I had just gotten
my feet up when the phone rang.
Thanks a million, bro.
7 years ago









he 30s to the 70s - but the plot is like angel food cake. You know you're reading it and that things are happening in the lives of the characters, but you couldn't say what the story is. This is especially provocative when the title seems to refer to some specific event. It really doesn't; there are many turning-point moments in the lives of different characters, but there is no one neutron bomb for the whole family. Even as I wrote this review, I realized that that may be the point. It's not after "this" big thing for all of them. It's what life is like for each of them after specific, individual things happen. One of McDermott's most deft techniques is to progress a single storyline months, years or decades ahead in the space of a paragraph, a sentence or even a phrase. The largest voids of time appear between chapters. Suddenly, a daughter is out of high school and on a semester abroad. Suddenly, an adult character has aged irretrievably. After This is a very enjoyable read, even if I can't say what it's about.
m the Boy and was surprised to hear that I knew Tony when he lived in Pittsburgh; she didn't even know he had lived here. I'm sure many of his readers don't know that. We re-encounter Jim, his mother and his uncles about 8 years after the action in Jim the Boy. Jim, a high school senior at the brink of World War II, falls in love. Those three things - high school, the war and love - drive the story, which is a page-turner that this reader found wishing not to end. A marvelous novel; a quick read.
ibrary at the time, so I read Why Things Bite Back first. This book, like that one, would make a fascinating feature-length magazine article. As a book, it bogs down in Tenner's exhaustive research that benefits from no cogent argument. The reader is too exposed to all of the marvelous things Tenner learned and not given enough of a structure to figure out why he/she should care. This book would benefit extraordinarily from more photographs of the technologies he describes - sandals, office chairs, recliners, helmets, etc. Although there are a handful of image plates sprinkled throughout the book, I found narrative descriptions of the shapes and designs of helmets and other objects utterly lacking without visual accompaniment. Perhaps even better and easier to achieve than photo documentation would be simple pen and ink drawings. But no. Reading this book provides a few interesting dinner party facts but not much more. Paige read the last 18 pages aloud to me in the car on the way back from a Christmas trip to Cincinnati because she was so sick of seeing it on my nightstand.
ic. The best conclusion I can draw from it is that Title IX was either too vague when written or has take off in ways that were never envisioned. The Office of Civil Rights's attempts to clarify the law have required much effort and helped little. Thirty-three years after passage, it is still quite difficult to say whether a university is in compliance with Title IX for athletics (nevermind all of the other areas of equality for women that the law addresses). This was the most poorly copy-edited book I've read since a history of the Harlem Boys Choir in the late 90s. The mistakes were distracting and annoying (bad copy-editing is an entire other blog post in the making). The core problem of the book, I think, is that it's a legal history. Legal history is boring. Suggs decides to add little humanity, quoting the head of the Women & Girls Foundation instead of, say, telling the story of a volleyball player at Vanderbilt. Girls and women having more opportunities in sports is good. This book is not. 
