karen's Reviews > Instant Love: Fiction

Instant Love by Jami Attenberg
Rate this book
Clear rating

by
45618
's review

it was amazing
bookshelves: hey-shorty

i had never thought much of this book. sure, i had seen it around, the way you see things,but short stories about the love lives of women?? barf city. i don't read chick lit because i don't find it particularly interesting: shopping, looking for a husband, planning a family- none of these things are "me." but when i went to the adam levin reading with oriana, jami attenberg was also reading. she read a portion of the first short story in this collection, and everything i am made of responded with joy.this is nowhere near chick lit!! i told her as much at the bar after the reading and i made her promise to come to my store and sign stock that i would order in quantity and keep permanently on my table. since then, they have sold very well, and a co-worker of mine read this book, and is halfway through her full-length novel.

she has taken over union square, ms attenberg has.

the first story is still my favorite.it uses a deceptively breezy and conversational tone, chatty like any teenage girl:

"tonight she's going on a date, that's why all the makupping. she's going out with a boy named christian who is nineteen and who likes the smiths and the cure and new order. holly is seventeen and likes new order and echo and the bunnymen and joy division. she knows she should like the smiths but morrissey seems like such a whiny turd. holly has lied to christian about this because he worships morrissey. morrissey changed his life forever, that's what christian says. he's a vegetarian now and everything. meat is murder, he says."

christian sounds like every guy i dated when i was fourteen; so earnest and aimless and doomed, so doomed: ... "and he has shaved the sides of his head and left the hair on top long so that it spills over his narrow face in an awkward way and makes him look vaguely like a celery stick"

in other words, he looks like this:



wheee!

but rarrrr - this story is a tightly compressed block of experiential data that will kick your ass. it is everything that makes up teen love and betrayal. it is all of the teenaged feelings of insecurity and wanting to belong while paradoxically simultaneously feeling superior to everyone else in your peer group.

it was so familiar and perfectly captured - feelings that were so strong turning so abruptly, engaging in relationships as scientific or anthropological studies:

"and then he says 'are you turned on?' he asks her questions like this and she has to answer yes even if she feels stupid saying it because if she doesn't he will stop with the experimenting."

oh, god, the things we teenaged girls put up with...

the rest of the stories follow the same three characters through various stages in their lives. its structure is like a somewhat less experimental goon squad in that some of the stories are halfway over before the connection to the previous characters is even revealed.

it covers every nook and cranny of "relationships": nostalgic longings for the one that got away, embittered endings,self-destructive one-night-stands, opportunistic flirtations, unsuitable first (and second) dates...

"my love life since i moved to new york from chicago has been like a desert. i've had tiny little interactions of love, like finding shallow pools of water to drink from, and then i've moved on, hoping that i've stored enough love and affection and excitement to get me to the next place.

i've been stuck with a string of unsuccessful two-month relationships, the deaths of which have burned out almost all my romantic instinct and desire. i was in love with alan, but i wasn't ready for it yet. i'm probably still not ready. but being who i am - not that i particularly know who i am, i just know who i'm not - i felt i should keep trying for love. i mixed up the real dates with the one-night-stands just enough to keep myself satiated. on the dates you did not fuck, in the bars you did. those late nights at the bars, i recognize now, were just as much work as the dates: the talking, the drinking, the questioning, the laughing so hard at jokes that weren't that funny. they just never were funny. it's not funny, none of it, i know"

it is a whole spectrum of short stories - loosely gathered. it reads like calling an old friend after a three-year absence and witnessing where they are now vs where you had left them. i really enjoyed the structure of this thing. unlike a novel, not all of the details are spelled out - there is much lost in silence, many scenes are allusions only.in the real world, even friends, even lovers, have these knowledge gaps. this structure gives off a strong sense of realism precisely because of these omissions.

this collection could quite easily have gone the cynical route. why are all relationships doomed, why are all men assholes blah blah blah. but these characters, although occasionally bitter or vengeful, keep on trying to make their connections. just because one fails, doesn't mean there isn't the right one that will be the right one. there is an optimism to all of these characters, even at their lowest, that the perfect match is possible.and it is bittersweet and endearing.

