What do you think?
Rate this book
非凡的亨利·豪斯
亨利‧豪斯四個月大的時候，他的照片已經擺在七個不同女人的錢包裡，而且每個女人都說他是自己的兒子。
亨利‧豪斯一登場就與眾不同，他是個「實習寶寶」。在塑膠娃娃誕生以前，美國政府因應戰後嬰兒潮推廣育兒計畫，當年是用「真的」嬰兒，讓孤兒院與大學家政系緊密合作，「他」是最受歡迎的一個。亨利生命的起點，就是一批又一批輪流寵愛他的實習媽媽，是一個芬芳無塵又支離破碎的世界，彷彿預見他一生愛不完的難解難分。
從童年起，亨利就不斷意識到自己的獨特，成年在即，他毅然離開實習之家，憑著繪畫天賦和迷人風采，他先後在紐約發跡、爾後前往加州，為迪士尼《歡樂滿人間》繪製企鵝，甚至遠征倫敦，製作披頭四電影《黃色潛水艇》。六○年代的花花世界，亨利始終英俊瀟灑，女人前仆後繼獻上芳心。然而，無論他征服過多少女人，卻沒有一個女人可以完全擁有他。
非凡的亨利‧豪斯，人生峰迴路轉，但狂放不羈的他，最終能否找到靈魂的歸宿？
亨利‧豪斯一登場就與眾不同，他是個「實習寶寶」。在塑膠娃娃誕生以前，美國政府因應戰後嬰兒潮推廣育兒計畫，當年是用「真的」嬰兒，讓孤兒院與大學家政系緊密合作，「他」是最受歡迎的一個。亨利生命的起點，就是一批又一批輪流寵愛他的實習媽媽，是一個芬芳無塵又支離破碎的世界，彷彿預見他一生愛不完的難解難分。
從童年起，亨利就不斷意識到自己的獨特，成年在即，他毅然離開實習之家，憑著繪畫天賦和迷人風采，他先後在紐約發跡、爾後前往加州，為迪士尼《歡樂滿人間》繪製企鵝，甚至遠征倫敦，製作披頭四電影《黃色潛水艇》。六○年代的花花世界，亨利始終英俊瀟灑，女人前仆後繼獻上芳心。然而，無論他征服過多少女人，卻沒有一個女人可以完全擁有他。
非凡的亨利‧豪斯，人生峰迴路轉，但狂放不羈的他，最終能否找到靈魂的歸宿？
424 pages, Paperback
First published March 10, 2010
232 people are currently reading
4129 people want to read
About the author
Lisa Grunwald
19 books458 followersLisa Grunwald is the author of the novels The Evolution of Annabel Craig, Time After Time, The Irresistible Henry House, Whatever Makes You Happy, New Year's Eve, The Theory of Everything, and Summer. Along with her husband, former Reuters editor-in-chief Stephen J. Adler, she edited the bestselling anthologies The Marriage Book, Women's Letters and Letters of the Century. Grunwald is an occasional essayist and runs a side hustle on Etsy called ProcrastinationArts, where she sells other things she makes with pencils and paper. She lives in New York City.
Photo courtesy of author website.
Photo courtesy of author website.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 955 reviews
July 21, 2023
The book told the story about how Colleges in the United States used to offer Home Economics courses through "practice" babies in "practice" houses on their campuses. The babies were supplied from local orphanages and held on by the college for at least 2 years so young ladies could be taught techniques in "mothering." This story focused on a baby Henry House (Gaines) who after 2 years was "kept" (adopted though I'm not sure it was official) by the teacher who ran a practice house in a college. The story focuses on him being raised in a practice house with many different practice babies and mothers coming and going throughout the years. The story goes on to follow him throughout his life and the possible effects of his upbringing. I found the story interesting at first but it was very slow moving....not much of a plot.
May 26, 2010
The Irresistible Henry House is an irresistible novel. (Sorry, I couldn't resist.) I was as charmed by Henry's story every bit as much as the women in his life. About 3/4 of the way through listening to the story, I realized that it reminded me a lot of the movie Forrest Gump. Well, maybe not so much. Henry isn't an innocent and he doesn't love his mama. In fact, he doesn't really have a mama. Henry started out life as a practice baby in a practice house with six different practice mothers rotating mothering duties each week. As a result, he never really forms any strong attachments and never really has any strong male role models. Instead, he learns to be a social chameleon so everyone likes him and women love him.
So, why was I reminded of Forrest Gump? This novel covers a quarter century of American (and English) life at a period of enormous change from the post-WWII era through the 1960's. Henry meets famous people like Walt Disney and the Beatles. Dr. Benjamin Spock makes an appearance too. Henry becomes an Everyman who allows us to experience what it must have been like to be young during such a pivotal period in American/British civilization. And, you can't help but root for Henry. He's despicable in many ways, but you know that's because he's lost.
The audio production of this novel was very good. The narrator does and excellent job with the dialogue, especially Henry's. Whatever age Henry is, the narrator reads his dialogue appropriately. He doesn't do such a great job with the women's dialogue, but he's pitch-perfect with children's voices. It's very easy for children to be read badly, and the narrator here doesn't fall into the usual traps, like lisping and baby talk.
I highly recommend this book if you want something that raises interesting ideas but doesn't get totally depressing.
So, why was I reminded of Forrest Gump? This novel covers a quarter century of American (and English) life at a period of enormous change from the post-WWII era through the 1960's. Henry meets famous people like Walt Disney and the Beatles. Dr. Benjamin Spock makes an appearance too. Henry becomes an Everyman who allows us to experience what it must have been like to be young during such a pivotal period in American/British civilization. And, you can't help but root for Henry. He's despicable in many ways, but you know that's because he's lost.
