What the hell is wrong with her?
Mrs. March. No first name. She is entitled. She is a narcissist. She is arrogant. She is insecure. She is paranoid. She is cold. She is rigid. She is calculating. She is petty. She is driven. She is unmoored. She is a wack-job.
This novel left me scratching my head. I could not put it down, and I questioned my own sanity for continuing. So, I will ask again…what the hell is wrong with her?
“Assumptions make one as blind as the mole-shrew.”
This novel did NOT go where I thought it would. I was thinking: family friendly romance. I didn’t expect Rose to endear herself to me. I didn’t expect that I’d want to take Marissa by the shoulders and shake some sense into her. I didn’t expect Owen to remind me of a student I had, who had Asperger’s Syndrome.
The novel got me thinking about how busy we get with our own lives. How at times we close our eyes to what is right in front of us. That sometimes we simply need to look around, with an open heart. Reach out. Take a chance. Let go. Listen. Share. Love.
“Hilarious, heartbreaking, and true.” -NPR
Where to start with this one…
A 16 year old high school drop-out. A drug addicted mother. A low life meth cooker/dealer. An alcoholic one time father figure. A baby. A sister thousands of miles away. Michigan. Snow. Lots and lots of snow.
I was drawn to the story, hoping that Mulhauser would find a happily-ever-after ending. I was appalled at all the drug use. I was rooting for the protagonist. And I worried about the baby throughout the whole novel.
Intense, heartbreaking, and suspenseful. NOT in any way, shape, or form - hilarious.
“Can history be so dangerous as to be revolutionary?” (91)
When does writing a family history become toxic? How can one expose familial lies and secrets without hurting those still living? What if the history isn’t yours? What if your husband objects to your “historical fiction?” Why write it at all?
Puerto Rico. 1955. Part oral history, part historical fiction. So many characters…need a chart (family tree) to keep them all straight. Freedom. Generationally strong women. Independence. Secrets. Society climbers. Descrimination. Revolution. Prejudice. Love.
How do we tell the stories we are given without seeing them through our own lens? Political lens. Emotional lens. Do we need to stay true to the story, or true to the point we are trying to make? Does the story need to end “happily-ever-after?”
“…he sees a world rebuilding itself higher and mightier every day - to prove what?…Every skyscraper a desire to forget and look to the future. All built on scars.” (224)
No, no, no, no, nooooo. As I charged through this novel, at one point I stopped. What if the ending is not what I want it to be? What if Jennie Fields adds throws in the twist that is picking at my brain? NOOOO!
The Manhattan Project. FBI. Spies. Communists. Russians. Secrets. Romance. Sex. Happily-Ever-After? Can this end well for all the characters? How do they reconcile their past and make the future meaningful and joyous?
The historical threads are there. Our paranoia as a nation. Our worst fears realized. We can overcome anything. Make a brighter future. Find lasting love.
A cautionary tale…
“Batista…protected women from discrimination based on their gender and gave them the right to demand equal pay…he became a dictator, populist government eschewed for corruption, a hero transformed to a villian.” (104)
“There is no home for us in a world where we can’t speak our minds for fear of being thrown in prison, where daring to dream is a criminal act, where you aren’t limited by your own ability and ambition, but instead by the whims of those who keep a tight rein on power.” (351)
Two voices. Two different decades. Same ache. Same hope. Same passion. Home.
Drawn into the drama…the story. Concerned about the political climate; what lessons are to be learned from Cuba? Is the United States headed in this direction? The magician shows one hand, while misdirecting our vision with the other. Revolution. Promise. Corruption. Money.
A cautionary tale indeed.
I have to admit, my “rule following brain” had a hard time with this novel. BUT, after I finished and thought about it; the rule breaking still bothered me, however, I found a stronger current running through the story.
What would you do for your child? I mean, how far would you go to protect them? What if your child’s life was in danger because of how you chose to live your life? What if you were the only one who could save them? What exactly would you do? Steal? Lie? Murder?
I tried to reason out a million different ways this storyline could have gone. My brain and heart wanted the dad to find a different path. I wanted the child to be sheltered from his life choices; sheltered from what he felt he must do.
What choices would I have made in his situation?
