Interesting article in the paper today about a pregnant woman (Rebecca Eckler) who was living far away from the father of the baby. Eckler discussed how during the time away from the father that she basically had a "stand-in" boyfriend, though they made sure not to call it that -- and apparently, not all the benefits were involved.
Eckler moved before the baby was born, but now and again still saw the guy in a quasi-friend sort of way. It is unclear how the father, who one would think would know about the whole thing now (how not?), feels about the whole thing. After all, she said that she would have killed her boyfriend if he hung around with a cute funny woman in his free time. Then, again, he wasn't pregnant.
The article mentioned that she was the writer of a forthcoming book, Knocked Up: Confessions of a Hip Mother-to-be, but some might find that the article only told part of the story. First, though the article's tone might suggest so, Eckler was not your run of the mill sort. She covered the club scene in Canada when the unplanned pregnancy came, labeled by one review as "Canada's answer to Sex and the City author Candace Bushnell." Second, her somewhat uncomfortable "fill-in boyfriend" situation seems to fit in to her overall pregnancy existence, if we can go by the blurbs on Amazon.com:
Sometimes this mommy memoir feels like a humorous crash course in maturity, though at other points the author's attitude comes dangerously close to that of one who has a baby as a chic accessory. ... Those who see a bit of themselves in Eckler will identify with her maverick stance, but those take issue with smoking and drinking during pregnancy (she cuts down but doesn't quit) and elective C-section (she didn't want to go through labor) won't be charitable. Straddling the two camps will be the ambivalent few who feel they should be infuriated but can't help secretly admiring Eckler for admitting that she continued to smoke and drink.
The "Modern Love" (though the amount of time couples were separated in past eras, the themes in this piece had a certain timeless quality) article has a nice down to earth quality. The book sounds a bit less so, though it might appeal to its target audience. The article and book sounds like a pretty good example of choosing different tones depending on your medium.
---
On the subject of books, I found about In America's Court: How a Lawyer Who Likes To Settle Stumbled Into A Criminal Trial when its author (Thomas Geoghegan) wrote an amusingly on target Slate article on Social Security (we just don't have the energy to want to have to decide one more thing, such as what to invest in our private accounts, ownership society or no). It received some good reviews, but I found it a bit lacking.
He has an amusing and on point style, but his "stupid guy" routine as he helped a friend with a re-trial of a fifteen-year-old's case (now twenty-two, in prison those seven years) was a bit annoying. Geoghegan has some useful things to say about law and justice, and it was easy reading (small paperback, a bit over two hundred pages), but nothing special.
To be fair, this might be a result of reading some rather effusive praise about the book beforehand: maybe, I expected too much. Still, sort of a good few articles spread too thin in book form. In fact, it's closing brief for "human rights" and "international law" felt separate from the rest of the book, though the defendant's story might have been a good example why such law is so necessary.