Yulia's comments (member since Mar 19, 2008)

Yulia's comments from the Constant Reader group.

I see your point. Perhaps you can write to Gabrielle or me individually, so it doesn't give anything away to the others? It's too bad you won't be participating in the discussion in the Spring, as I love your insight into characters. It seems particularly relevant in this story, though I think I'd find that was true for any story that was worth discussing.

Happy birthday, Mina! I've also missed your voice here. I hope you and your family have a fortunate year ahead of you and am glad you're starting to feel more yourself health-wise.

I agree with Gabrielle that it's probably best not to discuss the book too much before the official start date set by Sherry, as it'll be difficult to rein in the conversation before others have had time to finish the book and that would lead to a lumpy discussion. Is that okay? I'll be rereading the book for the discussion so I have a fresh perspective on it when the time comes.

(Oops, I hadn't seen the second page with all the responses to Steve's question, so I must sound very redundant and oblivious, but this is what I wrote before reading page 2 of this thread.)

I think it's what you said, Steve: that, as with many well-constructed stories, we can't be certain what happens after it's over. Gillian may end up having a better relationship with Colin now that he sees she's not just a passive participant in the relationship--or she may refuse to ever let him touch her again, sickened by her new understanding of him and her past self. Either way, she's probably had an epiphany in the car that she doesn't need him as much as she thought she did. That, to me, makes Gillian victorious and a truly modern woman, not being single or getting Colin to respect her, but seeing she can stand up for herself and really do whatever she wants, conventions be damned. How about that?

Steve, I am sorry I snapped back in my response: I was reacting to what I read as a guy's bemoaning the scarcity of women with perfect bodies. But I have to reinforce that we can't generalize that older individuals, courtesy of their age, know what's important in life. I understand your point, but there are individuals who simply refuse to or seem incapable of learning (not you, my parents). I also agree with Beej that Gillian didn't seem to be looking for a father for future children, but just someone to call her own, not that that motive isn't as instinctive as the pursuit of having children or rooted in seeking a provider.

No one is saying anything's wrong with dressing in a feminine manner. And it's not an issue of stupidity or victimhood (people get what they feel they deserve). The issue was his telling her what kind of dress to wear. Also, I'm not sure what your own experience with female undergarments is, but it's baseless to suggest wearing uncomfortable underwear is a necessary tool in finding a partner who is emotionally, intellectually, and morally compatible.

As for the difficulty of finding a female with the perfect body, I'm sorry there aren't more in supply for you to choose among. It must be difficult.

Reliability doesn't excuse poor treatment, but it does often explain why individuals put up with partners they should have no patience for, so I agree with Steve on that and thank him for pointing out that key detail about their relationship dynamics.

Not to give too much information, but Colin or Mr. Kip very much reminded me of a pudgy ex who put down how I looked and told me how to dress--sheaths and pearls--and, instead of buying me these pieces I didn't care for, expected me to show I wasn't using him for money by insisting I give him a relationship stipend. But however much he annoyed and repelled me, his being reliable was a key factor in my putting up with him.

As for the S&M undertones Beej mentions, I'd argue that, if Gillian and Colin do remain together, the bossing and begging would go both ways, depending on their fluctuating bursts of neediness and confidence.

I think this tells more about the authors' pretensions and senses of humor than anything else, though it was a nice peek into their personalities. I loved when Ishiguro's wife said his medieval characters were "speaking in a moron language." But I have to wonder what Powers thinks is happening in others' heads when he says, "I like to use different parts of my brain." I know what he intended to convey, but still . . .

I suppose I was apologizing for my unwavering belief in a woman's right to panty lines. :)

Sherry, that's exactly how I feel about panty lines. Why should women be made to feel ashamed for wearing underwear with adequate coverage and comfort? It's so misogynistic to think women should wear body-hugging clothing, but be required to hide all trace of their undergarments. Ridiculous. I'd rather be caught wearing underwear than not wearing it. Pardon the quasi-tangent.

Very true. No matter how defined your sense of self, it seems it'd be daunting to live with someone so oblivious to his or her issues. Griffin's aha! moment of realizing he loved his parents showed he was making baby steps towards awareness, though anyone who didn't love him could easily dismiss it with, "That's all you've figured out?!"

Barbara wrote: "This just goes to show how behind (no pun intended) I am in the world of underwear. And, Beej, I didn't even notice that Gillian stopped calling the guy Mr. Kip and changed to Colin at the end. T..."

I hadn't caught that detail either, till Beej pointed it out.

Couldn't it be both a dig and a compliment, though? I understood the insult, but it seemed to also carry with it a wistfulness for someone who could make her feel.

Jane wrote: "Yulia said: What was very striking was when Joy said the guy she was dating in the second half didn't make her unhappy. I wondered, is that a good thing? Or is it only people we don't really care ..."

That's just it: she wasn't letting him get to her one way or the other. She couldn't be bothered to take him seriously. It was simply a superficial interaction.

