Cult Classic
Do I need to read another post-modern uptick on romance? Worse yet, failed romance? Love gone awry in the confusing world in which we live?
“I was young and so I confused her absence in conversation with an alienation of affection when it was only a compartmentalization of affection.” Page 77.
But more telling?
“Did you know that former paramours are the fourth most popular search field item, below porn but above diseases?” Page 84.
For me, good word play is like “word porn.” Ample display of that, only realizing, halfway through, the layers and symbols.
Word porn. It’s a thing.
But at its core, maybe a meditation on post-modern romance, as a strictly first world problem? With a serious detour into post-modern family femininity.
Amongst certain friends of mine, the notation is about lining all our ex-lovers up, and clearly noting the progression of psychiatric conditions. Frayed and decaying mental hygiene.
It’s a deconstruction of post-modernist romance, with a sarcastic narrator who might hopeful.
It’s a comedy of manners?
Interesting, either way.
While I read it as digital library book, to some, it would be worth having as hardcover, and underlining, making notes along the way. There are tidbits throughout, and it was almost like it was lined up as a series of quotations, ready to used as need be, for any kind of romance that was either working — or not working.
While I don’t have an image of it, I did see it at the big bookstore, on the paperback sales table, buy one, get one half off, or something. Be worth it at that.
It’s the kind of book I would be prompted to reread, and find more layers. The title says it all.