"sarah lee falls in love every time she takes the subway, so she's started taking the bus instead. the l train from williamsburg to the east village is killing her, with all these cute young boys, with their lovely young skin and doe eyes and mussed-up hair, mussed up just so and their vintage-store winter coats, some military style, stiff and serious-looking, some more textured and glamorous, as if they should be walking the streets of london circa 1932; and all kinds of crazy kicks on their feet, expensive tennis shoes of vibrant colors, sturdy walking boots, and lately, cowboy boots with heels, but those are worn by the gay boys, so she just admires their feet and ignores the rest. and they are all reading books, worn paperbacks mainly, she imagines they've borrowed from roommates or girlfriends, or listening to their ipods on shuffle. some of them are checking out the girls - their glamour-puss counterparts, equally casually yet strictly attired - looking at their asses or their hair or their new shoes, wondering what those shoes would look like wedged between the bed and wall of their crappy, crumbly apartment, their naked bodies splayed out in some uncomfortable, pornographic position. they are wondering what it would be like to fuck them, sarah lee firmly believes. and while she doesn't want that, want them to only want to fuck her, she wishes, still, that they might glance at her. but they don't. they look anywhere but at her, in the old winter coat she bought at the ninety-nine-cents-a-pound salvation army outlet in seattle, fading pink wool with childlike bejeweled buttons she sewed on herself, not as tough as it used to be, sometimes coats just die, she needs to admit that to herself one of these days; and even if they looked beyond the coat she knows she is too old and not cool enough for them, and sometimes she still speaks with a stutter when she meets new people (though it is much better now) so that even if they could see something in her once she opened her mouth they might move on to the next person, pretend like she didn't exist, until suddenly, she simply didn't. and there is nothing worse than not existing.so she takes the bus to the city instead..."


seriously well done.
love.
79 likes · flag

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read Instant Love.
Sign In »

Comments Showing 1-50 of 129 (129 new)


extraordinary ordinary whimsy Wow. This sounds really cool.


karen it was excellent.

i really took me by surprise.


extraordinary ordinary whimsy O right on! I love when that happens. Will you be reviewing it?


karen ugh, good question. i may not have a spare moment until sunday - i have bitten off more than i can chew lately!

but i will try to do it sooner because i want to share its wonder with the whole community


message 5: by Paquita Maria (last edited Feb 17, 2011 05:57PM) (new)

Paquita Maria Sanchez I get a little jittery when I see you post a book rating without a review attached to it...like it's as much a sign of the apocalypse as swarms of locusts and rivers of blood.


karen no!! i just started this internship which means my free time before work is eaten up and tomorrow i am going out and will not be home until late and then i work from 10 am-1030 pm saturday and then sunday is adventure day!! when will i be able to share my thoughts??? and my dreeeeeams??


message 7: by Paquita Maria (new)

Paquita Maria Sanchez karen wrote: "when will i be able to share my thoughts??? and my dreeeeeams??"

March to the beat of your own drummer, missy! Do what you have to do! Follow your heart! Live to dream! Color outside of the lines and think outside of the box! But to answer your question, yeah...next week works for me if it works for you.


extraordinary ordinary whimsy Kristi: You made me giggle ;)

Karen: Let me know when you do ;) Good luck with catching time.


karen i found time!!! it is two in the morning, but i did it!!


karen hee he left the door wide open by putting it on here - it was only a matter of time before someone went and stole it for a review. but it was honestly the first thing i thought of when i was reading that part.

and i know he will probably come on to this thread with his "brissy, i think it is very clear that the sides of my head aren't shaved in that picture...pay attention to details"

but i don't care!! it was two in the morning!! i was bleary eyed and carefree!!


message 11: by Kim (new) - added it

Kim He'll dwell on the celery stick comparison, you know...


karen i personally like celery very much.

especially gangly celery.


Eh?Eh! You're making me chase down so many books, you and your enticing reviews! Binge binge binge!


karen maybe he will come play if i say he is "buff celery"


eh!! i bought many books yesterday!!


Eh?Eh! I can't wait to see your latest weekly adventures/book confessions installment!


karen well, caris is making us go get more sandwiches today, so it is a mega bonus two-day adventure. it will be posted a little later than usual because of that.


Eh?Eh! Oooooooooh, the blueberry one!! Very exciting.


message 18: by David (new)

David Wait a sec. What's this about "caris is making us"? Didn't I put in a special request last week? Why does Caris receive preferential treatment?

