Perhaps I am the wrong reader of Life of M. Certainly I find Cusk’s books unsympathetic generally. (I hated Outline.) But I was absorbed enough to want to finish this novel, even though I don’t find it impressive.
If a novelist believes that character doesn't matter why write novels? I like playful novels that are conscious of the form, but it seems very austere to think that the abolition of character in the novel is imperative because making up characters is fake and false and everything is bogus. Why carry on writing? Maybe I just miss the point of it all
I'm mature enough to think when I encounter a writer like a painter I just don't get despite the rapturous critical reactions to them the fault is with me. Middle age has changed me, when I was younger I'd declare it the artists fault. Cusk's novels fit into that condition with me. I'm sure they're as good as people say, but, I can't see it
Agreed on the incoherence, and the word carrying it is sacrifice. A sacrifice needs someone who paid. The book has spent itself arguing there is nobody to send that bill to. Worth saying the pairing is common outside novels. The people most certain there is no-one inside them are often the ones keeping the most detailed account of what they gave up, and they see no tension in it. Cusk seems to have caught that and then promoted it to a position. Nobody keeps a ledger for a life they were never in.
I have also been soured on Cusk despite her great technical capacity. I think I will still read Life of M because I love gossip. But all up I think what your review is pointing to is the Cusk's ouvre is fundamentally about the avoidance of responsibility for anything she has done -- I think your line about who exactly is doing the sacrificing is insightful because she at once wants credit for this sacrifice and yet shies away from taking literally any responsibility for it. This is distinctive of the whole heteropessimistic literature. Can't have it both ways, Rachel. Alas.
It’s actually not very gossipy, so don’t get your hopes up! I so agree about avoidance of responsibility, but I haven’t read the memoirs (they just sound awful) so I didn’t want to say it outright.
Excellent review. I've just finished it and this helped me to understand my frustration with it. I would still recommend it since as you say, Cusk is worthy of this level of engagement. There are some stunning poetic passages and some finely tuned social commentary. But if you're going to dispense with character you need to have something new to say or do beyond what Robbe-Grillet and others (Brett Easton Ellis?!) already did. At points it is just vacuously 'literary': "...the trees are losing their leaves. Silently and without explanation they shed their foliage."
Tried reading some of Cusk's early work many years ago and was deeply unimpressed. Haven't tried her again - there are too many great things to read (or re-read!) out there without subjecting yourself to stuff like this.
In the past I have read the latest nutrition books just so I would be up on what is "Now and Wow." I might skim one now, but rarely do this anymore.
I am absolutely not up to analyzing this novel, or its techniques. I am glad that you did. I will give this novel a miss. Having recently read Charles Taylor's, "The Ethics of Authenticity," I would dismiss the whole affair. Churlish, childish of me, I know ;)
Excellent reviews, captures Cusk's rather.. pretentious pointlessness very well! I think the line on families is actually very accurate though, in most parts of the world , and I would argue in the most populous parts of the world, families very much try to crush individuality. And the programming comes from the existing culture, and is carried forward from one generation to the next. Majority of marriages, for instance, in my country, are entirely decided by the family and continue to be so, even as the population gets younger and younger. And that's just one instance, since a further majority continue to live with their parents, their lives continue to be controlled.
“Words on a page do not a valuable novel make”. The comments here all accurate unfortunately, but the adage speaks to many other authors in today’s “publish anything if you think it will sell….”. market. Many authors would do well to reexamine their writing purpose, i.e. will this book have any merit beyond a single publisher’s high, or will it be something worth reading for decades to come? Too many authors today choose the former…..and their agents are in it only for the short game.
"Cusk is undeniably interesting for her narrative experiments, but my persistent feeling is that those experiments are not leading to anything, and are concealing a deeper absence of ideas" — i disliked outline for this very reason and have been unfortunately wary of cusk since. have you liked others in this vein more? i thought biography of x was quite good, and as i was just reading taiwan travelogue. i thought cusk doing the whole fake novel thing was bad timing when another just did the same so prominently.
The bit about free indirect style running backwards is what I'll take away from this. And I think it's the reason for the incoherence you point at, not a separate problem. If the voice is borrowing from outside the book, then nobody inside it is holding anything, and "sacrifice" has no one to belong to.
Which is uncomfortable to read when you write in first person. The idiom is right there, it always sounds fine, and the character quietly leaves the room.
The Victorians did it on purpose, though. Their narrator has a position you can disagree with, and a name attached. This version has the reach without the signature, which is what makes it feel like nobody is holding the sentence.
Or that's my impression, anyway. I've read Eliot but I'm no expert on the period, so tell me if I'm overstating it.
If a novelist believes that character doesn't matter why write novels? I like playful novels that are conscious of the form, but it seems very austere to think that the abolition of character in the novel is imperative because making up characters is fake and false and everything is bogus. Why carry on writing? Maybe I just miss the point of it all
I'm mature enough to think when I encounter a writer like a painter I just don't get despite the rapturous critical reactions to them the fault is with me. Middle age has changed me, when I was younger I'd declare it the artists fault. Cusk's novels fit into that condition with me. I'm sure they're as good as people say, but, I can't see it
That’s more or less why I decided to read and write about this one.
