What do you think?
Rate this book
No Fault: A Memoir of Romance and Divorce
“Enigmatic, opalescent, so precise.” —Jia Tolentino
An intimate and candid account of one of the most romantic and revolutionary of relationships: divorce
Divorce was everything for Haley Mlotek. As a child, she listened to her twice-divorced grandmother tell stories about her “husbands.” As a pre-teen, she answered the phones for her mother’s mediation and marriage counseling practice and typed out the paperwork for couples in the process of leaving each other. She grew up with the sense that divorce was an outcome to both resist and desire, an ordeal that promised something better on the other side of something bad. But when she herself went on to marry—and then divorce—the man she had been with for twelve years, suddenly, she had to reconsider her generation’s inherited understanding of the institution.
Deftly combining her personal story with wry, searching social and literary exploration, No Fault is a deeply felt and radiant account of 21st century divorce—the remarkably common and seemingly singular experience, and what it reveals about our society and our desires for family, love, and friendship. Mlotek asks profound questions about what divorce should be, who it is for, and why the institution of marriage maintains its power, all while charting a poignant and cathartic journey away from her own marriage towards an unknown future.
Brilliant, funny, and unflinchingly honest, No Fault is a kaleidoscopic look at marriage, secrets, ambitions, and what it means to love and live with uncertainty, betrayal, and hope.
An intimate and candid account of one of the most romantic and revolutionary of relationships: divorce
Divorce was everything for Haley Mlotek. As a child, she listened to her twice-divorced grandmother tell stories about her “husbands.” As a pre-teen, she answered the phones for her mother’s mediation and marriage counseling practice and typed out the paperwork for couples in the process of leaving each other. She grew up with the sense that divorce was an outcome to both resist and desire, an ordeal that promised something better on the other side of something bad. But when she herself went on to marry—and then divorce—the man she had been with for twelve years, suddenly, she had to reconsider her generation’s inherited understanding of the institution.
Deftly combining her personal story with wry, searching social and literary exploration, No Fault is a deeply felt and radiant account of 21st century divorce—the remarkably common and seemingly singular experience, and what it reveals about our society and our desires for family, love, and friendship. Mlotek asks profound questions about what divorce should be, who it is for, and why the institution of marriage maintains its power, all while charting a poignant and cathartic journey away from her own marriage towards an unknown future.
Brilliant, funny, and unflinchingly honest, No Fault is a kaleidoscopic look at marriage, secrets, ambitions, and what it means to love and live with uncertainty, betrayal, and hope.
304 pages, Hardcover
First published February 18, 2025
170 people are currently reading
5066 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 110 reviews
February 21, 2025
I do think you shouldn’t market something as a memoir if it is in fact a long essay about marriage as a general history and proposition — and not a unique one at that. Nothing written here was new, interesting, or personal. It drones on and on through well-trod history, and down to the nods to Esther Perel and a specific viral tiktok divorce lawyer, everything about this has been said and done before.
don’t waste your time here. I’d advise just picking up some Esther Perel, or the Maggie Smith divorce memoir instead.
don’t waste your time here. I’d advise just picking up some Esther Perel, or the Maggie Smith divorce memoir instead.
February 25, 2025
Mlotek’s No Fault explores the ability to dissolve a marriage in America. She divides the book into three main parts.
First, and based on my rough estimation, she dedicates approximately half of her book (half of part one and most of part two) to the history of marriage and the legal ability to end marriages in America and beyond. Mlotek begins by identifying the founders of the United States as developing a concept of marriage to mirror the government, which “made monogamy rooted in Christianity the ideal of a democratic country.” She moves to consider the abolition of slavery, “the long decade,” and the women’s rights movement in America and Nazi Germany’s eugenics program as each topic relates to ending marriages.
Next, Mlotek dedicates a quarter of her book to her experience with divorce and musings on relationships. She divulges some information about the pattern of divorce in her family, and she slowly reveals her journey into and out of her marriage. The tone through these transitions is leveled.
Finally, the remaining quarter of No Fault assesses 20th- and 21st-century American media and culture’s portrayal of marriage, divorce, and remarriage.
I will list some reasons why I think the memoir could be strengthened.
(1) As mentioned by other reviewers, the book’s title misleads the audience. The subheading should be something like, “an overview of the divorce law in American history and divorce in American culture.” Obvi this isn’t as catchy—workshop it for sure—but it would be more accurate.
(2) Linked to the first point, I don’t think this is a memoir as such; that’s fine, but we should probably communicate that to readers. I enjoy memoirs that include research and diving into the backstory of an idea—that’s fun for me. However, No Fault finds itself in straight-up non-fiction and history territory with sprinkles of memoir. It doesn’t reach Perry’s Black in Blues with the historical research with personal anecdotes worked in, but it’s in that realm genre-wise (Black in Blues comes to mind because I finished it recently).
(3) In light of the research aspect, the book might be helpful for high school-level readers to engage with. If No Fault fills a gap in the existing literature, it fills a more introductory level. This is fine as such, by the way; I just think it should be noted.
(4) If Mlotek explored the ideas of open marriages more in-depth, for example, I think this could have been extremely interesting (and less introductory). She questions the collective consciousness by engaging with American historians Stephanie Coontz and Kristin Celello, and Mlotek seems to find the conventional marriage plot wanting. She argues that the male-head nuclear family model, traditional heterosexual marriage, and inability to end a marriage have historically not improved a wife’s life. Ironically, as with her critique of Friedan’s Mystique, I didn’t see Mlotek daring to “explore new ways of building families and relationships”—not really. Maybe one does not need to provide all the answers in a memoir. But again, No Fault is not a conventional memoir, and the author shows her ability to work through historical research and give her analysis. I would’ve expected her to challenge the norms and forge a new path. As I’m typing this, I realize I’m trying to say this: No Fault is more historical than constructive, but it gives the sense that it’s constructive.
(5) A quarter of the book—cf. the “finally” part above—reads like a compilation of Mlotek’s Letterboxd reviews on movies about divorce and remarriage. This is probably fine as such (nothing against Letterboxd); a heads-up (i.e., in the title) would’ve been good. These chapters make me question the author’s methodology; Mlotek shows her strength as a cultural critic, and I wanted her to give me more memoir.
(6) The writing itself is alright! Mlotek gives us some lovely lines, like, “My grandmother had a great laugh, but mostly she has a great way with laughter.” However, by and large, the author keeps the readers at arm’s length, and she seems to acknowledge it implicitly. Referencing the brilliant Cusk, Mlotek notes how non-fic writers limit “what they’ll say about their former partners, an opaqueness that offers the most cutting of insights and understandings without giving away how they learned it. After all, they’re under no obligation to teach us anything or to help us anymore so than any other kind of literature is.” This philosophy may all be true, but I’m not sure this distance between the writer and book worked well in No Fault, a memoir about dissolving a marriage. It’s an interesting tension.
In sum, these aren’t glaring issues; I think they could be addressed with an editor (no shade to Mlotek’s editor—we love our editors). Maybe one lucky day, I’ll run into Mlotek picnicking at Trinity Bellwoods in the not-51st state and ask her about some of these writing decisions.
First, and based on my rough estimation, she dedicates approximately half of her book (half of part one and most of part two) to the history of marriage and the legal ability to end marriages in America and beyond. Mlotek begins by identifying the founders of the United States as developing a concept of marriage to mirror the government, which “made monogamy rooted in Christianity the ideal of a democratic country.” She moves to consider the abolition of slavery, “the long decade,” and the women’s rights movement in America and Nazi Germany’s eugenics program as each topic relates to ending marriages.
