It's quite old but to me very useful. I think we need more disability studies to inform education as wellIt's quite old but to me very useful. I think we need more disability studies to inform education as well...more
I did really really try to like this book. I wanted to like it because it was about women and on the surface it was about relationships between women.I did really really try to like this book. I wanted to like it because it was about women and on the surface it was about relationships between women. There were no spinsters or lesbians. There were sisters (in Hanna's generation) and female friendships but these were left underdeveloped, background for the husband-wife dynamics which were pretty bleak.
Despite rape and DV, lack of sexual pleasure and lack of freedom/trust the author was so thoroughly committed to rehabilitating the heterosexual family institution that she made multiple excuses for the men centred mostly on mothers but also a Freudian passage where Anna speculates about whether she is "castrating" toward her husband. I did try to read that in it's context as the understanding of the time which she works through and leaves behind but she kept returning to it as she related to her dying parents. Other excuses for men were being too attractive, being a good provider, not understanding things, the wife being stupid, the wife being emotionally inaccessible/frigid and "yes they are flawed but we love them anyway" which seems to be the conclusion reached after all the meandering.
Do we? Not all of us do! The women keep talking themselves back into their marriages, back into their roles and there is a sense of fatalism like it needs to and must be that way, like there is some essentialist force, like that is the whole point of life-and-death. Everything else changes but what does not change is heterosexuality and birth. Careers are back-burner compared to that. There are artefacts. Men have cars and boats, women have jewellery and furtniture (made or provided by men).
I did try to see past all that, to see that as historical detail and see that there was something else there but if there was it was hidden by the insistant no matter what returning to heterosexuality. There was also a tendency to see the same archetypes (by gender but not necessarily blood) through the generations - Rickard is like Ragnar....etc....I guess maybe that's Jungian the archetype thing. It's sort of feminism but for me it falls short of saying anything meaningful and also if it's feminism then why are the women so uninterested in anything other than trying to rehabilitate their relationships with violet, neglectful or faithless men?
I just looked at the date, it is a very old book. In the 90s I think this was all more in context. I guess I sort of understand now. But...I'm not up for more....more
The world building was mostly good apart from tediously gendered. At first I thought the gendered nonsense was the whole point, because here and thereThe world building was mostly good apart from tediously gendered. At first I thought the gendered nonsense was the whole point, because here and there a female character broke through the dominant narrative a little bit but over the very long, extremely slow moving book this was neutralised by some sort of internalised misogyny which was mild at first but layered over so many times it became more and more obvious.
The worst part was the romance. For starters the context of it was this essentialistic heterosexuality with the god/goddess men are the sun women are the moon nonsense which at first seems complex and nuanced (maybe) the imbalances seem like they might be part of the predicament but oh no! So then you have the protagonist (just barely a protagonist), Eleanor. She is portrayed as selfish, vain, shallow and childish. This point is laboured again and again. At first you think - maybe this is to show the contrast with the world she has come to...but not really.
She's in the context of the sour and barren (that word is even used) Nerissa and the childishly caring , beloved (dead) Karis. Later we get the completely vapid but supposedly beautiful Mariana. Eleanor is set up as being a "bad woman" one who is useless and will be punished/humiliated by the plot. I told myself I was being too cynical and paranoid and kept reading.
Enter Lukas, taciturn, grumpy, capable, self-sufficient, disapproving, kind of brutal but portrayed as somehow attractive to Eleanor. Ugh. It seems obvious what is going to happen. No. Lukas has a love interest. Phew. Lucky escape for Eleanor although she gets broody/jealous about it in a way that makes little sense. Eleanor's rival gets abruptly fried by the goddess for no good reason (dead wives abound in this book BTW). Lukas now hates Eleanor and blames her for it. She is sad because he is attractive (eye rolling from me as reader).
Later on he punches her in the face. She realises she deserved it. He realises she is attractive with a bruised face and they decide they are in forever love (without the relationship at any point having been good). UGH. DV portrayed as valid mating habits. Then she teaches him how to play chess and he is instantly much better at it than her. He goes hunting and gathering in their "eden" and she is making useless sandcastles and insisting she wants to be passive and decorate things. I have met women who want to be passive and spend their lives decorating things but in te book this is portrayed as "natural". Men are active, women are forced to choose when things happen to them.
