Ceased to Enjoy This Pretty Damn Early

I'm swamped. Utterly swamped. But I'm still carving out time for reading; it's just writing blog posts that has become difficult! Before the next big wave of work hits, I wanted to jot down some thoughts on a book I recently read. I know, the blog post title is none too subtle. I did not like this book. Which for so many reasons, is too bad.

First of all, the author, Billie Livingston, wrote a previous novel, (her first) Going Down Swinging, which I enjoyed tremendously. So yes, I was expecting something as clever, insightful and tight as her first work. Not entirely fair, but that's why we readers go for an author's second kick at the can, right? Another reason why I was so looking forward to Cease to Blush was because of the subject matter Ms Livingston chose to write about. In the various blurbs and reviews I read about this book, the story was described as a smart, funny, poignant look at a mother-daughter relationship, as well as a challenging and irreverant look at the women's movement in the past 40 years or so.

I really should just stop reading all those damn reviews.

To be blunt and heartless, this book is a mess. It's starts off in an amusing manner, with our heroine Vivian, the antithesis of her lesbian feminist mother Josie, showing up late for her mother's funeral, and wearing a somewhat skanky red dress, to the shock and disgust of all Josie's die-hard feminist friends. From there, it just falls from one embarrassing cliche to another until the core of this book just crumbles into your hands, unable to support itself from the weight of the embarrassingly predictable dialogue and plot. The predictable plot? The daughter finds out (too late! Sob!) that her mother had a secret past as an exotic dancer and singer, and even hung with all those hip dudes from the Rat Pack in Vegas, baby. So what does Vivian do? Go on a road trip, of course, in search of the real Mom! There are the required flashbacks of Mom groovin' with fellahs like Sinatra and Dean, and even a little trist with the likes of Bobby Kennedy no less! If I had wanted to read about the history of the Rat Pack, I would have gone to the Biography section, or rented a few cheezy movies. I read that whole damn book and found very little mother-daughter drama, not to mention no real insightful discussion of the women's movement, past or present.

And that's the real shame, because I'd love to read some good fiction which looks at the history of the women's movement, in say, the past 40-ish years. Something smart and funny. And maybe a little cynical. Something that might help me define how I feel about feminism these days. I'm definitely one of those women who feel hesitant to call herself a feminist, and I'm not entirely sure why. I certainly appreciate all that has happened in the past so that I can live a pretty darn good life in the present, but I still see around me messages which tell me that all is not ok. I'm not the kind of woman who is a strident feminist; I'm not obsessed with political correctness in the extreme (for example, I don't consider it demeaning if someone calls me a 'girl', nor do I think it is wrong to use the word 'rape' in the context of the destruction of our environment, ie, the rape of our precious resources). But it does annoy me to see women portrayed in movies and TV as nothing but objects of sex or violence. That's certainly one of the reasons I don't watch much TV these days. Every other TV show is about some beautiful girl who has been raped and murdered, and her crime is being solved by some extremely foxy lady. I find that a tad perverse. Am I prudish? Perhaps, in some areas. I'm definitely not a girly-girl; I find conversations focusing on clothes, make-up and jewellry to be deadly dull. In fact, I find girly-girls to be rather annoying, and if I run through a mental list of all my girlfriends, I realize that not one of them is a girly-girl. Quite frankly, I get really turned off by women I encounter who use their sexuality to get what they want in life. Why is Marilyn Monroe so revered? I've never been able to figure that out, and I find it next to impossible to watch an entire movie with her and her beathless bosomy antics bouncing across the screen. Give me Ava Gardner any day of the week. How does Billie Livingston feel about all these issues? I certainly didn't figure it out by reading this book. And Ms. Livingston herself is quite the looker: a former model and still part-time actress who has also become a published author and poet. Interestingly enough, just about every article I have read about Ms. Livingston always mentions her jarring beauty. All part of the package these days, when it comes to selling books. How far have we really come?

So what kind of feminist am I? I'm still trying to figure it out. Unfortunately, Ms. Livingston wasn't much help. Cease to Blush was a great idea, but a very disappointing execution. Sort of like how I sometimes feel about feminism these days.

"Women without principles," the Marquis de Sade wrote, "are never more dangerous than at the age when they have ceased to blush."

