lark’s review of Life of M > Likes and Comments
44 likes · Like
I, do not
The prepublication reviews are so contradictory
If you like sharp and elegant prose in service of some pretty mundane ideas about the nature of celebrity and the inauthenticity of modern life, go for it. Also there are lots and lots of descriptions of interior design. M. Is recognizably Natalie Portman but any real or imagined celebrity could have been used to make the same points.
Thanks, Lynne.
There is a very unkind profile of Rachel Cusk in this week’s New York Times Magazine. I ended up disliking the person who wrote the piece more than I did Rachel Cusk.
I just read the review in the New York Times book section and I couldn't figure out if the person reviewing it liked the book or not all they wanted to do is draw parallels between Natalie, Portman and M.. useless review in my opinion
Sherri wrote: "II couldn't figure out if the person reviewing it liked the book or not all they wanted to do is draw parallels between Natalie, Portman and M.. useless review in my opinion.."
yes, I think it’s a shame. It feels likely to me that Rachek Cusk was intrigued by the concept of a life lived so publicly and wrote a novel about it and it’s easier for journalists to write trite gossipy stuff than to actually deal with the book in front of them.
Call me a Philistine, but I far prefer Cusk's earlier novels to her more recent attempts to "subvert the genre" or whatever this is.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Nataliya
(new)
Aug 17, 2026 03:04PM
I, do not
reply
|
flag
The prepublication reviews are so contradictory
If you like sharp and elegant prose in service of some pretty mundane ideas about the nature of celebrity and the inauthenticity of modern life, go for it. Also there are lots and lots of descriptions of interior design. M. Is recognizably Natalie Portman but any real or imagined celebrity could have been used to make the same points.
Thanks, Lynne. There is a very unkind profile of Rachel Cusk in this week’s New York Times Magazine. I ended up disliking the person who wrote the piece more than I did Rachel Cusk.
I just read the review in the New York Times book section and I couldn't figure out if the person reviewing it liked the book or not all they wanted to do is draw parallels between Natalie, Portman and M.. useless review in my opinion
Sherri wrote: "II couldn't figure out if the person reviewing it liked the book or not all they wanted to do is draw parallels between Natalie, Portman and M.. useless review in my opinion.."yes, I think it’s a shame. It feels likely to me that Rachek Cusk was intrigued by the concept of a life lived so publicly and wrote a novel about it and it’s easier for journalists to write trite gossipy stuff than to actually deal with the book in front of them.
Call me a Philistine, but I far prefer Cusk's earlier novels to her more recent attempts to "subvert the genre" or whatever this is.