Gone Girl – A Review

Gone GirlOh my gosh. I haven’t read book this riveting since… the last book I read? I’m not sure. This past weekend, I read Gillian Flynn’s Gone Girl. I had read reviews on it before and checked it out a few times at Barnes & Noble, but it was a recommendation from my friend Meghan on Facebook that really tipped me into purchasing it.

The story is told dually from the perspective of the two main characters, Nick and Amy, a husband and wife transplanted from New York to Missouri. The novel tracks the decline of their marriage. It’s a he-said, she-said murder mystery that leave you wondering if each charter is who they say they are.

It was amazing. The narrators (who you think are reliable and then aren’t and then are) made me feel ashamed of myself. Why? I was so gullible to believe them! It was the classic curse of the unreliable narrator, and I just went right along with it. Wonderfully written and planned out, I loved Part I of the book. Part II, I felt, was a little more contrived. When I got to Part III, I was so darn furious with all the characters for their actions and in-actions. Blah!

As is typical with me, I was pretty dissatisfied with the ending. In Gone Girl, I felt like you do when you watch a movie and they set you up for the sequel. You turn the page, and, yes, what you read was actually the last chapter. And you’re left flipping pages saying, “WHAT?! Are you kidding me?!”

Sean was amused and my audible and visible frustration with the book. I hope there’s a sequel in the making, though I don’t know where Gillian Flynn would go with it, other than to make the ending “right” by me.

If you’re looking for a fun, thrilling read that really captures you and makes you do the, “just one more chapter” thing, this book it totally it. I recommend you buy it, borrow it, or download it and get to reading!

Waity Katie

Work is going extra slow today. I mean, my boss is at a conference in Las Vegas. One of my coworkers has a sister in labor, and the other two are pretty self-contained in their offices (like pickles in a jar). I have no current assignments and have spent the last two days browsing the internet for infinite sources of knowledge.

On days like this I like to go to a blog I regularly read and click the links to blogs they regularly read. See how this can turn into a chain event. Eventually I am 25 blogs in and have managed to waste 2 hours. During my blog roaming, I’ve found a common element in a lot of married women’s blogs: the “how we met” and “our wedding” sections. There they give you all the details of planning their weddings–cakes, caterers, shoes–which is fine. That’s not my point.

The point is that within about 10 minutes of each other I read two really interesting opinions.

The first one said that if you date someone for 2+ years without a proposal, you should promptly dump that person and move on. I don’t remember the exact URL or quote, but it went a little something like this, “Your significant other should propose within a year or two. If he doesn’t, move on. You don’t have another year to waste. You’re born with all the eggs you’ll ever have.”

This sentiment made me cringe for many reasons. 1. You can have a successful relationship that doesn’t involve an expensive party and a piece of legal paper. 2. Is the whole point of marriage to have kids? 3. There are plenty of people who never get married but make a lifetime commitment to one another that lasts. Cue: Entire gay community. Get on it, civil rights.

Ok that last part also wasn’t the point.

I managed to get over myself and move on to reading bazillions of other blogs until I came across a link to Cosmopolitan. Not my typical reading material, but the title caught my attention: In Praise of the 29-Year-Old Bride.

The article commends Kate Middleton for waiting until she is almost 30 to get married. Meanwhile, the media made up mean nicknames for her like, “Waity Katie,” criticizing her for her eight-year relationship with Prince William with no proposal in sight.

The author of the article mentions that people generally know what they want later in life, and that marriages between those in their later 20s are statistically known to last longer than marriages between people in their early-20s.

I think maybe Kate Middleton, now Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge teaches young women a lesson in growing up, pursuing your own career, and not making yourself morph into your significant other.

For once, I think Cosmopolitan has a point. Also, Waity Katie had her eye on the prize. I mean, an eight-year wait for a royal title seems like nothing compared to a lifetime of awesomeness, right?

Some thoughts on marriage

Yesterday I found an old copy of National Geographic at work. The cover picture and title caught my eye. It was this skinny old man in a cowboy hat and suit surrounded by his four (still living) wives, their 46 children, and 239 grandchildren. All of the women are in prairie dresses, hair coiffed like a bad 80s/cowboy combo, and smiling. The background is a snowy western scene, white ground with Badlands-like rocks towering behind them. White text scrolls at the bottom of the picture: “Polygamy in America: One Man, Five Wives, 46 Children.” I couldn’t pass it up.

