Tuesday, July 30, 2013

Decimation

So it has come to this. The shelves are empty. After packing and transporting books for a week or two, we have managed to move them all out of our house. It was pretty heartbreaking, I must admit. Last time I packed up all of my books it was after a nasty break-up and when they disappeared into storage I had no idea when or under what circumstances I would see them again. Unpacking them in our current home, with Bibliohubby at my side, made me incredibly happy. So having them disappear again feels emotional, although obviously this time the circumstances are totally different: we have decided to move to Canada for a few years, to be closer to certain family and friends, and to give the kids a different cultural experience before we settle down for good and buy a house. Adventures lie ahead! So really, this is a joyous time and the books will be well cared for until I am reunited with them. 

Still. There is something awfully sad about an empty bookcase, and looking at it last night reminded me of the most moving monument I have ever seen. It lies in the middle of Bebelplatz, Berlin, on the south side of the Unter den Linden boulevard. Gazing across the square, the monument is not visible. Only once one approaches the centre of the square can it be seen, and this is because it is located under the ground.

Here is what it looks like:

Book burning monument, Bebelplatz Berlin

It is a monument to mark the site of the Nazi book burning ceremony that was held in May 1933 by members of the SA, SS, Nazi students and Hitler Youth groups, on the instigation of Joseph Goebbels. Approximately 20,000 books were burned, including works by Thomas Mann, Karl Marx and Albert Einstein. 

It is the only monument I have seen which is composed of emptiness. Those barren bookshelves speak volumes, and the inscription is nothing short of perfect:

"Das war ein Vorspiel nur, dort wo man Buecher verbrennt, verbrennt man am ende auch Menschen."
-  "Where they burn books, they will in the end also burn people."

Very little more needs be said, really.

Sunday, July 28, 2013

A M Homes - May We Be Forgiven



Don't you love it when you pick up a book, turn to the first page, and know immediately you have found something special? For me, this was one of those books. I was immediately engaged and remained thoroughly engrossed for the rest of the novel.

With May We Be Forgiven, A M Homes has catapulted herself into a top ten position on my favourite authors list. This is a wild, rollicking adventure of a book, tragic but simultaneously hilarious and moving. Jeanette Winterson calls it the great American novel of our time, and it is certainly the best book I've read this year. Which is saying something, as you know.

The book opens on a family Thanksgiving dinner. While his brother George sits at the table, ignorant of the fact that help is needed, Harold ferries plates back and forth to the kitchen to assist George's wife Jane who has prepared all the food. She interrupts him as he picks at the turkey carcass, 'fingers deep in the bird, the hollow body still warm, the best bits of stuffing packed in' to kiss him full on the mouth. It is a kiss that is described as 'serious, wet, and full of desire', and like Helen of Troy's face, it is a kiss that launches a wild ride. The story takes off, galloping through a fatal car accident which leaves behind an orphaned boy, a very brief adulterous relationship, George's mental breakdown and ensuing hospitalisation, and finally a murder.

All in the first 50 odd pages. At which point I quite honestly wondered where Homes could possibly take the story next, what the next 400 odd pages could feasibly hold. But as Salman Rushdie says in his cover quote, this book starts at maximum force - and then it really gets going. The narrative speed does not stop or slow, nor does the story ever become boring. From here we are shuttled through the sometimes dirty, sometimes downright dangerous world of online dating, to the peculiar realm of alternative correctional facilities; from life at a posh American boarding school to village society in rural South Africa; from the world of academia and whispers of forgotten works of fiction by Richard Nixon to attempted car-jackings, inappropriate teacher-student relationships, a missing girl, a wedding in a senior care facility, a stroke, watered down Judaism, lots of Chinese food and the life of modern immigrants to the United States.

Harold is left bereaved, divorced and caring for George's two children, Nate and Ashley. His life has changed irreparably yet he conducts himself with aplomb. In church at the kids' mother's funeral, he brings out some Gummi bears for the kids and finds a mother behind him leaning in to ask 'how do you know about snacks?'. When Ashley calls from school, in tears and upset, Harold finds her mother's Amazon account and orders books to be sent to her. Touching moments like this are what set this book apart, charging it with humour in the midst of horror.

In the middle of the book Harold realises that he has never tried to do anything with his life, to succeed. He has always been satisfied with mediocrity or less: "...it's all coming back like a kind of psychic tidal wave, and there's a bad taste in my mouth, metallic and steely, and I'm feeling how much everyone in my family hated each other, how little we actually cared for or respected anyone but ourselves. I'm feeling how profoundly my family disappointed me and in the end how I retreated, how I became nothing, because that was much less risky than attempting to be something, to be anything in the face of such contempt." He pulls himself out of this mire, and out of the guilt he feels for his part in Jane's death, to create a family around him that is everything his family was not - loving, supportive, close.

Harold's journey is a new-age picaresque of sorts, but without the cynicism David Foster Wallace and John Kennedy Toole lend to the genre. His story is an uplifting tale of self-discovery and redemption, that is simultaneously unsentimental and deeply moving. And Harold himself is a genuinely sympathetic character, someone whose self-doubt is matched only by his warmth and ability to care for other people. He is the most maternal male character I have ever read, naturally taking in both human and animal strays and treating those around him with compassion and empathy.

I laughed outloud so often whilst reading this that Bibliohubby came to refer to it as 'that funny book you're reading'. But my laughter was as often prompted by astonishment as humour. Homes's writing is fresh and unexpected and compelling. I absolutely loved this novel.

Overall Assessment: 5 out of 5. Outstanding. Homes writes beautifully, and her story-telling is top tier. Such an imagination. I now want to go and find everything she's ever written and read it.

Note: This book also won the Women's Prize for Fiction (formerly the Orange Prize) this year, beating works by Zadie Smith, Hilary Mantel and Kate Atkinson. So I am not alone in my stellar assessment of it!

Wednesday, July 24, 2013

The dissolution of my literary OCD

Bibliohubby makes endless fun of me for the way I organise my bookshelves. I should preface my explanation of this by noting that I come from a family of obsessive categorisers, so it is probably genetic. My dad loves his music and his sizeable collection of CDs is arranged chronologically, according to musical period - baroque, classical, modern etc. My brother is an oenophile (he collects wine), and - like Rob Fleming with his records in Nick Hornby's High Fidelity - his idea of a good weekend is to re-arrange his cellar according to new organisational categories.

My mum's obsession is books, just like mine, and we use similar systems of classification: we both organise our fiction geographically. As in, the country from which the author stems is the first and most important level of classification. Within geographic regions, the books are then arranged alphabetically by author. In my collection, the geographic regions themselves are also mainly set out alphabetically, so I have American works of fiction followed by Asian, then Australian, then Canadian and so on. Africa and the Caribbean I put together because of their Heinemann association (I never pretended this system was rational), so that joint category comes after Canadian. Europe is one group, as is the Middle East, followed by Russia. Books from the UK sit together as one geographic entity. Classics from all countries (but mainly of the Western Canon) are a separate category, falling after the geographic sets. Poetry and drama have their own bookshelf and non-fiction is then arranged according to type - psychology, philosophy, theology, reference and so on.

Needless to say, it took me a long time to arrange my shelves and I'm surprised Bibliohubby didn't run for the hills when he had the chance, as the revelation of my very specific form of OCD pre-dated our wedding and the birth of our first child (he was only Bibliofella back then). Having finished my massive project, I would then tweak it every now and then, pulling out a book here, re-inserting it there. My shelves were a source of immense pleasure - in fact, an image of those very shelves form the background to this blog and they can be seen in all their organised glory here:


I even used to ensure that the spines of the books were all lined up uniformly, but ever since Iggy, my son, has grown old enough to crawl and then walk, my precious approach to the shelves has disappeared. They now look like this:


Unfortunately, as we were already starting to pack up our house for an impending move when I took this shot, I haven't been able to show you a broader view, but even here you can see that the shelves are littered with: two packets of baby wipes in case of dirty hands, mouths or bottoms in the living room; two printed copies of the draft manuscript of my book; a pink dummy (pacifier); two framed wedding photos and various other things that are too precious for little hands; a small pile of children's books for easy access if the mood strikes.

