Well, I know I'm probably in the minority here, but I didn't love it. The characters were interesting, and the plot was compelling enough to keep me rWell, I know I'm probably in the minority here, but I didn't love it. The characters were interesting, and the plot was compelling enough to keep me reading, but I didn't think the whole was very well-crafted. I thought it was kind of insulting to women, though I doubt that was intentional.
At first, I liked it well enough. A book dedicated to librarians and set in a famous library? Great! At the beginning, I thought Laura's 1914 plot was more interesting than Sadie's 1992 plot, so I was delighted to see that the more I read, the more I warmed to Sadie's story. I thought the characters there felt genuine, and I enjoyed the journey. I liked that the author took her time with it. I liked that it kept my interest.
Then, the 1914 plot sort of derailed. That storyline's protagonist, Laura, is a married mother of two who is studying to be a journalist so she can help support her family. On the way, she stumbles into a plethora of feminist clichés. I don't say that lightly. I remember being in college and studying history, and we looked (among other things) at the feminist movement and the criticism it drew. There wasn't anyone in my class, as far as I know, who felt women shouldn't vote or shouldn't have jobs, so it was easy for us to kind of roll our eyes at some of the fears of the times. For example, (1) from the mid-1800s, the idea that women shouldn't pursue higher education because they can't handle being told they're wrong. (2) From 1860s-ish, a source suggesting women shouldn't have careers outside the home because they'll be corrupted by sin. (3) From circa 1920, the fear that women shouldn't vote because there will be no one to look after the children. And then, of course, there were the fears the other direction, that (4) powerful men are awful, and that (5) any problem is eclipsed by the larger problem of sexism. As cheap as these criticisms may sound, I hate to say this book reinforced every single one of them.
I get it; things were hard for Laura. Women of my generation have the benefit of seeing how older generations of women balanced work and family. Laura was forging her own path. Fine. But could she have been just a little less TSTL? Take her studies. She and her family sacrificed so much so that she could study journalism. This was, she thought, her career choice. Journalism is what she felt called to do. She took an ethics course. She was told, repeatedly, that journalism was a means of reporting facts, and the she needed to be as objective as possible in her writing. I could tell Laura didn't like factual journalism; she would have been much happier editorializing or working as an activist, but she didn't complain or try to change fields. She just went on through her classes, nodding her head at everything she was told, and then she didn't follow directions on her final project—she gave opinions instead of the objective, factual write-up she had been assigned—and wound up failing. Well, good? I mean, she deserved it. She chose not meet the course's requirements. Then she failed the course. Any sort of learning requires humility, and Laura, for all her gifts, lacks the ability to accept that just because she wants something, that makes it correct. I'm not saying her feelings were wrong, nor that she was wrong to voice them. But she was clearly wrong to turn a specific assignment into her own forum after being expressly told that that particular project was to be an objective description. She was wrong to be so narcissistic as to think that just because she felt it strongly, that made it okay for the project. She was wrong to disregard what the teacher told her just because she didn't like it. She was also wrong to fight the professor after the fact, instead of taking the just criticism. She was wrong to blame her failure on the people around her. Incidentally, I also blame the author here. The problem was Laura's refusal to follow the school's rules, so naturally there had to be a scene showing her teacher as obviously sexist and prejudiced. Why? So his flaws would eclipse Laura's, so that misogyny could steal the scene as the biggest of all problems, and so readers would be distracted from Laura's shortcomings by focusing on someone else's. See numbers (4) and (5) above. That's kind of a cop-out.
It gets worse: Laura herself reinforces a whole bunch of anti-feminism clichés. She couldn't handle school because she didn't want to follow someone else's directions. She started meeting with people to learn about feminism, which led (not kidding!) to moral decline: taking advantage of her mother's time as a free babysitter, lying to her husband about her whereabouts, lying to her friends about her intentions, and invading their privacy for her own gain. As she got better at her journalism, she got more and more impatient with her husband in his work. She became rude, teasing him on purpose about things that bothered him, and she started breaking promises that she had made to him. And the whole time, he seemed to think that all their troubles were somehow his fault; the crueler she was to him, the more he trusted her. She spent time away from her children, oblivious to the troubles that were plaguing them. If the goal here was to show that educating women makes them rude or self-seeking, or turns them into liars, or destroys the home, well good job, Fiona Davis, you nailed it. At the end of the novel, Laura's family (including Laura) is plunged into tragedy because of her. But if she'd stayed a stereotypical, obedient, stay-at-home housewife, everyone would have been happy (including Laura). So the upshot is that anti-feminism is bad. Sexism is bad. (Powerful men are bad.) But also, feminism is bad, and women studying and working is bad. Call me crazy, but I believe it's possible for men to care for their families and for family members to love one another. I believe that men with families can be upright and caring. I also believe that women are capable of studying and working (and yes, being feminist) without sacrificing their honor, character, or morality. I don't believe the patriarchy is incompatible with happiness, nor do I believe that feminism is incompatible with kindness.
