I'm not done with it yet (I'm at page 210), but I'm loving it so far. I really like Cannie and find she's a fun character. The author has written her in such a way that I'm TOTALLY in her head and know where she's coming from.

I haven't been annoyed with her so much as annoyed with her mom and Tanya - but I think that's what we're supposed to feel, right? And who knows, maybe by the time I actually finish the book I'll feel differently.

GREAT summer read though!

Jaynee | August 25, 2003 02:16 PM

A fun read, though not nearly as lightweight as I was expecting. Pun intended. :-)

You've got a fascinating point about blogging and all the writing Bruce does about Cannie, Erin.... Blogs theoretically have much wider circulation than print, but in practice their readerships are usually orders of magnitude smaller. Also, blogging hadn't become much of a radar blip back in 2001 (well, 1999 or 2000, depending when Weiner did the writing - the copyright seems to be 2001). Public airing of otherwise private gripes has become almost commonplace among the blogging community--I wonder how that'll affect dating dynamics down the road. I know it hasn't done me any favors.

As for my thoughts on Cannie, I liked her. More sarcastic than is my preference in a sympathetic narrator, but that made her a much funnier, stronger character, so it fit nonetheless. This is one of those rare books that gets me to laugh out loud at parts; especially the confrontations at Fat Class.

And as for whether I ever forgot she was plus-sized, no. Being generous of tum myself, there were actually large portions of the novel that rang uncomfortably familiar. Being big is a real liability in American society, moreso for the female of the species, certainly, but I recognized very well Cannie's lonely Friday nights, her awareness of the local eateries, and her encyclopedic knowledge about all the fad diets out there.

Cannie rang very true: I never once forgot her plus-sizedness; I even gathered very early on when that fact began to change as she took her "obsessing walks" late in the book.

All in all, an engaging and fun read.

Rich | August 25, 2003 05:52 PM

I found it incredible hard to forget that she was plus-sized. It was such a large (ba DUM bum) issue - obviously critical to the plot of the story. The Fat Class meetings were laugh out loud funny.
I read this book months ago and I did enjoy it however, like Jaynee, I found myself annoyed with most of the characters in the book.
Good pick Erin - perfect for the summer!
: - )

Kate | August 25, 2003 10:44 PM

I really enjoyed this book. It is kind of like a fairytale for adult women. It's got all the right cliches thrown in and kind of turns out to be a cinderella story. You know...her prince (doctor) charming, her fairy godmother(the actress), she gets her wish (her screenplay made into a film) because of the fateful run-in with the fairy godmother. She even has the evil (well, not-so-palatable) stepmother. I would have hated this book because of all the cliches (getting pregnant from the sympathy sex, getting pushed down and almost miscarrying) but I think the adult twist at the end saved the story. I like the fact that Cannie finally grew up and realized that there are more important things than some stupid thoughtless comments that her pot-head ex-boyfriend made about her. It was nice to see her finally come to grips with everything even though she didn't really recieve any closure with any of it (her father, for instance).
Fine summer fun.

Misty | August 25, 2003 11:34 PM

Wowie. Lots of questions. Where to begin?

To start, I thought it was a good summer read. Pretty fluffy, easy reading, and a Hollywood happy ending.

In terms of blogging, I don’t think I’ve ever posted anything I wouldn’t say to another person’s face. Most people who know me well realize this, so I’m not aware of any issues between me and anyone I’ve ever blogged about. Hmm. Maybe some people have issues with me but have kept them to themselves. Or maybe they have told me, but I’m too self-absorbed to get the message. Or maybe I’m falling into the vortex of over-analysis.

I also never lost sight of her being overweight, but mostly because she reminded us of it on every other page.

Speaking of being overweight, I never believed that she was an athletic size 16. When a woman tells you she’s a 16, she’s really a 20. And she had muscles under her fat calves? Did anyone believe that line for a second?

marydell | August 26, 2003 12:33 AM

Jaynee, I’m not exactly sure what Cannie’s problem was with Tanya because she seemed to mean well. Unless, of course, it all stemmed from the fact that her mother became a lesbian and Tanya was there as an easy target.

