Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.18 AVERAGE
3.18 AVERAGE
For, And About, Hipsters Who Hate Hipsters (Who Love Books)
Lauded by a probably older generation of the lit snob crowd so exactingly dissected within, The Love Affairs of Nathaniel P. provides its pleasure through contempt. For those of us (in denial about) being immersed in the wide scene of self-conscious, pretentious (aspiring) artists, this is the perfect (non-)ironic guilty pleasure thickly cloaked in (non-)ironic references to fancy writers and philosophers. Waldman is self-aware enough that she can be granted success in striking balance in this wink-nod self-criticism of her ilk but her writing skills just don't match up to her sociologist's eye.
The purposefully hollow moments of human connection are thwarted by awkward lines like: "He descended upon her so swiftly that she made some sort of girlish, giggling noise of suprise-cum-accommodation before she began kissing him back. He felt the cigarette fall to the ground. Her mouth tasted mildly of ashtray. It didn't bother him. He liked that she found the antismoking thing 'totalitarian.'" (p. 56)
It's the sociologist's eye that makes the book and, ultimately, redeems it.
Every self-involved artist you've dated, every neurotic over-educated friend you've had, every sense of self you've held, is dispassionately and accurately analyzed into a collection of simple frivolities. And it's pretty tasty.
This social criticism has drawn comparisons to Wharton and Austen, but such authors have a heart-rending humanity at the core of their tales of human folly and ensemble casts of unlikable characters. They take us through extravagant labyrinths of our own superficiality to reveal our vulnerability. Through them, we forgive and embrace ourselves as belle laide. There is no such essential humanity in Walden's story. Every character remains that collection of frivolous traits, not a greater whole.
Perhaps because there is little gesture towards that depth The Love Affairs of Nathaniel P. is consistent as its characters. If read as a gossipy sociological take-down of the hipster lit snob crowd, as a breakdown of its archetypes, it succeeds, right down to a very apt ending.
Lauded by a probably older generation of the lit snob crowd so exactingly dissected within, The Love Affairs of Nathaniel P. provides its pleasure through contempt. For those of us (in denial about) being immersed in the wide scene of self-conscious, pretentious (aspiring) artists, this is the perfect (non-)ironic guilty pleasure thickly cloaked in (non-)ironic references to fancy writers and philosophers. Waldman is self-aware enough that she can be granted success in striking balance in this wink-nod self-criticism of her ilk but her writing skills just don't match up to her sociologist's eye.
The purposefully hollow moments of human connection are thwarted by awkward lines like: "He descended upon her so swiftly that she made some sort of girlish, giggling noise of suprise-cum-accommodation before she began kissing him back. He felt the cigarette fall to the ground. Her mouth tasted mildly of ashtray. It didn't bother him. He liked that she found the antismoking thing 'totalitarian.'" (p. 56)
It's the sociologist's eye that makes the book and, ultimately, redeems it.
Every self-involved artist you've dated, every neurotic over-educated friend you've had, every sense of self you've held, is dispassionately and accurately analyzed into a collection of simple frivolities. And it's pretty tasty.
This social criticism has drawn comparisons to Wharton and Austen, but such authors have a heart-rending humanity at the core of their tales of human folly and ensemble casts of unlikable characters. They take us through extravagant labyrinths of our own superficiality to reveal our vulnerability. Through them, we forgive and embrace ourselves as belle laide. There is no such essential humanity in Walden's story. Every character remains that collection of frivolous traits, not a greater whole.
Perhaps because there is little gesture towards that depth The Love Affairs of Nathaniel P. is consistent as its characters. If read as a gossipy sociological take-down of the hipster lit snob crowd, as a breakdown of its archetypes, it succeeds, right down to a very apt ending.
I hate men http://paquetdevie.blogspot.com/2015/08/review-love-affairs-of-nathaniel-p-by.html
I wrote almost half of my senior Capstone project on the objectification, misogyny, and sexism that dominate the protagonist, Nate Piven. I'm a feminist, and while I wrote hateful marginalia and screamed at this book multiple times, I think it's a fantastic critique of our postfeminist society.
Gets right inside the head of protaganist Nate, an upper middle-class New York author, observing modern manners around relationships with fine detail.
So frustrating in its shallow but heavy-handed psychological representations, the characters are caricatures, so obvious, thinly painted but given far too much detail. The author could benefit from explaining less, and leaving out all the over analysis that marks this as a blatantly female read. The best represented, and most believably human character was Greer, who was woefully relegated to the final few pages. That she, in her sparse detail and description, stands out in such contrast from the other more 'developed' characters should speak volumes. The old writers' maxim - show, don't tell - is pertinent here.
Luckily I think the women who pick this book up will be smart enough to see through all the misogynist-baiting and not use it to inform their opinions of men and 'mannishness' , otherwise I'd rank it alongside 50 Shades in its irresponsible representations of male/female dynamics.
I'm left with the feeling that this novel was written for men to read, for them to read and learn some kind of lesson from. But it over-simplifies and generalises a male psyche, unfairly so in my opinion, and kicks up the whole 'Not All Men' argument again, which is reductive but essentially true, and that just leaves me feeling uncomfortable and with a bitter taste.
Luckily I think the women who pick this book up will be smart enough to see through all the misogynist-baiting and not use it to inform their opinions of men and 'mannishness' , otherwise I'd rank it alongside 50 Shades in its irresponsible representations of male/female dynamics.
I'm left with the feeling that this novel was written for men to read, for them to read and learn some kind of lesson from. But it over-simplifies and generalises a male psyche, unfairly so in my opinion, and kicks up the whole 'Not All Men' argument again, which is reductive but essentially true, and that just leaves me feeling uncomfortable and with a bitter taste.
I struggled a bit with this book. While I appreciate its richness in vocabulary, I found it not only slow to actually read but lacking a purposeful plot. The protagonist is grossly unlikeable; the main draw to this novel is its analysis of relationships, but it leaves the reader feeling very unsatisfied. I suppose that's the point, but it wasn't for me.
funny
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
I do not quite see why so many people hate the character of Nate. In many ways he is a sympathetic protagonist who is trying to figure life out. For better or worse then, I could see various aspects of my life embodied in Nate and his indecisions about how to approach life. As much as I have read the negatives about Nate and the negative opinions of him, I cannot bring myself to say he is bad. He has his opinions and preferences. Is he always validated in them? Does any character in fiction need to be?