Next, Mlotek dedicates a quarter of her book to her experience with divorce and musings on relationships. She divulges some information about the pattern of divorce in her family, and she slowly reveals her journey into and out of her marriage. The tone through these transitions is leveled.
Finally, the remaining quarter of No Fault assesses 20th- and 21st-century American media and culture’s portrayal of marriage, divorce, and remarriage.
I will list some reasons why I think the memoir could be strengthened.
(1) As mentioned by other reviewers, the book’s title misleads the audience. The subheading should be something like, “an overview of the divorce law in American history and divorce in American culture.” Obvi this isn’t as catchy—workshop it for sure—but it would be more accurate.
(2) Linked to the first point, I don’t think this is a memoir as such; that’s fine, but we should probably communicate that to readers. I enjoy memoirs that include research and diving into the backstory of an idea—that’s fun for me. However, No Fault finds itself in straight-up non-fiction and history territory with sprinkles of memoir. It doesn’t reach Perry’s Black in Blues with the historical research with personal anecdotes worked in, but it’s in that realm genre-wise (Black in Blues comes to mind because I finished it recently).
(3) In light of the research aspect, the book might be helpful for high school-level readers to engage with. If No Fault fills a gap in the existing literature, it fills a more introductory level. This is fine as such, by the way; I just think it should be noted.
(4) If Mlotek explored the ideas of open marriages more in-depth, for example, I think this could have been extremely interesting (and less introductory). She questions the collective consciousness by engaging with American historians Stephanie Coontz and Kristin Celello, and Mlotek seems to find the conventional marriage plot wanting. She argues that the male-head nuclear family model, traditional heterosexual marriage, and inability to end a marriage have historically not improved a wife’s life. Ironically, as with her critique of Friedan’s Mystique, I didn’t see Mlotek daring to “explore new ways of building families and relationships”—not really. Maybe one does not need to provide all the answers in a memoir. But again, No Fault is not a conventional memoir, and the author shows her ability to work through historical research and give her analysis. I would’ve expected her to challenge the norms and forge a new path. As I’m typing this, I realize I’m trying to say this: No Fault is more historical than constructive, but it gives the sense that it’s constructive.
(5) A quarter of the book—cf. the “finally” part above—reads like a compilation of Mlotek’s Letterboxd reviews on movies about divorce and remarriage. This is probably fine as such (nothing against Letterboxd); a heads-up (i.e., in the title) would’ve been good. These chapters make me question the author’s methodology; Mlotek shows her strength as a cultural critic, and I wanted her to give me more memoir.
(6) The writing itself is alright! Mlotek gives us some lovely lines, like, “My grandmother had a great laugh, but mostly she has a great way with laughter.” However, by and large, the author keeps the readers at arm’s length, and she seems to acknowledge it implicitly. Referencing the brilliant Cusk, Mlotek notes how non-fic writers limit “what they’ll say about their former partners, an opaqueness that offers the most cutting of insights and understandings without giving away how they learned it. After all, they’re under no obligation to teach us anything or to help us anymore so than any other kind of literature is.” This philosophy may all be true, but I’m not sure this distance between the writer and book worked well in No Fault, a memoir about dissolving a marriage. It’s an interesting tension.
In sum, these aren’t glaring issues; I think they could be addressed with an editor (no shade to Mlotek’s editor—we love our editors). Maybe one lucky day, I’ll run into Mlotek picnicking at Trinity Bellwoods in the not-51st state and ask her about some of these writing decisions.
February 19, 2025
GOING TO BE INCREDIBLE, THIS IS MY BIG SISTER!!!!!!!!!!
ok post-read update and obviously I'm biased, but this was so, so, good. so gorgeously researched and written. I love this writer's mind so much. we are lucky to get a glimpse into it.
ok post-read update and obviously I'm biased, but this was so, so, good. so gorgeously researched and written. I love this writer's mind so much. we are lucky to get a glimpse into it.
dnf
February 19, 2025Dnf @ 13%
I thought this would be more of a memoir of grief and loss and healing, and while it possibly gets there, this first portion was all about the history of divorce with some personal anecdotes thrown in, and I just don’t care to wait until this gets where I’d like it to go.
I thought this would be more of a memoir of grief and loss and healing, and while it possibly gets there, this first portion was all about the history of divorce with some personal anecdotes thrown in, and I just don’t care to wait until this gets where I’d like it to go.
March 17, 2025
Meditative!
“Grief opens the direction of our minds, takes us to ideas that might’ve seemed strange in the light of earlier days. Suddenly we’re willing to recite incantations to raise the dead, or affirmations to raise our self esteem. We are lost to the cursed idea of closure, thinking the people who can help us are the people who hurt us. A week earlier, maybe we would’ve said we didn’t believe in the afterlife, or hardcovers featuring pop psychologists crossing their arms under an embossed title. Then we lost the quality of certainty. Now we see how stupid that certainty was. And so who can say what’s real and what’s possible? Not us.”
“Grief opens the direction of our minds, takes us to ideas that might’ve seemed strange in the light of earlier days. Suddenly we’re willing to recite incantations to raise the dead, or affirmations to raise our self esteem. We are lost to the cursed idea of closure, thinking the people who can help us are the people who hurt us. A week earlier, maybe we would’ve said we didn’t believe in the afterlife, or hardcovers featuring pop psychologists crossing their arms under an embossed title. Then we lost the quality of certainty. Now we see how stupid that certainty was. And so who can say what’s real and what’s possible? Not us.”
Read
December 2, 2024Thanks to the publisher and Edelweiss for granting me access to an early digital copy.
The blurb from the publisher ends with this: “Brilliant, funny…”
I must not have been reading the same book. Maybe it’s just my headspace at the moment, but I could not get into this one… I was borderline bored… and I have way too much on my TBR pile to stick with it.
I'm sure there's a reader for this out there somewhere.
DNF
The blurb from the publisher ends with this: “Brilliant, funny…”
I must not have been reading the same book. Maybe it’s just my headspace at the moment, but I could not get into this one… I was borderline bored… and I have way too much on my TBR pile to stick with it.
I'm sure there's a reader for this out there somewhere.
DNF
February 21, 2025
The writer has beautifully crafted sentences and a lot of great personal insights in this one. I was expecting more of a memoir and less of a book about the history of divorce and divorce as seen in pop culture. I wanted more Haley and less of the stats, as her personal anecdotes are so engaging. I didn’t think she needed all the research. This would stand alone just fine without such heavily tread territory.
March 9, 2025
I was really disappointed with this book, and only finished it because I had the audiobook on while painting a bedroom, so I was too covered in paint to touch my phone.
I expected this book to be a memoir of divorce and marriage and an exploration of the history of no fault divorce, in the same way that Lyz Lenz’s book is both a memoir and an indictment of the institution of marriage. Instead, this book is a collection of short essays that read more like a poetry collection than actual short nonfiction. Nothing has a point. Nothing is connected. I was so bored and never found the larger threads or the underlying themes. Even calling this a book about divorce is a stretch. It’s astonishing that the author has a career writing short nonfiction pieces, because each of the essays on their own felt half-finished, with no plot or point beyond telling a small vignette. The book as a whole felt meandering, difficult to parse, disjointed, and too long.