First, Benji, and now he's trying to steal your good graces from me. I may have to cut that bitch.


karen you wanted us to go to times square, though. that's just mean.


message 20: by David (new)

David Did you like how I completely ignored what you were trying to provoke me to react to?


message 21: by David (new)

David So what! This is supposed to be about adventure. And I say that when you live in NYC, going to Applebees is more adventurous than eating chichi rice pudding or beet sandwiches or knishes.


karen BUT THERE ARE NO DUMPSTERS IN TIMES SQUARE!!!


okay - i am out the door on "adventure" now.
you are a strong and defiant man. david.


message 23: by David (new)

David But have you ever fucked in an Applebee's restroom???

It's amazing!!!


message 24: by mark (new)

mark monday gosh, where have your reviews been all my life? i don't know if i'll read this book but i love the review.

i think celery makes for a great soup base, but that's about it. oh yeah, its good for stuffing too.


Eh?Eh! mark wrote: "oh yeah, its good for stuffing too."

Twss!


karen ha!!

i like celery soda, and if there hadn't been problems at the food place today, i would have gotten t try grape-celery soda.

grumble...

eh!! adventure number one is posted...

and thank you mark!!


message 27: by Rayroy (new)

Rayroy your reviews make me want to move to New York


message 28: by Sandra (new)

Sandra sounds great! :)


karen Ives LeSpark wrote: "your reviews make me want to move to New York"

i don't know why more people don't move here after i write up my AIFAFs. who doesn't love great food?


message 30: by jo (new)

jo "short stories about the love lives of women?? barf city." OUCH.


karen maybe i didn't say that right? i was thinking of like candace bushnell/jackie collins crap. which maybe is good, but doesn't look like my kinda thing


message 32: by jo (new)

jo karen, you are a thoughtful and intelligent reader. why is it that men's lives are assumed to be more interesting than women's lives?

why is it that women's lives are assumed to be about "shopping, looking for a husband, planning a family"? and what if they are? great literature has been written about these topics.

the category of "chick lit" demeans the lives of women, which are just as rich and passionate and fascinating and deep as the lives of men. if no one ever said "chick lit" ever again, it would still be too late. i want to see this sentence obliterated, incinerated, and blasted off the face of the language.


message 33: by jo (new)

jo we cross posted. maybe we can agree to call that stuff "bad lit." there is bad lit, by the way, both by and about men and women. real bad lit about guys. barf.


message 34: by karen (last edited Apr 15, 2012 07:06AM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

karen i'm not sure what the criticism is. chick lit exists. it is a genre. it is categorized by the things i mentioned: shopping, dating, etc. it is frivolous, escapist fare. i'm not saying that every book written by a woman is chick lit; that would be absurd. but chick lit is a genre, and it isn't one i read, because i don't live that kind of lifestyle, nor do i envy it and want to "escape" into fantasies of living that life. i thought this book was chick lit, but it is not. it is good solid fiction. and i never said men's lives were more interesting - there is just as much frivolous escapist fiction targeted towards men. i don't read that, either.

a lot of women's fiction also focuses on the family, but it is the treatment of these themes that differentiates one from the other. chick lit is intended to be ... disposable, and the tone is completely different from someone like anne tyler or antonya nelson, whose writing is more mature in style and focus.

there has never been "great literature" about shopping.


message 35: by Rayroy (new)

Rayroy karen wrote: "i'm not sure what the criticism is. chick lit exists. it is a genre. it is categorized by the things i mentioned: shopping, dating, etc. it is frivolous, escapist fare. i'm not saying that every bo..."

"The Starr's Of Texas"


message 36: by jo (new)

jo karen, chick lit is not a god-given category, and we can use it or not use it. one problem with it is that people tend to group under it women's fiction that has nothing to do with what you have in mind. in fact, that you yourself mention staples of women's literature like "looking for a husband, planning a family" as part of that negative construct called "chick lit" speaks for itself. it's easy to be scared away from women's lit by the specter of fluffy talk. male readers do it all the time. they are terrified they'll be dragged into narratives that have to do with women's stories.

another reason why we should ditch the concept of chick lit is that it doesn't have a male correspondent. that always tends to raise a big red flag, doesn't it? like, why doesn't "man crush" have a female equivalent? why doesn't "cat fight" have a male equivalent? why do parents refer to their v. young boys as "my little man" but don't do the equivalent for their little daughters? etc.