What you can't see is the gradual process that led to my use of bookshelves as storage space for things other than books. You can't see the process by which first the bottom shelf, then the second and eventually the third was decimated by my son as he grew taller.

First, he enjoyed pushing all of the books into the shelves towards the wall so that the spines were no longer lined up. But then he discovered it was way more fun to actually remove the books from the shelves. Here is a photo of Iggy finding his literary soul:


After the 134th time he did this, I decided it was more trouble than it was worth to put the books back in any sort of order. Bibliohubby and I took to shoving the books back in randomly, wherever they fit. And so it was that Gabriel Garcia Marquez ended up next to Naguib Mahfouz, Dostoyevsky next to Freud, Rushdie's The Ground Beneath Her Feet alongside Drabble's The Peppered Moth. And, astonishingly, I didn't really care. I even quite liked the juxtaposition between the militantly organised upper shelves, those he could not yet reach, and the absolute jumble of the bottom ones.

As Iggy grew older and developed a serious fascination with cars, we started keeping large tupperware containers in the living room so that we could quickly toss the end-of-day debris of randomly strewn toy cars into these when the storm had died down and we could enjoy some rare adult time, too precious to waste on tidying properly. I started pushing the books on higher shelves back towards the wall so that the tupperware containers could sit in front of them. That's when the shelves' secondary purpose as useful storage space suddenly became apparent - to me the Mother, not me the Book-Nut.

And so, eventually, we ended up where we are today.

In my BC (before children) days, I never would have guessed that I would one day happily toss aside my literary OCD.  But in those days I probably hadn't considered that it would come down to a choice between hanging on to fastidious order and making it through the day with my sanity still intact. Lucky for Bibliohubby, sanity won that argument (though I'm not sure he would always agree with me on that count!).

Of course, as I pack up my books now and sadly contemplate several years before me in which I won't see them at all, in any kind of order (more on that later), I find myself promising that when I get to unpack them again one day, in a new house, I will do so with all the obsessive vigour I first showed in our current home. Maybe by then we'll be able to afford a house with a spare room I can use as a library. And maybe by then the kids will be old enough to pull a book down from the shelf only when they're interested in actually reading it.

Monday, July 15, 2013

Curtis Sittenfeld - American Wife

This was recommended to me as a good read, and between feeding a newborn, dealing with my toddler son's temper tantrums and preparing for a move overseas, I really needed a good read. I had never heard of Curtis Sittenfeld, even though her first book, Prep, was nominated for the Orange Prize. And I would not have been drawn to this book had it not been recommended - especially after hearing that it is based on the life of Laura Bush. George W is not my favourite person in this world (massive understatement), and I am not particularly interested in his family, either.

But American Wife really is a good read, albeit a long one. Sittenfeld writes in the first person from the perspective of a woman who grows up to become the First Lady of the United States. The vast majority of the book focuses on the relatively normal childhood and early adulthood of Alice Blackwell (nee Lindgren), but it is a titillating set-up: regular small-town girl ends up married to the President. It's like a great make-over story, and I'm a sucker for those.

But I had one major problem for most of this book: I did not like the protagonist. The narrative is easy to read, it washes over you like a summer rom-com, which is probably what kept me pushing through even when I became intensely annoyed with Alice. She is such a cloying goody-two-shoes, it irritated me to no end. For much of the book she seems to have no back-bone, no spunk. I know she is supposed to be a product of her time, and of her small-town upbringing, but I found her to be so wet at times that I almost threw the book across the room, willing her to stand up for herself. She is not my kind of woman at all, and it frustrates me that (if there is any truth to this story at all) a woman like this could become First Lady. Indeed, that a man with the potential to hold such an esteemed position would be attracted to a woman like this. And that his family would deem her suitable for him. But I kept reading in spite of these irritations because the story was good and I really wanted to know what happened next, even though I kind of already knew. I wanted to see how it would all develop, layabout Charlie becoming the President of the United States. It seems so unlikely, when his character ss first introduced. And in spite of myself, even though I was picturing Charlie as George W (I couldn't help it!), I became quite intrigued by him. I could even kind of see that he might have some personal charm about him, although obviously his political prowess leaves much to be desired, even in fiction. For example, Alice describes him as being lukewarm on the actual politics of being president: "Being president is for [Charlie] like taking a ninth-gradfer English test on The Odysser, and he's the kid who did most of the reading, he studied for an hour the night before, but he's not one of the people who loved the book." Instead Charlie is described as being in it for the power, and because he is concerned about his personal legacy.

In the end - minor spoiler alert - the whole story really is a lead-up to the moment when Alice finally does grow a back-bone, and this is what saved the book for me. There is a hint to this in the prologue, but I must admit it was lost on me until I returned to the prologue having turned the last page. When I did finally put the book down after coming to the end, I finally understood what Sittenfeld was trying to do with American Wife. For most of the novel I had been lost as to why she had felt compelled to write this. Was it just because the premise was fun? Like a high school reunion novel, where the protagonist makes it HUGE on the world stage before returning triumphantly to the place where she grew up? But if that was the case, why choose a real-life first lady to base this on, why restrict oneself so? Or was the motivator a peculiar fascination Sittenfeld has with Laura Bush herself? But if this was so, why choose to re-create in fiction a life that has already been thoroughly examined in biography?

In the last part of the book, when Charlie has finally made it big - you know, as the most powerful man in the world - it finally started to become clear. Sittenfeld is as critical of George W Bush as I am. This is not clear through the majority of the novel, which portrays him as a magnanimous, fun guy who is misunderstood and (perhaps) underestimated by his own family. But what Sittenfeld seems really interested in - and it is innately interesting, I'll give her that - is the question of how complicit a wife is, how much she can be held accountable, for her husband's actions. I think we are meant to dislike Alice, as I did, when she turns the other cheek every time someone does her wrong: when her best friend drops her for a negligible friendship misdemeanour; when a boyfriend treats her badly and speaks ill of her. What is most frustrating is that while Alice is a push-over, she is not stupid. She acts deliberately, intentionally letting things go. And Sittenfeld wants to know: when someone like that does not speak out against things she knows are wrong, can she be held accountable for the consequences of that decision to remain silent? Specifically, can a wife be held accountable for what her husband is doing, if she has known all along that it is wrong? When she does not object and instead sits idly by, supporting her husband, while he conducts himself in a way to which she is deeply, morally opposed - are the consequences of his actions not then her fault as much as his?

Charlie, like George W Bush, starts a war when he is President which is wildly unpopular with large factions of the population. He must deal with protestors and detractors, and Alice tells the readers (we are treated like a dear diary) that, in her view, he only persists with the war because he is too humiliated to back out of it - even though thousands of American boys continue to be killed. She tells us this in the same affectionate tone she reserves for Charlie throughout, and even though we know she does not agree with his stance on the war, it is difficult here to forgive her for her silence, and for her continued support of Charlie.

In introspective moments Alice contemplates her own position on the page, asking at what stage and how should she have acted.

"All I did is marry him," she asserts. "You are the ones who gave him power."

