What do you think?
Rate this book
Fri kärlek
1967. Medan London vaknar till liv av den nya ungdomsrevolutionen verkar förortsfamiljen Fischer tillhöra en äldre värld av konventionell stabilitet: den vackra och plikttrogna hemmafrun Phyllis är gift med Roger, en hängiven pappa med en karriär i utrikesdepartementet.
Men när en gammal väns tjugoåriga son kommer hem till familjen en varm sommarkväll och kysser Phyllis i den mörka trädgården efter middagen, händer något inom henne. I detta uppvaknande gör Phyllis ett val som går emot alla förväntningar på henne som hustru och mamma.
Men när en gammal väns tjugoåriga son kommer hem till familjen en varm sommarkväll och kysser Phyllis i den mörka trädgården efter middagen, händer något inom henne. I detta uppvaknande gör Phyllis ett val som går emot alla förväntningar på henne som hustru och mamma.
270 pages, Hardcover
First published January 6, 2022
565 people are currently reading
14686 people want to read
About the author
Tessa Hadley
64 books968 followersTessa Hadley is the author of Sunstroke and Other Stories, and the novels The Past, Late in the Day and Clever Girl. She lives in Cardiff, Wales, and teaches literature and creative writing at Bath Spa University.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 797 reviews
February 8, 2024
“Under the placid surface of suburbia, something was unhinged.”
The premise of this novel isn’t exactly a new one, which is fine, since I imagine there to be a finite number of themes to examine in literature. The question I ask myself when revisiting a subject is whether an author looked at things from a refreshingly different perspective. In this, my first encounter with Tessa Hadley, I’d have to say not exactly. Yet, I admired the competent writing and the way in which Hadley evokes a certain time (late 1960s) and place (London). Phyllis, a forty-year-old mother of two and wife to Roger, a respectable Foreign Office civil servant, rocks the serene boat of motherhood and marriage after a sudden sexual awakening.
“She’d begun joking recently about becoming an old woman: she’d pictured herself sliding across serenely into middle age, fulfilled and busy with her house and her hobbies. But all this cheerful resignation, she recognised now, had been a sham, mere self-deception… she’d taken for granted that at her core her sexual self would continue forever, a nugget of radioactive material charged with its power, irreducible.”
The most interesting person in this novel was the 15-year-old daughter, Colette, a “lonely, tortured intellectual”. She’s not necessarily likeable, but she did elicit my sympathy. As did the young son, Hugh, who really doesn’t appear a whole lot throughout the novel, however. None of the men fare well here. I get the impression Hadley is not very fond of her male characters. More so, however, I believe she’s making a statement on society and the conventions of that class during that time in history. I found some of the views asserted through the mouthpiece of a much younger, cynical male character to be intriguing, despite my apathy towards the guy himself.
“But whatever any individual couple imagine they’ve chosen – falling in love and all that – there’s an element of delusion in it. The system’s bigger than any individual.”
Later in the story, a key element is revealed which I felt to be unnecessary to the point of the whole thing. I mulled over the reason Hadley could possibly have had to include this in her story, but I came up completely blank! Furthermore, I felt that Phyllis lost some of her agency, which perhaps was indeed one of Hadley’s points. I was in a bit of a muddle by the end.
When reading this I couldn’t help but think of Anne Tyler’s book, Ladder of Years. In that book, Delia walks away from almost grown children and a mild-mannered husband and into a new life. One that was different, but ultimately not one of the imagined freedom and re-invention she was seeking. The settings are wholly different, but Tyler let me see into the heart of Delia more fully than Hadley allowed with Phyllis. Still, the writing elevates this three-star plot to a four-star reading experience. I’ll read Tessa Hadley again.
“She’d allowed herself to submit to an outward order as if it mattered; now that order itself was crumbling anyway, and all the sacrifices made to it turned out to have been a sham.”
The premise of this novel isn’t exactly a new one, which is fine, since I imagine there to be a finite number of themes to examine in literature. The question I ask myself when revisiting a subject is whether an author looked at things from a refreshingly different perspective. In this, my first encounter with Tessa Hadley, I’d have to say not exactly. Yet, I admired the competent writing and the way in which Hadley evokes a certain time (late 1960s) and place (London). Phyllis, a forty-year-old mother of two and wife to Roger, a respectable Foreign Office civil servant, rocks the serene boat of motherhood and marriage after a sudden sexual awakening.
“She’d begun joking recently about becoming an old woman: she’d pictured herself sliding across serenely into middle age, fulfilled and busy with her house and her hobbies. But all this cheerful resignation, she recognised now, had been a sham, mere self-deception… she’d taken for granted that at her core her sexual self would continue forever, a nugget of radioactive material charged with its power, irreducible.”
The most interesting person in this novel was the 15-year-old daughter, Colette, a “lonely, tortured intellectual”. She’s not necessarily likeable, but she did elicit my sympathy. As did the young son, Hugh, who really doesn’t appear a whole lot throughout the novel, however. None of the men fare well here. I get the impression Hadley is not very fond of her male characters. More so, however, I believe she’s making a statement on society and the conventions of that class during that time in history. I found some of the views asserted through the mouthpiece of a much younger, cynical male character to be intriguing, despite my apathy towards the guy himself.
“But whatever any individual couple imagine they’ve chosen – falling in love and all that – there’s an element of delusion in it. The system’s bigger than any individual.”
Later in the story, a key element is revealed which I felt to be unnecessary to the point of the whole thing. I mulled over the reason Hadley could possibly have had to include this in her story, but I came up completely blank! Furthermore, I felt that Phyllis lost some of her agency, which perhaps was indeed one of Hadley’s points. I was in a bit of a muddle by the end.
When reading this I couldn’t help but think of Anne Tyler’s book, Ladder of Years. In that book, Delia walks away from almost grown children and a mild-mannered husband and into a new life. One that was different, but ultimately not one of the imagined freedom and re-invention she was seeking. The settings are wholly different, but Tyler let me see into the heart of Delia more fully than Hadley allowed with Phyllis. Still, the writing elevates this three-star plot to a four-star reading experience. I’ll read Tessa Hadley again.
“She’d allowed herself to submit to an outward order as if it mattered; now that order itself was crumbling anyway, and all the sacrifices made to it turned out to have been a sham.”
March 7, 2024
Free Love by Tessa Hadley is set in 1967 London and our main character – Phyllis Fischer, appears to be a happily married. She's a mother of two and her husband, Roger, is a decent diligent Government employee. They live in a ‘well-to-do’ area of London and seem to be ‘living the life.’
One evening an old female friend of Phyllis sends over her twenty-something son to Phyllis and Roger’s for dinner. This young man, Nicholas, is an opinionated, arrogant, brash part of the new breed of young politically active gang emerging at this time in the UK.
Later in the night, Nicholas kisses Phyllis. This awakes some previously hidden desires in Phyllis, and she needs to make some life-changing decisions that not only impact her, but those around her.
This is a wonderful study of late 1960s London. The hot mess of conservative post-war people who lived through WWII, and the new generation who seem intent on questioning and protesting about everything. But, for me, this is really a book about relationships (it is a Hadley after all) and the decisions we make, and more importantly the life-changing consequences of these decisions. Most of us will have something to relate to in this story. For me, there was a great deal to reflect on – and I found this experience quite profound.
How much freedom should we have in a relationship? Does total freedom mean indifference? For me, indifference is analogous to ‘not caring’? How do two individuals balance this out?
In some ways relationships are a recipe for disaster, new relationships even more so. The trail of events in this story needs to be read to be believed.
Phyllis is such an interesting character and gave me a great insight into the way this woman ticked. The other characters aren’t quite as well developed as Phyllis (thanks Jennifer!), and I found the last couple of chapters things became a little crazy and it seemed to finish in a bit of a rush. But it is still a 5-star read for me, as it was jam-packed with relevant and relatable themes and events.
Many thanks to Jennifer, who was a wonderful buddy-reader. She asked me lots of questions and I loved that, she also shared her perspectives in a way that questioned my own beliefs and prejudices, and that’s good too.
5 Stars
One evening an old female friend of Phyllis sends over her twenty-something son to Phyllis and Roger’s for dinner. This young man, Nicholas, is an opinionated, arrogant, brash part of the new breed of young politically active gang emerging at this time in the UK.
Later in the night, Nicholas kisses Phyllis. This awakes some previously hidden desires in Phyllis, and she needs to make some life-changing decisions that not only impact her, but those around her.
This is a wonderful study of late 1960s London. The hot mess of conservative post-war people who lived through WWII, and the new generation who seem intent on questioning and protesting about everything. But, for me, this is really a book about relationships (it is a Hadley after all) and the decisions we make, and more importantly the life-changing consequences of these decisions. Most of us will have something to relate to in this story. For me, there was a great deal to reflect on – and I found this experience quite profound.
How much freedom should we have in a relationship? Does total freedom mean indifference? For me, indifference is analogous to ‘not caring’? How do two individuals balance this out?
In some ways relationships are a recipe for disaster, new relationships even more so. The trail of events in this story needs to be read to be believed.
Phyllis is such an interesting character and gave me a great insight into the way this woman ticked. The other characters aren’t quite as well developed as Phyllis (thanks Jennifer!), and I found the last couple of chapters things became a little crazy and it seemed to finish in a bit of a rush. But it is still a 5-star read for me, as it was jam-packed with relevant and relatable themes and events.
Many thanks to Jennifer, who was a wonderful buddy-reader. She asked me lots of questions and I loved that, she also shared her perspectives in a way that questioned my own beliefs and prejudices, and that’s good too.
5 Stars
January 20, 2022
It’s 1967 and we are in the leafy suburbs in the home of the Fischers where Free Love, Protest and rejecting the’Old Guard’ has not yet showed up in any way shape or form. Roger Fischer works at the Foreign Office, wife Phyllis is a typical 50’s/60’s housewife and they have two children Colette, a teenager due to take her O Levels and 9 year old Hugh. All is well until the son of old friends of Roger’s comes to dinner and Nicholas Knight ruffles the conventionality and how! Phyllis makes a choice and it’s a daring one. Brave, mad or foolhardy? Your point of view would depend on how closely you are associated with the fallout.
There is much to like in this latest novel by Tessa Hadley. First of all, it is without doubt extremely well written and I do engage with the story although I don’t think there’s anything especially new here. For instance, although Nikki is intriguing in his youthful views you would expect him to reject the establishment that Roger represents. The characterisation is very good and I especially like Colette who brings her own brand of reality to the situation and Hugh initially is great fun although this definitely changes. Phyllis throws herself wholeheartedly into the sexual revolution and you can’t decide if you admire her or not! There is some good dialogue, at the start there is an entertaining dingdong between Nikki and Colette but be warned some dialogue will make you wince! It’s excellent in the historical context, the ideas and beliefs of the time, the “old‘ are expressed through Roger in particular and the ‘new’ via the newly branded Phyllis and Colette. There’s a good plot twister at the end that you definitely don’t see coming!
