Sponsors
Currently Reading
-
Categories
Terms

The Book Lady's Blog is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
Reviews and articles posted here are property of The Book Lady's Blog and are not to be posted elsewhere without permission. Please contact me if you wish to post any of my work, or any excerpt thereof, in any other location or format.
Apr
30
BTT: Don't let me down!
2009 at 9am Posted by Rebecca Schinsky
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed, so you won't miss any of the bookish goodness. Thanks for visiting!
This week’s topic: Which is worse? Finding a book you love and then hating everything else you try by that author, or reading a completely disappointing book by an author that you love?
The latter. Definitely the latter. And here’s why.
If I find a book I love and then hate everything else I try by that author, it’s kind of like having one really amazing date and then realizing on the second and third dates that the guy is a total dud. It’s a bummer, but at least you haven’t invested too much time and energy into the relationship. And you’ll always have the memory of that one awesome date or that great first book to hold on to.
Reading a completely disappointing book by an author you love is so much worse because it calls everything from the past into question. If I’ve loved, say, five books by an author and then the sixth one is awful, it will make me wonder if I wasn’t seeing things correctly before. Were the first books really that good, and if they were, then how did the author manage to hide this awfulness just below the surface? Or was it there the whole time, and I just didn’t see it?
It can be kind of unsettling. Like when you discover the person you’ve been dating for a while has really awful taste in music or one really annoying habit. But the fact that you have a great track record might make it easier to write the one bad book (or one annoying habit or whatever) off as a fluke and just hope that the next one will be better. Everyone’s allowed an off day, right?
I think Augusten Burroughs might work as an example of the first option for me. I thought Dry was pretty great, but I haven’t like anything else of his that I’ve read, and I have definitely begun to think he’s a bit too generous with the exaggeration factor. I’m interested in his newest book, but I’m hesitant to pick it up because nothing has ever worked for me quite like that first one. (I know Dry wasn’t actually his first book, but it’s the first one I read.)
And on the other side is David Sedaris. I loved Naked (which I still think is his best), and I really liked Me Talk Pretty One Day, and Dress Your Family… was good. But I was pretty disappointed by When You Are Engulfed in Flames, and I think my relationship with Mr. Sedaris might be dying a slow death unless his next book is fantastic. And that’s sad because we’ve had some good times together.
What’s worse for you? Any authors or books that stand out as examples?
In which I ponder parenthood
2009 at 9am Posted by Rebecca Schinsky
(or, To Breed or Not To Breed?)
This is a not-at-all-book-related post, but I’ve been thinking about these things for a few weeks and need to get them off my chest. Before my friend Kristen wrote a guest review here about Ayelet Waldman’s new book Bad Mother, I had never heard of Ayelet Waldman or the controversial op-ed piece that made her infamous in the Mommy and Me world. And now, I can’t stop thinking about it.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t agree with everything Waldman says, but I can completely understand where she’s coming from. I’m 26 years old, and I’ve been with my husband for nearly 8 years. We met when we were 18 and carefree. We’ve grown together, made major life decisions together, and bought a house together, and we’ve taken the gradual steps from casual fling to boyfriend and girlfriend to serious partners to engagement to marriage. We have spent a ton of time together. We’ve enjoyed being alone and being able to focus only on each other. By all accounts, we should be thinking about having kids soon, right?
That seems to be society’s message, but I’m not buying it.
Let me be clear. It’s not that we don’t like children. We have five nieces and three nephews whom we adore, and we love spending time with them. But we’re always happy when we get to drive away, back to the quiet solitude of our house, where we can watch whatever we want on TV, have sex whenever we feel like it, make brownies and french fries for dinner if we so desire, and spend entire weekends on the couch because we don’t have to drive to sports practices or birthday parties or school activities. And we like it that way.
But it feels like we might be the only ones. I swear, at least once a week someone we know announces on Facebook that she is pregnant, and it’s not always with kid #1. We actually know a few people our age (and a few who are younger) who are on kid #2 or #3. And that boggles my mind. Now, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it. It is an intensely personal decision, and I trust (and hope) that these people are doing what makes the most sense for them, but I sure as hell don’t identify with it. Many of these people have only been with their partners for a year or two. And they’re already ready to have kids? To make those sacrifices of time and privacy and intimacy, and to give over their lives to another being for at least 18 years?
When I hear women talk about making the decision to have kids, they usually talk about how deeply they love their partners and how that love and their commitment to each other—with a little help from the proverbial biological clock— made them want to start a family. But I am deeply in love with my husband, and I can’t imagine it is possible for two people to be any more committed to each other than we are, and yet, I have no desire to have children, at least not in the foreseeable future. Increasingly, I find that when I express these feelings, people look at me like I’ve grown a third head.
Is there something wrong with me?