i have never read "chick lit" (have you?) and i'm willing to take your word for the claim that it has its paradigms and themes, one being shopping (looking for a husband and building a family, we have agreed, are time-honored parts of bona fide literature). but i've watched chick flicks and some of them are awful and some of them are awesome.

what i'm trying to say is that there is a pervasive bias against women's stories and women's themes, and we should fight it. i don't know of any good novel or story about shopping, but i don't find it hard to imagine that a good writer could do wonders with this theme. any theme at all can be fantastic literature if treated with intelligence and depth. and any theme at all can be crap if dealt with superficially.

so, as i said in my comment above, i prefer to talk about bad literature, and leave it at that, entirely ungendered.


karen there is a male counterpart. it is called lad lit. it is the same caliber of sophistication, writing-wise.

i don't know where the bias against women's fiction is coming from, to you. it is not something i have noticed in all my years working at the bookstore or in library school on on here.i read plenty of fiction by women, but i don't read the frivolous stuff because it doesn't captivate me.

chick lit is a recognized genre. like romance. or science fiction. it has characteristics specific to itself, like any other recognized genre.i haven't read it, but i have studied it. and chick lit is gendered -it is marketed towards twenty-something career women. that is who is buying these books.

you may not like that it exists, but it does, and closing your eyes isn't going to make it go away. it has no effect upon fiction as a whole, or "women's fiction" if you prefer.it is a splinter genre, like "urban fantasy" or "paranormal romance," but it doesn't taint the larger pool of women's fiction. if anything, it preserves it because it has been safely segregated.


message 38: by Annmarie (new)

Annmarie Do you recall that Picoult/Weiner/Franzen kerfuffle? back in, good grief I guess 2010. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jason-p... Oh and http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/20.... I love the title of that piece. That is probably where jo is coming from.


message 39: by Annmarie (new)

Annmarie Ah ha. I knew there was some sort of stats about reviews of male & female authors. Finally found it. The latest VIDA count is sort of dispiriting too: http://www.vidaweb.org/the-count
I have seen 'lad lit" used to but I think the percentage of times that term is used is far far lower than chick lit.
And yet chick lit is such a convenient shorthand term. :)


karen well, women make up 80% of book sales in the US, so it is no wonder lad lit never caught on, commercially. nick hornby is still doing okay, though.


karen see, i would never call jodi picoult a chick lit author. all of her books are very hot topical books about things that are contemporary issues. but things like

The Yummy Mummy
Mine Are Spectacular!
About Last Night. Adele Parks

are.

it is a useful way to categorize books, because this is how people ask for them. it is not particularly useful to just call them "bad books" because that is assigning a judgment to them, and it isn't helpful, from a readers' advisory perspective. i don't like them, but i don't like technothrillers, either, but i am still able to hand a few different authors to someone if they are looking for those kinds of books.

it's like when stores maintain a "black fiction" section, and poor toni morrison is shelved next to Deep Throat Diva. it is a different audience altogether.

people looking for elizabeth berg are not the same people looking forSue Margolis, for example


message 42: by jo (new)

jo karen, people refer to literature by women as chick lit all the time (for instance on my fb page). not the stuff you have in mind, which neither you nor i have read. no. women's literature, women's writing.

and they don't use it in an impartial, this-is-how-it's-called way either. they use it as a clear pejorative.

it seems to me that this term, which carries a strong disparaging connotation, has come for many people to extend much more widely than the "frivolous stuff" to which you allude.

you say that from a reader's advisory p.o.v. one shouldn't assign a negative connotation to a genre. fair enough. so let's talk about good chick lit. is it possible? can chick lit be good? good as in, you know, good? if so, what distinguishes it from women's lit?

i suppose if you are in food marketing it would be bad to assign a pejorative character to "junk food," and god knows we all love junk food sometimes (or often), but it still carries a strong negative connotation.

it is a fact that women's writing is NOT published, reviewed, and listed in "best" lists nearly as much as men's writing, by far (thanks annmarie for linking to the vida count). and i think that the loose use of terms like chick lit does a lot to make this happen.

as i said, these categories are not god given. there shouldn't be a chick lit section at the bookstore and there shouldn't be a black lit section either.

imagine if books were divided in bookstores by "women author" and "men authors." it would be a totally fact-based category. would you like it?

