From my recent guest blog post, Chick Lit vs. Wit Lit: The Road to Literary Revolution: Last week I had the opportunity to take a 12-hour road trip across Texas with my 66-year-old mother. She talked a lot about the way things used to be when she was growing up in the 1950s. She enjoyed going on about how everyone was so much more polite, well-groomed, and decent. I was surprised to hear that my grandmother required my mom and her siblings to make their beds when they stayed in hotels.Hotels!My mother graduated from high school in 1960. Richard Yates' Revolutionary Road was published in 1961. Ironically, I was getting this earful about life in the '50s just as I was finishing Yates' novel. Flying back to Philly from Dallas, I thought about the perfect picture of domestication my mother grew up with, and how she still wishes life could be that way. Truth be told, she wishes I could be that way. (Confession: I rarely make the beds in my own home much less hotels.) I also considered what I'd like to say about Revolutionary Road.Another detail swirling in my head was the fact that I finally read anovel officially categorized as Chick Lit just prior to reading Revolutionary Road. It was Sophie Kinsella's The Undomestic Goddess. One word to describe my reaction: disappointed. Of course, lots of folks buy Kinsella's novels, and I admit that her work, along with the rest of successful Chick Lit, has its place on the shelf, and probably on sandy beaches everywhere. But I take the word literature seriously ... maybe too seriously.Before my first Chick Lit experience, I assumed these books were for hip, intelligent women who love literature. Isn't literature supposed to mean something more than hot embraces, palatial homes, awesome shoes, and perfect endings filled with train station embraces? If not, than I was an official chick at eleven. That was the fateful year I discovered the thrill of the harlequin romance. My love lasted about four months—the amount of time it took me to figure out the formula and lose interest.Now that I'm a woman who can bring home some sort of bacon, I want what I've decided to call, Wit Lit. And yes, Wit Lit can appeal to men as well because although we’re apparently from different planets, we share good ole' human nature in all its simple and fascinating complexity—the very element Yates tapped into when he wrote Revolutionary Road in 1961. Yates’ novel qualifies as Wit Lit because it's 20-21th century literature that brilliantly provokes relevant, close-to-home thought in the reader. The fact that it was written in 1961 is significant in that the particular questions Yates poses were unexpected and bold within the context of my mother's graduating class. These American kids were poised to waltz out into the world and set up houses with nice white picket fences, swing sets, and husbands who wore suits to work while the girls stayed home and baked to ensure the home smelled yummy for hubby's return. Yates gave them something to think about, and he gives us something to think about today. Thus another criterion for Wit Lit: timeless.In Revolutionary Road, Yates masterfully uses the one certifiably crazy character, John Givings, to deliver truth to a bunch of neighborhood chicks and dudes who, despite their wonderful, intelligent qualities, find themselves caught in the cultural quagmire of the 1950's my mother so misses. This crazy guy, John, seems to have much to give, however lacking the acceptable 1950's social skills, he’s been wheeled out of town to an institution. His parents define him as unstable and ill, yet Yates never provides facts to support why he's been classified this way. John actually seems to know what he's talking about in a room full of people struggling to put up all the kinds of fronts that maintain the perfect picture John has escaped.The Wheelers and main characters, Frank and April, have much to offer to each other, their children, and themselves, but they can't seem to pull past bitter disappointment as they fail to physically escape the Norman Rockwell life they’ve been pressured to emulate. Yates brilliantly casts an inner pallor over the white picket fences, swing sets, yummy smells, and pressed suits of that stifling world. Frank and April aptly recognize that pallor yet fail to grasp the magnitude of choices within their reach. Frank describes the culture he longs to escape like this:"Christ's sake, when it comes to any kind of a showdown we're still in the Middle Ages. It's as if everyone'd made this tacit agreement to live in a state of total self-deception. The hell with reality! Let's have a whole bunch of cute little winding and cute little houses painted white and pink and baby blue; let's all be good consumers and have a lot of Togetherness and bring our children up in a bath of sentimentality--Daddy's a great man because he makes a living, Mummy's a great woman because she's stuck by Daddy all these years--and if old reality ever does pop out and say Boo we'll all get busy and pretend it never happened."However, reality is all around Frank. He falls prey to the sad unreality he longs to escape through his inability to honestly express himself in nearly all his relationships.He describes his work like this: "I mean the great advantage of a place like Knox is that you can sort of turn off your mind every morning at nine and leave it off all day, and nobody knows the difference," yet he misses opportunities to tap into his intellect at Knox because he's blinded by his own ideas of escape.The fate of those on Yates' Revolutionary Road shows that revolution comes from within. It doesn't matter what town, road, or home you live in. Yates deftly relays how revolutionary moments, decisions, and actions can be missed if we fail to look inward rather than outward. Interestingly, another character, the Wheeler's neighbor, Shep Campbell, grew up in the sort of high-brow intellectual, arty world to which the Wheelers long to escape. Ironically, Shep spent his younger adult years desperate to break out of that particular mold by settling himself into the cookie cutter world of Revolutionary Road. He comes to realize that he