However, despite the many positives it does feel a bit predictable in the main plot thread in what occurs between flirty older woman and a much younger man. In places it’s a bit long winded and overdetailed which gets in the way of the progress you want to follow with the Fischer family and Nicky.
Overall though it’s a well written book and I really enjoy the 1960s setting.
With thanks to NetGalley and especially to Random House U.K., Vintage, Jonathan Cape for the much appreciated arc in return for an honest review.
There is much to like in this latest novel by Tessa Hadley. First of all, it is without doubt extremely well written and I do engage with the story although I don’t think there’s anything especially new here. For instance, although Nikki is intriguing in his youthful views you would expect him to reject the establishment that Roger represents. The characterisation is very good and I especially like Colette who brings her own brand of reality to the situation and Hugh initially is great fun although this definitely changes. Phyllis throws herself wholeheartedly into the sexual revolution and you can’t decide if you admire her or not! There is some good dialogue, at the start there is an entertaining dingdong between Nikki and Colette but be warned some dialogue will make you wince! It’s excellent in the historical context, the ideas and beliefs of the time, the “old‘ are expressed through Roger in particular and the ‘new’ via the newly branded Phyllis and Colette. There’s a good plot twister at the end that you definitely don’t see coming!
However, despite the many positives it does feel a bit predictable in the main plot thread in what occurs between flirty older woman and a much younger man. In places it’s a bit long winded and overdetailed which gets in the way of the progress you want to follow with the Fischer family and Nicky.
Overall though it’s a well written book and I really enjoy the 1960s setting.
With thanks to NetGalley and especially to Random House U.K., Vintage, Jonathan Cape for the much appreciated arc in return for an honest review.
November 5, 2023
Tessa Hadley. She's extraordinary, and one of my greatest literary discoveries of 2023. Her writing is gorgeous, and her perspective so feminine, and her observations so true to life and insightful.
Free Love is no exception, though my reading experience with this one left me a little less exuberant than I was with The Past or (oh baby oh baby) Late in the Day.
At first I was on a path to ecstasy when she introduced us to 40 year old Phyllis, mother of two and model wife to Roger, who embarks on a verrrry taboo relationship with the son of a friend. Her depiction of Phyllis' need to free herself from a false and caged reality, the way Phyllis rationalizes it in her mind, the waves this causes in her previously serene household... wow.
It was, to me, a truly fine character study of a woman who makes shocking decisions to break free of societal expectations.
And then, it became less of a character study, and more of a study of a time (the 60s - don't forget the book's title), and of how the family structure shifted and in some instances utterly collapsed. Which is fine, I suppose. Well, it's more than fine, it's really interesting. I mean, John Updike did this with his Rabbit books, and that worked really well... but he also had this utterly unforgettable character Rabbit, who was integral to the story and commentary on the time periods. But in this book, Phyllis became less knowable and more of a stand-in for any woman. The book became less about her, and that weakened it a bit for me. (But for those who enjoy being immersed in a time, this will absolutely meet your needs. Her descriptions of the grotty bohemian counter-culture in London in the 60s is nothing short of transporting.)
Also, the drama ramped up to The Young and the Restless level. That is the book's fatal flaw, for me. It wasn't necessary, in my opinion. What Hadley does is SO fine, she doesn't need to shock her readers to keep them along for the ride. But once she did this, I expected the novel to achieve a certain level of climax. I mean if you drive your readers right to the edge of a cliff, at one point, it has to rush down at breakneck speed, right? Well, in this case, I found the reaction to all the drama so muted, the net effect it had for me was somewhat anti-climactic.
Now, I'm worried that I sound like one of those Goodreads jerks who thinks they can write a better novel than Tessa Hadley and believe-you-me, that's not who I am. I sit at her feet, I wash her feet, I kiss her toes. Being in her pages is a gift, friends. Rating her novels (or most novels, for that matter) is somewhat absurd. She's wonderful. These are just a few thoughts I had, for what it's worth. Ultimately, I emerge from her book so much richer, and I'm grateful.
3.5 stars, rounded up, because who needs to bring artists down??
Free Love is no exception, though my reading experience with this one left me a little less exuberant than I was with The Past or (oh baby oh baby) Late in the Day.
At first I was on a path to ecstasy when she introduced us to 40 year old Phyllis, mother of two and model wife to Roger, who embarks on a verrrry taboo relationship with the son of a friend. Her depiction of Phyllis' need to free herself from a false and caged reality, the way Phyllis rationalizes it in her mind, the waves this causes in her previously serene household... wow.
It was, to me, a truly fine character study of a woman who makes shocking decisions to break free of societal expectations.
And then, it became less of a character study, and more of a study of a time (the 60s - don't forget the book's title), and of how the family structure shifted and in some instances utterly collapsed. Which is fine, I suppose. Well, it's more than fine, it's really interesting. I mean, John Updike did this with his Rabbit books, and that worked really well... but he also had this utterly unforgettable character Rabbit, who was integral to the story and commentary on the time periods. But in this book, Phyllis became less knowable and more of a stand-in for any woman. The book became less about her, and that weakened it a bit for me. (But for those who enjoy being immersed in a time, this will absolutely meet your needs. Her descriptions of the grotty bohemian counter-culture in London in the 60s is nothing short of transporting.)
Also, the drama ramped up to The Young and the Restless level. That is the book's fatal flaw, for me. It wasn't necessary, in my opinion. What Hadley does is SO fine, she doesn't need to shock her readers to keep them along for the ride. But once she did this, I expected the novel to achieve a certain level of climax. I mean if you drive your readers right to the edge of a cliff, at one point, it has to rush down at breakneck speed, right? Well, in this case, I found the reaction to all the drama so muted, the net effect it had for me was somewhat anti-climactic.
Now, I'm worried that I sound like one of those Goodreads jerks who thinks they can write a better novel than Tessa Hadley and believe-you-me, that's not who I am. I sit at her feet, I wash her feet, I kiss her toes. Being in her pages is a gift, friends. Rating her novels (or most novels, for that matter) is somewhat absurd. She's wonderful. These are just a few thoughts I had, for what it's worth. Ultimately, I emerge from her book so much richer, and I'm grateful.
3.5 stars, rounded up, because who needs to bring artists down??
March 14, 2024
Is this book about the idea that everyone's perspective is different? And our expectation, versus the actual are different. Our memories are different in terms of what we remember, and what we choose to forget - distorted to say the least. Take just the title of this book: Free Love - doesn't it sound as if love can be found in a super-market aisle: Buy one, Get one FREE? Doesn't it conjure up all sorts of giddy, hedonistic images of couples, or triples in wild-abandon - at some crazy party; or even better Love without entanglements - no bills, no children, no responsibilities. No-one is worried about who is married and who is free. Or maybe that very special love - love that is given without the expectation of receiving in return? Do we not live in an era of 'transactional love.' Maybe Hadley headed back to the 60s in the hope of finding that pure, energy - Free Love.
Well, be honest - didn't some of you have those sorts of thoughts? This book, has a character, Phyllis whose desires run along similar lines, but mostly this novel is about deconstructing reality - if you're a Lit Theory student, you'll know what I am referring to - Derrida, Foucault. Hadley opens her book with four references to Claude Levi Strauss's memoir - Tristes Tropiques published in France, 1955. Levi Strauss is/was a structural anthropologist, which means he is interested in how and why people structure their realities. He looked at different civilisations; he examined their buildings, religions languages, agricultural planning, systems of control, hierarchies, power structures etc. An observer; an analyser.
And Hadley has done the same in this book - back to those expectations - I bet you're surprised to run into epistemology and ontology in the first chapter of her novel. The first chapter by the way is very funny and filled with references to all sorts of historical and written data, including fairy tales, and mythology, stories and history. Hadley's point - all those different views of the world!
Surprised and delighted I was by chapters one and two, but she maintains this deconstructive style - if style it is throughout, and by chapters three and four I was starting to flag. Her other structural decision is to maintain a linear time line - in the year 1967, which, it must be said, she does with fabulous re-constructions of houses, people, dress-code, politics, buildings, London, food and everything possible from the 1960s, UK. I enjoyed these clever, quick, completely evocative descriptions, but I also saw that some of them are taken quite literally out of the pages of Margaret Drabble's The Seven Sisters and The Millstone, published 1965.
In two other books by Hadley, The Past, and Late in the Day, each chapter flips between The Past and The Present, but in Free Love, she moves her main characters to the foreground and back. So, for example, we begin with Phyllis's story and switch to Colette's perspective, who is sixteen, Phyllis's daughter. We have a sequence of internal views of Roger's life, Phyllis's husband. He works at the Foreign Office. And as we progress through the chapters, we learn about a long-past relationship between Roger and Jean. We don't go back to the past, Hadley has her work cut-out to make us understand their connection from more than 25 years ago. And there are consequences - a child, who enters the current narrative. (Reminds me of Bowen's The House in Paris).
Many readers have objected to certain implausible plot manoeuvres, which I didn't feel too much, and I think because I gave credence to that long-distant relationship. Just because it didn't happen in the present of the book, doesn't mean it wasn't real and important. It is part of her decision to go with a linear time-line. We can forget the past, or muddle it, dismiss it or prefer to leave it alone, as something distant; nothing to do with us. Hadley is playing with all of these ideas.
Her characters sometimes lack depth because of that linear structure but also because she wants to use them to demonstrate theories - reminds me of Joyce Carol Oates and Iris Murdoch; so yes, they are not too interesting in their own right; but her questions challenge us in so many ways. This sense of what is possible - is it really so impossible that R's son could be seduced by R's wife? Another theory - society has rules for a reason. Let's use incest, for example. It's quite important to know who your parents are; who you are related to. It's one of the purposes or reasons for Marriage as well as birth certificates. But not every birth falls within the sanctity of marriage. Let's have a look at the title again - FREE LOVE.
That difference between what we know and experience, what our expectations were and what actually happened to us, or what we remember happened? Roger for example is always starting or stalling his relationship with Jean, on projections of what his ex-wife Phyllis may or may not want to do in her relationship. How does Jean feel about that? Roger is supposed to be a smart guy, but he doesn't want to acknowledge that the future is very, very unpredictable. All sorts of things can happen, and all sorts of things are out of our control. Marriage is an attempt to order and organise - it isn't necessarily all bad or all good - it is just an organising framework - probably better ones will become available - in the future?
Roger is a delightful representation of one type of system and Phyllis another. Hadley is really pushing for us to see how one set of values creates a secure and stable environment for some, but not for others. Most of us want to live in a secure and predictable situation, but for how many of us is that the reality? And is security important? Are there other values with a higher priority?