Agreed on the incoherence, and the word carrying it is sacrifice. A sacrifice needs someone who paid. The book has spent itself arguing there is nobody to send that bill to. Worth saying the pairing is common outside novels. The people most certain there is no-one inside them are often the ones keeping the most detailed account of what they gave up, and they see no tension in it. Cusk seems to have caught that and then promoted it to a position. Nobody keeps a ledger for a life they were never in.
I gave up on Cusk some time ago. I won't be trying this one.
I have also been soured on Cusk despite her great technical capacity. I think I will still read Life of M because I love gossip. But all up I think what your review is pointing to is the Cusk's ouvre is fundamentally about the avoidance of responsibility for anything she has done -- I think your line about who exactly is doing the sacrificing is insightful because she at once wants credit for this sacrifice and yet shies away from taking literally any responsibility for it. This is distinctive of the whole heteropessimistic literature. Can't have it both ways, Rachel. Alas.
It’s actually not very gossipy, so don’t get your hopes up! I so agree about avoidance of responsibility, but I haven’t read the memoirs (they just sound awful) so I didn’t want to say it outright.
the NYEr is on our beat! https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2026/08/24/life-of-m-rachel-cusk-book-review particularly picking out: “I could hardly be said to have any choice in the matter,” Cusk writes of motherhood in “A Life’s Work.” " FOR FUCK'S SAKE RACHEL DID SIMONE DE BEAUVOIR DO ALL THAT WORK FOR NOTHING
Yes indeed!
Brilliant. You nailed it Cusk’s vacuous nastiness to perfection.
Excellent review. I've just finished it and this helped me to understand my frustration with it. I would still recommend it since as you say, Cusk is worthy of this level of engagement. There are some stunning poetic passages and some finely tuned social commentary. But if you're going to dispense with character you need to have something new to say or do beyond what Robbe-Grillet and others (Brett Easton Ellis?!) already did. At points it is just vacuously 'literary': "...the trees are losing their leaves. Silently and without explanation they shed their foliage."
thanks! “without explanation” is such a perfect bit to quote
Tried reading some of Cusk's early work many years ago and was deeply unimpressed. Haven't tried her again - there are too many great things to read (or re-read!) out there without subjecting yourself to stuff like this.
In the past I have read the latest nutrition books just so I would be up on what is "Now and Wow." I might skim one now, but rarely do this anymore.
I am absolutely not up to analyzing this novel, or its techniques. I am glad that you did. I will give this novel a miss. Having recently read Charles Taylor's, "The Ethics of Authenticity," I would dismiss the whole affair. Churlish, childish of me, I know ;)
Keep thinking I should have said, "Churlish, childish of us, I know ;) It was in my mind just didn't. "Too wittle, too wate," Dorothy of Golden Girls.
I tried Outline and didn't finish it. I found it very lifeless and was left feeling puzzled as to why she is do popular.
Excellent reviews, captures Cusk's rather.. pretentious pointlessness very well! I think the line on families is actually very accurate though, in most parts of the world , and I would argue in the most populous parts of the world, families very much try to crush individuality. And the programming comes from the existing culture, and is carried forward from one generation to the next. Majority of marriages, for instance, in my country, are entirely decided by the family and continue to be so, even as the population gets younger and younger. And that's just one instance, since a further majority continue to live with their parents, their lives continue to be controlled.
“Words on a page do not a valuable novel make”. The comments here all accurate unfortunately, but the adage speaks to many other authors in today’s “publish anything if you think it will sell….”. market. Many authors would do well to reexamine their writing purpose, i.e. will this book have any merit beyond a single publisher’s high, or will it be something worth reading for decades to come? Too many authors today choose the former…..and their agents are in it only for the short game.
"Cusk is undeniably interesting for her narrative experiments, but my persistent feeling is that those experiments are not leading to anything, and are concealing a deeper absence of ideas" — i disliked outline for this very reason and have been unfortunately wary of cusk since. have you liked others in this vein more? i thought biography of x was quite good, and as i was just reading taiwan travelogue. i thought cusk doing the whole fake novel thing was bad timing when another just did the same so prominently.
Looks interesting. I will read it.
The bit about free indirect style running backwards is what I'll take away from this. And I think it's the reason for the incoherence you point at, not a separate problem. If the voice is borrowing from outside the book, then nobody inside it is holding anything, and "sacrifice" has no one to belong to.
Which is uncomfortable to read when you write in first person. The idiom is right there, it always sounds fine, and the character quietly leaves the room.
The Victorians did it on purpose, though. Their narrator has a position you can disagree with, and a name attached. This version has the reach without the signature, which is what makes it feel like nobody is holding the sentence.
Or that's my impression, anyway. I've read Eliot but I'm no expert on the period, so tell me if I'm overstating it.