Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

Okay. . . I'd give this book 5 stars for its readability. I picked it up and started reading and didn't want to put it down until I finished. That is unusual for me and a work of nonfiction. I also learned a lot about some historical figures I knew very little about and met some interesting new ones. Now, as far as to whether this book actually delivered? I'd have to give it 3 stars (and that is a bit generous). I found her point somewhat elusive. I'd be reading and thinking, "Yeah, yeah . . . okay, I get it," and a paragraph later or at the end of the page I'd have lost the thread. Or maybe I didn't lose the thread-- maybe I was looking for something more subtle or something more significant and it's not there. Maybe the point the point of the book really IS as simple as it seems: that marriage has historically been the focal point of women's lives to the detriment of their individual development. Well, huh. I am a female in her late 40s who does not have much patience for what I consider the unrealistic self-indulgent soft intellectualism that runs amok in a lot of women's studies programs. I also don't have much tolerance for the relentless pursuit of 'Me,' to the exclusion of all else -- something this book has in big doses. Sentences like those on the jacket " Spinster . . . . asks us to acknowledge the opportunities that exist within ourselves to live authentically" really set up my hackles. Just what the hell does that mean, anyhow? This is the kind of teeth-grinding hipster jargon that really makes me lose respect for an author. A good writer should do better than falling back on such pablum and there are frequent instances of it throughout the book. When I read she'd been an editor at a fashion magazine that kind of writing made sense. The book jacket mentions her affiliation with The Atlantic (Monthly) a magazine I had a subscription to for over 15 years. I guess that led me to expect something a bit different. All that aside, I did enjoy reading about the author's 'journey,' which is basically comprised of lots and lots of relationships and short affairs, but without the traditional mantle of marriage along the way. This is not a woman who spends much time alone. By the end of the book I lost a bit of respect for her as she seemed to view every intimate relationship from the vantage point of what SHE could get out of it. I began to get the feeling that she equated remaining a spinster with making her own needs and herself the center of her existence. This seems a bit different from women who remained a spinster to avoid becoming breeding units or chattel. If what she is saying is that the feminist movement has made it possible to act as selfishly as men that isn't exactly a news flash. Sorry, but I think either gender acting like their needs trump those of their intimates have some issues. It seems like dubious logic to compare her situation with women who lived in such a different time -- before there was birth control, the right to vote, and when women were a category of chattel to name a few. My point is that there are completely different reasons to remain unmarried now as opposed to 100 years ago. I found it a bit apples to oranges. I thought it was head-scratchingly entertaining that none of the 5 historical figures the author holds up as a spinster is actually a spinster: all 5 women were married. She seems to think that if they had unsuccessful marriages or obtained divorces that that somehow catapulted them back into the spinster category. Sorry, that doesn't work for me. I looked in 5 separate dictionaries and they all defined a spinster as an unmarried woman. The author picked these women because they were personal heroes and that is fine. But they aren't spinsters and that seems a tad on the disingenuous side for a book with that title. Ah, well. I did enjoy the book and it certain got me thinking. It's not a difficult book to read and I can see it becoming a book club staple.