I liked very much that Hadley reminded me intensely of this sense that we all prefer stability, and predictable outcomes, but what exactly does that mean? Do we all want the same level of stability? At the beginning of Hadley's novel Phyllis throws off all sense of safety. She literally walks out of her old life and into a new one; and then we observe her slowly evolve in her "new" life, but we quickly realise - she's not new. She still behaves like the old Phyllis. Her value system is very much in tact. The pain it causes her to know her children, Colette and Hugh are without her - and yet something drives her to resist this pain . . . What was so painful in her previous life that caused her to abandon her beloved children? So many people like to say - BAD MOTHER! Is she? Is she a bad mother?
She serves drinks and food to all the people who visit her in her new bohemian flat. She appears to be happy with her new adventures and all the new people she meets, but at the same time, she has to deal with the problems of paying her way, earning money, looking after her baby son. Her work as seamstress, and helping out with her friends' business accounts - is this sustainable? Will it cover all her needs, or just her basic ones. What are her needs? Who gets to decide what her needs are?
Hadley's theories are not new to me. Sometimes I found them pedantic; the young woman from Grenada, Barbara Jones, is the only woman, who forges ahead on her own without the support of a man for instance. Barbara creates a nice balance to Hadley's white, middle-class females - Phyllis, Colette, Jean, and other minors, such as Marnie, and the girls living the hippy life.
I'm going to give a resounding 4, not 5 stars because it's a novel with an academic dryness. Hadley I think has forgotten, or has she - that sometimes we want to dream and drift when we are reading. Her continual pounding of everything changes, but does it? is enjoyable to a certain extent.
If you like polemic - then here's your book. But what are your expectations of a novel? Did you enjoy this novel, and what does it mean to enjoy a work of fiction? Did some of the characters reflect your values or did they challenge you? Did you like being challenged, or did it disturb you? That topic, of a mother who walks out on her children - that's a traumatic situation - is it not - for all concerned? What kind of society do we live in where a woman feels she has no choice but to leave her children? Is Phyllis stupid, or mad or bad or all three; or none of those things? Does she represent most women, or just one rather odd woman? I think it might be safe to say she represents most women, in that we often dream of another life, but unlike Phyllis, we're unlikely to put those dreams into action - that is the prerogative of fiction.
If you're not a literary student, and have no clue about any postmodern theories - no worries, I think the novel can be read and enjoyed in a narrative sort of way. I kept thinking of Evaristo's novel, Girl, Woman, Other, 2019 - because Evaristo is challenging us in a similar way. But, I thought Hadley's lecture in the guise of fiction, was more subtle and more engaging. At the end of the day, however, I'm not sure I like any of my fiction dressed up as a lecture - I'm hedging now - more towards 3 Stars.
No - FOUR stars - because there aren't many novels that make me think hard about the nature of reality. How do I know what I know? And how do I relate what I know to all those others who also think that they definitely do know what they know; and some smart ones who realise it is not so precise, this conundrum of knowing who we are.
Well, be honest - didn't some of you have those sorts of thoughts? This book, has a character, Phyllis whose desires run along similar lines, but mostly this novel is about deconstructing reality - if you're a Lit Theory student, you'll know what I am referring to - Derrida, Foucault. Hadley opens her book with four references to Claude Levi Strauss's memoir - Tristes Tropiques published in France, 1955. Levi Strauss is/was a structural anthropologist, which means he is interested in how and why people structure their realities. He looked at different civilisations; he examined their buildings, religions languages, agricultural planning, systems of control, hierarchies, power structures etc. An observer; an analyser.
And Hadley has done the same in this book - back to those expectations - I bet you're surprised to run into epistemology and ontology in the first chapter of her novel. The first chapter by the way is very funny and filled with references to all sorts of historical and written data, including fairy tales, and mythology, stories and history. Hadley's point - all those different views of the world!
Surprised and delighted I was by chapters one and two, but she maintains this deconstructive style - if style it is throughout, and by chapters three and four I was starting to flag. Her other structural decision is to maintain a linear time line - in the year 1967, which, it must be said, she does with fabulous re-constructions of houses, people, dress-code, politics, buildings, London, food and everything possible from the 1960s, UK. I enjoyed these clever, quick, completely evocative descriptions, but I also saw that some of them are taken quite literally out of the pages of Margaret Drabble's The Seven Sisters and The Millstone, published 1965.
In two other books by Hadley, The Past, and Late in the Day, each chapter flips between The Past and The Present, but in Free Love, she moves her main characters to the foreground and back. So, for example, we begin with Phyllis's story and switch to Colette's perspective, who is sixteen, Phyllis's daughter. We have a sequence of internal views of Roger's life, Phyllis's husband. He works at the Foreign Office. And as we progress through the chapters, we learn about a long-past relationship between Roger and Jean. We don't go back to the past, Hadley has her work cut-out to make us understand their connection from more than 25 years ago. And there are consequences - a child, who enters the current narrative. (Reminds me of Bowen's The House in Paris).
Many readers have objected to certain implausible plot manoeuvres, which I didn't feel too much, and I think because I gave credence to that long-distant relationship. Just because it didn't happen in the present of the book, doesn't mean it wasn't real and important. It is part of her decision to go with a linear time-line. We can forget the past, or muddle it, dismiss it or prefer to leave it alone, as something distant; nothing to do with us. Hadley is playing with all of these ideas.
Her characters sometimes lack depth because of that linear structure but also because she wants to use them to demonstrate theories - reminds me of Joyce Carol Oates and Iris Murdoch; so yes, they are not too interesting in their own right; but her questions challenge us in so many ways. This sense of what is possible - is it really so impossible that R's son could be seduced by R's wife? Another theory - society has rules for a reason. Let's use incest, for example. It's quite important to know who your parents are; who you are related to. It's one of the purposes or reasons for Marriage as well as birth certificates. But not every birth falls within the sanctity of marriage. Let's have a look at the title again - FREE LOVE.
That difference between what we know and experience, what our expectations were and what actually happened to us, or what we remember happened? Roger for example is always starting or stalling his relationship with Jean, on projections of what his ex-wife Phyllis may or may not want to do in her relationship. How does Jean feel about that? Roger is supposed to be a smart guy, but he doesn't want to acknowledge that the future is very, very unpredictable. All sorts of things can happen, and all sorts of things are out of our control. Marriage is an attempt to order and organise - it isn't necessarily all bad or all good - it is just an organising framework - probably better ones will become available - in the future?
Roger is a delightful representation of one type of system and Phyllis another. Hadley is really pushing for us to see how one set of values creates a secure and stable environment for some, but not for others. Most of us want to live in a secure and predictable situation, but for how many of us is that the reality? And is security important? Are there other values with a higher priority?
I liked very much that Hadley reminded me intensely of this sense that we all prefer stability, and predictable outcomes, but what exactly does that mean? Do we all want the same level of stability? At the beginning of Hadley's novel Phyllis throws off all sense of safety. She literally walks out of her old life and into a new one; and then we observe her slowly evolve in her "new" life, but we quickly realise - she's not new. She still behaves like the old Phyllis. Her value system is very much in tact. The pain it causes her to know her children, Colette and Hugh are without her - and yet something drives her to resist this pain . . . What was so painful in her previous life that caused her to abandon her beloved children? So many people like to say - BAD MOTHER! Is she? Is she a bad mother?
She serves drinks and food to all the people who visit her in her new bohemian flat. She appears to be happy with her new adventures and all the new people she meets, but at the same time, she has to deal with the problems of paying her way, earning money, looking after her baby son. Her work as seamstress, and helping out with her friends' business accounts - is this sustainable? Will it cover all her needs, or just her basic ones. What are her needs? Who gets to decide what her needs are?
Hadley's theories are not new to me. Sometimes I found them pedantic; the young woman from Grenada, Barbara Jones, is the only woman, who forges ahead on her own without the support of a man for instance. Barbara creates a nice balance to Hadley's white, middle-class females - Phyllis, Colette, Jean, and other minors, such as Marnie, and the girls living the hippy life.
I'm going to give a resounding 4, not 5 stars because it's a novel with an academic dryness. Hadley I think has forgotten, or has she - that sometimes we want to dream and drift when we are reading. Her continual pounding of everything changes, but does it? is enjoyable to a certain extent.
If you like polemic - then here's your book. But what are your expectations of a novel? Did you enjoy this novel, and what does it mean to enjoy a work of fiction? Did some of the characters reflect your values or did they challenge you? Did you like being challenged, or did it disturb you? That topic, of a mother who walks out on her children - that's a traumatic situation - is it not - for all concerned? What kind of society do we live in where a woman feels she has no choice but to leave her children? Is Phyllis stupid, or mad or bad or all three; or none of those things? Does she represent most women, or just one rather odd woman? I think it might be safe to say she represents most women, in that we often dream of another life, but unlike Phyllis, we're unlikely to put those dreams into action - that is the prerogative of fiction.
If you're not a literary student, and have no clue about any postmodern theories - no worries, I think the novel can be read and enjoyed in a narrative sort of way. I kept thinking of Evaristo's novel, Girl, Woman, Other, 2019 - because Evaristo is challenging us in a similar way. But, I thought Hadley's lecture in the guise of fiction, was more subtle and more engaging. At the end of the day, however, I'm not sure I like any of my fiction dressed up as a lecture - I'm hedging now - more towards 3 Stars.
No - FOUR stars - because there aren't many novels that make me think hard about the nature of reality. How do I know what I know? And how do I relate what I know to all those others who also think that they definitely do know what they know; and some smart ones who realise it is not so precise, this conundrum of knowing who we are.
August 1, 2024
Towards the end of the swinging sixties, London housewife Phyllis Fischer doesn’t realise she’s unhappy with her lot until the young son of a family friend comes around for dinner one night. Phyllis loves entertaining and but Nicky is something of an awkward guest, arriving late and seeming to have little to say other than becoming embroiled in a rather political discussion with her steady but dull husband, Robert. But then, as they are searching for a lost item in an adjoining garden, Nicky unexpectedly kisses her. Suddenly her outlook on life changes and soon she’s so enraptured by this rude, self-possessed young man that she’s left home and moved into his filthy flat, leaving Robert and her two children, Hugh and Collette, behind without so much as a word.
The writing here is excellent, brilliantly capturing what I believe to be both the mood and the feel of the 1960s. For the first half of the book, I was completely transported to this time, and this place as the various characters attempted to adjust to this sudden upheaval in their lives. But why would an attractive, middle-class housewife be so taken by this intelligent but scruffy and somewhat inattentive young man? In part it’s clearly the sex, but beyond that, somehow the whole change of scene just seems to light something up within her.
