In the 40 years since Heartburn was revealed, there have been two distinct methods to learn it. Nora Ephron’s 1983 novel is narrated by a meals author, Rachel Samstat, who discovers that her esteemed journalist husband is having an affair with Thelma Rice, “a fairly tall person with a neck as long as an arm and a nose as long as a thumb and you should see her legs, never mind her feet, which are sort of splayed.” Taken at face worth, the ebook is a triumphant satire—of affection; of Washington, D.C.; of remedy; of pompous columnists; of the type of males who contemplate themselves exemplary companions however who depart their wives, seven months pregnant and with a toddler in tow, to navigate an airport whereas they idly purchase magazines. (Putting apart infidelity for a second, that was the half the place I personally believed that Rachel’s marriage was previous saving.)
Unfortunately, the folks being satirized had some objections, which leads us to the second approach to learn Heartburn: as historic reality distorted by way of a vengeful lens, all of the extra salient for its smudges. Ephron, like Rachel, had certainly been married to a high-profile Washington journalist, the Watergate reporter Carl Bernstein. Bernstein, like Rachel’s husband—whom Ephron named Mark Feldman in what many guessed was an allusion to the actual identification of Deep Throat—had certainly had an affair with a tall particular person (and a future Labour peer), Margaret Jay. Ephron, like Rachel, was closely pregnant when she found the affair. And but, in writing about what had occurred to her, Ephron was forged because the villain by a media ecosystem outraged that somebody dared to spill the secrets and techniques of its personal, even because it dug up everybody else’s.
The pushback was inevitably private. “There are also those who say that Heartburn, though funny and sad, is a great misuse of talent, a book whose only point is to nail Carl Bernstein,” New York’s Jesse Kornbluth noticed. Writing underneath the pseudonym Tristan Vox (probably a play on the Latin for “sorrowful voice”) in Vanity Fair in 1985, the literary critic Leon Wieseltier huffed so tempestuously in regards to the proposed film adaptation of Heartburn that one can solely assume he handed out halfway. Ephron, he insisted, had written “one of the most indecent exploitations of celebrity in recent memory.” To be untrue to at least one’s pregnant spouse, he concluded, was “banal compared with the infidelity of a mother toward her children,” and if Bernstein had dedicated adultery, Ephron, by exposing her household to strangers with solely the lightest of fictional glosses, was committing “child abuse.”
I’m a couple of months youthful than Heartburn; I grew up amid the wreckage of a equally busted marriage and contentious divorce. And I’ve come to think about the ebook through the years as one thing greater than a juicy revenge novel or an infinitely pleasurable roman à clef. Arriving within the tail winds of the fast-and-loose Seventies, it made, amid the jokes, a honest level about infidelity: that it wasn’t banal in any respect however might the truth is be an irrevocable cleaving open of 1’s life, one’s coronary heart, one’s sense of dwelling and stability and self. More radically, Heartburn additionally emphatically rejected the concept that infidelity was one thing ladies—or males, given the portrayal of Thelma’s husband—ought to should tacitly endure.
This argument, I feel, was what led to such vigorous denunciations of the ebook (and the film) from sure quarters. It was too iconoclastic, too righteous. After all, excavating one’s romantic life for the sake of artwork and a paycheck wasn’t notably unique: In an 2004 introduction to Heartburn, Ephron wrote, “Philip Roth and John Updike picked away at the carcasses of their early marriages in book after book, but to the best of my knowledge they were never hit with the ‘thinly disguised’ thing.” Rather, the collective outrage over the novel was an try to wrest the narrative away from Ephron, who, some events complained, wasn’t being honest with it. Bernstein reportedly threatened to sue; he additionally requested specific provisions of their custody settlement that may give him sway over how he is perhaps portrayed within the movie.
His response, Ephron famous within the 2004 introduction, was “one of the most fascinating things to me about the whole episode: he cheated on me, and then got to behave as if he was the one who had been wronged because I wrote about it!” And but, it’s plain that Heartburn achieved what she needed it to: It forged the story of her marriage definitively in her phrases. This is the facility a gifted author can wield. Is it honest? Not essentially. But it’s additionally an influence that, as Ephron precisely discerns, is nearly completely critiqued when it’s exercised by ladies. Late final yr, the web erupted over an essay by the author Isabel Kaplan a few boyfriend who had damaged up together with her as a result of he was threatened by her job. “The more I share about our relationship and breakup, the more vindicated he will feel in his fears,” Kaplan wrote, citing Ephron for example. “But if I don’t write about it, he succeeds in forcing my silence.”
That stress runs by way of Heartburn too. But to take the novel by itself phrases for a second, it’s a wholly joyful learn, a 178-page stand-up routine about marriage that’s fully one-sided and brazenly so. Mark, Rachel’s husband, is launched as a person who’s each instantly untrue and vividly humorless, vulnerable to perusing home-design magazines in mattress, forgetting to wash his nails, and mendacity about books he’s learn. Thelma, aside from being tall, makes “gluey puddings.” (Rachel, a meals author, is doubly betrayed when she realizes that through the affair, she gave Thelma one in every of her recipes.) Rachel additionally skewers her mother and father—like Ephron’s, each alcoholics who bought wealthy by investing in Tampax inventory—her therapist, Mark’s “dumb Hemingway style he always reserved for his slice-of-life columns,” and delicate sorts who categorical themselves by way of poetry. (“Show me a woman who cries when the trees lose their leaves in autumn,” Rachel observes in a single chapter, “and I’ll show you a real asshole.”)
Some critics have raised stylistic objections to the novel, notably its structural looseness—whereby Rachel recounts a couple of weeks of her life whereas considering insistently about meals—that was maybe forward of its time. More usually, although, Heartburn’s detractors targeted completely on Ephron’s supposed sin of betrayal. The film, Mark Harris notes in his biography of its director, Mike Nichols, was subsequently dismissed as an insignificant “woman’s picture” with “the tunnel-vision point of view of the offended party.” And but, for the previous 4 a long time, folks have pressed it into each other’s arms, as a pal pressed it into mine. They have learn it and shared it and browse it once more. They’ve discovered one thing thrilling and metamorphic in the way in which that Ephron, by placing her ache on the web page, transforms it into comedy. “If I tell the story, I control the version,” Rachel explains on the finish of the novel. “If I tell the story, it doesn’t hurt as much.” Heartburn, chances are you’ll conclude, is finally much less about revenge than about self-preservation.
When you purchase a ebook utilizing a hyperlink on this web page, we obtain a fee. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic.