conorsweetman's review against another edition
3.0
This book felt so fragile and interior. The delicacy of Adrienne Miller's ponderings served her reflections on a childhood in Ohio quite beautifully. The way she recounted her flight, however, to an ascendant position as Fiction Editor at Esquire had such a different feel than other publishing world memoirs—where the energy and name-dropping is electric with excitement. This story, on the other hand, was a pensive reflection on who Adrienne is and what she was capable of standing against amidst the harsh world and words of esteemed American fiction writers, including David Foster Wallace, on whom her writing takes on a strange tone full of both frustration and self-reconciliation.
The benefit of coming to these stories and personalities as a latecomer to literary mythology, is that I get to hear contemporary writers reconfigure the established narratives. As if they are taking wet hands to the dusty sculptures that have been revered for generations, these writers remould the work into something that can withstand the weather of this generation's sensibilities.
The benefit of coming to these stories and personalities as a latecomer to literary mythology, is that I get to hear contemporary writers reconfigure the established narratives. As if they are taking wet hands to the dusty sculptures that have been revered for generations, these writers remould the work into something that can withstand the weather of this generation's sensibilities.
k8iedid's review against another edition
5.0
I loved Miller's writing style - her sentence structure (along with the stories within the parentheticals), and her self awareness. The details of her personal relationship with DFW helped me understand why I was more of a fan of his non-fiction than his fiction.
maddietherobot's review against another edition
1.0
An unfair rating to Adrienne Miller, whose writing is very good, but my disgust for David Foster Wallace compels me to give this one star
madidori's review against another edition
3.0
This was interesting and not what I expected. I was expecting more discussion of the author’s life and work as the first woman to be literary editor of Esquire. But it seemed more about her relationship with David Foster Wallace.
There was a haughtiness to this work, something she admits as a quality of hers, and that made it hard to get into. It seemed as if she wanted every paragraph to end with some sort of “mic-drop” worthy wisdom that didn’t land for me.
There was also a theme of sexual harassment and assault kind of threaded throughout that I thought deserved more attention.
But it is hard to review memoirs because I feel like I’m passing judgment on someone’s life. Which I totally am but that’s why we read! To learn more about ourselves, in one way or another.
This wasn’t a bad read but it wasn’t a great one other. I would recommend it if your a DFW fan or interested in the literary world.
There was a haughtiness to this work, something she admits as a quality of hers, and that made it hard to get into. It seemed as if she wanted every paragraph to end with some sort of “mic-drop” worthy wisdom that didn’t land for me.
There was also a theme of sexual harassment and assault kind of threaded throughout that I thought deserved more attention.
But it is hard to review memoirs because I feel like I’m passing judgment on someone’s life. Which I totally am but that’s why we read! To learn more about ourselves, in one way or another.
This wasn’t a bad read but it wasn’t a great one other. I would recommend it if your a DFW fan or interested in the literary world.
cthulhu_youth's review against another edition
4.0
I'm so glad that none of the cruel, dismissive and deeply insecure older men that I dated in my teens and early twenties became revered literary icons (yet).
brittaini's review against another edition
2.0
Issues I had with this book:
1) Too much waxing poetic about growing up in Ohio, not enough time or fully realized scenes in the actual workplace of both Esquire and GQ
2) There are little asides about power, but it doesn't seem like Miller is aware that by primarily giving names to people who are a) her boss or b) more famous than her now, she also takes a reductionist, power-driven view towards people. Even fake names would indicate that she saw other people, like the other assistants she worked with at GQ, as more than object lessons for her own epiphanies.
3) The writing is annoying. It vacillates between sounding like an overwrought livejournal and a casual text, with no charm. There are at least four parenthetical statements per page, the majority of which are unnecessary and would work better integrated into the paragraphs that contain them; she at least twice uses "I" when she means "me."
4) DFW comes off...uh...not great, which is fine! He doesn't sound like he was great! But the entire tension of most of the book (after she gets out of Ohio) is how he's great but also the worst, but actually he just seems like the worst the whole time, which means there is no tension.
1) Too much waxing poetic about growing up in Ohio, not enough time or fully realized scenes in the actual workplace of both Esquire and GQ
2) There are little asides about power, but it doesn't seem like Miller is aware that by primarily giving names to people who are a) her boss or b) more famous than her now, she also takes a reductionist, power-driven view towards people. Even fake names would indicate that she saw other people, like the other assistants she worked with at GQ, as more than object lessons for her own epiphanies.
3) The writing is annoying. It vacillates between sounding like an overwrought livejournal and a casual text, with no charm. There are at least four parenthetical statements per page, the majority of which are unnecessary and would work better integrated into the paragraphs that contain them; she at least twice uses "I" when she means "me."
4) DFW comes off...uh...not great, which is fine! He doesn't sound like he was great! But the entire tension of most of the book (after she gets out of Ohio) is how he's great but also the worst, but actually he just seems like the worst the whole time, which means there is no tension.
thewordwitch's review against another edition
2.0
This book held a lot of promise for me. I love reading stories of women who persevere despite difficulties. To be an editor at such a young age in a workplace that was incredibly male-dominated - I thought this would be filled with tales of her struggling to earn respect, how she worked harder, and the disparities between her and her male counterparts. These things were touched on as the memoir progressed, but I felt they were more throwaway moments. The beginning began strong, but it didn't hold up as it progressed.
Instead, it turned into something else entirely - a bizarre memorial to David Foster Wallace. It was no longer Adrienne in the Land of Men but in the Playland of one man where she almost seemed more like a toy he enjoyed playing with. I understand he was not mentally well, and he did write a piece of literature lauded by many, but I felt that a lot of his behavior towards Adrienne was childish and cruel, and she seemed so willing to forgive him, perhaps because he had written Infinite Jest.
I was disappointed because I expected her memoir, and instead I got a biography of him.
Instead, it turned into something else entirely - a bizarre memorial to David Foster Wallace. It was no longer Adrienne in the Land of Men but in the Playland of one man where she almost seemed more like a toy he enjoyed playing with. I understand he was not mentally well, and he did write a piece of literature lauded by many, but I felt that a lot of his behavior towards Adrienne was childish and cruel, and she seemed so willing to forgive him, perhaps because he had written Infinite Jest.
I was disappointed because I expected her memoir, and instead I got a biography of him.