This book was truly terrible, and it's depressing that any critic has called it "good." I was initially interested in it because I grew up in the 90s and was in my 20s during the Iraq War--I had a lot of friends who lost spouses and family members to that war, or who fought in it themselves. In "The Girls from Corona Del Mar," I thought there might be a contemplation of the central tragedy of our time. Instead, I found that Thorpe seemed merely to exploit those events to write a "chick book" about two idiotic friends who serve as parallel universe alternates of each other. It's a choose-your-own-adventure book: one girl has an abortion and goes on to be immensely successful--landing not only a tenure-track job at a major R1 university (in classics, no less) but also a wonderful husband--while the other one keeps her baby and endures a life of suffering and tragedy. So, in other words, the book is a cautionary tale: abort your baby or end up like Lorrie Ann. Think I'm being simplistic? Well, Lorrie Ann experiences so many life tragedies that you have to suspend disbelief to keep reading: her father dies tragically, her son is profoundly disabled due to complete medical negligence, she has to have a hysterectomy, her mother gets beaten with a lawn ornament, and then her husband joins the military and gets blown up in Iraq. When her son is taken away by protective services, she runs off to a couple of third-world countries and becomes a drug addict--an understandable choice, IMO, but one for which the narrator judges her endlessly.
Throughout all this, the narrator romanticizes Lorrie Ann--eventually, I found the narrator more tedious and unbelievable than Lorrie Ann. Despite getting multiple degrees from top-flight schools and being the first person to translate the oldest poem cycle in the literate world (yes, the first person ever, and this translation goes on to be a bestseller), the narrator is incapable of seeing Lorrie Ann for who she is. And in the end, she still remains jealous of Lorrie Ann. When Lorrie Ann's big secret eventually comes to the surface, the narrator is shocked. But this "secret" is the most predictable plot twist of the entire novel. Of course Lorrie Ann didn't live a perfect life before tragedy befell her. How can the narrator be so smart and yet so incapable of seeing the facts? I had to constantly remind myself that these characters were adult women--not two teenagers. I don't know many adult women who continue to romanticize their teenage friends--especially not when they themselves are successful and their teenage friends ended up homeless drug addicts.
The novel also betrays serious misunderstandings about the profoundly disabled. Lorrie Ann's son is non-verbal and needs a feeding tube, but in the end the narrator goes to visit him and thinks that he's really communicating with her, and that he even breaks a keepsake to get back at his mother. It's laughable and depressing--laughable that anyone would write this way, and depressing that the narrator (and plausibly the author) thinks that the developmentally disabled can be trotted out as mere symbols in morality plays. Just as the Iraq War is played as a plot complication to add to the misery of a character's life, so too are the developmentally disabled reduced to simple moral arbiters.
I found other aspects of the book ridiculous as well. First of all, I think it strains plausibility that these two friends have so many unintended pregnancies between them. In the 90s, people knew how to use birth control. More pertinently, those who didn't know how to use birth control generally didn't end up being bright enough to go to Ivy League schools. (In high school I knew girls who got pregnant and girls who went to Yale; their circles did not overlap.) But okay, setting that aside, Thorpe's insistence on connecting everything to the Sumerian goddess Inanna was heavy-handed and pretentious. Yes, it's clear from the get-go that Lorrie Ann is a deity that Mia has constructed rather than a real person. Move on.
This book is nothing but missed opportunities. It's too bad that Thorpe didn't use Inanna and the narrator's interest in Mesopotamia to highlight more poignantly the US's obsession with Iraq and the ill-fated war that claimed thousands of lives. Instead, she developed a novel that insults more than it illuminates. Skip this one.