I loved this story. Summer, thanks for explaining the difference between a g-string and a thong, which I'd always assumed were the same thing, though I don't think either provides meaningful coverage. Find someone who accepts your underwear preferences, lets you make your own wardrobe choices, and doesn't compare you to idealized movie stars. Yes, her self-esteem was the issue here. Barbara, I completely agree that it was wonderful how Barker took such a potentially distressing subject (our insecurities and the individuals we find to reinforce them) and made it hilarious. A nice treat. I'm glad I pulled out the anthology last night.

Sarah, I like your reading of the book. Certainly people can't just wait for opportunities to come their way but make these opportunities or at least make them more probable in whatever way possible.

What was very striking was when Joy said the guy she was dating in the second half didn't make her unhappy. I wondered, is that a good thing? Or is it only people we don't really care about who can't make us truly unhappy, as those we love can? It seemed such an evasive answer.

This is a lesson in not reading books out of obligation, most of all.

I see your point about Griffin's skewed perception affecting his portrayal of his father, but ach, it's difficult to accept the voice of someone who's not just clueless, but lazy, which for me is the worst kind of unreliable narrator. You're right that having others' perspectives would have made Griffin's clunkiness more bearable and the only other character whose voice was given extended attention besides his was his mother's and, as he himself notes, they practically share a voice, so this doesn't offer much contrast.

I know other books in which the most important scene is purposefully left out (the one that comes to mind right now is Banville's The Sea), but in this case it seemed more a result of Griffin's need to recap events and not a more key element of the plot. If anything, framing the book with the two weddings seemed rather forced, but maybe this says more about my discomfort with the tradition of expensive weddings.

But didn't it come off as though Laura spent more time engaged to Andy than she had spent dating him? And likely they, like her parents, would also be discussing what kind of life they'd share together during their honeymoon instead of having discussed these not small matters before committing to each other. What's that about? I can understand if you marry on a whim in Las Vegas, but not if you spend a year engaged.

No, Griffin never was an active participant in his life, but it didn't seem as if the other main characters were very active, either. Weren't they all simply waiting or scheming for someone else to save them? For that moment of grace Griffin always counted on? Even his mother, who had such a pushy nature, was left at the hands of the academic powers-that-be to determine where she lived and taught. And Laura may have decided not to date before finding someone worthy of marrying, but her entire courtship with Andy was unconvincing, as if they were merely behaving as they should. That may have been Russo's intention, to suggest many individuals don't find themselves until they're already married and with kids, but is that enough to explain how lost the characters seemed?

Of course, all this is skewed by Griffin's portrayal of events and characters, so you can say his own limited perception acted as a constraint in his conveying the nuances of the others, but if this were the case, more of their actions should have been confusing rather than predictable.

I hadn't seen the article on his being a misogynist, but if his work shows a virgin-whore complex, he certainly emasculated Sunny and put him decidedly into the virgin category. I also found his portrayal of the lesbian couple problematic: they were too much mirrors of each other, implying that to love someone of the same sex is an act of self-love. Or again, we could use the excuse of Griffin's being clueless as to how they were dissimilar.

Hmm . . .

Since this is my first Russo, I can't say what effect the change of editor had on his work, but I did notice *repeatedly* in this novel, That Old Cape Magic, how lazily some sections were written, not only with hackneyed phrases but in portraying key characters so clumsily that the details' wrongness distracted you from any potential small insight into the character. For instance, when Griffin was saying his parents were mechanically inept, that I could understand from personal experience, but to recall that his father put together shelves always with one shelf upside down and backwards (bare side up and out) was ridiculous and tested my patience. I may not know how to construct an IKEA shelf, but which side is up doesn't take a mechanical engineering degree.

Shelves aside, I did think the book had its moments, like in the yew tree.

What I can't remember, Erin, is whether Joy ever actually apologized for having fallen in love with Tommy (whatever happened between them) or if she simply used the incident to blame Griffin for his own lack of empathy and cluelessness. It seemed she was using her disappointment with Griffin as an excuse for not coming to terms with her straying. Wasn't it right then for Griffin to give Joy space to decide what she wanted in life? Was her admission she should have been at his mom's side in December saying as much--that they were both paralyzed by inertia?

The book was a nice twist on the fairy tale where women end up happily ever after once they marry the prince. I was always frustrated by fairy tale endings, even in Jane Austen's works which I otherwise love, where marriage ended all troubles. It seemed more like a death sentence, as if anything worth noting happened before one married. It's no wonder there's a name for Japanese women who refuse to marry but continue to live with their parents: parasite singles.

Hmm, Roth managed to offend both those who appreciate Latin poetry in their original form (as I do) and those who take time to get the most they can out of each phrase and sentence in a novel (as I do). Since it took me two months to read Wings of the Dove, is it Roth's opinion I wasn't reading it seriously enough or too busy watching TV or texting or tweeting (none of which I do)? His position is just as appealing as his books are to me. He's the one who seems antiquated to me.