More eye rolling. Also in the real world as I was reading that part and already horrified a real life celebrity woman was violently murdered by her husband. These stories are not innocent!
Some of the writing early on was good with desciptions of flight, magic and the giant birds. The giant birds became deus ex machina as the book progressed (which I admit is the role of giant birds in books generally - I am looking at you Tolkein). As the book became laboured pseudo-psychological stuff about reality, belief, gods, and heteronormativity I lost interest so I am not sure if the writing actually became less good and the descriptions less compelling or if just the terrible characters had lost me.
I tried to remind myself that this was written in 1990. What was I reading back then? Lord Foul's Bane and Dune and misogynist shit like that and as a female writer Jenny Jones must have had a hard time breaking into the genre...but also it was 1990 not 1960 as I kept thinking reading this (it's full of faux sexual liberation, meaning successful femininity is being as slutty as possible but knowing you are ultimately worthless and useless. Not to be confused with actual sexual agency that can say "yes" and "no" for reasons other than manipulation). Perhaps the 90s actually were like that. I didn't get out much!
IDK. Interesting to read to help me understand how far the genre has come and to put into context the works that are still like this. But I certainly won't be seeking out the rest in the series....more
Still useful as a book to help you think - I do think some of its findings are specific to its time and place but there are others which perhaps need Still useful as a book to help you think - I do think some of its findings are specific to its time and place but there are others which perhaps need to be revisited to help us analysed things that have changed...but not always in a wholly liberatory direction.I haven't managed to become a fan of Bourdieu (to be fair I have only read one of his books) but I see that a lot of gender and class theorists use him so I suppose I will have to expand my reading in that direction too....more
A stream of consciousness extended piece of life writing. Of passing interest as that was the feminism of the 90s in Adelaide (well one of them). I doA stream of consciousness extended piece of life writing. Of passing interest as that was the feminism of the 90s in Adelaide (well one of them). I don't fully relate to this and find it hard to look past the fact that she is a middle-class, educated person embracing a working-class life on her own terms temporarily. For all that she glorifies assertiveness and individualism she is blind to the fact that she in fact has more privilege than someone who is stuck in that job rather than slumming it to prove a point....more
Daly makes some good points but in an effort to break free from patriarchal control replaces rigour with "because I said so" leading (if we were to acDaly makes some good points but in an effort to break free from patriarchal control replaces rigour with "because I said so" leading (if we were to accept her word) to a new hegemony based in her unexamined white privilege (and questionable admiration for Aquinas). Her use of imaginitive asides is interesting but mostly comes across as self-indulgent and precious rather than useful or deeply reflective...I don't know to what extent I am unfairly putting hindsight to work there. I know she was a "big name" in the 90s and the reluctance of publishers to publish controvesial feminists, while probably not a conspiracy in the way that she frames it was problematic and misogynist.
I would really hope she got past her transphobia and her tendency to reduce all women to a homogeneity that she is comfortable with. I did find some of the observations useful and am not sorry I read it even though at the time I wasn't really enjoying it....more
The name "Pardon" reminded me of a joke I heard in primary school. I'd had no idea it was a real first name. I found it confusing along with "ShakespeThe name "Pardon" reminded me of a joke I heard in primary school. I'd had no idea it was a real first name. I found it confusing along with "Shakespeare" as the name of the place.
Apart from that it wasn't the worst thing I had ever read. I can understand that Lily being a rape survivor would learn to fight but I felt that the story of her rape (she was randomly kidnapped by strangers to be gang-raped for money) was not realistic, compared to the real and serious experience of rape many women go through. I also felt that the fact that her scars were seen as her being ruined or something, that potential partners had recoiled, was again realistic, but wrongly used to make Marshall seem like a "nice guy" simply because he didn't. I can see a triangle forming (yawn) with Claude who never speaks if he can "rumble". He rumbled this, he rumbled that...we get it he has a bass voice.
