Meg Waite Clayton

TW: Child sexual abuse; incest; sexual assault; racism; misogyny; victim-blaming.

WOW, this book was awful. Narrative passages about nothing clutter several books lately. Have them -be- about something, not just a character Thinking Deep Thoughts of uselessness! This was stuffed full of characters -ruminating- and -brooding- and there was NO emotion behind it. I wonder if it was there to pad word count or something. Even the passages where I am clearly meant to feel something inspired boredom show more and irritation. The little chapter intros were not as cute or clever as the author wanted them to be. They were meant to emulate, I think, announcements in society pages or school papers. It didn't work. Not only is this multiple POVs written with the exact same voice minus word choices, this flips between timelines of forty years or more for no reason and I couldn't stand it. It was so hard to follow! Laney is a Southern gal stereotype, and most of the time I wished she'd shut up. The author made her too much of a stereotype, is why. Betts needed to be cut entirely. She added nothing, although I found out what a zhaleika was and that's interesting. I watched a clip on youtube. Mia was probably there to balance out the sadness and deep issues of everyone else's stories, and it kind of worked. None of these women had any real character once they got older. Their characterization was barely there to begin with.

They're called the four Ms Bradwells because a professor they had thought he was being clever. He called one Ms Bradwell a drug dealer and I raised my eyebrows. If I hadn't had professors who had been as proud of using shock value as he was, I would have been aghast. But no, some professors absolutely do this. It's inappropriate. Stop. One student is proficient in Latin due to practicing a branch of Catholicism that uses it a lot, and the professor is delighted. The others struggle and a nonsensical phrase emerges that they still use thirty years later. It's--a thing--but it comes off as odd and annoying. The book insists it takes place in 2011, but for all intents and purposes, takes place thirty years earlier, when they're all in their twenties and the horrible stuff is happening. As far as 2011, there's a brief mention of a blog. We never get to see the blog. Not a single entry, just a mention. There's no references to 2011 technology, societal messages, or thought patterns. This is solidly early 1980s, late 70s. Sooo much of the book could have been cut and just focused on that. The rest was just padding. No characterization, no action, no connection between the timelines, just padding.

This was a poorly done character study, not a thriller. I think the reason there's the nonsense about two timelines, with one thirty years into the future, was so all the women could be shown as grown with children the ages they were when the dramatic stuff happened, and how they adjust to it and what they teach their daughters. It's useless. Ginger's mom is a terrible, terrible parent. Most parents would be screaming and plotting murder if their daughter were being sexually assaulted at the age of thirteen by a twenty-year-old, and a family member at that. Ginger's mom just whispers and stares at the friend who told her. Then, she...writes a poem and sticks it in a poetry book...for her daughter to find after she dies. CUT THE MELODRAMA, YOU ASSHOLE. I'd yell at her to protect her kid but...child abuse and sexual assault weren't crimes until the 1970s. There's realistically not a lot that would have been done. The acts are seen as crimes now, but it's still really recent and it's a huge part of why people blame victims and especially brush child sexual assault by family members under the rug. Or joke about it. It's become a joke since the 90s I think. So, back in the 70s, "seduction at thirteen by a cousin" would have been...seen as exactly that, as opposed to "he groomed her for sexual assault". It's still awful all around, and I desperately wish things had been different for Ginger.

This trope always goes one of two ways: survivor becomes withdrawn, dislikes everyone and lots of "cry for help" stuff, which I've never seen portrayed realistically in books outside of "Speak." Or, survivor becomes promiscuous, rebellious, and someone everyone blames and makes fun of. It's never realistic, there's no nuance, and do these authors ever -speak- to survivors? Ugh. Ginger becomes the second one. The phrase "gawky slut" is used in reference to her by someone who's supposed to be her friend. Her cousin assaulted her over a period of years, and she...became a rebel because he wasn't in love with her? WHAT?! You're gawky unless someone falls in love with you?! WHAT THE FUCK. This makes no sense! The "Ginger is a gawky slut" friend later reveals Ginger's rapist is also her rapist. He called her a racist slur and a misogynist slur as well, while assaulting her. Ginger argues, years later when they're adults, that Trey couldn't have raped or been racist to her friend because...he was assaulting -her- all along so blahblah stupid. I HATE THOUGHT PROCESSES LIKE THIS.

Ginger keeps referring to the period of seven years where her cousin repeatedly assaulted and groomed her as "an affair." NO NO NO. Again, counseling for this wouldn't have been around then really. This...is realistic to the 1970s. So have the book take place maaaybe in the 1990s if you want them to reflect reasonably! Mental health services and methods haven't really changed since the 1960s in America. The 1990s had particular types of misogyny still, that could have been an interesting social commentary when compared to the 1970s. The author missed that opportunity and so many others. Trey, her assailant, kills himself later and--each woman flaps her jaws about this, but has no emotion about it. The attitude is "ooh, suicide, let's be both surprised and horribly fascinated by it as well." UGH. I've known people whose assailants died, and their emotions and reflections on it -that they felt comfortable sharing with others- do not reflect what this book said at all. There's a wide variety of emotions and circumstances, and this book did -nothing-. And there were weird journalists? There was no foreshadowing or reason, and no--it felt randomly placed to stretch out the story. It wasn't done well at all.