Rich, personally, I think being big is only a liability if you let it become one. Cannie never really thought of it before Bruce’s article came out and reverted back to her natural state after getting her life back together. Despite my opinion of it being a fluffy book, I think this is an important message we’re supposed to take away from it.

Kate, I've already responded to your comment via e-mail. :p

Misty, it hadn’t even occurred to me to compare it to a fairy tale until now. With that framework in mind, the Hollywood happy ending doesn’t bother me quite as much any longer. Thanks for giving me a new way to look at it. :)

marydell | August 26, 2003 08:53 AM

I very much thought it was a fairy tale, but that didn't detract from my enjoyment.

I liked Cannie a lot, and loved her (and the writer's) voice -- enough that I bought Weiner's next book before I'd finished this one. That's not to say she was all positive. I thought she was a spoiled brat at times -- when she walked out on the poor guy who was meeting her for dinner because he didn't realize she thought it was a date. That's not his fault. Suck it up, woman.

I never forgot she was plus-size, because she never did. I disagree with Mary -- she did feel self-conscious about her weight before Bruce's article, and that's why it was so upsetting. He totally pegged her, revealed what she was thinking when she didn't know it had shown. I think she was operating on the assumption that "maybe if I'm smart and funny, I can make people forget that I'm fat," even though she never forgot it herself. That's why the ending was so strong -- she finally figured out it didn't matter in the long run.

I also disagree that you can't be fat and have muscles -- I sure as hell had some muscular calves when I did the AIDS ride, even though I didn't lose weight when I did it. Whether she was honest about her size was another question. I don't know.

As for blogging about relationship stuff -- interesting question. Some stuff I'll talk about, some stuff I won't. I'm in the weird position of being friends with my exes, though, so I'm not representative. I did actually have a similar experience to Cannie -- an ex who's gotten a lot more fit (and I've gotten more fat) since we went out posted something on his very popular message board about how icky it was dating fat girls. He wasn't talking about me specifically (he said), but it stung like hell anyway. This led to a bunch of blogging about being a fat chick, but no movie deal and no magazine column. Dammit.

Speaking of the column: That's the one part of the book that really bugged me, that I almost couldn't get past. Bruce, a stoner wastoid with no real track record, gets a column in a major national magazine? Yeah, right. There's no way in hell that would have happened, unless he was sleeping with the editor (unlikely, as I don't think Manhattan media chicks acknowledge the existence of guys from Jersey) or dealing to the editor. I don't think he had it in him. That was the one really false note I couldn't buy. Hell, I even swallowed that Minnie Driver -- oops, "Maxi Ryder" -- would bond and play fairy godmother. But a nobody like Bruce writing a column? No way.

Sarah | August 26, 2003 09:37 AM

A few years ago I discovered that an ex-girlfriend had blogged some notes about me. After being out of touch for six months, we had started corresponding, and eventually she gave my her blog's address. I was completely unfamiliar with the, umm, medium, and I acted like a complete juvenile when I saw what she'd written. It was personal, but not really anything humiliating. I think I felt a little betrayed, and also thought she was publicly reminiscing about me to sort of take control of her current relationship ... I wasn't very rational about it.

We stopped talking, and we haven't spoken since. But a few months ago I went back to her blog and searched her archives. I read all the posts leading up to and including those that I'd read the first time, and there wasn't anything exciting in there. I think she was just a little lonely, and I think she wanted me to know it had been tough for her. There were probably other motives too, but I don't think there was anything dark, and there was certainly no reason for me to act like a thirteen year old.

large | August 26, 2003 10:52 AM

I read this book at the start of the year, and I lent it to my sister so I couldn't dig it up - so forgive me if I can't go into much detail - I'll try my best.