In the second half of the book sixteen year old Collette, it takes the spotlight. Unattractive and unpopular with her classmates, she decides the moment is right for her to commence her own journey – to somebody more interesting, increasingly brave, and sometimes rash in her choices. But this switch in focus also heralds a change in the mood of the whole piece, as we are increasingly asked to consider a number of moral choices to be made by the leading characters. The change adds something to the story, but it also takes something away, as Phyllis and Nicky rather fade into the background, and for me, a good deal of the story’s overall momentum is lost.
I really enjoyed the enviable way the author is able to put words on the page, and yet here she’s introduced us to a cast of characters who are almost universally unlovable. And the story is, I think, a mixed bag of things that, in the end, just doesn't quite tie together. I’m sure this one will divide opinion and I’ve already seen a number of reviews from readers who absolutely loved it, but I’m struggling to build up too much enthusiasm for a book that, to be honest, I was glad to finish. It’s a three star rating for me.
My thanks to Random House UK Vintage for providing a copy of this book via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.
The writing here is excellent, brilliantly capturing what I believe to be both the mood and the feel of the 1960s. For the first half of the book, I was completely transported to this time, and this place as the various characters attempted to adjust to this sudden upheaval in their lives. But why would an attractive, middle-class housewife be so taken by this intelligent but scruffy and somewhat inattentive young man? In part it’s clearly the sex, but beyond that, somehow the whole change of scene just seems to light something up within her.
In the second half of the book sixteen year old Collette, it takes the spotlight. Unattractive and unpopular with her classmates, she decides the moment is right for her to commence her own journey – to somebody more interesting, increasingly brave, and sometimes rash in her choices. But this switch in focus also heralds a change in the mood of the whole piece, as we are increasingly asked to consider a number of moral choices to be made by the leading characters. The change adds something to the story, but it also takes something away, as Phyllis and Nicky rather fade into the background, and for me, a good deal of the story’s overall momentum is lost.
I really enjoyed the enviable way the author is able to put words on the page, and yet here she’s introduced us to a cast of characters who are almost universally unlovable. And the story is, I think, a mixed bag of things that, in the end, just doesn't quite tie together. I’m sure this one will divide opinion and I’ve already seen a number of reviews from readers who absolutely loved it, but I’m struggling to build up too much enthusiasm for a book that, to be honest, I was glad to finish. It’s a three star rating for me.
My thanks to Random House UK Vintage for providing a copy of this book via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.
February 8, 2022
Tessa Hadley’s new novel, “Free Love,” is smartly situated within the fusion of defiance and regret, liberation and attachment. Along the way, Hadley alludes to Ibsen’s “A Doll’s House” and Betty Friedan’s “The Feminine Mystique,” but her story cuts its own path. In fact, “Free Love” begins with a domestic scene that’s almost farcical.
The heroine is Phyllis Fischer, a pretty 40-year-old woman enchanted by her idyllic suburban life. Her thoughtful husband, Roger, is a respected member of the Foreign Office, her two children are a source of great joy, and she regards her Arts and Crafts home “with a protective tenderness.” The year is 1967, but the revolutionary forces tearing apart the rest of the world are just troubling images on the television. Phyllis is “an easy person, easily made happy, glad to make others happy,” Hadley writes. “She was pleased with her life.”
To be clear: She is no Bertha Rochester raging away in the attic; she is not peeling wallpaper off her bedroom wall at night; she will not walk into the sea with Edna Pontellier.
And yet something must be missing from Phyllis’s life, a deficiency of some trace mineral that’s easy to overlook but essential to emotional health. Hadley, as always so attentive to such subtleties, notes that when Phyllis and Roger “were naked they couldn’t quite. . . .
To read the rest of this review, go to The Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/books/...
The heroine is Phyllis Fischer, a pretty 40-year-old woman enchanted by her idyllic suburban life. Her thoughtful husband, Roger, is a respected member of the Foreign Office, her two children are a source of great joy, and she regards her Arts and Crafts home “with a protective tenderness.” The year is 1967, but the revolutionary forces tearing apart the rest of the world are just troubling images on the television. Phyllis is “an easy person, easily made happy, glad to make others happy,” Hadley writes. “She was pleased with her life.”
To be clear: She is no Bertha Rochester raging away in the attic; she is not peeling wallpaper off her bedroom wall at night; she will not walk into the sea with Edna Pontellier.
And yet something must be missing from Phyllis’s life, a deficiency of some trace mineral that’s easy to overlook but essential to emotional health. Hadley, as always so attentive to such subtleties, notes that when Phyllis and Roger “were naked they couldn’t quite. . . .
To read the rest of this review, go to The Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/books/...
November 16, 2021
This is my first Hadley novel, a writer I've been meaning to try for some time, so I can't say whether this is characteristic of her fiction: for me, it's competent and efficient but also constructed and a bit clichéd. The writing is clear and precise, detailed and visual - but there's nothing exceptional or personable, it's all smooth, bland and neutral.
The story feels like a familiar one: a 40-ish suburban housewife gets a sexual awakening and abandons bourgeoise comfort for a vaguely anti-establishment lifestyle. Along the way we see the fall-out in her family, and there's a rather laboured revelation that verges on melodrama and which seems rather too neatly formed for my taste.
The setting is 1967 but really this looks back at so many books that question the conventionality of middle-class domestic life, and doesn't really have anything new to say. This feels rather old-fashioned to me both in terms of writing style and content and it's hard to see what the writerly intention is. So not really my thing, I'm afraid, but that's subjective taste rather than a criticism of the book.
Thanks to the publisher for an ARC via NetGalley
The story feels like a familiar one: a 40-ish suburban housewife gets a sexual awakening and abandons bourgeoise comfort for a vaguely anti-establishment lifestyle. Along the way we see the fall-out in her family, and there's a rather laboured revelation that verges on melodrama and which seems rather too neatly formed for my taste.
The setting is 1967 but really this looks back at so many books that question the conventionality of middle-class domestic life, and doesn't really have anything new to say. This feels rather old-fashioned to me both in terms of writing style and content and it's hard to see what the writerly intention is. So not really my thing, I'm afraid, but that's subjective taste rather than a criticism of the book.
Thanks to the publisher for an ARC via NetGalley
June 6, 2025
There’ve been a slew of stories lately about the coming of age of middle-aged women, and I love it. Tessa Hadley did that here before the trend (Free Love was published in January of 2022). But rather than a contemporary setting, Free Love takes place in the 1960s, when women were beginning to question their identity outside their marriages, and Phyllis, the protagonist, abandons her suburban family for London to do just that.
Tessa Hadley’s, Free Love, and Late in the Day, are similar thematically. But although Late in the Day was taut, it evoked the chill of precision. Free Love is warmer and more fluid, if less perfect. The story itself is of a Bohemian existence in London, but the real one is about how in finding herself, Phyllis finds true connection to both her children, Colette and Hugh. One of my favorite things about this was how her teenaged daughter, Colette, comes of age as a result of the mother’s actions, and how that forges a bond:
"An old world was crumbling, and this new continent of experience, with its dizzily altered perspectives and intoxicating freedoms, should have been trackless – yet her mother’s footprint was on the sand everywhere ahead of her...Now she saw that she could choose something different.”
Maybe not an original theme, but I can’t think of a book this reminds me of. And I found the sense of place immersive and fresh, her prose smart, clean, painterly (she sees trees as “upright inky pen strokes”) and sometimes funny:
“If he won’t have me then I’ll die. Although she also knew that she wouldn’t really die, she’d go home and put macaroni cheese in the oven. And that would be worse.”
Hadley has a talent for bending things to see where they fall in both books. I love this unpredictability, how she feeds us information. Mark P., my reading-buddy, and I kept dropping our jaws as things were revealed. And although this wasn’t as sharp as Late in the Day, it felt like watching a log floating down a river collecting scraps along the way, until suddenly there was a home.
I will read a third by this author.
Here's Mark's review:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
Tessa Hadley’s, Free Love, and Late in the Day, are similar thematically. But although Late in the Day was taut, it evoked the chill of precision. Free Love is warmer and more fluid, if less perfect. The story itself is of a Bohemian existence in London, but the real one is about how in finding herself, Phyllis finds true connection to both her children, Colette and Hugh. One of my favorite things about this was how her teenaged daughter, Colette, comes of age as a result of the mother’s actions, and how that forges a bond:
"An old world was crumbling, and this new continent of experience, with its dizzily altered perspectives and intoxicating freedoms, should have been trackless – yet her mother’s footprint was on the sand everywhere ahead of her...Now she saw that she could choose something different.”
Maybe not an original theme, but I can’t think of a book this reminds me of. And I found the sense of place immersive and fresh, her prose smart, clean, painterly (she sees trees as “upright inky pen strokes”) and sometimes funny:
“If he won’t have me then I’ll die. Although she also knew that she wouldn’t really die, she’d go home and put macaroni cheese in the oven. And that would be worse.”
Hadley has a talent for bending things to see where they fall in both books. I love this unpredictability, how she feeds us information. Mark P., my reading-buddy, and I kept dropping our jaws as things were revealed. And although this wasn’t as sharp as Late in the Day, it felt like watching a log floating down a river collecting scraps along the way, until suddenly there was a home.
I will read a third by this author.
Here's Mark's review:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
January 19, 2024
My first DNF for the year. Exercising my "100 pages of nothing and I am out" rule.
I enjoyed the first book I read by Hadley, but this one is absolutely not for me. I don't care what happens to Phyllis and Nicky...maybe they will get their just desserts, but I am totally unwilling to stay around for another 200 pages to find out.
I enjoyed the first book I read by Hadley, but this one is absolutely not for me. I don't care what happens to Phyllis and Nicky...maybe they will get their just desserts, but I am totally unwilling to stay around for another 200 pages to find out.
June 21, 2025
This novel is set in the London of 1967 – and opens with a (rather reluctant on both sides) visit to a rather conventional suburban family by a twenty-something year-old son of a family friend – one with an unexpected outcome.
The family is Roger Fisher, an Arabist in the Foreign Office; Phyllis his wife; Collette - a rather over-earnest older daughter with a crush on her English language teacher; and Hugh – an easy going 10 year old in the final flush of boyhood freedom ahead of a likely future at his Father’s boarding school.
The visiting son is Nicky Knight – his parents Peter and Jean friends of Roger via his parents and assisted in Roger’s recuperation after his activities in the war. Nicky is living in London is something of a squat, mainly off his mother’s allowance, and the little he can make working as a left wing journalist.
Rather unintendedly on both sides Phyllis and Nicky exchange a passionate kiss during a rather farcical pond-based hunt for the missing sandal of one of Hugh’s playmates.
The incident awakens something in Phyllis and at her instigation the two begin an (at first) sporadic and covert affair – the book tracing how this turns into first a relationship, then full on cohabitation and finally loves its covertness and how this plays out for Phyllis but also for Roger and Collette in particular. There is also party way through a twist which even the characters admit to be a little unexpectedly coincidental.
