QotNews Hacker News, Reddit, Lobsters, and Tildes articles rendered in reader mode.
What's Missing from Belle Burden's "Strangers" – One of the biggest books of the year weaves a tale of financial peril—but a review of court documents complicates the narrative
None of this is particularly surprising having read the book. There is something about it that read very emotionally dishonest to me. There is a particular moment when she describes her complete anguish at the idea of (not the actual, real threat but just the concept that this could even happen) of having to be the divorcing partner that would be forced to reapply at the exclusive summer club that lost me. I read the remaining financial threats surrounding the divorce in the same light — not actual realistically possible outcomes but far flung ideas that she latched onto and fixated on.
Wow. So glad I let my hold on this lapse without reading because I’m a lowly poor person currently going through a divorce that had a huge ripple effect/erosion on mutual friendship and my sense of community; that would have been INFURIATING to read about.
If you can get past the immense privilege, it could be a worthwhile read in terms of delving into that exact erosion of friendship and sense of community (if that’s what you’re looking for). The anguish over the tennis club is actually specifically in that context; she’s facing the prospect that her husband will essentially cut her off from her and her children’s primary community and social lifeline during Covid and the divorce. There’s much more to it than the above commenter gives credit for. Much of the book relates to how others in her life respond to the divorce, how it impacts her relationships and also her sense of self.
Obviously, her perspective is massively privileged. I don’t think she is quite conscious enough of that or really engages in meaningful reflection on how it’s shaped her life (and maybe that would be beside the point of the book), though she pays lip service to it several times. It’s a frustrating read in a few different ways, and I wish it went deeper into certain elements of the relationship, but it has a genuine emotional core. It’s possible it would just leave you feeling pissed off, but it might be worth giving it a read.
I felt this way reading Anna Marie Tendler’s book after she divorced John Mulaney. There was a whole dimension of privilege that she didn’t acknowledge at all, the fact that her settlement made parts of her life possible that would be inaccessible to most people.
She was able to renovate and redecorate a huge house, didn’t need a day job and wrote about her rich ex before John “making” her pay him back by giving him haircuts like it was oppression.
I don’t know. I don’t really buy that she’s going to lose her community. She lives in exceedingly rarified circles with a major lineage. If anyone would get dumped in those circles, it would be the husband. I wonder if her NYT article and book are for revenge or to preempt the narrative. I haven’t read the book but read the original NYT article. It gave off real vibes of missing reasons.
I will also say that I don’t believe in the least that she’s naive and foolish. She was a lawyer and is also an heiress. Families like that usually have their own financial advisor and set up appointments for their children with those financial advisers as the children become independent adults. I am also curious as to what these larger purchases were that she made and which she said she had to hide from her tight-fisted then-husband. Tons of missing info, it sounds like.
It’s possible. I think one can recognize that the reader is getting an entirely one-sided narrative while also appreciating elements of the book. There is a lot to question in the book, certainly. There may be missing reasons, and there are also plenty of men (and plenty of people in general) who cheat and leave their spouses and families in horrible ways. No one has yet challenged the assertion that the husband has never spent an overnight with any of his kids since he left them during Covid, for example.
The ex-husband hasn’t spoken publicly. Given Burden’s influential friends and her now massive platform, it is most likely a wise decision to not add fuel to the fire on his part. If someone lies or misleads about the central narrative of the book, one can justifiably look askance at the rest of the book. It wouldn’t be the first time that someone lied about their marriage and divorce. Also, both men and women are capable of having affairs.
I read it and took it the opposite - people of immense privilege have the same problems we do. We don’t have expensive club memberships to worry about but it’s really about maintaining lifestyle for you and your kids, about trying to keep things in your control the same.
I think it’s sad how so many people see money and that’s all they focus on.
They can only view this woman through the lens of the amount of money she has. The book isn’t about money, it’s about feelings and life experiences that everyone/anyone can experience.
Exactly. I’m not in the habit of feeling sorry for the rich, but I’m also not going to withhold sympathy because of money. The story is about your life blowing up and her trusts don’t change that.
Poor person going through a divorce. I loved the book.
She discussed her privilege, acknowledged it and discussed how she was guilty of being able to just turn away from hard complex thoughts and assume everything would be ok, and how seemingly attractive it was to her husband. The club was part of a discussion about how her husband cheated and left her, but SHE was the social pariah, and she discussed how some people were very kind and some people were happy to side with him and treat her like an embarrassment.
I can see people not being able to stomach the wealth aspect, but I found Burden to be an interesting, self aware character going through something money doesn’t protect you from.
This book kinda made me mad, tbh. She seemed willfully ignorant about the finances (you’re a lawyer and you have no idea your husband might be making millions of dollars working in hedge funds???)