I found the mystery disappointingly simple and I didn't warm to the characters. There were mildly feminist comments by Lily here and there and I liked her being a cleaner, although I get a bit annoyed that while female characters can have working class jobs like cleaners the boyfriend always has to be a business owner or boss...that kind of dilutes it. It might not help that I am also reading a Blanche White mystery (same era and detective is also a cleaner but I am enjoying it a lot more). There were a couple of instances of slut shaming here and there which always surprises me about Harris' books as her heroines (quite rightly) are not exactly virgin queens.
So yeah. I think one is enough of these for me...but each to their own....more
Typical Australian children's book from the 90s. It is about an intergenerational friendship that is struck up between Jess and her best friend SophieTypical Australian children's book from the 90s. It is about an intergenerational friendship that is struck up between Jess and her best friend Sophie and Miss Violet Featherby. Sophie and Violet in particular have a lot in common but Jess is a lively and insightful narrator. The gender roles are a bit stereotypical and everyone in the book seems white, although there is a hint of criticism about colonisation a couple of times- only a hint though.
Even though it's a children's book and therefore has short chapters, I was quite engaged. More so than the Enid Blyton which for some reason is considered a "classic"....more
This is supposed to be humour I think. Puerile stream-of-consciousness posturing about 90s house-sharing lifestyle. I initially thought I was going toThis is supposed to be humour I think. Puerile stream-of-consciousness posturing about 90s house-sharing lifestyle. I initially thought I was going to relate to it (since the 90s is when I hit the flat-sharing life too) but I think this is exaggerated even for the Eastern states and it has more than a trace of misogyny (the unexamined variety).
Published in 1994, meaning "the 90s" means 1990-3.
Yeah...so I would think tall stories like this are harmless except this view of uni students and youth has been used to bring in more and more surveillance culture and austerity to the point where in 2022 a full time student is also working 1-3 jobs just to survive.
Given that it was not entertaining, or well written, or true to life I didn't find anything to like. Lost patience and skim-read large chunks of it....more
I'm no sure if this was ACTUALLY a five star book or if I just feel that way about it because it was exactly what I wanted to be reading right now. SeI'm no sure if this was ACTUALLY a five star book or if I just feel that way about it because it was exactly what I wanted to be reading right now. Set in Chamonix 1910, a cold-case (literally) and a "suffragette sleuthess" gets caught up in the past and present to unravel a good puzzle of a mystery. A range of characters that I really enjoyed and a nuanced aromantic feminism.
Agatha Christie without the problematic aspects. Every time I picked this book up I just wanted to keep reading it instead of going out to parties or whatever (so I read it on the bus).
I'm going to make sure to read more of the Nell Bray mysteries....more
I kept thinking a man had written this. What woman uses the word "hysterical"? Obviously the author of this does. The way women in this book are portrI kept thinking a man had written this. What woman uses the word "hysterical"? Obviously the author of this does. The way women in this book are portrayed is pretty sad for something written as late as 1999. It also has covert racism in myriad ways (going into detail would mostly be spoilers). And the "european union" in this book is surprisingly UK centric (I think that's just how UK conservatives think though).
Apart from that the book was reasonably well written, most of the ideas were borrowed from places libe Brave new world, or Pretty woman but the writing was OKish. The book was way too long and could have easily dropped all the cringey love-scenes as well as Dr Pasteur thinking about how much she wants to get in touch with her ovaries instead of being a whole human and wanting to just waste herself on some man. I mean even if you wanted her to get with either of them, I can't see anyone wanting to read quite that much dribble about how "natural" it is to want to throw away everything and just be a wife-mother. I think the irony was intentional but didn't work the way the author intended. The best parts of the book reminded me of the least good Agatha Christie books (the ones about government conspiracies) but every time I started thinking I wasn't outright hating the book there's be another cringe chapter about how natural and inevitable heterosexuality is (written with zero subtlety or interest).