Not a good memoir, not a good book about divorce, and not even a poetry collection, to which it is most similar. Would not recommend.
I expected this book to be a memoir of divorce and marriage and an exploration of the history of no fault divorce, in the same way that Lyz Lenz’s book is both a memoir and an indictment of the institution of marriage. Instead, this book is a collection of short essays that read more like a poetry collection than actual short nonfiction. Nothing has a point. Nothing is connected. I was so bored and never found the larger threads or the underlying themes. Even calling this a book about divorce is a stretch. It’s astonishing that the author has a career writing short nonfiction pieces, because each of the essays on their own felt half-finished, with no plot or point beyond telling a small vignette. The book as a whole felt meandering, difficult to parse, disjointed, and too long.
Not a good memoir, not a good book about divorce, and not even a poetry collection, to which it is most similar. Would not recommend.
July 25, 2025
Absolutely brilliant writing in a piercingly honest memoir that doubles as a stunning work of social and cultural criticism.
May 5, 2025
There were some lines in here that resonated so strongly-such an interesting and personal look at divorce as a concept and as an experience.
February 26, 2025
Saw a review of this in the Atlantic on Friday. Bought it on Saturday. Started on Sunday and finished on Wednesday. It was hard to put down!!
Haven’t read a lot of memoirs but this one really got me, probably in large part due to the fact that I am in the middle of a divorce. Although obviously written from the female perspective, I think the story lines, feelings and open questions will resonate with anyone who has felt they need to end a marriage.
It’s interesting to me that one of the authors main ideas seems to be that there is no story as to why her marriage ended. There are at least three things that come up later in the book that most people would point to as a why. Her resistance to naming them as the cause seems like blindness, but I think it’s something much more interesting than that.
Haven’t read a lot of memoirs but this one really got me, probably in large part due to the fact that I am in the middle of a divorce. Although obviously written from the female perspective, I think the story lines, feelings and open questions will resonate with anyone who has felt they need to end a marriage.
It’s interesting to me that one of the authors main ideas seems to be that there is no story as to why her marriage ended. There are at least three things that come up later in the book that most people would point to as a why. Her resistance to naming them as the cause seems like blindness, but I think it’s something much more interesting than that.
April 28, 2025
In No Fault, Canadian writer Haley Mlotek talks broadly about divorce in Western countries -- its history (focusing on no-fault divorce), the usual pop culture and literary references, what it was like growing up as a child of an unhappy marriage and later divorce while her mom worked as a marital counselor, and, to a much lesser extent than one would expect in a book subtitled as a memoir, her own divorce. Mlotek was in a relationship with her former partner for 13 years, from roughly the ages of of 16 to 29, though they waited around 12 years to marry (doing so largely for legal reasons) and ended up divorcing after just over one year. Strangely, Mlotek remains largely close-lipped about the reasons for her no-fault divorce and end of this relationship that almost half of her life, only vaguely and circuitously stating that the way her partner treated her changed for the worse once they were legally married.
I'm not sure that there was enough substance and reflection for a memoir about this topic at this point in time -- I'm not sure how long has passed since Mlotek's divorce, but it sounds like she is still processing things pretty freshly. The other anecdotes and analyses of divorce reminded me existing published works that one would read and write at the advanced undergrad or early grad student academic level.
Further reading: divorce memoirs
This American Ex-Wife: How I Ended My Marriage and Started My Life by Lyz Lenz | my review
The Woman They Wanted: Shattering the Illusion of the Good Christian Wife by Shannon Harris | my review
Further reading: historical perspectives on marriage and divorce
The Divorce Colony: How Women Revolutionized Marriage and Found Freedom on the American Frontier by April White
It Ended Badly: Thirteen of the Worst Breakups in History by Jennifer Wright
I Do (I Think): Conversations About Modern Marriage by Allison Raskin | my review
You'll Do: A History of Marrying for Reasons Other Than Love by Marcia Zug | my review
All the Single Ladies by Rebecca Traister | my review
My statistics:
Book 130 for 2025
Book 2056 cumulatively
I'm not sure that there was enough substance and reflection for a memoir about this topic at this point in time -- I'm not sure how long has passed since Mlotek's divorce, but it sounds like she is still processing things pretty freshly. The other anecdotes and analyses of divorce reminded me existing published works that one would read and write at the advanced undergrad or early grad student academic level.
Further reading: divorce memoirs
This American Ex-Wife: How I Ended My Marriage and Started My Life by Lyz Lenz | my review
The Woman They Wanted: Shattering the Illusion of the Good Christian Wife by Shannon Harris | my review
Further reading: historical perspectives on marriage and divorce
The Divorce Colony: How Women Revolutionized Marriage and Found Freedom on the American Frontier by April White
It Ended Badly: Thirteen of the Worst Breakups in History by Jennifer Wright
I Do (I Think): Conversations About Modern Marriage by Allison Raskin | my review
You'll Do: A History of Marrying for Reasons Other Than Love by Marcia Zug | my review
All the Single Ladies by Rebecca Traister | my review
My statistics:
Book 130 for 2025
Book 2056 cumulatively
August 16, 2024
My brilliant friend.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
March 12, 2025
While reading No Fault Divorce by Haley Mlotek, I couldn't help but recall Elif Shafak's memoir Black Milk, which serves as both an introspective journey and a broader commentary on the struggles faced by women writers, deeply intertwined with Shafak’s personal experiences. Perhaps I set myself up with expectations—hoping for something, anything—from No Fault Divorce, only to come away with nothing.
As a memoir, the book feels paradoxical: it’s anything but intimate, lacking the up-close and personal essence that defines the genre. Perhaps that would appeal to some readers looking for something different, but it generally defeats the purpose of a memoir. Instead, it reads like a collection of useful information meant to console those who feel alone in their divorce—a purpose it certainly fulfills. But beyond that, it feels like a disjointed string of anecdotes that fail to tie back to the writer’s personal experience, leaving readers unclear about Mlotek’s intent. Does she want us to be philosophical or does she want us to get intimate? The structure felt overly abstract and fragmented—perhaps that’s where its uniqueness lies—mirroring the reality of divorce and heartbreak, but ultimately, it left me searching for a more cohesive and personal narrative.
As a memoir, the book feels paradoxical: it’s anything but intimate, lacking the up-close and personal essence that defines the genre. Perhaps that would appeal to some readers looking for something different, but it generally defeats the purpose of a memoir. Instead, it reads like a collection of useful information meant to console those who feel alone in their divorce—a purpose it certainly fulfills. But beyond that, it feels like a disjointed string of anecdotes that fail to tie back to the writer’s personal experience, leaving readers unclear about Mlotek’s intent. Does she want us to be philosophical or does she want us to get intimate? The structure felt overly abstract and fragmented—perhaps that’s where its uniqueness lies—mirroring the reality of divorce and heartbreak, but ultimately, it left me searching for a more cohesive and personal narrative.
July 21, 2025
Well I DNFd this (like 3/4 done) because summer school eats into my reading time, but I’ll review it briefly: why do people keep writing books that are, like, social histories,/reviews of literature, and call them memoirs? The best parts of this book were what I wanted more of: the author’s deep-cutting writing about love and grief and marriage.
May 20, 2025
This is the history of divorce. It's weird because it feels half and half, textbook than a memoir. Although it is both, it is also a cultural study of books, essays and movies.
