Milner's A Life of One's Own is an anachronistic anomaly of a book. It surprises me that all the reviews here are gleaming as if we are in... 1905? 1936? 1986? 2100? What year does this book belong to, that would crown it with such loving attention by its cult of lost souls?
Trolling aside (I did have a momentary picture of Lars von Trier's "famous house" for a second, and it brought shivers down my spine – so now in order to distinguish myself from it, I have some serious reviewing to do), the book is anachronistic because Milner consciously rejects the psychoanalytical theory, although she has a psychology degree as a 20 something in the 1930's. This is still the hot time to be within the field, but instead Milner half-rejects theory and stubbornly re-invents her own terminology (basically around the same ideas) such as "butterfly ideas", "narrow focus on life", "wide focus of attention" and expects from the reader as well as from the critiques (as revealed in the afterword she wrote in 1986) to respect her endeavor which amounts to a fumbling in the dark where little progress is ever made.
Milner has a stance against progress befitting the concerns of the modernist era of her writing, yet all of the text reads as nothing but some kind of an inward journey of meaning. A progress towards internal meaning... It's a self-help book foreshadowing the genre's explosion as commodities, towards the end of the 21st century. An unfortunate resemblance, since A Life of One's Own is a call out to others for writing personal diaries en masse, by replicating the effort of Milner more happiness and (by rejecting teachings/science and societal ideals) individualism can be achieved. I get the individualism part, but the stinky happiness (at least Milner's version of it) is just distasteful business that even Milner herself comes to reject it towards the end of the book, though without any kind of valid apologies because she has now spent the entire book running away from the boogeyman psychoanalysis only to come back to it at the end to claim that happiness is only half of the story, the other half being woe...
It is an anomaly of a book because it takes strict caution against being read as autobiography despite the diary material and further reflection on it by its author, creating pages upon pages of inaccessible and utterly boring ramblings of narcissism. One cannot help but think, that if Milner was a 25 year old today she'd attempt to do this on Instagram, by shooting selfies in her private collection and then blasting your feed on every goddamn Thursday with pointless personal archaeological images, because she has a faint idea that she should find happiness by herself, and then discovered that she should include other people (god forbid if she'll ever say Other), and somewhere else she would discover something called "the gaze" but of course she would call it something else, something more illustrative of her character... Anyhow, I had promised no more trolling so...
A direct reference to Virginia Woolf's A Room of One's Own it can and should be read as feminist writing and the passages that offer Milner's views upon gender and sexualization subjects are the most rewarding ones, not only because then she is more open to referring to contemporary theory but also her thoughts on such matter is just brilliantly unique because they were offered at that specific time of their writing! If only Milner had offered less of her fake naivete in an attempt to command greatness (which I think she already possessed but deliberately hiding resulted in this out of context work) than I think we would have something unique, in a positive sense of the word. But as is now, it's a unique missed opportunity, an anachronistic anomaly of a book, if such a thing may exist.
Last but not least, of course I am considering if my response to Milner's A Life of One's Own is the result of an unconscious masculine toxicity, a clearly historical misogynistic/demonizing reading of the "fairer sex" when it shows a will to depart from the gaze/grasp of the patriarchy. But I am thinking it with terminology already at my disposal, and far from making me blind towards the problem, or towards myself, it brings me within a cultural environment where help is readily offered if I am willing to spend the necessary effort to glean it, which I am. So contemporary thinking directs me towards hot topics of today, to the me too movement, and towards the now canonical texts of gender theory as well as psychoanalytical theory. Or I could just skip all of that, and for 7 years write in my diary (without cheating by reading academic theory or soaking up on important contemporary developments) and try to find a de-sexualized higher/better personal reality which I would only then reinterpret and half-check if it is in line with the contemporary theory and advise everyone to follow in my footsteps and be my acolyte... But I don't, because that would be Yet Another Life of My Own (do we even have another one of these?). Of course the fundamental question concerning my unconscious and misogyny still remains there, even more important now that I have (hopefully) cleared up some of the trivialities around it (by introducing some already tested contemporary cultural toxicity around it), but I'm not so naive as to claim I can answer it by myself alone with the above methods, because that would make this an anachronistic normality of reviewing (and rating) books on Goodreads in the year 2019. People love Milner, I love being the outsider, we are all settled.