doesn't want to live on the street either—thus we see another character searching outward rather than inward.In one cool Chick versus Wit moment of the novel, John Givings says to Frank, "I like your girl, Wheeler ... I get the feeling she's female. You know what the difference between female and feminine is? Huh? Well, here's a hint: a feminine woman never laughs out loud and always shaves her armpits. Old Helen (his mom) is feminine as hell. I've only met about half a dozen females in my life, and I think you got one of them here. Course, come to think of it, that figures. I get the feeling you're male. There aren't too many males around, either."If she existed in 2009, John Giving's mom, Helen, would probably enjoy Sophie Kinsella's work. If, like Helen, you prefer to escape the real world, whether through the purchase of a nice white fence, a corporate job that keeps you too busy to feel, or religious services that don't require real contemplation, stick to reading Chick Lit. In The Undomestic Goddess, Kinsella's characters always say exactly what they're thinking and feeling. Her conflicts are vastly situational rather than internal. The characters may have been quite comfortable on Revolutionary Road back in the ‘50s. I suspect Kinsella could have nicely resolved Frank and April's issues with a lot of superb communication, and a nice summer trip to the EU. We'd all be smiling with stars in our eyes but somehow less enlightened about the true nature of humanity.So, if you prefer to open an eye or two to the complexity, inconsistency, creativity, and hidden beauty of reality, pick up Revolutionary Road, and hope that today's emerging writers can perpetuate truth the way Yates did in 1961. Demand more Wit Lit! Walk past the chicks and dudes, and take the train toward being real females and males who search inward for answers rather than grasping at all the turn of the century machinations our society imposes. There are still a heck of a lot of streets like Revolutionary Road in our towns and cities. Just because we may live there, doesn't mean we’re trapped.To see associated pics and more, visit Aberration Nation at www.penelopeprzekop.blogspot.com
What a wonderful book!For those of you who don’t know what the book is, here is the gist – The Undomestic Goddess is about this high-flying big town London based Lawyer, Samantha, who slips into a much laid back job. The changeover is like moving from Violet to Red, literally from one end to the other end of the spectrum. How Samantha manages this sudden shift is the hilarious content of The Undomestic Goddess.This novel could top the charts if it were made into a movie. It is easily the material for a Romcom. It is wonderfully thought out, and told with excellence. I did like Sophie Kinsella’s story-telling style. It is a tried and tested formula – take up simple theme and story and make it work wonders just by using witty, intelligent story-telling. In this story, we all know how it is going to end, but that didn’t stop me from reading upto the end with frenzied interest. Yep, the momentum was up till the very end. That’s why it would make such a superb movie.If there is one point I could criticize, it would be the editing. There were huge chunks of prose – could’ve divided that up. That’s about it. I’ve got nothing more to criticize.Stop and Stare:This is a book that will tell you what it is like to slow down your life. Stop and Stare.It’s ironic how I really wanted to read this book in one sitting…to just rush through it. But instead, I told myself to take it slow, to savour it, just like Samantha slowed down her life. I loved the ending of the novel. It was romantic and pragmatic; somehow two things that have never quite hit it off have joined hands towards the climax of The Undomestic Goddess.That’s how a book should be, you know. It had drama, romance, self realization, humor(lots of humor) and inspiration.Book journey: The beginning felt a little amateurish because this was the story of a lawyer and in such stories I expect a certain kind of crisp and curt description. But this novel bypassed all of that. It was utterly unclear on her job description. Even though there are pages and pages of her job, I don’t understand it clearly.I wasn’t able to discern what her law firm did. Early on, I understand that establishing her ‘busyness’ is important, but this goes on for 3 chapters! I was getting weary hoping that the story would move on. But that’s just a tiny misstep in this otherwise perfect novel.It seemed like Sophie Kinsella’s idea was to just breeze through those lawyer stuff and not get into details. She concentrated on character development. I have to hand it to her. She did a brilliant job there. Two cellphones and a birthday cake – sounds like the makings of a really sappy song:Samantha is a girl, sorry woman, who wants to please eeeveryyybodayyy! She has no self satisfaction or any life of her own. The character was bang on. I had to stop, laugh and move on with the book because this witty character doing household chores is a really funny sight. She is so wound-up that taking a day off or enjoying that day is unimaginable for her. It becomes physically impossible for her to take holidays. I can totally get that.The moment I started enjoying this book was her ‘birthday dinner’ with ‘family’ [I could carry on adding quotes and unquotes to this sentence] Poor Samantha. It was a really crappy way to spend one’s birthday.That’s when it got interesting. I was able to put myself in her shoes. It was practically my life story. I quit a high-paying corporate job to take up a job I was passionate about, like Samantha. I did not listen to my mom’s advice to ‘do something useful’ with my life instead of enjoying it, just like Samantha. And I took up this job without asking for her express permission, just like Samantha. The only difference was, she ran away from hers and got fired, while I refused to work for weeks and was given a warning. So in conclusion, my life was really similar to Samantha when reading this book, so I related to this instantly.So I guess that’s a wrap. I suggest you pick up this book. Don’t miss it.