I thought it was definitely a good read, it kept me interested and was my "book of the moment" - I enjoyed it so much I bought the next book which has Cannie cameoed in the end. But I do have to say, I felt like smacking her a few times with her weight issues - why does it always have to be about weight - I understand health wise. But I guess the emotion I felt means it was well written. I haven't written about any of my ex's on my blog, nor personal issues with DH but there will be in my book - if I ever get around to writing it - and I haven't been written about that I know of. (I think I'd like to keep it that way.) I did root for Cannie, obviously, but I felt like this book integrated many stereotypes that women fight to break, and plays on them. I do have to admit it was a great way for me to relate - but do we really need more books that do this? I ALWAYS forgot she was plus-sized. Until she went to a meeting.. I did very much relate to her - and fell in love Nifkin. The name stuck in my head for weeks.

cristina | August 26, 2003 02:45 PM

Cristina, forgive me if I'm wrong, but based on your comments I'd bet good money you're normal size. The weight doesn't go away; you feel it all the time, and you know it's the first thing most people see when they form first impressions of you.

And that, Mary is why I respectfully disagree that size is only a problem if you let it become one--in my experience there's no escaping one's physical attributes, unless one wants to live an entire life online. I've had person after person take me less than seriously because of my own girth: many see it as evidence of a lack of self-control, or of other weaknesses of character. And there're times it's difficult to refute that charge.

Good in Bed hit these bases squarely, I thought, and that's one of the reasons I liked as well as respected it.

Change of subject: per Misty, when did pregnancy from sympathy sex, or nearly miscarrying from colliding with a sink become cliché? Are these common themes in the "chick lit" genre? Wow.

I also confess to being a bit surprised at everyone's characterization of the book as "great summer reading" and "light and fluffy." Sure, it's not Dostoevsky, but we've got unwed pregnancy, we've got near-miscarriage, we've got death, psychodrama and absurdist ruminations on human nature.

Given our past discussions on the question of merit in literature, why is everyone so eager to apply labels like "light" here?

Rich | August 26, 2003 04:03 PM

Actually Rich, I was once overweight, I am 5'3" and was at 185 - I come from a family of medically obese people. I understand the issues that come with it, I grew up in LA where looks are everything. Yes, I am at normal size now - but I do have empathy. I just don't understand why it must revolve around the fact that she is overweight. I think it could have ventured out a bit more than that.

To address your comment about great summer read, I believe it was written in a way that you were able to keep up hope for Cannie, were able to keep positive for her. I enjoyed it and didn't take much to heart - I was very happy that it all worked out for her. And I've been in the majority of her situations (out of wedlock, miscarriage scares, etc).

cristina | August 26, 2003 06:02 PM

Rich, I felt that it was cliche because, yes, it is a pretty common theme in "chick lit". I started my reading career with the romance genre and those things are recurrent themes.
About the whole weight issue...it was interesting for me to see things from the over-weight perspective. I've fought all my life to gain weight. At 5'6 and only 105 lbs, I agree that physical appearance isn't something you can just make go away by having a positive attitude.

Misty | August 26, 2003 10:04 PM

Rich -
To address your "surprise" at everyone's characterization of GIB - it reads like a Lifetime movie of the week. It was entertaining.. Misty hit the nail on the head. It's a common theme in chick lit. I found myself rooting for Cannie in a few instances but, like you said "...it's not Dostoevsky" or Saramago.

Kate | August 27, 2003 04:15 PM

Meh. Show what I miss by not tuning into Lifetime. Amazing what we inure ourselves to.

:-). I still don't think Saramago was all that, but it's obvious I don't get everything everyone else does.

Rich | August 27, 2003 05:42 PM

OK, here's another question for the group: given the "light summer fare" nature of Good in Bed, its clichés and flaws, what grabbed you about the book?

For me it was the premise, and how it was realized (not knowing myself that GiB was treading hoary old chick-lit territory for large portions of its plot), letting the big girl win for once, and telling a fun tale from the "plus-sized" point of view.

I've certainly read Bridget Jones's Diary (and who hasn't), but Good in Bed was different: there was more dealing with nastiness in the past, more "beating the odds" to the story than Bridget offered, but less overtly humor-related material, too.

How does everyone else fall here?

Rich | August 27, 2003 11:19 PM

Sarah, I could have sworn that somewhere in that book I had read that Cannie was shocked at the article because her weight had never been an issue between them (right around the part where she talked about having muscles under her fat). In flipping through the book, I can’t find it now and am reminded of all the bits where she talks about weight issues prior to her relationship with Bruce. Maybe I was projecting.