Haley Mlotek's writing is well-researched and her sentences are beautifully written. My favorite sections were when she gave personal anecdotes. There are short chapters and the font is beautiful.
I'm divorced. And shame and stigma haunt what I view as my failed relationship; but Haley Mlotek does not have these feelings. And she recognizes that shame and intimidation are used as tactics to keep people married.
She grew up around divorces (her mother helped couples dissolve their relationships) and she often advocated for her own parents to get divorced.
She claims that there is my marriage "which is evidence of how...your values have served or failed you. Then there is marriage: the category that presumes an ideal exists at all. But every marriage is turned into stories. There are the ones we tell ourselves and the ones we tell our families, the ones we tell while the marriage is intact and the ones we tell after a divorce. The story we keep private and the one we make public are just two examples" (page 71).
This is a book that explores those stories. This book reminded me of how marriage is made of "the boundaries they had once arbitrarily assigned to their own lives" (page 102).
In NO FAULT, I learned a lot about statistics as well as how they are reported (or not) and how we have to realize they're more nuanced than fact. And also the multifaceted issues with self-reporting. There are also issues of if the researchers understand the answers, or if the people being asked didn't understand the questions.
A question that resonated with me was on page 73: What is the nature of a commitment that turns a relationship into a marriage and what lifestyles accompany that commitment once it's been established?
Some more quotes I enjoyed:
"Marriage made women feel less independent, less impulsive, less themselves" (page 74) and to a view that "marriage is neither natural nor unknowable" (page 77).
"Can an experience like divorce, and the decision to live not only through it but also beyond it, inspire not just a graceful ending but something actually new? Can we find that quality in our days, then recognize it in what we read, and finally, create it all over again in our own words?" (page 136)
"Marriage and divorce laws, for all their gestures at equality, are still ways for states and governments to determine which relationships matter most, a value given to citizens in exchange for their commitment supposedly brings to society" (page 91-92).
According to Samuel Johnson, "A second marriage is the triumph of hope over expectation" (page 151).
"Intimacy is easy. Honesty is much harder. Gossip -- in which we reveal what we think is true about love and lust, powerful and politics, beginnings and endings -- is what happens in between" (page 188).
"I had always suspected there were two kinds of people in the world: those who will admit to gossiping about the end of a marriage with the same gravity they would bring to ordering appetizers for the table, and liars" (page 187).
"Marriage requires a couple to get a license, while divorce gives you one: permission to feel bad, behave badly, to experience a peculiar sensation of relief and dread as though they are the same emotion. Here is freedom. Next, surely, is disaster" (page 183).
Mlotek also explores marriage for material benefit; marriage for procreation and populating a country. Per the title, she expands on how no-fault divorces were signed into law in 1970 -- and how it would be 40 years before no-fault divorce laws were allowed in every state.
She references lots of movies and books about divorce. I wanted to watch/read them all! I also enjoyed seeing so many references from CUE THE SUN (the book I just finished) mentioned.
Haley Mlotek's writing is well-researched and her sentences are beautifully written. My favorite sections were when she gave personal anecdotes. There are short chapters and the font is beautiful.
I'm divorced. And shame and stigma haunt what I view as my failed relationship; but Haley Mlotek does not have these feelings. And she recognizes that shame and intimidation are used as tactics to keep people married.
She grew up around divorces (her mother helped couples dissolve their relationships) and she often advocated for her own parents to get divorced.
She claims that there is my marriage "which is evidence of how...your values have served or failed you. Then there is marriage: the category that presumes an ideal exists at all. But every marriage is turned into stories. There are the ones we tell ourselves and the ones we tell our families, the ones we tell while the marriage is intact and the ones we tell after a divorce. The story we keep private and the one we make public are just two examples" (page 71).
This is a book that explores those stories. This book reminded me of how marriage is made of "the boundaries they had once arbitrarily assigned to their own lives" (page 102).
In NO FAULT, I learned a lot about statistics as well as how they are reported (or not) and how we have to realize they're more nuanced than fact. And also the multifaceted issues with self-reporting. There are also issues of if the researchers understand the answers, or if the people being asked didn't understand the questions.
A question that resonated with me was on page 73: What is the nature of a commitment that turns a relationship into a marriage and what lifestyles accompany that commitment once it's been established?
Some more quotes I enjoyed:
"Marriage made women feel less independent, less impulsive, less themselves" (page 74) and to a view that "marriage is neither natural nor unknowable" (page 77).
"Can an experience like divorce, and the decision to live not only through it but also beyond it, inspire not just a graceful ending but something actually new? Can we find that quality in our days, then recognize it in what we read, and finally, create it all over again in our own words?" (page 136)
"Marriage and divorce laws, for all their gestures at equality, are still ways for states and governments to determine which relationships matter most, a value given to citizens in exchange for their commitment supposedly brings to society" (page 91-92).
According to Samuel Johnson, "A second marriage is the triumph of hope over expectation" (page 151).
"Intimacy is easy. Honesty is much harder. Gossip -- in which we reveal what we think is true about love and lust, powerful and politics, beginnings and endings -- is what happens in between" (page 188).
"I had always suspected there were two kinds of people in the world: those who will admit to gossiping about the end of a marriage with the same gravity they would bring to ordering appetizers for the table, and liars" (page 187).
"Marriage requires a couple to get a license, while divorce gives you one: permission to feel bad, behave badly, to experience a peculiar sensation of relief and dread as though they are the same emotion. Here is freedom. Next, surely, is disaster" (page 183).
Mlotek also explores marriage for material benefit; marriage for procreation and populating a country. Per the title, she expands on how no-fault divorces were signed into law in 1970 -- and how it would be 40 years before no-fault divorce laws were allowed in every state.
She references lots of movies and books about divorce. I wanted to watch/read them all! I also enjoyed seeing so many references from CUE THE SUN (the book I just finished) mentioned.
May 16, 2025
This book wanders about, somewhat aimlessly, in the territory between memoir and sociological examination of how divorce has been treated in different eras and cultures. I loved this weaving in and out, and so much of what she says about her own marriage and divorce really resonated with me, but it may irritate some readers. A cautionary note about the audiobook is that the author reads it herself, and pronounces “with” as “whiff,” which became surprisingly grating over the course of an entire book. Maybe opt for the print/ebook version.
March 12, 2025
the title of “a memoir of romance and divorce” doesn’t feel accurate. we got almost no insight to her marriage or why it fell apart and of what we did see there was absolutely no romance whatsoever. it felt much more like a history of divorce than a memoir.
still really enjoyed though.
and i don’t necessarily mind i know nothing about her private life. i just felt confused by the title after reading it.
still really enjoyed though.
and i don’t necessarily mind i know nothing about her private life. i just felt confused by the title after reading it.
April 8, 2025
Reading this was a lot like therapy in that it answered my questions with questions, most of which I couldn’t fully grasp in the moment, until I would have tiny satisfying epiphany responses to them three days later on the bus. I re-read passages 2-3 times sometimes, not because I didn’t understand them but because I wanted to somehow embed Haley’s elegance and wisdom into my own being through osmosis. The feminine personal somehow delivered journalistically and at no cost to the poetry of the prose. I loved it 💙 I’ve bought copies for my friends.
