Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why this story is so captivating. I read it. Yes, she is a good writer. But men leave their wives and families every day. Nothing about this struck me as unusual except they had lots of money and she could write.

It made me feel like the only reason it's been such a runaway success is that people really love reading about really rich people's misdeeds and downfalls. Considering the buzz, I though it was going to be one thousand times more salacious and outrageous and instead it was just kind of eh. Not that raw or emotional either. Even the OP of this thread talks about the author airing all of her family's dirty laundry, and I that's what I was expecting from the read. But then it was just sort of mild. I really thought people were so into this book because it was filled with sordid details. Spoiler alert, it isn't.

I thought it was a really interesting look at how aspects of divorce are likely universal. Her privilege didn't really protect her from from some of the more patriarchal attitudes and impacts, and feeling blindsided by finding out someone you loved and trusted above all others isn't who you thought they were...that's something that I bet many can relate to. I didn't find it salacious but I thought it was a good read.

The toughest aspects of divorce are financial though. I think her privilege protected her from absolutely everything but just her dh leaving, which did not actually seem like that big of a loss.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why this story is so captivating. I read it. Yes, she is a good writer. But men leave their wives and families every day. Nothing about this struck me as unusual except they had lots of money and she could write.

It made me feel like the only reason it's been such a runaway success is that people really love reading about really rich people's misdeeds and downfalls. Considering the buzz, I though it was going to be one thousand times more salacious and outrageous and instead it was just kind of eh. Not that raw or emotional either. Even the OP of this thread talks about the author airing all of her family's dirty laundry, and I that's what I was expecting from the read. But then it was just sort of mild. I really thought people were so into this book because it was filled with sordid details. Spoiler alert, it isn't.

I thought it was a really interesting look at how aspects of divorce are likely universal. Her privilege didn't really protect her from from some of the more patriarchal attitudes and impacts, and feeling blindsided by finding out someone you loved and trusted above all others isn't who you thought they were...that's something that I bet many can relate to. I didn't find it salacious but I thought it was a good read.

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why this story is so captivating. I read it. Yes, she is a good writer. But men leave their wives and families every day. Nothing about this struck me as unusual except they had lots of money and she could write.

It made me feel like the only reason it's been such a runaway success is that people really love reading about really rich people's misdeeds and downfalls. Considering the buzz, I though it was going to be one thousand times more salacious and outrageous and instead it was just kind of eh. Not that raw or emotional either. Even the OP of this thread talks about the author airing all of her family's dirty laundry, and I that's what I was expecting from the read. But then it was just sort of mild. I really thought people were so into this book because it was filled with sordid details. Spoiler alert, it isn't.

Anonymous wrote:Just finished reading the book. Burden is a good writer, but her story is rage-inducing, and not in the way she intended. The whole thing with the prenup--so much foreshadowing, only for her to really quickly mention "private negotiation with James by email" (I don't want to add any spoilers, but those of you who read it will know what I meant). That drove me nuts!!!

I'm in the "she accidentally married a sociopath" camp. They can sometimes really fake the whole thing, partly because it's so easy for them, and partly because it was advantageous for his career. She doesn't really dwell on some key moments, like how he started working for her uncle at a hedge fund.

From reading a few stories like these, there are always glaring red flags: man who is away a lot, poor communicator and a bit aloof, fast courtship, woman who adores the man a little too much and puts him on a pedestal, the women have generational wealth and status the man was after...

Just finished reading the book. Burden is a good writer, but her story is rage-inducing, and not in the way she intended. The whole thing with the prenup--so much foreshadowing, only for her to really quickly mention "private negotiation with James by email" (I don't want to add any spoilers, but those of you who read it will know what I meant). That drove me nuts!!!

I'm in the "she accidentally married a sociopath" camp. They can sometimes really fake the whole thing, partly because it's so easy for them, and partly because it was advantageous for his career. She doesn't really dwell on some key moments, like how he started working for her uncle at a hedge fund.

Anonymous wrote:Just read that one of the streaming services (I'm thinking Netflix?) bought the rights and that they're going to have Gwyneth Paltrow play her. Thinking about it in retrospect, didn't she spend summers on Cape Cod and he stayed in the city, so maybe he was NEVER that into her? Maybe he always had a secret life? Yeah, to me the weirdest part was that he didn't want any kind of formal custody of the kids -- and I felt like the book was just getting really interesting when it ended. I wanted to know what their life was like a few years from now -- does he have a girlfriend? Does he even bother showing up at the kids' weddings? College drop off? What do the kids end up thinking about him as an adult?

we are nowhere near that wealthy but one of my kids' friends has a father who didn't bother showing up at her wedding, so I guess I have just been thinking about how all this looks going forward. "no thanks, I don't need to meet my grandchild. Not interested. I'm good." Weird!

