Rich Text

Last month marked the 30th anniversary of the iconic comedy "The First Wives Club." And as two ladies who are now at a stage of life that Elise Eliot might term "district attorney," we jumped at the opportunity to discuss the film's zany plot, stacked cast, and hilarious but poignant exploration of divorce, ageism, male entitlement, and women's empowerment.
When the movie opens, three college friends, played by Bette Midler, Goldie Hawn and Diane Keaton, are reunited following the public divorce and suicide of the fourth pal in their old clique. Elise (Hawn) has had a storied Hollywood career; Annie (Keaton) lives a comfortable upper-middle-class life and has a loving daughter; Brenda (Midler) helped her husband Morty build a discount electronics store empire and is planning her son's long-awaited bar mitzvah. But they quickly learn that all of their lives have gone wrong in the same humiliating way: their husbands have left them for much younger women. Now in their mid-forties, the women have been left with floundering or nonexistent careers, perceived as disposable by their industries and their selfish spouses. They decide to band together and seek revenge – no, justice. What follows is a madcap romp that, for all its storytelling flaws, is so viciously funny and so masterfully acted that it became an immediate box office hit and remains a beloved classic.
The film's popularity also reflects how deeply it spoke to its (predominantly female) audience in its depiction of ageism, the stigma of divorce, and the financially devastating consequences of women sacrificing their careers for their husbands. Sure, it's not a gritty examination of what divorce really looks like for the average woman. Like Belle Burden's recent memoir, "Strangers" – but much, much funnier – "The First Wives Club" mingles aspirational lifestyle porn with a dark warning: if even these affluent, well-heeled women aren't safe from the financial and personal embarrassment that comes with divorce, what woman is? Thankfully, we can all find some hope in sisterhood, as these three iconic characters do.
In this episode, we discuss the film's background and reception, recap the entire movie (and perhaps quote a little too liberally from it – how could we resist?), and discuss the film's multifaceted depiction of divorce and ageism, fatphobia, queerness, witches, the Trumps, the financial exploitation of housewives, and the sexualization and desexualization of women in midlife. Hope you enjoy!
Reading list:
"Hollywood's Best Revenge," by Kim Masters, Time
"‘Club’ Draws Strength From Its Members," by Kenneth Turan, Los Angeles Times 
"The Ladies Who Lunge," by Richard Corliss, Time
"Taking Action Is Best Revenge for First Wives," by Lynn Smith, Los Angeles Times
"Make Way for 40-Plus ‘Club’" by Claudia Puig, Los Angeles Times
"The First Wives Club," by Roger Ebert
"Love's Revenge, Or, Spite Is A Many-Splendored Thing," by Janet Maslin, New York Times
"The Story Behind the Iconic Casting of ‘The First Wives Club’," by Mitchell Sunderland, Vice
"Goldie Hawn says she was ‘irate’ over initial ‘First Wives Club’ script: ‘It was very male bashing’," by Eric Todisco, New York Post
"Heather Locklear says James Naughton not at fault for ‘gross’ moment," by Leah Bitsky, Page Six
Share Rich TextIf you liked reading this, click the ❤️ button on this post so more people can discover it on Patreon!
Give us feedback or suggest a topic for the pod • Subscribe • Request a free subscription

A new Rachel Cusk novel is an international event. Her Outline trilogy became the kind of breakthrough hit that few novelists (especially writers of austere autofiction) can ever hope to attain. But what could make the latest novel from such a literary rockstar even more buzzy? Well, a little celebrity scandal couldn't hurt!
Over the summer, reports began to circulate that Cusk's new novel, "Life of M," would be about A-list movie star Natalie Portman – and that the novel, based on their personal friendship, was so unflattering that Portman felt personally betrayed by it. The scandal blossomed before the book even hit bookstore shelves. Was Cusk a monster for stabbing her friend in the back for book sales? Was Portman an idiot for agreeing to the project to begin with?
When the book did come out, one month ago, it complicated this narrative of the cunning, vicious writer and the beautiful fool. "Life of M" does attempt to imagine the inner life of a movie star, M, who is inarguably, identifiably Natalie Portman. But it is, perhaps even to its detriment, quite clear that M is merely a vessel for the narrator's own identity crisis. The two character barely even know each other (much like, presumably, Cusk and Portman). Instead of faithfully exploring M's inner life as gleaned from a real intimate knowledge, the novel uses M as a representation of pure, distilled celebrity, as the narrator meditates on how fame, and the violence of being perceived, drive us toward alienation and living death.
In this episode, we look back on the original scandal and how it took shape, consider the critical reaction to the novel, and discuss our own thoughts on the novel and its flaws, strengths, and overarching themes. We dig into Cusk's fraught relationships with gender, cruelty, motherhood and fame, and her apparent desire to move past narrative to the relative permanence of objects. (Richly embroidered curtains, it's time for your close-up!)
Hope you enjoy! xo
Reading List:
"Life of M," by Rachel Cusk
"A novelist’s dark portrait of Natalie Portman" by Valerie Stivers, UnHerd
"Natalie Portman, her novelist friend and a literary assassination" by Leaf Arbuthnot, The Telegraph
"How a Highbrow Novel Became Celebrity Gossip" by Alexandra Alter, New York Times
“Rachel Cusk Tried to Caricature Natalie Portman. She Only Caricatured Herself” by Parul Sehgal, New York Times Magazine
“Can Celebrities Be People, Too? In a New Novel, Rachel Cusk Isn’t Sure” by Alexandra Jacobs, New York Times
“Proust Is in the Room” by Emily Witt, London Review of Books
“Rachel Cusk’s Protest Against Personhood” by Becca Rothfeld, The New Yorker
“Is Rachel Cusk’s Life of M Actually About Natalie Portman?” by Laura Miller, Slate
“Why genre matters” by Colton Valentine, The Drift
"Against ‘Women’s Writing’" by Andrea Long Chu, Vulture
Share Rich TextIf you liked reading this, click the ❤️ button on this post so more people can discover it on Patreon!
Give us feedback or suggest a topic for the pod • Subscribe • Request a free subscription