As a futuristic novel it is laughingly naive and narrow-visioned. "Climate change" means where you can grow crops changes and that's all it means. There are no problems with plastics or mass extinctions or for that matter air, soil or water quality. There's a fetishistic view of technology giving us really tired and wearying philosophical debates about right and wrong which were possibly slightly more fresh back in 1999 but aren't handled with particular flair or grace. Yes this was written long ago but there were better books and predictions in the 90s.
It's not the worst book I ever read. The action and twists while fairly predictable are not as bad as some (and mostly not too drawn out). I didn't enjoy it but it wasn't quite crap enough to get a one-star.
Someone has already posted a review that is very detailed and that I agree with. It's more coherent than mine is likely to be so take a look at it if Someone has already posted a review that is very detailed and that I agree with. It's more coherent than mine is likely to be so take a look at it if you like: /review/show...
I tried to keep an open mind that just because the author was overgeneralising from a US perspective didn't mean his analysis was completely wrong...but I was unable to have confidence in it ultimately. The writing is ideological with cherry-picked examples that are not well contextualised. He makes an excuse for his messy referencing at the end of the book, he quite sanctimoniously points out that if you want better referencing from him then you are proving his point about schooling. There's a circular argument right there and I would critique it even if it was less arrogantly expressed.
Gatto oversimplifies education, he presents it not as a perenially contested field but as something that has been dominated by the capitalist class. He also hearkens back to a supposedly golden age where kids educated themselves by osmosis (relying on the unpaid work of mothers which he thinks is a great system). All his examples of people this system worked for are wealthy, white, men. He claims no thinkers of significance have existed since schooling was unrolled (presumably except himself).
I’d have to agree with the critique of prefabricated teacher proof teaching resources (50) but he gives it a libertarian extreme that honours the individual and morally all questions are equal. He’s also naïve about kids who will not choose to read at all, or have not been taught, he argues that everyone will be the self-actualised liberal subject and choose books if you just take away the control of teachers and schools.
Seems ideologically confused. Doesn’t like standardised tests and measurements but criticised whole language for not being scientific enough. Both anti-drill and advocates for some forms of drill as a panacea for illiteracy. This sort of confusion would be more understandable if Gatto had not been a teacher himself. He seems to idealise a fairly brutal world (this is verging at times on the "school of hard knocks" cliche) and expresses the idea that schooling feminises the student (which presumably being taught by mum doesn't?). This put into context for me some things lecturers said in my education degree (they must have not been fans of Gato either I think). He spends a whole chapter (10) extolling his thrifty, industrious mother.
Some of the stuff- how schools are governed, the waste of money and mistreatment of teachers as far as I know is true (in the US) but he makes generalisations from this without looking at what is happening in other parts of the world. Instead of schooling them he would like to make them entrepreneurs and notable leaders (90) avoiding “political correctness� (89)
At times I seems like he confuses the effects of schooling (or a one-sided, exaggerated version of the effects) with the intent of schooling. More evidence would be needed to show this. His cherry-picked quotes from media articles also don’t prove as much as he seems to think (eg p115). You can’t deny there are very foolish and over-enthusiastic people in teaching (as elsewhere) and that journalists tend to go for the sound-byte not the nuanced opinion…but to claim this is representative is a bit much.
Overall I found his very emotional writing style hard to read, his method of sort of referencing but not really comes across as trying to dazzle the reader with his superior intellect rather than give real evidence. Like a stopped clock he is correct here and there but even then his analysis of a phenomenon he was observed is flawed. I was surprised at how little I liked this considering someone I have a lot of respect for loaned it to me.
It was only 184 pages long and that was the only good thing about it. After this there is a "teaser" for the next one but I never read those even whenIt was only 184 pages long and that was the only good thing about it. After this there is a "teaser" for the next one but I never read those even when I intend to read the next one (I won't be looking for any more of these).
It wasn't offensive, just bad. Bad writing, bad characterisation, bad dialogue, strangely abrupt and overplayed emotions- eg two characters both suddenly start crying about their dead husbands and then Alice feel jealous that she isn't a widow too. WTAF? She has a boyfriend apparently even though he sounds like a Zambrero sauce.
