Well worth the read; here's a teaser ...

“How long did it take for you to realize that men as a class raped women as a class?”

“‘Women are just as bad as men.’ As bad as men? Tell me, if women act the same as men, where are the bodies piled? Where are the masses of men murdered every single day by women? In what other oppression do we equate nastiness or selfishness or just plain anger with murder? Of course not all women are good! But are women honor-killing men? Are women abducting 6-year-old boys for rape? Have women built an international, multi-billion-dollar industry selling films where women gag men with their genitals, ram fists up their asses until they prolapse, shit on their bodies?” ( )

This novel is remarkable to me in so many ways.

First a confession: even after years of reading books from small presses I still carry around in my head an idea that literary publishing is like a stairway to heaven, where the most worthy books are published by the most famous literary publishers, like knofp and fsg, and that books somehow sort themselves out by literary merit from then on down to smaller presses and then to self-published books. This novel has smashed that idea forever. From now on I'm going to think of literary publishing more like a walk in the most amazing forest imaginable, where you can find perfection in every direction and in every shape and size.

Because this novel charmed me completely. It is both lyrical and intellectual. It performs the astonishing feat of chronicling the lives of three women who happen to be the same woman on three different paths, and the novel is so acutely observant, and so fair to each woman, that all three are beloved to me and equally memorable. Their lives are so unique. They have made completely different choices and yet they really did feel like the same person to me. This person is at heart a very sensitive caregiver who experiences emotions deeply and who moves forward in life with a keen understanding that each choice she makes closes some doors and opens others.

I so enjoyed reading this novel. It is tender and thought-provoking. I will be reading it again. ( )

Annemarie Monahan’s debut novel, Three, weaves itself out of an answer (or rather, three answers) to the question, “Do I dare to eat a peach?” Lest anyone be confused into initially thinking that this is a book about living life on the edge in the face of a deadly food allergy, it’s important to understand the emphasis of the question is on the word “dare” rather than “peach.” Does daring at one moment rather than another really make any difference? This book offers an insightful and introspective vision in which it does, at least in terms of the variations if not in fundamentals.

In answering the question “Do I dare?”, three women’s lives (or rather, three versions of a life) are presented with differing forms of daring, ranging from taking a chance on an old condom to contacting an ex-lover to marooning oneself on an old oil rig with a woman who thinks that dead bodies turn into mermaids once they hit the water. If any of this sounds flip, it’s not to distract from the seriousness of the book’s philosophical underpinnings. Rather, it highlights one of the greatest strengths of the book – that of being able to consider a host of serious topics (e.g., sexuality, memory, feminist separatism, medicine, etc.) and being able to distinguish what is authentic from what is absurd. Ms. Monahan’s acute insight makes for some pitch-perfect humor that is both hilarious and bitingly honest. Her deft handling of the three plot lines, developed independently and then unexpectedly merged, demonstrates the thoughtfulness of an author who is confident and competent in her craft.

It’s worth considering how the question of daring-do peach-eating is in reference to T.S. Eliot’s poem, “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock.” (Perhaps not coincidentally, “Prufrock” was Eliot’s debut work into modernist poetry.) While conspicuously lacking in a love object for a poem that calls itself a love song, “Prufrock” relentlessly asks, “And would it have been worth it, after all… / If one, settling a pillow by her head, / Should say, “That is not what I meant at all. / That is not it, at all.” This same relentless questioning drives Three. This is a satisfying and mature work owing to its constant introspection. As mentioned before, the lives presented in Three may differ in terms of the chances taken, but the struggle to know what makes a choice both worthwhile and authentic is the great unifier between all the portraits…and the reader. ( )

I’ve always loved T.S. Eliots’s "The Lovesong of J. Alfred Prufrock" for it’s yearning, rueful melancholy. So the back cover copy of Annemarie Monahan’s Three had me immediately hooked when its seventeen year old protagonist asks herself, "Do I dare to eat the peach?"

Her decision will take her on one of three very different paths. On the right we have the suburban soccer mom Kitty dealing with the deteriorating health of her dictatorial father while at the same time questioning her sexuality after twenty years of marriage. Somewhere in the middle is Katherine, a no-nonsense, unattached holistic doctor taking stock of her past relationships. And, on the far left is Antonia, a radical feminist involved with the charismatic leader of a separatist utopian community of women living on an abandoned oil rig off the coast of Connecticut.

There’s really so much to love here. Monahan’s writing is smart and insightful. The book’s unique structure - each version of the main character presented in alternating chapters, creates a nice tension and allows each storyline to slowly reveal itself in relief against the others while illuminating different aspects of them at the same time. The characters are all extremely well rendered, particularly the three incarnations of Katherine/Kitty/Antonia. Despite her living these radically different lives, the reader can always recognize her as the same person underneath it all - wry, clever and introspective.

And funny. Did I mention funny?

While the high quality of the writing was somewhat unexpected, the real surprise to be found here is the humor. Whether it’s Kitty’s swinging professor’s unforeseen proposition, Katherine’s dry responses to her thickheaded patients or Antonia versus the horde of breatharians out to sabotage the self-sufficiency of the feminist homeland, Monahan manages to skewer halfwits on both sides of the socio-political spectrum with some truly laugh-out-loud moments. All this while still presenting a work that is rich in real human emotion.

Three is that rare find, a work of literature that keeps you on your toes intellectually but also makes feel something. It certainly had me examining my own life. And ultimately what I took away from it is that no matter how one chooses to live one’s life, everyone has regrets and what ifs. Like that old Buddhist saying goes, "Wherever you go, there you are." ( )

This is an alternative look at the road not taken genre. Instead the story alternates among 3 women who may be alternatives of one woman had she taken 3 separate roads. Admittedly, it's a little confusing, but there's a quotable line or idea on almost every page. One woman, Kitty, an intellectual who is always up for new experiences, tries out sex with her boyfriend, gets pregnant so gets married and must turn her back on the college of her dreams, Fernhurst, which apparently is a lesbian paradise. The other two, Antonia and Katherine both do attend Fernhurst and make some life long relationships. Antonia's life is the most radical and bizarre. She joins a woman's separatist movement that sets up a colony in the ocean named Atlantis. She a scientist, a willing worker for the good of the community, which is started by the charismatic Josephine. This is a quote from one of Josephine's early recruitment lectures: There are those who say, 'Josephine, we've moved beyond gender. I'm not a woman, I'm a person who can't be defined by gender.' Well. Have men moved beyond gender? Are we safe yet? Do skinheads drop their tire chains if you say, I'm not black, I'm a dark-skinned human being, equal citizen of the world?...An oppressed group cannot decide to move beyond their oppression. Only the oppressor gets to decide that.
There are those who saw that separating from men is hatred. There are those who say,'Oh, not all women are good. I know terrible women. Women are just as bad as men.' As bad as men? Tell me, if women act the same as men, where are the bodies piled? Where are the masses of men murdered every single day by women? In what other oppression do we equate nastiness or selfishness or just plain anger with murder? Of course not all women are good? But are women honor-killing men? Are women abducting 6-year-old boys for rape? Have women built an international, multi-billion-dollar industry selling films where women gag men with their genitals, ram fists up their asses until they prolapse, shit on their bodies?

Strong words, and worth pondering. But as with many major revolutions, revolutionaries can make their ideal into a religion. When that happens logic goes out the window. Look to Mao's China or Stalin's USSR. What follows is misery and destruction.

Three is a very good exploration of religion, ideals, sexuality, parenting, health care, timidity, courage, and decisions. Highly recommended to anyone interested in these ideas. ( )