You’re also right about Bruce. No way he’d ever land a gig at a popular, national magazine.

Large, I blog by the rule that I never blog anything I wouldn’t say to another person’s face. I think most people who know me know that’s true, but blogging has gotten me in trouble with people who don’t know me quite as well. Although I would have talked frankly about it and explained whatever offended the other person, some people aren’t reasonable.

Cristina, Misty, and Rich, I honestly don’t think weight always has to be an issue. I’m a big girl because I don’t eat properly and never exercise. There are probably emotional issues that have something to do with it as well. However, I accept it and like myself most of the time. Sure, I’m constantly going on and off diets and wanting to be thinner, but those are the result of wanting to improve myself and no one’s business but my own. Anyone I encounter who pre-judges me or makes assumptions because of my appearance can go jump off a bridge.

Kate and everyone else who talked about GIB’s themes as clichés are absolutely right. All you have to do is turn on Lifetime and you can catch a movie (usually starring Meredith Baxter Birney or Melissa Gilbert) about women struggling against the odds, neatly condensed and resolved in an easily digestible two-hour time frame. They are major issues in real life, but have been overexposed and exploited by chick lit and television for women.

marydell | August 28, 2003 11:05 AM

...Aaand this is one of many, many, many reasons why I don't watch Lifetime. ;-)

Rich | August 28, 2003 01:04 PM

Mary - "Anyone I encounter who pre-judges me or makes assumptions because of my appearance can go jump off a bridge."

Good for you! After having 2 kids I'm far from the "perfect bod".. and it's taken me years to accept who I am - good/bad/indifferent.

And I completely agree with the whole Lifetime theme.

Rich - "For me it was the premise, and how it was realized (not knowing myself that GiB was treading hoary old chick-lit territory for large portions of its plot), letting the big girl win for once, and telling a fun tale from the "plus-sized" point of view."
I think that is what did it for me too - I really enjoyed the fact that she "won".

cristina | August 28, 2003 04:04 PM

I don't think a person's (more so a woman's) weight should matter or has to matter, but it takes a huge effort of will for it not to. There's so much appearence-based bullshit in our culture that it's hard to get around.

Rich: I'm characterising this as "fluffy" or a "summer book" at least in part because of the fairytale/wish fulfillment aspect of it. Yes, it deals with serious issues, but there's no doubt that Cannie will, in the end, be triumphant. It's a bedtime story for grown-ups.

But that got me thinking -- does something that covers love and death and pregnancy from a woman's perspective automatically get dismissed as "chick-lit"? Jane Austen wrote, in essence, chick lit. Her heroines were plucky, they faced adversity to win love in the end. Is her stuff less important because of it?

Sorry, Rich, we may be getting into a feminist debate again....

Sarah | August 28, 2003 07:22 PM

Such a great summer choice, she has such a great, engaging writing style. I stayed up all night reading it earlier this month. I don't think the "I'm-fat" thing was overdone at all, it seems to be pretty typical of how much I and my friends obsess over the facets of our appearance that we don't like and how it's perceived by others...you definitely get over it some as you get older, but so far, it hasn't gone away ;)

The only thing that really left a sour aftertaste was that, throughout the book, Cannie's carping on instances of women needing to be saved, citing instances of women saving themselves, being their own best friends, etc., then, at the end, when she's at her lowest and literally falling apart? It takes a man to pull her out of it. I would have really liked to see her pulling herself together and coming to terms with her situation, rather than skipping the self-love actualization stufff and being rescued by her prince.

I've know plenty of people who were equally messed up -- she's obviously seriously clinically depressed -- and a hug and a nice hot shower just aren't enough to make it suddenly all better. Every single instance I've seen where they go for the hug ends up being the unhealthy relationship from hell, not the happily ever after we get in the book. It just didn't ring true.

Being able to read Weiner's blog was an extra treat, thanks to whoever originally posted that link. It's interesting to see how autobiographical the story is and to be able to read the sequel without heading for the bookstore (though I'm still planning to pick up the next book).