Still, if this were as far as it went, Davis might have been able to pull it off. It might have been an illuminating portrait of a more corrupt side of feminism. In a world where little girls are told that they can do or be anything, this would be a novel to show the responsibility and the cost that comes with that power. And in that case, readers—whether feminist or not, whether they agree or not—might appreciate the story that explores those views. Such a story would show one woman's journey as she discovers herself and loses everything in the process. Laura would be seduced by the Dark Side of the Force and become Darth Laura, and I would have been impressed by her strength and sorry for the loss of her innocence and disturbed by the ease with which she let go of the things that are good. But she is not Darth Laura. She is, bizarrely, one of the story's heroes (still!) and all her selfishness seems less a character flaw and more a badge of honor. What a weird little book!
The good: • The setting • The emphasis on books • The insight into rare books (I'm sure that was a lot to research) • The writing, specifically the way the rare books fit the story. The research and the details felt natural and not at all forced. • The way the author took her time telling the story. • The character interactions, especially in the 1992 plotline. I liked the genuine warmth between Sadie and her brother, and I especially liked the sister-in-law. I'm glad this novel avoided clichés like the evil in-law trope; the SIL here was a real class act, and it was refreshing.
As for the rest, just enjoy the story, but don't take it too seriously....more
Well this was interesting. It's a look at different (male) "geniuses" from history and the things that they've said regarding women. It's an illustratWell this was interesting. It's a look at different (male) "geniuses" from history and the things that they've said regarding women. It's an illustrated depiction of some of these observations, in all their ridiculous glory. (Did they not hear themselves? Did they know what they were saying?) It's a nod to accomplished women who have somehow not made it into the history books. It's a reminder of how difficult things have been for women—for all women, but especially women of color.
The illustrations are amazing, and Fleming approaches the subject with the perfect amount of snark. Laugh-out-loud funny in some places, and very moving in others. Be prepared to roll your eyes in a couple spots. 4.5 stars, rounded up because of the humor....more
Funny and irreverent, and highly informative, Therese Oneill has done it again! This fitting sequel to Unmentionable has a much different format and aFunny and irreverent, and highly informative, Therese Oneill has done it again! This fitting sequel to Unmentionable has a much different format and a slightly different tone, but I am happy to report that the snark is as strong as ever. In this unflinching look at Victorian parenting practices, told as a dialogue, many different aspects of parenting are explored. You might laugh, you might cry, but you’ll definitely learn something from this unforgettable historical sojourn. I would eagerly read another installment in this wholly unique series....more
3.5 stars. The content was great, but the writing wasn’t.
This book can tell you just about everything you ever wanted to know about Amazons; it explor3.5 stars. The content was great, but the writing wasn’t.
This book can tell you just about everything you ever wanted to know about Amazons; it explores the myths of warrior women from Ancient Greece and after, but it also chronicles actual groups of women fighters from throughout history. It shows what was real and what wasn’t, and it offers some very detailed glimpses of a few key moments. This book is also meticulously researched. That said, the writing is difficult to follow. There are not a lot of dates given (possibly to make it more readable) but it just makes things more confusing. This happened, and then two months later, that happened; then some years after this, so-and-so died, but before she died, she did this, that, and the other—I’m sorry, but when are we? Things might have made more sense if it had been told chronologically. There are also a few moments of carelessness. He occasionally oversimplifies to the point of distortion. He’s not objective; he very clearly respects the people he’s writing about, and that’s a good thing. However, he has a bad habit of stating his own opinions as though they were fact. He doesn’t do it much, but he shouldn’t do it at all. This is good history, and it deserved a better book, but John Man clearly put a lot of work into his research, and this informative volume is worth reading.a...more
This book is amazing. I liked its length; it took its time to develop interesting characters and recreate the details of the time period. It was a wonThis book is amazing. I liked its length; it took its time to develop interesting characters and recreate the details of the time period. It was a wonderful book for being immersed in the past, and it seemed very reminiscent of Downton Abbey, with its depictions of the war, of the wealthy (and not-so-wealthy) families, and of the difficulties of navigating the dangerous waters of society. I also liked the book very much for what wasn't said. This book reminds me somewhat of Hemingway in that Simonson clearly understands the power of subtlety; although she is no minimalist, she obviously knows that what is left out can be more powerful than what's put in, and she uses it to great advantage. The heroine, Beatrice, is a strong woman but never a cliché, and Hugh's gentle nature is a breath of fresh air. I also thought the LGTB romance was beautifully developed and very moving, and again, it's all the more powerful for how much goes unsaid. A beautiful and poignant book....more
This was a nice idea, but the execution could have been better. Its strongest feature is the diversity in the women depicted: old and young; single anThis was a nice idea, but the execution could have been better. Its strongest feature is the diversity in the women depicted: old and young; single and married; rich and poor; spanning many centuries; women of different ethnicities and nationalities—this work shows a very broad spectrum, and it does not shrink from mammoth task of representing women throughout human history. I also like that it doesn’t take a moral stand. Here are women who ignored the conventions of their times, but not all of them are heroes. It’s up to the reader to learn about their accomplishments and see their place in history—regardless of the type of role model each woman was (or wasn’t). For example, one of the women mentioned here was a slave-owner who helped John Wilkes Booth. Another woman mentioned was Harriet Tubman. Two radically different women who were motivated by completely different forces—one a villain and one a hero—and I never expected to find them side-by-side in a history book. This book doesn’t “side” with either of them; it simply lists some of their accomplishments. Some of these women made the world a better place. Others didn’t.
Perhaps the biggest flaw is the limited space. Each woman gets only one page, which is only a handful of sentences, so there is very little historical context for any of them. For this reason, some of the quotes from these women are robbed of their power. Worse, some of the most interesting and groundbreaking things that they did are not even mentioned. For example, Eleanor of Aquitaine was “uppity” and ahead of her time in many respects, but you wouldn’t necessarily know that from reading this book. She was a duchess in her own right, and she controlled many lands in her own name, but that isn’t mentioned here. Because of this, she was a very eligible lady, but that also isn’t mentioned. When she split with her first husband, the king of France, she was able to retain the rights to her land—also not mentioned. What is mentioned is how powerful her husbands were. She went to war herself, leading some 300 women in the Second Crusade. That is utterly amazing to me, but it isn’t mentioned here. Instead, this book talks about her son, King Richard the Lionheart. Yes, her son was interesting, but so was she. I wanted to read more about her. Instead, I learned about three of her male relatives. Reading this book was like looking at a photograph that focuses on the wrong object. It was interesting, of course, but it could have been so much better....more
I really enjoyed this. I was never one to view the 19th century with rose-colored glasses, so this book, revealing the disgusting underside of 1800s gI really enjoyed this. I was never one to view the 19th century with rose-colored glasses, so this book, revealing the disgusting underside of 1800s glory, was right up my alley. It answered a lot of questions, such as how women used the bathroom in those elaborate hoop skirts (carefully), or what kind of underwear could possibly weigh 7 pounds (mostly corsets, hoops skirts, and petticoats . . . yikes!). Why did women ride sidesaddle? I found out in chapter 1, and it wasn’t what I’d thought! I learned about 19-century diseases, medical practices, fashions, customs, courtships, and domesticity. I learned about John Snow’s discovery regarding the connection between disease and sanitation, and I learned about John Kellogg’s bizarre and conflicting views of female sexuality. It was a very eye-opening bit of history, and the narrator’s snark is icing on the cake....more
A very interesting and compelling read. I would have preferred more footnotes and citations in the body of the text, but at the end of the book, TelfeA very interesting and compelling read. I would have preferred more footnotes and citations in the body of the text, but at the end of the book, Telfer gives meticulous end notes.
This was very readable and interesting; Telfer does a good job of making the women in the chapters come alive. I also like the selection of killers in the book; they come from different countries and from different centuries, and they hail from all different backgrounds. All in all, very informative and eye-opening....more
This books is amazing. It's about fairy tales (kinda), but mostly it's about the modern teenage girl and the everyday pitfalls of everyday life. It's This books is amazing. It's about fairy tales (kinda), but mostly it's about the modern teenage girl and the everyday pitfalls of everyday life. It's dark and morbid and edgy, but most of all it's very well-written. Twisting the too-happy, too-cute fairy tale ideas to line them up with the darker side of human nature--this collection of poems is jarring and disturbing, and it addresses everything from acne to anorexia, from high school to guy trouble, starring heroines from all walks of life.
Loading...
