readermeetsbook's review
4.0
“This is a story about the idea of marriage in the West: why it came about, what it was supposed to accomplish, who was behind it, and how was it implanted into the minds of the many - where it remains, whether the many are conscious of it or not.” This quote, from the opening A Note to the Reader, sums up the contents of the book. This book is about the history of marriage in the West starting from primal nomadic cultures to the Reformation. It is about how marriage comes to be and how it has changed with cultural upheavals and shifts in religion. It is about the gender roles and the reasoning behind the superiority of man and the inferiority of the woman. It is about adultery, courtly love, polygamy and the beginnings of the witch-hunts. Overall, it is about why marriage happens and how it changed from a means of reproduction to lust control and finally, love.
Instead of a dry, academic voice found way too often in non-fiction (in my opinion), Susan Squire’s writing style is charming, engaging and witty. Her banter about the battle of the sexes is humorous, sometimes even laugh out loud. Using sharp wit, she take stabs at religion. I especially enjoyed the jabs at the ideal wife. “He presents her as a real person in real time, a player on the stage of real life - and also a fantasy, a flawless jewel, the quintessence of the perfect wife. The one belies the other - either she’s real or she’s perfect; she can’t be both.”
Even her chapter titles are plain amusing. For example, “Paradise Lost, Just Because He Listened to His Wife”, “What a Man Wants”, “Be Fertile and Increase - the Sequel”. Definitely a book I love and will recommend. Informative and Entertaining.
Instead of a dry, academic voice found way too often in non-fiction (in my opinion), Susan Squire’s writing style is charming, engaging and witty. Her banter about the battle of the sexes is humorous, sometimes even laugh out loud. Using sharp wit, she take stabs at religion. I especially enjoyed the jabs at the ideal wife. “He presents her as a real person in real time, a player on the stage of real life - and also a fantasy, a flawless jewel, the quintessence of the perfect wife. The one belies the other - either she’s real or she’s perfect; she can’t be both.”
Even her chapter titles are plain amusing. For example, “Paradise Lost, Just Because He Listened to His Wife”, “What a Man Wants”, “Be Fertile and Increase - the Sequel”. Definitely a book I love and will recommend. Informative and Entertaining.
epersonae's review
4.0
A compilation of the lowlights of marriage attitudes & advice from antiquity to the Reformation. Lots of eyebrow-raising stuff, even some surprises for a history buff who was almost a women's studies minor. Witty, not at all prescriptive for what one ought to do or expect with marriage now given all that weight of history. (Not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing.)
avocadorocketship's review
2.0
Ok. Listen up.
I was so excited to read this book. Seriously. This is evidenced by: 1. Every time I went to a bookstore, I sought it out, gently caressed it, and lamented the the fact that it cost $26 (plus tax). This behavior has many witnesses. 2. I waited on the hold list at the library for this book for eight months. EIGHT months. 3. I have managed to find the time to read no book outside of my impenetrable pile of school readings since August... except for The God of Small Things, over and over, but we all know that beauty is a special case.
So, it was finally my turn in the library hold line, and I went to collect my gem. And I read it. Rapidly.
But guess what. It sucks.
Well, actually, let's not be so hasty. It doesn't suck, per se. It is just not glorious.
First of all, the title 'history of marriage' is apt, as it spends most of the book discussing cavemen through like 1000 AD -- and it never goes past 1500. I was hoping it would cover more of of the, you know, relatively recent history. Like the Renaissance, at least, and certainly industrial Europe etc etc. But nope. It's like... HISTORYhistory. So, I mean, I was disappointed with that.
And, anyway, these periods were pretty interesting, I guess. But, her style in presenting the information was really bizarre. Rather than paint a portrait of married life in each of these societies (Greek, Roman, etc), she just kind of tells anecdotes from each period. Which, I mean, is fine, I guess. But certainly not ideal, as it didn't give me an overarching idea of married life in each period.
Also, this book is begging for a conclusion discussing the absurdity of marriage. Like, honestly, marriage is totally absurd. What 'marriage' means to us is a truly arbitrary combination of silly rules, which, put in a historical context, seem just as absurd as "Thou shalt not bang on Wednesdays, Fridays, or Saturdays," or whatever rules they had in ancient wherever. But I think maybe the author was afraid of offending married people, so she left out this cynical conclusion. Which hurts the book overall, I think.
In conclusion, I'm a swinger. Who's with me?
I was so excited to read this book. Seriously. This is evidenced by: 1. Every time I went to a bookstore, I sought it out, gently caressed it, and lamented the the fact that it cost $26 (plus tax). This behavior has many witnesses. 2. I waited on the hold list at the library for this book for eight months. EIGHT months. 3. I have managed to find the time to read no book outside of my impenetrable pile of school readings since August... except for The God of Small Things, over and over, but we all know that beauty is a special case.
So, it was finally my turn in the library hold line, and I went to collect my gem. And I read it. Rapidly.
But guess what. It sucks.
Well, actually, let's not be so hasty. It doesn't suck, per se. It is just not glorious.
First of all, the title 'history of marriage' is apt, as it spends most of the book discussing cavemen through like 1000 AD -- and it never goes past 1500. I was hoping it would cover more of of the, you know, relatively recent history. Like the Renaissance, at least, and certainly industrial Europe etc etc. But nope. It's like... HISTORYhistory. So, I mean, I was disappointed with that.
And, anyway, these periods were pretty interesting, I guess. But, her style in presenting the information was really bizarre. Rather than paint a portrait of married life in each of these societies (Greek, Roman, etc), she just kind of tells anecdotes from each period. Which, I mean, is fine, I guess. But certainly not ideal, as it didn't give me an overarching idea of married life in each period.
Also, this book is begging for a conclusion discussing the absurdity of marriage. Like, honestly, marriage is totally absurd. What 'marriage' means to us is a truly arbitrary combination of silly rules, which, put in a historical context, seem just as absurd as "Thou shalt not bang on Wednesdays, Fridays, or Saturdays," or whatever rules they had in ancient wherever. But I think maybe the author was afraid of offending married people, so she left out this cynical conclusion. Which hurts the book overall, I think.
In conclusion, I'm a swinger. Who's with me?
bvargo's review
4.0
A history of marriage that served to strengthen my existing beliefs (confirmation bias). Well written and a good cultural history of marriage in the west.
bhansy's review
3.0
This book was a tricky one to rate. I found the first part to be engaging, informative and really interesting to read. Towards the middle, I guess the historical momentum was too much to follow, and by the end, the author was exhausted and just wanted to wrap the whole thing up. I would recommend though, especially because it had great background research in the form of notes at the end of book.
onceandfuturelaura's review
3.0
Fun book. Not terribly deep. Does a survey of marriage in the western world from the Bible through Greece and Rome through Europe to Martin Luther.
Does a nice job of poking fun at the notion that there is a traditional marriage that we’re falling away from. Instead, marriage serves changing social purposes and responds to changing social conditions.
I feel weird about her suggestion that the first women’s rights protest might have been about a woman’s right to wear purple and gold jewelry in Rome after the austerities of the Punic Wars. I want to believe it’s more like Lysistrata or the founding of the Amazon Nation. Mmm, Xena. We apparently have the speeches in the Roman Senate about the purple thing. At least as translated, Cato’s speech advocating an increase on the restrictions on women sounds like Anita Byrant or Pat Robinson; Valerius’s rejoinder sounds a lot like the majority leader in the Iowa Senate telling the folks who want a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage “get over it.”
Nothing world shattering, except perhaps for those few who will never believe it who believe that marriage as practiced in the US today is marriage as practiced through history, but fun and quick.
Does a nice job of poking fun at the notion that there is a traditional marriage that we’re falling away from. Instead, marriage serves changing social purposes and responds to changing social conditions.
I feel weird about her suggestion that the first women’s rights protest might have been about a woman’s right to wear purple and gold jewelry in Rome after the austerities of the Punic Wars. I want to believe it’s more like Lysistrata or the founding of the Amazon Nation. Mmm, Xena. We apparently have the speeches in the Roman Senate about the purple thing. At least as translated, Cato’s speech advocating an increase on the restrictions on women sounds like Anita Byrant or Pat Robinson; Valerius’s rejoinder sounds a lot like the majority leader in the Iowa Senate telling the folks who want a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage “get over it.”
