Grace Lavery / Joseph Lavery & Daniel M. Lavery / Mallory Ortberg - "Straight with extra steps" couple trooning out to avoid "dwindling into mere heterosexuality"

[Wonderland foster child]

The Goodreads rating for Women's Hotel has settled at around 3.07, which is dire, though obviously not impeding sales too much if it's going into a third printing. None other than Roxane Gay has weighed in with a four-star review that reads as though she dashed it off while waiting for the subway:

"This is a very polyphonic, densely written novel about women living in, well, a women’s hotel. The long sentences and exacting details pull you into the Biedermier and makes you want to never leave."

Make, not makes, by the way.

Far more amusing recent reviews include:

2 stars: "The only redeeming thing about this book was that it was short. I almost didn't finish it."

3 stars: "I thought it was just okay. I would have preferred more action and less description. Katherine’s journey of sobriety was my favorite part of the book."

2 stars: "I'm going to start by just saying that I don't think this was the book for me. I struggled to get through Women's Hotel—it's not the longest book by any means, but it still took me close to a month to finish it when normally I can finish a book within a week.

I actually quite enjoy slice-of-life novels and I was excited to get a peek into the various characters that lived within this fictional hotel. But, the writing felt erratic in a way that didn't quite work, I never felt invested in any of the characters, and often it felt wordy just to be wordy. The last chapter was by far the most interesting but, it shouldn't take the entire book to get there.

All that to be said—I was grateful to finish the book and finally move onto something different."

3 stars: "Too many characters that didn't have enough building to become engaged with. Just too disjointed and therefore not really interesting."

2 stars: "2.5 but rounding down for the abrupt ending

What an odd book! First of all, for the first chapter or so, I wasn't even sure it was fiction because it's so heavy on exposition and narrative. Eventually, the characters became clearer, but not much happened. Then, as I got a bit more into their lives, I became a little more involved in the story, and then suddenly, the book ended.

What?!? What did I just read? It's over? Why did I read this? Why is one of the "hot books" of 2024?"

 

[Potatis Salad]

Instagram story from Tard Baby, for some reason I find this so hilarious. She has never had one single thought about Middle Eastern geopolitics until three seconds ago.

 

[TheMonkeyMan]

It was the British Mandate of Palestine, that was what the British called it! Also, he used the Hebrew name for Tel Aviv and not the Arabic one.

 

[Bookwork]

There's a free Chatner to go with that. Not even worth archiving. It's a lazy, vapid piece mostly made up of ad copy from the WW2 era. The only ref to Palestine is that sergeant's comment about where he bought a little book of English and American poems.

Wikipedia informs that in 1943 Jews established the first settlement in Gaza, the kibbutz Gvulot. Polish Jews had deserted from the Polish Anders Army after it arrived in Palestine, Menachem Begin among them, and got busy laying down infrastructure for a Jewish state.

So if ditzy Mal thinks that little squib about the book signals the heyday of Arab Palestine, she's... under-informed.

 

[Dick Johnson]

I was thinking about revisiting Women's Hotel and how it stacks up versus Joe's most popular book Please Miss. In a month, Mal's surpassed the number of ratings (461 as of this posting versus 396). Good job Mal!

That 3.06 rating though...it's not a good book, as we've found out in this thread but Joe makes Mallory's work look like Jane Austin collaborating with Percival Everett. Somehow Please Miss has a rating of 3.43. Maybe the people who finish it are so damaged by the experience that their brains leak from their ears and hit the keyboard in a pattern of droplets that manages to type out '3.5 stars!' I know that's not accurate, but it's still baffling.

 

[Stupid Sexy Flanders]

Somehow Please Miss has a rating of 3.43. Maybe the people who finish it are so damaged by the experience that their brains leak from their ears and hit the keyboard in a pattern of droplets that manages to type out '3.5 stars!'

I'd assume Joe's book is only really read by danger hairs and other degenerates, while Mall's book is probably read by more normies.

 

[Wonderland foster child]

I'd assume Joe's book is only really read by danger hairs and other degenerates, while Mall's book is probably read by more normies.

