It’s the Good Time Book Club! What did you think of Manhunting?
It’s time to discuss our first book club choice, Jennifer Crusie’s Manhunting.
Here’s our DIK review from 1999 and here’s a readers’ guide from Crusie.
This is the first novel Crusie wrote–have you read others? How do you think this one holds up?
What did you think about the banter?
Did you like Kate and/or Jake?
Do you believe in their HEA?
What did you like best about the novel?
What didn’t you like about the novel?
And remember, while you are welcome to say anything you like about the book, try not to trash others’ perspectives.
Go!
I reread Manhunting for this discussion, and enjoyed it. The humor still worked for me after a slow start. I can’t think of any points to discuss that haven’t already been mentioned. I have read all of Crusie’s solo works that I know about, though I still haven’t read some of her collaborations. Her works aren’t among those I have reread a lot of times, with only Bet Me and Charlie All Night read 4 times. These are my humor ratings:
crusie, jennifer
sequence
strange bedpersons****
what the lady wants****
sequence
welcome to temptation****.5
faking it**.5
non-series
anyone but you****
bet me*****
charlie all night****
the cinderella deal***
crazy for you***
fast women***
getting rid of bradley****
(hot toy**.5 see santa, baby anth.)
manhunting****.5
maybe this time**.5
sizzle***
tell me lies***
trust me on this****
One thing I forgot to bring up was the whole Valerie- Will situation. I was glad Kate said something to Jake about it. Did you all think it was fair that Will got to be the “good guy” when he just ignored Valerie whenever he didn’t feel like dealing with her even if he knew she was up to destructive things or had certain expectations? And how he lived with her for three years then acted surprised that she was thinking in terms of a commitment?
Valerie was certainly an unlikeable, ruthless and manipulative person but it definitely tarnished Will in my eyes the way he publicly turned on her rather than dealing with her one on and directly when he originally understood what she was planning.
Absolutely!
I loved how clearly he got called out on it by all present.
Because of this, I thought there was potential for him to grow and get out of his comfortable groove as the good guy and the hero. He was drifting just as much as Jake, just in another way.
And of course it was partly on him how the situation with Valerie went: as far as the book told it, he was sleeping with her till the last day – so absolutely he was part of the problem, not the good guy he pretended to be.
I was actually hoping for a Will book at some point, he would have made an interesting counterpoint to Jake as a hero here.
I’d like a Will book too.
I meant to look and see if she ever did write a Will book but I guess not. I thought he was interesting as well and I definitely would have read his book. I was even thinking Jessie might show up at some point and she and Will would be sequel bait for another book.
Valerie got a bum rap here. Will needed, ages ago, to man up with their relationship. I felt as though he’d sort of taken advantage of her.
Yes, I give Crusie credit for not just writing the “evil woman” gets her comeuppance storyline. If not for the commentary by Jake and Kate and the breakup with Will it could have gone that way. I think Crusie gives these very truthful little sections mixed in the book. I’ve definitely seen men act like Will in real life and it’s gone either way relationship wise. Sometimes they half heartedly agree to something just because the woman wants it and it all falls apart later or they get out of it in that “I’m pretending I don’t know what’s going on so I can play dumb” way. Like her comment that Jake makes about women historically having to find manipulative ways to get what they want- there’s some tough ideas mixed in with the cute stuff.
I read this a month ago and there have been quite a few books in between so I’m vague on details. What I remember most besides Jake’s moustache was how friendly Kate was and how easily she fell into the rhythm of her surroundings. I don’t know if it’s my age or the sign of the times, but in the nineties when this book was first published it seemed a lot easier to make new friends and acquaintances than it does now and this book really reflected that casual aspect of the nineties. And I really connected to Kate comfortable way of making friends. The romance was a bit dated, but it didn’t hamper my enjoyment in the least. I wish Crusie was still writing because I really love her sense of humour and the unusual situations her characters find themselves. Many of her heroines seem to be on the cusp of changing their lives by choice or choosing to make the best of it after the end of a relationship which is very relatable and there is usually a dog found in some serendipitous situation. What’s not to like? Even though her heroes are a bit antiquated in their views they hold up well because they are very good men. Like I said before I wish she was still writing.
