I've been reading a lot over the past few days. I've received the offer of a new job, but haven't been given a start date. The interview was about a month ago. I'd be more worried, but last Friday they invited everyone in my position to a coffee morning where we were able to ask questions and get to know each other a little. They told us they'd call this week; it's now 9pm on Thursday, and they've not, so I'm getting a little concerned again.
Anyway, to distract myself, I've been reading, and you can see what I've read in the image above. That's from the 26th, with the top left being most recent and the bottom right being least. It's still a little too cold to laze about in the garden, but my room (I live in a shared house) has french doors opening on to it, which face west. I get all the afternoon sunlight. I also have a large window which faces east, so I should get the morning sunlight too. Unfortunately, that window also happens to face a busy road, so I never open the curtains. Anyway, instead of lying in the garden reading, I've been building a nest of pillows at the end of my bed and lying there and reading instead. All the sunlight
and an electric blanket. Genius.
Anyway.
Elizabeth Buchan's
Daughters had a lot of characters who really confused me.
Warning: Text Below Contains Spoilers for Daughters.
One character is a woman who married a widower with two children. They have another child together, and, when they split up, she keeps them all. That's the first thing that baffled me. That makes no sense to me. Why would she keep his children? Would she have kept them if they'd not had a daughter together? That's bizarre, surely?
I was going to say that I don't mean to belittle the bond between stepparents and children, but I guess I am. I accept that adopted parents are just as true as birth parents, so why not stepparents? If he'd died, they'd probably have stayed with her, after all.
Thinking about it, I guess the thing that bugs me is; why didn't he want them? Why would he marry someone, and then leave his children with her?
I have to wonder how much this has to do with stereotypical ideas of women as natural caregivers, and the whole myth of the mothering instinct.
This also reminded me of a similar event in Billie Letts
Where the Heart Is, one of my favourite books. One male character is hailed as a hero when he realises that his soon-to-be ex-wife doesn't want her daughter, and he trades his car for her, so the little girl doesn't have to live with a mother who doesn't want her.
The second thing that confused me; the middle daughter is planning a wedding, and chooses a date in the first week of September. The youngest daughter has applied to Harvard, and, since she is British, will have to move to America. If accepted, university will start, as it normally does, in the first week of September. And the middle sister keeps going on about how utterly selfish it is that the younger sister will miss her wedding for the first week of university. That seems like an insane overreaction to me. It was an invitation, not a summons. Secondly, I'm with the youngest daughter, Maudie; it's the marriage that's important, more than the wedding day itself. It seems insane for her sister to want her to put herself at a disadvantage for one ludicrously overpriced day. That said, my idea of the perfect wedding day costs less than £200, is in the clothes we wore on our first date, or some other sentimental item, and has only witnesses, no guests. So there are many things about the wedding industry that baffle me. Like wedding dresses. Why on earth would you spend thousands of pounds - or even hundreds - on a dress that you will only wear once? It's a bizarre thing to do! If you want to look like a princess, get into Disney Cosplay, you can dress up all the time then!
Blaaaaaaaaah.
Anyway; third thing that confused me. Several characters become aware that middle sister - Eve's - fiance is cheating on her. And they
debate with themselves about whether or not to tell her!
I've been in a similar situation before, but, in that case, the person I witnessed cheating was a very close friend of mine while her partner was a stranger. I can understand reluctance in that case, from loyalty. But, if you're the bride's sister, or (step)mother, then why would that be an issue? Why would you debate with yourself for even a second on whether or not to tell her? She has a right to make her own decisions on the matter, while in full possession of the facts.
And then, when they do tell her, she acts like they've done something wrong! And they internalise this and apologise! Someone telling you the truth about your partner cheating on you is not doing anything wrong, for god's sake!
Sigh. I'm not saying that the book is unrealistic; I'm sure there are many people like that in the world, and they are equally bizarre to me. But, rarr, these crazy illogical people.
Moving on. I read
The Ice Cream Girls, mostly because I didn't want to wait until the third episode of the televisation is shown next week to find out how it ends. Incidentally, if you do want to watch the TV show (and you live in the UK),
you can see the episodes here. The first episode will be available for another 16 days. The third and final episode will be shown on ITV tomorrow (Friday 3rd May) at 9pm.
I usually watch live TV here.
Warning: Text Below Contains Spoilers for The Ice Cream Girls.
Warning: Text Below May be Triggering re; Rape/Abuse
There's a lot more in the book than in the TV series. Some characters are merged into one - Serena's two sisters become one, for instance, and so do her two children - and the plot moves a little faster. One changed which improved the story was the idea that all of the past events had happened in Brighton, rather than in London. In the book, it's coincidence that Serena and Poppy both end up in Brighton, having both moved from London. It seems a little forced. It's a lot more natural - and, I think, helps with the idea of them being linked to each other through the past events - if they end up back at the place where they grew up, where everything happened.
Earlier today, I was embroiled in quite an interesting conversation about domestic abuse, and here's a repeat of your trigger warning.
Someone posted the idea that domestic abuse is intrinsically linked to monogamy. It's an interesting thought. All of the details of domestic abuse that I know do require that people be cut off from family and friends, and from help. Abusers typically tell their victims that what's happening to them is normal, that they deserve it, etc, and then cut them off from anyone who'd offer a reference point for how un-normal it is. This also has the effect of cutting them off from anyone who can help. Although this can and does happen in a relationship in which the abuser is polyamorous but the victims are not - like the relationships in
The Ice Cream Girls, or as sometimes happens in marriages where, for example, one man has multiple wives. It doesn't seem like that kind of abuse can happen in polyamorous relationships in which both partners have multiple secondaries. However, it doesn't necessarily follow that
another kind of domestic abuse can't occur, even if this particular kind can't. I tried a few thought experiments, and the only one I could think of that would work was the idea of an abuser who was motivated by voyeuristic/'being caught' tendencies rather than jealousy/neediness. For example, the abuser could be aroused or otherwise consider an unknowing third party to be an essential part of the abuse, and threaten the victim to stay quiet or otherwise hide the abuse. It was an interesting conversation. I will continue musing on it.
