The Post-Birthday World

It seems to me that the negative reviews overwhelmingly express the disappointment of not being amused and punish the author for her lack of intent to please by denigrating and dismissing her (rather sharp) political opinions and generally dark observations of human nature. People, this is NOT A CHICK LIT NOVEL. For that matter, perhaps it was mis-marketed to housewives' book clubs. Indeed, the characters are not very likeable, but they are very, very real and alive. You may not want to hang out with them -- or with the author herself -- but it's not the point. Shriver took two "what if" situations and followed each through to its logical end. The unlikeability of the characters to some readers is not a failing: they are so real that, show more like in real life, some people can relate to them, some may recognize themselves or parts of themselves in them, some may sympathize, and some may have emotional baggage preventing them from even being in the same room with these characters. Her sometimes annoying and unnecessary penchant to overflaunt her vocabulary aside, Shriver's style is brilliant, and her turn of a phrase is what makes her a writer with a capital WRITE. She's not perfect. She's not flawless. But she's always interesting and she never takes the easy way in or out. show less

Irina and her partner, Lawrence, have slowly developed the tradition of having dinner with snooker star Ramsey Acton and his wife, Jude, every year on Ramsey's birthday. Even after Ramsey's divorce from Jude, the tradition continues even though Jude was the person that connected them. But one year, Lawrence is away on the usual date. As a snooker fan he's unwilling to let the connection go and so he pushes Irina to have dinner with Ramsey solo. On that fateful evening Irina finds herself with a rogue impulse to kiss Ramsey. What will happen if she gives in to the impulse or if she remains true to Lawrence?

The friend who recommended this novel to me got me to pick it up by comparing it to the film Sliding Doors (highly underrated flick). show more The novel takes a parallel universe approach exploring what becomes of Irina when she makes the choice to kiss Ramsey and when she refrains. In alternating chapters we see how Irina's life unfolds with all its differences and strange parallels. There's a lot of fun in seeing how Shriver plays with the two timelines and uses them to comment on each other. While the novel is worth picking up just to enjoy the narrative structure, the prose itself is beautiful. A fascinating exploration of how our choices make us who we are. show less

The book, I found, has a tendency to lean towards the gimmicky. Instead of fully exploring two divergent, independent universes, the narrative is limited to a kind of bizarro, mirror universe. If Irina has hot sex in one timeline, then she has tepid sex in the second one. If she starts an argument, then the reverse universe sees her mediating an argument. If Irina becomes passionate and free-wheeling with one lover, then she turns into the exact and line-point opposite with the other: prudish and chained to her relationship. It becomes predictable, after a while. I knew exactly what was coming; there were no surprises, and it left me with the very distinct impression that I was reading a book, rather than getting lost with the show more characters in their world.

However, where the book does excel, is at portraying human relationships. Anyone who has been in more than one intimate relationship will recognize themselves in Irina's interactions with her boyfriends. The question of who Irina is better with - the shy Lawrence or the exciting, sexually magnetic Ramsey - has a universal quality to it: hasn't everyone thought...what if? Though I am happy with my significant other, I'll be honest: I've thought, on occasion, about some of my ex-boyfriends, and where I might be now if we'd stayed together. The book offers a tantalizing glimpse, a rare resolution to that what-if question. It may be a bit gimmicky in spots, but the real treat here is the writing style and the heartbreaking relationships between Irina and her (would be) lovers. show less

I don't know why I haven't read another of Shriver's books since loving We Need to Talk About Kevin. I'd forgotten what an insightful author she is with characterisation.

The premise behind this novel isn't new - akin to the Sliding Doors movie and more than a few novels, the book hinges around the two different lives the protagonist goes on to lead following a pivotal fork in the road moment. Irina, a children's illustrator, lives with her intellectual steady Eddy partner who is part of an important political think tank. Through Irina's work the couple become friends with an author and her husband Ramsay, a famous East End snooker player. Circumstances eventually collide to create a situation where Irina ends up having to take Ramsay show more out for his birthday by herself, and an unexpected frisson of sexual chemistry creates an out-of-the-blue do I / don't I decision point with this man who is the complete antithesis of her partner Lawrence in every way. Is passion, and with it the extreme lows that inevitably come as well as the euphoric highs, worth more than a steady but unexciting life of anticipated security and steadfastness?

This novel hooked me from the beginning. I initially questioned why Shriver had written a chick lit type romance book, but the more I got into it the cleverer it became. As a reader we get to see her live out similar events through the two opposing life paths, neither of which turn out out as she had expected. It's a clever interpretation of how the grass always looks greener from the other side, with Irina constantly questioning the other life choice she could have taken, and thinking it would have been something very different to actually how we see it pan out. Life never turns out as you expect it, and in Irina's world people are not necessarily who you thought they were.

A thoroughly enjoyable read, I lost myself in this novel for hours this weekend. It's not perfect - for one I hate the title, and the cover is most definitely chick lit. More annoyingly, Shriver often misses the mark quite considerably with Ramsay's Cockney dialogue, confusing Northern colloquial sayings for Cockney slang and using phrases more at home in the old film adaptation of Oliver or the Carry On films than on the real streets of the East End. Having said that, Shriver portrays the two opposing romantic relationships and the complexities of leaving a relationship but still emotionally hanging on to part of it very cleverly. A tale of romance it may be, but romance from the twin perspectives of outside in and inside out.

4.5 stars - the critics may have panned it, but for me this was a great read. show less

Capítulo a capítulo, Lionel Shriver nos oferece dois desdobramentos do futuro dessa mulher sob a influência de dois homens radicalmente diferentes, e assim escreve duas histórias. A partir daquele único beijo, retrata alternativas para união e rompimento, e explora as consequências e as motivações mais íntimas de uma escolha.

