but also because so much of this book was telling. I like being in the moment in books, reading the descriptions and feeling something, anything. This book didn't make me feel much of anything at all.

There were a lot of 'issues' in this book. Rape, trauma, violence, mental health, racism, etc. But it never felt like they were dealt with. I understand that's how it works in real life, those things just exist without meaning, but in literature, I want those issues to be discussed or looked at critically. I want their existence to matter to a book. Pointlessly crappy people exist, but pointlessly crappy characters just make me want to walk away.

There were also points that were just ridiculously unrealistic. The character received money in prison through the mail, which literally you can't do. There wasn't anything major, just small things like that throughout that irritated me.

Overall, bored and annoyed sums this book up for me. But some readers thought this was stunning, although I can't quite figure out why. I was mostly just glad it was a quick read, and I can almost guarantee I'll have forgotten this in a month.

[Jessica · Rating 2 out of 5]

This story, told entirely in interwoven monologues in which the speaker is not identified, takes place in and around a women's prison in which Helen, who endured a lifetime of sexual abuse by her stepfather, is imprisoned for life for killing her children because "the Messengers" told her to do it. Her prison psychiatrist is barely more stable, but for reasons we never really understand, she's squeaked through a lifetime of nearly as many troubles to hold down a more-or-less steady job. Other monologists include a prison guard who is sleeping with the psychiatrist and the movie star Helen is obsessed with. Eventually, these lives all intersect in rather contrived ways, and although certain elusive details are revealed, nothing is particularly surprising. The voices are nicely differentiated, although Susannah Moore's idea of class distinctions seems to be having lower middle class characters say things like "I could of" instead of "I could have." The details of prison life are somewhat interesting, though no major revelations for someone who, like me, has watched every episode of Oz probably too many times.

[Debbi Mack · Rating 5 out of 5]

THE BIG GIRLS doesn't grab you so much as seduce you into reading it. The story is about four people whose lives overlap in odd and interesting ways. It tackles issues like family, fortune (or the lack of it), coincidence and fate.

The book starts off from the point of view of Dr. Louise Forrest, the new chief of psychiatry at a women's prison. The narrative then switches to Helen, a schizophrenic inmate who's committed a crime so heinous, she's kept apart from the other prisoners at first. Helen is obsessed with contacting Angie, an ambitious Hollywood actress, who happens to be dating Dr. Forrest's ex-husband. Dr. Forrest eventually hooks up with Ike Bradshaw, a no-nonsense prison guard.

The story focuses primarily on Dr. Forrest and Helen, at first. The other two main characters' perspectives get included in time. Together, the narratives combine to create a compelling and ambitious overall story – one that explores each character's demons and the gritty realities of prison life.

[Lindsey · Rating 4 out of 5]

Just here to defend this book since the rating is so low. If you liked In the Cut from this author, and if you like the novellas of Joyce Carol Oates, you will like this - characters with deeply self-destructive instincts, there is something very satisfying here. I did not care for the end but I never like books in which characters all converge unexpectedly in the end (look how everything is connected!). I did not find the alternating POV challenging, this was an easy read.

[Marsena Adams-Dufresne · Rating 1 out of 5]

I was disappointed in this book; I had heard good things about it. It features four different points of view, but the author didn't supply any markers to indicate who was speaking, other than a break in the text. Almost every time it switched pov (which was often), I had to stop and figure out who was speaking. I found that very annoying. I suppose the author might have been trying to give the reader a sense of what it's like to be insane and confused, but I spent more time out of the story than in it. I also didn't like the fact that there was very little difference between the psychiatrist and her criminally insane patients. Maybe the author intended to convince us that there isn't as much difference between "us" and "them" as we'd like to think, and I can sympathize with that to a degree, because mental illness doesn't change a person's value at all and it could happen to anyone. But I think the author took it too far, as if there's no difference between the functioning of an insane mind and a sane one.