This week on the podcast, we were ready to let loose and have a little fun. After a few relatively heavy topics, it was time to get back to the important business of frivolous television.
In this episode, we chat about three TV shows we've binged in the past month: The Alix Earle reality series "Earle Meets World," a fascinatingly vacuous reality show about making brand content; the mediocre but serviceable YA romance "Crew Girl"; and the luminous, irresistible romantic drama "Sterling Point."
All three shows are, in some spiritual sense, the offspring of millennial pop culture that shaped our generation. "Earle Meets World" is a rather limp attempt at recapturing the "Keeping Up With the Kardashians" magic, while "Crew Girl" and "Sterling Point" both reflect a renewed demand for WB-style romantic teen soaps. But are they worth watching?
First, we discuss "Earle Meets World," starting with Alix Earle as a cultural figure – a relatable hot-girl influencer who has now become a reality TV protagonist – and our general reaction to the show. (Overwhelmingly, boredom.) We discuss how the familial drama of the show, which stars not just Earle but her entire immediate family, is sublimated into professional grievances and assertions of workplace hierarchy, and we also look at how the entire show functions as brand management for Earle – at the expense of any real vulnerability or narrative excitement.
Then, we discuss the current state of the teen soap renaissance. With "Crew Girl" and "Sterling Point" added to the growing pile of WB-esque YA romance series coming out on streaming platforms (especially Prime), we wanted to dig into why these shows dwindled in number, why they're having a resurgence, and what need they fill for audiences today. We chat about the class, race, and sexuality politics of these shows, as well as how they portray coming-of-age experience through those all-important love triangles. We also have a little fun breaking down the more absurd details of "Crew Girl," before turning our attention to the best show we cover in this episode: "Sterling Point." We talk about what made this show so winning to us, and dig into its melodramatic but resonant exploration of daughterhood, sisterhood, and what it means to be a family.
Hope you enjoy! xo
Share Rich TextIf you liked reading this, click the ❤️ button on this post so more people can discover it on Patreon!
Give us feedback or suggest a topic for the pod • Subscribe • Request a free subscription