I'd say they're never more dangerous than when they have ceased to think.

Comments

[R J Keefe]

Allez, courage!

[Isabella]

Feminism somehow became equated with lesbianism and/or man-hating. It's damn near impossible to use the word without having to qualify it. Am at a loss for words and caffeine to take the discussion further at the moment. Umm, I hear ya.

"I'd love to read some good fiction which looks at the history of the women's movement, in say, the past 40-ish years. Something smart and funny. And maybe a little cynical." Will be thinking about what might fit the bill -- back later.

[Cara]

There is definitely a stigma attached to feminism and feminists.

I once had a professor in college who asked how many people in the class were feminists. I was one of about four people who raised our hands. Then he asked how many people were in favor of women being given the same opportunities as men, being paid an equal salary for doing the same job as men, and being treated equally in society and the law. After each question, most people in the class raised their hands. Then he asked again how many people consider themselves feminists. This time, only three more people raised their hands.

Because apparently, feminists torture kittens for fun. Who knew?

[roggey]

Thanks for this review. Someone had mentioned it and as with you, the review made it sound worth a read.

[ragdoll]

Wow. What a great post. And a great review of a book you were so disappointed in. I've got it on my summer reading list as well and am maybe now re-thinking it as a choice.

And I keep thinking that we've gotten to a point where by simply being a woman you are a feminist, that all of the misbegotten stereotypes have fallen far, far by the wayside. Somehow, I'm thinking this novel does little to dispell said stereotypes.

On to better reading!

[Danielle]

I loved this post. I especially like that you say you are not a "girly girl". I totally understand where you are coming from. Try watching the Spanish channel (and truly not to ding cultures here, as my last name is Torres!), for more than say five minutes and not be dismayed at always being confronted with attractive, buxom, SCANTILY clad young women no matter what the situation or program standing next to not so attractive older men who are fully dressed. I want to be progressive and open minded and all that, but ACK--why don't you ever see a woman with a blasted book in her hands!!!! I suppose that's the Puritan in me coming through.

[Cate O'Leary]

First question: Will you even post a negative response to your review? I challenge you.
Second: Why would you read fiction if you're looking for a "Self Help" book? Fiction shouldn't TELL you how to feel about social politics.

Ava Gardner used her sexuality every step of the way. She outslutted Sinatra. Do your research. How Billie Livingston feels about that is irrelevent. She's a fiction writer; her job is to provoke thought and conversation, not to tell you how to feel or think.

If you want help defining just what type of feminist you are, try reading the works of the women casually referred to in this book. Don't ask the fiction author to summarize the messages of the feminists it seems as if you need to source directly in order to make sense of what appears to be your own modern-day conflicted self. There is indeed cynisism in this story. If you're missing that, you've missed the point. Both mother and daughter confront the folly of feminist dogma both past and present. Do you even know who Dworkin was? Ask your daddy why you're hesitant to call yourself a feminist; Livingston doesn't care.
And that's the point! Don't look for easy answers in the work of a fiction writer.

Are you suggesting that the fact that Livingston is reportedly a "looker" is the reason for any attention being paid to her writing? You've said already that you were a fan of her first novel. So were a hell of a lot of other people:
“Billie Livingston vividly captures the heady romance of mother-daughter love, so strengthening in its unconditional acceptance and support, and so wretchedly debilitating in its blindness.” --Hamilton Spectator
I presume you didn't pick up this book because of the pretty woman on the back cover. I suspect the same is true of the vast majority who read it and this, her second and equally entertaining novel. Your comment sounds like a whiny man who concludes that every woman who surpasses him has slept her way to the top. (Do you have a penis in your pocket or are you just desperate to see one?)
I could go on for days but I'll leave off here. I've read the comments. You wouldn't dare post this.
Toodles!
Cate. XOXO

[patricia]

