EricaO

I full-up admit that I wanted to read this book because the summary said the middle child in a grief-stricken family embarks upon a journey to figure out who she is and what she means to the greater world via sexual exploration with a much older man. This Lolita topic is something that always piques my interest, probably because of my own not-even-anything-like-that experiences; I think it's a topic that I want to know more about, hear more about, because I am still trying to put my own thoughts on the matter into some sort of coherence.
So, yes, I was drawn in by the titillating lure of childhood sexual abuse because, apparently, I am a sicko. Not a big surprise there.

But guess what? That's not what this book is about. Whereas I had assumed, via the book's summary, that this would be a look at how divorce and then, later, the death of a beloved stepfather impacts the three children of the family, it was more about the parents, Eva and Mark, and how they survived both their divorce and then the death of John, Eva's husband after Mark. And about sex. I was actually a little surprised at how everything seemed to come down to sex. Sex was the reason for the divorce. After John died, Eva wanted sex and she reminisced on the sexual differences between Mark and John. Mark wanted sex but couldn't always get it because sometimes the kids were at his house. Eva's BFF, Gracie, wanted sex and not marriage. Gracie got married and the sex was great. Emily tells Daisy about sex. Daisy learns about sex, though a weird form of sex. Sex Sex Sex. I guess marketing has it spot-on: It really is all about sex. And when sex isn't the topic, the rest of life shows up and does its thing, but then it's back to sex.
It sounds like I have a problem with sex. And you'd think that I'd have been ready for it, since I was expecting, essentially, child-molestation but you know what? I didn't expect it everywhere, all the time. But the ending explains that the sex was important to the story, via Daisy's amazing revelations about herself and her childhood.

So why was I left unimpressed by this book?

Well, I was put off by the clunky movement of time. Time does not unfold in a mysterious fashion, but in a confusing way. For instance, Gracie goes off on a rant about how Eva should remarry but Gracie won't ever marry because she likes having lots of guys and doesn't want to settle down with one. Essentially. Then a few chapters later, Gracie's husband walks onto the scene and I was all, "What? Who is this guy? Gracie's not married!" Only, she is now and they explain it a little later and that was confusing. There were also grown-up Daisy at the therapist, written in here and there as needed, though I didn't realize there was going to be grown-up Daisy moments until they started cropping up. This type of loop happened with too much regularity for my brain. It hurt my ability to follow the story and it made me feel lost. Maybe that was the point, so that I would feel lost like Daisy. But I never felt like Daisy. I felt like a confused reader.

And The Mexicans. What was going on with The Mexicans? Why did they come up? Like, three or four times, randomly, throughout the book, The Mexicans were mentioned for no apparent reason and seemingly out of context. Mark is driving somewhere and there's no one out on the streets except for this one area where there's a group of The Mexicans. And then nothing else was said about it. Until the next time someone mentions The Mexicans. ??? What on earth?

The whole story does actually focus on Daisy without ever focusing solely on her. The set-up is essentially she's the sullen middle child full of burgeoning sexuality (as noticed by her father) who lost her father to divorce and then her step-father, on whom she doted, to a car accident. She was left bereft and needing a father figure so she was easily seduced by the family friend's intimidating and creepy husband (who shows up out of nowhere) while going through some I Need Attention teenage rebellion (stealing money from her mother's bookstore. And why, btw, did NO ONE notice there was that much money missing from the till? Seriously? There are businesses out there that don't count their money at the end of the day and tally the results against what was sold? Really? Wow. It's a miracle that bookstore stayed in business long enough to have someone else buy it out) Meanwhile, while the creepy old guy (he's, like in his 50's, I think, while Daisy is 15) is molesting a trying-to-find-her-way teenager, Daisy's parents are having an awkward sort-of getting back together thing, full of sexual tension and kissing and stuff and I had to wonder: Was the comparison of Daisy's new molesty relationship to her parents' newly sort-of-renewed relationship supposed to mean something? If so, I missed it. I also missed the significance of Creepy Old Guy's need to be all over Daisy but to never be involved, sexually, himself. I don't think he ever got undressed. It was all about him controlling her body yet she was the one who thought she was in control. I'd have liked some help from the therapist on that one, an explanation as to why it all worked out that way and what Creepy Old Guy was getting out of all this. I also missed why Mark didn't flip the fuck out when he realized what was going on between the creepy oldster and his nubile daughter. I thought maybe pressing charges were in order, but it appears I overreact? He, apparently, merely felt that the whole thing was his fault because he hadn't been around to take care of his little girl, and so he paid for her therapy later but...ok, what? And then to tie it all up in a nice little bow with Daisy becoming and adult and playing the character of Miranda from "The Tempest" in a Shakespeare production theater act and describing her poignant role as an innocent who is trapped alone on an island with only her father and a monster and who then realizes that there are all sorts of other people in the world and what a revelation. It was a little bit too much for me.

Also bothersome was the supreme effort to place this story in a certain period of time without ever saying what period of time we were in. It was made overly obvious - they were discussing whether or not to go see "A Fish Called Wanda" at the theater; party talk was of Salman Rushdie (which made me think of Renee Zellweger as Bridget Jones, vacuuming her apartment and saying "Salman" in a thousand different ways); they made George Bush (not GW) jokes. I think one of the kids even had a birth year mentioned. So, I get it. I can do the math. I was alive during that time period. But was it necessary to be so very hint-dropping instead of just saying This All Happened In the Late 1980's? Maybe that was actually said at some point. I don't remember, now. I just remember rolling my eyes at the unnecessary reference points to time frame.

The writing is good. I imagine I'll want to check out other books by this author and I will just hope they are not misleading in their summaries and I will also hope that they're not so over-the-top smacking me in the head with "GUESS WHEN THIS TAKES PLACE? GUESS, GUESS, GUESSSSS!" But this one? It was just ok. I don't know if I would recommend it but I'm glad I listened to it despite not getting what I wanted from it.