The cats were sort of cool, there was a scene near the end that was going to be a "redeeming feature" for me albeit little and late but then the author sanctimoniously went all realism and property law on us and I was like "why????" when literally nothing else about the book was remotely believable (including the motives of the various murderers etc).
But my favourite example of how bad this novel is happened at one of the many lengthy irrelevant scenes, this one on p123-125, where Alice suddenly decides that because her absent boyfriend is a "brecht freak" she will read a bilingual volume of Brecht, she actually goes into a reflexive moment of how pretentious she is being but then sanitises it with "and sweet" (p124). Ok I am seeing the pretentious more than the sweet. I mean you can like Brecht, that's not the pretentious part, it's the way she goes on about it. Then after finding that it's all deep and meaningful, or rather "oddly mesmerising" (p124) in the English translation, she decides to have a bash at the German. I kind of relate to that, I would do the same for laughs but here she suddenly remembers a fact she had forgotten that whoops she did German in high school and she's reading "almost effortlessly" and having more pointless thoughts that don't move the plot forward.
That's just a "she's smarter than you moment" except it's laughable.
Anyway if you want to also read about her weird relationships with cats (I don't mean loving cats or speaking to them, that's normal for me but when she finds out one of the cats is a specially trained movie star she "plays" with it by getting it to do its stunt over and over without any positive reinforcement for some reason), or about a "gypsy" who heals cats by throwing them in the air, you can read the book yourself.
It needed to be slightly more deliberately screw-ball to be enjoyable.
Serve me right for picking up and reading literally anything that has a cat in it.
You know those stereotypes on Facebook about men can't write because all they write about is boobs? This is one of those stories. It tries to pass itsYou know those stereotypes on Facebook about men can't write because all they write about is boobs? This is one of those stories. It tries to pass itself off as chick-lit cosy mystery but it's all about boobs and a really immature obsession with people having sex all the time (with a surprising foray into slut-shaming in the middle of the book followed by more sex). There are too many characters, gazillions of them, the women talk a lot but I am not sure it even passes the Bechdel test because they talk about men a lot. Everyone pairs up into the obligatory heterosexual couple pretty much as soon as they hit the page and then there's a lot of gratuitous sexual references of the we-are-still-in-high-school-giggle-giggle variety. I know this was written in 1996 but really!
In between artists paint boobs, photographers photograph boobs, the women all try on superbras which make their boobs look better (as if they needed to) and the poet writes about his favourite lady's...you guessed it "alabaster mounds of pleasure" (p78).
And I thought I was going to read about a horse getting stolen and a cat helping solve it. The (human) detective is pretty stupid and is lucky that the author was set upon the mystery getting solved, she uses stupid methods (I guess they are meant to be Douglas Adams style humour but they fell flat for me) like thinking of the most unlikely answer and then speculating for far too long about UFOs and stuff. Then every time there's any danger of having any plot, the characters decide to have sex wrapped in foil or something for a change. I hope it was more fun for them than it is for the reader.
I won't be touching any more of these with a barge-pole....more
Initially I read this because I recognised the author's name on some research articles about gender I have read. I was curious and initially skepticalInitially I read this because I recognised the author's name on some research articles about gender I have read. I was curious and initially skeptical, it seemed to me the story was going to be too sweet for anything and sentimental. I was gradually won over and drawn in, sure there are braggy moments about "my child is more liberated than most" but I know that I probably sound like that sometimes and it means a lot to me when people support my storytelling. We need to brag about things like outspoken girls and nurturing boys.
In between stories of parenting are stories of being a daughter, student, Italian, Australian, wife, friend, independent woman in Maria's own life and stories of various transgressions and traditions (mostly the former) in the lives of her mother, grandmother and zie (aunties). Men feature as characters who can also transgress expectations, who can value and pass on female strengths and who can be the objects and subjects of love, but although most (significantly not all) of the love described is heterosexual, the book is very careful to show that this is also a construction and not the only way to be. The anti-religion theme is less ambivalent but as a catholic feminist myself I get it, even when it's uncomfortable to think about.