After reading Manhunting I read Welcome to Temptation and Faking It which I loved, the Goodnights are hilarious and then today I checked out Fast Women along with Bet Me because I need some laughs.
Thanks to everyone for their insightful comments.
Her website says she’s working on several books but none of them are remotely close to publication.
Manhunting is not my favorite Crusie, but I enjoyed the re-read. I liked both leads, its humor still appeals to me 10+ years after first reading, and as someone else said above, she’s a good writer who doesn’t repeat herself or waste words. So why isn’t it my favorite Crusie?
I think it’s because it was a category romance (for Silhouette or Harlequin, I believe) and needed to conform to length and possibly other restrictions. As it was her first published book, she might have written more to the publisher’s rules than she would today.
Manhunting also wasn’t my first book by her; that would be my favorite, Bet Me. Bet Me’s characters are more developed and the plot is more interesting than Manhunting’s, at least to me.
In its time (1993), Manhunting was a book I might have recommended as an excellent example to anyone who wanted to start reading romance. And depending on the person, I would still recommend it today if I thought they would enjoy the humor.
I liked Bet Me–again, I read Crusie so many years ago, I’d sort of forgotten about her. That would be a good one for a re-read.
Bet Me was the only one of her books that I really liked. The others I can admire for the writing, etc., but I don’t remember them fondly or want to go back and reread them. I think it may be that I don’t really like her characters, and that is an entirely personal reaction.
This is one of my favorite books and a comfort read, so I’ve read it a lot. (Interestingly, Getting Rid of Bradley used to be my fave/comfort read, but I feel like I outgrew that one, and this one is more mature.)
(Also, I just realized that Kate could be played by Rhea Seehorn aka Kim Wexler on Better Call Saul. They have the same look and the same sarcastic/tough attitude accompanied by a soft spot for the underdog.)
I love this book because it’s really modern in the way Jake and Kate talk through their relationship and compromise. When I read this book in the 1990s, this was kind of unusual (or unusual in the books I was reading?).
I also have to admit that Kate and her dates are really funny. My favorite date is stabbing Donald in the hand while she’s eating mashed potatoes and gravy, but covert golf is also up there.
What annoys me? Kate’s issues with Penny’s desire to be a stay at home mom being framed by Jake as sexist. This was an old 90s argument (that still goes on today), but especially back then it was really just a way to paper over the very real systemic discrimination against women in the workforce. I’ll never believe in the “choice” of doing the unpaid labor of child care/home keeping until men and women do it at similar rates of frequency.
Women at home:
I felt exactly like you.
And at the abstract general level. I still feel that way. In arguments and speeches, it is too often an excuse or a command, not a choice that is offered.
At the individual level, a change of mind snuck up on me, over a very long time.
It took observation of specific cases, and a long time, I am now with Jake. I was arrogant to push all women where I wanted to go.
I continue to fight so women are having choices, and I doubt every individual woman making the stay-at-home choice, as a default. I try to make sure girls and young women have thought things through, wherever I can, and have education and skills so they can change their mind.
But I do not expect every woman to want to work outside the home, anymore.
And I question from a softer place, when they tell me their choices.
Thanks, as it had snuck up on me, it took first Jake’s comment, and then your post to make me see my thinking had changed.
Penny does end up working, in the book, so Crusie leans in that direction in her story.
In my case, my husband worked 7 days a week and was on call all the time. I also wanted lots of children–it made sense for us for me to be the available parent. My spouse and I hammered out what that meant to us and how to protect me financially.
I grew up in a time where feminism was framed as choice–I’ve always believed men and women should be able to choose the lifestyles that work best for them.
This is such an important issue; and I don’t think we do a good job of teaching the importance of financial independence – because bad things happen when people have financial power/control over one another. It is important for everyone, but especially girls, to grow up believing that they deserve to be/need to be financially responsible for themselves (and that doesn’t mean everyone has to work – just that partners agree up front who gets what, from whatever the financial resources are). Even in the best relationships, each person should have $$ that are their own to do with as they want, no questions asked.