March 8, 2025
I love that no two divorce memoirs are the same. If you’re looking for the autopsy of a particular marriage, this is not it. It’s much broader and harder to pin down. The intricacies of how this marriage folded aren’t explicit. There is a lot of background information about the institution of marriage. Overall solid.
August 1, 2025
Really engaging. The author is pretty up front from the jump that she does not know how to describe why she got divorced. If you want a divorce memoir, the author makes many recommendations in her book (which is not a divorce memoir but rather a memoir about divorce).
"There are three kinds of marriage. There is my marriage, which is special: distinct, complex. There is your marriage, which is evidence: of how, as seen by me, your values have served or failed you. Then there is marriage: the category that presumes an ideal exists at all."
"There are three kinds of marriage. There is my marriage, which is special: distinct, complex. There is your marriage, which is evidence: of how, as seen by me, your values have served or failed you. Then there is marriage: the category that presumes an ideal exists at all."
August 14, 2025
A fascinating cultural and legal history of divorce, blended with the author’s own marriage and separation story. While lacking clear answers, her reflections are an important reminder that none of us can truly know what happens in a marriage.
“I have concluded marriage is the main cause of divorce.”
“I have concluded marriage is the main cause of divorce.”
January 8, 2026
This book was fine but like others noted I wouldn’t qualify this as a memoir. It’s a mix of cultural critique, history, and memoir - and while I appreciate the effort (as well as actually really enjoy all of these categories separately), the author was not successful in making any sort of coherent narrative out of the disjointed categories and types of writing.
March 20, 2025
4.5 stars
not exactly what was advertised, but very good nonetheless. the writing is precise and elegant. in the first half, i longed for more personal stories, and in the second half i appreciated what i was given so much. an absolute necessity for your divorce canon of literature!
not exactly what was advertised, but very good nonetheless. the writing is precise and elegant. in the first half, i longed for more personal stories, and in the second half i appreciated what i was given so much. an absolute necessity for your divorce canon of literature!
March 25, 2025
I’m going to be real: very boring, no tea.
July 1, 2025
As much history as memoir. Some read like poetry, some of the history was infuriating and some I just wanted to skim.
Read
October 9, 2025Where is the memoir in this "memoir"? I quit listening once I got 40% into this part essay, mostly historical analysis of marriage and divorce. Though interesting at times, it's the publisher's fault for misleading readers with this bullshit subtitle.
March 12, 2025
hit the spot for me personally
October 14, 2025
Heading into this book, I came across a review that read: "I don't think you should market something as a meoir if it is in fact a long essay about marriages as a general history and proposition – and not a unique one at that (Madeline)." When readers pick up a memoir, we oftentimes want something more personal. We want to hear the author's story, their emotions, and their learnings after the fact. So, I agree...this book is falsely advertised as a memoir when it feels more like a systematic review of marriages and divorce (the history of it all), which was not what I expected nor what I had an interest in reading. There were honestly full (consecutive) chapters where I could skim right through and not feel an inch of remorse for abandoning. They would not have added or deducted much from my understanding of this topic. Additionally, as someone who witnessed three divorces (grandmother, mother, and her own) and who grew up with couples on the verge of divorces frequenting her home, I really expected more insight. This isn't to downplay the author's traumatic and heartbreaking separation, but in comparison, her divorce was extremely clean with very little assets to fuss over. I guess that was my bad, because that's what No Fault Divorces are like. However, what I actually wanted was to hear stories from people who have bounced back from troubling and complicated cases with greater asset and custody battles. This also isn't to say that you can't gain valuable knowledge from this book, you can...you just have to be patient and nitpick them out. Her stories are interspersed between pages and pages of history and statistics-talk. Without chapter designations, it's even harder to decipher which chapters will be about her personal life and which ones are just stats. The quotations I've highlighted below may help paint a picture of Haley Mlotek's view on divorces better than reading the book itself. I've read it page by page so you don't have to.
One thing I found shocking was the duration of Haley's relationship with her ex-husband. They've been together for how many years? Almost two decades if my memory is correct. How can two individuals who have dated for that many years simply fall apart after being married for 2 years? Is it the title or is it something greater? If you think someone is so imcompatible with you to the point of divorcing, wouldn't that have shone through during the boyfriend-girlfriend period? Wouldn't it be so much easier to leave when nothing is set in paper by the law? This makes me question once again if we are ever truly our true selves in front of others... Despite how many years we've been together with our partners, are we still putting on a fake front in front of them? Is that the reason why some marriages fail? In marriage, there's no where to hide and I can only imagine how exhausting it will be to constantly hide your true selves. No one in this world will ever truly know your full story or know you to the core...at the end of the day, we care immesenly about how we are seen by others whether we wished to or not. As I write this, I'm still not sure how to answer this...but this morning, I've watched an interview with a 104 year old man who despite being divorced once, had an immense love for his current wife. He believes he has found the person whom he can become "one" with, and when you find that person, you wouldn't need to look at anyone else. I wish this was a universal feeling but sadly it isn't...or is it just sad that too many people have not actually found their one but settled? The past seems way more simple and straighforward than our dating lives now – too many distractions and too little respect for one another.
"Should we move back to the place where we rarely fought, where we had stayed together for years and years, the place where we had known something about each other no one else did?" (pg.61)
In order to stay married, you and your partner must be 'one person.' What this means is that you must be open to accepting, respecting, compromising and maybe sometimes even adopting their habits and vice versa. As you cohabit with one another, these habits will be illuminated. By definition, habits are those behaviours that have developed through consistency, trial and error, and practice over the course of a long, long time. Just as they are hard to be broken, they are equally hard to develop / adopt, especially if one does not see the value in doing so. You need to truly believe in its importance and do it consistently for them to stick...but once they finally do, they become second nature. To be in a happy and sustained relationship, you must understand where these habits stem from. Whether you agree with them or not, you must respect them and make an effort to create a space for them to exist in. I saw this in action during the limited nights I've spent with M_____. He has many particular ways of doing things and these are aspects of that individual that you may not recognize simply from being "just friends" with them. You notice these things the moment you "live" with them or spend more and more time with them at home – in the comfort of their own space. From the specific way he hangs his towel and specific designation of which sides are usuable or unsuable, to the dusting off of your feet before hopping into bed, to the placement of certain objects on the table, to the neat and clean way the bed should be made, to the drinking of water only 30 mins after brushing one's teeth, to the gurgling of water after every meal, to the exact way sweaters should be creased, folded, and positioned in the closet... These are whole aspects of the person (your partner) that you learn through time as you get to know them as a person beyond the surface level. These are things that friends may not necessarily have to experience, but these are things a partner must. You have two choices here: you can either appreciate these behaviours or you can set them as the grounds for disagreement. I think the most important thing here is how willing you are to learn and the ability to understand that there may always be better ways to do something. It also boils down to what you value; there's also always a deeper reason to why someone does things a certain way. For instance, I've learned that he values cleanliness on the bed because if he didn't, he would develop acne on his face. He values oral hygiene and has done ample research on what steps help protect that because having a clean and white smile is what he deems important. You may not floss or use mouthwash everyday or brush your teeth after every meal because that is not your main area of focus, but for others, it might be and it doesn't make sense to disregard that whole aspect of someone else just because it's less important to you. As a couple, you need to know that it's okay to have different practices. This way may work for you, but this way works for me. For better or worse, that is subjective and dependent on the values of the individual. If you want to be "one person" and more aligned with one another, you need to approach everything with an open-mind...hear them out...listen to why they do what they do, and then consider what was said. Once you have actively listened, you can then figure out which path to take. You can choose to adopt or simply respect it. It's okay to be wrong...just don't be so stubborn and concrete on how something should be done. As Jessica mentioned in conversation once, people have OCD over certain things because they are knowledgeable in that area. You can choose to pick at it, argue over it, or simply learn from it to improve yourself.
