Yesteryear

[Anonymous]

I just read this in one go today and my head is spinning. Wow. I will probably have to go back and read some parts again knowing the ending to see if I missed any earlier clues or see things at a different angle.

I didn't end up disliking the main character. It became increasingly obvious that she had worsening mental illness and was completely disintegrating by the end. Her husband was hugely culpable for how far things went. The whole book was sort of like Ruby Franke/Andrea Yates fever dream meets M. Night Shyamalan's The Village.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hated it. Def not satire, with nothing to add to conversation. It basically was a anti-feminist treatise -- all women are miserable, let's hate on the one who is the worst, and excuse all the slacker men. It was DCUM personified, frankly.

I had a 180-degree different understanding! I thought the message was you could basically never flourish (or even, in this story, survive) by trying to meet the standards of the patriarchy. There is no real "winning" if you stayed in this system. Certainly that applies to women - from the protagonist to her Harvard roommate - but also, as the story suggested, to men too. It was pretty clear that her husband, who was depicted as a fairly awful, pathetic character, really would have only been "realized" if he had naturally progressed into being a yoga mat-toting kindergarten teacher, which of course the system did not permit!

Hmm. Interesting. But, if it was a truly feminist novel the women wouldn't have all hated each other and back-stabbed each other (the producer who seems evolved but has affair and lies on TV, mother screams at daughter that she's horrible after she tells DD she cheated on father, protag relationship with daughters, and on...). Feminists believe in the collective power of women. That was missing.

[Anonymous]

Just finished and LOVED it. Did not see that ending coming. For those who loved it, what should I read next? I’m sad it’s over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It was super engaging, but got hard to read after a while because the main character / narrator is so unlikable

Did you read it or listen to it?

I have been avoiding this thread until I finished it and I listened to the Audible because the narrator is one of my favorite narrators ever. (She did Rules of Civility in the most beautiful way if you have never listened to that!).

I hated Natalie but because of the narrator I found myself having a soft spot for her. I also think there was something about the way the parts in her hear (when she would think things and get in a loop) translated so well to being read.

Ultimately, I loved the book and I was sad when it was over, but for anyone who hasn't read it I would highly, highly recommend listening to this over reading it. I do think it's one of those ones that comes across so much better as an audio book.

I'm not sure about Anne Hathaway as Natalie at all... I was hoping for someone meeker, like Natalie Portman (the name similarity is a coincidence), maybe Kirsten Dunst, even Jessica Biel. I just find Anne Hathaway to be somewhat aggressive, I don't know why. Maybe I'll need to go back and watch the Princess Diaries again beforehand.

[Anonymous]

I'm listening to the audio book as well. I like the narrator, agree about Rules of Civility. However, the story is just falling flat for me. There has been so much hype around the book but I just can't get into it. I'm still early in , so will give it some more time but so far not liking it. I almost wish I would dislike the narrator more but so far it just reads flat to me. She might as well be reading a physics textbook, I'm just not enjoying the story (so far).

[Anonymous]

I'm about 1/4 of the way through and the cursing feels gratuitous. I'm not remotely a prude but I'm sensitive to using expletives in a way that enhances the story or detracts from it and thus far this book is falling firmly into the latter camp for me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm about 1/4 of the way through and the cursing feels gratuitous. I'm not remotely a prude but I'm sensitive to using expletives in a way that enhances the story or detracts from it and thus far this book is falling firmly into the latter camp for me.

I noticed that, and I wondered if maybe the artificial was of it was intentional. I’m also only 30% in, and it is clear that she made a bit of a shift in Harvard, and maybe this was part of her way of blending both worlds? The swearing is almost childlike because she’s trying on the attitude (internally of course) like a child might when they first start to swear?

It took me many, many years of frequent swearing to become a natural language to me.

[Anonymous]

I just finished the book. While I was intrigued by the concept, it just got way weird by the end. I’m trying not to add any spoilers to this thread, but I don’t understand where Caleb ended up and why it seems he was not culpable.

I didn’t listen to the book, but Rules of Civility is one of the first audiobooks I listened to and loved the narrator Rebecca Lowman. She has narrated a lot of books.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm about 1/4 of the way through and the cursing feels gratuitous. I'm not remotely a prude but I'm sensitive to using expletives in a way that enhances the story or detracts from it and thus far this book is falling firmly into the latter camp for me.

I noticed that, and I wondered if maybe the artificial was of it was intentional. I’m also only 30% in, and it is clear that she made a bit of a shift in Harvard, and maybe this was part of her way of blending both worlds? The swearing is almost childlike because she’s trying on the attitude (internally of course) like a child might when they first start to swear?

It took me many, many years of frequent swearing to become a natural language to me.

I kept going and am now a little more than halfway and now she says "sh*t" alllll the time. I have accepted that this is the way it's going to be and it's strange but I do want to find out how it ends.

[Anonymous]

I just felt like this book was cheap. It tried to piggyback on people's obsession over Hannah Neeleman and steals her entire persona and life. I mean, it worked, the book is hugely successful because of it. But there is nothing unique or special in what the author created. It feels like this author is being rewarded for mediocrity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just felt like this book was cheap. It tried to piggyback on people's obsession over Hannah Neeleman and steals her entire persona and life. I mean, it worked, the book is hugely successful because of it. But there is nothing unique or special in what the author created. It feels like this author is being rewarded for mediocrity.

It's definitely a roman a clef and does not paint Hannah's husband in a good light (nor Hannah).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hated it. Def not satire, with nothing to add to conversation. It basically was a anti-feminist treatise -- all women are miserable, let's hate on the one who is the worst, and excuse all the slacker men. It was DCUM personified, frankly.

I had a 180-degree different understanding! I thought the message was you could basically never flourish (or even, in this story, survive) by trying to meet the standards of the patriarchy. There is no real "winning" if you stayed in this system. Certainly that applies to women - from the protagonist to her Harvard roommate - but also, as the story suggested, to men too. It was pretty clear that her husband, who was depicted as a fairly awful, pathetic character, really would have only been "realized" if he had naturally progressed into being a yoga mat-toting kindergarten teacher, which of course the system did not permit!

Hmm. Interesting. But, if it was a truly feminist novel the women wouldn't have all hated each other and back-stabbed each other (the producer who seems evolved but has affair and lies on TV, mother screams at daughter that she's horrible after she tells DD she cheated on father, protag relationship with daughters, and on...). Feminists believe in the collective power of women. That was missing.

Maybe I missed something or misread it, but I didn't take it that the producer was lying. I read it as either Natalie was an unreliable narrator, or the situation was somewhat ambiguous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hated it. Def not satire, with nothing to add to conversation. It basically was a anti-feminist treatise -- all women are miserable, let's hate on the one who is the worst, and excuse all the slacker men. It was DCUM personified, frankly.

I had a 180-degree different understanding! I thought the message was you could basically never flourish (or even, in this story, survive) by trying to meet the standards of the patriarchy. There is no real "winning" if you stayed in this system. Certainly that applies to women - from the protagonist to her Harvard roommate - but also, as the story suggested, to men too. It was pretty clear that her husband, who was depicted as a fairly awful, pathetic character, really would have only been "realized" if he had naturally progressed into being a yoga mat-toting kindergarten teacher, which of course the system did not permit!

Hmm. Interesting. But, if it was a truly feminist novel the women wouldn't have all hated each other and back-stabbed each other (the producer who seems evolved but has affair and lies on TV, mother screams at daughter that she's horrible after she tells DD she cheated on father, protag relationship with daughters, and on...). Feminists believe in the collective power of women. That was missing.

NP. I think, sadly, that while this is what feminists technically believe, in reality that frequently does not come to fruition. This book felt real to me because it was about how women can't survive in the patriarchal society, but weak men aren't the solution. Moreover, women continually undermine each other. To me, if felt sadly realistic, not idealistic.

[Anonymous]

Ok I just finished it and I didn't see that coming at all and I still don't understand what happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just finished the book. While I was intrigued by the concept, it just got way weird by the end. I’m trying not to add any spoilers to this thread, but I don’t understand where Caleb ended up and why it seems he was not culpable.

I didn’t listen to the book, but Rules of Civility is one of the first audiobooks I listened to and loved the narrator Rebecca Lowman. She has narrated a lot of books.

Yes for real, what the hell was Caleb doing? How did his parents or Natalie's mom do nothing about it? Is he in jail, too? I am so confused.