I highly recommend a very short but incredibly eye-opening book: How to Hide Money from Your Hu…And Other Time-Honored Ways to Build A Nest Egg: The Best Kept Secret of Marriage by Heidi Evans and Judy Sheindlin. Women all over the world, from all cultures, from one generation to the next, have passed on the importance of being financially independent to one extent or another to their daughters. But I think that education needs to be more formalized, as the book demonstrates through stories about highly-educated women in recent years, who are the family bread-winners(!), but find themselves isolated financially by manipulative partners.
It is occurring to me as I write this that perhaps that is another reason I like Manhunting more today than when I first read it: Kate is incredibly financially competent. (And so is Min, in Bet Me. And most of Crusie’s female characters are at least financially independent. No damsels in distress because men in their lives have financial power over them.)
I have often thought I could teach a course in how to be a stay at home parent safely in terms of money. It never fails to amaze me when I meet women who have no idea about the finances of their families.
I think a lot of people think of stay at home parent equaling uneducated or ill equipped. That’s just not the case anymore. And you would be surprised how many educated women don’t take any interest in the finances. I almost fall over when I hear intelligent, educated women who have been working for decades say they have to ask their husbands what to fill in on their tax forms for deductions.
I dunno–I was a stay at home mom for years and I’d definitely say it was my deeply considered choice.
I liked that Crusie acknowledged that women don’t all pursue life goals in the same way.
Yes exactly! One thing I really didn’t like about Kate at first was the way she spoke to her friend Jessie about her career- and not just because it was rude and condescending. Mostly because Jessie was quite happy with her life and Kate wasn’t and Kate couldn’t see that more money or status wasn’t making her happy yet she wanted to push it on Jessie.
I base my view on the stay at home mother issue on real women. Mainly some friends of mine, all educated women with a minimum of undergrad degrees up to some with masters and doctorates who would have loved to been able to stay home full time with their kids, or at least until they were school age. But because they and their spouses did not have the kind of income that allowed them to support the mortgage, college fund, extra curricular costs etc. on just one income, many of them had to return to work when their children were very young. Much younger than they would have liked. It’s not because they didn’t have choices or education or knowledge it’s because that relationship or relationships with their small children were the most important thing to them at that time. Plenty of them said openly they wished they had a “rich husband” and could stay home. It doesn’t make you a bad feminist to want to have that time with your kids. The truth is, while some people may find this un p.c. to say, the person who physically carries a child often has an stronger emotional bond with them. I’m not saying it’s true across the board but in general, I have found it to be true. It was heartbreaking for many female friends to bring their baby to daycare and leave it to go to work while their husbands didn’t feel the same anguish. I think real feminism is about women having any and every choice available to them without having to prove to anyone else they are making the right choice. Looking down on women who choose to stay home is as bad as people who looked down on women for not wanting to stay home IMHO.
Well said! Your last two sentences (if I may quote you) is going to be my go-to response to the idiots who criticize feminism or feminists that I come up against on a regular basis. :)
My sister is very educated and chose to stay home after years of trying to have children, there was no way in hell that she was going to leave them after what she went through, but friends and colleagues constantly moaned and criticized about her wasting her education.
Then there’s me, I took my first baby to work and carried him around in a pack and friends and colleagues were very dismissive about my choice. Thank goodness my later workplace had childcare especially when I was nursing. Later my third child spent his infant years in my office and it worked, but then my profession is babies so you’d think it would be hard to complain, but one of my partners did actually complain.
And this last thing: My best friend is a high power mover and shaker and her husband (happily) is a stay at home Dad and you wouldn’t believe the grief those two got about their choices, but they’re happy and it works. And all of us have exceptional young adults, which is truly amazing to me everyday.
Off topic but I really think children are better prepared for life when they have many role models to choose from, not just two parents. It takes a village.
Let me repeat my last sentence: “I’ll never believe in the “choice” of doing the unpaid labor of child care/home keeping until men and women do it at similar rates of frequency.”
1. I don’t see communities of men sitting around talking about how they want a big family and to stay at home and care for children.
2. Of course it makes sense for women to stay home and do the unpaid labor when men have the high-powered high-paying jobs. The issue is that it’s much more often men who have the high-paying jobs.