She also missed some glaring red flags and never even makes note of them when retelling the story, like how she and her husband worked together for quite awhile and then he suddenly becomes interested in her romantically after realizing she’s an heiress from a newspaper article.
I finished the book hoping at some point she’d develop more self awareness or something, but no
This is exactly why I won’t read the book. I appreciate the sentiment to not rely on a man, but watching a rich person cry poverty is incredibly tone deaf in a time when most people are struggling to even keep a roof over their heads and put gas in their car.
I read the book and this New Yorker article and I am a bit confused by the article. I never got the idea that Burden would be financially ruined by her divorce from the text of the memoir. It wasn't framed as "we'd be poor" but more of "I made stupid decisions with my pre-nup and this is evidently unfair." I'm not a fan of the ultra wealthy as a concept but I don't think they are disqualified from having or sharing perspectives. And I do worry that the response would not be the same if the genders were flipped in this situation.
Chelsea Flanagan of The Financial Diet did a good commentary of the book. I don't think this article contradicts the book itself, she was never going to be broke. It's all rich people problems all the way but It's still important to note that she did make a series of terrible financial decisions the first of them was signing that ridiculous prenup.
Information about Belle Burden's probable access to more money than she specifies in her story doesn't change my positive feelings about her book or my sympathy for her.
With recognition that she wasn't in danger of ending up on the street: it's nonetheless a story of a woman who was committed to what she thought was a secure marriage and family life, whose now-wealthy husband, a) in the process of an abruptly announced plan to divorce her b) is ready to generate additional stress on the family when he pushes to get her to buy him out of their home and their country home, both of which she had bought with her own money, but registered as his-and-hers.
So emotionally it's this: no matter which of them is richer, he unquestionably has more than enough money and earning power, he's checking out on the family, he knows his wife and kids had zero expectation of this, AND he's down with a move to take away their home.
mousehouse987 | 6 hours ago
None of this is particularly surprising having read the book. There is something about it that read very emotionally dishonest to me. There is a particular moment when she describes her complete anguish at the idea of (not the actual, real threat but just the concept that this could even happen) of having to be the divorcing partner that would be forced to reapply at the exclusive summer club that lost me. I read the remaining financial threats surrounding the divorce in the same light — not actual realistically possible outcomes but far flung ideas that she latched onto and fixated on.
drawingtreelines | 5 hours ago
Wow. So glad I let my hold on this lapse without reading because I’m a lowly poor person currently going through a divorce that had a huge ripple effect/erosion on mutual friendship and my sense of community; that would have been INFURIATING to read about.
adieumarlene | 4 hours ago
If you can get past the immense privilege, it could be a worthwhile read in terms of delving into that exact erosion of friendship and sense of community (if that’s what you’re looking for). The anguish over the tennis club is actually specifically in that context; she’s facing the prospect that her husband will essentially cut her off from her and her children’s primary community and social lifeline during Covid and the divorce. There’s much more to it than the above commenter gives credit for. Much of the book relates to how others in her life respond to the divorce, how it impacts her relationships and also her sense of self.
Obviously, her perspective is massively privileged. I don’t think she is quite conscious enough of that or really engages in meaningful reflection on how it’s shaped her life (and maybe that would be beside the point of the book), though she pays lip service to it several times. It’s a frustrating read in a few different ways, and I wish it went deeper into certain elements of the relationship, but it has a genuine emotional core. It’s possible it would just leave you feeling pissed off, but it might be worth giving it a read.
thediverswife | 3 hours ago
I felt this way reading Anna Marie Tendler’s book after she divorced John Mulaney. There was a whole dimension of privilege that she didn’t acknowledge at all, the fact that her settlement made parts of her life possible that would be inaccessible to most people.
She was able to renovate and redecorate a huge house, didn’t need a day job and wrote about her rich ex before John “making” her pay him back by giving him haircuts like it was oppression.
throw20190820202020 | an hour ago
Just commented similar but you put it so much better than I did, completely agree!
Easy-Concentrate2636 | 3 hours ago
I don’t know. I don’t really buy that she’s going to lose her community. She lives in exceedingly rarified circles with a major lineage. If anyone would get dumped in those circles, it would be the husband. I wonder if her NYT article and book are for revenge or to preempt the narrative. I haven’t read the book but read the original NYT article. It gave off real vibes of missing reasons.
I will also say that I don’t believe in the least that she’s naive and foolish. She was a lawyer and is also an heiress. Families like that usually have their own financial advisor and set up appointments for their children with those financial advisers as the children become independent adults. I am also curious as to what these larger purchases were that she made and which she said she had to hide from her tight-fisted then-husband. Tons of missing info, it sounds like.
adieumarlene | 2 hours ago
It’s possible. I think one can recognize that the reader is getting an entirely one-sided narrative while also appreciating elements of the book. There is a lot to question in the book, certainly. There may be missing reasons, and there are also plenty of men (and plenty of people in general) who cheat and leave their spouses and families in horrible ways. No one has yet challenged the assertion that the husband has never spent an overnight with any of his kids since he left them during Covid, for example.
