"Blood leaving my brain. It's needed elsewhere."
This excerpt pretty much describes the male's approach to social intimacy as comically portrayed in LOVE MONKEY. It's not a profound plot, but then neither were those about the female's approach to relationships that I've absorbed in the past year - namely, one book by Marian Keyes (THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STORY), and at least one excellent screen adaptation of each of the Jane Austen novels. (I draw the line at actually reading a JA book.) LOVE MONKEY is a welcome change in perspective.
Tom Farrell is a re-write editor for a New York City tabloid. He's still young enough at 32 to have the hormone levels that'll keep him in a state of perpetual tumescence if given the slightest possibility that he can Get Lucky. For months, Tom's been obsessed with a co-worker named Julia, who's either ultimately intimate or frustratingly stand-offish depending on her mood and the state of her relationship with her official boyfriend, Dwayne. For Julia, Tom has a mental woody on which, as he describes in the context of another body part, one could "hang wet laundry". Yet, men being biologically focused, Farrell still hits on Bran, Liesl, and Katie. After all, as he puts it:
"The sexateria is more like a diner in Moscow in 1965. You order the steak and the hamburger and the sushi because chances are they might be out of something. They might be out of everything. The main thing is, you have to eat or die." I was in Moscow in 1984, and I can attest to the aptness of the simile.
The LOVE MONKEY isn't a comprehensive examination of Tom's sexuality, but it is a humorous and breezy read suitable for the beach or the round trip commute to work on public transportation. Since it's so general, men reading it may see a lot of Farrell in themselves (or, if advancing into that age bracket of decreasing testosterone, remember the hyper-libidinous state wistfully). Women reading it will perhaps be reminded of what it is that makes the male of the species so infuriatingly obtuse and porcine.
The superficiality of the book an acceptable given, its otherwise biggest flaw, for me, is that Tom comes across as neither likable or dislikable. He just IS, in all his glory as Average Any Man. Indeed, male readers who've lost sight of their commonality with the rest of their gender, and who consider themselves "successful", will label Tom a "loser". Perhaps. But I suspect that he's also a resilient survivor who'll one day do his part in perpetuating the species.
The last line of the book is an observation by Tom which has potential as a perceptive insight if he cared to think about it. Wandering the streets alone, he passes a corner that represents for him a particularly cherished memory of his time with Julia - an incident when she was happy and playful. It sticks in his mind "because she (wanted) to be with me". Despite their differences, isn't that what any man or woman wishes in a partner?