Nothing world shattering, except perhaps for those few who will never believe it who believe that marriage as practiced in the US today is marriage as practiced through history, but fun and quick.
line_so_fine's review against another edition
2.0
It was fine, I suppose. There isn't anything particularly negative to say about it, but it was just sort of a yawn for me. I think the strong title is misleading- I didn't find it particularly "contrarian" in tone or in subject. It does talk about some historical tidbits that some may find interesting, but overall, not much that was fresh.
bhanseatic's review against another edition
3.0
This book was a tricky one to rate. I found the first part to be engaging, informative and really interesting to read. Towards the middle, I guess the historical momentum was too much to follow, and by the end, the author was exhausted and just wanted to wrap the whole thing up. I would recommend though, especially because it had great background research in the form of notes at the end of book.
jennseeg's review against another edition
2.0
Recently, I have been thinking a lot about the definition of marriage and how our present interpretation of marriage was formed. I picked up this book impulsively at the library hoping that it would answer some of my questions. The good news, it did. The bad news? The author's sarcastic and sometimes flippant tone was a bit off-putting to me at times. Additionally, there were editing errors that frustrated me. There was some rather crude language in parts that seemed unnecessary. And finally, the author's recanting of the history of marriage ends with the Reformation, leaving 500 years of history unexamined. So, I did learn a few things, but I didn't entirely enjoy the read.
savanna36c34's review against another edition
3.0
I wish I could give 3.5 stars sometimes!
This book is charmingly and amusingly written. It's very easy and pleasant to read. Squire shares a lot of facts and some compelling insights on love and marriage as cultural phenomena. The writing is concise and balanced, and I was very interested in the book from the beginning clear through to the end. Squire sure knows how to hold your attention!
But despite the concise chapters, pleasing tone, and steady pace of this book, I was disappointed in three ways. These things kept me from adding I Don't to my list of favourites.
Firstly, this book doesn't stand up well as a complete history of marriage. At best, we could say it's a brief history of Western marriage. It begins with Judeo-Christian scripture and the Ancient Greeks. Then it follows the ancient Doctors of the Church through the Protestant Reformation before abruptly skipping to today. So the book only discusses one very limited history of marriage. It doesn't explore other traditions—even though marriage is so ubiquitous across cultures. Seems like a missed opportunity.
Secondly, even within this narrow framework and even for a trade history, the narrative is a bit too myopic for my taste. It paints attitudes and events in very broad strokes without acknowledging that it does so—especially with regard to feministic thinking and notions of women's rights. The book suggests that, even in Martin Luther's time, "no one" had thought about women's rights. Thinkers like Christine de Pizan were certainly a minority, but they had lived and published by then, and I think it's important to acknowledge them.
Thirdly, I felt let down by the final chapter. It hopped fright from Luther to a couple pages on modern times before the final curtain. I think this sudden ending was unfortunate. The book had built up this wonderful momentum that I thought would carry us into some interesting perspectives on modern marriage and the future of the institution—some talk about non-hetero marriage, abstaining from marriage, and common-law partnerships. But nope. This conclusion seemed both precipitous and incomplete.
Still, I Don't is an interesting and fun read. It's more descriptive than analytical, and it doesn't offer as complete a story as the title implies, but I'd recommend it to anyone looking for some light-hearted history.
This book is charmingly and amusingly written. It's very easy and pleasant to read. Squire shares a lot of facts and some compelling insights on love and marriage as cultural phenomena. The writing is concise and balanced, and I was very interested in the book from the beginning clear through to the end. Squire sure knows how to hold your attention!
But despite the concise chapters, pleasing tone, and steady pace of this book, I was disappointed in three ways. These things kept me from adding I Don't to my list of favourites.
Firstly, this book doesn't stand up well as a complete history of marriage. At best, we could say it's a brief history of Western marriage. It begins with Judeo-Christian scripture and the Ancient Greeks. Then it follows the ancient Doctors of the Church through the Protestant Reformation before abruptly skipping to today. So the book only discusses one very limited history of marriage. It doesn't explore other traditions—even though marriage is so ubiquitous across cultures. Seems like a missed opportunity.
Secondly, even within this narrow framework and even for a trade history, the narrative is a bit too myopic for my taste. It paints attitudes and events in very broad strokes without acknowledging that it does so—especially with regard to feministic thinking and notions of women's rights. The book suggests that, even in Martin Luther's time, "no one" had thought about women's rights. Thinkers like Christine de Pizan were certainly a minority, but they had lived and published by then, and I think it's important to acknowledge them.
Thirdly, I felt let down by the final chapter. It hopped fright from Luther to a couple pages on modern times before the final curtain. I think this sudden ending was unfortunate. The book had built up this wonderful momentum that I thought would carry us into some interesting perspectives on modern marriage and the future of the institution—some talk about non-hetero marriage, abstaining from marriage, and common-law partnerships. But nope. This conclusion seemed both precipitous and incomplete.
Still, I Don't is an interesting and fun read. It's more descriptive than analytical, and it doesn't offer as complete a story as the title implies, but I'd recommend it to anyone looking for some light-hearted history.