The audio production of this novel was very good. The narrator does and excellent job with the dialogue, especially Henry's. Whatever age Henry is, the narrator reads his dialogue appropriately. He doesn't do such a great job with the women's dialogue, but he's pitch-perfect with children's voices. It's very easy for children to be read badly, and the narrator here doesn't fall into the usual traps, like lisping and baby talk.
I highly recommend this book if you want something that raises interesting ideas but doesn't get totally depressing.
May 12, 2010
For me, this book's greatest appeal was the overview of American culture in the mid-20th century. If you were alive between 1946 and 1968, this will be a fun stroll down Memory Lane. If you're too young to have been there, this is your nice light primer on the era. Grunwald manages to toss in the most memorable trivia about social attitudes, clothing, decor, music, and current events of the period.
Henry's life begins with the post-war optimism of the late 1940s and progresses through the golly-gee-whiz wholesomeness of the 1950s followed by the boldly defiant, garishly colored, drug-laced 1960s. His restlessness as a young adult is the perfect vehicle for exploring New York City, California, and London in the psychedelic '60s.
The scene where Henry loses his virginity is brilliant. It's not graphic or even particularly sexual, which is what makes it funny. His desperation and eagerness for the experience makes that all-important first time awkward, unsatisfying, and comical. And it's a great way for the author to include a reference to Joe Palooka, hee hee.
I had a hard time dredging up much sympathy for Henry. Yes, his upbringing in the "practice house" (WHAT! WERE! THEY! THINKING!?) was unconventional and lacking in some ways. But he was never abused, neglected, or molested. I couldn't actively dislike him, but he just seemed so much like other guys I've met (and dated) who want every woman they hook up with to compensate for their wounded childhoods. Get over yourself, boy.
My favorite character is fairly minor, but I was always happy to see her pop back into the story. Solid, reliable, straightforward, no-nonsense Ethel. She's always there in a practical way when Henry needs her, but she never pities or babies him.
I like Grunwald's writing. It has the smoothness of an experienced author, and never gets too heavy or melodramatic.
Henry's life begins with the post-war optimism of the late 1940s and progresses through the golly-gee-whiz wholesomeness of the 1950s followed by the boldly defiant, garishly colored, drug-laced 1960s. His restlessness as a young adult is the perfect vehicle for exploring New York City, California, and London in the psychedelic '60s.
The scene where Henry loses his virginity is brilliant. It's not graphic or even particularly sexual, which is what makes it funny. His desperation and eagerness for the experience makes that all-important first time awkward, unsatisfying, and comical. And it's a great way for the author to include a reference to Joe Palooka, hee hee.
I had a hard time dredging up much sympathy for Henry. Yes, his upbringing in the "practice house" (WHAT! WERE! THEY! THINKING!?) was unconventional and lacking in some ways. But he was never abused, neglected, or molested. I couldn't actively dislike him, but he just seemed so much like other guys I've met (and dated) who want every woman they hook up with to compensate for their wounded childhoods. Get over yourself, boy.
My favorite character is fairly minor, but I was always happy to see her pop back into the story. Solid, reliable, straightforward, no-nonsense Ethel. She's always there in a practical way when Henry needs her, but she never pities or babies him.
I like Grunwald's writing. It has the smoothness of an experienced author, and never gets too heavy or melodramatic.
Read
July 25, 2011In the heyday of college home economics programs (in the 1940s through early 1960s), some schools featured "practice houses," in which students could learn all the basics of how to be a good housewife—cooking, sewing and cleaning, to name just a few. Some practice houses also had "practice babies," babies obtained from local orphanages that were used as teaching tools to help women understand how to care for infants and young children. These babies usually lived at the school for the first two years of life before being put up for adoption at the orphanage.
Lisa Grunwald's fantastic book, The Irresistible Henry House, tells the story of such a program, through the eyes of Henry, one of the practice babies, and Martha Gaines, director of the program. Henry, as he is passed from one practice "mother" to another, learns early on how to charm women and make each one feel important and loved. Except his adoptive mother, Martha, whose need to love Henry and need for his love in return causes her to lie to him, a lie that has ramifications through the rest of their lives.
I thought this was a terrific story. Grunwald's characters are tremendously vivid—Henry is a cipher because he wasn't able to make any permanent human connections at an early age, and instead spends a good portion of his life trying to please everyone but himself, only to find his affections not returned when he first truly falls for someone. I found Martha's plight somewhat heartbreaking, but you can definitely see how smothering her love is to Henry. And Henry's journey as an artist and animator is as fascinating as the rest of the story. A really great book that will make an interesting movie.
Lisa Grunwald's fantastic book, The Irresistible Henry House, tells the story of such a program, through the eyes of Henry, one of the practice babies, and Martha Gaines, director of the program. Henry, as he is passed from one practice "mother" to another, learns early on how to charm women and make each one feel important and loved. Except his adoptive mother, Martha, whose need to love Henry and need for his love in return causes her to lie to him, a lie that has ramifications through the rest of their lives.
I thought this was a terrific story. Grunwald's characters are tremendously vivid—Henry is a cipher because he wasn't able to make any permanent human connections at an early age, and instead spends a good portion of his life trying to please everyone but himself, only to find his affections not returned when he first truly falls for someone. I found Martha's plight somewhat heartbreaking, but you can definitely see how smothering her love is to Henry. And Henry's journey as an artist and animator is as fascinating as the rest of the story. A really great book that will make an interesting movie.
May 6, 2010
The descriptive writing is excellent. The characters, the settings and the detailed movement that brings a book to life drew me into the book. It is evident that a great deal of intricate work went into the creation of this book and the writing shows that. Disappointingly, there is no discernible plot to this book and there is no ending. If it was meant to be a character study and I somehow missed that fact, then….my bad. I apologize for this review. We follow the main character, Henry, through a series of life’s encounters from his infancy, through his rebellious teen years, and until he is a twenty-something young man. We’re thrown into his relationships, basically all with women, many of them sexual. He’s clearly a very lost person having been passed around his entire life, and never feeling that he belonged to anyone because he was a practice baby for young girls in college home economics program. He eventually finds a very successful career in a creative art field, but he feels inhibited by what he feels is a lack of genuine creativity. He moves all over the map from East Coast to West Coast to East Coast to Europe and back, while we are waiting for a plot to develop. He eventually appreciates his birth mother, who left him 3 times. But he never comes full circle and shows any love for the one stable and consistent person in his life; the woman who mothered him and loved him unconditionally and taught him to take care of himself. And in the end he turns to his best childhood friend seeking something more than friendship and the story simply stops. It stops with a confusing mixed message. We don’t know if he sheds a tear because it’s a relationship that will never develop, or if he’s drawing a picture of a house because he will settle down and marry this friend. With so much descriptive detail, this story just rambles. If only it had a well-developed plot, it would have been an excellent read. Instead it left me feeling rather cheated.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
April 28, 2010
This review is probably only appropriate for folks who have already read or probably won't read the book. Since I don't think I'd recommend it to anyone, I'm not going to be shy about the spoilers.
Henry House was a practice baby in a 1940s-50s College Home Economics Program. His mother (who'd given him to an orphanage at birth) was the daughter of the President of the University, and as such got herself inserted into that class as well as the baby. She begs the Home Ec professor (who desperately clings to Henry) to keep the baby, since she cannot. She goes to join her AWOL (from WWII) husband in Australia to become a drunk. So Henry is raised by dozens of different mothers... the closest thing to a real one he had (the professor) was just using him to fill a void in her own life. She's constantly staring into his eyes searching for the love she so desperately needs. When he asks about his real mother, she so desperately wishes it were her that she invents a lie... a lie that, when revealed by his own drunk mother's return, turns Henry against her for life. He remains with her, feigns muteness, and gets sent away to a boarding school for special needs kids.
And so the majority of the book is Henry's childhood spent learning what love might be like, having come from this unique situation.
There are some really fun settings, as a teenaged Henry becomes an animator for Disney during Mary Poppins and the Jungle Book, as well as later for the Yellow Submarine. It's got a good sense of period, which was fun to read.
I think the book would be infinitely more interesting if it spent only a couple of chapters on his origin, and instead focused on the adult life of a man who was raised that way. When the book ends, I think Henry's only about 20-22 or so, and the majority of the book examined his sexual maturation -- which could be decidedly odd as he never had a single adult male role model.
It's not set up for a sequel at all, but if there is one, then I bet I would like it quite a bit.
Henry House was a practice baby in a 1940s-50s College Home Economics Program. His mother (who'd given him to an orphanage at birth) was the daughter of the President of the University, and as such got herself inserted into that class as well as the baby. She begs the Home Ec professor (who desperately clings to Henry) to keep the baby, since she cannot. She goes to join her AWOL (from WWII) husband in Australia to become a drunk. So Henry is raised by dozens of different mothers... the closest thing to a real one he had (the professor) was just using him to fill a void in her own life. She's constantly staring into his eyes searching for the love she so desperately needs. When he asks about his real mother, she so desperately wishes it were her that she invents a lie... a lie that, when revealed by his own drunk mother's return, turns Henry against her for life. He remains with her, feigns muteness, and gets sent away to a boarding school for special needs kids.
And so the majority of the book is Henry's childhood spent learning what love might be like, having come from this unique situation.
There are some really fun settings, as a teenaged Henry becomes an animator for Disney during Mary Poppins and the Jungle Book, as well as later for the Yellow Submarine. It's got a good sense of period, which was fun to read.
I think the book would be infinitely more interesting if it spent only a couple of chapters on his origin, and instead focused on the adult life of a man who was raised that way. When the book ends, I think Henry's only about 20-22 or so, and the majority of the book examined his sexual maturation -- which could be decidedly odd as he never had a single adult male role model.
It's not set up for a sequel at all, but if there is one, then I bet I would like it quite a bit.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
April 23, 2024
Lisa Grunwald's new book is absolutely magical. It's not "chick-lit" and it's not heavy, serious lit - it's in the middle. A simply remarkable and readable story of an orphan named Henry House. A little like John Irving's "The World According to Garp", without much of the attendant sadness.
Henry House was born on a college campus right after WW2 to a young married woman whose husband was not the father of baby Henry. He was left in an orphanage, but then taken for a two year stint at the university's "practice house". Set up at the university's Home Economics Department, the "practice house" helped young coeds who would someday become wives and mothers to gain some experience in tasks of child raising and house care. He was cared for by a group of six coeds who would each take a week at the house, learning how to care for him and to do housework and cooking. Theoretically, at the end of the two years spent at the "practice house", Henry, like the "practice babies" before and after him, would be adopted into a good home.
But young Henry, even as an infant, was so beautiful and charming that the head of the program, a widow named Martha, could not give him up. She kept him and raised him and loved him and tried to inspire love in return from Henry. But he was distrustful of her and kept his distance, both physically and emotionally. I'll let the reader learn how Henry "turned out".
But if Henry House is the main character, Grunwald has drawn exquisite supporting ones. Every character is interesting. When I read a great novel, I'm left a little bereft at the end of it, as I was here. I wanted to know more about the characters - I wanted to know what happened to them. I want Lisa Grunwald to write a sequel.
And as Grunwald writes in her epilogue, there were real "practice houses" and "practice babies" in universities from the early 1920's til the mid 1960's, when women were presumed to have "higher interests" than just housewifery and motherhood. One of the most famous one was at Cornell University.
Henry House was born on a college campus right after WW2 to a young married woman whose husband was not the father of baby Henry. He was left in an orphanage, but then taken for a two year stint at the university's "practice house". Set up at the university's Home Economics Department, the "practice house" helped young coeds who would someday become wives and mothers to gain some experience in tasks of child raising and house care. He was cared for by a group of six coeds who would each take a week at the house, learning how to care for him and to do housework and cooking. Theoretically, at the end of the two years spent at the "practice house", Henry, like the "practice babies" before and after him, would be adopted into a good home.