Should she have refused to marry him, way back when, because even then their political views were not aligned? Should she have prevented him from running for office? Should she have left him when he did, even though they had a child together and were in love? It's a tricky question, and Sittenfeld's exploration of the issues involved is interesting. Nevertheless, I can't believe that the answer is the one Alice proposes - that every marriage contains some degree of betrayal, of treachery, and that in keeping silent, and in secretly taking active steps against her husband she is just acting like any other American wife.

But the Alice we ultimately get to know is far more treacherous than we are led to believe for most of the book, and that at least made her more interesting to me.

Overall assessment: 3 out of 5. A good read, light but with some thought-provoking passages.


Saturday, July 6, 2013

Bookshelf porn

I have always dreamed of one day having a library. It would be the room where I sit and read, the room where I write at my desk, a room with the walls lined in floor-to-ceiling shelves, with all of my friendly books looking down on me. A room where I could spread out the books I am reading, the books I am referencing, the books I wish to browse through. A room scattered with throw cushions and rugs and tea-cups, containing a comfortable couch, my leather reading chair and many, many lamps, preferably fitted out with a window seat complete with a cat curled up into a warm ball. Sometimes, when I dream of this room, I wonder what the shelves containing my books might look like. And then I browse Google and drool over the many wonderful pictures of rooms just like the one I wish for. It's bookshelf porn, and here are some gorgeous examples, for your fantasising pleasure:



For those lacking space, but rich in renovation funds: why not try shelves set into the staircase itself?



Creative bookshelf design. I love the look of it, but am not sure it would allow for easy browsing.



Such gorgeous, spacious shelves! Though I am afraid this room would lack the cosy feel I require in my library.



I love this idea, for a house with a gabled roof and a library set in the attic.



Instead of a shelf built into the stairs, how about shelves occupying the (generally useless) space underneath the staircase? Fantastic idea!



Oh, I love this. If my room had shelves like this on each wall, I would be satisfied. The colour of the couch, though, leaves something to be desired.



Lovely down-lights on these floor-to-ceiling shelves.



What an innovative idea! Shelves in the ceiling, for a room with limited space. Too small for me, though, and access to the books would be difficult.



A bookshelf ladder like this is something I have always wanted. I like the thought of climbing up my shelves, visiting the books placed up high. 



Oh how I love these shelves! But why the curtain? In my room the shelves themselves will be the feature.



What pretty lamps on these shelves! 

I hold the vision for my own library in my mind's eye. What does yours look like?

Monday, July 1, 2013

Sheryl Sandberg - Lean In



It might seem odd that I would choose to read this whilst at home, on maternity leave, spending most of each day nursing a tiny baby. In fact, it was yet another bookclub pick - thanks Bibliofillies! - but it is also a book I've been curious about since it came out, even though I am rarely drawn to non-fiction. And actually, I think now is the perfect time to read it. Maternity leave is a wonderful time for reflection and soul searching. The experience of bringing new life into the world, of taking a break from your career and spending time at home, focusing energy on the physical task of nurturing young children rather than the intellectual tasks of a workplace, puts everything else in your life into perspective and allows you to observe it more objectively.

I will come right out and say it: I am a feminist. I make no apologies for my use of a word that has garnered all kinds of (largely undeserved) negative connotations. I believe in women making it in this world - however they choose to define 'making it'. This is even more true, and more poignant, now that I have a daughter. I loved Sheryl Sandberg's infamous TED talk (find it here), but a friend of mine, one of the Bibliofillies, was not impressed. "Nothing I haven't heard before," she commented. Nothing new. And fair enough - Sandberg draws heavily on statistics and case studies, so yes, most of the facts she presents in her talk, and in more detail in Lean In, are not new. But somehow the way she puts it all together, her collation of information, the simplicity of her message when she boils the facts right down - to me, it sounds fresh. It has made me re-think a few things. In fact, I have found it the most inspirational book on women in the workplace that I have ever read.

After several very bad experiences in law firms, and after watching Australia's first ever female prime minister get hammered by the press, I had decided I never wanted to make partner in a law firm, I never wanted to be general counsel of a corporation, and in fact I never wanted to make it to any public leadership position. It's not worth it, I thought. Success of that nature would require me to fight every day of my life against particularly nasty individuals who believed I had no right to be doing what I was doing, because I am a woman.

But Sheryl Sandberg has made me sit back and rethink this. That was the wrong message to take away from those experiences, I now realise. I am a woman with a certain degree of intelligence and privilege, who has obtained a number of undergraduate and postgraduate degrees. For any woman, but especially for women like me, who have had opportunities thrust at them, shying away from leadership positions just because the road might sometimes prove hard is not the right thing to do. With opportunity comes responsibility. And to turn down opportunity because of a perceived systemic bias against women gives the wrong voices too much power. It ensures that the culture created by those voices will continue to dominate. It does other women no favours at all.

The first chapter of Lean In is subtitled What Would You Do If You Weren't Afraid? This hit me, hard, because of course, without realising it, I was charting a course steered by fear. Sandberg points out that:

"Fear is at the root of so many of the barriers that women face. Fear of not being liked. Fear of making the wrong choice. Fear of drawing negative attention. Fear of overreaching. Fear of being judged. Fear of failure. And the holy trinity of fear: the fear of being a bad mother/wife/daughter."

She recounts a speech to female University graduates in which her advice was that as they started their adult lives they should "Start out by aiming high." And of course we should - all of us should, male and female.

In the following chapters, Sandberg parcels out succinct pieces of advice, often using her personal experiences to illustrate the authenticity of that advice. She recounts a story of women attending a meeting who chose to sit on the chairs lining the side of the room when there were insufficient places at the conference table for all attendees, rather than confidently grabbing one of those spots for themselves. Sandberg points out that this behaviour did not help those women with how they were regarded in the workplace, it did not create an impression of competence or equality. She says that we should always feel confident enough to sit at the table - both literally and figuratively - rather than take a back seat out of misguided notions of diplomacy or benevolence.

She talks about using our natural qualities so that they work for us rather than against us in the workplace - we don't have to be liked by everyone, but also we don't have to behave like men to get ahead (she even says it's ok to cry at the office). And one of my favourite pieces of advice in Lean In is to think of your career as a jungle gym rather than a ladder. It's rare for people to start down one career path and follow it linearly, through promotion after promotion, until they ultimately reach the pinnacle of their profession. It's more likely, Sandberg says, that success will come from looking more flexibly at one's career, from being open to opportunities even when at the time they may seem like sideways moves. A jungle gym, not a ladder. And isn't this realistic, these days? It is no longer the case that people who start out at one company then stay with that same company until retirement. Things have changed, opportunities might come from the most unlikely places. Sandberg also suggests that the right career choices inevitably move with the market: pick the company with the highest growth. Follow market growth, Sandberg says, even if the role seems less significant, and your career will grow too.

More practical advice from Sandbrg is to be honest in the workplace, to speak up truthfully even if it is easier or seems more diplomatic to remain silent or to sugar-coat something, and to seek the same honesty from your co-workers, even if it's hard to hear some of the truths you thus invite.

And the key career advice from Sandberg, the heart of the book: don't start leaning back from the workplace in preparation for a life you may one day lead, before you are actually leading that life. Don't make career decisions that take into account the baby you have yet to fall pregnant with, the husband you have yet to meet. I feel ashamed to admit that I am guilty of this. When I was seriously considering making a significant change in my career, had indeed taken several steps down that path - several successful, exciting steps - I let some advice I received influence me and I decided not to follow that path after all because doing so might interfere with my ability to meet someone and start a family during my thirties. Now that I have my family I don't regret the decision I made, because had I behaved differently back then my life now would surely be different too. But certainly I regret having made a decision to lean back from my career before I really needed to. I don't think that was the right basis for my decision. I'm sure that, had I followed that career path, I still would have eventually found a way to create a fulfilling family life.

The advice in Lean In is compelling because Sandberg herself is a woman who has clearly succeeded at the highest level. In the latter chapters of the book she talks about how it was possible for her to achieve this professional success while raising children, and the answer lies in her domestic set-up. It is most important, says Sandberg, to ensure your spouse is a true partner - someone who contributes equally to your family. When looking for a life partner, she says, her advice to women is "to date all of them: the bad boys, the cool boys, the commitment-phobic boys, the crazy boys. But do not marry them. The things that make the bad boys sexy do not make them good husbands. When it comes time to settle down, find someone who wants an equal partner." She cites statistics that I found most interesting, indicating high levels of happiness for women who juggle multiple roles, as long as they have support at home, and which also show that children benefit enormously - thrive, in fact - from having fathers who are genuinely involved in domestic duties. Of course, finding a partner like this might be easier said than done, but Sandberg's point is that women should insist upon it. Only by doing so is it likely to become the norm. Men, she says, must learn to 'lean in' to their domestic lives, just as women must lean in to their professional lives, accepting opportunities and achieving leadership positions. Only then will it gradually become as acceptable for women to hold the top jobs - in politics, corporations, and so on - as it is for men.

For Sandberg the concept of 'having it all' is "the greatest trap ever set for women." It is intended to be aspirational, says Sandberg, but in fact it makes us all feel bad. She says that the very concept "flies in the face of the basic laws of economics and common sense... it is best regarded as a myth." She says that the more pertinent goal is doing it all, and even that is an impossibility. Women with both careers and families worry continuously about measuring up (no one needed to tell me that!), but Sandberg says that we measure ourselves against the wrong yardsticks: "we compare our efforts at work to those of our colleagues, usually men, who typically have far fewer responsibilities at home. Then we compare our efforts at home to those of mothers who dedicate themselves solely to their families." And on and on - we compare our bodies to those who are paid to dedicate themselves solely to looking a particular way (models, or athletes). She quotes Gloria Steinem, who famously said: "You can't do it all. No one can have two full-time jobs, have perfect children and cook three meals and be multi-orgasmic 'til dawn... Superwoman is the adversary of the woman's movement." I know all of this, I have heard it before, but isn't it something we should hear again and again?  As I sit here writing, I am also jiggling with one foot the baby rocker in which my seven week old daughter lies. I have gotten up intermittently during the writing of this post to tidy a room, start preparing dinner, and put away the laundry my husband has folded, all the while calculating the hours left until I need to pick up my 20 month old from daycare, where he spends two days a week. I have kept the computer on in front of me whilst trying simultaneously to get some reading done of our new bookclub book, and checking Facebook and my email each several times, when I am actually trying (in and around the writing of this blog) to finish writing cover letters and a synopsis of my book so that I can submit it to publishers. I managed to get a run in this morning, but am still unsatisfied by my post-pregnancy weight (although at seven weeks postpartum I don't know why I am putting this pressure on myself). I want the house to be perfect before our landlady inspects tomorrow, I want to give my daughter a bath, I want to have dinner sorted for my son before he gets home this evening (and I want him to eat it!) and I want dinner to be prepared for myself and my husband by the time I put my son to sleep later tonight. Mainly, I want to post this before today is over. And all the while, I am fitting in the regular feeds Lulu requires, which become ever more frequent as evening approaches. Of course I am falling short on all counts. At night, when I get up to breastfeed Lulu, I will also be trying to get some reading in on my Kindle, but my brain won't be up to processing much; and when I get back into bed, my brain will be just active enough to keep me awake worrying about everything: how much more there is to do for our move overseas later this year, my lack of progress on the next book, whether the kids are each getting enough attention, whether my son is eating a balanced enough diet and getting enough stimulation, about my parents, about our finances... the list is endless. All this and I'm not even working at the moment (though this, of course, is yet another cause of stress). All this and I am one of the lucky ones - I have help, and I have a true partner in Bibliohubby.