Should I switch directions and spill a thing or two about divorces now? The fact that I picked up this book is already a clear example of my confirmation bias at play. I had been expected to hear similar stories as mine from someone who see romance in the same hesitant light as mine. If you read my highlights below, you can probably tell my stance on marriage and divorces. It's not happy ending...it's mainly standing on the side of the ex-wife and advocating for the rights of women who were once stay-at-home moms. In a way, I feel like women who end up in such a position are the most selfless. They are the ones who give up their ambitions and dreams to create a home for their children. They could be the most brilliant individuals, but they will no longer be seen as such. At the same time, these women are also the most trusting and the most naive. They hold a strong belief that their husbands value their role and could not live without them...when in reality, men do not think that way. This is where perspectives come into play again. Just because, you as a women, believe and know what you offer and do for the family, it doesn't mean someone else will see the same things. They might see it as your duty (as a mother). "The price you pay as a stay-at-home girlfriend is your autonomy, your freedom...what happens when your boyfriend breaks up with you ten years down the line? You'll be a thirty-five year old with no job experience, no career..." (pg.91)
Alright, I've actually decided to just end this review here...I believe the rest is pretty self-explanatory.
Highlighted Quotes
"If you really want to get to know someone, I would say, divorce them." (pg.14)
^ Mom: I knew and witnessed him being this type of person (to his workers), but I'd never thought he would use it against me one day. In the later half of the book, the author recognized the naiviety in her saying this aloud. In divorce, you actually get to know less of the person.
"This is the thing about books: readers change, but pages don't." (pg.47)
"I had not made an attempt to make a home for us. I had hoped that just getting married would mean a home would follow, [...] but if I could answern ow I would say the truth: I thought I had more time." (pg.57)
"We were never in our apartment at the same time. I began to tell other people things I used to only tell him, thinking I was relieving our relationship of unnecessary stress. I was just creating more things we didn't know about each other. We fought. I apologized, over and over again, but I did not change." (pg. 61)
"I knew his family and loved them, love them still, miss them all the time; we had all the same friends and we knew we were going to hurt them, too, when we hurt each other." (pg.66)
"He was, as of that morning, no longer the only person I would tell my stories to, or the first person I would tell them to. I didn't know it yet but when he finally became a person I told no stories to at all I would think I had nothing left to say." (pg.67)
"I regret spending the last months of my marriage saying I'm sorry more than I said I love you." (pg.67)
"But every marriage is turned into stories. There are the ones we tell ourselves and the ones we tell our families, the ones we tell while the marriage is intact and the ones we tell after a divorce. The story we keep private and the one we make public." (pg.71)
"That there are two sides to every story is cliche. That there are two stories to every marriage is almost science." (pg.71)
^ There's two stories to every marriage is a fact. Everyone interprets situations differently. You may always hold the belief that you did x,y,z in their best interest and for their own good, but is it really for their good if they don't believe so? Help cannot be one-sided and this is why we should just stay in our lane. The times have changed. Everyone thinks they know what's best. When you interrupt their flow, they don't like it. Think for yourself only and only if another person asks, do you offer your two cents. Don't give them more than what they have asked of you. For instance, if someone wants you to listen to a piece of writing they wrote, this isn't necessarily an open invitation for you to criticize their writing, their ideas, and challenge their thoughts. They asked you to listen, so just listen. It's already written, whatever you say isn't going to get them to edit it even if you think you are doing so for their own good by providing novel perspectives and ideas. In your mind, it should be beneficial, but they didn't ask for it. When it comes unexpected like that, you miss out on room for deeper connection and appreciation. Instead, you are met with defensiveness and an instant shut down of further conversations.
"[...] sugguested that in a traditional heterosexual marriage, the husband's life improves, while the wife's declines." (pg.72)
^ this statement is very one-sided and I have to take these readings with a grain of salt because they're coming from people who only known divorce. Confirmation bias is always at play and we tend to only read up on information that confirms our original beliefs.
"What is the nature of a commitment that turns a relationship into a marriage, and what lifestyles accompany that commitment once it's been established?" (pg.73)
"While criminal law can be understood as bad people on their best behaviour, he says with his tie loosened and his sleeves rolled up, divorce law is good people on their worst behaviour." (pg.91)
"The courts are also not exactly the best forum to debate right and wrong. They are a contest of last man standing, in which winning is determined as much by who has the time and money required to pursue a lawsuit to the very end as it is by any scale of justice. A woman who has offered her labor in exchange for shelter and security instead of wages is not only at risk of not being able to afford either going forward; she is also at risk of not being able to afford a lawyer who can argue her case. Any spouse who cannot afford a lawyer's retainer does not have much chance of being equally protected by the possibilities of the law." (pg.92)
"[...] encourages women not to fear divorce so much as to recognize that the fear is worth overcoming in order to survive a marriage that has become – or always was – opporessive." (pg.105)
"We found that in doing the thinking that leads up to the decision to get divorced, we had already made a lot of changes in our values and priorities." (pg.106)
^ I think this is a very important statement. Throughout the divorce process, you start to realize what is truly worth living for. It pushes you to find the positives in your life and to seek out the simply joys and pleasures that bring you happiness amidst the ongoing and heart-wrenching process of divorce. Your values will change and the way you see yourself as a wife, a person, or mother will change.
"There is something to the way Levy writes that makes one believe she could hear, see, read, or experience anything and say, OK. She offers many interpretations, but few judgements and even fewer conclusions. Her loyalties are total and her betrayals are final. She accepts the people in her life as they are, not as she wishes them to be." (pg.118)
"[Levy] considers nostalgia a waste of time – a pretty funny thing to say for someone writing a three-volume autobiography. But then nostalgia and reflection are not necessarily the same thing." (pg.119)
^ Nostalgia and Self-Reflection are not necessarily the same thing...I really like this. To be nostalgic, you are experiencing the emotions of joy and sadness. To be reflective takes a bit more than just emotions. It's a conscious process whereas nostalgia may come in unwarranted gushes.
"Remembering memories again and again has the effect of making them seem less trustworthy." (pg. 140)
"When I tell someone to watch a certain movie I am mostly letting them know something that I am almost ready to say." (pg.140)
^ the same holds true when I encourage others to read my book reviews (or to read a certain book). There's something in that piece of writing that I want them to know, whether it's about me or about my perspective. I want them to consider it, but at the same time, it's may not be something I'm ready to share publicly.
"[...] the practicalities of divorce – custody battles, real estate division – and the way families will fold their feelings into legalese, letting precedents speak so that they don't have to." (pg.145)
^ Just let the lawyers do it, but then I feel like the way lawyers talk is so dragged out and impersonal. It hard to replicate emotions within writing, especially in the formal setting that law requires.