But young Henry, even as an infant, was so beautiful and charming that the head of the program, a widow named Martha, could not give him up. She kept him and raised him and loved him and tried to inspire love in return from Henry. But he was distrustful of her and kept his distance, both physically and emotionally. I'll let the reader learn how Henry "turned out".
But if Henry House is the main character, Grunwald has drawn exquisite supporting ones. Every character is interesting. When I read a great novel, I'm left a little bereft at the end of it, as I was here. I wanted to know more about the characters - I wanted to know what happened to them. I want Lisa Grunwald to write a sequel.
And as Grunwald writes in her epilogue, there were real "practice houses" and "practice babies" in universities from the early 1920's til the mid 1960's, when women were presumed to have "higher interests" than just housewifery and motherhood. One of the most famous one was at Cornell University.
October 7, 2018
I'm writing an academic essay on the Practice Houses of the 1920s-1950s and this book comes up again and again in previous work. An easy and tantalizing read. One that I admittedly have OVER THOUGHT. But WOWZA. Talk about pathologizing. Like every woman in it is damaged--except the woman who Henry ultimately ends up marrying (presumably). The compulsive need to make everything heteronormative and neat really sums up the problem with so many portrayals of women. So, there was some eye rolling.
Read
March 11, 2010Show! Don't Tell!!
I wanted so badly to love this book, but it was not meant to be. The biggest problem I had was that I'd put it down and not care if I picked it up again. At first, I attributed this to the fact that I'd started it just before Christmas. By mid-January, however, I realized it was the book. After thinking about why that was so, I realized this book is 99% telling and 1% showing. Grunwald broke the cardinal rule for writers -- Show, don't tell!!
Clearly, based on other reviews, there are people who don't mind a telling book. If it were shorter, I might not have minded it, myself. Grunwald writes well and I enjoyed her descriptive scenes, particularly in California and London. What the telling does for me, however, is make me not care about any of the characters. The main characters are particularly annoying. By the end of the book, the only character I liked was Mary Jane. It had no intimacy for me. I didn't get to 'know' these characters, and learn about them that way. It was Lisa Grunwald telling me about these characters she knew. She was always telling me how they felt and what they thought. I never got the chance to learn these things myself. They became, for the most part, characters I didn't want to hear about.
Beyond my not getting to know the characters, I also got the feeling they were too 'scripted.' I don't get the feeling that Henry or Martha or Betty told Grunwald how (s)he felt about anything. Grunwald had a story to tell and made her characters fit the story. The fact that Peace was so much like Henry, even though she had been adopted, reinforced this 'make the character fit the story' sense. The biggest flaw I saw here was Henry's attitude to Martha. It didn't make sense to me at all. She was the one constant he'd had. Yes, he would be angry at her for lying to him. Yes, he'd want to run away with Betty. Yes, he'd likely want to leave home ASAP (or else become a 'mama's boy'). But, I think part of all of that, once he got over the initial anger at Martha for lying, would be, not because he had no feeling for her, but because he did have feelings and needed to get away from her smothering.
As I write this, I think maybe, possibly, Grunwald expected the reader to realize he actually did have feelings for Martha. I still believe that the telling manner of writing makes this much more difficult for the reader to see. If one gets to see Henry's emotions, rather than be told about them, one can then determine that he thinks he feels nothing for Martha, but actually really does.
Kudos to Grunwald for the ending. I tend to doubt that Henry would have made the realization about Mary Jane as young as he did, but her reaction was absolutely right. It is this ending, Henry's realization, that makes me wonder if everything we are told about how he feels about things is accurate, though it's all too vague. I sort of suspected that was how it would end for Henry and was really concerned that it would be a sappy ending. I was delighted it wasn't. It is this ending (along with the Disney and London settings, so well described) that made the book worth reading, for me.
If you like a literary style (I do) and don't mind telling (I do), go ahead and read this book. If you prefer action stories or at least a feeling of actually getting to know the characters, you probably won't care for this book.
I wanted so badly to love this book, but it was not meant to be. The biggest problem I had was that I'd put it down and not care if I picked it up again. At first, I attributed this to the fact that I'd started it just before Christmas. By mid-January, however, I realized it was the book. After thinking about why that was so, I realized this book is 99% telling and 1% showing. Grunwald broke the cardinal rule for writers -- Show, don't tell!!
Clearly, based on other reviews, there are people who don't mind a telling book. If it were shorter, I might not have minded it, myself. Grunwald writes well and I enjoyed her descriptive scenes, particularly in California and London. What the telling does for me, however, is make me not care about any of the characters. The main characters are particularly annoying. By the end of the book, the only character I liked was Mary Jane. It had no intimacy for me. I didn't get to 'know' these characters, and learn about them that way. It was Lisa Grunwald telling me about these characters she knew. She was always telling me how they felt and what they thought. I never got the chance to learn these things myself. They became, for the most part, characters I didn't want to hear about.
Beyond my not getting to know the characters, I also got the feeling they were too 'scripted.' I don't get the feeling that Henry or Martha or Betty told Grunwald how (s)he felt about anything. Grunwald had a story to tell and made her characters fit the story. The fact that Peace was so much like Henry, even though she had been adopted, reinforced this 'make the character fit the story' sense. The biggest flaw I saw here was Henry's attitude to Martha. It didn't make sense to me at all. She was the one constant he'd had. Yes, he would be angry at her for lying to him. Yes, he'd want to run away with Betty. Yes, he'd likely want to leave home ASAP (or else become a 'mama's boy'). But, I think part of all of that, once he got over the initial anger at Martha for lying, would be, not because he had no feeling for her, but because he did have feelings and needed to get away from her smothering.