Determinar qual seria o melhor caminho não é óbvio nem fácil, mas a análise dos dois destinos em que a autora enreda os personagens e os leitores é memorável. Escrito com a sutileza e a sagacidade que são as marcas registradas da obra de Lionel Shriver, O mundo pós-aniversário é um apelo para aquele "talvez" que intriga e provoca todos nós.

Could a single kiss change your life?

No, not for Sleeping Beauty, but for Irina Galina McGovern a children’s book illustrator living with her long-time boyfriend in London. Much is made of the fact that after 9 years she and Lawrence have not married. They have a mutual friend, Ramsey Acton and his wife Jude and on Ramsey’s birthday the couples have gone out to dinner. No one particularly has a good time, but the tradition remains even after Jude and Ramsey divorce (and Jude and Irina have a huge fight themselves). One year, Lawrence is out of town and encourages Irina to go out with Ramsey solo. After too much to drink they repair to his house for a wee joint. There, over the snooker table, comes the kiss.

Or does it? Shriver show more presents us with two alternatives; yes they kiss, no they don’t. Each chapter covers one particular scenario (with shaded or unshaded chapter number colophons to go with, a device used a bit cleverly for the last chapter). The same basic events occur in each scenario only in a lot of cases they are completely reversed. One person starts a particular fight and takes a particular side, in the other timeline those words are in the other person’s mouth. There are incidents, setbacks and triumphs; all standing opposite each other.

For the most part it works. I was quite interested in seeing how Shriver could spin the same argument for different sides. The writing is very strong and there are some good insights and the characterizations are all sharp and, at least for me, believable. If you pay attention though, some of the things that take place aren’t surprises if you can deduce the opposite from what came before. And truthfully I got tired of all the fighting; Irina v. Ramsey and Irina v. mom. I almost skimmed the Christmas scenes with her family in Brighton Beach. But it passed and things came to a head. It wraps with a bit more optimism than is warranted given how much of a downer a lot of the book is, but I guess Irina could use a break. show less

An amazingly creative, enthralling, entertaining novel.

The first chapter sees the protagonist having a birthday dinner with a male friend while her (live-in) boyfriend (of 10 years) is out of town. It ends with her having a nearly overwhelming desire to kiss him.
From then on, chapters alternate between two worlds: one where she kissed him, and one where she didn’t.

I have a thing for parallel lives. Whenever I pass some town or block where I once lived, I wonder how my parallel self is doing, the self that stayed living there. I often think about the self that stayed with my high school boyfriend. Or about the self that stayed single. And so on. Hence, I absolutely loved the book’s gimmick.

And Irina, the protagonist, was just my show more type. Like me, 40-something and child-free. Like me, loves to cook, especially for the one she loves; her live-in (or, let’s call him her husband – she often does so in the novel) gives her full autonomy in this area, like mine. I loved the scene where she goes food shopping with her new lover for the first time, in the parallel life where she takes up with him; she’s taken aback when he throws a head of broccoli into the cart. “She had nothing against broccoli, but it wasn’t on the menu.” She’s so used to her husband having no input into the shopping at all, she doesn’t realize that joint decision-making in this area is, well, kind of normal.

And Lionel Shriver is 2 for 2 with me so far. I started with THE MANDIBLES based on a book review; loved it so much, I ended up with this one by deciding I’d be happy to read a book about basket-weaving by her, so I picked it at random from Paperback Swap. I went in knowing nothing of the plot (that’s how I prefer to read fiction). I liked it even better than THE MANDIBLES, to which I think I had given 5 stars.

I thought I knew where the book might be heading, at first – these two parallel stories were winding along such different paths, yet with such similarities, I thought that the heroine might just end up in the same place at the end, no matter which path she had chosen. A note on those similarities – they are one of the other fun parts. Similar events happen in both branches – sometimes the same historical events, obviously, like the death of Princess Di or 9/11 – sometimes things in peripheral characters’ lives or behavior. Sometimes a similar conversation will take place in both branches, but with the speakers reversed, or changed to other characters. It’s such a great read.

At one point midway to late in the story, Irina authors a children’s book with a gimmick: it can be read two ways. Read it in one direction, you get one story; turn it upside down and read it, and you get a different story. In one, a boy takes one direction in life; and in the other… you get the idea! In Irina’s story, the boy’s life turns out basically OK, no matter which path he chooses, with lots of similarities, although with lots of drastic differences as well.

SPOILERS!!

Hence, I changed my mind about where the book was headed – obviously, that would be the lesson. Irina’s life would stay drastically different in both branches, but she’d end up basically OK, no matter which path she had chosen. I liked that idea very much.

But it doesn’t end that way. In fact, one of the stories seems to end much better than the other. There was kind of a “right” choice for Irina, after all.

I certainly read it that way. In story arc 1, things certainly end with a tragedy, but Irina is really doing splendidly. In the other, well, she’s wandering the streets of London pathetically morose. In a way, you could blame Shriver for leaving the story in arc 2 at this particular juncture. If she’d gone a little further, surely Irina would eventually pull herself together, and be “OK”, wouldn’t she?

Dialogues that take place at the end of both stories, however, strongly insinuate that there was a right choice, and arc 2 wasn’t it.

I didn’t like it that way. SUPER SPOILER – maybe I didn’t like it because the “right” decision was to leave her long-term s.o., and I personally have been married for 20 years. I was very charmed by the lover that tempted her, and loved those chapters, don’t get me wrong; but I felt such a warm glow in chapters where she looked at her s.o. with love, or in the alternate chapters where she missed her cooking equipment. Maybe I just didn’t want that story to end so badly. show less