Scan barcode
yvkhan's review against another edition
3.0
Cusk is clearly an intelligent individual with very much to say. Unfortunately, she often comes across as distracted, her remarks and insights linked by pure tangent, and I cannot find it in myself to be very passionate about her work. There are times at which you might begin wondering “Is that it?” Imagine talking to one of your smarter friends, albeit the arrogant and vaguely annoying one.
sssummer's review against another edition
2.0
Technically this is a DNF because I didn't finish the book/author reviews at the end because THEY WERE SPOILERY (AND WITHOUT WARNING !!!!) and random? So were her thoughts on like I think it was a fashion or art show, it was so random and I could not care less about it.
Ya I didn't like this collection. It gave me high school English vibes, like the analytic essays about art/books were trying WAY too hard. THe whole collection actually struck me as quiteee pretentious. The way things are phrased is super convoluted and full of a false modesty sort of coyness to it (lots of 'I suppose' or ending a sentence with a comma and then 'obviously,' --ok those don't sound so bad when I isolate them from the text but just trust me on this one because I'm too lazy to reach across my couch for the copy.)
I liked some aspects. I liked the title essay, and the beginning of 'I am Everything I am Nothing'. Don't get me wrong, here and there the writing came through and there were interesting perspectives/questions on modern life. But for the most part, this book is a lot of filler. It feels incredibly self-indulgent, is the editor OOO?
It was in the third essay, 'On Rudeness' that she lost me.
Because of three reasons,
1 the way she characterized rudeness was dumb 'people who tell the truth' ? like for one I wouldn't characterize rudeness that way actually, and for two it's riddled with pre-suppositions about the 'truth'.
2 The 'truth' for Cusk is that which is negative (as implied mind you, she doesn't define how she's using the term so explicitly), and I don't think she realizes this is her own bias. She annoying gestures a lot to the 'truth' in a way that is just so.... cheesy and (dare I say it again?) pretentious.
3 Oh ya and that story she told about confronting the airport worker actually made her look so bad?! Yikes. She was
4 Here's another reason, the way she grossly oversimplifies the discussion politics here! Seriously does not do the topic justice in any form, which is a shame because I do think the question of how 'rudeness' factors into morality or politics is a really interesting question!
You know who her writing style reminds me of? Jordan Peterson's writing style. Seriously.
Both authors touch lightly and superficially on a few different topics, linking them together through magic and vague gestures to abstract terms and philosophical concepts in ways that were sometimes outright confusing, and never substantially defined. Sometimes this formula does work for these authors! Most times it does not.
I mean Christ, all you have to do is look at the feminism/gender work analysis in here. It feels so dated. It's SO white feminism and it's so navel-grazy and narcissistic (it's a weird mentality for sure... I mean she genuinely ponders over "but feminists are supposed to hate men, right?" is just ridiculous (also I can't remember if the ',right' was there in the original text tho it wouldn't surprise me if it genuinely was because that is the exact type of coy writing I find so punchable sometimes).
People who love this book are like "omg I'd read her grocery list" - bestie this IS her grocery list. Or was written right next to it in her notes app.
Anyways, sad because this slowed the reading roll I had been on.
Ya I didn't like this collection. It gave me high school English vibes, like the analytic essays about art/books were trying WAY too hard. THe whole collection actually struck me as quiteee pretentious. The way things are phrased is super convoluted and full of a false modesty sort of coyness to it (lots of 'I suppose' or ending a sentence with a comma and then 'obviously,' --ok those don't sound so bad when I isolate them from the text but just trust me on this one because I'm too lazy to reach across my couch for the copy.)
I liked some aspects. I liked the title essay, and the beginning of 'I am Everything I am Nothing'. Don't get me wrong, here and there the writing came through and there were interesting perspectives/questions on modern life. But for the most part, this book is a lot of filler. It feels incredibly self-indulgent, is the editor OOO?
It was in the third essay, 'On Rudeness' that she lost me.
Because of three reasons,
1 the way she characterized rudeness was dumb 'people who tell the truth' ? like for one I wouldn't characterize rudeness that way actually, and for two it's riddled with pre-suppositions about the 'truth'.
2 The 'truth' for Cusk is that which is negative (as implied mind you, she doesn't define how she's using the term so explicitly), and I don't think she realizes this is her own bias. She annoying gestures a lot to the 'truth' in a way that is just so.... cheesy and (dare I say it again?) pretentious.