"I would notice that even when we were experiencing completely different phases we spoke about them in the same way. When we were in love, we needed to describe. When we were heartbroken, we needed to explain. We were always trying to convince ourselves." (pg.183)
"True story...is already soemthing of an oxymoron (contradictory term). And I have learned, the way gullible people must, that the people who proudly declare they have the best stories are usually just liars. The people who really do have the best stories never introduce themselves that way. They wait to be asked." (pg.184)
"Tell me your love story." (pg.184)
"Your fortunes the result of your own judgements and your fates the result of your own interpretation, but there is no narrative that can compare to the recklessness of an ordinary day, of an average life lived." (pg.237)
"Once you are there, the ocean considers the entirety of your existence the same as it considers everything else: as nothing in comparison to its own power. You cannot ask for a break, for solace, for recognition. You can barely keep your head above water. There's only one choice. You can be in or out. Such forces tend to punish hesitation more harshly than anything else." (pg.237)
"I felt myself realizing how wrong I had been, as a precocious child, telling my mother that divorce was the fastest way to get to know someone. I had meant that in moments of great grief or loss, people tend to reveal their basest impulses, which is true enough; but in these forms my husband became a stranger and my marriage a ledger, a line of numbers I couldn't recognize as anything like a family." (pg.258)
^ During my parent's divorce battle, my dad became a stranger and an outsider more than anything. I didn't know much about him anymore and I didn't know how much of his words and story I could actually trust
"She got quieter as her hearing got worse." (pg.265)
"I was so relieved. I couldn't wait for it to be over. And relief is more than just a word – it was a whole feeling. I should have done it years before, and not waited; there was always a reason to wait. A kid's birthday, you know. Until it comes to you and it's almost too late." (pg.266)
"[Capstone Marriage vs Cornerstone Marriage]"
One thing I found shocking was the duration of Haley's relationship with her ex-husband. They've been together for how many years? Almost two decades if my memory is correct. How can two individuals who have dated for that many years simply fall apart after being married for 2 years? Is it the title or is it something greater? If you think someone is so imcompatible with you to the point of divorcing, wouldn't that have shone through during the boyfriend-girlfriend period? Wouldn't it be so much easier to leave when nothing is set in paper by the law? This makes me question once again if we are ever truly our true selves in front of others... Despite how many years we've been together with our partners, are we still putting on a fake front in front of them? Is that the reason why some marriages fail? In marriage, there's no where to hide and I can only imagine how exhausting it will be to constantly hide your true selves. No one in this world will ever truly know your full story or know you to the core...at the end of the day, we care immesenly about how we are seen by others whether we wished to or not. As I write this, I'm still not sure how to answer this...but this morning, I've watched an interview with a 104 year old man who despite being divorced once, had an immense love for his current wife. He believes he has found the person whom he can become "one" with, and when you find that person, you wouldn't need to look at anyone else. I wish this was a universal feeling but sadly it isn't...or is it just sad that too many people have not actually found their one but settled? The past seems way more simple and straighforward than our dating lives now – too many distractions and too little respect for one another.
"Should we move back to the place where we rarely fought, where we had stayed together for years and years, the place where we had known something about each other no one else did?" (pg.61)
In order to stay married, you and your partner must be 'one person.' What this means is that you must be open to accepting, respecting, compromising and maybe sometimes even adopting their habits and vice versa. As you cohabit with one another, these habits will be illuminated. By definition, habits are those behaviours that have developed through consistency, trial and error, and practice over the course of a long, long time. Just as they are hard to be broken, they are equally hard to develop / adopt, especially if one does not see the value in doing so. You need to truly believe in its importance and do it consistently for them to stick...but once they finally do, they become second nature. To be in a happy and sustained relationship, you must understand where these habits stem from. Whether you agree with them or not, you must respect them and make an effort to create a space for them to exist in. I saw this in action during the limited nights I've spent with M_____. He has many particular ways of doing things and these are aspects of that individual that you may not recognize simply from being "just friends" with them. You notice these things the moment you "live" with them or spend more and more time with them at home – in the comfort of their own space. From the specific way he hangs his towel and specific designation of which sides are usuable or unsuable, to the dusting off of your feet before hopping into bed, to the placement of certain objects on the table, to the neat and clean way the bed should be made, to the drinking of water only 30 mins after brushing one's teeth, to the gurgling of water after every meal, to the exact way sweaters should be creased, folded, and positioned in the closet... These are whole aspects of the person (your partner) that you learn through time as you get to know them as a person beyond the surface level. These are things that friends may not necessarily have to experience, but these are things a partner must. You have two choices here: you can either appreciate these behaviours or you can set them as the grounds for disagreement. I think the most important thing here is how willing you are to learn and the ability to understand that there may always be better ways to do something. It also boils down to what you value; there's also always a deeper reason to why someone does things a certain way. For instance, I've learned that he values cleanliness on the bed because if he didn't, he would develop acne on his face. He values oral hygiene and has done ample research on what steps help protect that because having a clean and white smile is what he deems important. You may not floss or use mouthwash everyday or brush your teeth after every meal because that is not your main area of focus, but for others, it might be and it doesn't make sense to disregard that whole aspect of someone else just because it's less important to you. As a couple, you need to know that it's okay to have different practices. This way may work for you, but this way works for me. For better or worse, that is subjective and dependent on the values of the individual. If you want to be "one person" and more aligned with one another, you need to approach everything with an open-mind...hear them out...listen to why they do what they do, and then consider what was said. Once you have actively listened, you can then figure out which path to take. You can choose to adopt or simply respect it. It's okay to be wrong...just don't be so stubborn and concrete on how something should be done. As Jessica mentioned in conversation once, people have OCD over certain things because they are knowledgeable in that area. You can choose to pick at it, argue over it, or simply learn from it to improve yourself.
Should I switch directions and spill a thing or two about divorces now? The fact that I picked up this book is already a clear example of my confirmation bias at play. I had been expected to hear similar stories as mine from someone who see romance in the same hesitant light as mine. If you read my highlights below, you can probably tell my stance on marriage and divorces. It's not happy ending...it's mainly standing on the side of the ex-wife and advocating for the rights of women who were once stay-at-home moms. In a way, I feel like women who end up in such a position are the most selfless. They are the ones who give up their ambitions and dreams to create a home for their children. They could be the most brilliant individuals, but they will no longer be seen as such. At the same time, these women are also the most trusting and the most naive. They hold a strong belief that their husbands value their role and could not live without them...when in reality, men do not think that way. This is where perspectives come into play again. Just because, you as a women, believe and know what you offer and do for the family, it doesn't mean someone else will see the same things. They might see it as your duty (as a mother). "The price you pay as a stay-at-home girlfriend is your autonomy, your freedom...what happens when your boyfriend breaks up with you ten years down the line? You'll be a thirty-five year old with no job experience, no career..." (pg.91)
Alright, I've actually decided to just end this review here...I believe the rest is pretty self-explanatory.
Highlighted Quotes
"If you really want to get to know someone, I would say, divorce them." (pg.14)
^ Mom: I knew and witnessed him being this type of person (to his workers), but I'd never thought he would use it against me one day. In the later half of the book, the author recognized the naiviety in her saying this aloud. In divorce, you actually get to know less of the person.