As I write this, I think maybe, possibly, Grunwald expected the reader to realize he actually did have feelings for Martha. I still believe that the telling manner of writing makes this much more difficult for the reader to see. If one gets to see Henry's emotions, rather than be told about them, one can then determine that he thinks he feels nothing for Martha, but actually really does.
Kudos to Grunwald for the ending. I tend to doubt that Henry would have made the realization about Mary Jane as young as he did, but her reaction was absolutely right. It is this ending, Henry's realization, that makes me wonder if everything we are told about how he feels about things is accurate, though it's all too vague. I sort of suspected that was how it would end for Henry and was really concerned that it would be a sappy ending. I was delighted it wasn't. It is this ending (along with the Disney and London settings, so well described) that made the book worth reading, for me.
If you like a literary style (I do) and don't mind telling (I do), go ahead and read this book. If you prefer action stories or at least a feeling of actually getting to know the characters, you probably won't care for this book.
January 10, 2015
Really wanted to like this book; it sounded so compelling. But I really hated the main character. It *can* be ok to hate a main character if the author makes a good explanation for his abhorrent personality. But I feel like the author completely failed at this. Henry was just a jerk. No childhood trauma. C'mon, connect the dots for me as to WHY being raised in that manner would cause him to be such an indifferent, un-trusting, arrogant person. Crying, at age one, because of a switch in caregiver. Eh! Parents leave babies that age with babysitters and sneak out the door all the time. It was interesting that at two points in the book, women questioned his pathology...I believe Karen asked him why it was so bad to have been raised by a houseful of practice mothers, and Annie (maybe) asked him why it was so bad for him to act like Martha's son, and I don't think he answered either one, or even thought about either question introspectively. And what exactly, is so bad about Martha? Even the questions at the end of the book say "is anything redeeming about Martha?" Seriously?! How many parents (adoptive or biological) have a baby because they want to feel needed, or because they're dealing with a loss, (probably the majority) and what is wrong with that? It's the amount of love they offer, not why they had a kid, that is important. How can Henry deny her love and not forgive her lie and even expect HER to apologize on her deathbed? Ugh. And don't get me started on the misogyny of this book, as well as the implicit underlying notion that the only good family setup is a traditional mother-father one. And one more thing...it is never explained WHY Henry is so damned irresistible. Because he's good-looking and indifferent? Again, ugh. This goes along with the misogyny--the awful stereotype that all (or most) women are attracted to jerks, or men who act badly but they believe they can change. And one more thing. (Can't stop writing because I keep remembering other annoying things about this book!) It rings completely falsely to me that Peace turns out to be just like Henry when, really, her upbringing was completely different. Oh, no, she's behaving in London just like Henry did in California. To go back to the misogyny theme, she is punished for sleeping with 3 people at the same time while Henry suffers no repercussions. Punished by Henry, who is unconvincingly in love for real this time--again, no connection of the dots by the author...the relationship is not described any differently than his other relationships. This book had so much potential because the subject is so interesting but the author fails, instead choosing to fawn over the main character, apparently because he is the main character, in a manner much like (almost) every female character in the book.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
February 12, 2013
This is a strange one, a book that is chocked full of interesting plot points, but that lacks any likable characters. Henry House is a practice baby provided by a local orphanage for a small Pennsylvania women’s college in the 1940s. This is something that really happened from 1919 to 1969; orphans were used in home economic courses to help teach young women how to care for babies.
Martha runs the practice house where Henry lives and eventually becomes his mother. We also find out who his real mother is and we see Henry live a Goldilocks-style life, with one mother too old to understand him and the other too young to care for him properly. Henry spends his whole life watching anyone he loves eventually leave him. Because of this he’s unable to form any real connections with people.
At one point Martha compares Henry’s upbringing to that of the rhesus monkeys that were experimented on. They were given wire “mothers” that dispensed milk and cloth “mothers.” The monkeys preferred the cloth surrogate mothers, but in the end they all went mad because they had no real mother, no real caregiver. It’s a dark and disturbing thought coming from the woman who is supposed to be his “mother.”
We follow Henry throughout his childhood and early adulthood, watching the world change around him in dramatic ways. The book is almost reminiscent of Forrest Gump in the fact that we see dozens of major events and famous people cross paths with Henry in one way or another. There’s a mini history lesson on each page and that was by far my favorite aspect of the novel.
BOTTOM LINE: Worth reading if you’re curious about the history of using practice babies or about Disney animators. The writing style reminds me a lot of John Irving – even when you don't like the characters the story is still quirky and compulsively readable, but it leaves me feeling dissatisfied. I think I would have preferred a nonfiction book on the subject to this.
“If he had no one, he figured, he would have no one to lose.”
Martha runs the practice house where Henry lives and eventually becomes his mother. We also find out who his real mother is and we see Henry live a Goldilocks-style life, with one mother too old to understand him and the other too young to care for him properly. Henry spends his whole life watching anyone he loves eventually leave him. Because of this he’s unable to form any real connections with people.
At one point Martha compares Henry’s upbringing to that of the rhesus monkeys that were experimented on. They were given wire “mothers” that dispensed milk and cloth “mothers.” The monkeys preferred the cloth surrogate mothers, but in the end they all went mad because they had no real mother, no real caregiver. It’s a dark and disturbing thought coming from the woman who is supposed to be his “mother.”
We follow Henry throughout his childhood and early adulthood, watching the world change around him in dramatic ways. The book is almost reminiscent of Forrest Gump in the fact that we see dozens of major events and famous people cross paths with Henry in one way or another. There’s a mini history lesson on each page and that was by far my favorite aspect of the novel.
BOTTOM LINE: Worth reading if you’re curious about the history of using practice babies or about Disney animators. The writing style reminds me a lot of John Irving – even when you don't like the characters the story is still quirky and compulsively readable, but it leaves me feeling dissatisfied. I think I would have preferred a nonfiction book on the subject to this.