[jo · Rating 3 out of 5]

i fear this slim book is loaded with more weight than it can bear. it tackles the issue of women and violence from a number of angles, including: women's violence against their abusers and against their children; women's mental illness; women and psychiatry; women in prison; the violence of women on women; the gross mistreatment of women on the part of the judicial system. this last is probably the crux of the book. all the women in this book are disturbed, and their being disturbed is analyzed with compassion and a hefty dose of intelligent political criticism, but i ultimately think this would have been a better book if it had focused on one of its characters (i vote for the psychiatrist) or if, focusing on all three women, it had been three times as long.

this notwithstanding, i can't wait to read more of this writer's books.

[Anna · Rating 1 out of 5]

Okay, I had to read this book because I wanted to see if it was really as bad as Lea said it was. Usually I have similar taste to my friends so I figured, why not.

Short answer: yes, it really is not good. I did read the whole thing but by the end I definitely did not care anymore. All the characters blended together into this...thing...that was just not interesting. Unfortunate, because the premise was interesting.

[Jane Sandquist · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book was narrative from various individuals at a women's prison. It was OK, but not great.

[alana mcgrath · Rating 3 out of 5]

i liked this book! the short passage-style chapters made this book easy to read when i wanted to fit it in. the povs were never clarified so sometimes it took me until the end of the 'chapter' to figure out who was narrating. i think this book challenges parenting/parents' relationship with children in such an interesting dynamic. some of the scenes were more graphic than i was really prepared for. the lgbtq+ dynamic, especially when it comes to sexual/romantic relationships in an all womens' prison, could arguably not be very good. i would recommend this book to an adult maybe with children, i felt a little young to understand some of the dynamics going on in this book.

update i didn't really rememvber this book so im adding this so i remember: celebrity is with psyciatrists ex and kid bounces inbetween, inmate is obsessed with the celebrity,,

[Eddie · Rating 3 out of 5]

2.75 Stars. Better to Audiobook than read. As everyone has said this is highly confusing bc the book is told in the 1st person from multiple characters. Who knows how many bc I lost track. If I was reading this vs listening I would have probably tossed it. But the audiobook with the female reader made this interesting considering the majority of the players are women. At some point I gave up on deciphering who was who and just went with it. This is more vignettes of characters than a book with a standard plot. These vignettes are interesting and almost become a new story. This is ok bc you see an interesting subculture of a woman's prison. I haven't seen "Orange is the New Black" which I believe is about a woman's prison. I may audiobook (fake read) again bc I wasn't really bored and it's not long.

[Shelley Fearn · Rating 4 out of 5]

I can't believe that this rates just over 3 stars. Thank goodness a couple rated it with 5 stars or judging from the reviews, it would be a flop.

Don't be put off by any reviews though. Just because a book doesn't grab you by the throat with exciting, sexy, or humorous prose doesn't mean the work has no merit. This is a sparsely told tale. It uses 4 different voices to move the story along. I won't say plot because in the meaning that we normally use the idea of plot there really isn't one. It simply tells the story of 4 people all tied to a maximum security women's prison.

The story is about life. Not all lives are exciting. Some are filled with pathos and pain. Such are these interwoven lives. I thought it well worth reading.

[Allison Nack · Rating 2 out of 5]

depressing, depressing, and not even well done. the only redeeming factor is that it is written in four voices, so the reader is allowed to see each character from multiple points of view. however, the plot, which could be so compelling ( a women's prison, the prison shrink, the guard who has an affair with her, the would-be Hollywood actress who is living with the shrink's ex-husband) ends up being fragmented and boring. I was very disappointed, because I loved In the Cut by Susanna Moore (which was made into a good B-movie with Meg Ryan {in her only nude scene ever} and Mark Ruffalo, who is one of my favorite actors. basically this novel was a waste of my good half.com money.

[Bookmarks Magazine]

Susanna Moore, author of In the Cut (which was made into a film starring Meg Ryan), does not shy away from disturbing subject matter. In The Big Girls, she uses horrifying crimes to explore the meaning of love, especially the mythological pure love of motherhood. Critics agreed that her central characters, Helen and Louise, are powerfully drawn and compelling, as is her terrifying portrait of prison

[Lea · Rating 1 out of 5]

I think this book was extremely well researched and... interesting subject matter I suppose but I HATED IT. I hated it. It was like Law and Order: SVU exploded in a book only without cops. Just lots and lots of victims. Who knew there could be so much dysfunction in one place?

