Letters to the Editor
-
Again...what?
What "fire" do you see here? How is gushing "I love you" not an overreaction but saying "I hate this woman" is? I keep hearing about these terrible letters, but unless we want to reduce these pages to a cheerleading squad, what do you expect?
This isn't a piece of informative journalism. There are not facts to disbute (except the Obama slip). What one likes or dislikes will relate to the personality the writer, and if the writer puts themselves forward as the subject, they have to expect to be loved or hated on the basis of this.
Lamott in particular is a hugely emotional writer. She pushes emotional buttons. She does so intentionally. Her pieces are entirely predicated on subjective responses to personal issues. There's really no way to respond to what she does except in a personal manner. It makes perfect sense that she gets the sort of response that she does.
-
Chris:
I agree that it's not particularly sensible to love Anne Lamott simply because I love her writing...she may well eat roasted babies for lunch.
And had Holden Caulfield actually been able to get Ring Lardner on the telephone, he might well have been disappointed.
Such is the magical thinking of the devoted reader.
I can live with it.
And I personally never said that those who hate Lamott are being "too harsh" or "too personal."
We all have a right to say who we think sucks.
They think she does, I think they do, we all expressed ourselves freely without threat of deletion much less censorship or government persecution....god bless america.
-
Lamott is a Child Abuser
Pure and simple.
Child.
Abuser.
-
Bastille Day
I would like to point out the Anne's Bastille day picnic is incredibly, incredibly insensitive to anyone who ever actually worked hard to effect change. I don't hate Anne, but I've had a very visceral reaction to her writing ever since she wrote an article that was so insulting to everyone (Ghandi, MLKJ, countless infrequently thanked civil rights activists and lawyers, sufferagettes, abolitionists, anti-apartheid-ists, even Martin Luther) who ever upset anyone else in an effort to improve the world.
I feel like Anne -- and possibly Salon -- owe me an apology for that article, and I'm just a guy who was once a rank-and-file organizer in my union and who once worked for an ACORN-like group. If they owe me an apology, I'm not sure what they owe to the people who've sacrificed their lives struggling against injustice.
-
Lamott, crones, trees, and soldiers
Lamott reminds me greatly of another person I know of the same age and same background, who I care about greatly, but frankly avoid hearing from.
Someone mentioned Lamott's wrinkles and crone status, but that's not the metaphor I'd choose.
I don't see in them the gnarled wrinkles, deep roots and broad canopy of wizened old trees, which have a tendency to grow in unpredictable directions and possibly invade other spaces, but which always inspire awe for their complexity, toughness, and sheer size. Tested by surface quakes and slides, as they become partially uprooted, one often sees old trees remain vital through a foundational grasp into deeper undercurrents.
In them I see a different kind of tree, pruned shapes planted and trimmed in fashion common to courtyards and groomed plants. Long acclimated to finite soil, limited root development, facing a narrow beam of light, become a form decided.
It's tempting to think that a natural part of aging, and an unfortunate byproduct of the unnaturally fast present pace of cultural change.
However, consider Bill Moyers, who planted deep and diverse intellectual and spiritual roots decades ago, and who remains incredibly vibrant and relevant to this day, despite his age.
To mix my clinches, perhaps being a pioneer and outspoken radical is a bit like being a soldier. It takes many to fight battles, and all are heroes for their part, but not all are great leaders or great thinkers, not all go on to glory after the battle. Many are just fading away. We have to respect and honor the vets of the old wars, but they also must make an effort to demilitarize themselves and stop reliving old battles.
-
Ann Lamott's View on Abortion?
"You know, Jim Wallis and the progressive Evangelicals, their position is that you can be pro-life and still be in favor of legal abortion, but that the actual solution would be for a lot fewer girls and women to need abortions. And that just doesn't cut it for me."
I am pro-choice but I certainly do not view abortions as "good things" as in it would be good to have more of them. Perhaps I am somehow missing the point of Ms. Lamott's statement or she just worded this in an odd way. What does "cut it for her" that more girls and women should need to have abortions?
-
Of slapping and writing
I'm not a big Anne Lamott fan - I like her stuff ok, but a little goes a long way. As an example:
And I lost my mind. I slapped him across the face, for the first time in our lives. He didn't flinch and, in fact, barely seemed to register it. He gave me a flat, lifeless look, and I knew I was a truly doomed human being, and that neither of us could ever forgive me.
Anne is presenting her case as a mother, a writer, a believer in God, a struggling human. And she succeeds at all of them to some degree, least among them as a writer. "truly doomed", "neither of us could ever forgive me" - that's not 'truth' - it's over-the-top sentimentality, using hyperbole to amp the emotionalism of the situation in replacement of true reflection. Not a good quality of a writer. I read that and I don't trust her honesty - she's simply confessing, not really delving. Because come on - she is NEVER going to forgive herself for slapping her son? And he is NEVER going to forgive her, either? Then why be sorry? Isn't it a fruitless enterprise? Where is the grace in this? Same with 'truly doomed'. If such a small incident TRULY dooms her, then there isn't any point in talking about it - she's doomed. Truly.
For these reasons I don't read her - I don't trust her 'honesty' - it reveals the incident and her in-the-moment feelings but rarely goes beyond, and I find that unfulfilling as a reader. And as a mature writer, she should be OK with this sort of constructive and reasoned criticism.
But as for the slapping incident itself - I was appalled at the vitriol that was heaped on her for this. While I denounce her over wrought description of her feelings about/during the incident as sloppy writing, I appreciate the candor in revealing the incident itself. That took some guts. Most of us don't like to cop to our less benevolent behaviors, and when we do, we tend to defend them. It takes a certain amount of guts to reveal yourself, warts and all - and that is, essentially, what a memoir essayist does. So in that sense Anne is an honest practitioner of her craft. I simply find her to be less adept than, say, Kathleen Norris or Alan Bennett.
All that being said, to each his own. I certainly understand the appeal of Lamott to her fans, and don't begrudge her. And for the nonfans who saw fit to paint her with the abuse paintbrush - she should, both as a writer and a mother, ignore them for the knee-jerks that they are.