CW: Though we will be discussing the Lindsay Clancy case only in broad strokes in this episode, this events are extremely disturbing, and we will be referencing child murder and severe mental illness. If you choose to listen, please do so with care.
Last week, following a month of wall-to-wall media coverage and feverish social media discourse, the murder trial of Lindsay Clancy ended in a mistrial. Clancy was charged in the deaths of her three young children; her defense team did not contest that she had committed the acts, but argued that she was not guilty by reason of insanity. Her trial became a site of consciousness-raising around the terrifying condition of postpartum psychosis, from which Clancy and her team claim she suffered, but also wild conspiracy theorizing. The debate over one woman's culpability also metastasized into a debate about the validity of postpartum mental health diagnoses, the perceived crimes of feminism, and whether women should be stripped of the vote.
To be honest, neither of us wanted to pay close attention to the trial or the social media firestorm around it. The killings were horrific; the suffering of the children, and now their family and loved ones, is agonizing to contemplate. But as the discourse heated up and quickly grew politicized, we began to feel that we could not look away. Ignoring a massive news story that has not only exemplified most of the toxic tendencies of our current media and social media ecosystems, but has fueled a disturbing movement to strip women of our civil rights, seemed impossible. That's why we eventually decided to discuss the Lindsay Clancy case here: Not to dig into the details of the investigation or the trial, but to examine the public conversation that has raged around it.
In this episode, we discuss the salacious true-crime fascination that immediately surrounded the case, how social media algorithms fuel this fascination and incentivize creators to grow or monetize their brands by making content around it, and how conspiracy theories and fake news spread rapidly in our fractured media ecosystem. We also discuss how many women related to what they learned about Lindsay Clancy's postpartum mental health struggles and her repeated attempts to get the right help – and we discuss why this specific white, affluent, educated mother has garnered widespread empathy and support, while others charged with similar crimes have not. We also get into how politicized this discourse has become, as right-wing hacks have taken it as an opportunity to argue for the repeal of the 19th Amendment.
Below, for reference, is a selection of the reading we did prior to taping this episode.
If you choose to listen to this episode, we hope it helps you process the upsetting state of the public frenzy around the trial, just as it helped us to talk it through together.
Reference List:
"The Women Obsessed With Lindsay Clancy," by Stephanie McCrummen, The Atlantic
"Why People Want To Believe The Lindsay Clancy Conspiracy Theories," by Jessica Winter, The New Yorker
"The Patrick Clancy Conspiracy Theories Are Rooted in the Harsh Realities of Motherhood," by EJ Dickson, Wired
"What If Doctors Missed My Postpartum Psychosis, Too?" by Erica Schwiegershausen, The Cut
"The Lindsay Clancy Conspiracy Spiral," by Eren Orbey, The New Yorker
"Lindsay Clancy admits to killing their children. So why is there an online groundswell blaming her ex-husband?" by Rebekah Riess, CNN
"How ‘forensic fandom’ in Lindsay Clancy trial threaten postpartum psychosis awareness," by Christopher Mathias, The Guardian
"Not Skinny But Not Fat Podcaster Responds to Backlash for ‘Grossly Inappropriate’ Betting Ad About Lindsay Clancy Trial," by Toria Sheffield, People
"The Meaning of the Lindsay Clancy Mistrial," by Elizabeth Bruenig, The Atlantic
"Lindsay Clancy's case is a Rorschach test," by Moira Donegan, The Guardian
"I Understand Why a Jury Could Not Convict Lindsay Clancy," by Jessica Grose, The New York Times
"The Real Stakes of the Lindsay Clancy Gender War," by Jessica Valenti, Abortion, Every Day
"The Lindsay Clancy Fan Club," by Caitlin Flanagan, The Free Press
"The Lindsay Clancy Trial Is Sparking a Political Divide on the Right," by Nikki McCann Ramirez, Rolling Stone
"Lindsay Clancy Truthers Are The Best Argument For Repealing The 19th Amendment," by Rebeka Zeljko, The Federalist
"Lindsay Clancy Democrats," by Ann Coulter
"Feminism should also be on trial in the Lindsay Clancy case," by J.P. De Gance, Washington Examiner
Share Rich TextIf you liked reading this, click the ❤️ button on this post so more people can discover it on Patreon!
Give us feedback or suggest a topic for the pod • Subscribe • Request a free subscription

In honor of the "Love Island" USA season 8 reunion, we are making our July episode featuring Anna Peele, author of "Enter the Villa: The (Unauthorized) Reality Behind 'Love Island,'" free for all Rich Text subscribers.
By the beginning of July, I have entered my now-annual "Love Island" fugue state. I fall asleep watching new episodes, and I wake up and immediately reach for my phone to scroll social media reactions. I try to recap the major plot points to my husband, who is usually baffled by the onslaught of details and my feverish emotional state. It's all I know how to think about about at the moment. So I was thrilled to get a chance this week to chat with, Anna Peele, contributing editor at Vanity Fair and the author of "Enter the Villa: The (Unauthorized) Reality Behind 'Love Island.'"
As a relative newbie to the "Love Island" universe, I'm always looking for more insight about the show's history, influences, and impact, and Peele's deeply researched and reported book is the motherlode. She analyzes the show's forerunners and how executives put together the show that has evolved into an international mega-franchise, and breaks down that franchise's rocky introduction to the American market. She offers insight into how producers actually shape – or don't shape – storylines and character arcs, and into how contestants perceived their experiences.
In our conversation, we discuss the evolution of the "Love Island" format, what made it tricky to bring to America and how it contrasts with "The Bachelor," the significance of the show's hosts and inimitable narrator Iain Stirling, how contestants experience being in the bubble of the show's set, our takes on the most recent "Love Island" USA seasons, and much more.
Hope you enjoy! xo
Share Rich TextIf you liked reading this, click the ❤️ button on this post so more people can discover it on Patreon!
Give us feedback or suggest a topic for the pod • Subscribe • Request a free subscription