Glad I'm such a sucker that I just powered through and finished it though, it takes a lot for me to drop a book.

[Eileen Acosta · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this book for my F2F book group. Actually, I listened to most of it. The audio was very good and I think probably less confusing since there were four narrators. This book is not for the faint of heart, there are disturbing stories about child abuse, incest, drug addicts, mental illness, prison life. But the story drew me in and held on tight until the last page.

[Melissa · Rating 2 out of 5]

Maybe 2.5 stars. This book is terrible. Whoever writes the copy for the back of the book is a genius, because the summary is much more compelling than the actual book. The lives of the 4 narrators are BARELY intertwined, and not in an interesting way.

[Moushmi Radhanpara · Rating 3 out of 5]

It was an okay book. Painful, but still okayish. I mean to say it didn't have that effect that books can do to you when they hit you with stark honesty and violent pain. Also, the book written in first person by 4 different people doesn't come out well.

[Tracy · Rating 1 out of 5]

I realize I read Susanna Moore because I want to read Mary Gaiteskill.

[Candice · Rating 4 out of 5]

A five-star book dinged to a four because of one contrived and unnecessary character linkage. Still, it was absorbing and full.

[Amanda · Rating 3 out of 5]

A case of mental gymnastics. Working out who was speaking was challenging at the best of times. The final fusion of the 2 main characters was cleverly done.

[🍥 · Rating 2 out of 5]

In The Big Girls, we are immediately introduced to two people - Helen, a young woman serving a life sentence for murdering her children, and Dr. Forrest, the new chief of psychiatry at the Sloatsburg, the women's prison in which Helen is serving out her sentence. It is quickly revealed that Helen, who is one of Dr. Forrest's many patients in the prison, is mentally unstable, implied to be a result of the sexual abuse she suffered as a child. Dr. Forrest, though, is not without a number of problems of her own. Later, two other characters are brought into the fold, an actress named Angie and Officer Bradshaw, a corrections officer at Sloatsburg. Like Helen and Dr. Forrest, the two have a number of interpersonal issues in their lives that - I'm assuming Ms Moore believed - made them the perfect fit into this first-person narrated, multiple-perspective "puzzle".

Now, the reason "puzzle" is in quotations is because I expected there to be one. The structure of the novel is quite interesting. Rather than being split into different chapters, the story is told in different sections, usually denoted by a page break. The sections range in length from a paragraph to a couple of pages, but they don't get much longer than that. This in itself isn't very unique, but it's the first time I encountered such a structure when there are four different narrators, all narrating in first person. With the book written like this, I figured there was something I should've been looking.I say that because, for example, it was clear there were some things Helen was not revealing (to the reader), that we would presumably get insight on in Dr. Forrest's sections. As such, I figured there was a Big Question that would be answered by the end of the book. Within the first twenty or so pages, the Big Question that formed in my mind was, "why did Helen kill her kids?" The answer Moore gives is not satisfying and is not explored in much depth, so what I ended up caring more about was the relationship between Helen and Dr. Forrest.

I think I would've enjoyed this book a whole lot more if the narrative perspectives of Officer Bradshaw and Angie were not introduced. The narration style worked in the beginning because I thought Helen and Dr. Forrest had unique enough voices and personalities that it kept it interesting. I didn't get confused once all four narrators were introduced, but it seemed to me like Officer Bradshaw and Angie were not nearly as fleshed out as characters, so their sections felt dry and didn't matter much to me.

There was also so much going on in the prison that could've been centered had Moore chose to stick only with Helen and Dr. Forrest as narrators - the dynamics between guards and prisoners in (women's) prisons, the flawed criminal justice system and the inadequacy of prison as a rehabilitation tool, the lack of healthcare, and any sort of care at all, given to prisoners, same-sex intimacies within prison that do not translate outside of it, etc - but instead, we get unnecessary tidbits about Angie's friend that isn't very important to the story, and Officer Bradshaw contemplating one of his coworker's opinions on Dr. Forrest. Why write about all that stuff when there is so much good material right in front of you, Miss Moore? I couldn't figure it out.

