Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.18 AVERAGE
3.18 AVERAGE
Ah, this is the tonic. Yes, it's another book about a male Brooklyn writer, but this time it's puncturing the oh-so-overexposed figure. Waldman's Nate isn't necessarily awful; well, at least not on purpose. Waldman works really well with the character, showing his selfishness, his shallow nature, his pretentiousness and lack of self-knowledge (which lack he would consider implausible thanks to his constant self-regard). This is a funny book, and true. If, in the end, Waldman doesn't quite give Nate the dose of harsh reality we might wish, perhaps his continued inability to grow or see himself is worse punishment.
Smart, funny, and extremely perceptive about relationships and the small cruelties and lies one can tell in the midst of them.
So, yes, a tonic. And worth any ten books by Gessen, Levin, Lerner, or Safran Foer. Skip those Nate-ish dopes.
Smart, funny, and extremely perceptive about relationships and the small cruelties and lies one can tell in the midst of them.
So, yes, a tonic. And worth any ten books by Gessen, Levin, Lerner, or Safran Foer. Skip those Nate-ish dopes.
I don't know if the main character was unlikeable on purpose or not, but he was incredibly grating, and the book was full of "men are so logical, women are so emotional and illogical" crap. Again, maybe that was supposed to just be illustrative of the way the main character thinks, but given that his attitude didn't change throughout the book it seems irrelevant.
Stars! Because Lauren told me to...
It was actually hard to figure out how to star this book. I was caught up in the story and read it quickly, getting annoyed when I had to put it down. Not that anything particularly exciting was happening--it’s not a plot-driven story. Someone described my taste in movies as “people talking a lot and nothing much happening,” and sometimes that holds true for my taste in books as well. It’s a commentary on relationships, both romantic and platonic, in general--on power dynamics and sexism and what attracts people to one another and what people find attractive about themselves--and that’s what appealed to me
The narration is smart and funny. Some characters made me nod: I so know that person. Some of the characters and their relationships seemed brutally accurate--that thing where you know you're doing something you shouldn't and you know why you're doing it and why you shouldn't and you continue to do it? There was a lot of that. But the story is sometimes painful to read, and I wanted to give the main character a good shake more than once. I know, I know, that was the POINT, but it still frustrates me when I'm reading. I generally want to LIKE the person I’m reading about. And Nate wasn’t totally unlikeable--there was a certain self-awareness that was redeeming, little moments of niceness--so I did keep reading. And I’ll keep reading Waldman. I’m looking forward to her next novel.
It was actually hard to figure out how to star this book. I was caught up in the story and read it quickly, getting annoyed when I had to put it down. Not that anything particularly exciting was happening--it’s not a plot-driven story. Someone described my taste in movies as “people talking a lot and nothing much happening,” and sometimes that holds true for my taste in books as well. It’s a commentary on relationships, both romantic and platonic, in general--on power dynamics and sexism and what attracts people to one another and what people find attractive about themselves--and that’s what appealed to me
The narration is smart and funny. Some characters made me nod: I so know that person. Some of the characters and their relationships seemed brutally accurate--that thing where you know you're doing something you shouldn't and you know why you're doing it and why you shouldn't and you continue to do it? There was a lot of that. But the story is sometimes painful to read, and I wanted to give the main character a good shake more than once. I know, I know, that was the POINT, but it still frustrates me when I'm reading. I generally want to LIKE the person I’m reading about. And Nate wasn’t totally unlikeable--there was a certain self-awareness that was redeeming, little moments of niceness--so I did keep reading. And I’ll keep reading Waldman. I’m looking forward to her next novel.
Nathaniel P. is the composite of every young man I've dated or known in my mid- to late-twenties. Baffling in his evasiveness, inability to communicate, and sporadic, changing affections, I felt like reading about Nate was an inside look at the single male's psyche. Oh, except The Love Affaire of Nathaniel P. is written by a woman.
Like the young men I've dated and befriended over the last few years, Nate frustrates me. He fluctuates between effusiveness and resentment toward the women he dates, and is unable to mask his irritation. He is mired in his work, which he proudly shares with the world around him. When not working, Nate is watching sports, porn, or struggling to motivate himself to clean up his apartment. He doesn't cook, at all, finding celery with almond butter an impossible task. When he begins to settle down with Hannah, different from the women of his past, the reader is rooting for a change.
I'm not sure if Adelle Waldman is privy to the inner workings of the young man's mind, and with that secret knowledge has created a novel so accurate in its portrayal of Nate P. that dating men everywhere should be nervous, or if she has just done an exceptional job of describing what a young woman feels like when her relationship, for no apparent reason, sours and ends. At times, I felt this book dragged, as Nate seems to cycle through the same thoughts. Nonetheless, I was hooked and even laughed out loud at the witty text throughout. My favorite laugh-aloud moment being the thoughts that race through Nate's mind as he struggles with whether or not he should communicate with Hannah about how she could perform fellatio more to his liking. Of course, the ever-cowardly Nate buttons his lip and assures Hannah that everything is fine, when the poor girl knows for damn sure it's not.
Favorite quotes:
On abortion:
"What self-respecting middle-class teenage girl–soon to be college student, future affluent young professional, a person who could go on to do anything at all (run a multinational corporation, win a Nobel Prize, get elected first woman president)–what such young woman would decide to have a baby and thus become, in the vacuous, public surface announcement part jargon of the day, 'a statistic'?" (4).
"Showering was a good idea, forward-thinking" (43).
Like the young men I've dated and befriended over the last few years, Nate frustrates me. He fluctuates between effusiveness and resentment toward the women he dates, and is unable to mask his irritation. He is mired in his work, which he proudly shares with the world around him. When not working, Nate is watching sports, porn, or struggling to motivate himself to clean up his apartment. He doesn't cook, at all, finding celery with almond butter an impossible task. When he begins to settle down with Hannah, different from the women of his past, the reader is rooting for a change.
I'm not sure if Adelle Waldman is privy to the inner workings of the young man's mind, and with that secret knowledge has created a novel so accurate in its portrayal of Nate P. that dating men everywhere should be nervous, or if she has just done an exceptional job of describing what a young woman feels like when her relationship, for no apparent reason, sours and ends. At times, I felt this book dragged, as Nate seems to cycle through the same thoughts. Nonetheless, I was hooked and even laughed out loud at the witty text throughout. My favorite laugh-aloud moment being the thoughts that race through Nate's mind as he struggles with whether or not he should communicate with Hannah about how she could perform fellatio more to his liking. Of course, the ever-cowardly Nate buttons his lip and assures Hannah that everything is fine, when the poor girl knows for damn sure it's not.
Favorite quotes:
On abortion:
"What self-respecting middle-class teenage girl–soon to be college student, future affluent young professional, a person who could go on to do anything at all (run a multinational corporation, win a Nobel Prize, get elected first woman president)–what such young woman would decide to have a baby and thus become, in the vacuous, public surface announcement part jargon of the day, 'a statistic'?" (4).
"Showering was a good idea, forward-thinking" (43).
Very well written, although it made me cringe so much at times that I could only read it in short bursts. Every straight woman I know who was or is single in NYC has met a Nathaniel P. ::shudder::
I have split feelings on this book. The first time I read it was at the beginning of last year, and I was a bit disappointed. It seemed to me slightly pretentious, I didn't like the writing style and thought that the author didn't actually have anything to say.
I enjoyed it much better the second time. Maybe it was just the right timing now (I'm binge watching SATC at the moment, so I'm really into shallow/dating-related/NYC stuff now), maybe it was that I knew what to expect, I can't really pinpoint it. I'm sticking with my 3-stars-rating, but I might have rated it better if this were the first time I'd read it.
So what do I think about the book now? It's a story about dating in New York, (in the literary circle). It's about modern day relationships; about the relationship, the dynamic between two people. What makes people start to date, continue a relationship, break up, stay friends?
What I didn't like but simultaneously makes the book work, are the stereotypical characters. "He" is untidy, egoistical, passive-agressive, and thinks women slightly shallow. "She" is seemingly rational and intelligent, but underneath that mask hides an over-emotional, irrational being, who wants to "talk" about everything. The friends are pretty much the same.
Lena Dunham said the book would "inspire [...] flights into lesbianism" and the main character, our "he", is being called an anti-hero, but I don't agree. I, a woman, could relate much more to "his" side, than to these hysterical, over-analysing women. They just got in my nerves.
Something positive: The people in there are seemingly smart, talking about politics and reading classical Russian literature. It gave the book a "sophisticated" vibe.
I don't want to start a rant here, so let me just say this:
The book is entertaining, and I did enjoy reading it. But it's somewhat superficial and I wouldn't take it too seriously.
I enjoyed it much better the second time. Maybe it was just the right timing now (I'm binge watching SATC at the moment, so I'm really into shallow/dating-related/NYC stuff now), maybe it was that I knew what to expect, I can't really pinpoint it. I'm sticking with my 3-stars-rating, but I might have rated it better if this were the first time I'd read it.
So what do I think about the book now? It's a story about dating in New York, (in the literary circle). It's about modern day relationships; about the relationship, the dynamic between two people. What makes people start to date, continue a relationship, break up, stay friends?