This is a very competently written book – there is a strong sense of place and time, the book as far as I can tell being anachronism free, not just in period detail but more strongly in the attitudes and reactions of the characters. The problem with this is that it feels like the book too is very old fashioned and uninvolving with the characters attitudes and life-arcs seeming (precisely because of their accuracy) almost clichéd. Nicky for example is predictable in his denunciation of Roger and his world view - Phyllis in her late discovery of the freedoms of the late sixties (sex, drugs, music and dancing, commune style art and the questioning of accepted authority).
Like Nicky himself I felt like I had paid a visit to rather conventional suburban novel – but without the unexpected outcome.
My thanks to Penguin Random House for an ARC via NetGalley
The family is Roger Fisher, an Arabist in the Foreign Office; Phyllis his wife; Collette - a rather over-earnest older daughter with a crush on her English language teacher; and Hugh – an easy going 10 year old in the final flush of boyhood freedom ahead of a likely future at his Father’s boarding school.
The visiting son is Nicky Knight – his parents Peter and Jean friends of Roger via his parents and assisted in Roger’s recuperation after his activities in the war. Nicky is living in London is something of a squat, mainly off his mother’s allowance, and the little he can make working as a left wing journalist.
Rather unintendedly on both sides Phyllis and Nicky exchange a passionate kiss during a rather farcical pond-based hunt for the missing sandal of one of Hugh’s playmates.
The incident awakens something in Phyllis and at her instigation the two begin an (at first) sporadic and covert affair – the book tracing how this turns into first a relationship, then full on cohabitation and finally loves its covertness and how this plays out for Phyllis but also for Roger and Collette in particular. There is also party way through a twist which even the characters admit to be a little unexpectedly coincidental.
This is a very competently written book – there is a strong sense of place and time, the book as far as I can tell being anachronism free, not just in period detail but more strongly in the attitudes and reactions of the characters. The problem with this is that it feels like the book too is very old fashioned and uninvolving with the characters attitudes and life-arcs seeming (precisely because of their accuracy) almost clichéd. Nicky for example is predictable in his denunciation of Roger and his world view - Phyllis in her late discovery of the freedoms of the late sixties (sex, drugs, music and dancing, commune style art and the questioning of accepted authority).
Like Nicky himself I felt like I had paid a visit to rather conventional suburban novel – but without the unexpected outcome.
My thanks to Penguin Random House for an ARC via NetGalley
February 26, 2022
Well, its not the 'very' first time I've I written a review, then lost it .....
I guess I erased it..... 'as' I was pasting it....
but always 'as' frustrating --
However -
I'm now here to wing it! -- as I'm leaving any minute, (Paul rushing me out the door) --
Here is my (new) -- non-review- review!
I like Tessa Hadley -- her books are always a temptation for me to read (and there are several other books of hers I want to still read) -- -- but -- as much as I like her --I'm also often left feeling a little unsatisfied --
And....it happened again -- I LIKED it -- just didn't love it!
I guess I erased it..... 'as' I was pasting it....
but always 'as' frustrating --
However -
I'm now here to wing it! -- as I'm leaving any minute, (Paul rushing me out the door) --
Here is my (new) -- non-review- review!
I like Tessa Hadley -- her books are always a temptation for me to read (and there are several other books of hers I want to still read) -- -- but -- as much as I like her --I'm also often left feeling a little unsatisfied --
And....it happened again -- I LIKED it -- just didn't love it!
March 29, 2022
There are novels by Tessa Hadley which have made my top ten books of the year, but sadly I don't think this is going to be one of them. The writing, as ever, is wonderful. Hadley has such a wonderful way of putting me right in the location she's writing about. The novel starts with the sound of children playing outside on a warm evening, and I was right there. But the story and its characters and their little bit of intrigue didn't scoop me up and sustain me. In 1967 a middle class woman with two children and a respectable husband embarks on an affair that turns her life and those of her family upside down. Maybe it didn't explore anything new - it felt like I had read this before, even though of course every situation is different for each new character.
November 17, 2022
Rating: ⭐⭐⭐
Genre: Historical Fiction
A housewife in her forties falls deeply in love with a much younger man in this novel, which is set in 1967 in London. Phyllis resides happily (or perhaps not) with her husband, Roger, and their kids, Colette and Hugh. When she meets Nicky, the son of one of her friends, her life is completely changed. The decisions Phyllis makes subsequently to continue the romantic affair are unusual for that time period.
When it comes to the characters, I didn’t like the protagonist as much as I think I should have. However, her children were really good. I feel they both kept the plot engaging for me. In general, the character development in this book was quite good. I think the author did a fantastic job of capturing the atmosphere of the 1960s. The historical setting and the traits of society at the time were strongly woven into the narrative.
The book's predictability is where it falls flat. The plot, the affair, and the characters' general responses after learning about the affair all felt foreordained. Still, I consider Free Love to be an intriguing tale that turned out to be a decent read.
Genre: Historical Fiction
A housewife in her forties falls deeply in love with a much younger man in this novel, which is set in 1967 in London. Phyllis resides happily (or perhaps not) with her husband, Roger, and their kids, Colette and Hugh. When she meets Nicky, the son of one of her friends, her life is completely changed. The decisions Phyllis makes subsequently to continue the romantic affair are unusual for that time period.
When it comes to the characters, I didn’t like the protagonist as much as I think I should have. However, her children were really good. I feel they both kept the plot engaging for me. In general, the character development in this book was quite good. I think the author did a fantastic job of capturing the atmosphere of the 1960s. The historical setting and the traits of society at the time were strongly woven into the narrative.
The book's predictability is where it falls flat. The plot, the affair, and the characters' general responses after learning about the affair all felt foreordained. Still, I consider Free Love to be an intriguing tale that turned out to be a decent read.
January 27, 2022
Colette was trying to develop a new way of looking at life, with more lightness, as if everything that seemed so substantial, like a school, or a home, or a marriage, was in fact only disposable and breakable. It was frightening, but also a relief. Phyllis used to joke about how Anne and her husband Tom had experimented with free love before they were married, and Colette saw now how they’d have set about it earnestly, in pursuit of an ideal. Perhaps it was better to be frivolous.
It’s 1967 in a genteel suburb of London and the camera pans to the ideal nuclear family: Father had a “good war” and is a respected Arabist with the Foreign Office; Mother, at forty, is about ten years younger than her husband, an attractive, sociable housewife; older daughter, at fifteen, is respectably studious (if a bit heavy and serious); and the nine year old son is golden and mischievous. Into this scene is introduced a bomb in the form of a twenty-something radical; the unfamiliar son of old friends — a young man trying to disavow his own bourgeois upbringing who resents the social obligation of this dinner — and as he tries to unbalance his host with Marxist provocations, he is met with unexpected good humour and intellectual curiosity. Even so, as Free Love unspools, this Nicky’s presence at the Fischer table will unleash a series of disruptive events that will mirror the change and tumult happening in the world beyond this leafy ‘burb. In relatable and highly readable prose, author Tessa Hadley captures something true about the times, but to be honest, it doesn’t feel like I learned anything new. Hadley skips primarily through the POVs of four main characters — the older couple (Roger and Phyllis) and the younger pair (Nicky and the daughter Colette) — and this is done seamlessly; I really appreciated that we saw both actions and reactions across the sexes and the generations, and especially as these were more nuanced than I expected. But still, the narrative lacked the power and energy of immediacy: I can think of novels from the Sixties that better capture the times and I don’t know if, seventy-some years later, Hadley adds anything of note (beyond a nice read) with this. (Note: I read an ARC through NetGalley and passages quoted may not be in their final forms. Slight spoilers from here.)
Her performance as a contented wife was consummately good. It frightened Nicky: what depths of experience had he stumbled into? He had taken the Fischers at their face value, as respectable and innocent. Now it appeared that he might have been the innocent himself.
When Nicholas Knight turns up at the Fischer house — an hour late and stumbling with the beers he steeled himself with at the local pub — he immediately dismisses the romantic potential of the daughter (whom he finds “lumpy and ungracious”) and recoils from the flirty touch of his host’s wife. For her part, Phyllis is chagrined to find that young Nicky is immune to her charms, “She’d taken for granted that at her core her sexual self would continue for ever, a nugget of radioactive material charged with its power, irreducible.” Unable to crack Roger’s good cheer with his radical proclamations, Nicky inevitably does turn his attention to Phyllis: “For what was more natural, faced with this unanswerable force of his rival, than to seduce the wife?” How could Nicky know that he had provoked Phyllis into doubling down on seducing him?
Phyllis eventually tracks Nicky down to his squalid London flat, and what she will discover through him is not just a sexual awakening, but a social one, too: Mixing with the writers and artists and pot-smoking hippies of Nicky’s acquaintance, Phyllis is forced to examine everything her priveleged upbringing had taught her. In a way, Phyllis feels like the main character out of the ensemble cast in Free Love, and while you can cheer for her “unshackling the chains of the patriarchy”, you also have to wince at how unclever Hadley has made her; unable to read a work of nonfiction without her mind wandering, Phyllis is forever asking the men around her to tell her what to think. Watching a news report on the Six Day War between Israel and the surrounding Arab states, Phyllis asks Roger, “Don’t the Jews deserve their own country, after what happened to them?” And despite being a thorough establishment man, Roger’s thinking is always considered and nuanced, “Of course, incontrovertibly…The trouble is, this country of theirs belonged just yesterday to someone else. One can see the thing both ways.”
When Colette is sixteen (and has slimmed herself and started wearing contacts; but not to be attractive, Mom), she starts to associate with Phyllis and Nicky’s London friends, and I did find it interesting that her attraction to “the scene” feels more authentic than Phyllis’ had: her interest is more intellectual, while Phyllis’ felt like an emotional draw, and Free Love reads, in the end, like Collette’s coming-of-age story (as though the baton of "main character" had been passed from mother to daughter along the way). At one point, Nicky comes back from the Paris student riots (working as a journalist for a left-wing newspaper, Nicky had gone to join and observe the protest), and he lectures an assembled group that one didn’t want to be “a revolutionary tourist: there were plenty of those”. But while Phyllis hung on his every word, watching nervously to see how Nicky would react to her daughter’s presence, Colette herself was sneering at his political dilettantism:
Colette wasn’t on the side of the political types anyway. She was more drawn to the ones who talked about drugs and art and music, were often stoned and not at all in earnest. They weren’t waiting for the students and factory workers to bring about a new era. As far as they were concerned it had arrived already, they were helping themselves to it wholeheartedly.
