Wednesday, May 16, 2018

The Love Warrior by Glennon Doyle Melton (Book Review by Bob Racine)


Published by Thorndike Press, 2016

The autobiography or, as it is sometimes called the memoir, is a category of writing I usually approach with some caution.  I have found it to be overall the least dependable of source information pertaining to its subject.  Of necessity we get a biased view of developments.  I have been disappointed several times by the author being too close to the subject or by his or her interest in clearing the name, justifying actions once taken that have become suspect on the part of the public being served.  One can often sense that these writers are only telling us what they want us to know.  They do not always “come clean”; issues of a questionable ethical or moral character get skirted.  Sometimes it is not difficult at all to sense when truth is being compromised. 

But, not wishing to be misunderstood, let me say that I have read some that were quite convincing and some even inspiring.  And there are some that seem to transcend the subject and open a vast territory for inquiry and reflection.  Such a one is this powerful tome by an award-winning author named Glennon Doyle Melton.  It is the account of a married woman’s struggle to bring order out of the emotional chaos caused by her husband Craig’s betrayal. 

There are roughly four types of autobiography.  One is what I call the straight chronology comprehensive.  This is the kind in which the author presumes to “tell all”, to cover the whole story of her or his existence, usually composed sometime very late in the person’s life.  The chapters follow in chronological order; the book is usually quite long.  

We have as well the straight chronology limited.  The autobiographer is not trying to cover the whole career, to be exhaustive.  Only events within a restricted period of time are shared, but they are significant enough that they give a well-rounded picture of the person, for good or ill or suspect.   

Then there are memoirs that are revealing about the one writing, but also revolve around someone else in the experience of the author, some person or group of people.  “Tuesdays with Morrie”, which I have reviewed as a movie, having also read the book, is a splendid example.  Or those who spend months embedded with a unit of the military, those researching the lives of people struggling with disease or examining life in a slum or the state of things in nursing homes often come forth with what proves to be eye-opening revelations not just about the area of inquiry but about themselves.  We share the reporter’s experience of a thing and when we finish we feel as if we have stored away a lot about the reporter.

And lastly there is the autobiography that is structured more like a work of fiction or a novel.  The story is told in the first person, but it is also depicted in the present tense.  Each happening is portrayed as if it is taking place while you read.  And that is what we have in “The Love Warrior”.  Take the  opening as an example.  The author is getting married:

“It’s almost time.  My father and I stand at the edge of a long white carpet, laid just this morning over the freshly cut grass. Craig’s childhood backyard is transformed by the start of fall and the promise this day holds.  My shoulders are bare and I feel a chill, so I lift my face toward the sun.  I squint and the sun, leaves and sky melt together into a kaleidoscope of blue, green and orange.  The leaves, my soon-to-be husband, our families sitting upright in their dressiest clothes, and I – we are all turning into something else.”

And on and on she goes for THE ENTIRE BOOK, never once jumping into a past tense.  If you did not know anything about the book you are reading, just hearing this very short excerpt, you would think you are starting in on a crisp novel or short story.  All at once we are far removed from an academic format.  She is not straining to remember her wedding day, not fishing for memories, not setting down any documented account of the place and time.  She is reliving it by making it immediate, irresistible, and just as vivid and authentic.  This opening passage appeals to the senses, to esthetics, with emotional range one is not likely to find in an ordinary recount.  I suppose others have been composed in this fashion, but never was there one as rich as this beauty.

I must confess that it is a temptation for me to not write a review; I would love, if it were possible, to just quote you the entire text.  Each and every tidbit of it I find just as captivating.  It would lend itself to monologues, to dramatic recitations. I cannot think of a single written confessional coming from someone wrestling with addiction that could match the thoroughness and the vividness in which Glennon lays it out – the steps taken toward her self-abuse in her pre-marriage life – the rationalizations, the impulses that drive someone with so much self-doubt to take the plunges, one after another – bulimia, drink, drug use.  She demonstrates how one can grow up with many friends and acquaintances, including a very loving sister and two reasonably faithful and caring parents but still feel not at home in her own body and experience intense loneliness, the kind that makes all incidents seem strange and that makes her surroundings seem unreal. 

She never takes the easy way out by shifting into overview or simple summary.  Everything that happens, even her wedding night and the daily life of her marriage, is portrayed in minute detail, and yet it never becomes tedious.  There is a well sustained sense of what happens next.  It is as if she is actually reliving things, internally as well as externally, and giving personal report of what takes place as it transpires.

She comes to realize that she has had a representative of herself, a false self that hides her real one.  How she discovers her real honest self is through communication on Facebook, following the marital crisis.  Not knowing who if anyone is reading, she feels a sense of liberation from having to look someone else in the face.  “That’s not my representative.  That’s the real me.  I want to learn more about me, so I keep writing.  My fingers are flying now, pounding against the keyboard like they’ve been waiting a lifetime to be freed.  They type juicy, dangerous, desperate sentences about marriage and motherhood and sex and life – it all pours out fast and furious, like the real me is gasping for air, like she’s trying to get it all out at once in case she’s never allowed to surface again.”

Her realization, after discovering her husband’s years-long infidelity and his addiction to pornography, has to do with what women have come to mean for many men.  She sees that she has been part of “a system that agrees that women are for being implanted and teased and painted and then arranged and dominated and filmed and sold and laughed at. . .sex is something men do to women.”

But this book is not Melton’s debut by any means.  She came to be a celebrated author back in 2014 with the publication of “Carry On, Warrior”, another book full of exciting anecdotes about her private life.  In that work also she covers a lot of ground, though she is more conventional in format and all that she depicts predates “The Love Warrior”.  In that work she does not tell a continuing story.  Each chapter is of the nature of a short essay on a given topic that relates to her life with her family and her marriage.  I have read both books, and for pure spiritual nurture I am ever so fond of both.  But I find “The Love Warrior” much more of a challenge and full of sustained energy.  It has a tension that lays claim to points and predicaments in my own experience.  It is dramatically focused.  A quite forceful and gripping memoir! 

“Carry On, Warrior” is like a Valentine with many streamers attached, very charming.  “The Love Warrior” is more explosive, more concerned with a long but successful recovery from an initial shock.  There is genuine warfare in it, inside Glennon’s body and mind and soul.  She digs deeper into herself.   

Have any of us over fifty ever taken stock and noticed that the process of self-discovery begun at an early age is still going on?  Hear it in her own words:

“I’d looked around and decided that adulthood meant taking on roles.  Adults became, became. . .  I became a wife and then a mother and a church lady and a career woman.  As I took on these roles, I kept waiting for that day when I could stop acting like a grownup because I’d finally be one.  But that day never came. My roles hung on the outside of me like costumes. . .I wake up each morning paralyzed, disoriented, stripped, naked, exposed.  Wondering, Who am I? Who was I before I started becoming other things?  What is true about me that can’t be taken away?”  At this point she is still wrestling with the question of what to do about Craig in the wake of what she has learned about him.  “Who is this woman who will or will not step back inside this family. That is the question that needs to be answered before I make this decision.”

For me, the most trenchant passage of the writing has to with the well-meant but frail attempts that friends of hers make to comfort her in the wake of the shattering discovery about Craig.  The one that really sets her off is the question “What happened?” 

“I want to pick up a crystal vase and smash it into the ground.  That’s what happened, I’d say. The few times I try to tell the shattering as a story, I regret it.  Spoken words make what happened to us too tidy, too palatable, too ordinary.  I can’t describe the ferocity of the fear and rage inside me with words tame enough for the light of day.  When I finish the telling, I want people to be as shocked and confused as I am.  I want thunder to roll and mouths to drop open.  But most often the listener makes the pain harder for me by trying to make it easier for her [the listener]”.

She goes on for several pages depicting six different types of Job’s comforters.  There is the Shover, someone who insists that there is nothing unusual about her predicament, the everything-happens-for-a-reason-this-will-be-a-blessing-you’ll-see type, someone who shoves her toward the door of hope impatiently.  “But I don’t want to be shoved.  I want to turn to that door in my own time.” 

She leaves no doubt that she is a true Christian believer.  I especially like the way she relates her faith to her three children.  A woman approaches her in the church hallway and starts to warn her about the dangers of divorce.  Divorce is not God’s plan for her family.  God’s preference is the nuclear family and if she steps outside his umbrella of safety, he doesn’t promise to protect her.  “God gave you to Craig as his helper. . .Your duty is to help him through this time.”  In other words, God values her marriage more than her soul, her safety, her freedom, or her self-respect; her marriage, however bad, is the cross upon which she should hang herself.  Then she thinks about the kids and realizes that they do not want her to become a martyr, but to show them how “a woman deals honestly with an imperfect life” and that God loves them more than the tenets of any institution of religion.

She declares that “making decisions is never about doing the right thing or the wrong thing.  It’s about doing the precise thing, and the precise thing is always incredibly personal and often makes no sense to anyone else.”  What a shrewd insight!  What shrewd piece of writing this book is!  I highly recommend it.

   
To read other entries in my blog, please consult its website:  enspiritus.blogspot.com.  To know about me, consult the autobiographical entry on the website for Dec. 5, 2016.

Wednesday, May 9, 2018

The Post (Movie Review by Bob Racine)


1 hr & 55 min, color, 2017

Of all the discoveries I have made in the screening of this vital docudrama, and there are several, the one for which I am the most grateful is Katherine Graham.  She heretofore has been a total unknown to me, but thanks to the ingenuity of producer/director Steven Spielberg, the screen writing finesse of Liz Hannah and Josh Singer and the superlative acting prowess of Meryl Streep in the lead she is now and forever will remain visible to my mind, however long I go on living and breathing in this body.  Graham (now deceased) was the owner of the Washington Post in 1971 when the firestorm over the publication of what has come to be called the Pentagon Papers occurred.  The Post had been bequeathed to her upon the 1963 death of her husband Philip, who had built it up from a local feature into a nationally respected publication.

When Mrs. Graham took charge of it many thought that she was not qualified for the job and regarded her as a journalist beyond her depth, even though she had been in the newspaper business most of her adult life and the paper had been in the family even before that.  She was surrounded by many strong-minded men who played major roles in the decision-making process; they regarded her as essentially a figurehead.  She admits in the course of this drama that she has never thought of herself as having administrative capabilities on the scale that the position requires, never having dreamed that she would land in the job even upon the demise of her husband, whom she regards as a brilliant strategist. 

While meeting with bankers in one very crucial scene she seems a little cowed by the onus of responsibility that had always been regarded up to that time as a man’s calling.  But she comes of age in short order when her editor-in-chief Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks) pushes for the printing of those classified, stolen government documents pertaining to the waging of the Vietnam War, known soon enough as the Pentagon Papers.  The documents had been smuggled into the possession of the New York Times by activist/journalist Daniel Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys).  Then later some quite furtive detective work on the part of the Post staff turns up the documents, and once in the Post’s possession as well the burden of deciding about their release to the public and risking prosecution falls squarely upon Graham’s shoulders.  How she wrestles through the dilemma and arrives at her choice and grows many feet taller in the process is worth the price of admission.  The movie belongs to and honors this woman as portrayed by Streep.    

The documents revealed upon close inspection that the heads of government, including five U.S. Presidents since the end of World War II, had been lying to the American people about the alleged need of halting the spread of Communism as a rationale for the U.S. involvement in the political and social affairs of Southeast Asia.  The myth of a Communist North Vietnam encroaching upon an innocent South Vietnam had been sold to the American people, when the fact of the matter was our imperial interest in gaining a foothold in that region.  We were the aggressors, not who we were being told was our enemy.