3 Oh ya and that story she told about confronting the airport worker actually made her look so bad?! Yikes. She was
4 Here's another reason, the way she grossly oversimplifies the discussion politics here! Seriously does not do the topic justice in any form, which is a shame because I do think the question of how 'rudeness' factors into morality or politics is a really interesting question!
You know who her writing style reminds me of? Jordan Peterson's writing style. Seriously.
Both authors touch lightly and superficially on a few different topics, linking them together through magic and vague gestures to abstract terms and philosophical concepts in ways that were sometimes outright confusing, and never substantially defined. Sometimes this formula does work for these authors! Most times it does not.
I mean Christ, all you have to do is look at the feminism/gender work analysis in here. It feels so dated. It's SO white feminism and it's so navel-grazy and narcissistic (it's a weird mentality for sure... I mean she genuinely ponders over "but feminists are supposed to hate men, right?" is just ridiculous (also I can't remember if the ',right' was there in the original text tho it wouldn't surprise me if it genuinely was because that is the exact type of coy writing I find so punchable sometimes).
People who love this book are like "omg I'd read her grocery list" - bestie this IS her grocery list. Or was written right next to it in her notes app.
Anyways, sad because this slowed the reading roll I had been on.
essjay1's review against another edition
4.0
I particularly enjoyed the title essay, Coventry, and that first section of this collection. The last two sections are review/commentary pieces of which the Eat, Pray, Love essay had me laughing out loud.
Cusk has such a brilliant way of identifying and then examining the deeper truths. As with all truth, sometimes we like it, sometimes we don’t want to hear it. Sometimes we even disagree. This collection is just that - a collection. No need to try to read it as a novel. Best left lying around to be picked up as you please.
Cusk has such a brilliant way of identifying and then examining the deeper truths. As with all truth, sometimes we like it, sometimes we don’t want to hear it. Sometimes we even disagree. This collection is just that - a collection. No need to try to read it as a novel. Best left lying around to be picked up as you please.
syyskuu's review against another edition
reflective
slow-paced
3.0
Kokoelmana Mykkäkoulu tuntui melko tasapaksulta, paikoin junnaavakin, mutta silti hajanaiselta. Yhteenvetona ihan kiva kokoelma, johon tuskin palaan (3 ⭐). Löysin Cuskin Ääriviivoista tuttu äänen lähinnä kokoelman alkupään esseissä. Näistä Kotia rakentamassa oli minulle kokoelman helmi (itsenäisenä tekstinä ehkä 4,5 ⭐).
macbeckyton's review against another edition
3.0
I really love HOW she writes but this was too pretentious for me to really love it. Would like to try her novels, though.
lauradvb's review against another edition
challenging
emotional
funny
informative
reflective
slow-paced
3.5
annetjeberg's review against another edition
3.0
I did enjoy some of the essays very much, and others not so much. But what does a great book of essays make? I am not sure.
Have to admit I am unfamiliar with Rachel Cusk's work, so I cannot draw any comparisons there either. I went in fully blank, and I quite enjoyed the ride.
Have to admit I am unfamiliar with Rachel Cusk's work, so I cannot draw any comparisons there either. I went in fully blank, and I quite enjoyed the ride.
cwalsh's review against another edition
4.0
I really loved the autobiographical essays in Part I, particularly Driving as Metaphor, On Rudeness, and of course, Aftermath. I'm being dramatic (or am I?), but I'm pretty infatuated with Cusk's ability to introduce an idea, go off on a tangent for about 20 pages, and then swiftly circle back to it to tie things up with finesse. Upon picking Coventry up, I didn't realize that Part II was criticism, but I'm so happy it was. Typically I read Cusk's work with focus and intent, but I actually struggled with this one because the tone was so monotonous throughout the first six essays.
The stand out to me in Part II was Eat, Pray, Love. It's smart, humorous, and to be blunt, quite honest:
"Women like this literature because it alleviates feelings of pressure without the attendant risks of rebellion or change."
"The problem lies in the egotism in these female goddesses and gurus who require that their female audience to standstill and they twirl about. Who require us to watch and listen, to laugh at their jokes, admire their beauty, reality, and their freedoms. To witness their successes ... but to say that would be to take it all the much too serious."
The stand out to me in Part II was Eat, Pray, Love. It's smart, humorous, and to be blunt, quite honest:
"Women like this literature because it alleviates feelings of pressure without the attendant risks of rebellion or change."
"The problem lies in the egotism in these female goddesses and gurus who require that their female audience to standstill and they twirl about. Who require us to watch and listen, to laugh at their jokes, admire their beauty, reality, and their freedoms. To witness their successes ... but to say that would be to take it all the much too serious."