This book inspired one of the best discussions my book club has had in the five years I've been a part of it! Recommended for that if nothing else.

I thought I'd never hate a book more than On Chesil Beach, and then I read this one. I picked up a copy in the interest of reading 'one of the most important feminist books of the century'. What is so feminist about sexually harassing someone? What on earth is feminist about this book, apart from the fact that it has a women in it? Is that it!? Is that how low our standards are?! I stopped reading the book before I was even a quarter of the way through. It was dry, repetitive, and uncomfortable (but in an utterly unprovoking way). I absolutely despised it.

OH EGYPT I AM WASHING MY HAIR TO GAIN KNOWLEDGE OF YOU

I did not finish this book or feel that it blew open my understanding of the Novel, feminism/female identity/female sexuality. "How Should a Person Be" by Sheila Heti much better.

I absolutely loved this!! It was utterly unhinged and at times so bizarre - but also so intelligent and witty and SO. MUCH. FUN!!! A story of obsession - of all kinds.

The structure of it - written in the form of letters - makes for a super interesting and unique read, and I loved that it was partly narrative and partly littered with miniature essays and culture commentaries. The prose is astute but simultaneously poetic and, at times, extremely funny. It's really unlike anything I've read before.

(I also read a lot on my commute to work so that was endlessly entertaining!)

Super cool and really beautiful prose! I can't understand how people read autofiction and their reaction is "SO PRETENTIOUS! UGH! How ignorant!" or whatever when the whole time she's calling herself obsessive and borderline creepy. The book both dips and peaks in the moments where she monologues about artistry and other related topics (see, points on schizophrenia) where they connect lines and also create some serious question marks. Anyway.

I loved and hated and loved it again.
So many great moments, great sentences. I think this book is a hit or miss and I understand how one might not enjoy reading it. But I certainly did. And to think it was written in the 90's is crazy, I feel like I read a 2017 novel about social media and stalking and women's place in the world.

“Sylvère keeps socializing what I’m doing through with you. Labeling it through other people’s eyes – Adultery in Academe, John Updike meets Marivaux… Faculty Wife Throws Herself At Husband’s Colleague. This presumes that there is something inherently grotesque, unspeakable about femaleness, desire. But what I’m going through with you is real and happening for the first time.”

Or yet again :
“Dear Dick, I’m wondering why every act that narrated female lived experience in the ’70s has been read only as “collaborative” and “feminist.” The Zurich Dadaists worked together too but they were geniuses and they had names. ”

All in all, MUST READ.

2nd reread, 2017: Reread because I got all worked up about how there's a TV show, and from what I've heard about the show, it only captures the awful characters and not the awesome thinking behind the characters and it's the thinking that makes the book worthwhile, so it would make for pretty shitty TV, and I was feeling all proprietary about that, so read it again. And these are my reactions:

1) I'm a better editor now than I was then, and this could really stand some editing. I'm less forgiving now than I was then about "its" errors and no amount of breathless theorizing about sex can change that. Also, calling Holbrook, AZ, "Holborn" makes me distrust all sorts of other geographical references to places I don't know, and place names are not like people names, like Dick's; they're just a truth that you need to get right.

2. I cared more about her marriage than about her fantasy this time...or maybe that's not fair. I cared more about the fantasy's role in her marriage.

3. Certain lines, mostly about the ways men talk to women who "think too much," still, again, make me want to punch things and set them on fire. So...spot on there.

4. Despite the question of "who is allowed to speak and why," there's a disturbing lack of intersectionality in a lot of this book.

5. In response to reviewers who see Chris has harassing Dick, as not respecting his boundaries or subjectivity or stated desires...well, yes. Exactly. "Who gets to speak?"

6. Page 174: "To see yourself as you were ten years ago can be very strange indeed." (Except, according to Goodreads, it was only seven)
-----------------
2010: not for everyone, but for me, f***ing incredible. funny, heartbreaking, challenging...love it.