There is nothing about the content or style of this powerful factual thriller that I would fault.  Spielberg knew exactly what he was doing and he got the results I am sure he was looking for.  I am impressed by how Tom Hanks in the role of Bradlee seems quite willing to keep a little lower profile than ordinary.  He is fully visible and forceful, but he takes second place alongside Streep and shares the spotlight with other male figures such as Bob Odenkirk as Ben Bragdikian, the journalist responsible for obtaining of the Papers, and Bruce Greenwood as Robert MacNamara, Secretary of Defense under Kennedy and Johnson; this man played a significant role in the escalation of the Vietnam War and was a longtime friend of Graham’s.  (Good casting!  There is a striking resemblance between the two men!)

And how timely can a movie be?  In this present era of political turmoil, when the honesty and integrity of political leaders is being called into question almost daily, we need this reminder of how valuable the press is, of how journalism can lead the way into the disclosure of truth and Free Press rights can be vindicated with courage, discretion and thoroughness.

Newspapers!  Yes, they have taken a beating in many quarters with the improved sophistication of digital TV coverage and its instant delivery of the news.  Our illustrious President has reported that even the New York Times and the Post are fading out, an assertion that strikes me more as wishful thinking on his part than an informed opinion.  As a matter of fact neither paper is on the verge of demise; both have as solid and dependable a readership as they ever have had.  There is still something to be said for editorializing, for three-dimensional analysis of current trends, of controversial developments.  There is still something to be cherished about the pursuit of fine points that more routine reportage can easily, and in some cases necessarily, gloss over.  News vehicles are meant to educate not simply inform.  And I love what one Supreme Court Justice said in defense of the Pentagon Papers exposure: the right of a free press was granted by our nation’s founders because the press’s first loyalty is to the service of “the governed, not the governors”.  That is another gift I take away from my viewing of “The Post”.

And here is another:  Katherine Graham in the last scene quotes something her father, another newspaper tycoon, once declared, that “the news is the first rough draft of history”.  I have never thought of it that way, but it makes excellent sense.  History in the making!  History from the ground up!  The barest facts preserved for future specification! 

There is a disturbing aspect to what we learn here about the events of the early 1970s.  I shudder to contemplate whether a Supreme Court of today would give leave for a newspaper to print what has been classified material, however vital the upshot of it would be when shared with the public, even a public that has the right to know when it has been deceived by Congressional, Executive and Military leaders over many long years.  I trust that the people of this country would not be so easy to mislead if a major war was instigated by a power hungry chief executive, even if victory was assured from early on.  

The Iraq invasion, one for which there was no justification, never found any real support among the populace.  I trust that by now we have learned that when a major power conquers a smaller nation, that major power owns what it invades. Such was the counsel that Colin Powell gave to George W. Bush before the first shot was ever fired, counsel that apparently Bush never took to heart.  There is no easy hit and run about such an invasion.  By that move we helped further destabilize life in the Middle East.  That would have been the case, even if weapons of mass destruction had been discovered.  The American people have undergone a tremendous loss of innocence over the last six decades.  We have learned, and rightly so, to be cautious about anything our leaders tell us, about the official word.  Open minded and seekers of enlightenment we must be, but cautious!  The best antidote to nationalistic extremism!

The closing moments of “The Post” lead us right up to the door of Watergate.  It ends exactly where “All the President’s Men” (another quality work that champions journalism) begins, even though the latter was filmed forty-one years earlier.  High school Social Science teachers could use the two movies to great advantage by screening them for their students in chronological order.  Together they cover three vital years in the history of our nation.  I have disclosed before in this blog that I believe strongly in the intelligent and courageous use of the docudrama.  When a top grade one comes along you can be certain that I will write about it.  I do not imagine that you could do any better than these two. 


To read other entries in my blog, please consult its website:  enspiritus.blogspot.com.  To know about me, consult the autobiographical entry on the website for Dec. 5, 2016.