Meanwhile, Roger — who is really such a decent man — doesn’t feel like he can stand in the way of anyone’s growth and happiness, and as you learn more about his backstory, the reader really wishes that he could grab some happiness for himself as well. The plot goes to places expected and not so expected (but if one feels the need to write “and now – in this situation as fatally twisted as a Greek drama”, perhaps the plot has gone too far), but it truly didn’t reveal anything new about the time and place; certainly nothing new about the human heart. This was a pleasant and interesting read, but held up against Hadley’s previous work, it was just fine to me.
May 15, 2023
Добре написан, изпипан роман за този тънък отрязък от времето, когато настъпва смяната на поколенията, старото предава щафетата или в случая на 60-те години – новото я изземва нахално и насилствено. От поколенческия сблъсък хвърчат искри – на антагонизъм, но и на еротика. Културният феномен, какъвто са 60-те, сексуалната революция, пълното отрицание на ценностите, изповядвани от предходните поколения, тази никога неповторена (досега) енергия и ентусиазъм за радикална промяна и наивният идеализъм на родените след Втората световна война са електричеството на романа.
Филис е привлекателната съпруга на висш служител от британското външно министерство и герой от войната, която се влюбва в много по-млад от нея мъж – от онези гневни левичари, събратя на Даниел Кон Бендит, които избират да не са част от „системата“ – да скъсат със света на бащите (нищо че живеят от презрените им парички), да заживеят в мухлясала дупка (но всъщност са родени в имение) и да възхваляват добродетелите на работническата класа (към която никога не биха си и помислили да принадлежат). Да се определят гордо като марксисти, когато на няколкостотин километра по на изток марксизмът на практика гази с танковете си искащите свобода. Бъдещите хищници от фондовите борси през 70-те са все още младите революционери от 60-те.
Но този бунт се харесва на отегчената Филис, която започва да гледа на досегашния си уреден живот кат�� на един буржоазен капан и заживява като бедна жена, абстрактно възмутена от капитализма, колониализма и империализма.
Напускането й предизвиква динамични размествания в семейните пластове, много добре уловени от Теса Хадли. Но още по-добре изпъкват ироничните контрасти с нейните социални антиподи, които, без никаква изненада, с удоволствие биха разменили работническото си битие за спокойното охолство, от което Филис се отказва с лека ръка. Има си хас - никой фабричен работник, чернокож или друг член на потискано малцинство няма полза от това, че е идейното знаме, върху което отегчени младежи от средната класа се упражняват в риторика.
Възмутеният ми тон по адрес на героите – рядко ми се случва да не харесам нито един – не бива да заблуждава, че романът непременно заема някаква страна в този културно-поколенчески конфликт. Както е модерно да се казва днес, представени са всички гледни точки, читателят избира сам. За мен 60-те са инфантилно в политически и духовен план време, макар че признавам приноса му към модата. В книгата – и политика, и мода, имат дискретно, но незаобиколимо присъствие.
Романът не е и някакво епично платно на епохата. Историята се усеща и преживява по-камерно, като пиеса. Вътрешната мотивация и преживяванията са изведени на преден план, максимално сгъстени и заредени с напрежение. Въпреки че развитието на сюжета в един момент напомня на древногръцка сапунка, в нищо от ставащото няма привкус на сензация, включително и в спокойния и уравновесен финал, който спуска завесата над тази семейна драма.
Филис е привлекателната съпруга на висш служител от британското външно министерство и герой от войната, която се влюбва в много по-млад от нея мъж – от онези гневни левичари, събратя на Даниел Кон Бендит, които избират да не са част от „системата“ – да скъсат със света на бащите (нищо че живеят от презрените им парички), да заживеят в мухлясала дупка (но всъщност са родени в имение) и да възхваляват добродетелите на работническата класа (към която никога не биха си и помислили да принадлежат). Да се определят гордо като марксисти, когато на няколкостотин километра по на изток марксизмът на практика гази с танковете си искащите свобода. Бъдещите хищници от фондовите борси през 70-те са все още младите революционери от 60-те.
Но този бунт се харесва на отегчената Филис, която започва да гледа на досегашния си уреден живот кат�� на един буржоазен капан и заживява като бедна жена, абстрактно възмутена от капитализма, колониализма и империализма.
Напускането й предизвиква динамични размествания в семейните пластове, много добре уловени от Теса Хадли. Но още по-добре изпъкват ироничните контрасти с нейните социални антиподи, които, без никаква изненада, с удоволствие биха разменили работническото си битие за спокойното охолство, от което Филис се отказва с лека ръка. Има си хас - никой фабричен работник, чернокож или друг член на потискано малцинство няма полза от това, че е идейното знаме, върху което отегчени младежи от средната класа се упражняват в риторика.
Възмутеният ми тон по адрес на героите – рядко ми се случва да не харесам нито един – не бива да заблуждава, че романът непременно заема някаква страна в този културно-поколенчески конфликт. Както е модерно да се казва днес, представени са всички гледни точки, читателят избира сам. За мен 60-те са инфантилно в политически и духовен план време, макар че признавам приноса му към модата. В книгата – и политика, и мода, имат дискретно, но незаобиколимо присъствие.
Романът не е и някакво епично платно на епохата. Историята се усеща и преживява по-камерно, като пиеса. Вътрешната мотивация и преживяванията са изведени на преден план, максимално сгъстени и заредени с напрежение. Въпреки че развитието на сюжета в един момент напомня на древногръцка сапунка, в нищо от ставащото няма привкус на сензация, включително и в спокойния и уравновесен финал, който спуска завесата над тази семейна драма.
September 11, 2021
The title recalls the heady days of the Summer of Free Love, Woodstock, the Swinging Sixties, anti-war demonstrations - and the whole sex ,drugs and rock & roll era - when it was said that if you remembered it, you weren’t really there. Hadley has brilliantly portrayed the atmosphere of that time, although her protagonist is not the expected teenage rebel against authority, but a middle-aged woman trying to regain her lost youth with an unsuitable liaison. It is a modern take on the Anna Karenina or Emma Bovary tragedies, which we know will end in tears, but Hadley has sensibly avoided the easy moralising aspect to keep the reader’s empathy with her flawed characters.
Highly enjoyable!
Many thanks to the publisher for the ARC via NetGalley.
Highly enjoyable!
Many thanks to the publisher for the ARC via NetGalley.
February 1, 2024
My first Tessa Hadley novel, and while I see that readers have had mixed reactions to it, I enjoyed it very much. In many ways, it is a simple story that has been told in one way or another before: a bored housewife has an affair, blows up the family unit. In this case, it is 1967, and the housewife is Phyllis Fischer, living in suburban London with her stolid Foreign Office husband Roger and their children, her beloved son Hugh, who she dreads being sent to boarding school, and chunky, sullen teenage Colette. Enter stage left Nicky Knight, the young adult son of friends, who is expected to dinner. By the end of the night, Phyllis is smitten, and from there, everyone's lives begin to change.
I appreciated reading this with a group, which drew my attention to the several references at the outset to anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss' memoir, Tristes Tropiques, which begins with the line, "Je hais les voyages et les explorateurs." An interesting framing device to think about the characters and their movements, between the suburbs and London's counterculture, as well as how Hadley situates them not just in British domestic life but in the wider world (conflict in the Middle East and in Paris, the Second World War, diplomatic life in Egypt). Hadley moves relentlessly from one character's perspective to another, which I also quite liked as it added interesting dimensions. For me, it was a book with lots to chew on and Phyllis, in the end, was quite fascinating to me: even as her choices seemed and were regarded by others around her as simplistic, I'm not sure they were.
[Nicky, describing the novel he tried to write in Tehran, which he burned] "...the truth was that I didn't know what those people were thinking. So there was only me on every page, thinking about them: that was fairly sickening. Then when I cam back to England to find some material I could get inside, I discovered I didn't want to write novels after all. It's a dead form."
I appreciated reading this with a group, which drew my attention to the several references at the outset to anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss' memoir, Tristes Tropiques, which begins with the line, "Je hais les voyages et les explorateurs." An interesting framing device to think about the characters and their movements, between the suburbs and London's counterculture, as well as how Hadley situates them not just in British domestic life but in the wider world (conflict in the Middle East and in Paris, the Second World War, diplomatic life in Egypt). Hadley moves relentlessly from one character's perspective to another, which I also quite liked as it added interesting dimensions. For me, it was a book with lots to chew on and Phyllis, in the end, was quite fascinating to me: even as her choices seemed and were regarded by others around her as simplistic, I'm not sure they were.
[Nicky, describing the novel he tried to write in Tehran, which he burned] "...the truth was that I didn't know what those people were thinking. So there was only me on every page, thinking about them: that was fairly sickening. Then when I cam back to England to find some material I could get inside, I discovered I didn't want to write novels after all. It's a dead form."
March 16, 2022
Really more of a 3.65 for me.
Phyllis is a 40 year old suburban housewife in 1967 when the son of friends kisses her in the dark after a dinner party. She leaves her family on somewhat of a whim and enters his world of artists and socio-political upheaval, much to the confusion of her husband and kids.
I was struck by how differently London feels during this era (at least, as written by this author) from how I usually encounter the United States during the same era, which is more dominated by war and civil rights (and of course, Communism being more tolerated in the UK.) But it is because of this that Phyllis might as well leap into a new life.
The book is kind of slow but really picks up at 65% or so, when a detail is revealed that explains why the author gave us previous detail that felt unimportant. There is a lot of clash between old ways and the new, for instance the younger boy is sent off to boarding school the way his family had always done it, while the older daughter is left to fend for herself (and because of traditional roles, also expended to fend for her father - although they have enough money to have at least one housekeeper so I am not sure why they didn't just hire a cook too.)
Phyllis is a 40 year old suburban housewife in 1967 when the son of friends kisses her in the dark after a dinner party. She leaves her family on somewhat of a whim and enters his world of artists and socio-political upheaval, much to the confusion of her husband and kids.
I was struck by how differently London feels during this era (at least, as written by this author) from how I usually encounter the United States during the same era, which is more dominated by war and civil rights (and of course, Communism being more tolerated in the UK.) But it is because of this that Phyllis might as well leap into a new life.
The book is kind of slow but really picks up at 65% or so, when a detail is revealed that explains why the author gave us previous detail that felt unimportant. There is a lot of clash between old ways and the new, for instance the younger boy is sent off to boarding school the way his family had always done it, while the older daughter is left to fend for herself (and because of traditional roles, also expended to fend for her father - although they have enough money to have at least one housekeeper so I am not sure why they didn't just hire a cook too.)
March 9, 2022
3.5, rounded up.
I've read Hadley's last three novels now, and though I don't consider her necessarily a favorite author, something keeps drawing me back to her. I think it must be her craftsmanship, as there is no denying her unerring and precise, gorgeous prose. It's her plots that seem to keep tripping me up on her works, however, and have prevented me from fully embracing/championing them.
