Work on it

I felt furious consistently throughout the reading of the second third of Olive Kitteridge by New York Times best-selling author, Elizabeth Strout. I became extremely irked at the claim in which Strout constantly portrays through the relationships of protagonists in her novel. I feel that she perceives love as predominantly flawed, and implies that as human beings, we should settle for whatever life hands us. Despite her valid claims, I heavily disagree. I do concur that love has its flaws…nothing in life is perfect. However, Strout illustrates the relationship between the Kitteridges as well as the relationships of the people intertwined in the sole couple’s lives as cheifly dysfunctional. For example, when Henry and Olive Kitteridge discuss the trials of being parents with Bunny and Bill Newton, they reveal that their daughter, Karen, had “carried on a brief affair” then “decided… to stay in her marriage” (107). This first incidence indicates that Karen was unfaithful to her husband, which implies that she became unhappy in her current marriage. The idea of cheating on a person strikes me as quite selfish. Why lead your “partner” on and create a false sense of happiness? People become unsatisfied with their relationships, and instead of addressing the situation, they take action that allows them to settle. Further, Strout paints even the relationship between Olive and Henry as flawed. Even after the effect of the life-altering incident at the hospital had died down, the words that the couple had exchanged in that time of extreme intensity would never be forgotten. Strout indicates simply, “they would never get over that night” (124). However, instead of portraying the pair as intending to fix their problems, she portrays them settling into an unhappy relationship. I believe this is problematic, especially because Henry and Olive have acted as the pinnacle for a happy relationship throughout the book. Despite their differences, Henry “stands [Olive]” (130). But this particular instance delineates the couple accepting dysfunction. Finally, Strout maintains the trend of representing imperfect relationships through the introduction of Jane and Bob Houlton. Following the revelation of Bob’s dishonesty, Jane quickly accepts  his disloyalty. The author reveals Jane’s thought process in her forgiveness: “What did they have now…what could you do if it was not even quite that?” (139). Her assessment of the situation, I believe, is deeply distorted. Why do people feel the need to settle? When the question of “what could you do” is posed, many logical resolutions surface. I consider settling as the easy route and simply as embracing a life that you wouldn’t prefer in lieu of making it better.