look, karen, this is not an argument that i'm interested in winning. it's just that it's very hard for women to be published and read, and this is dear to my heart. i'm grateful for the hearing and for the engagement you've given me.


message 43: by Simon (new)

Simon It seems to me that understanding what genre is and what it means to argue about genre is terribly problematic. And in addition, genres are never just "there". The assignment of works to a genre is very often polemical, though it's often very hidden what the polemic is about. That's what makes these kinds of discussions so involuted.


message 44: by Annmarie (new)

Annmarie I don't think of Picoult as chick lit, for sure. but Weiner -what's she? Grey area? And how come there's no real equivalent for chick lit -seems to me, after looking up the rough definition of lad lit, that it doesn't really work as an equivalent. How many guys read High Fidelity style guy relationship fiction. The guy equivalent could be Lee Child's shoot 'em up and move on Jack Reacher if you ask me. But that's just called a thriller or action adventure. Maybe because women read most anything?
So well yeah, what Simon said. Very true. stuff's problematic and complicated.


karen i guess it's mostly that i am just confused. i have never - in my store, on goodreads, in my life, heard someone say they wouldn't read books by women. they have said they wouldn't read books based on a number of other factors including age of the author or race of the author, but i have never ever heard anyone dismiss a book because it was written by a woman.

and female authors aren't getting as much review-space as male authors? i don't know - i guess because i personally would rather read non-professional reviewers here on goodreads, i kind of feel like professional reviewers are becoming obsolete. it is like the oscars - things that that are rarely merit-based and who really cares? jennifer egan won the pulitzer last year, tons of women win the booker - yes, the nobel is pretty male-centric, but the nobel has always been problematic, for me, but i guess i just don't see how women's fiction is stigmatized. trust someone who has run the fiction department at a major bookstore in a major city for over ten years (yikes)- books by women are selling with zero problems.

and if women are consistently making up 80% of the adult fiction book sales, it can't be men not wanting to read fiction by women that is the problem, right?

i guess is just don't see the usefulness in segregating books based on the genitals of their author. it isn't a helpful distinction. genre is a helpful distinction. women write mysteries and historical fiction and thrillers and poetry. what's the sense of separating them by gender? no one has ever ever come into the store and asked me, "where are your books by women?" because that is a distinction that has no utility.

it is reductive to define somebody by gender. i am a woman, but that's not all i am. so i guess i just don't understand your argument, because it seems like you are coming from a situation completely different from mine. i don't know what goes on on your facebook page, for example, maybe you know some people who are stuck in a time warp, but no one i know would ever call the room or cat's eye "chick-lit."

but that doesn't mean that chick lit is not a useful distinction. because, again, women do not just write one kind of book. or "women's fiction" which is distinct from "books written by women." i am finding this discussion interesting, so i even dug out my copy of the readers' advisory guide to genre fiction. i'm going to let joyce saricks, the master of readers' advisory, articulate what i seem to be having trouble doing:

one of the most popular annotated booklists at my library is one devoted to books written by women authors about women and their lives. if the popularity of our booklists is any indication of what women read, we know that many women - in my library at least - are requesting books that generally deal with women's lives and relationships. these books that explore concerns faced by women in a specific age group or by women in general do not fall easily into a genre. sometimes readers seek a lighthearted book in this vein; at other times they look for a title that deals more seriously with an issue; at times a soap opera approach satisfies their need to escape the reality of their lives; and at other times they seek something more provocative. all of these are stories that appeal to the emotions. fortunately for librarians and readers alike, this is a market publishers have recognized and worked to meet, providing a wide range of titles that deal with the concerns and joys found in women's lives. although some call this genre women's fiction, i find that term too limiting, as it could suggest to the uninitiated that this is all women read. or that this is what women should read. or what we should suggest to any woman who asks for assistance. we know that just as there is no single type of fiction all men read - no comparable men's fiction - there is no genre all women read. however, the popularity of these books suggests that we find a way to group them. therefore this genre is called women's lives and relationships throughout this chapter.