“If he had no one, he figured, he would have no one to lose.”
January 5, 2010
I am utterly captivated with this book because its premise is SO fascinating, especially since it's based in historical fact. Apparently, from the 1920s to the 1960s, there were collegiate level home economics classes that involved rotations in a 'practice house' taking care of a real live 'practice baby'. Orphanages literally "loaned" babies to these college programs for roughly two years per baby, and several women worked weekly rotations being in charge. The whole program was actually quite brilliant, since it was a quiet way of teaching women high level physics, mathematics, mechanics, economics etc. under the guise of letting them earn their MRS degrees (example: one project was to dismantle and then reassemble a refrigerator). Grunwald takes us into that world, with a stern proctor named Martha, an unusually charming orphan named Henry and his 6 practice mothers. The book follows Henry from 3 months old to roughly 25 years old and shows what might have happened to a boy raised in such a way. Grunwald carefully weaves in actual psychological studies done on real "practice babies" as well as extremely clever character development of her own, generously spiced with the cultural details of the changes that happened throughout the 1950s and 60s to create a truly absorbing story. You've never read a book like this one. I guarantee it.
March 25, 2010
I. Loved. This. Book. (Do I sound emphatic enough?) It follows the life of a home ec "practice" baby (they really had them!) as he grows up through the 50s and 60s. It's a bit like Garp without the bears and wrestling, or Zelig without quite so many historical figures, or Gump without the sap. Please. Read.
September 14, 2017
We all have that one friend, or know someone, who's that glib, smooth talking, somewhat careless person that everyone seems to like or hate equally. Henry is that fellow. Born an orphan and raised in a "practice house" for young ladies studying home economics, Henry has affection lavished on him from an early age.
He doesn't seem to develop many lasting attachments to anyone but Mary Jane, the only female in this story that Henry doesn't have a fling with. We follow him from childhood, to young adolescence, and finally into early manhood. He grows up in the cultural revolution of the 60's and a lot of that is captured in this book. He has a lot of relationships, but none seem to affect him too deeply.
As I read this story, I was reminded of a quote that Gus McRae applies to Jake Spoon in "Lonesome Dove" - something along the lines of "he was far too leaky a vessel to hold much water". And that's the feeling I got regarding Henry. I like him, but I wouldn't put a great deal of trust in him.
In a way, I treated this really good, well written book a bit like Henry treated his relationships. I liked it, I appreciated the craftsmanship and the story, but I kept putting it aside for other books that came along. I'm glad I returned and finished this book. It really is a very good read.
He doesn't seem to develop many lasting attachments to anyone but Mary Jane, the only female in this story that Henry doesn't have a fling with. We follow him from childhood, to young adolescence, and finally into early manhood. He grows up in the cultural revolution of the 60's and a lot of that is captured in this book. He has a lot of relationships, but none seem to affect him too deeply.
As I read this story, I was reminded of a quote that Gus McRae applies to Jake Spoon in "Lonesome Dove" - something along the lines of "he was far too leaky a vessel to hold much water". And that's the feeling I got regarding Henry. I like him, but I wouldn't put a great deal of trust in him.
In a way, I treated this really good, well written book a bit like Henry treated his relationships. I liked it, I appreciated the craftsmanship and the story, but I kept putting it aside for other books that came along. I'm glad I returned and finished this book. It really is a very good read.
July 11, 2011
The subject of this book --following a boy whose first two years were as the "house" baby in a home economics practice house -- piqued my interest. Since it dovetails with current research interest and time period, and friends who have heard of the book asked if I'd read it (yet), I got it and finally read it.
As promised, the novel follows the life of Henry House, so-named by the faculty supervisor of the practice house (all of "her" children bore H-first name House as their monikers for their first two years). We follow Henry through his first three decades. Kept but not adopted by the house mother, Henry learns at an early age good manners, how to run a house properly, how to talk (listen!) to women, and that loving someone rarely means they'll be in one's life permanently. As he matures, he meets his real mother; holds out hope that she will, as she promises, come back for him; learns how to observe and manipulate; hones his skills as a copiest or mimic of artistic style; and eventually figures out what a real relationship could (or should?) mean. The details about home economics as an academic discipline, and changes in child care (exit John Watson, enter Benjamin Spock), are spot on. I think that the author wants to hang Henry's hat --his ambivalence towards women, distrust about relationships-- on his mothering (by many women, not forming a permanent attachment with any of them). But for a boy who comes of age as an adult in the 1960s with drugs, alcohol, sex, music and the art scene, it begs the question: is it all really the mother's fault? How much of this can be attributed to larger social forces? More than that, for a boy raised under Watson's directives rather than Spock's, as surely many of his contemporaries were, is that really fair? Much to ponder ...
As promised, the novel follows the life of Henry House, so-named by the faculty supervisor of the practice house (all of "her" children bore H-first name House as their monikers for their first two years). We follow Henry through his first three decades. Kept but not adopted by the house mother, Henry learns at an early age good manners, how to run a house properly, how to talk (listen!) to women, and that loving someone rarely means they'll be in one's life permanently. As he matures, he meets his real mother; holds out hope that she will, as she promises, come back for him; learns how to observe and manipulate; hones his skills as a copiest or mimic of artistic style; and eventually figures out what a real relationship could (or should?) mean. The details about home economics as an academic discipline, and changes in child care (exit John Watson, enter Benjamin Spock), are spot on. I think that the author wants to hang Henry's hat --his ambivalence towards women, distrust about relationships-- on his mothering (by many women, not forming a permanent attachment with any of them). But for a boy who comes of age as an adult in the 1960s with drugs, alcohol, sex, music and the art scene, it begs the question: is it all really the mother's fault? How much of this can be attributed to larger social forces? More than that, for a boy raised under Watson's directives rather than Spock's, as surely many of his contemporaries were, is that really fair? Much to ponder ...
