women - support , stability)( men - beauty, reputation, hostess)from what I gather from reading works from that generation. and when you read this book almost all of the girls make the comment that they know their parents would not approve of the men whom they choose. Dave knows that his parents would have wanted Emily for him, but HE doesnt want her. He can just tell by the way his mother looks at him. From the beginning of the book, I thought Tal was wonderful so sweet and I wanted him to have who he wanted which is Sadie, of course the book isn't over but it isn't looking that way......Who knows how they choose, now it appears to really be a work of pheremones is my guess. aybe Sadie is looking for someone powerful, she appears to be the kind to do so. And I'm really proud of Emily being able to not give in to Curtis, she read him well.
the parents from the earlier generation were concerned with
The parents of these characters would have come of age in the late 60s and early 70s -- not the 1950s. They were, many of them, rebelling against their own parents, and NOT choosing spouses for these reasons. (Look at how Beth's mother reflects on her marriage and the wedding, for instance.) The ones who married out of pragmatism tended to be older, like Sadie's parents.
What really startled me was that none of the parents (that I can recall) are divorced. Which is completely uncharacteristic of that generation, when divorce rates SOARED. Emily's parents are together, ditto Tad, Dave (I think), Beth, Sadie, and definitely Lil.
To what extent do these characters think they are choosing on a different basis when they are actually selecting a partner on the same basis? Look at Sadie's choice of Ed -- just as pragmatic as her mother, albeit in different circumstances. The ultimate example, is of course, Emily -- the fairy-tale, chick lit-style coupling feels convincing (partly because I've read it in so many feel-good novels) but isn't she marrying as much out of those old needs for stability, partnership, companionship, as for love, lust or any 'new' reason?
My suspicion is that there is no new reason for any of these couplings, even though the characters may choose to think so. Because one's parents disapprove of one's choice does not make it revolutionary or mean it has a broader significance -- it may just mean that they don't like the guy.
Well, I am probably the parent's generation so I will speak to that first. For me, choosing a partner was all about finding someone who had good character and a good fuuture, too, I think. It was about sharing my life with someone who was good and kind, someone I would like to settle down with and raise a family with, someone who would share my values and love me always as I hoped I would love him. We married for better or worse, in sickness and in health. We both vowed to love, honor and obey each other and we didn't take our vows lightly nor did we think we could rescind them easily. It wasn't about liberation or careers, it was about love and family, first and foremost, I think. I believe we thought that if we loved each other enough and worked hard enough together then we could achieve anything that we wanted; nothing could stop us from succeeding. The difference today, is that today success is viewed mostly in terms of finances not in terms of family life and relationships. We were not brought up to think we could have it all. We wouldn't think of asking our parents for help. We took care of our parents when they needed us, not the reverse. We were expected to set out on our own and take care of ourselves. Of course the standards for marriage declined tremendously and with them, so did the idea of commitment and resolving differences. Couples began to walk away from each other, and the families they created, without very much thought for anything but their own needs. It led to the generation of young adults that we see in this book although I don't see the parents in the book developed in the light of broken marriages.
A problem with my daughter's and son's generations, for the most part, is that they were brought up to believe that they could have it all. They were told that they were stars when they were not. They were not taught how to handle competition or defeat. They were not taught about commitment. As a result, many of that era do not know how to make a permanent commitment, do not know how to make a decision and do not think they have to face any consequences for their behavior. Instead, they blame others. Responsibility has given way to irresponsibility. They do not think they have to take care of themselves independently and many parents continue to take care of their children "disabling" them from becoming adults who can stand on their own two feet successfully.
That is not to imply that there are no independent, responsible young adults of that generation, my kids are great 
(naturally) but that is the impression I think I am getting from the book.
twj
KxBurns wrote:On what basis do the main characters chose their romantic partners? What do they seek from marriage? How do their criteria and expectations differ from their parents’ generation?
Chatterbox wrote:
the parents from the earlier generation were concerned withThe parents of these characters would have come of age in the late 60s and early 70s -- not the 1950s. They were, many of them, rebelling against their own parents, and NOT choosing spouses for these reasons. (Look at how Beth's mother reflects on her marriage and the wedding, for instance.) The ones who married out of pragmatism tended to be older, like Sadie's parents.
What really startled me was that none of the parents (that I can recall) are divorced. Which is completely uncharacteristic of that generation, when divorce rates SOARED. Emily's parents are together, ditto Tad, Dave (I think), Beth, Sadie, and definitely Lil.
To what extent do these characters think they are choosing on a different basis when they are actually selecting a partner on the same basis? Look at Sadie's choice of Ed -- just as pragmatic as her mother, albeit in different circumstances. The ultimate example, is of course, Emily -- the fairy-tale, chick lit-style coupling feels convincing (partly because I've read it in so many feel-good novels) but isn't she marrying as much out of those old needs for stability, partnership, companionship, as for love, lust or any 'new' reason?
My suspicion is that there is no new reason for any of these couplings, even though the characters may choose to think so. Because one's parents disapprove of one's choice does not make it revolutionary or mean it has a broader significance -- it may just mean that they don't like the guy.
I think this is true. The characters do not even stray outside of their social class in choosing their partners. I also feel like the marriages portrayed in the book are not really partnerships -- there is a definite imbalance of power in most of the relationships, whether it's derived from age/experience or money.
Viewed from this perspective, Lil's choice of mate is the least conventional, in that she chooses someone who is not a reliable breadwinner. However, I don't believe this was her expectation going into it!
If we look at the fact that the characters have chosen mates based on fairly traditional formulas (whether consciously or not), along with the fact that Sadie and Emily at least do seem to be happily married, what is the message here about modern vs. traditional marriage, in your opinion? Or is it not as simple as traditional versus "modern" notions of marriage? What does Caitlin Green-Gold's situation contribute to the dialogue?