Easy-Concentrate2636 | 2 hours ago
The ex-husband hasn’t spoken publicly. Given Burden’s influential friends and her now massive platform, it is most likely a wise decision to not add fuel to the fire on his part. If someone lies or misleads about the central narrative of the book, one can justifiably look askance at the rest of the book. It wouldn’t be the first time that someone lied about their marriage and divorce. Also, both men and women are capable of having affairs.
herroyalsadness | 2 hours ago
I read it and took it the opposite - people of immense privilege have the same problems we do. We don’t have expensive club memberships to worry about but it’s really about maintaining lifestyle for you and your kids, about trying to keep things in your control the same.
Itwasdewey | 2 hours ago
I think it’s sad how so many people see money and that’s all they focus on.
They can only view this woman through the lens of the amount of money she has. The book isn’t about money, it’s about feelings and life experiences that everyone/anyone can experience.
herroyalsadness | an hour ago
Exactly. I’m not in the habit of feeling sorry for the rich, but I’m also not going to withhold sympathy because of money. The story is about your life blowing up and her trusts don’t change that.
InvisibleEar | an hour ago
If you don't understand why people hate all rich people you might be out of touch.
Itwasdewey | 34 minutes ago
No I’m sorry, I don’t understand why you or anyone would hate ALL rich people. Should you be defined by the amount of money you apparently don’t have?
throw20190820202020 | an hour ago
Poor person going through a divorce. I loved the book.
She discussed her privilege, acknowledged it and discussed how she was guilty of being able to just turn away from hard complex thoughts and assume everything would be ok, and how seemingly attractive it was to her husband. The club was part of a discussion about how her husband cheated and left her, but SHE was the social pariah, and she discussed how some people were very kind and some people were happy to side with him and treat her like an embarrassment.
I can see people not being able to stomach the wealth aspect, but I found Burden to be an interesting, self aware character going through something money doesn’t protect you from.
allectos_shadow | 6 hours ago
Omg! Rich people problems. Having to sell my 10 million dollar homes as part of a divorce seems like a nice problem to have...
awholedamngarden | an hour ago
This book kinda made me mad, tbh. She seemed willfully ignorant about the finances (you’re a lawyer and you have no idea your husband might be making millions of dollars working in hedge funds???)
She also missed some glaring red flags and never even makes note of them when retelling the story, like how she and her husband worked together for quite awhile and then he suddenly becomes interested in her romantically after realizing she’s an heiress from a newspaper article.
I finished the book hoping at some point she’d develop more self awareness or something, but no
ad-anon-132491 | 4 hours ago
This is exactly why I won’t read the book. I appreciate the sentiment to not rely on a man, but watching a rich person cry poverty is incredibly tone deaf in a time when most people are struggling to even keep a roof over their heads and put gas in their car.
woxianghekafei | 10 hours ago
I’ve held off on reading this book for a reason. Always seemed like something to gossip about more than anything
kmz223 | 40 minutes ago
I read the book and this New Yorker article and I am a bit confused by the article. I never got the idea that Burden would be financially ruined by her divorce from the text of the memoir. It wasn't framed as "we'd be poor" but more of "I made stupid decisions with my pre-nup and this is evidently unfair." I'm not a fan of the ultra wealthy as a concept but I don't think they are disqualified from having or sharing perspectives. And I do worry that the response would not be the same if the genders were flipped in this situation.
Same_Ad_3316 | 34 minutes ago
Chelsea Flanagan of The Financial Diet did a good commentary of the book. I don't think this article contradicts the book itself, she was never going to be broke. It's all rich people problems all the way but It's still important to note that she did make a series of terrible financial decisions the first of them was signing that ridiculous prenup.
Elizabeth147 | 6 minutes ago
Information about Belle Burden's probable access to more money than she specifies in her story doesn't change my positive feelings about her book or my sympathy for her.
With recognition that she wasn't in danger of ending up on the street: it's nonetheless a story of a woman who was committed to what she thought was a secure marriage and family life, whose now-wealthy husband, a) in the process of an abruptly announced plan to divorce her b) is ready to generate additional stress on the family when he pushes to get her to buy him out of their home and their country home, both of which she had bought with her own money, but registered as his-and-hers.
So emotionally it's this: no matter which of them is richer, he unquestionably has more than enough money and earning power, he's checking out on the family, he knows his wife and kids had zero expectation of this, AND he's down with a move to take away their home.
claratheclairvoyant | 2 hours ago
Archive link is not there