DOROTHY writes: 

I read this article in the Wall Street Journal a few days ago about a woman writer who happily spent part of her honeymoon alone and it stays in my mind. I cannot stop thinking about it. It is very sad to me. But the woman who wrote it is happy. I am astounded that she is so quick and happy to toss away the burden of a husband immediately after they are married. She describes the wonderful time she had without him and then when he finally arrives he turns out to be allergic to Venice and they have to go somewhere else. It is as though she was enjoying herself so much and then this husband, this nuisance showed up and could not stop his annoying sneezing so alas, she had to move on. 

To this day, she keeps the phone number of the gondola man on her refrigerator in case she wants another honeymoon, a constant reminder to her husband how dispensable he is. I thought it was a very disrespectful and self-absorbed account. 

I’m writing to you to vent this. Thank you very much for listening. 

By the way her novels sound as lovely as she does. Plus it says she remains happily married. I wonder if anyone verified that with her useless husband. I would think he feels so small. Just my opinion.

Laura writes:

For a woman to be a literary success today, she must prove she is a domestic monster.

Monstrosity sells.

                                         — Comments —

Bhetti writes:

Surely saying no one should marry the likes of her isn’t devaluing the institution of marriage. She did that all on her own, with her perverse behaviour and even more perverse publication of it. Is her husband exposed to it? Does he know of it? Secular and especially non-humanist marriages to such a woman, a woman who clearly does not believe in anything marriage should stand for… it is not to be borne.

Especially in a society of no-fault divorce, where if she were to divorce him, he would suffer if his income is greater.

Laura writes:

Having married her, he should have a very strong reaction to the publication of this piece. There should be no peace in that house until she begs him for forgiveness.  He must have known, however, a little bit about what he was getting into.

Jill F. writes:

The tone of this woman blares through her writing; smirky, witchy and spoiled. Her self-absorption was satanic. And what kind of pansy husband lets his wife leave for their honeymoon without him? What a wimp. It made me gag.

Laura writes:

Yes, she sounds unbelievably, demonically spoiled.

Dorothy K. writes:

It was obvious from the article in the WSJ that the couple had been shacking up before the wedding.  What else could explain her attitude and behavior?  As for her writing, it seems that she has taken “Write what you know” to an uncomfortable extreme, and that is why I steer clear of most modern women writers.

Laura writes:

The honeymoon has become a meaningless convention. Couples try to cover up its meaninglessness by making the trip exciting and extravagant.

Yes, she has taken “write what you know” to a sick extreme. This cheap confessionalism is common in newspapers today. It would be simplistic to say that this is because journalism is now heavily run by women editors, but it’s a factor. As for reading books by contemporary women writerly writers, it’s like swilling cheap brandy.

David Lee Mundy writes:

This write up of the wedding of Jennifer Belle, the author of the article, says it all. She was necking another guy on their first date. Not surprising she left him during the honeymoon. She was 33. Tic-toc. He was a lawyer, a year younger, and described as Woody-Allenish. He moved into her apartment before they wed. She let him get a bulldog.

They like their lifestyle. They probably love “Annie Hall.” Only proles find both depressing.

Please follow and like us: