Team Rachel or team main protagonist?

[kdstrack]

I found myself siding with Rachel. Since the story was presented from the husband's viewpoint, the reader only gets one side of the story. The men realized that they needed time to get away and unwind but didn't empathize that their wives might enjoy the same type of getaway. This is just so typical of why marriages fail. "All for me and none for thee."

[Vivian Paschal]

It's a good question. I agree that Rachel came across as unsympathetic, but she was clearly unhappy about something. I could really see both sides. The author was super-stressed out, clearly. He was burning the candle at both ends. At the same time, if he never enabled his wife to have time off, I can see how she'd begin to resent that. Stay-at-home moms work hard, too, just in a different way. It can be very exhausting constantly being the caretaker of the kids and never getting a break.

My ex used to take time off for long man-weekends. I didn't mind. I was supportive of that. But then when I needed a break from five kids, the last two barely 12 months apart, he refused to help make that happen. It's not why we got divorced, but his selfishness was.

This, I can understand. Perhaps if we were let into her mind as much as we were let into the protagonist's, we would understand where she was coming from. It's easy to see a person as selfish if we don't get their own full picture and easy to see someone as a victim of another's selfishness when we see their single story.

[NetMassimo]

We read about her from the narrator's point of view, and we can't be sure that he's a reliable narrator. That said, both of them seem to me to have some fault. If husband and wife are properly committed to their relationship, they should communicate much better than the narrator and Rachel and invest on their marriage supporting each other.

[ciecheesemeister]

While the main character seemed like a genuinely good guy and Rachel seemed to be a bitter and angry person, I think that neither of them did a very good job of communicating the frustrations that were eating away at their relationship. Also, if he gets to go on a yearly trip with his friends, she should get to go on a yearly trip with her friends.

[ciecheesemeister]

We read about her from the narrator's point of view, and we can't be sure that he's a reliable narrator. That said, both of them seem to me to have some fault. If husband and wife are properly committed to their relationship, they should communicate much better than the narrator and Rachel and invest on their marriage supporting each other.

Exactly! Very well said.

[Erick Muyesu]

When one partner finds him/ herself opposing what his/her better half loves, tension is bound to born between them. This is what kills the relationship in the long run. Rachel should have considered what would have made the main character happy and everything would have been fine between them.

[Paige Alvarado]

It's a good question. I agree that Rachel came across as unsympathetic, but she was clearly unhappy about something. I could really see both sides. The author was super-stressed out, clearly. He was burning the candle at both ends. At the same time, if he never enabled his wife to have time off, I can see how she'd begin to resent that. Stay-at-home moms work hard, too, just in a different way. It can be very exhausting constantly being the caretaker of the kids and never getting a break.

My ex used to take time off for long man-weekends. I didn't mind. I was supportive of that. But then when I needed a break from five kids, the last two barely 12 months apart, he refused to help make that happen. It's not why we got divorced, but his selfishness was.

I agree. I felt that Rachel didn't get any time to herself (apart from somehow going to the gym during the day with 3 kids in tow). If he is always getting his time away, why shouldn't she?

I stay home with my 2 babies, 20 months apart, and my husband works super hard. But neither of us really get "time off". I couldn't imagine him working 11 hour days and then leaving for a week to vacation without me.

[djr6090]

To be fair, I am married with young kids too, and I would never in a million years let my husband take annual trips to exotic places without me, especially if he came back injured from the first one! That said, there were definitely lots of issues with their marriage aside from that, which I'm sure they both contributed to. I wonder if our look at her is skewed because we are viewing her through the lens of her ex-husband though. It would be interesting to read her version of the story.

I agree with you, here. I found the protagonist to be narcissistic, and his wife in need of a vacation herself. Really now...leaving your wife alone with twins to take care of? And to resent her for being tired? I have to land in camp Rachael.

[DorcasToo]

I think the two were just incompatible. Rachel wanted a man who will always be there for her not a risker who wants to do the most daring things in life. On the other hand, the author wants to live his life as a man feeding his adrenaline. So they just had no middle point, just drafting apart even more.

[unamilagra]

It's a good question. I agree that Rachel came across as unsympathetic, but she was clearly unhappy about something. I could really see both sides. The author was super-stressed out, clearly. He was burning the candle at both ends. At the same time, if he never enabled his wife to have time off, I can see how she'd begin to resent that. Stay-at-home moms work hard, too, just in a different way. It can be very exhausting constantly being the caretaker of the kids and never getting a break.

My ex used to take time off for long man-weekends. I didn't mind. I was supportive of that. But then when I needed a break from five kids, the last two barely 12 months apart, he refused to help make that happen. It's not why we got divorced, but his selfishness was.

I agree. I felt that Rachel didn't get any time to herself (apart from somehow going to the gym during the day with 3 kids in tow). If he is always getting his time away, why shouldn't she?

I stay home with my 2 babies, 20 months apart, and my husband works super hard. But neither of us really get "time off". I couldn't imagine him working 11 hour days and then leaving for a week to vacation without me.

I totally agree with you. My husband works while I stay home with our kids, and there is no way I would let him go somewhere like these man mission locations without me. Yes, we have different kinds of work, but I need a break just as much as he does.

[Paige Alvarado]

Yes! We have a lot in common.

[Frannie Annie]

Honestly, I didn't like either one of them for most of the book. Rachel was nagging, and never took the author's happiness into account, even on the few times that he tried to communicate his feelings toward her. I don't blame her for being cheated on, but I do blame her partially for the marriage falling apart. Granted, Girl's Nights were never mentioned, but she did take the time every week to go to the gym and get her nails done. I can't believe she exploded on him for a bike ride and I think she is utterly insane for expecting her husband to work his butt off and not get any time to do the things that nourish him. As far as dangerous trips are concerned, she should have at least suggested less dangerous trips, and he should have been open to the idea instead of treating it like he was "emasculated."

The author, for his part, acted like a complete idiot. He knew he was dying inside and did nothing to stop it because "good men" sacrifice themselves for their family. I think that was his biggest flaw in the marriage, that he didn't stop to think about what he wanted before hurling into major commitments. And once he was in those commitments, he never tried to acknowledge his own needs outside of his Man Mission trips. I think his childish behavior was him subconsciously trying to look out for himself, but a real man would have stood up for himself and accepted the consequences. As a whole, I never respected this person as a man because he never stood up for himself. He didn't try to change and become more fulfilled until life fell apart and "gave him permission." He eventually acknowledges that he is in control of his choices, but it falls flat because he was too thick to realize it until his life was in shambles. I still think he is a coward because he didn't have the guts to face up to the truth until Rachel left him.

Daniel, on the other hand, handled similar issues in a better way. He seemed more upfront with himself and talked things over with Pamela instead of constantly running away and cheating. This is what the author should have done, and it never happened. Pamela, for her part, was more supportive than Rachel ever would be.

[Frannie Annie]

While the main character seemed like a genuinely good guy and Rachel seemed to be a bitter and angry person, I think that neither of them did a very good job of communicating the frustrations that were eating away at their relationship. Also, if he gets to go on a yearly trip with his friends, she should get to go on a yearly trip with her friends.

I was also wondering if Rachel got any yearly trips. But the author never mentioned that she asked for that, and it seems significant enough that he probably would have put it in the book if she did. It seems to me that she never wanted to travel in the first place.

[Frannie Annie]

Oops...I just realized that the author is probably not the protagonist in the book. I could have sworn I saw it under the "nonfiction" category but now I'm not sure. Sorry guys

[Magnify3]

I can not pick a team. It is true that Rachael was unsupportive. If she really wanted her marriage to work, she could have initiated something to make her marriage sparkle. The protagonist could have taken Mr Takeda's advice and tried to talk to his wife. They both had problems.