Do You like book The Undomestic Goddess (2006)?
This was so fun!I really loved this book,it was funny yet serious,it was positive yet kind of sad because of what Sam had to go through.The characters are really good-Sam is so charming and Nat...uh.The supporting characters are so funny,I love Sam's best friend,haha.Love how she (view spoiler)[lied about Sam's birthday just so Sam can have a proper party.♥ (hide spoiler)]
—Norah Sumner
This book gave me the feels. I loved it. It was romantic as well as witty. It reminded me of a romantic comedy movie. Sophie Kinsella is definitely becoming one of my favorite authors.I could not imagine going from being a lawyer to a housekeeper. Samantha did not know how to even make her own meals, sew a button, or even that vacuum cleaners have bags. She compensated for this by being a fast learner, and learning to make 5 star meals in a weekend. I loved the relationship between Samantha and Nathaniel. I even liked the relationship between Trish and Eddie, Samantha's bosses. It was a bit weird, but you can tell they definitely love each other. I would definitely recommend this book.
—Nikinnia Smith garcia
1.5 stars - SpoilersThe worst Kinsella book I've read so far, it wasn't totally awful but it was pretty bad. The story was even more far-fetched and the main character even more daft than the other Kinsella heroines combined. The heroine (Samantha) was meant to be an Oxbridge educated lawyer with years of experience in the best law firm in the country, yet somehow she read more like a grade A idiot. I don't know why authors bother giving their main characters high IQ's and super smart careers when they can only portray them as complete thickos who can barely string a sentence together. -Really liked Trish and Eddie Geiger, they were such fun characters. I loved the way they bossed Samantha about and how they interacted with each other, they were pretty hilarious. I also quite liked Nathaniel, he was a normal, down to earth sort of guy instead of the usual rich, brooding, millionaire love interest.-How on earth do you accidentally become a housekeeper? Samantha lost her job at her law firm and took a random train to the middle of nowhere, she then knocked on a random house and acted weird and somehow that magically landed her a housekeeper job in a fancy mansion with a millionaire couple. Yea, right. She also got to stay in said mansion overnight after a two minute interview in which she acted like a nutter. Yea, because that seems likely.-Why would Samantha run away from her job? Sure, she thought she made a huge mistake costing her firm fifty million quid, but she was supposed to be a highly trained professional with years of education and training, and who worked well under high pressure and was ultra responsible and had a brilliant mind and work ethic. Yet she ran away like some sort of scared naive wet behind the ears idiot. Why would someone so hard working and responsible just ditch everything at the first sign of trouble? Why wouldn't she question everything? Why wouldn't she stay to investigate and defend herself? She worked all her life to be a top tier lawyer so why wouldn't she stay and fight for her career and reputation? It was all so nonsensical.-For a high flying lawyer Samantha sure was an idiot and a half. She couldn't follow basic recipes and cooking instructions without turning the kitchen into a bloody war zone. She even struggled with slicing bread and was unable to make a jam sandwich and hard boiled eggs (the silly cow put them in the microwave?!). She didn't even know how to iron without burning everything or wipe surfaces without making things worse. It was beyond ridiculous. Yes, not everyone knows how to cook well or do certain chores, but who the hell can't boil an egg or make a jam sandwich or wipe a surface?! I'm guessing Samantha's incompetence was meant to be funny or cute or something, but it was none of those things, it was plain stupid.-How was it Samantha was so unable to hold simple conversations? A top shot lawyer should at the very least be able to hold moderately intelligent conversations. Yet half the time Samantha just stuttered and mumbled and muttered her way through things. Also, when she found out she'd been set up at work and came across suspicious evidence that pointed to another colleague (Arnold) committing fraud, the silly cow couldn't confront him or make a convincing argument against him without looking like a demented psycho dumbo loser. She was meant to be a genius lawyer who regularly talked her way through all sorts of tricky situations and dealings yet when she confronted Arnold all she was capable of doing was stomping her feet and pouting, she did nothing to defend her reputation, she just talked rubbish. It didn't even occur to her to bring up the fact that Arnold had strong family connections to the company that took that 50 million. Ugh, she was the most unconvincing lawyer character in the fictional world ever. -Why was Samantha always yelling or mumbling or pouting? Would an experienced, professional lawyer really talk like that? I swear Samantha came across more like a belligerent child than anything else.-According to The Undomestic Goddess women can't have a glittering career and a fulfilling personal life at the same time. It's either one or the other. -So Samantha gave up her career and a chance of a lifetime to be a partner in a top law firm all so she could run off to Cornwall with a guy she'd known for a few months? I mean, she only worked her whole bloody life to achieve that level of success, it was her one ambition and dream but all that got thrown out the window because she was in lurve, and working as a lawyer was just too gosh darn difficult for her tiny woman brain. Ugh.If it hadn't been for the secondary characters, I don't think I would have been able to finish this. Even for a chick lit book, it was beyond ridiculous.
—Ferdy
