I read the original review, as well as your book - her distaste for nonmonogamy is obvious and it colours her review in a weird way. Even if your marriage was open I don't think it would make me sympathise with her perspective any more
Yeah, I agree! But I think that assumption that everyone who rejects the traditional conservative view about sex must be in an open relationship is…telling
I read this review after the correction and I agree that without the reference to open marriage a lot of it doesn’t make sense although I did find it an enjoyable read.
It is mysterious to me that people get so hung up on attitudes to sex that it can actually cloud their understanding of what they read, as clearly happened here. I got no such sense of your marriage from my own reading, in fact at times I felt rather envious of what seems to be an incredibly fulfilling relationship! (Not that an open marriage cannot be fulfilling I would hasten to add.)
I also fundamentally disagree with her take on your Cronenberg essay. It is my favourite of the collection and I found some of the autobiographical passages to be the most striking. It would be a lesser work without them.
I devoured your book in a couple of days and I am shouting about it to anyone who will listen. It’s wonderful.
When I've shared your essays with others, I do remember that I needed to recapitulate your points around sex as a transformative experience at least a couple of times. Sometimes people default to a static model of desire and really I just needed to nudge them a little so that they would picture themselves as beings that evolved over time.
Still, that doesn't fully explain how one might make this mistake about your marriage. I'm curious to read this review now.
I say good for you—a correction certainly seems less than sufficient in this case. Your retort is better and much more interesting than most of the contesting letters to NYRB reviews. Got to read your book!
It seems to me that more and more often, people’s arguments proceed from incorrect characterization of their targets. I think that if we could all somehow be compelled to correctly characterize everyone else’s positions or statements before we say anything about them, our entire society would collapse. It would be the discourse version of those massages that (reportedly) cause people to lose their lunch.
Thank you Becca for standing your ground and picking up the hand grenade from your foxhole and tossing it back at the thrower.
It gives the reader another opportunity to enjoy the word-craft which brought us all here in the first place.
I am not far into the book but the bites I have taken are savory and worthwhile. More to say but not here/now.
Keep your chin up, press on, and mind your health challenges. This body(temple) is all we really have in life that is our own.
All the best:)
♥️
I read the original review, as well as your book - her distaste for nonmonogamy is obvious and it colours her review in a weird way. Even if your marriage was open I don't think it would make me sympathise with her perspective any more
Yeah, I agree! But I think that assumption that everyone who rejects the traditional conservative view about sex must be in an open relationship is…telling
I read this review after the correction and I agree that without the reference to open marriage a lot of it doesn’t make sense although I did find it an enjoyable read.
It is mysterious to me that people get so hung up on attitudes to sex that it can actually cloud their understanding of what they read, as clearly happened here. I got no such sense of your marriage from my own reading, in fact at times I felt rather envious of what seems to be an incredibly fulfilling relationship! (Not that an open marriage cannot be fulfilling I would hasten to add.)
I also fundamentally disagree with her take on your Cronenberg essay. It is my favourite of the collection and I found some of the autobiographical passages to be the most striking. It would be a lesser work without them.
I devoured your book in a couple of days and I am shouting about it to anyone who will listen. It’s wonderful.
Thank you!
When I've shared your essays with others, I do remember that I needed to recapitulate your points around sex as a transformative experience at least a couple of times. Sometimes people default to a static model of desire and really I just needed to nudge them a little so that they would picture themselves as beings that evolved over time.
Still, that doesn't fully explain how one might make this mistake about your marriage. I'm curious to read this review now.
I say good for you—a correction certainly seems less than sufficient in this case. Your retort is better and much more interesting than most of the contesting letters to NYRB reviews. Got to read your book!
It seems to me that more and more often, people’s arguments proceed from incorrect characterization of their targets. I think that if we could all somehow be compelled to correctly characterize everyone else’s positions or statements before we say anything about them, our entire society would collapse. It would be the discourse version of those massages that (reportedly) cause people to lose their lunch.
Got annoyed by your first paragraph (churlish indeed), wholeheartedly agree with the rest of the essay, subscribed
I remember reading the book and coming with the same impression as the reviewer. Maybe I didn’t read it closely enough.
yeah....it's definitely not in there