Here, the central 'secret' is both hidden through contrivances that don't quite play fair, and then is so preposterous as, the author even admits, to rival Greek tragedy. Once one gets around that and settles in for an exciting climax/denouement, the souffle deflates, and a rather moralistic ending, in which if the offending parties are not quite 'punished', at least do not quite get a happy ending - and those who have suffered the most from the effects of 'free love' are given some modicum of contentment. After 270 pages of questioning the status quo, to have it firmly defended in the final 20 is a bit of a downer.
Still, it's high time Hadley garners that elusive Booker nomination, and there is enough in this to think it might just do the trick this time round - the Guardian certainly seems to think so:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/202...
https://www.theguardian.com/books/202...
I've read Hadley's last three novels now, and though I don't consider her necessarily a favorite author, something keeps drawing me back to her. I think it must be her craftsmanship, as there is no denying her unerring and precise, gorgeous prose. It's her plots that seem to keep tripping me up on her works, however, and have prevented me from fully embracing/championing them.
Here, the central 'secret' is both hidden through contrivances that don't quite play fair, and then is so preposterous as, the author even admits, to rival Greek tragedy. Once one gets around that and settles in for an exciting climax/denouement, the souffle deflates, and a rather moralistic ending, in which if the offending parties are not quite 'punished', at least do not quite get a happy ending - and those who have suffered the most from the effects of 'free love' are given some modicum of contentment. After 270 pages of questioning the status quo, to have it firmly defended in the final 20 is a bit of a downer.
Still, it's high time Hadley garners that elusive Booker nomination, and there is enough in this to think it might just do the trick this time round - the Guardian certainly seems to think so:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/202...
https://www.theguardian.com/books/202...
August 31, 2023
Allora, non trovo l'edizione in italiano di bompiani che ho letto io, e uso questa.
Ho letto tre libri della Hadley, mia recente scoperta, e ne ho amato davvero solo uno, quello letto in inglese. Quindi, a sto giro, mi sono un po' seccata e mi sono presa la briga di rileggere l'incipit in inglese e di tradurmelo io. Ora, posto che la traduzione è un'impresa ardua quindi tutta la mia ammirazione ai traduttori, in tre pagine che ho letto io ho trovato tante di quelle cose che non andavano che mi sembrava di star leggendo due libri diversi.
La Hadley ha una prosa asciutta piena di aggettivi precisi molto difficili da rendere in italiano, ma non credo che scegliere una prosa romanzata e svoltando (o saltando) le frasi si riesca a rendere nel modo corretto. Insomma, avrei dovuto leggere in inglese perché in italiano il romanzo mi ha lasciato tiepidina, non è che proprio mi abbia sconvolto.
Ho letto tre libri della Hadley, mia recente scoperta, e ne ho amato davvero solo uno, quello letto in inglese. Quindi, a sto giro, mi sono un po' seccata e mi sono presa la briga di rileggere l'incipit in inglese e di tradurmelo io. Ora, posto che la traduzione è un'impresa ardua quindi tutta la mia ammirazione ai traduttori, in tre pagine che ho letto io ho trovato tante di quelle cose che non andavano che mi sembrava di star leggendo due libri diversi.
La Hadley ha una prosa asciutta piena di aggettivi precisi molto difficili da rendere in italiano, ma non credo che scegliere una prosa romanzata e svoltando (o saltando) le frasi si riesca a rendere nel modo corretto. Insomma, avrei dovuto leggere in inglese perché in italiano il romanzo mi ha lasciato tiepidina, non è che proprio mi abbia sconvolto.
February 8, 2022
I am at a loss as to how to begin this review. FREE LOVE is my first Tessa Hadley novel. The synopsis sounds promising. My experience was not.
It is a story set in London in the 1960s with Phyllis, a homemaker experiencing a sexual awakening, as the narrator.
I had trouble connecting with the story due to the writing style. It is not a style I’m used to I suppose. The story feels old-fashioned and with a lot of filler. It is flat without any pizzazz to drive the plot. I found myself skimming more times than not, just to get to the good part. Lo and behold, I never found it.
The dialogue between characters is hard to follow as it is a series of dashes with no indication of who is speaking nor to whom.
The characters never felt authentic to me; they were bland and lackluster.
Alas FREE LOVE is not my cup of tea!
I would like to thank Netgalley and the publisher of this advanced digital copy for the opportunity to read this novel in exchange for an honest review! All opinions expressed are my own. Upon publishing of this novel, I will also be posting my review to Amazon Canada.
It is a story set in London in the 1960s with Phyllis, a homemaker experiencing a sexual awakening, as the narrator.
I had trouble connecting with the story due to the writing style. It is not a style I’m used to I suppose. The story feels old-fashioned and with a lot of filler. It is flat without any pizzazz to drive the plot. I found myself skimming more times than not, just to get to the good part. Lo and behold, I never found it.
The dialogue between characters is hard to follow as it is a series of dashes with no indication of who is speaking nor to whom.
The characters never felt authentic to me; they were bland and lackluster.
Alas FREE LOVE is not my cup of tea!
I would like to thank Netgalley and the publisher of this advanced digital copy for the opportunity to read this novel in exchange for an honest review! All opinions expressed are my own. Upon publishing of this novel, I will also be posting my review to Amazon Canada.
March 20, 2022
3.5. I didn’t like it quite as much as Late in the Day, but still found the quiet style comforting. Hadley is an astute observer of humans, and the sense of time and place was skilfully drawn.
October 11, 2023
It's 1967 and we are introduced to the Fischers. Phylis, Roger and their two children, teenager Collette and nine year old Hugh. Roger works at the foreign office whilst Phylis is a housewife. They live an idyllic life in a gorgeous home.
When the Fischers invite a twenty year old son of an old friend to their dinner party, their suburban bubble is about to burst.
Phylis and the young man Nicholas Knight exchange a passionate kiss whilst out in the garden. This incident triggers a sexual awakening and she abandons bourgeois comfort for a covert affair. Phylis makes a decision which will change all of her family's lives forever.
Along the way we see the fall out in her family and there is a huge revelation which I definitely was not expecting.
This is my first Hadley novel that I have read and will not be my last.
Thank you to Netgalley for my copy in exchange for an honest review.
When the Fischers invite a twenty year old son of an old friend to their dinner party, their suburban bubble is about to burst.
Phylis and the young man Nicholas Knight exchange a passionate kiss whilst out in the garden. This incident triggers a sexual awakening and she abandons bourgeois comfort for a covert affair. Phylis makes a decision which will change all of her family's lives forever.
Along the way we see the fall out in her family and there is a huge revelation which I definitely was not expecting.
This is my first Hadley novel that I have read and will not be my last.
Thank you to Netgalley for my copy in exchange for an honest review.
December 25, 2022
This took a while to get into, but once it reached the first significant turning point, the plot became more interesting and surprising and the choices the author made, more thought provoking.
In essence, a woman living a conventional life as housewife, her husband works in the Foreign Office, steps out of the role she has been wed to, when a friends son comes to visit. This encounter leads to numerous consequences that will affect everyone in the family.
The choices the woman makes are surprising and daring, and just when we think she is the only one capable of making such counter conventional choices, there is another twist in the story.
At times, it was difficult to believe, but it was interesting to imagine a conventional housewife having such courage or impulsivity to do what she did.
It reminded me very much of Brian Moore's The Doctor's Wife.
In essence, a woman living a conventional life as housewife, her husband works in the Foreign Office, steps out of the role she has been wed to, when a friends son comes to visit. This encounter leads to numerous consequences that will affect everyone in the family.
The choices the woman makes are surprising and daring, and just when we think she is the only one capable of making such counter conventional choices, there is another twist in the story.
At times, it was difficult to believe, but it was interesting to imagine a conventional housewife having such courage or impulsivity to do what she did.
It reminded me very much of Brian Moore's The Doctor's Wife.
March 16, 2022
From the blurb this sounded interesting --or else I wouldn't have bought the book to begin with: "one woman's sexual and intellectual awakening in 1960s London". There isn't much of the latter though. The story comes across as tedious and dull, and the plot is really contrived and seems to have gotten its inspiration from an improbable soap or telenovela. It's really just a woman having a midlife crisis, rather than an(y) awakening.
This was my first Hadley, and I won't be reaching for another one anytime soon I'm afraid.
This was my first Hadley, and I won't be reaching for another one anytime soon I'm afraid.
March 14, 2025
After finishing the Heat Waves I asked Chatgbt for similar books and authors, and this was what I got. This is the type of novel you want to read. The one that is easily read, but meaningful. The author reminds me a lot of Anne Tyler, maybe not how she writes, but what I feel when I read her work, when I am in my comfort zone.
The story unfolds in the late 60s, when calling someone on the phone was yet so unusual, where what type of shirt to wear depends on who is giving the party.
It’s marvelous to read about ordinary life. Yes, the house has servants, but they are backstage. The family is so relatable, so perfect with all its flaws. I love how the ordinary life description can be so captivating to read. There is drama, but the drama is perfectly turned into a story twist.
The relationships within the family are so polite between the spouses and so cozy and warm with the children. At first it seems so dull but upon pondering, it looks so natural, as if they grew up together.
I loved their family relationships, not as a husband and wife, as a child and parent, but as a family, where you don’t assign roles, you see the family with merged members as a watercolor painting.
The book portrays interesting times. The book explores how capitalism reshapes family dynamics, often straining the relationship between husband and wife.
It illustrates how economic pressures diminish women's roles in both society and the household, forcing them into a constant battle for recognition and autonomy.
Through the lens of a married couple, Hadley highlights the erosion of traditional gender roles, revealing the silent struggles women face in balancing familial duties with their individual aspirations.
While reading, I was trying to figure out if the author hates Phyllis, at least subconsciously. It’s interesting how the author sees the betrayal not only of the husband, but also children, the whole family. After her disappearance, Hadley shows how family copes without her. It’s all those small things.
I didn’t hate or love Phyllis, didn’t try to judge her. Considering the coolness and the partial indifference of her husband I just accepted her actions.
It's not easy to create a neutral character. I bow to her skill of balancing motivations and emotions without leaning too heavily in one direction.
Phyllis walks toward adventure and passion.
But also it’s a cry for a change of the previous life, for freedom, getting rid of the role she was assigned in the capitalist society.
For me Nicky wasn’t a person, he was the representation of Phyllis’ freedom. She didn’t belong with him in the sense of her own person.
I loved Hugh – a sweet boy stuck between childhood and forced adolescence. I like his relationship with his mother at the beginning.
Few bookish characters manage not to annoy me and Charlotte was just about right.
Halfway through the book, I was still struggling to figure out the husband. Sometimes he seemed a loving husband who was grieving his wife’s absence, but sometimes he was a cool stone.
I adored this book, admired the author, appreciated her writing, and cherished the cozy comfort zone she created for me.
5 stars because I was completely convinced—by every action, the plot, and the ending.