Thinking it over, though, it could very well be that Jake defends Penny’s “choice” because in a way, that’s the choice *he* is making (although his choice of low-paid/unpaid labor still meets gendered expectations). Now actually, that’s a bit more radical, so I am starting to like it better. :D
The big thing about making choices is that people make choices someone else is bound to dislike. In the case of stay at home mothers and wives, it bothers some people that so many women would make that choice if they could make it work financially.
“I don’t see communities of men sitting around talking about how they want a big family and to stay at home and care for children.” This is because, *gasp!* men and women, in general, tend to have different priorities in life. And yes, I said *in general.* There are always exceptions, but I believe you will find far more men who want to climb the corporate ladder than care for hearth and home, and far more women who want to care for hearth and home than climb the corporate ladder. When people have the freedom to make these choices, it would be extremely unusual for there to be a 50/50 divide between the sexes. And, moreover, why should there be?
“Of course it makes sense for women to stay home and do the unpaid labor when men have the high-powered high-paying jobs. The issue is that it’s much more often men who have the high-paying jobs.” A lot of this has to do with the kind of jobs women pursue. Most women I’ve met don’t want to bust hump in the corporate world or high pressured medical professions if they can avoid it. They tend to favor more work/life balance which steers career choices toward the flexible and less lucrative. And, of course, there are some women who fight with the best of ’em in the corporate world and rake in the big bucks for all that extra headache. More power to them.
In the 21st century, a lot of the disparities you mention really do come down to choices. Are there obstacles to these choices, such as overinflated college tuition prices and crushing levels of taxation draining every paycheck? Absolutely! But I think as Chrisreader said, there are a lot of highly schooled, high powered women who would have loved to be at home but were sadly unable to make *that* choice.
I can’t base women’s choices on men’s wants. It makes no more sense than Kate trying to tell Jessie to do something that won’t make her happy but Kate thinks is more lucrative- which to her is better.
The biological facts are women carry the children and in general (not always) feel a closer bond to the child they physically carried for 9 months. One interesting thing I have heard independently from several male friends over the years is that they they weren’t in love with their child before it was born the way their wives/partners were. They fell in love with them after they met them, held them, bonded with them. Some males do aspire to be the caretaker of the children or grow to want to be, but more women do than men. It doesn’t make it less work or less of an accomplishment.
That being said I have a few friends where the wife makes more or at one point made more, and the husband took care or takes care of the house and the kids. That also isn’t set in stone and in some families I know it switched off depending on what happened in their respective careers. And no one was “unpaid labor” in their families. They are partners and the income was shared which is what happens when everyone’s work is valued.
People wanting to take care of their kids and their home doesn’t mean everything has to revert to the dark ages.
“People wanting to take care of their kids and their home doesn’t mean everything has to revert to the dark ages.”
Beautifully stated, Chrisreader.
FYI: I’d been in the workforce about 15 years before starting a family. My husband and I planned for me to stay home with our son for some period of time before going back to work, and we were both shocked to learn that we could NOT buy a life insurance policy on me unless I was actively employed. (Our thinking was that if something happened to me and my husband was left with a child to raise, he’d need resources to pay for child care.) How’s that for a “slap in the face” to anyone staying home to raise children? And I’m not sure, almost 25 years later, if anything has changed.
I think, happily, so much has changed over the last even 5-10 years that this must not be the case anymore. But I live in a very forward thinking, educated and comparatively wealthy state which has a lot of laws that protect workers and women so sometime I forget not everything is the same across the board. For instance -we have had no preexisting conditions as part of our healthcare laws at the state level before it ever became a national issue.
I know for many, many years being the homemaker was considered the “second class” position and a lot of laws and customs reflected this. I can say a lot of things have changed, as people’s views changed, for the better.
I’ve had a life insurance policy for my whole parenting life. I think you had a crappy experience and I’m sorry to hear that. I am reminded of when I moved in with my spouse and went to the bank to add my name to the mortgage/deed. They, back in 1987, said they didn’t know how to do that. I made sure they learned.
I’m a Crusie fan and read Manhunting years ago (2006) when I first discovered Crusie’s body of work. At the time, I wasn’t particularly impressed (probably because it wasn’t the first I read, and there is much to like in her backlist). I haven’t read it since and I was curious to see what my impression would be for this exercise. Net: I liked it better this weekend than the first time. It still isn’t Crusie’s best, but for a first novel, it has all the best trademarks of Crusie’s writing: snappy dialog, and interesting characters that look and sound like people I might actually know (or would like to). (Spoilers below.)