Also, the way some of the characters were connected felt so contrived that I had to roll my eyes, and I'm not even talking about the big reveal about Angie at the end. I mean, Angie's boyfriend is Dr. Forrest's ex-husband, Rafael?! That's just ridiculous. I was surprised Moore didn't decide to make Rafael Officer Bradshaw's cousin or something on top of it all.

This had a lot of potential and the one saving grace is that it was a relatively quick read, and if you aren't looking for much depth, I guess the premise is enough to keep you hooked until the end - that is, if you're someone, like me, who didn't mind (or actually enjoyed) the narration.

[Nerfzilla · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have very mixed feelings about this book. Let me start by saying that I adore Susanna Moore. MyOld Sweetheart and The Whiteness of Bones are, in my opinion, masterpieces. I think this novel too is very good but a bit unsettling. I made the mistake of listening to this book as opposed to reading it and hearing it in my own head and I didn’t care for two of the characters. I loved Helen, but I think the 2 characters Whose reading I disliked really harmed my experience of the book. I thought the characters were fantastic and the setting terrifically presented. The plot held my attention and sped along for me. I very much enjoyed hearing about someone substantially mentally ill from inside their head. I disliked Bradshaw vehemently. All in all I think this is a good book, but because I was so hugely impressed with the other two I had read this was disappointing. Nonetheless I would absolutely encourage anyone to read it. I plan to read every other book Ms Moore has written. I just love the way she thinks and the way she writes.

[Crystal · Rating 3 out of 5]

At only 256 pages, this is a fairly quick read. The narrative is told from four different perspectives, all of which I enjoyed and thought added more character depth to each of them. (I particular enjoyed Helen's POV). This is more of a character study than a plot-driven story, so don't expect any twists and turns along the way as it's all pretty straight forward. I've read several reviews say they didn't enjoy Moore's prose as they found it confusing as to which character was talking. I didn't feel that way while reading. I thought each perspective was very distinct because each character was well differentiated, and I like the flow of the prose.
This book did suffer from a pretty distinct flaw, however. It dealt with some very heavy handed issues (child molestation, mental illness, human relationships, issues within the penal system...just to name a few) and the book simply wasn't long enough to flesh out any of these poignant issues in any meaningful way.

[Jenna Bissonnette · Rating 1 out of 5]

Just a terrible, awful book. It switches between different character’s points of view every paragraph, but doesn’t tell you whose POV you are reading through, so I spent 80% of the book just trying to figure out which POV I was reading and what the fuck was going on. The 20% of the time that I was oriented, I was bored. I was hopeful there would be some sort of zesty redeeming twist at the end that would tie things together, but alas I was left with an over sense of annoyance and frustration because it never made sense and possible cool theories I thought of never came to fruition.

Safe yourself, never read this!

[Jodell · Rating 5 out of 5]

Meanwhile back at the ranch
Helen who was abused her whole life finally did herself in but not before she killed her children...
The phychiatrist is tinkering on the edge and Ike the ex cop prison guard is trying to catch her. Rafael still loves Louise but she has no money.
Angie is on the edge of stardom Rafael hangs on to her.
Ransom will end up in prison one day and I fear for his pet bird.
The big girls in the big house are still living the life and everyone knows big girls dong cry.
Just ask Franki Valli...... The end

[Gail · Rating 3 out of 5]

I would give this four stars but I didn't understand the last sentence. So someone I know please read this to explain it to me. Now I'm going to read her other books.

[Crazy_smiler · Rating 3 out of 5]

Well I didn’t hate it. Was rather choppy. Felt like a lot was missing. Interesting tie to each other. But needed better execution.

I also don’t understand why they included historical inaccuracies. Such as Sylvie Likens. They changed many tidbits about it. I don’t see why.

[Rachel B]

Fast read. Violence, abuse, mental problems--oh my. A guilty pleasure.

[JJ · Rating 3 out of 5]

Pretty fast read - very dark material. No chapters.

[Ally S · Rating 3 out of 5]

Meh. Sorta worth the read.