Audio Book Review on Love Times Three

So we recently had the following good review on the audio version of our book. We have not heard that yet and are curious how it sounds. If any of you have heard it us let us know how the actors voices are and if you like the audio version? Read the full review here.

The review says, “Love Times Three is a provocative and enjoyable book that will lead many readers to question their own prejudices, and as such, it deserves attention.
The unabridged audiobook is performed by four narrators who bring a great deal of natural enthusiasm to the reading. It is an energetic and compelling performance.”

However the reviewer also seems to imply that we did not address our religious views, and specifically how we view power and authority of men and woman in our book.  In addition she seems to think our position on plural marriage is somehow inconsistent with having a position she thinks we should have on gay marriage.

It seems to me that her own biases on religion are showing, but for those of you who have read the  book I am curious what you think of her take on the book?  Do we address these topics in the book?  Can be consistent in our beliefs and address such topics?

In the end we are glad that she found the book so provocative and that it made her think about our rights and how they relate to everyone else. A free society always wins when their is honest and open voices.

This entry was posted in Book Reviews, Polygamy. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Audio Book Review on Love Times Three

  1. Stephania says:

    All in all it’s a more positive than negative review,although in bits the grammar is sort of horrendous. “My suspicion is that more typically polygamous families where a man has many wives involve women who are not the equal of the men in authority or ability to live independently. If the women are often mistreated and disempowered in these situations, then we should be far more cautious about making it easier for polygamy to occur. ”

    Lousy grammar and makes the assumption that legal marriage somehow magically creates that this cannot also happen in mono marriages and in fact does, regardless of legalism, when in actuality, as I have commented before reading this review, these things perhaps happen at least as much as if not more so than in polygamy because of when one has less people involved it tends to make one more isolated rather than less, abuses are easier to hide ,and one is less accountable to anyone else who has a ‘stake’ in the entire framework, other women, children in common, etc.
    Often in mono there is no built in support system , and of course limited extended family who may or may not be willing to help, take sides or no one’s side and who perhaps don’t see either their own children or blended/ biological or a combination of grandchildren as ‘their problem’, let alone anything eternal. The state will and can via either lawyers or mediators command people, even if there is no drugs or child abuse, court order either or both parties to attend workshops regarding the child(ren) and all manner of court-ordered appointments and appearances with mediators who will then make recommendations on what is best for your child(ren) based on an interview and quick review of your ‘case’ , many of these various appointments one must pay for and provide proof of attendance.

    The legality issue also makes the presumption that the simple fact of legality protects or somehow guards against inequalities or abuse of power- some may call it ‘unrighteous dominion’ when in fact, their interest in this may not be the case at all. Signing into a contract with the government may actually make matters worse if there are problems, as money-hungry and/or dishonest lawyers try to ambush or take advantage of the commoner not knowing the finer points of the law, meanwhile both sides make money or may even encourage adversarial conduct between the parties-the more the couple argues, the more they get paid, and I have heard tales of the ‘opposing sides’ laughing and joking about it on the elevator- it’s just money to them. Do the lawyers and the judges have a real stake in your own family other than maintaining their government jobs and/or making a tidy profit? Do they actually care about the outcome, and what is ‘fair’ in reality, or is it more likely another government machine?

    This also goes to the ‘legalization’ vs ‘decriminalization’ distinction. Perhaps people don’t realize there is more than an either/or choice and getting the government involved in every facet of your life may not be to their favor, but just like they say on the X-files, they ‘want to believe”.

    Of course the obligatory gay marriage issue is brought into it(making the presumption that one is comparing apples and apples = hypocrisy and or ‘hate’ when it is neither). Perhaps after all that is said about the system- meaning courts and legalism-the gay couples may want to review whether or not they want to take a (likely childless) relationship born out of their own free will and enter into an agreement with the government

    While in the review they somewhat exclude your family from the presumption that if it is polygamy, on its face there is a presumption of inequality, that people are mistreated, that there is no choice- thus painting all with a broad brush- the if all Jeff’s (now ex) compound were polygamists, then certainly all polygamists must be like Jeff’s or operate the same way or in some other form of coercion, underage, etc., when it actuality, making that assumption- well, that is an example of stereotyping, something those types usually say they vehemently can’t stand. O’ the hypocrisy, though perhaps ‘balanced’ reporting (meaning taking the other side) only applies to some and not others. Note how the Texas fake phone call and resultant child-grab was hushed up after it was discovered indeed the kids were all right- in fact better off than in the care of the state.

    I also believe the Darger family and those like them are being singled out with this “ecologically responsible” (which seems to be grasping at straws here while there is a literal minefield of various other groups collectively producing far more children than the Darger’s that are usually accompanied by many issues that do not apply to their situation. You can bet if every polygamist ‘came out of the closet’ or had the sheer numbers other groups do- that politicians would be doing a three-point turn in their collective direction as they do for other groups they do not pick on, but count as ‘marginalized and vulnerable’.

    Oh boy, there is so much to say about all of this!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>