Kate is accomplished, honest, direct and unapologetic. She enjoys her work (although not as much as she used to). She is lonely and would like to find someone to share her life with.
Jake is smart, dependable, and a good guy. He’s making ends meet, living within his means, and likes his life. But, according to the folks in town, Jake needs to get his act together, and get back to living up to his potential. He’s not interested. Yeah, he’s a little gun-shy about commitment but who wouldn’t be after a mistake? He’s got a good thing going.
I like the way these two characters sidle into their snarky acquaintance/friendship, only to realize they might be pretty good together. There is no insta-lust, and they don’t dance around the physical attraction once they figure it out. Yes, some of the details are a bit dated (facial hair is a corporate no-no?) but generally speaking, the “big conflict” issue between these two is still very relevant today. In fact, having just retired and pondering the decades of “consumerism” that went out the window with “downsizing”, I really like one of the messages here: what is “enough”? I realize the book, published in 1993 (after the go-go/make money decade of the 80s, and right at the beginning of the tech and Wall Street booms of the 90s) is something of a product of its time: stepping out of the rat race as evidence of a lack of character – especially for a man. I’m all for going for your dreams but there is something worthwhile about portraying happiness in a nice place, with good people, living within their means. It raises the possibility that Kate might “outwork” and out earn Jake. So what, as long they are both happy doing what they’re doing. Yes, Crusie caves at the last minute, giving Jake a more socially acceptable level of income at the very end before he’s willing to propose. But this book and these characters could have been written today without that last detail and it would still work for me, today.
I agree. I loved the power dynamic between the two of them. And my favorite part of the book–and this is SO rarely so–is the negotiation at the end where they say “here’s what we need to do (compromise) to make this work.”
The love story and its dynamics didn’t feel dated to me at all.
I utterly loved and reread Anyone but You and Strange Bedpersons.
This book, Getting Rid of Bradley and Charlie all Night are ok, but do not wow me.
I cannot figure out why.
I just reread Manhunting, and it is all good.
I like the dry humor of Jessie and Kate, I like how Kate and Jake just slip into love without noticing, just hanging out together, I like how Kate enjoys waitressing.
I find the men and their accidents over the top, but still just within the bounds of a funny book, so that is not my objection. The joke with Ben and losing at pool was a bit repetitive, but that is minor,
Still, no spark for me. Just ok, Solid good work, and the length makes it ok to finish. If longer, I might have started skipping. I did not truly feel either Kate or Jake. They felt cardboardy, in some way, not real.
And I cannot say why.
What I truly like with Cruise: she uses her words with care. There is no constant repetition, there is no waste on long repeated scenes. There are points made, and this is it. Like the starting conversation between Jessie and Kate. Like the choices for women argument – a few lines of dialogue, all is said, and said so well that it sticks in your mind. Like the point about confrontation or manipulation. Quick, clever, Well made. She makes me pay attention to her writing.
Btw, I did not understand that this was a singles’ resort, just a place for rich golfers that attracted a lot of men who wanted to golf and had money. So, a good place to find the type of men Kate wanted. I may have overlooked so,etching.
I tried Temptation repeatedly, and gave up after 50 pages or so, I never liked it, though I like a lot of longer Crusies, just less than the two short ones above.
Now I can post!
I just closed the page completely and opened again, and now it works. Before, I couldn’t.
I mailed you the error message screenshot, Dabney.
We’ve had a rough few days with the site. WordPress, Chrome, and Bluehost have not been playing well together. Thanks for sticking with us.
It definitely was a resort for everyone not singles, Kate mentions kids running around when she first arrives. The prosperous men and golf focus of the resort is the reason Jessie thinks Kate should go and likely the reason Penny goes as well. To meet as many guys as possible before she gets married. I think it’s mentioned the monthly luau brings out the local people (and presumably the single guys as well).