Agreed, and I'd add that Mal's core audience skews towards literate millennial women, a demographic who are likely to post their opinions on Goodreads.

I just realised Roxane Gay misspelled the name of the hotel in her review. Slapdash and generic. I'd bet money she was asked to post the review in some kind of tit-for-tat publishing inner circle request, or as a favour to someone.

 

[Bookwork]

Agreed, and I'd add that Mal's core audience skews towards literate millennial women, a demographic who are likely to post their opinions on Goodreads.

I just realised Roxane Gay misspelled the name of the hotel in her review. Slapdash and generic. I'd bet money she was asked to post the review in some kind of tit-for-tat publishing inner circle request, or as a favour to someone.

They had a cuddle at Roxane's book club.

 

[Diana Moon Glampers]

3.06? That's...disastrous.


Google AI, tell us how disastrous!

According to data analysis on Goodreads, the average standard deviation for book ratings is around 0.37 on a scale of 1 to 5 stars, with the average rating typically falling between 3.5 and 3.8 depending on the dataset analyzed.


Key points about Goodreads ratings and standard deviation:

• Scale: Goodreads ratings are on a 5-star scale, where 1 is the lowest and 5 is the highest.
  
  
  
• Average rating: Most analyses show an average rating around 3.7.
  
  
  
• Standard deviation interpretation: A standard deviation of 0.37 means that roughly 68% of book ratings fall within a range of 0.37 stars above and below the average.

Wow, Google AI! That sounds bad! If the average is 3.7 and the standard deviation is 0.37, what does that mean about a 3.08 rating?

Well, it's a Z-score of -1.676, which puts it between a 4th and 5th percentile book by ratings.

That's just embarrassing.

 

[tastelikeluckystrikes]

They had a cuddle at Roxane's book club.

I cannot stop laughing at how utterly stupid Mal looks in this headshot. truly not one single thought behind those beady little tard baby eyes.

 

[uwaga! aooga!]

POLITICAL DEMONOLOGY AGAINST THE THEORY OF SEXUALITY
A MAJOR LECTURE BY GRACE LAVERY

Ooh ooh ooh! This is going to be ripe with opportunity for laughi...

(btw “major lecture” is a category of lecture at Vassar. I’m not above that kind of preposterous self-aggrandizement, but in this case I’m not guilty of it.)

Oh, blast!! I don't like it when the wildlife becomes self-aware enough to notice the photographers.

All these chances for mockery, lost, like tears in rain.

 

[Bookwork]

According to data analysis on Goodreads, the average standard deviation for book ratings is around 0.37 on a scale of 1 to 5 stars, with the average rating typically falling between 3.5 and 3.8 depending on the dataset analyzed.

Y'know, "Standard Deviation" would be a fitting title for a non-fiction book about Mal & Joe.

Spoiler: Text

notes on outfit as I’m leaving Poughkeepsie following what was, truly, one of the highlights of my career and therefore, careerist cutthroat that I am, of my life. the demon talk went well, the Vassar students were fabulous, I finally got to meet @avgolis98 in person, and there was a delicate British rain misting the town, that reminded me of a brisk morning stroll on Hampstead Heath. but also, crucially, the fit: the coat is vintage Castelbajac (2017 iirc) from @jamesveloria, the glasses are Tiffany’s picked up on sale after cracking a pair of Loewe sunnies when a guy barged into me in Moynihan (), and the pendant is a Walter Van Beirendonck rabbit, whose penis turns into a long necklace to wrap around (it blooms from a pair of elegant little testicles). I made a sort of scrapbook image of the demon book that I’ll post at some point soon too.

The Wall Street Journal has a brief review of Women's Hotel (link, partly paywalled | archive of the whole thing). The book is a "charmer" that provides "rich social and political history" within its vignettes.

Mr. Lavery’s wit and descriptive powers are considerable, his affection and sympathy for his characters something more. Even without that first important meal of the day, “Women’s Hotel” is a feast.

The feasting reviewer is Joanne Kaufman (Muck Rack).

 

[Potatis Salad]

Full images of ~the fit~ below for all of you who are surely clamoring to cop this look. I love how self-serious and grandiose Joe is about his absolutely horrendous fashion. Never change, narc.