Whyyyy did Ginger strip down naked on the boat at the end? Why did the book end on that note? Was it poorly done symbolism? Was it an act of rebellion to end the book? What? Ugh. Before I forget: a black pearl necklace was repeatedly referred to in the book. Why does the cover have a double strand of white pearls?.

Trey, the assailant, was nothing but a wind-up rape machine. The author made him a cartoon villain and little more than set dressing. He wasn't even a plot device, that's how poorly this book was written. If the audience wasn't upset that he raped a child, and one he was related to, they would surely be upset that he raped a woman in a way that's seen as unusually degrading, while using racist and misogynist slurs! Be angry, readers! BEEEEEE ANNNNNGRRRYYYY IT'S MYYYY BOOK AND I SHALL CHAAAANNNNELLLLL EMOOOOTIONNSSS FROM YOUUUUU. In response to what the author was doing, I think of Smosh's catchphrase, "SHUT. UP.!"

Books that do a much better job examining sexual assault that actually -have- the rapist in them, thus drawing emotion from the audience and are plot, not set dressing, are "Speak" by Laurie Halse Anderson. "Speak" has the survivor who is withdrawn, and does -excellent- with the portrayal. "Luckiest Girl Alive" by Jessica Knoll has the promiscuous rebel survivor. Please read those and skip this one. show less

In 1967, on a Wednesday morning, five women meet each other in a park in San Francisco. They are watching their children play, discussing their husbands’ jobs, and talking about current events. As they share their daily lives and chat about what brought them to the city, they discover that although they have completely different backgrounds, they all have a something in common: the secret desire to become writers. Over the next decade: one of turmoil, historical firsts, and radical shifts show more in America, and in their own families, they continue meeting together and encouraging each other to write.

I loved this idea of showing what it was like to be a housewife, married to a soon-to-be successful husband in this era of free love, where women burned bras, and protest marches happened in the city. And there are the characters; each woman is so real that they seemed like personal friends. As a writer, I have been blessed by women like them, so for me, this story touched my heart. Also, Meg Waite Clayton perfectly hit on all the angst writers feel about their work and the publishing industry. This is the first book I’ve read of hers (found her on facebook) and I’m excited to see that there is a sequel called The Wednesday Daughters, which of course, are the children of the Wednesday Sisters. I’m recommending this to my writer friends—published or not—and to women, especially those who remember those not—so—long—ago days. I read this 5 star gem on Kindle. show less

The one star given is, appropriately, 'did NOT like it'.

Nor could I continue reading it. It remains unfinished.

As to the writing, much of the beginning was actually garbled. Constant confusion of voices and multiple characters. It continued with each chapter change of undesignated viewpoints.

The only writing I valued was the fictional discussions with Beatrix Potter, the deceased mother's unpublished work in progress. Each chapter opened with a Potter quote which was delightful. show more Unfortunately, the contrast of this juxtaposed against the baseness of the contemporary story served to highlight the incongruity.

The reality of this supposed close 'family' of friendships is nothing short of questionable. One of the Wednesday daughters, a surgeon, telling another, Julie, a twin [whose sister has died a year ago] and who has just filed divorce papers, she should screw the boatman who rowed them to the cottage they're visiting because it might do her some good?

That same twin, Julie, answering a late night caller in nothing but her husband's shirt, then cuddling outside under a blanket with her sister Jamie's husband who has come to deliver the news of Jamie's impending death? No mention of her going indoors to tell her husband of this life impacting news nor does he check who has shown up at that late hour when she doesn't return inside. Seriously? Wouldn't the grieving husband be at home with his wife, Julie, her sister, comforting and consoling each other in the moment? Why would these two be consoling each other? Totally inappropriate and unreal.

This is barely concealed fantasy and not a healthy one at that. Do I really want to read about women choosing to live with such a low level of intelligence and life's core values? Making such unwise, damaging choices? I think not.

With all the positive women's reading influence available, I have already invested too much of my reading time feeling uncomfortably like a voyeur.




*I received this book from Random House Publishing Group - Ballantine for my review without obligation. show less

Race, sickness, marital dissatisfaction, gender roles, education, insecurity, war, infidelity combined with friendship, love, dreams, parenting, literature - this book has it all! At the center of the changing world of the 1960's are five friends brought together by their weekly visits to the local park. They each come with a history and with a past; they each have certain things about themselves they preferred would stay hidden from the eyes of the others. The five friends united behind one show more goal, one driving force: their dream of writing which stems from their love for literature. It is through this shared dream that they are able to grow closer to one another and call themselves the Wednesday Sisters.

This book was vivid, emotionally gripping, and poignant. It made me want to laugh, cry, and stand alongside the five women cheering them on. It took me on an emotional rollercoaster, but it was one that I was always willing to climb aboard! The sisterhood they formed is one that I believe most women crave at their core. Overall, it made me look within myself and ask, "Am I doing enough to make my dreams a reality? Will people remember me for being related to so-and-so or being this person's friend, or will they remember the impact I made on the world?" show less