At first I wasn’t sure if I was going to like Kate or Jake. Kate was a little too much the stereotype of the “bad” successful woman who was kind of rude to her friend about her career and had given up the “morally superior” job working for the SBA. Jake was the male character who had had huge success (because you can’t have a male lead who actually only ever supervised the mowing of lawns- that’s not impressive or alpha enough) but also turned his back on the big bad world of tax law that helped finance his current lifestyle. The first day or so at the resort was kind of the same over and over Kate mentally insults everyone and hurts guys.
By the time they got to the golf game I was 100% hooked and cheering them both on. Kate besting then cheating right along with the big cheater was pretty funny. The heart attack was a little over the top but at least he didn’t die. I enjoyed how Jake always had one eye out for Kate and was more admiring than disparaging even when she was at her worst.
I thought Kate and Jake made a very fun couple. You definitely got the sense they truly enjoyed each other a lot. And for all Jake kept talking about the “Tiffany” type it was clear he didn’t think Kate was like her at all. I also enjoyed that there wasn’t a huge Deus Ex Machina ending for Kate and her job where she just became partners with Nancy and that was it. It was clear Kate was going to have to work to build up a business there and the bar would only be a part of what it would take for her to have a thriving career there. Jake’s job was a little more of a stretch but it made a decent compromise and showed he still had some “real ambition” because I knew there was no way the hero could remain the lawn supervisor/bouncer by the end of the book.
Some things I had a problem with: all the people who come to a resort for a week or so and expect or end up engaged/married by the end of it. I totally understand Kate wanting to keep her relationship with Jake going and know where he stood, but marriage demands after a week seem a little extreme to me. Likewise Penny and Matt. That was a quick swap for her from engagement to engagement. And all those guys she dated at the resort were happy just enjoying her company? OK
It was also funny how quickly dated some things were like Kate’s “French Provincial phone” and her and her friend reading the newspaper together (something seen less and less frequent now).
Overall I enjoyed it and was surprised how well it held up, particularly with Jake. Often times heroes in contemporary novels get dated pretty quickly but he was a nice, enjoyable hero (even though I am not a fan of mustaches) and there were a few times it made me chuckle.
Have you read any other Crusie, Chris?
Yes I’ve read a few of them years ago and I am sorry to say I don’t remember them well at all -which is unusual for me. I also feel like I read this one back in the day but my perspective obviously would be much different now, as I am a much older woman than I was in the 90’s when this came out. Any of hers I read were a “one and done”. But to be fair I don’t think I’ve read “Welcome to Temptation” which I think is her most acclaimed book so maybe I should give that a go.
Oh! I read that years ago and didn’t remember it. It didn’t wow me.
Actually, they’re there for 2 weeks.
You’re right, I thought of that after I hit submit, but couldn’t find a way to fix it, but my feelings still stand. It’s awfully quick IMHO to be looking for a marriage proposal,
You are supposed to be able to edit your comments for 15 minutes. Is that not working?
It could be that I don’t know what I am doing. I remember being able to edit before. What would I click on now to edit? I will try with this post.
Edited: the button definitely came up on this post. Maybe I waited too long before? I think I tried clicking on the chain icon.
It’s supposed to be an hour.
It’s gone from my comment above.
This is my first Crusie and, given that it was her first novel (right?), I thought it was reasonably good. It didn’t seem overly dated to me–although I loved the reminder that you used to have to pay for phone calls to another state–and I thought Jake and Kate and all the supporting characters were well-drawn.
It didn’t wow me–it read like a bunch of other contemporary romances–but it was fun and I do believe in their HEA. I did think it was interesting that Jake and Kate never discuss kids even though that’s what, in the beginning of the book, she says she wants. I felt as though Crusie was walking a (for the time) feminist line and trying to make the point that women’s jobs are perhaps the most important choice they can make.
Yes, I did like that Jake was the one who stuck up for women and their choices and made Kate think twice about what she was saying about women who want to be “home makers”. I think there’s a fine line in books when you try to speak realistically about women and what they want, because some women want things that aren’t “modern” or “feminist” enough for some other people. But as Jake points out the point of feminism was more choices, not less.
One note: I don’t think Kate ever expresses any desire for kids. Her friend Jessie makes a comment over the newspaper that Kate’s desire to have someone to share her life with is just Kate’s biological clock ticking. But Kate doesn’t express an opinion about kids at all. I think Penny is the only character who actively talks about wanting to have kids.
You are right about that. Thanks!