September 15, 2011
The premise of this book intrigued me - a college Home Economics class raising a "practice baby"?! Then, I discovered that this actually happened from 1917 to the early 60's in universities all over the country! This is a fictional account of one of those babies. From the very beginning when we meet the house mother in the mid 1940's who has been running the local university's "Practice House" for years and then as we watch the entire process of obtaining, naming and raising a "practice baby" unfold we get an inside look back at the time and prevailing thoughts of the mid-twentieth century, especially as they relate to child rearing. There is such a nostalgic feel to the beginning of this book and the story was well told in such an engaging way that I had a hard time putting it down.
I have studied family systems for years and there was quite a bit of conjecture about what happens to children who have different family systems. Some of the conclusions I found rather implausible while I found some fascinating and psychologically sound. All of the questions you have about what might happen emotionally to a child who is passed off from "mother" to "mother" for the first few years of their life is examined here. I am not a big fan of the pop culture of the 1960's so as the story moved into that time period, I did not enjoy it as much but if you're going to follow someone born in the 1940's into adulthood, the 60's are going to come in to play, like it or not.
Overall, highly recommended.
I have studied family systems for years and there was quite a bit of conjecture about what happens to children who have different family systems. Some of the conclusions I found rather implausible while I found some fascinating and psychologically sound. All of the questions you have about what might happen emotionally to a child who is passed off from "mother" to "mother" for the first few years of their life is examined here. I am not a big fan of the pop culture of the 1960's so as the story moved into that time period, I did not enjoy it as much but if you're going to follow someone born in the 1940's into adulthood, the 60's are going to come in to play, like it or not.
Overall, highly recommended.
April 17, 2010
Henry House is a "practice baby" in a home economics class in the 1940s. I had never heard about practice babies before. The schools would take orphan babies, and let students practice taking care of them. Then they would be adopted out when they were toddlers. The instructor for this class, Martha Gaines, is especially drawn to baby Henry, and asks to raise him as her own child.
Henry has such appeal to women, everyone wants to be his favorite, and he does not want to be tied to one woman. As he grows up, he breaks hearts right and left, and leaves Martha for his birth mother, and then for a life with Disney as a cartoonist. His skill takes him to London to work on the Beatles movie "Yellow Submarine," where he lives with another practice baby who is even more detached than he is.
His conversations with Walt Disney and the Beatles reminded me of Forrest Gump, being in the right place at the right time. The book is a fascinating look at a little known cultural phenomenon, and an examination of the possible long-term effects it could have had on the lives of the children involved.
Henry has such appeal to women, everyone wants to be his favorite, and he does not want to be tied to one woman. As he grows up, he breaks hearts right and left, and leaves Martha for his birth mother, and then for a life with Disney as a cartoonist. His skill takes him to London to work on the Beatles movie "Yellow Submarine," where he lives with another practice baby who is even more detached than he is.
His conversations with Walt Disney and the Beatles reminded me of Forrest Gump, being in the right place at the right time. The book is a fascinating look at a little known cultural phenomenon, and an examination of the possible long-term effects it could have had on the lives of the children involved.
September 11, 2010
I had a hard time liking Henry for about 85% of this book because he seemed like he was so self-absorbed and refusing to take responsibility for himself--such a drama-mama. His reaction to his adoptive mother Martha as well as birth mother Betty is understandable but extreme. But then again, his reactions to the only person who ever accepted him as is, Mary Jane, was also quite extreme at times. It was MJ who really kept me going throughout this book. Because if she could accept him for what he is--a baby-cum-man who was shaped by too many mothers and none simultaneously--then shouldn't I? I'm glad that I did stick with it because he eventually does get to the place that I hoped for him--and accepts what has happened to him enough to move forward in a healthy way.
Grunwald's writing is a bit stiff in some places but captures the times well--from the stodgy 1950s to the free-wheeling 1960s. She captures the essence of Henry without apologies and lays him bare in a way that is both compelling and disquieting. She also brings to attention the idea of practice babies in Home Economics programs back then. (I certainly had no clue that this was done, although am not surprised.)
Grunwald's writing is a bit stiff in some places but captures the times well--from the stodgy 1950s to the free-wheeling 1960s. She captures the essence of Henry without apologies and lays him bare in a way that is both compelling and disquieting. She also brings to attention the idea of practice babies in Home Economics programs back then. (I certainly had no clue that this was done, although am not surprised.)
June 8, 2010
I found Henry House totally resistible. I didn't like Henry. I did like the women in the story, but he irritated me. The book itself is good, I liked the way it spans the years and how Henry worked at Disney in the early 60's and then worked on the animation of Yellow Submarine. But what's the deal with the school for the mental defects where everyone is treated like it's a prep school? I don't think that was realistic (I'll have to research that to see if I'm wrong). I read this for bookclub and it was a good read, but I just didn't like the main character. I didn't like the way he treated Martha and I felt her pain more than his. Mary Jane was adorable. Peace was as dispicable as Henry. I'm sure my bookclub members will disagree with me which is fine as we all take away from books what we like and don't like.
March 2, 2011
I was excited to read this book because the premise is so original and it sounded like a very interesting story. However, I struggled to get through the book because the story never appeared to be going anywhere. The only point Grunwald seemed to want to make is that Henry was unable to truly bond with another person as a result of being raised as a practice baby and I don't think she needed 400+ pages to make that point.
One thing I found interesting is that it's hard to connect with Henry as a character, which is ironic since no-one in his world can truly connect with him either.
The ending was too ambiguous to be satisfactory. I don't dislike books that have uncertain endings but in this case, it felt like Grunwald couldn't find a good way to end it and decided to leave it up to the reader.
One thing I found interesting is that it's hard to connect with Henry as a character, which is ironic since no-one in his world can truly connect with him either.
