Rachel Cusk has been accused of violating her family's privacy, but 'Aftermath' remains a brilliantly observed memoir.

Aftermath By Rachel Cusk Farrar, Straus and Giroux 160 pp.

When an excerpt of British novelist Rachel Cusk’s new memoir, Aftermath: On Marriage and Separation, ran in The Guardian last February, a tsunami of vitriol lashed Cusk’s work. Similar excerpts in The Telegraph and Granta drew equal ire for what one Guardian commenter described as dirty laundry “tarted up in literary language,” self-absorbed and cruel to her daughters and husband. There’s no doubt that "Aftermath" is a work of narcissism, a deeply personal account of Cusk’s shattered marriage that leaves little room for her husband’s side of the story.
But there is truth in this narcissism. As Cusk writes, in the depths of bereavement, seeing outside of yourself is nigh impossible. Her work is weighted with the selfishness of the recently split – every object in her life seems to sing the details of the divorce. No activity, however mundane, can avoid representing a meaningful lesson about the nature of grief. A trip to the dentist to have a tooth extracted leads Cusk to revelation. “It is happening: things are being changed, having been unable to change themselves.”
As Cusk explains, "Aftermath" is a way of combing through the debris after the storm passes. It is the dark ages after the barbarians have stormed the castle, the chaos when a civilization implodes. There is comfort in the wreckage. “I’ve wondered from time to time,” Cusk writes, “whether it is one of the pitfalls of modern family life, with its relentless jollity, its entirely unfounded optimism, its reliance not on God or economics but on the principle of love, that it fails to recognize – and take precautions against – the human need for war.”

It leans towards histrionic, and it’s easy to see the objections against Cusk’s impulse to magnify every detail of her tragedy until it becomes an all-enveloping landscape. Reading "Aftermath" feels like being trapped in a trance. Cusk’s prose is heavy and atmospheric. She harbors a near-Sontagian delight for one-liners, and certain metaphors crop up multiple times. “Like seeing a shadow without being able to see what cast it” describes both her new single life and the conversational shorthand she imagines couples on the street having. Her writing vacillates between strikingly beautiful and wearyingly overwrought, like a room filled with too many patterns.

Many of Cusk’s critics accuse her of writing at the expense of her family, violating their privacy for the sake of exorcising her demons. A libel suit filed against her last memoir, "The Last Supper: A Summer in Italy," forced Cusk to pulp the book a month after its publication. "Aftermath" may feel as if Cusk is suffocatingly close, triumphantly displaying the pages of her diary, but she actually holds us at arm’s length the whole time. She is a master of that essayist’s legerdemain, giving the reader a sense of being deeply entrenched in the minutiae of her everyday life without revealing very much at all. The whole memoir is strung-together scenes in the months after a traumatic break-up, but the logistics of the divorce – who left who and why – remain mysterious. When she writes about her conversation with a friend, Cusk may as well be writing the jacket copy for her book: “Our talk is the talk of episodes; the story itself never needs to be explained.”

Cusk is a public figure, particularly in England, and her family history is available to anyone with a search engine. But "Aftermath" is not a direct transcription of a tumultuous period in Cusk’s life, but a meticulously crafted vision of “the consequence and the curse of that divided life,” as Cusk puts it. She is a keen, even brilliant, observer of her own behavior. "Aftermath" is at times a scathing self-criticism, at times a calculating breakdown of a failure, like a football coach retracing the steps of a game gone awry. In one of the most controversial passages of the book, Cusk writes about her refusal to file for joint custody with her husband in spite of her outward belief in splitting the duties of the household. The primitivism of the mother, which runs so much against Cusk’s upbringing, is “that voodoo in the face of which the mechanism of equal rights breaks down.” And it is this sharpness that saves "Aftermath" from its own sense of importance, makes it compelling. Cusk reads too much into the flickering particulars of the quotidian, but she knows it, is utterly helpless to do otherwise.

Margaret Eby is a freelance writer in New York.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to

QR Code to Aftermath
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today