We cannot have it all, or do it all, at the same time. It should be a mantra women repeat over and over to themselves. Sandberg cites Nora Ephron (RIP, smart, funny woman), who, in a 1996 commencement address, said: "It will be a little bit messy, but embrace the mess. It will be complicated, but rejoice in the complications. It will not be anything like what you think it will be like, but surprises are good for you. And don't be frightened: you can always change your mind. I know: I've had four careers and three husbands." Sandberg says that at Facebook one of the posters up on the walls says "Done is better than perfect." And she stresses that what we need to lose, all of us women, is GUILT. That tricky, pervasive mother guilt that afflicts us all. Sandberg says that "guilt management can be just as important as time management for mothers." She says that while she looks at the number of nights spent away from her children and berates herself for this failure, her husband celebrates the fact that they eat dinner together as a family as often as they do, and that these conflicting viewpoints are indicative of our problematic and counter-productive female guilt. But she also says that it can be fun when our various roles collide - when we bring our children to the office and they get to see where we work, for example. She says Facebook is family-friendly and it was a positive thing for both her work and her family life that her kids got to know her colleagues. I agree - I remember as a child visiting my mum at the clinic where she worked as a doctor, and I remember how normal it seemed that she was on call several nights a week, and might disappear at midnight without notice. My mother says that when she stopped working, I said to her (in all my youthful wisdom): "But you've been a doctor as long as I've known you!". I grew up proud of my mother, not at all concerned by the number of hours she was away from the house. Of course, I was lucky to have a father who stayed at home longer in the mornings to prepare our breakfast and pack us lunches for the day before going to work himself. This meant he got home later at night, but my mum got home earlier - that's how they balanced it. And that is Sandberg's point, too - we have to decide what's important to us and then find a way to make that happen, and be ok with letting the rest of it go. We need to find what works for us. She points to a Stanford professor's research which shows that setting obtainable goals is the key to happiness. Striving for perfection is not (again, I'm not sure why it require Stanford level research to prove this!).

Sandberg says that many women shy away from talking about all of this, especially the bits about the difficulties of being a woman in the workplace and being a feminist, because they perceive that it will do them a disservice to raise it and to be seen as 'one of those'. But the point she makes, with which I wholeheartedly agree, is that the reverse is true: the only way to effect change, and to work with other people (not just women) to create that change or even just to get through it all in good company, is to talk about it. It's been said before, but feminism is not a dirty word.

Everyone will take different things from this motivational read, but these are my take-home points: I should not be afraid, any longer, to succeed at work, I should grab opportunities even if they come out of left field, I should rely on my husband to be a true partner, I should be ok with achieving some goals, the ones I set for myself, and not others, and, above all, I should embrace the mess. 'Cuz that's life.

Overall assessment: 4 out of 5

Pros: This is without question the best book I have read about working mothers. Note, however, that this is not necessarily saying a lot - I don't read a lot of non-fiction and I hardly ever read self-help, though I'm not sure this book fits into that category. I do read feminist writing, though, and I think we can safely categorise this as a feminist text for our generation's working woman. Aside from the fabulous Caitlin Moran's How to be a Woman, and my idol Tina Fey's Bossypants, this is the most influential feminist read I have picked up in a long time.

Cons: This is a book for working women. Parts of it - particularly the partnership chapter, and the chapter on the myth of doing it all - will also speak to women who are stay-at-home mums, and Sandberg is sympathetic to any choice a woman makes for her life. But really, the readers who will get the most out of this are working mothers. Also, even though I am (most of the time) a working mother, my choices are different to those that Sandberg has made. When I read about her decision to willingly sacrifice being present at all of her children's dance recitals and parent-teacher conferences and so on, it initially made me uncomfortable. But when I kept reading I recognised that she is not calling on everyone to make those same decisions - they are simply the ones she has made for herself and her family. And all of us have that choice to make.