Weren't there descriptions of him watching the geese or ducks or whatever bird it was at the Cape house? He was also involved in a social life there (more into it than she was) and took photos of the kids for the DVDs he made. It's also not that unusual for a husband to stay in the city and just come out to the summer house on the weekends. The basis for The Srven Year Itch, I believe.

I think she was more in love with him than he with her. I think she just trusted him. I think he probably just wasn't honest about his true feelings. And he might have been able to be 75% into the marriage or whatever and then lose interest.

It's amazing what someone can hold in and fake until they don't anymore; I see him as that type. I have known someone like that. They can fool you. He went along but wasn't as happy as he pretended to be and then finally let it out. They also were preoccupied with day-to-day routines which were upended with Covid.

Anonymous wrote:I read a lot and I am on the relationship forum a lot and I don't know... I just wasn't interested in this particular story. I read the New York Times article and I'm just not in the mood for affluent white people lying to each other right now. I can't explain it.

+1. This population isn’t compelling right now, though the person’s individual story may be unique.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not surprised her husband left. She’s vapid and obsessed with clubs, private schools and her family lineage. The details made for an interesting read but also demonstrated to me why he got tired of her. I’ve known some women who live in her orbit and their entire existence revolves around money and lifestyle. It’s boring.

+1 I was surprised to hear her say in an interview there were zero signs. I don't think she's the sharpest tool in the shed because how on earth can there be no signs your husband is capable of something like this? I think her extremely privileged life and all the years she spent at home made her naive.

I have long thought that the lifestyle of many very wealthy people is bascially designed to allow married people to live separate lives and cheat on each other. There is no forced togetherness for the family out of necessity, because there is enough money that people never *have* to live in the same home or go on the same vacation or really do anything together. Not just parents, but kids too -- this is why boarding schools exist, as well as 24/7 nannies. The wealthy families I have known that don't have cheating/dysfunction have always gone out of their way to mostly live and travel together, even though their money makes it possible not to. That means kids are in local schools, and parents live at home during the school year and show up to school events (both of them) and participate in stuff like drop off and activities car pools, even though they could obviously hire that out. It means eating meals together even if it means someone has to go back to work after. It means scheduling vacations around school and work schedules and not just shuttling the kids and SAHM off while DH goes on work travel or stays behind to work. It means prioritizing the family unit and not just individual relationships within the family.

Not saying you have to do absolutely everything together but it should be the default. Just because you can afford to spend July in Spain with a girlfriend while the kids are at nice camps and your DH is back in NYC or traveling to visit clients doesn't mean that's a smart or particularly good way to run a family. It might be less luxurious to force a family like that to commit to a 10 day vacation in Spain sans nanny between DH's work travel where you have to do parenting instead of just sitting by a pool drinking cocktails, but it's ultimately better for the family and your marriage. Strange but true.

Anonymous wrote:I read the NYT article and have no interest in reading the book. Of course Gwyneth Paltrow will play BB in the series. More quiet luxury porn for those who grieve the end of Love Story (the JFK, Jr. -CBK series; not the Ali McGraw-Ryan O'Neal movie).

The Ali McGraw/Ryan O'Neal Love Story was such preppy porn though. There was enough quiet luxury porn in it too.

Anonymous wrote:Paltrow is WAY too old to play the lead.

How? Paltrow and Burden are almost the same age.

Anonymous wrote:Not surprised her husband left. She’s vapid and obsessed with clubs, private schools and her family lineage. The details made for an interesting read but also demonstrated to me why he got tired of her. I’ve known some women who live in her orbit and their entire existence revolves around money and lifestyle. It’s boring.

+1 I was surprised to hear her say in an interview there were zero signs. I don't think she's the sharpest tool in the shed because how on earth can there be no signs your husband is capable of something like this? I think her extremely privileged life and all the years she spent at home made her naive.

Not surprised her husband left. She’s vapid and obsessed with clubs, private schools and her family lineage. The details made for an interesting read but also demonstrated to me why he got tired of her. I’ve known some women who live in her orbit and their entire existence revolves around money and lifestyle. It’s boring.

Paltrow is WAY too old to play the lead.

Just read it, and came here to see if a discussion had begun.

I found it fascinating ... mostly because there seemed to be a few red flags, but even still, she defends her ex to a certain degree. Like, she says he's kind and good with the kids when it sounds like he has seen them once a week at most ever since the divorce.

I read the NYT article and have no interest in reading the book. Of course Gwyneth Paltrow will play BB in the series. More quiet luxury porn for those who grieve the end of Love Story (the JFK, Jr. -CBK series; not the Ali McGraw-Ryan O'Neal movie).