Should my clock be ticking?
Or is it possible that I love my husband too much to have children?
I will freely admit that at this stage in my life, I am too selfish to have a child. I like to sleep in and spend time alone and read for hours on end. I like that we can pick up and leave for the weekend with little notice and that when we want to spend a day out together, we can leave the dog home alone and not be arrested for it. And I like having my husband to myself.
He’s funny and smart, and even though he annoys the living hell out of me at times, he is excellent company. He does a hilarious Eddie Vedder impression, and he can quote The Simpsons and Family Guy far too easily. He is snarky, and he says exactly what he thinks, and he doesn’t pull any punches. He is singularly focused on landscaping our backyard, and he has turned our guest bathroom into a “grow room” to prepare his seeds for planting. He makes little piles—laundry, books, mail—all over the house, and it makes me crazy. But damn, the man makes the best grilled cheese sandwich this girl has ever tasted.
And I have a hard time imagining that I’ll ever want to share that.
The interesting thing is, I haven’t always felt this way. Growing up, I just assumed that I would meet a man and fall in love and get married and have kids. Isn’t that what we train kids, especially little girls, to think from day one? First comes love, then comes marriage, then comes Mommy with a baby carriage?
Adrienne Rich was right, wasn’t she?
When hubby and I found ourselves falling in love, we had all those conversations that people who are falling in love are supposed to have. We learned about each other’s backgrounds and beliefs, childhood memories and fears, hopes and dreams, and plans for the future. When we started figuring out that we wanted to live our lives together, we decided to get married in our mid-twenties, and we thought we’d start trying to have kids in our late twenties.
Then we got married, and something in me shifted. I realized that I was 25, and now that we were married, kids—even on accident—were a real possibility, and that those late twenties when we planned to start trying were a little too close for comfort. And I completely freaked out.
So we started talking, and we realized that the idea that marriage is natually followed by children was something we had absorbed from our families and from society, something we just always assumed would be true for us, too. But we don’t want to do something, especially something so big that it involves bringing new lives into the world, just because it’s what we’re “supposed” to do. We want to be mindful of our feelings and our desires and our motivations, and we want to have kids (or not have them) for the right reasons.
I firmly believe that it is possible to have a full, rich, happy, passionate life that is satisfying and rewarding without having children. Why are we taught to assume that all childless couples are lacking something, as though anyone who doesn’t have kids is walking around with a gaping hole inside, feeling hopelessly empty? I know that for couples who desperately want children and are unable to have them, that statement may be true. But it doesn’t apply to everyone, and I resent the idea that if my husband and I choose to grow into our thirties and forties and beyond without having children, people will assume we are secretly miserable. I think it is important for us to challenge these assumptions.
I’m only 26. I know that things could change. The biological clock could start ticking, and I could find myself longing to become a mother. It’s difficult to imagine, but I won’t rule it out. If we do have children, I know that some of my priorities will change because they will have to change, but like Waldman, I will still want to be close to my husband, to make the distinction between loving our children and being in love with him, to have cherished time alone together and an identity outside of motherhood. I will do my best to give my children whatever they need, but I will not give them everything of myself.
And that won’t make me a bad mother or an insufficient woman.
I love my husband. It is possible that I love him too much to have children. And it doesn’t mean that I think I am somehow capable of a bigger or deeper love than anyone else. That’s not what I’m getting at at all. It’s just that I can’t fathom sharing him or giving up our quiet alone time together or having a small, stinky child shrieking from the back seat during our road trips. (Not to mention the ubiquitous toddler smell of pee, cheerios, and sour milk that seems to be a built-in feature of vehicles that frequently transport children. Nope, not ready for that.)
It is possible that we might want to live the rest of our lives with each other and only each other. And I believe we could be very happy doing it. (Especially with all the research showing that having kids actually decreases couples’ marital satisfaction. Click here for a few examples.)
Now, it’s an argument for another day, but would we even be having this discussion if Waldman’s article had been written by a man?
Have you been through this? Are you happily married or partnered with no kids? Did you think you wouldn’t want them but now can’t imagine your life without them? Has having kids changed your marriage but turned out to be worth it? Or not?
This just isn’t something many people are talking about openly, and I’d love to hear some other perspectives. Thanks for enduring the rather long post. I promise something lighter and shorter tomorrow.
Teaser Tuesdays: Life's That Way
2009 at 11am Posted by Rebecca Schinsky
Teaser Tuesdays is a weekly bookish meme, hosted by MizB of Should Be Reading. Anyone can play along! Just do the following:
- Grab your current read
- Open to a random page
- Share two (2) “teaser” sentences from somewhere on that page
- BE CAREFUL NOT TO INCLUDE SPOILERS! (make sure that what you share doesn’t give too much away! You don’t want to ruin the book for others!)
- Share the title & author, too, so that other TT participants can add the book to their TBR Lists if they like your teasers!
Last night, I started Life’s That Way by Jim Beaver, which is a collection of the nightly emails Beaver sent to a growing group of friends and family during the year his wife Cecily was diagnosed with lung cancer. I’m 50 pages in, and I swear, I’ve been on the verge of tears the entire time. This is a very affecting read. Here are my teasers, from page 35:
Cec said the other day that this illness had been a crushing blow to her illusion that she could control the universe. What it has crushed for me is the illusion that I could fix anything I tried to fix. I suppose that both of us are grieving for, among other things, our illusions.
Just pass me the Kleenex now. I’m going to need them.
Book Review: First Comes Love, Then Comes Malaria by Eve Brown-Waite
2009 at 9am Posted by Rebecca Schinsky
I received this book from the LibraryThing Early Reviewers program.
Recently published April 14, 2009 by Broadway Books (a division of RandomHouse)
Eve Brown always planned to join the Peace Corps someday, but it wasn’t until 1988, when she was in her mid-twenties, that she decided it was time for a little less conversation and a little more action. Time was ticking, and though she wasn’t certain that she was ready, she thought it was about time to find out, to stop talking about someday.
I knew that eventually I’d have to poop or get out of the latrine. The I’ll-be-joining-the-Peace-Corps-someday line was just going to seem pathetic if I was still muttering it while pregnant with my third child and toting the other two around in my Chevy Suburban.
First Comes Love, Then Comes Malaria: How a Peace Corps Poster Boy Won My Heart and a Third World Adventure Changed My Life is her memoir of what happened when someday became every day. And it all begins when she goes for her Peace Corps interview and becomes immediately smitten with her recruiter, John Waite. (Don’t act surprised—-you knew from the title that this was going to happen!) The budding relationship is complicated for more than a few reasons. Eve is falling for John and doesn’t want to leave him, but she believes that part of the reason he is falling for her is her willingness to serve others and dedicate two years to the Peace Corps, and, having recently broken up with a long-term boyfriend, she has already told the Corps that she will not be distracted by romantic entanglements at home while she is away. Plus, there’s the whole it’s-not-really-appropriate-to-date-your-recruiter thing. Minor details.
Complications aside, Eve completes the application process and heads off to Ecuador for Peace Corps training. She’s still not certain that she wants to be there or that she is capable of doing what she has set out to do, and she misses John terribly, but she forges ahead and establishes a life for herself in a foreign place. And boy, is it ever an eye-opening experience.
It struck me then, for the first time, that life in America was the aberration. The life that played out below me—barefoot and soily, among animals, in a forced intimacy with the earth—this was how most of the people on this planet lived.
First Comes Love, Then Comes Malaria recalls Eve’s stint in the Peace Corps and, later, her marriage to John and a move to Uganda to work with CARE. She tells her story with humor, grace, and insight, giving us an honest look at what it is really like to pick up, move halfway around the world, and live and work in a developing country. Eve (I’ll call her that because it feels like we’re on a first-name basis now) writes about the challenges of adapting to a life she could never have imagined and of finding her place and maintaining her identity. She doesn’t glamorize her experiences or come off as holier than thou, and she keeps the complaining—all of which is, in my opinion, totally justified—to a minimum.
In the process, she sheds light on important social causes and dangerous situations and introduces us to a few of the people who are working to make the world a better place. First Comes Love, Then Comes Malaria is a memoir about love, perseverance, sacrifice, hard work, and the fact that a few dedicated people really can make a difference. Eve’s devotion to service is quietly inspiring, and her willingness to put her money where her mouth is adds credibility to this warts-and-all tale.
From the very first page, I felt like I was hanging out with a girlfriend—albeit, one who is a much better person than I am—chatting over coffee. And that’s what I really loved about this book: Eve’s experiences are hardly ordinary, but she tells her story with such humility and honesty that you immediately feel like you know her and like you too could embark on this kind of adventure. First Comes Love, Then Comes Malaria is at turns laugh-out-loud funny, touching, and inspiring, and it is a story that needed to be told and deserves to be widely read. I couldn’t put it down, and I know you won’t want to, either.
Visit Eve’s website to learn more.
The Sunday Salon 4.26.09: In which I jump on the meta-blogging bandwagon
2009 at 11am Posted by Rebecca Schinsky
This Sunday morning finds me doing my best not to melt. It’s not even May yet, and we had a high temperature of 95 yesterday and are expecting the same today. I suppose I should be glad that the southern humidity hasn’t kicked in yet, but man, I was just getting into the swing of gorgeous spring weather. I haven’t had enough of those lazy afternoons on the back porch, and this heat is just not okay with me. Honestly, I’m never really down with 95 degree heat, but it’s especially obnoxious in April. So, I’ll be spending the day on the couch, drinking lemonade like it’s going out style, and finishing First Comes Love, Then Comes Malaria, which seems like a very appropriate reading selection for a hot, disgusting day.