Gwen | August 28, 2003 08:11 PM

I think I liked the fact that she didn't get skinny-for-good at the end. The fact that she still came to terms with all the rough spots in her life and made a happy ending without having to "get skinny" was encouraging.
I have to agree with the bit about her weight not seeming to be an issue in the begining. That had me puzzled for a while. It was almost as if Weiner threw in the abusive-father-calling-her-fat thing as an afterthought. I really thought she had it together at the open of the story; that she was a successful, grounded woman in spite of (or maybe because of) her weight.
Bruce confused the heck out of me, though. I could never decide whether he wanted her or didn't, whether he thought about her and the baby (causing the strife between him and the current girlfriend) or if he was just using her as fodder for his GIB column and discarding her (as a real person) like so much chafe? I didn't think his character was very well imagined except in Cannie's remembrances of their time together.

Misty | August 29, 2003 11:25 PM

Here's my take on the weight thing -- it was always in issue with Cannie. It was always something she thought about. Bruce got that completely right in his column, that she was this vibrant, funny, fantastic person who, paradoxically, wanted to disappear. The part of herself that loved herself and all she did was at war with the part of herself that kept up the litany of "you're fat, you're ugly, no one will love you, etc." that went on in the back of her head. She was good at projecting successful, confident woman, but in her heart, she believed that being fat outweighed (sorry) everything else about her. When he wrote that column, he stripped her bare and exposed her secret life. That, as much as being called fat in the national press, was what upset her so much. That's my the other women at Fat Class were saying "How could someone dump a guy who really gets it?" She didn't want someone to "get it" - she wanted someone who thought she was beautiful and believed the outside image she projected, that she didn't care.

Misty, I agree that Bruce is the weakest character. He's the comic book villain, able to do the absolute wrong thing at the worst possible time. I don't know whether Cannie idealized her vision of him in the past, or whether he always verged toward schmuckdom. I couldn't believe that someone who had been a decent guy would just not acknowledge that he was going to be a father. But like I said, I wrote off any reality with him when he started writing a column. Not that I'm bitter about that, of course.

Sarah | August 30, 2003 11:26 AM

Sarah: you mean Jane Austen's stuff is important? (Ducks and runs...)

Seriously though, I didn't label it "chick lit." The first time I ever heard the term was when Mary used it several posts ago.

As for the lack of a "thin ever after" ending, that actually bothered me, Misty, because at the end of the day being overweight isn't okay. I'm flirting with 290 these days, so I'm not speaking without experience. In my own case, my Mom and Dad (of similar build) are enjoying their sunset years grappling with knee replacements, just-getting-out-of-bed injuries, and general rafts of pain and annoyance from a lifetime north of the "normal weight" border. Thankfully heart disease doesn't run in either one's family, or the story would be a lot sadder.

I dunno. All this oversharing just serves to make the point that portly-ever-after bothered me about as much as thin-ever-after would have Misty.

Good discussion, everyone! Great participation.

Rich | August 30, 2003 10:45 PM

Rich -- you can be a size 16 and still be healthy. It doens't sound like Cannie is obese, she's just bigger than the "norm" you see in magazines.

Sarah | August 31, 2003 01:25 PM

hey all - first, let me apologize for being a semi-absent moderator... besides archie passing away, i've been mid-packing & moving... a lovely stressful week...

getting to the point... i loved the character of cannie, loved how she was sassy during the fat classes (reminded me of being in weight watchers meetings and having wise-assed comments myself), didn't mind how she was still a bit on the chunky side at the end... i mean, she didn't seem unhealthy... what did bother me was the whole walking aimlessly through philly bit (if she was really in north philly she would have been killed)

that's all i have at the moment, have to haul stuff to storage right now... hopefully will discuss more later - thanks for reading the book and having a great discussion so far!!!

erin | August 31, 2003 01:53 PM

Hi everyone :)

My name is Kelly, and just stumbled across this blog. I loved "Good in Bed" as well as JW's newest novel, "In Her Shoes". Just thought I'd mention that I discovered yesterday that JW is alo a blogger: SnarkSpot

kelly | September 7, 2003 04:41 PM