The ending was too ambiguous to be satisfactory. I don't dislike books that have uncertain endings but in this case, it felt like Grunwald couldn't find a good way to end it and decided to leave it up to the reader.
Read
July 21, 20102 parts Cider House Rules, one part Forrest Gump.
A very fun read predicated on a very interesting, true life fact that at Cornell University they had, from 1919 to 1969, a home economics course where they obtained "practice babies" from a local orphanage so that the students could practice mothering - and each baby stayed at the Practice House for a year! And Cornell wasn't the only college that did this. The book basically takes this idea and runs with it, imagining how this experience of being a practice baby might affect his personality and development.
The Forrest Gump part comes in where Henry seems to be present and involved in all sorts of famous stuff, such as animating for Disney, meeting the Beatles, etc. Which is sort of fun if you just go with it.
A very fun read predicated on a very interesting, true life fact that at Cornell University they had, from 1919 to 1969, a home economics course where they obtained "practice babies" from a local orphanage so that the students could practice mothering - and each baby stayed at the Practice House for a year! And Cornell wasn't the only college that did this. The book basically takes this idea and runs with it, imagining how this experience of being a practice baby might affect his personality and development.
The Forrest Gump part comes in where Henry seems to be present and involved in all sorts of famous stuff, such as animating for Disney, meeting the Beatles, etc. Which is sort of fun if you just go with it.
January 25, 2015
Well, I didn't hate it, but I didn't like it. Who wants to read about an egocentric jerk who punishes the women who love him because he feels cheated by the woman who raised him? And he is then, of course, treated to a taste of his own medicine and doesn't like it. Apparently, a lot of people want to read about this and liked it. I, however, found the book to be kind of boring. While the idea behind the plot was intriguing, the character of Henry was so shallow that the rest of the book just fell flat. I thought the historical context was forced despite the fascinating events that Henry's life spanned. Disappointing overall.
September 25, 2010
I enjoyed this. Henry's character did grate on me as the book went on. I'm not sure that I believe that things that happened when one was a baby can keep one from forming attachments in the future, but it is/was an interesting premise.
March 31, 2010
I was first drawn to the premise but became so absorbed by the excellence of the writing that I sped through the book in spite of some unlikable characters. I came away feeling as if I knew Henry.
February 6, 2020
The Irresistible Henry House by lg is the story of Henry, a young man who was raised in the 50’s within a college home economics program. He was borrowed from an orphanage to be used as a practice baby in a practice house on campus to teach young women the skills of motherhood. Being passed from young woman to young woman, some lenient, some strict, during crucial development years gives Henry a foundation of detachment, and as he ages he finds himself in drawing and art.
•
This was my very first buddy read with a friend, and we couldn’t have chosen a better book! I’m a huge Disney fan, and little did I know upon choosing this book, that Henry’s life would include key Disney elements. He works at Walt Disney’s Burbank studios as a penguin animator for the animated sequences of Mary Poppins. He is greatly effected by the death of Walt Disney. He goes on to work on The Jungle Book and then elsewhere to assist with the production of Yellow Submarine and The Beatles. There’s really a lot to love here as Henry ages and life unfolds.
•
Fans of coming of age and/or character study type novels should take a look at this one.
•
This was my very first buddy read with a friend, and we couldn’t have chosen a better book! I’m a huge Disney fan, and little did I know upon choosing this book, that Henry’s life would include key Disney elements. He works at Walt Disney’s Burbank studios as a penguin animator for the animated sequences of Mary Poppins. He is greatly effected by the death of Walt Disney. He goes on to work on The Jungle Book and then elsewhere to assist with the production of Yellow Submarine and The Beatles. There’s really a lot to love here as Henry ages and life unfolds.
•
Fans of coming of age and/or character study type novels should take a look at this one.
May 15, 2018
I found the premise very intriguing and at first I got emersed into the book. However, around the page 100 my fascination faded and I even had to put the book away for some time to find the will to finish it. I guess, I simply didn't find Henry all that irresistable and sometimes it was hard for me to sympathise with him. My favourite parts are those related to Henry drawing. I think then he is at his best. In the end, I finished the book with less stuggle than I initially thought it'd take. So it's not a bad read, but not a remarkable one as well.
January 23, 2023
Apparently some home economics programs in the 1940's and 1950's "borrowed" babies from orphanages and used them as "practice babies" so young women could learn how to be mothers. Mind blown! This novel explores what life might be like for one of those babies as he grows up. It's horrifying and fascinating and makes me so glad that the way we think about children and raising them has (mostly) changed over the past few decades.
May 11, 2024
“The Irresistible Henry House”, by Lisa Grunwald, is the story of an orphan, Henry, who is used as a “practice baby” in a home economics house in the post-WWII era. Doctor Spock has just published his “Bible” on childcare which was anathema to the old ways.
Being handled by a plethora of “practice mothers” has made Henry charming and irresistible to women, but it has also understandably warped Henry’s view of, and relationships with them.
We follow Henry into young adulthood, and we see how the American culture changes between the 50s and 60s (from Bing Crosby to The Beatles), especially how the role of women, and the practicalities of motherhood have evolved.
Being handled by a plethora of “practice mothers” has made Henry charming and irresistible to women, but it has also understandably warped Henry’s view of, and relationships with them.
We follow Henry into young adulthood, and we see how the American culture changes between the 50s and 60s (from Bing Crosby to The Beatles), especially how the role of women, and the practicalities of motherhood have evolved.
October 2, 2023
I wanted to give this a 3 1/2 stars but in this case I rounded up. The character development was very interesting. I loved all the real historical events sprinkled into the story line- that was my favorite part. And I really relished in the concept of how far our society has come on womens role in society.
October 14, 2019
It took me long time to read this one- I kept putting it down to savor the story. It’s a keeper and perfect for book discussions.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 955 reviews