Sorry to disappoint you Cate. Your post is here to stay. And sorry, but I stand by what I say. The book is a mess. And a lot of my expectations about the views concerning feminism were based on rave reviews I read about the book, as well as the book blurb itself. I certainly was not looking for a self-help book; you've totally misunderstood me. I was looking for what others had claimed this book to be about. In both the area of the mother/daughter relationship, and the "look at how far we have come" theme, I honestly felt that Ms. Livingston barely scratched the surface, and instead depended heavily on cliche situations (the dyke mother and opposing daughter; the journey to "find her mother and herself", the unbearably predictable ending of the book), and embarrassingly cliche dialogue, which I found quite painful to read. Yes, Billie's first book was amazing. Hence my great disappointment with her second book, because my expectations were quite high, based on what I had read before. It wasn't just the story in Cease to Blush that was so disappointing for me, but also the quality of the writing. It felt like Ms. Livingston was getting tired of telling the story, and was just adding a great deal of filler. Filler that lacked imagination and any real life. So because of these reasons, I did not like the book. It wasn't very good, in my opinion. READ: OPINION. My blog, my opinion. That's all.

And my comments about Billie's appearance are in regards to how others respond to her, how more physically attractive women in the writing world are promoted in a different manner. Read this article to see where I am coming from regarding tihs matter:

http://www.writersdigest.com/articles/hogan_bookjacket.asp

I am certainly not suggesting that she got published based on her looks. I know she's a talented writer. I just didn't see much of it in this book.

Oh, and another thing. I don't give a fiddler's fart what reviewers say about a book. Just because the Hamilton Spectator loves it, doesn't mean I'm going to, or supposed to. Should I love The DaVinci Code just because half the population love it? I've got a mind of my own, and if I don't like something, I will say so, and say why. As far as I'm concerned, having one's own opinions, and sharing them, regardless of "what everyone else thinks" is in part, what a feminist means to me. I will not be a shrinking violet on my own blog just because someone does not like what I say. You don't like my opinions? Then move along, honey.

And regarding Ava Gardner, I always liked her more because she came across to me like a strong tough broad who wouldn't take shit from no one, as opposed to Marilyn Monroe, who often seemed to be portrayed as a victim. And Ava was one hell of a talented actress, which I can't say the same for poor Marilyn.

I don't look for easy answers in works of fiction. But I do look for smart, honest, original ideas. Didn't find any in this book, kiddo.

You seem to be taking my review very personally, like I am in some way attacking you. You've got a lot of anger in your post, sweetie. Maybe you should try and figure out why. Maybe ask your daddy.

[Janet Adams]

This is an odd review, most especially because the writer seems to have missed the central and perhaps most crucial aspect of Livingston's book: the fact that there are no "flashbacks", at least not in the manner mentioned by the reviewer. There is a secondary story constructed by the narrator herself that effectively speaks more to her own mind and life than it does her mother's. She has little to go on and therefore cobbles together rumours with her own imaginings to create a mother she didn't much know. This aspect is a kind of meditation on projection. Odd that the previous poster didn't mention that though it was a glaring error in the review. This is an interesting point given the reviewers other glaring error: her mention of the narrator wearing a "skanky red dress". Said dress didn't exist in the novel. There was a suit. No mention of skanky. But this does point to the reviewers personal projection onto the literature and what she might think of sexually assertive women.

I came across this review in my research as I'm working on a paper examining Canadian feminist literature and Livingston's three books will be a focus as I feel she has contributed an extraordinary body of work thus far, all with something to say about the roll of women, especially those who do not behave like good girls. She addresses the pain and frustration of external judgement (with regard to social class and sexuality) in all her work -- there is no doubt in my mind that she finds it abhorrent. Or why would it play such a prominent roll in all three books. Intersting that someone could miss this theme.

But Viva la difference. I do enjoy diversity of opinion.

J

[patricia]

'Flashback' was a poor choice of word for the creative descriptions of her mother's time in Vegas. And yes, it was a jacket and a skirt (and there are a few mentionds early on in the book about the how she stuck out like a sore thumb at the funeral, responses to the inappropriateness of her dress, but yes, 'skanky' was my word). That still doesn't change for me, that this is a badly written book. Perhaps I missed out on this 'prominent theme' because the writing was in my opinion so terrible. As I said before, I found the story so predictable, so cliche, nothing new or interesting was being presented to me.

I thought 'Going Down Swinging' was such a wonderful book – it felt so true, so authentic and gritty, so from from my perspective this is why this book is such a let-down. In my opinion the voice is forced, phony and two-dimensional. But like I said before, it's just my opinion.