Also............................................."careerist cutthroat"? I would think he was being ironical but it's Joe we're talking about. Of course the lazy troon who hasn't worked in years except to shit out a pamphlet full of nonsense about TV shows thinks he's the hardest-working scholar to ever do it.

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

Full images of ~the fit~ below for all of you who are surely clamoring to cop this look. I love how self-serious and grandiose Joe is about his absolutely horrendous fashion. Never change, narc.
View attachment 6677269View attachment 6677268
Also............................................."careerist cutthroat"? I would think he was being ironical but it's Joe we're talking about. Of course the lazy troon who hasn't worked in years except to shit out a pamphlet full of nonsense about TV shows thinks he's the hardest-working scholar to ever do it.

At first glance I thought that was the Sonichu medallion and had a brief glimmer of excitement.

But no, it's just Joe's usual style of the worst possible choices from droppable names.

 

[Diana Moon Glampers]

Wearing the Windows logo is a very strange choice. Why hasn't this man given up his designer affectations while he's unemployed with a baby? Oh, right, we know why.

 

[OttoWest]

Imagine wearing the Windows 95 logo and proclaiming it “fashion”.

ETA goddamnit @Diana Moon Glampers

 

[Bookwork]

Wearing the Windows logo is a very strange choice.

That's what I took it to be, too, and was head on desk laughing about it. Then I has a sad, but a moment later started laughing at the designer for adding color blocks that way, intentionally or not. Laughter heals. I will now live to be 125 with this added Droopy Dog effect. ETA - There's a turkey wattle under that quavering chin, too.


ETA - Minor insight into Mister Danny the Lumberjack's parenting approach pops up in a weirdly lengthy Business Insider article from September: "Jessica Fern's 'Polysecure' promised a world beyond monogramy. She didn't say it would be easy" (archive):

Spoiler: Text

The Brooklyn writer Daniel Lavery, who has spoken extensively about living and parenting as a throuple, shared a similar sentiment. "I don't think any of us have read any books on polyamory," he said, though it's not that their household is "anti-book." Lavery said they really liked "The Happiest Baby on the Block."

The book, by Harvey Karp, is lauded by some for the Five Ss method that begins with the idea that the first months after birth are really the "fourth trimester" because the crotch fruit is not ripe and needs womby treatment (Babycenter article about the method):

1. Swaddling
2. Side or stomach position
3. Shushing
4. Swinging (jiggling swaddled babby, not Joe tweeting for luv monkeys)
5. Sucking (see previous parenthetical)

Redditors are not uniformly impressed. This one makes it sound like Joe wrote the book: "Honestly it’s not good, I have no idea why it has this sterling reputation. It is filled with padding. For instance, he spends the entire first half of the book disputing altnerative theories to his 'Five S' theory. But since I’ve never heard of any of these things, why do I need to refute them?"

Another made it sound like Mal wrote it, "I felt like it was like a book-length article haha."

 

[TheMeanOne]

Isn't "vintage" generally understood to be pieces that are at least 25 years old? Joe's coat isn't vintage, just used and overpriced.

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

Isn't "vintage" generally understood to be pieces that are at least 25 years old? Joe's coat isn't vintage, just used and overpriced.

Yep, technically-ish, generally "vintage" is 30-100 years old if they clearly reflect the era from which they come. Otherwise, it's just old or used. (Antique is 100+.) But of course people say anything.

 

[monstrous bubo]

the glasses are Tiffany’s picked up on sale after cracking a pair of Loewe sunnies when a guy barged into me in Moynihan

Loewe sunglasses start at $340 and can go over $1000, and according to Joe they’re so fragile they crack easily. He buys expensive designer stuff that doesn’t stand up to normal treatment and/or he doesn’t look after it.He then throws it all together at random. There’s no real thought or appreciation for design itself, aesthetics, style or superior workmanship, it’s all just label whoring and trashy exhibitionism. I’d say it’s nouveau riche but we all know he’s nouveau poor again. It’s a little thing compared to his other idiocies and poor behaviour, but it makes me wince.