skygiants | (no subject)

Unmentionable: The Victorian Lady's Guide to Sex, Marriage, and Manners was a book club pick and not an ... entirely un-useful one? I'm not an expert by any means, but the information presented was (so far as I could tell) well-researched and solid and contained several tidbits of which I had not been previously aware! The prose style, on the other hand was ... well, could be a feature or a bug, really, depending on preference.

Okay, so the premise: you, the reader, are a hapless romantic who dreams of time-travelling to the Victorian era. Therese Oneill, the author, has been tasked with gently disabusing you of the notion that the Victorian era is a pleasant time in which live by taking you on a tour of unpleasant facts about hygiene, grooming habits, gender roles, etc.

As a person who in no way needed to be convinced of the fact that the Victorian era was not a pleasant time in which to live, I found this ... occasionally grating. "I KNOW!" I found myself shouting at the book (but, like, silently, and metaphorically, not in public.) "CHAMBER POTS ARE GROSS! I'M AWARE! - oh hey, people used corn husks as toilet paper sometimes? interesting factoid, thanks! - OKAY PLEASE STOP ACTING LIKE I DON'T KNOW WOMEN'S SEXUALITY WAS STRICTLY POLICED BECAUSE I DO IN FACT KNOW!"

(Sidenote: I say 'Victorian' but the book actually hops blithely back and forth between British and American social mores and historical factoids without much differentiation, which bugs me a little -- different things were happening in the Victorian era and the antebellum/Civil War/Gilded Age across the Atlantic! English-speaking social history is not a monolith! -- but, to be fair, is a thing Oneill announces she's going to do in the introduction so I can't say I wasn't warned.)

At one point

genarti asked how the book was, so I read her a little bit out loud. "Oh," she said, "it's like BUCKLE UP TWITTER in book form!" Which I think is a helpful analogy -- if that style of LET ME EXPLAIN YOU A THING prose works for you, you may enjoy this; if it's not your thing, this book probably will not be either.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

kalloway

That's about how I felt about it! It contained a good bit of info and was easy enough to read but not necessarily easy to read, if that makes sense?

But a decent enough reference that I remain tempted to pick up my own copy.

From:

skygiants

Yeah, I zoomed through it in a day (because that was the time between when I acquired it and when book group was) and found it easy to do but irritating -- but I did end up buying a copy when the library failed me to get me one in time and I know I probably will be turning back to it to reference something at some point, and I'll be annoyed when I do it but will do it nonetheless!

From:

asakiyume

I think my reaction would be very much like yours for the same reasons. I'm not a super-big fan of the buckle-up Twitter thing.

From:

skygiants

It's a mix of appreciation and resentment, because sometimes I do learn things I didn't know, but wow, do I bristle at the assumption that I Definitely Don't Know It! (And also: CITE YOUR SOURCES.) (...that's a Buckle Up Twitter complaint, this book actually is quite good about citing its sources.)

From:

asakiyume

Right! I can't stand the know-it-all-ness. It makes me want to insist oh yes I did know that even if I didn't. (And yes re: sources, because for all I know you're making things up, or misunderstanding/misinterpreting)

From:

kore

"Oh," she said, "it's like BUCKLE UP TWITTER in book form!" Which I think is a helpful analogy -- if that style of LET ME EXPLAIN YOU A THING prose works for you, you may enjoy this; if it's not your thing, this book probably will not be either.

Oh ghod, I can't stand that prose style. And the assumptions behind it.

From:

skygiants

It obviously does work for quite a lot of people (and the whole rest of my book group liked this book!) buuuut for me it definitely sometimes hits in a nails-on-a-chalkboard kind of ....

From:

movingfinger

The LET ME EXPLAIN YOU A THING/BUCKLE UP TWITTER type of address, at least the examples I have been seeing, is notable for being a passionate vehicle for the dissemination of incorrect and-or incomplete information, to such an extent that if there are honest and correct users, they are undermining themselves by using the form.

From:

kore

I seem to remember a tempest-in-a-tweet thing about Beau Brummell but refused to learn any more about it than that. As someone said (sadly I can't remember who), those threads seem to indicate two things: one, that nobody on twitter has ever read a book, and two, that nobody on twitter ever needs to read a book ever again because WHY WOULD YOU READ A FUCKING BOOK WHEN ALL THE INFORMATION YOU FUCKING NEED IS IN THIS FUCKING THREAD THANK FUCKING YOU.