"This is the thing about books: readers change, but pages don't." (pg.47)
"I had not made an attempt to make a home for us. I had hoped that just getting married would mean a home would follow, [...] but if I could answern ow I would say the truth: I thought I had more time." (pg.57)
"We were never in our apartment at the same time. I began to tell other people things I used to only tell him, thinking I was relieving our relationship of unnecessary stress. I was just creating more things we didn't know about each other. We fought. I apologized, over and over again, but I did not change." (pg. 61)
"I knew his family and loved them, love them still, miss them all the time; we had all the same friends and we knew we were going to hurt them, too, when we hurt each other." (pg.66)
"He was, as of that morning, no longer the only person I would tell my stories to, or the first person I would tell them to. I didn't know it yet but when he finally became a person I told no stories to at all I would think I had nothing left to say." (pg.67)
"I regret spending the last months of my marriage saying I'm sorry more than I said I love you." (pg.67)
"But every marriage is turned into stories. There are the ones we tell ourselves and the ones we tell our families, the ones we tell while the marriage is intact and the ones we tell after a divorce. The story we keep private and the one we make public." (pg.71)
"That there are two sides to every story is cliche. That there are two stories to every marriage is almost science." (pg.71)
^ There's two stories to every marriage is a fact. Everyone interprets situations differently. You may always hold the belief that you did x,y,z in their best interest and for their own good, but is it really for their good if they don't believe so? Help cannot be one-sided and this is why we should just stay in our lane. The times have changed. Everyone thinks they know what's best. When you interrupt their flow, they don't like it. Think for yourself only and only if another person asks, do you offer your two cents. Don't give them more than what they have asked of you. For instance, if someone wants you to listen to a piece of writing they wrote, this isn't necessarily an open invitation for you to criticize their writing, their ideas, and challenge their thoughts. They asked you to listen, so just listen. It's already written, whatever you say isn't going to get them to edit it even if you think you are doing so for their own good by providing novel perspectives and ideas. In your mind, it should be beneficial, but they didn't ask for it. When it comes unexpected like that, you miss out on room for deeper connection and appreciation. Instead, you are met with defensiveness and an instant shut down of further conversations.
"[...] sugguested that in a traditional heterosexual marriage, the husband's life improves, while the wife's declines." (pg.72)
^ this statement is very one-sided and I have to take these readings with a grain of salt because they're coming from people who only known divorce. Confirmation bias is always at play and we tend to only read up on information that confirms our original beliefs.
"What is the nature of a commitment that turns a relationship into a marriage, and what lifestyles accompany that commitment once it's been established?" (pg.73)
"While criminal law can be understood as bad people on their best behaviour, he says with his tie loosened and his sleeves rolled up, divorce law is good people on their worst behaviour." (pg.91)
"The courts are also not exactly the best forum to debate right and wrong. They are a contest of last man standing, in which winning is determined as much by who has the time and money required to pursue a lawsuit to the very end as it is by any scale of justice. A woman who has offered her labor in exchange for shelter and security instead of wages is not only at risk of not being able to afford either going forward; she is also at risk of not being able to afford a lawyer who can argue her case. Any spouse who cannot afford a lawyer's retainer does not have much chance of being equally protected by the possibilities of the law." (pg.92)
"[...] encourages women not to fear divorce so much as to recognize that the fear is worth overcoming in order to survive a marriage that has become – or always was – opporessive." (pg.105)
"We found that in doing the thinking that leads up to the decision to get divorced, we had already made a lot of changes in our values and priorities." (pg.106)
^ I think this is a very important statement. Throughout the divorce process, you start to realize what is truly worth living for. It pushes you to find the positives in your life and to seek out the simply joys and pleasures that bring you happiness amidst the ongoing and heart-wrenching process of divorce. Your values will change and the way you see yourself as a wife, a person, or mother will change.
"There is something to the way Levy writes that makes one believe she could hear, see, read, or experience anything and say, OK. She offers many interpretations, but few judgements and even fewer conclusions. Her loyalties are total and her betrayals are final. She accepts the people in her life as they are, not as she wishes them to be." (pg.118)
"[Levy] considers nostalgia a waste of time – a pretty funny thing to say for someone writing a three-volume autobiography. But then nostalgia and reflection are not necessarily the same thing." (pg.119)
^ Nostalgia and Self-Reflection are not necessarily the same thing...I really like this. To be nostalgic, you are experiencing the emotions of joy and sadness. To be reflective takes a bit more than just emotions. It's a conscious process whereas nostalgia may come in unwarranted gushes.
"Remembering memories again and again has the effect of making them seem less trustworthy." (pg. 140)
"When I tell someone to watch a certain movie I am mostly letting them know something that I am almost ready to say." (pg.140)
^ the same holds true when I encourage others to read my book reviews (or to read a certain book). There's something in that piece of writing that I want them to know, whether it's about me or about my perspective. I want them to consider it, but at the same time, it's may not be something I'm ready to share publicly.
"[...] the practicalities of divorce – custody battles, real estate division – and the way families will fold their feelings into legalese, letting precedents speak so that they don't have to." (pg.145)
^ Just let the lawyers do it, but then I feel like the way lawyers talk is so dragged out and impersonal. It hard to replicate emotions within writing, especially in the formal setting that law requires.
"I would notice that even when we were experiencing completely different phases we spoke about them in the same way. When we were in love, we needed to describe. When we were heartbroken, we needed to explain. We were always trying to convince ourselves." (pg.183)
"True story...is already soemthing of an oxymoron (contradictory term). And I have learned, the way gullible people must, that the people who proudly declare they have the best stories are usually just liars. The people who really do have the best stories never introduce themselves that way. They wait to be asked." (pg.184)
"Tell me your love story." (pg.184)
"Your fortunes the result of your own judgements and your fates the result of your own interpretation, but there is no narrative that can compare to the recklessness of an ordinary day, of an average life lived." (pg.237)
"Once you are there, the ocean considers the entirety of your existence the same as it considers everything else: as nothing in comparison to its own power. You cannot ask for a break, for solace, for recognition. You can barely keep your head above water. There's only one choice. You can be in or out. Such forces tend to punish hesitation more harshly than anything else." (pg.237)
"I felt myself realizing how wrong I had been, as a precocious child, telling my mother that divorce was the fastest way to get to know someone. I had meant that in moments of great grief or loss, people tend to reveal their basest impulses, which is true enough; but in these forms my husband became a stranger and my marriage a ledger, a line of numbers I couldn't recognize as anything like a family." (pg.258)
^ During my parent's divorce battle, my dad became a stranger and an outsider more than anything. I didn't know much about him anymore and I didn't know how much of his words and story I could actually trust
"She got quieter as her hearing got worse." (pg.265)
"I was so relieved. I couldn't wait for it to be over. And relief is more than just a word – it was a whole feeling. I should have done it years before, and not waited; there was always a reason to wait. A kid's birthday, you know. Until it comes to you and it's almost too late." (pg.266)
"[Capstone Marriage vs Cornerstone Marriage]"
December 2, 2024
I am a sucker for memoir of ordinary life and for any criticism of the institution of marriage. So, I do feel a little biased but I also appreciated Mlotek's particular story, her style of short chapters and her inclusion of so many inspirations and references. (Everyone *should* see "An Unmarried Woman") I had to keep stopping to write things down and I look forward to reading some of the books she quoted that I was not yet familiar with. I think this is a great addition to the literature on divorce but again I'm biased (though neither divorced nor the child of divorce).
Without succumbing to the allure of heteropessimism, Mlotek makes a good case for the protection of a woman's independence and sense of self against a world that would at every step love to crush her.
Without succumbing to the allure of heteropessimism, Mlotek makes a good case for the protection of a woman's independence and sense of self against a world that would at every step love to crush her.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 110 reviews