What I didn't like but simultaneously makes the book work, are the stereotypical characters. "He" is untidy, egoistical, passive-agressive, and thinks women slightly shallow. "She" is seemingly rational and intelligent, but underneath that mask hides an over-emotional, irrational being, who wants to "talk" about everything. The friends are pretty much the same.
Lena Dunham said the book would "inspire [...] flights into lesbianism" and the main character, our "he", is being called an anti-hero, but I don't agree. I, a woman, could relate much more to "his" side, than to these hysterical, over-analysing women. They just got in my nerves.
Something positive: The people in there are seemingly smart, talking about politics and reading classical Russian literature. It gave the book a "sophisticated" vibe.
I don't want to start a rant here, so let me just say this:
The book is entertaining, and I did enjoy reading it. But it's somewhat superficial and I wouldn't take it too seriously.
Wasn't really sure how to go on this one. The writing was good, but I absolutely hated the protagonist and the ending. I was far more interested in knowing Hannah's thoughts and feelings than Nate's, ever. I'd be interested to know how men react to Nate's character. I hope they don't all think like that.
I'm torn between 3 and 4 stars. I really grew to hate Nate, which is a testament to the fact that she can really write a male character.
I thought this book was a great read. Waldman knows her characters and the (small) society they live in. She makes no qualms about the fact that they are selfish snobs. Her stream of consciousness style is on point and thoughtful for a book that, on the surface, seems to be about romance.
The story revolves around a central character, Nate, and the progression of his romantic relationship with Hannah both of whom are young writers trying to form/find a literary career in NYC. We essentially enter Nate's inner sanctum and hear his own thoughts about his past and present personal relationships with friends and (ex)girlfriends alike. His voice isn't necessarily charming but it feels true to life in that he doesn't make excuses about his actions and tends to take the easy way out for most personal situations.
I'll admit it's hard to like him or any of the characters, really. He's self aggrandizing and self-centered. But, admit it, who isn't? I admire Waldman for being honest about how people see themselves. Nate is not a character plagued by self-doubt, instead he believes himself to be in the right 90% of the time. He's not critical of his own decisions, at least not so much that he's willing to go back and analyze them. Instead he moves forward at his own pace and achieves the goals that are important to him.
That's the most any of us can achieve.
But, in the end, no one will fault you for thinking he's a bit of prick.
Waldman's deductions on personal relationships as self-contained experiences that retain their preciousness only if each partner is different enough from the other than each can satisfyingly retain their own personhood is insightful. But the thing that ultimately sticks with you is that each moment passes away and you make of it what you want. We tell ourselves our own story, just like Waldman's self-obsessed Nate.
The story revolves around a central character, Nate, and the progression of his romantic relationship with Hannah both of whom are young writers trying to form/find a literary career in NYC. We essentially enter Nate's inner sanctum and hear his own thoughts about his past and present personal relationships with friends and (ex)girlfriends alike. His voice isn't necessarily charming but it feels true to life in that he doesn't make excuses about his actions and tends to take the easy way out for most personal situations.
I'll admit it's hard to like him or any of the characters, really. He's self aggrandizing and self-centered. But, admit it, who isn't? I admire Waldman for being honest about how people see themselves. Nate is not a character plagued by self-doubt, instead he believes himself to be in the right 90% of the time. He's not critical of his own decisions, at least not so much that he's willing to go back and analyze them. Instead he moves forward at his own pace and achieves the goals that are important to him.
That's the most any of us can achieve.
But, in the end, no one will fault you for thinking he's a bit of prick.
Waldman's deductions on personal relationships as self-contained experiences that retain their preciousness only if each partner is different enough from the other than each can satisfyingly retain their own personhood is insightful. But the thing that ultimately sticks with you is that each moment passes away and you make of it what you want. We tell ourselves our own story, just like Waldman's self-obsessed Nate.
In the Stacey Wants a 10 Point Rating Scale on Goodreads, this still only gets 2 out of 10. I had high hopes for this, but even reading it as a strong critique on the self involved, super entitled, emotionally inept manchild that is all too pervasive in today's society, I still wanted to rip out my eyeballs.
I don't mind a book that has little plot; but in order for a no-plot book to work, the character study needs to be impeccable. This is a character who excels at navel gazing and basically nothing else. Again, even as a societal commentary, it needs to go SOMEWHERE and this went absolutely nowhere. A disappointment to be sure.
I don't mind a book that has little plot; but in order for a no-plot book to work, the character study needs to be impeccable. This is a character who excels at navel gazing and basically nothing else. Again, even as a societal commentary, it needs to go SOMEWHERE and this went absolutely nowhere. A disappointment to be sure.