Letters to the Editor
-
To Chris
You wrote
"Thanks for the quote. I'd asked someone to demonstrate where she showed any remorse for hitting Sam. I'd fogetten that she did (says something about my mindset)."
Not really. She pitied herself and then went running to her priest. At no point has she recorded apologizing to her son. Her actions after the slap indicate that she wasn't apologetic at all.
I think that her only intent was to note that we're all doomed, except for the love of Christ. Fair enough- but don't expect me to agree with her religious platitudes.
Oh- and she included the whole sorry episode in her essay- so the day wasn't completely wasted.
I found her general approach to be narcissistic in the extreme. It's all 'me-me-me'. The only way her son gets a look in is when he affects her opinion of herself. She seemed to be using him as another one of her mirrors.
-
Lamott and single mothering
I've read some of Lamott, understand some of her beliefs, have read some about her single parenting, and relationship with her son.
Maybe I'm projecting here, but the main criticism I have of Lamott is she reminds me, very much, of my mother who has issues.
My mother is basically a good person, has good intentions, a feminist, and very much the hipster/visionary in many ways I appreciate. But she also has issues which makes her difficult to deal with and tends to have things backfire on her. A loving and well meaning, often wonderful person, but who has emotional volatility, and some deep pains which cause unpredictable selfishness and explosiveness. She was never an alcoholic like Lamott though.
I see certain trends in many (not all) by-choice single parents as well as others who choose to parent from an ideological framework. To raise good soldiers for the cause or fill spiritual/emotional voids in their lives, whether it's the most liberal radicalism or rt wing conservatism.
Part of her single parenting was ideological, loving devotion to raising the "enlightened child"TM. Part was her difficulty in forming lasting relationships due to emotional volatility, and the fact that all young children are incredibly loving and devoted. They have no choice.
Also, her ideology has become something of a defensive wall to avoid criticism or serious self evaluation. When her actions don't lead to desired results, the world is invariably to blame, not her. Lamott reminds me of her, particularly her rationalization that her son's hostility was due to his need to break away more forcibly because they had been so close, rather than anything to do with her failings. Sounds like a rather self serving exculpation and rather lacking for a person who is supposedly deeply introspective thinker.
I see a lot of superficial, self-help, kind of stuff from Lamott that invariably ends in a kind of, "you're ok" self justification, explaining how the world is to blame and she and her readers just have to continue being the enlightened and patient women they are. It's equivalent to the business management handbook which assures readers they are in fact unappreciated geniuses, and they simply have to learn to patronize employees better. Both are intellectually shallow, and while they may be encouraging reading, ultimately some cause and effect, action and response, is going to assert itself in reality. The desired outcome isn't going to materialize simply to reward good intentions.
That's what I don't like in Lamott's writing. I don't see true insight or catharsis, despite good intentions. I see a writer who struggles to shoehorn her the day to day into her ideology.
As far as meanness towards Lamott goes, it's not really helpful to be mean. I stopped trying to argue with my mother years ago. When she goes ballistic now I just feel sorry that things are this way and say goodbye. I love her for the good, but have trouble respecting her overall for the seriously unhelpful behaviors she persists in, which are apparently too deeply ingrained to change.
I think writers who respond with meanness to Lamont are really responding hostilely to the ideas she represents, and a culture of "ideology and self rationalization" masquerading as "self help" though it never seems to actually help.
Many are saying her ideas, the values she promotes, are wrong, harmful even, no matter how well intentioned she may be. For a specific example, liberalism is great, I and probably most Salon readers would agree. But people having children in environments defined by exclusion, that's not a good principle to embrace. There are other examples.
-
christianjb,
I get what you're saying, and I share your frustration. But obviously, in that telling, she is experiencing remorse.
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.
These are not the words of someone who fails to see she went too far. She's clearly expressing remorse.
You're right that she does not apologize to Sam, and I still think her parenting is horrible. But nonetheless, the quote demonstrates that she realized she did wrong.
-
Thank You Tyler
If your decision on whether or not to vote for Hillary is based on who the GOP runs, I don't think you should call your book: "Confessions of a True Conservative Republican."
I wonder if your views aren't the result of the crazies in the post world war two generation (yeah, the hippies) who withdrew from the political process, stuck their brains up their ass, and let the neocons take over.
I don't get the conservatives really did that good a job of indoctrination in your case. You're too insistent on a rather quaint hippie-style morality that escapes them entirely.
I congratulate you for that, but think you should keep looking at Hillary. In order to accomodate folks like you, she is probably going to be the most conservative candidate among the Dems once you seperate the personality and rhetoric from the issues.