Re: Rachel Cusk's Aftermath, the book NOT the article in the Guardian

[AllQuietOnThePippisFront]

Now, is there someone who will agree with me that the extract in the Guardian did not do it justice at all?
With that i mean for example that from its editing it appears far more a slagging off of exh when in fact there us very little of it in the book.
To me the book is a much more humble affair that the article implied. She focuses on herself, on the ambivalence of feeling, rather than her husband's shortcomings or faults. And why this concentration on herself is deemed selfcentred i would never know - it is one way of looking at things, certainly, not the only way. (similarly with the book about motherhood, i doubt she was pretending to give a universal view!). There are plenty of great book that take this angle but are not described as such.

Amyway what i wanted to know was if there is anybody who likes the book despite having not been keem on the article. Frankly the article made me not want to read the book but now i am glad i did for it is a different story all together.

(puts the helmet on in prep to the vitriol that RC's attracts)

Patti if you dont mind what do you mean by single by choice? (curious and a bit

Yes frankly it is a book about despair and its beauty rests in what goes unsaid more than what in the snippets she brings on the surface.

I used a sperm donor (through a clinic) to have my DS is what that means. So unknown to me, but DS can find him if he wishes when he turns 18. I wanted to be a mother but couldn't find a man I could imagine wanting to have children with.

Why ? Am guessing you're having a difficult time with a divorce or something at the moment :(

because i often could picture my life alone with thd dcs. Of course that was my vision, i am aware that as they di have a dad who they love etc fron their point of view it will always be better with him. But i could see myself as a grown up mother-pippi

another SMC (single mother by choice here). 2 DCs by anon donor. So no experience at all of the Aftermath situation but I'm interested anyway. Although it's very tough to be an SMC (or any kind of single parent) for obvious reasons, there are things about it that I'm sure are easier. Avoiding the identity knots that RC has tied herself into for example.

Margo what do you mean by identity knots? In terms of gender role within the family? If so i am totally entangled in it too when in a rel. the baggage of your own family... Gosh!
You are right i am sure that by doing it on your own you can discard them snd do it your way. I could have seen myself going the same way had i not found dh, i.e. My soulmate . I have always know i function better when not in a rel, i am better to me. Having said that i have learnt so much about me in this that not all is lost. And despite my anger at dh he is a great bloke, maybe not just MY soulmate afterall.

yes in part gender roles. How to be a competent woman without being dominant (but also without being submissive).

In my family I am the breadwinner, obviously. I'm also very obviously the head of my household. If I was married I suspect I would still carry on in exactly the same way but how would that work with another adult in the mix demanding their own voice be heard? How do you balance competing careers or careers when one has given up theirs to rear the children and the other one's career has taken off. How do you get to be a parent and a working person with a life outside the home?

Somehow I always knew I would do this on my own. there's a book called Quirkyalone which really describes me. I feel fortunate that I have the option to have children on my own (although obviously there was a long period of sadness that I couldn't find the "right" person to settle down with). Anyway, I spend a lot of time thinking about this. I think the identity politics of motherhood and work are far from resolved.

Margo i agree with all you said. It is def unresolved, and by a long long way.

margo - all that really resonates enormously with me. I didn't expect to end up like this but it is in no way a disappointment - I never had a dream of marriage and children so it was a big surprise when I had an enormous desire to become a mother. I'm really grateful that I've had the chance to do that - twenty years ago, I wouldn't have had this opportunity.

I will have a look at QuirkyAlone - sounds very interesting

patti yes I am grateful too. I feel lucky. I didn't have the marriage dream either but I chased the idea for a long time, thinking it was the only way. To have this option was like a huge liberation for me.

I try to remember that as I crawl back to my bed after yet another night of juggling vomiting children

Can I just make it clear that I don't dislike A Life's Work for being Unmotherly -- I have absolutely no problem with talking about how motherhood smashes your life and permenantly reforms/deforms it, reduces and degrades you - I just think it's really badly written.

Ahem. As you were. Shall bog off out of thread. But please don't assume that the reason intelligent readers dislike her is because we are so shocked at her repudation of Good Motherliness.

'Repudiation', even.

PS, I haven't looked at quirkyalone for years. I think I read it in my 20s or early 30s when everything felt so fraught and panicked - where was this man going to come from???? It was very reassuring to my (much) younger self.

Is this about her divorce? My interest was piqued after hearing an interview on Wimmin's Hour. I've been avoiding RC after reading Arlington Park; so terribly glum .

I think she writes very well actually.

As i have just finished watching downton abbey please do forgive me for sounding very much like the countess but I sooo want to be her!!

I very much enjoyed AFTERMATH and have been surprised by the vitriol directed at her almost exclusively by other women.

A harsh review by Joanna Biggs in the current LONDON REVIEW OF BOOKS reads almost like a personal attack. Biggs mentions Mumsnet, quoting motherinferior?s response to A LIFE?S WORK: ?I found it profoundly annoying and wanted to shake her.?

Here is a link to the article. I?m not sure if you can access it unless you?re a subscriber: www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n06/joanna-biggs/clytemnestra-in-brighton. You may be able to register for temporary access.

I have total respect for motherinferior, who I know in real life. I know she can distinguish between good and bad writing. But I disagree that Cusk is a bad writer and I wonder if it?s a ?taste? thing. I think Cusk has a ?high? style: complicated syntax, long sentences, dependence on metaphors. But ultimately the sentences function well and there is no problem, as far as I?m concerned, with clarity. You may not like that kind of writing?you may prefer something more minimal?but I don?t think you can say it?s bad writing.

I think her writing particularly shines in her novels. I?ve read and enjoyed nearly all of them.

There is a lot of bad writing out in the world, almost none of which receives the contempt that Cusk?s writing does, so I suspect that Cusk has committed some sin other than bad writing.

you said so much better than I would ever have done.
Yes her style may not be to everyone's taste. I love it. It makes the reader not just see it but feel it. I also love the re-reading of the myths, and from your name I guess you must have liked it too. Reminded me of The Penelopiads by Maragret Atwood.

I have only read the first paragraph as I need to register, which I will do, but already her attack on her simile about the jigsaw does not make much sense to me. Maybe because when I think about my own marriage and imminent separation that very simile is so appropriate and pertinent. One could argue that all those term could be eaily replaced by the work 'shattered', say, but then the book would be reduced to: my marriage fell apart. I am distraught and broken. I seem to be losing it but I am trying my best to keep it together. I don't have all the answers but I hope we will be allright. there! that's the book for you. The point is that anybody could have written that. Very few could have written what she did, and get the million of nuances that she does. but that is my opinion, and ultimately books are important when they hit a cord, no matter how good of rubbish they are. If they make you think they have done their job.

It is still a brilliant book, imo.