I loved Gone Girl. I read the book in 2013, shortly after it came out, and just felt a pure and uncomplicated passion for it—I enjoyed seeing the doltish husband squirm, and I really admired the psychopathic wife, and the propulsive plotting made such a strong impression on me that I subsequently wrote about the novel
I think this review mostly confirms that I would not like the book (I'd probably respond more like the critics). But I enjoy reading a more positive take on it. Viewing it from the thriller genre lens definitely makes sense.
I generally like the framing here (Gone Girl vs. Yesteryear), and the basically pragmatic truth that Flynn's novel is probably better because she just "honed her plotting skills to a sharp point." I love Gone Girl (and Fincher's movie) because it encapsulates a kind of early 10's feeling so well. But to bring up another 2013 novel, The Love Affairs of Nathaniel P. was Adelle Waldman's debut, and I like it as much as Gone Girl! So maybe you're giving Caro Claire Burke too much sympathy. She could have written something that was somewhat ambivalent (Waldman) or actively critical (Flynn) of women in her own social milieu and instead she's giving people in that milieu (left-leaning professional women in urban areas) this fantasy about how other women are going to be punished for their choices. You don't have to write what you know, but if you write what you hate, your writing's going to be kind of flat, right?
Really enjoyed your thoughts on Yesteryear. I think the comparison with Gone Girl makes sense and Burke has mentioned it as an inspiration in interviews.
I felt the story was kind of torn between being Groundhog Day (terrible person forced to confront their flaws and learn better) or being a “rise and fall of a terrible social media influencer” story. So some people show up expecting a Groundhog Day-like fable and are disappointed by what they get.
Personally I wanted the Groundhog Day version of this story and I think that’s what makes best use of the premise. I even tried a content edit on my blog to tweak the story in this direction.
Enjoying a book is communion. Not enjoying one is alienation. That captures something most critics won’t admit: that our relationship to popular taste isn’t just aesthetic, it’s social. We want to be in the room with everyone else. When the book locks us out, it’s not the book we resent. It’s the distance.
When did they send out the memo that writers can’t hate what they’re writing about? This is honestly distressing to me, some of my favorite books are full of spite.
Now this approach makes sense. The book still wouldn’t work for me because I’m so far removed from influencer culture, and my perspective is such that I’d sooner take aim at the specifics of high-controlling religion and its impact on women.
I've already reserved "Yesteryear" from the public library and will be picking it up tomorrow. The Guardian gave it a very scathing review, so I am interested in your more positive and nuanced approach.
Regarding "Where the Crawdads Sing" and "Lessons in Chemistry", do you like going for walks and ironing? I took both these bestsellers in as an audiobook, thus multi-tasking and making other essentially quite tedious experiences more palatable.
I have found that a book I would not consider taking the time to read in my hand slips by very well as audio. If read by a talented actor who can do multiple voices, it actually brings the novel to life.
Other books are so gripping and complex that I read them in tandem both audio and written page. Sarah Perry's "The Essex Serpent" is one, and another is Francis Spufford's new book "Nonesuch".
I intend to post on Substack at some point about audiobooks I have read (292 to date).
Re: Yesteryear, love your thoughts about it. The Substack criticism made me wonder if the issues were also about expectations and whether folks were expecting a commercial book or hoping for more depth and texture, i.e., more literary. Either way I really need to read it now.
I went into Lost Lambs wanting to like it, but the sheer immaturity of the author and her try-hard forced quirkiness lost me. It was capably enough written to finish. I wanted to see if maybe it was going somewhere. But the characters all felt flat with little genuine motivation or depth, the marriage-gone-stale was just a collection of clichés with no real insight into the dynamics of a long relationship, the young characters were impossibly clever quip-machines, and the "mystery" was a paint-by-numbers evil rich people story. Franzen has genuine insight into how families work. Cash does not.
This piece really made me wonder what goes on in the minds of the editors - like do they have a lens on the world and what would please the most people, or is it, like most everything else, driven by algorithms doing most of the choosing?
I had a similar reaction to Lost Lambs. I thought the novel had genuinely funny parts (riding her bike to the party at the end and getting all sweaty, 'War Crimes Wes') and some elements were well-done (e.g., where the title is derived from, the earnestness of the relationships that Bud and Catherine find themselves in + their conflict, the painfulness of high school love between Abigail and War Crimes Wes), but felt there were a lot of shortcuts taken in constructing the arcs. While I can see a case for an absurdist viewpoint, it was not consistently executed. The reader is just presumed to be in on the joke because we all live in these times, which wasn't sufficient enough for me. The whole cabal of tech billionaires was low hanging, albeit unripe fruit.
I agree with you on Yesteryear. I enjoyed looking behind the curtain of instagram and I believe the issues Burke raises about posting images of your children for likes will come back to haunt many other Natalies in the next decade or so.
I think this review mostly confirms that I would not like the book (I'd probably respond more like the critics). But I enjoy reading a more positive take on it. Viewing it from the thriller genre lens definitely makes sense.
I generally like the framing here (Gone Girl vs. Yesteryear), and the basically pragmatic truth that Flynn's novel is probably better because she just "honed her plotting skills to a sharp point." I love Gone Girl (and Fincher's movie) because it encapsulates a kind of early 10's feeling so well. But to bring up another 2013 novel, The Love Affairs of Nathaniel P. was Adelle Waldman's debut, and I like it as much as Gone Girl! So maybe you're giving Caro Claire Burke too much sympathy. She could have written something that was somewhat ambivalent (Waldman) or actively critical (Flynn) of women in her own social milieu and instead she's giving people in that milieu (left-leaning professional women in urban areas) this fantasy about how other women are going to be punished for their choices. You don't have to write what you know, but if you write what you hate, your writing's going to be kind of flat, right?
Crazy that Gone Girl is old enough to feel like a period piece. It really does get the early 10's just right.
Really enjoyed your thoughts on Yesteryear. I think the comparison with Gone Girl makes sense and Burke has mentioned it as an inspiration in interviews.
I felt the story was kind of torn between being Groundhog Day (terrible person forced to confront their flaws and learn better) or being a “rise and fall of a terrible social media influencer” story. So some people show up expecting a Groundhog Day-like fable and are disappointed by what they get.
Personally I wanted the Groundhog Day version of this story and I think that’s what makes best use of the premise. I even tried a content edit on my blog to tweak the story in this direction.
Enjoying a book is communion. Not enjoying one is alienation. That captures something most critics won’t admit: that our relationship to popular taste isn’t just aesthetic, it’s social. We want to be in the room with everyone else. When the book locks us out, it’s not the book we resent. It’s the distance.
Loved this piece!
When did they send out the memo that writers can’t hate what they’re writing about? This is honestly distressing to me, some of my favorite books are full of spite.
Now this approach makes sense. The book still wouldn’t work for me because I’m so far removed from influencer culture, and my perspective is such that I’d sooner take aim at the specifics of high-controlling religion and its impact on women.
I've already reserved "Yesteryear" from the public library and will be picking it up tomorrow. The Guardian gave it a very scathing review, so I am interested in your more positive and nuanced approach.
Regarding "Where the Crawdads Sing" and "Lessons in Chemistry", do you like going for walks and ironing? I took both these bestsellers in as an audiobook, thus multi-tasking and making other essentially quite tedious experiences more palatable.
I have found that a book I would not consider taking the time to read in my hand slips by very well as audio. If read by a talented actor who can do multiple voices, it actually brings the novel to life.
Other books are so gripping and complex that I read them in tandem both audio and written page. Sarah Perry's "The Essex Serpent" is one, and another is Francis Spufford's new book "Nonesuch".
I intend to post on Substack at some point about audiobooks I have read (292 to date).
Re: Yesteryear, love your thoughts about it. The Substack criticism made me wonder if the issues were also about expectations and whether folks were expecting a commercial book or hoping for more depth and texture, i.e., more literary. Either way I really need to read it now.
I went into Lost Lambs wanting to like it, but the sheer immaturity of the author and her try-hard forced quirkiness lost me. It was capably enough written to finish. I wanted to see if maybe it was going somewhere. But the characters all felt flat with little genuine motivation or depth, the marriage-gone-stale was just a collection of clichés with no real insight into the dynamics of a long relationship, the young characters were impossibly clever quip-machines, and the "mystery" was a paint-by-numbers evil rich people story. Franzen has genuine insight into how families work. Cash does not.
This piece really made me wonder what goes on in the minds of the editors - like do they have a lens on the world and what would please the most people, or is it, like most everything else, driven by algorithms doing most of the choosing?
I had a similar reaction to Lost Lambs. I thought the novel had genuinely funny parts (riding her bike to the party at the end and getting all sweaty, 'War Crimes Wes') and some elements were well-done (e.g., where the title is derived from, the earnestness of the relationships that Bud and Catherine find themselves in + their conflict, the painfulness of high school love between Abigail and War Crimes Wes), but felt there were a lot of shortcuts taken in constructing the arcs. While I can see a case for an absurdist viewpoint, it was not consistently executed. The reader is just presumed to be in on the joke because we all live in these times, which wasn't sufficient enough for me. The whole cabal of tech billionaires was low hanging, albeit unripe fruit.
I agree with you on Yesteryear. I enjoyed looking behind the curtain of instagram and I believe the issues Burke raises about posting images of your children for likes will come back to haunt many other Natalies in the next decade or so.