Most everyone had left, and I found myself reading the captions on the pictures to the one co-worker who was left. One picture showed a young woman with a pretty face and rosy cheeks holding a young child, both wearing blue prairie dresses with poofy shoulders. The caption says that the woman is 20, and the child she is holding is her 4-year-old daughter. Do the math. According to this article and some outside research I did about the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints (a faction that broke from the main Mormon church after plural marriage was disallowed), marriages are arranged by the Prophet via revelations he has from God. This means that not only can men have multiple wives, but that girls can be betrothed to an older man based on an outside party’s “revelation.” Controversy surrounds these marriages to those who are critical of the FLDS church. Some believe it’s a way for one man to have all the power over what goes on in the church. The prophet can even excommunicate certain boys based on their behavior, even thought most believe that they are kicked out because there aren’t enough women to go around. When a married man is excommunicated, the prophet can reassign his wives to other men.

All of this seems completely foreign to those of us on the outside. What makes the FLDS church so interesting to those who are outside it is not their uber-conservative points of view, because we see those in many other religious groups, but their beliefs regarding human relationships and marriage. When we think of Mormons, most people automatically think of polygamy even though it is only a small fraction of the LDS church that still believes polygamy is sanctioned by God.

While reading this article infuriated me, it also got me thinking about marriage and what is and isn’t allowed by the federal government. The article mentions multiple “raids” on the enclosed ranches that house the FLDS church in which police took away all the women and children as well as many controversies in which the government performed “raids” based on information they did not know was false.

It made me wonder why the government takes such an interest in mandating who we can and cannot marry. I can imagine many liberal homosexuals’ faces twisted in disgust at the idea that one man can take multiple wives. The more conservative FLDS men cannot imagine a homosexual marriage. Meanwhile, the government disallows both.

I’m not here to argue that one is more right than another. However, I do believe that a my gay and lesbian friends who want to marry the person they have been with all of their lives have a different situation than the FLDS men who marry multiple women to expand their families and thus the Kingdom fo Heaven. The notion of gay marriage is more closely associated with what is currently sanctioned as a normal marriage. There are two people who can function the same or similar to a nuclear family, and can live their lives in the modern world. The main goal of gay marriage is to concrete a couple’s love for one another and to perhaps build a family under that love.

In my opinion, the Fundamentalist Mormon idea of marriage has more potential for abuse of women and children. When one’s goal is to increase his family size to get into heaven, one can become obsessed with it. It seems like the same idea as self-flagellation, when people are so obsessed with becoming closer to their religion or their God that they will do what seems like crazy or abusive actions to themselves or others in order to achieve such holiness. The notion of marriage in the FLDS church is not to concrete one’s love and to illustrate that love through a family, but to amass as much of a family as possible to be judged worthy in the eyes of one’s God.

It makes me think of the Catholic church and the idea of becoming a nun or becoming a “bride of Christ.” However, this does not typically lead to the abuse of a woman as she has many steps or transitions, and ample opportunities to be deemed unfit or to leave (although there are probably familial pressures, etc.). I’m not trying to say that plural marriage as approved by the FLDS church is the only type of marriage in which one can be abused, but I do think there is more potential for sexual and emotional abuse when one man takes many wives often of a young age and uses them to build up his family. While women in these homes don’t feel as though they are being abused and disapprove of the claim that they are being brainwashed, the idea that a 16-year old can be married and have a child seems a little wrong in modern society.

I know it’s not really my place to judge what is and isn’t right in an organization with which I have no experience other than what is being pasted on front pages of media websites and magazines, I do feel compelled to contemplate the status of the institution that seems to cause so much controversy in more than one form.

Why does the government get the final say in who can marry whom? Why are churches not ultimately responsible for ordaining marriage they see fit to ordain? What would happen if we eradicated the notion of marriage altogether? Is it solely a federal/state institution for purposes of taxation/keeping tabs on people? If it causes so much trouble, just wonder why we have to have marriage to begin with, especially when all one has to do to end it, is fill out some paperwork and pay a court fee.