Comments on: This book’s kinda giving me the willies.

By: MoJo

MoJo — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 19:13:55 +0000

Oh…. I thought you said seven-inch territory. I need to read more closely.

So many jokes, so little time.

By: Dude

Dude — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 12:20:01 +0000

Dude roars with laughter.

By: Th.

Th. — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 04:14:52 +0000

Oh…. I thought you said seven-inch territory. I need to read more closely.

By: MoJo

MoJo — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 23:59:16 +0000

Oh, what I mean by more insidious than Twilight is that this is for adults. You can forgive a tween/teen girl for having ridiculous fantasies, and I have to assume that all the TwilightMoms out there know, somewhere down deep inside, that vampires (particularly SPARKLY ones) don’t exist.

This isn’t little girl territory here. This is serious 7-year-itch territory, with a thoroughly human male (one who is attractive and upon whom the housewife has had a fan-type crush for years) and who is obviously in love with her.

By: MoJo

MoJo — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 23:53:41 +0000

The thing that’s truly weird about it is that the housewife seems rather self-aware, but at the same time deliberately in denial because she wants what she wants. But it’s just not campy enough to make it over-the-top fun/ridiculous and give it a real out. Does that make sense?

I’m only 80 pages in at this point. I’m highlighting and margin-noting, so this will take me a while.

It’s far more insidious than Twilight, if you ask me, because of what Th. said: “The stupid Mormon trope.” I never thought of it like that, and it’s stuck with me ever since.

There are four issues at work for me in this book:

1. Feminist/anti-feminist dichotomy that do not function well together.

2. Realistic portrayal of a normal Mormon woman (normal being somewhat relative to my own experience), i.e., the “stupid Mormon trope.”

3. Wish fulfillment fantasy or possibly midlife crisis or postpartum neurosis, which seems to go completely unacknowledged (so far). I’d buy this; wonder if she’ll go there.

4. The definition of the word “adultery.” I’m far enough in now that I can see it’s exactly what JenB thought: An emotional affair. This woman is having an affair.

Also, the husband’s a little too accepting for a little too long. Enough has gone on by this point he should have been raising the roof at her.

By: Eugene

Eugene — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 23:43:01 +0000

After Twilight, I'm beginning to believe that these authors are blind to the psychological subtexts in their own stories. Is there a new genre in Mormon letters for the woman pining away for the life that woulda-coulda-shoulda been? This book seems to be a mirror image of what I observed Evans doing in The Last Promise. It's enough to consider taking Freud and that whole subconscious thing seriously again.

By: MoJo

MoJo — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 13:20:39 +0000

I had to break out the highlighters and sticky flags. This one deserves pseudo-academic pillorying.

By: Th.

Th. — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 05:11:36 +0000

Heh. I left a noun out of that sentence which makes it much more interesting. I’ll leave it as it stands.

Sure. I sense you won’t be passing it on to the next generation.

(I won’t be rushing to read it though — you’ve done a pretty good job at halting that.)

By: MoJo

MoJo — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 14:21:12 +0000

Th., I’ll send this to you as soon as I’m finished if you still want to read it.

By: MoJo

MoJo — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 14:10:47 +0000

Kel, you’ll have to explain this “pie” concept. Afraid I have no idea what that is. Dude knows I am unaware of the existence of “pie” much less how to create one.

Th., did Wife #1 approve your courtship of #2 and #3? Or are you a traditional household?