From:

movingfinger

Yeah, the viral Beau Brummell thread, through its excellence in the BUCKLE UP TWITTER harangue form, defined and destroyed BUCKLE UP for the world. I had seen examples before which were shaky, but she went all in to be LOUD and WRONG and PASSIONATE and to proudly do no research nor talk to any of the experts nor even to look at illustrated books covering the evolution of Western European men's costume. It's gumption poisoning.

From:

sovay

the viral Beau Brummell thread

I remember that. Mostly from all of the Tumblr posts correcting it.

From:

brigdh

I had a lot of fun with this book! Like you, I didn't actually need to be told that the Victorians were dirty/sexist/otherwise unpleasant, but I found the tone of voice silly and amusing rather than patronizing. I took the theoretical reader it's addressed to as meant to be a deliberate over-the-top cliche (I don't think anyone reading this book could really be that ignorant) and the whole thing as almost a Tom-and-Jerry show of two opposing forces endlessly fighting.

Which is not to say it has to work for you! To each their own, etc, etc.

The author has a sequel (I guess? Do you call it a sequel if it's nonfiction?), Ungovernable, about children in the Victorian era, if you're interested. I didn't like it quite as much as the first one (mainly because it's harder to make jokes about child abuse and dead babies), but I thought it was still worth reading.

From:

skygiants

Everyone else in my book group really liked it too, so there's definitely an appeal to it! And I am keeping it around for sure, because there's some very good information in there; I really appreciated the extensive quotes from contemporary sources. She did show her work!

From:

bookblather

I remember very vividly that the author was like "Actually corsets are not bad for you if you wear them correctly! They are support garments! Like bras! Like you shouldn't tightlace but a properly-worn corset WILL NOT KILL YOU and actually WILL BE COMFORTABLE!"

As an occasional corset-wearer and frequent bodice-wearer I appreciated that A LOT.

From:

skygiants

I remember that too, the bit about the corset was the first thing that convinced me that she actually knew what she was talking about! From that point I became much readier to trust that her information was sound even when the tone didn't work for me.

From:

sovay

Which I think is a helpful analogy -- if that style of LET ME EXPLAIN YOU A THING prose works for you, you may enjoy this; if it's not your thing, this book probably will not be either.

That style is extremely not my thing, which is obnoxious, because the book sounds like it could otherwise be quick-check-reference useful.

From:

skygiants

I think it definitely is going to be useful, so in a way I'm grateful it was selected because I probably would not have picked it up by myself otherwise due to prose style mismatch, and now I can reference it, albeit irritably.

From:

aamcnamara

"Oh," she said, "it's like BUCKLE UP TWITTER in book form!"
I laughed (and probably will not read this book)

From:

skygiants

as someone who also uses allcaps and broad comedy for emphasis a lot, indeed in this very review, I feel a little hypocritical, and yet ....

From:

genarti

I definitely feel it's a different style when the allcaps and broad comedy does not start from the assumption that the reader is a sweet ignorant summer child who knows absolutely nothing of the subject matter or critical thinking, though! It's a different kind of hyperbolic comic emphasis.

From:

vass

oh hey, people used corn husks as toilet paper sometimes? interesting factoid, thanks!

Hence "cornhole". /gross

I suspect this book isn't For Me, but I have a friend who might enjoy it, so thanks for alerting me to its existence.

From:

skygiants

I DID NOT PUT THE 'CORNHOLE' THING TOGETHER AND I REALLY SHOULD HAVE

From:

whimsyful

Man, I'd actually be pretty interested in the info in this book, but BUCKLE UP TWITTER tone is a complete turn off for me(even if it is actually well researched and sourced).

From:

skygiants

Yeah, I suspect that will be true for many ... but for other people it might be the thing that gets them to read it, I guess, so it's probably a reasonable trade-off for the author!

From:

dhampyresa

"it's like BUCKLE UP TWITTER in book form!"
Oh. I can stand the tone of buckle up twitter for only a short time.

From:

skygiants

It's very good at getting attention! It's also unfortunately often very good at getting on my nerves. >.<

From:

genarti

I am genuinely impressed with you for finishing the book, because I know we have similar reactions to BUCKLE UP TWITTER and every single sentence you read aloud made me sincerely want to throw the book across the room. Possibly multiple rooms.

But I'm glad it was good about citing its sources and contained some interesting knowledge! And I know the style does work as hyperbolic entertainment rather than you-can-fuck-right-off-thanks condescension for many people, so I assume it was a deliberate artistic choice that clearly did entertain others...