My blogging activity has been pretty low this week because I’m pretty exhausted. I’ve had a ton of special events at work the last couple weeks, and the next few will be equally busy, and by the time I’ve finished work and hit the gym, all I’ve wanted to do is chill on the couch and zone out in front of the TV. The GoogleReader is backed up well over 1000 unread posts, so I’m going to do some reading/skimming today to see what I’ve been missing. But in all honesty, the priority today, and in my free time for the next few weeks, is relaxation. And it might be nice to hang out with my hubby some, too.
I love the blogging community, and I’m grateful to have this creative outlet and a place to record and share my thoughts, but it’s been seeming a bit like work lately, and I want to chill for a bit so I don’t get burned out. There’s been a great deal of meta-blogging going on lately, and those conversations are interesting and useful, but I spend 40 hours a week thinking about programming and publicity and how to attract and involve more people in what we’re doing at my store, and I don’t want to have to think about my blog that way.
I’m not a professional blogger or a full-time blogger or even, really, a part-time blogger. I’m a take-an-hour-a-day-to-write-posts-and-read-other-posts-when-I-can blogger. I want my reviews to be detailed and well thought-out, and I hope that you, my readers, will find value in them and keep coming back. I want our discussions to be interesting, and I want to know about what you’re reading and what you think about things.
But I don’t want to be connected every second of the day.
I don’t have the time to be on Twitter or Facebook all day, and I don’t really know what Glue is, and I know that means that I miss some good conversations and am not always 100% in the loop, but I’m fine with that. Even if I could spend all day on the computer, I wouldn’t want to. For me, this is a hobby. A serious hobby, as Amy recently said, but a hobby nonetheless. Being hyperconnected might mean increased traffic or higher-profile attention, but I’m not sure that’s always warranted, and even if it is, it’s not a price I’m willing to pay.
I put in a lot of effort to (I hope) make my posts interesting, meaningful, useful, etc., and I’m glad that so many other bloggers do as well, but I think we might be getting too caught up in it.
Yes, it’s nice to have a lot of comments, but I’ll happily take 5 substantive ones over 50 fluffy ones. And yes, it’s nice to have relationships with authors and publicists and to feel important when we are asked to do reviews or when we get emails from authors or see a bump in our daily hit counts, but really, at the end of the day, our Technorati ratings and the number of times we update Twitter don’t matter. They give us feedback that some people like what we’re doing, and that’s great, but they don’t have any substantial bearing on our real lives….you know, the ones we live when we’re not sitting in front of the computer.
And I doubt that any one of us will go to his or her deathbed wishing we had just added that one last Twitter update or put more hours into our blog.
Blogging is a wonderful way to connect with other people who have shared interests, and, for a lucky few, it can become a profession or a full-time job, but it should never take the place of real-life connections with people we can see face-to-face, sit across a table from, shake hands with or hug, and call in the middle of the night when the world comes crashing down. And I don’t think it should ever approach being as important as what we do when we’re not in front of the computer. I fit blogging in around the rest of my life, not the other way around, and there are just some things I’m not willing to share or sacrifice.
I know we all have different priorities and values, and I’m not here to judge other people’s decisions about how they spend their time. But I am here to openly admit that if you think my lack of Twitter updates is an indication that I don’t care about blogging as much as you do, you’re probably right. I do care about it—and I hope that shows—but not enough to spend all day doing it, unless someone is willing to pay me enough to quit my job and become a full-time blogger, and not enough to worry about whether I’m one of the “cool kids” or what my number of Twitter updates says about me.
Just being able to share my ideas and hear back from other people about what they think or how they reacted to a book or what their life experiences are like is enough for me. It’s a nice extra. I’d be lying if I said I never looked at my stats, or that I don’t like it when I see that a post I worked really hard on gets a lot of hits, but it’s not something I spend much time thinking about, and I don’t want to be made to feel like there’s something bad or wrong about that. You can’t please everybody, and I’m not trying to. If you like what I’m doing here, that’s great, but if you don’t, there are a bazillion other book blogs where you can find something you’ll like, and that’s completely fine by me.
So tell me, what do you think about all this? Am I right, or am I way off base? If you’re a blogger, how do you balance and prioritize these things in your life? And if you’re not a blogger, what do you think about all these meta-blogging conversations we’ve been having lately? Are we taking it way too seriously?
And please, have a happy Sunday, saloners!
Copyright © 2010 The Book Lady's Blog • Designed by:Simply Amusing Designs