Maria must be about a decade and a bit older than me, so her story did not quite intersect with my own story (I learned Italian at school and had many Italian class mates) but provides a recognisably Adelaidean family history that I enjoyed. I'd love to hear more South Australian stories to be honest. Her agenda was also feminist all the time, and at times reflexive about the dilemmas and contradictions of life.
As I said, I was not looking to find this a 5 star read but it convinced me!...more
This didn't work as a whodunnit for me, as there were so many characters introduced so quickly that it was confusing, and after that there were so manThis didn't work as a whodunnit for me, as there were so many characters introduced so quickly that it was confusing, and after that there were so many things happening and people involved that it was more of an adventure than a mystery. This was componded by characters sometimes being called by first names and sometimes surnames.
I feel the author trod the line between modern reader and different times well with plague treatments and a dirty world (not sure Bartholomew should have noticed the dirt as much as he did though, surely to a man of his time that was normal. The relationship between Bartholomew and Philippa was low key enough to be bearable and most of the characters were fleshed out well and not just stereotypes. The descriptions of food in the book were pretty much always horrible, a lot of discussion of things being off or nearly off. I found such detail interesting but puzzling considering the length of the book. I had trouble visualising some of it but am willing to own that might be my lack of spatial intelligence.
The plague setting was interesting in light of what we are facing in 2021, although the author could not have known that when she wrote it 26 years ago. At times I am not sure whether the desire for "business as usual" and resgnation to the plague is the characters or the author speaking. The clearest example came on p285: "Michael sniffed. 'It's an important occaision with people coming from miles to listen. Why would the town cancel an event from which it can make money? What is the vontainment of the Death when there are goods to be sold, beds to be rented, and deals to be made?" A little bit close to reality for me!
After a slow start I did get into this book and found it reasonably enjoyable to keep reading....more
Be careful reading one it is absolutely horrifying. There's a raw honesty and complexity that is admirable but there is also the dehumanisation and trBe careful reading one it is absolutely horrifying. There's a raw honesty and complexity that is admirable but there is also the dehumanisation and trauma and Drakulic goes into details about things that were done to women and men in war. There's something at the end which ought to be happy and hopeful but in the context is just more invasion really.
It's a thoroughly disturbing book but considering how many people have lived through experiences like this it's worth being honest. At times what I read in it made me stop unable to continue and unable also to distract myself with a different book....more
I love this so much. Blanche is not a saint in fact at times I didn't approve of her. She cooks and cleans competently for money, but it's only a job I love this so much. Blanche is not a saint in fact at times I didn't approve of her. She cooks and cleans competently for money, but it's only a job and she doesn't throw in bootlicking with it. She loves her kids but hates and resents having to parent. She's just not a stereotype, she drinks G and Ts and does her best but her fatal flaw is always her curiosity.
My only issue was there was a bit of kink shaming and the video in question was a mish-mash of too many different and unrelated things (bit OTT). That's a niggle but it did not ruin the book for me.
Blanche gets revenge if someone wrongs her, calls it "whitemail" when someone extorts money and doesn't get sentimental about her employers. She can be jealous, argumentative and bossy. She's just great. I think I am going to read all of these, I am certainly not ending it here!...more
I really enjoyed the overt un-tone-policed anti-racist and feminist observations by Blanche who is proud, prickly, can be reflexive but also refuses tI really enjoyed the overt un-tone-policed anti-racist and feminist observations by Blanche who is proud, prickly, can be reflexive but also refuses to take white bullshit or male bullshit (or especially white, male bullshit) on board.
The plot itself was somewhat convoluted. The mystery held some twists. There was too much of Blanche's love/sex-life and quite frankly I thought it was reasonable of her not to want a man acting possessive and controlling so I thought her self-reflexivity about that was a bit excessive. The stuff giving us insight into "Miz Cora" was useful for context and the getting sick of the DV next door and the penny dropping that women have to stand up for each other was the best part of the whole story. Blanche's imperfect but really sound friendship with Ardell is also great.
If there were more of these I would read them but I believe that is it :/ ...more
Loading...
