August reading – How to talk to a widower, Jonathan Tropper
Our August reading is underway and we are continuing with the six week reading cycle. That means that our August reading is really August/September, but I didn’t have enough room in the heading for that level of specificity! Discussion will start on the 15th of September.
There are a number of links on the web for the book – I haven’t read any as I’m really enjoying reading books with very little prior knowledge of them, so I can’t vouch for their usefulness (having said that, I generally enjoy reading Pop Matters!).
- Pop Matters’ review
- Good Reads’ HTTTAW page
- Mostly Fiction Book Reviews
- Curled Up Book Reviews
- Hachette Australia’s reading group guide
If you still want to comment on Betty Crocker, or any of the previous books, please do!
Advertisement
Okay, so it’s a day later than our advertised kick-off, so I’m going to jot down some (possibly incoherent) thoughts now and hope that others have a more articulate view!
I finished the book about a month ago now, and made some vague notes so that I could recall it when the time came for this. It might have been better to have made some more detailed notes, although the fact that the finer points of the plot have already escaped me might serve as a judgement on its own. A bit… forgettable. It wasn’t an unenjoyable read – which is a bit backhanded, I’ll admit – and it was a book that I got through very quickly. If you haven’t read it yet, grab a copy from the library and if you have a few of spare hours you’ll be chiming in with your thoughts by next week. In fact, I might have another read of it, as a recent conversation with Katya reframed it for me in a way. She’d heard about it on RRR and one of the commentators there had likened it to Arrested Development, which naturally piqued her interest. I wonder if I would have found it more comic had I opened it thinking “AD”. Only a re-read will really tell (although, of course, I’d really need to read it again but for the first time, which is clearly an impossibility).
I’ll stop preambling and get to some actual comments. I found it very American, in a way that makes the US seem like a foreign country when generally I don’t find American culture at all foreign. I can’t quite put my finger on why exactly this book prompts this feeling. I watch a lot of American TV, read American books, watch American movies so I feel as though I’m pretty used to American culture. Not to mention all that’s been enthusiastically exported (and just as enthusiastically imported) here. Perhaps it was the description of a suburban life that seemed unlike Australian suburban life? Or the middle-aged experiences of the young characters. Not just Doug, but Claire and Debbie (and Brooke, and even Russ) all seemed OLD. Perhaps it was lines like “everyone has imagined having a gun pointed at them”. Really? Does everyone imagine having a gun pointed at them? Or was that a comic touch that I misread?
I found the plot engaging enough in that it had me turning the pages, but it seemed as though it was written as some dot-point outlines with only a few of them fleshed out. Why not include all Doug’s “Widower” columns? Doug’s mother was so cartoonish that her “theatrical” background seemed to be an excuse to over up some bad writing. There was no such excuse for some of the groan-inducing descriptions. Haileys “thin, sensuous lips” was a bit of a clunker. As for describing the flesh of Brooke’s lip as “meat”… I’ve got nothing for that. I was going to start noting the clunkers down, but then became a little overwhelmed by all the cliches.
Doug’s experience as an unexpected widower seemed, for want of a better description, authentic. The character’s reaction to the loss of his wife (and the confusion over his responsibilities to Ross, his own family and his own sanity) rang true. Still, I felt that Claire’s “just say yes” idea was a device aimed at lifting the narrative out of that grieving-stoner torpor (which I didn’t mind) so that the slapstick read-it-through-spread-fingers dating scenes could be written. Actually, the scene where Doug is left babysitting while his date has to tear off was the point at which I realised that this would be a book I’d actually enjoy seeing at the movies. It had that “oh, god, I can’t believe he is really doing this” rom-com feel. I read somewhere that it is being made into a film – IMDB is not helping me on that, though, so perhaps I imagined it. I’d be interested in hearing from people with more knowledge of dementia as to whether his father’s sudden lucidity in the ER was plausible, because it seemed unlikely to me.
Was the timeframe confusing for anyone else? There were some incidents that seemed to happen over a period of time, only for the narrative to indicate that only a day had passed. Alternatively, there seemed to be an implication that Doug’s affair with Lainey had gone on for some time, but I only got the impression that they’d had a couple of flings.
What did everybody else think?
Injera, thanks so much for your comments on ‘HTTTAW’. I feel that I’ve kind of dropped the ball with this one – I finished the book early September and planned to write some notes on it but didn’t get round to it, then I missed the date we were supposed to post, and now all of a sudden it’s nearly the end of September! Maybe this is indicative of how I felt about the book – if I’d loved it I’m sure I would have made an absolute effort to post on time and have lots of thoughts.
I didn’t mind the book, but wasn’t really crazy about it. Maybe it was the single focus of the narrative – I know there were other little stories, but basically it was about dealing with grief and I don’t think I was in the mood for that at the time. I thought the peripheral characters were well drawn, in particular the son – I don’t remember his name, and I can’t find what I’ve done with the book so I can’t check! But I felt that his portrayal of a boy who is not only going thru all the trials of adolescence but is also dealing with his mum’s death and the fact that no one else seems to want him, was really strong.
I agree with Injera that I didn’t really buy that dad’s stroke-related dementia. I also don’t know much at all about dementia so I’m not speaking from a place of knowledge. I know people can drift in and out of being present, but I felt it was all a bit too convenient the times when he was lucid. Like his words of insight and wisdom at the pre wedding dinner came across to me as far too contrived. And I think I did actually roll my eyes when we were first introduced to the school counsellor – oh here we go, I thought, the love interest but there will have to be some stumbling blocks in the path of true love.
Having said that, I would quite like to read some other books of his, but I think I’d borrow them from the library rather than buy them. I wonder if the author is popular in America, as I had trouble finding his books in shops, and ended up buying it thru the Book Depository.
Reality Raver put me on to a new blog today, and – lo! and behold! – she has a post on Jonathan Tropper, which is really interesting. His comments on his own background – particularly the upper middle class aspect – put a few things in place for me in explaining the “foreign-ness” of the setting. American upper classes (even upper-middle) are obviously present in film and literature, but in my experience are generally satirised in contemporary culture. It’s also interesting that Lea notes the “sameness” of his female characters: all attractive, slim, intelligent across all his books. (Of course, perhaps in that milieu woman are more likely to be all of the above, what with access to nannies and therefore time to maintain their educations, tans, weight!)
The “here we go” reaction to the introduction of the school counsellor (going through her own grief, of course – rape and subsequent broken relationship) was exactly how I felt, Katya! I guess that’s one of the things I didn’t like about the book: there were too many characters with a lot going on in their personal lives. Claire: pregnant, relationship breakdown. Brooke: raped, relationship breakdown. Doug: widower, reluctant stepfather, writer, slacker. Dad: medico, dementia. Like the whole spice cupboard had been added when only a little bit of seasoning was needed, given that the central premise was pretty strong.
I agree that Ross was one of the strongest – actually, probably the strongest – character in the story. His tone, attitude and behaviour were all totally believable. As you say, I’d read another of his books, but wouldn’t buy it.
Here is the link to Jonathan Tropper’s website: http://www.jonathantropper.com/
And I read that they are turning 3 of his books into films, but I don’t know which ones.