Nicholson's book skillfully examines the history of the “Surplus Women” in the post–World War I period, utilizing a range of personal sources and contemporary literature to analyze how this cohort was variously stigmatized and celebrated in competing, and often judgmental, discourses. Nicholson frequently draws parallels with the modern period that, for different reasons, has seen a rise in the number of single women and the Bridget Jones notion of the “smug marrieds.” The concept behind the book—examining how monumental societal change impacts the personal lives of women—is one that could also be usefully applied to other areas.

The shocking impact of the First World War is starkly outlined in the first sentences of the book, detailing the fact that three-quarters of a million men died in the conflict. This left a “surplus” of almost 2 million women with little chance of marriage and motherhood, the ideological pinnacle of women's lives during the period. The fact that many women were girlfriends or fiancées of men killed during the Great War is emphasized as a contributing factor to why they were not afforded the same public sympathy or government support as war widows; the bond of marriage secured a status for women simply unavailable to them if they were single.

The illustrative material is superb, combining contemporary caricatures, photographs, and illustrations, bringing to life the often derogatory and sarcastic commentary on the “Surplus Women.” The research in the book is also outstanding. Nicholson has unearthed contemporary works from many fields and sought out rare or forgotten novels, memoirs, letters, autobiographies, diaries, and “instructional” (or what we would now term “self-help”) works that do much to illuminate her points. Nicholson has also, therefore, highlighted the writings of women forgotten within the historical narrative of the period and the canon of literature in many cases. At times the book veers perhaps toward a literary history rather than a standard archival history of the period, but the contemporary fiction alluded to by Nicholson does reveal the cultural milieu and the imaginative constructions of single women in this era, often revealing both the extreme views on women at the time and the negative, tactless, and sometimes spiteful opinions that existed on the “abnormality” of single women's lives.

The book brings together the two major arenas of change experienced by women in the twentieth century—employment and relationships. In the former, the middle-class bias of the book becomes evident as Nicholson's most abundant source material relates to women who were in the professions. This is a weakness of the book at times, as the privileges enjoyed by wealthy women or those who were able to earn a higher wage shielded them from much of the hardship experienced by working-class single women. Although Nicholson makes the proviso at the beginning of the book that she has tried to source material from all classes of women, a biased perspective comes through at times, most evidently in the story of the “Maiden Aunts” who were living a “parsimonious existence” in a small London flat “with one maid” (29). What about the maid? The inclusion of biographical material from women of the middle and upper classes is of course understandable in many ways because of the greater propensity of such women to leave autobiographical material. However, the book does leave the reader wondering how well working-class women of the period would relate to the stories, many of which come from women who may have been their employers.

In relation to employment, the emphasis in the book is on women's predominance in the caring professions, such as nursing and child care, perhaps in order to compensate for the lack of such a role in their personal lives. It is interesting to consider this factor as a contributory factor in the stereotypical depictions of women throughout the twentieth century as supremely suited toward a caring role, one that is often attributed to married women's role in the home without considering the actions of single women. This again forms part of Nicholson's examination of the trajectory of opinion on single women from “Surplus Women” to “Singletons.”

The tragic quality of the personal lives of Nicholson's women is given most poignantly in their memories of the romantic moments in their lives. These are often fleeting and, to the reader, inconsequential, yet for many they raised the hope, however brief, of ending their single lives and embracing marriage. The fact that a look or a single dance with a man could raise this kind of expectation and romantic fantasy bears testament to Nicholson's argument that marriage was prized above all else for many women who lived their lives in a heightened state of hope. The sexual frustrations described in letters to Marie Stopes are a stark reminder of the psychological, sexual, and emotional constraints in society that impacted on women's sexuality, including masturbation.

The various strategies women adopted to attain happiness as single women, or indeed to try to marry, makes for fascinating reading. Subsuming themselves in care for family members, pets, or each other; emigrating to the colonies; taking up political causes related to the plight of the spinster and suffrage; writing, running businesses, taking holidays, and learning trades are all activities taken up with gusto by women in this book. Many were pioneers, and in this sense their singleness may have been their opportunity: Would they have accomplished their goals if they had been married and running their homes? This is a speculation that Nicholson raises but the book, naturally, cannot answer. On the other hand, the sadness, loneliness, and embitterment many women experienced is not ignored, but Nicholson is careful to balance these references with detailed contextualizations and stories of women who refused to be cowed by their single status. Love, as Nicholson's women asserted, was not everything in life.