so a few things, because this goes on and on and is completely fascinating, but who's got time to transcribe entire chapters? but that's just what it is - author's and publishers are providing what many people want. chick lit that is soap opera fare for younger women, authors like kristin hannah and patricia henry for an older and less superficial read, but yes - fiction for women, by women. and who cares if men don't want to read that? it's not for them, it has no real relevance to their lives. but there are plenty of female novelists that don't focus on women's experiences, that write more universally. and those women have broader appeal. and men read them. and they sell and they win awards, so what does it matter that this pocket of fiction targeted specifically for women exists? it doesn't prevent men from reading fiction by women, it just maybe makes them not want to read specific books that maybe they can't relate to. this harms no one. frankly, i have no interest in reading kristin hannah, either, and i'm not a man. i choose my books based on plot and storytelling ability. and i have read tons of amazing novels by women, and written reviews that hopefully have made people want to read them, too.

is there "good" chick lit? probably. bridget jones' diary is supposed to be excellent. of the two people i know who have read it (and one is in fact a man) they both enjoyed it. i haven't read the nanny diaries or the devil wears prada, but i liked the movies, if that means anything, and it probably doesn't. but i'm sure like any genre, there are peaks and valleys. there are good storytellers and people who just wrote a book to cash in on the trend. there are authors like sophie kinsella who have enviable staying power within the genre, and others who are flash-in-the-pans and have been pretty much forgotten.

the bottom line is, if people want it - if it can sell, to put it crassly, people will write it and people will buy it.

but it has no impact on serious literature, even serious literature written by women. no need to fear.

god, this is one of the most useful and interesting discussions i have ever had here on the goodreads. usually my threads descend into nonsense, which i love, but this is actually helpful, i think.


karen Annmarie wrote: "I don't think of Picoult as chick lit, for sure. but Weiner -what's she? Grey area? And how come there's no real equivalent for chick lit -seems to me, after looking up the rough definition of lad ..."

lad lit was kind of a failed experiment. nick hornby was kind of the grandfather of it - his success made people (publishers) want to cash in on the chick lit trend in england and have comparable success with male readers. a lot came out, but was quickly forgotten. it didn't really sell, but it was all about men in their twenties and early thirties, and their dating relationships and careers (not so much about shopping, though) but it never really caught on, and most of the authors never wrote more than one book. we still have some of them lying around the store, because i am waiting for that one day when someone asks for it, but it hasn't happened yet.


karen okay, and i didn't have a chance to read that picoult/weiner article at work yesterday, but now i have, and it is excellent. makes me fall in love with weiner a little bit. this is a great quote from her:

Do I think I should be getting all of the attention that Jonathan "Genius" Franzen gets? Nope. Would I like to be taken at least as seriously as a Jonathan Tropper or a Nick Hornby? Absolutely.

and i think the problem, for her, is her covers. i have never read tropper, hornby, or weiner. but i gotta tell you, i would be way more likely to pick up and read back-cover copy from a book like this:



than this:



i know that is completely shallow, but i literally shelve hundreds of books each day. five days a week. i see a lot of books,and i have developed a sort of shorthand for what i might be into. and that second one wouldn't even make it through the first pass because it looks like a douche ad. and after reading her article, where she comes across as genuinely funny and grounded, i would definitely want to read a book by her. so i guess that wins that argument - these people should be getting more professional review and interview space, because it will generate sales.


message 48: by Greg (new) - rated it 4 stars

Greg I went to look at the VIDA website and they have some perfectly valid points but I don't think bean-counting is the answer to the problem. The first thing I thought was that if they sent their agents to our store and looked at Karen's tables they would probably write an article about how they don't fairly represent women, because I'm pretty sure that the men usually outnumber the women on her tables. Does this mean that women writers aren't represented though? Should Karen have to pick an equal number of authors by each gender? Is reducing an author to a number with a sexual organ progress? And why stop at gender, why not demand total equality of writers from all different regions, because if you look at serious literature and what wins awards and gets reviewed you'll probably find that New Yorkers are faring better than almost everyone else (in America at least), so maybe that's not fair and authors from Arizona are having a really hard time getting read. And what about the class distinction? Aren't a whole lot of writers who get published and get reviewed the products of costly MFA programs?


karen there are so many lady-authors on my tables! and the downtrodden!!!

oh, actually, you are a good person to have here, because you love bridget jones, and don't you still have all that data from your 709 project? that had interesting gender-facts, right?


message 50: by [deleted user] (new)

Michelle just posted an interesting article about this, which gets to the cover problem, among others.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/boo...


« previous 1 3
back to top