The story unfolds in the late 60s, when calling someone on the phone was yet so unusual, where what type of shirt to wear depends on who is giving the party.
It’s marvelous to read about ordinary life. Yes, the house has servants, but they are backstage. The family is so relatable, so perfect with all its flaws. I love how the ordinary life description can be so captivating to read. There is drama, but the drama is perfectly turned into a story twist.
The relationships within the family are so polite between the spouses and so cozy and warm with the children. At first it seems so dull but upon pondering, it looks so natural, as if they grew up together.
"There was a lot to be said for these companionable married exchanges: low-voiced and sensible, friendly, worn into their groove, each partner attuned through long familiarity to the needs of the other."
I loved their family relationships, not as a husband and wife, as a child and parent, but as a family, where you don’t assign roles, you see the family with merged members as a watercolor painting.
The book portrays interesting times. The book explores how capitalism reshapes family dynamics, often straining the relationship between husband and wife.
“She'd begun joking recently about becoming an old woman: she'd pictured herself sliding across serenely into middle age, fulfilled and busy with her house and her hobbies. But all this cheerful resignation, she recognised now, had been a sham, mere self-deception."
It illustrates how economic pressures diminish women's roles in both society and the household, forcing them into a constant battle for recognition and autonomy.
"She mustn't spoil her new happiness, she thought, by falling back into these patterns, cleaning up and organizing things, arranging the furniture more attractively. In her old life she'd been only half alive: too busy perfecting the appearance of herself and her home for others to admire. Now she was taking her first faltering steps away from that falsehood."
Through the lens of a married couple, Hadley highlights the erosion of traditional gender roles, revealing the silent struggles women face in balancing familial duties with their individual aspirations.
While reading, I was trying to figure out if the author hates Phyllis, at least subconsciously. It’s interesting how the author sees the betrayal not only of the husband, but also children, the whole family. After her disappearance, Hadley shows how family copes without her. It’s all those small things.
"A muffling blanket of desolation descended on the house, wrapping up all of them separately with their own thoughts - even while Colette and Hugh sat side by side on the sofa, both laughing at the same jokes on the television."
"All this weight of the happy family past, shut up inside their photographs."
I didn’t hate or love Phyllis, didn’t try to judge her. Considering the coolness and the partial indifference of her husband I just accepted her actions.
"Morality she pictured as an inexorable mill grinding out its judgements, irrefutable but ugly, like the machinery in a factory, alien to the subtlety of her inner life. She knew that her betrayal of her husband and children was wrong, but in the same impersonal dulled way that she knew from school about the Treaty of Vienna, or the abolition of the Corn Laws."
It's not easy to create a neutral character. I bow to her skill of balancing motivations and emotions without leaning too heavily in one direction.
Phyllis walks toward adventure and passion.
"Yet when they were naked they couldn't quite look at each other without compromise: their glances skidded away obliquely. They were always polite, even when they quarrelled. There was no point in picnicking under the night sky with Roger because it could go nowhere new, could only be a pretence of romance."
But also it’s a cry for a change of the previous life, for freedom, getting rid of the role she was assigned in the capitalist society.
"Now the intimacy of this new music pierced and enveloped her. She might never have found out, if she hadn't met Nicky - if she hadn't sought him out, and followed him here, leaving everything behind - that this new shape of being existed: the glamour of it and its seductive invitation, careless and mocking and free."
"She was filled up with the music's beauty and its emotion, with her new full life and her own deep, interesting story. It didn't matter if this had come to her too late, when she was already forty. There was only this moment, this joy now."
For me Nicky wasn’t a person, he was the representation of Phyllis’ freedom. She didn’t belong with him in the sense of her own person.
I loved Hugh – a sweet boy stuck between childhood and forced adolescence. I like his relationship with his mother at the beginning.
"The room was full of his childhood, broken off abruptly, left as if he meant to resume just where he'd left it, when he came back from school."
Few bookish characters manage not to annoy me and Charlotte was just about right.
Halfway through the book, I was still struggling to figure out the husband. Sometimes he seemed a loving husband who was grieving his wife’s absence, but sometimes he was a cool stone.
"His heart was not broken, without Phyllis; she had not been the companion of his heart. He would miss how pleasantly she had kept his home, that was all, he thought, with his new coldness. And he felt the humiliation of her leaving him, and the deep inconvenience; he loathed the idea of explaining his situation to anyone."
I adored this book, admired the author, appreciated her writing, and cherished the cozy comfort zone she created for me.
"More adventures awaited her, she was still alive."
5 stars because I was completely convinced—by every action, the plot, and the ending.
April 10, 2022
For some reason 1960s London is not of much interest to me. It may be uncharacteristic of my age and social standing to feel this way, but I'm not drawn to the turbulence and mess of it all, the sex drugs and rock and roll... I'd have been unlikely to pick this book up if it hadn't have been by Tessa Hadley, with whom I always feel in safe hands. Immediately upon beginning to read the first page of Free Love, I felt myself relax. Hadley's writing feels to me like coming home.
My favourite thing about this book is Colette's coming-of-age. I love Colette's inner world; her crush on her English teacher (is this an experience all us bookish people share?) is so easily diluted once the boundaries of her world expand. I feel like Tessa Hadley has a preoccupation with similar sensations and shades of feeling as I do, and her books indulge me by putting these subtle human experiences into words. An example, when Colette is feeding the cat for her neighbours who are away, she enters the room of the dull girl who attends her school:
Straight away you care about Colette because you are her, in those ordinary moments of existence. It's these snapshots of suburban life in The Home Counties and the sensitivity with which they're drawn that I appreciate the most. Hadley's afterword is spot on. She writes:
Feelings and sensations seem stronger, somehow, when they're bubbling under the surface and I'm endlessly attracted to writing that feels really full.
Now for the runaway housewife. I'm all for questioning the status quo, and yet Phyllis casting off all her responsibilities, even if in a bid to become more politically aware - which she only slightly does - made me cringe. Is it not possible to broaden your mind without abandoning your children without explanation? Yes it's a tale as old as time, and unlike other authors taking on similar stories Hadley doesn't moralise too much, which I respect. Personally though I couldn't help wanting to spend more time reading about Roger, Colette and poor little Hugh than with silly Phylly and Nicky with his smelly feet and unwashed hair.
My favourite thing about this book is Colette's coming-of-age. I love Colette's inner world; her crush on her English teacher (is this an experience all us bookish people share?) is so easily diluted once the boundaries of her world expand. I feel like Tessa Hadley has a preoccupation with similar sensations and shades of feeling as I do, and her books indulge me by putting these subtle human experiences into words. An example, when Colette is feeding the cat for her neighbours who are away, she enters the room of the dull girl who attends her school:
Yet in Anthea's bedroom, poking through her things, Colette was moved: the material evidence of a life was eloquently suggestive, as long as you didn't have the life thrust in your face. She thought how it would feel to be in here if the Chidgelys, all five of them, had been wiped out in a car accident in Switzerland. Anthea's collection of costume dolls under those circumstances would seem poignant, eloquent.
Straight away you care about Colette because you are her, in those ordinary moments of existence. It's these snapshots of suburban life in The Home Counties and the sensitivity with which they're drawn that I appreciate the most. Hadley's afterword is spot on. She writes:
As I worked on the novel I was so drawn to imagining that Home Countries bourgeois world. I felt its rich mystique as well as its comedy, and loved writing about it - its tameness and its routines, [...] the safe municipal park with the keeper in his hut, where the teenagers wait for their lives to start. So much that's mysterious is held in tension under this polite and reasonable surface: those wild children, carried away in their imaginary games, tearing between the houses, disrespecting boundaries [...] Tensions and contradictions, repressed inside the constraining frame of bourgeois life, are famously good for literature: 'life with the lid on,' Elizabeth Bowen called it.
Feelings and sensations seem stronger, somehow, when they're bubbling under the surface and I'm endlessly attracted to writing that feels really full.
Now for the runaway housewife. I'm all for questioning the status quo, and yet Phyllis casting off all her responsibilities, even if in a bid to become more politically aware - which she only slightly does - made me cringe. Is it not possible to broaden your mind without abandoning your children without explanation? Yes it's a tale as old as time, and unlike other authors taking on similar stories Hadley doesn't moralise too much, which I respect. Personally though I couldn't help wanting to spend more time reading about Roger, Colette and poor little Hugh than with silly Phylly and Nicky with his smelly feet and unwashed hair.
December 5, 2022
interesting novel of forbidden love based in late 1960's London
November 11, 2023
londra
anni 60
amore contro le convenzioni
sgt. pepper’s in sottofondo
con me, mrs. Tessa Hadley vince facile, e infatti ho comprato subito il libro.
Che poi mi è piaciuto fino a un certo punto, per l’impressione - magari sbagliata, non lo so - che fosse più il racconto di come vengono raccontati gli anni 60 che una storia veramente radicata là, in quel passato che le persone della mia generazione hanno solo sfiorato. C’erano veramente giovani signore con il tailleur color pastello ed il filo di perle che mollavano il monotono benessere, il placido marito, i figli poco più che bambini, per andare in una comune lercia, in compagnia di gente che le guardava con stupore, curiosità, degnazione, e totale estraneità ? Sinceramente ne dubito.
Però mi ha affascinata la descrizione di un quartiere che oggi è fra i più desiderabili ed economicamente inaccessibili della città, all’epoca in cui andarci era una specie di viaggio, e non dei più raccomandabili. Mi piace constatare il passare del tempo attraverso il cambiamento delle città, o - all’inverso - ritrovare le città come erano prima che il tempo passasse. Il libro mi è piaciuto meno, ma non è male.
anni 60
amore contro le convenzioni
sgt. pepper’s in sottofondo
con me, mrs. Tessa Hadley vince facile, e infatti ho comprato subito il libro.
Che poi mi è piaciuto fino a un certo punto, per l’impressione - magari sbagliata, non lo so - che fosse più il racconto di come vengono raccontati gli anni 60 che una storia veramente radicata là, in quel passato che le persone della mia generazione hanno solo sfiorato. C’erano veramente giovani signore con il tailleur color pastello ed il filo di perle che mollavano il monotono benessere, il placido marito, i figli poco più che bambini, per andare in una comune lercia, in compagnia di gente che le guardava con stupore, curiosità, degnazione, e totale estraneità ? Sinceramente ne dubito.
Però mi ha affascinata la descrizione di un quartiere che oggi è fra i più desiderabili ed economicamente inaccessibili della città, all’epoca in cui andarci era una specie di viaggio, e non dei più raccomandabili. Mi piace constatare il passare del tempo attraverso il cambiamento delle città, o - all’inverso - ritrovare le città come erano prima che il tempo passasse. Il libro mi è piaciuto meno, ma non è male.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 797 reviews