Bernard Gui Posted July 24, 2018 Author Posted July 24, 2018 (edited) Sister Gui and our daughter Bellalindissima just spent a week together and this was a big part of their conversations. Of course, friends and members of the family push back and have their own stories...some of which are on the Amazon review pages. SG says the book caused her to think about what things she does that could be viewed by others as kooky or “fundamentalist.” Movie version coming?? Edited July 24, 2018 by Bernard Gui
Tacenda Posted July 24, 2018 Posted July 24, 2018 29 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I'm reminded of a guy I know (though not well at all) from my mission who was extremely upset with me for publishing my book. He said something like, "Yeah, it's just another one of those books where the mission rules are oppressive and stupid and the leaders were all a bunch of idiots, and you followed your conscience to overcome the stupidity." I said, "You haven't read it, have you?" and he confessed he hadn't. He just assumed it was a diatribe against the church and its missionary program. I had read about Ms. Westover's book in a BBC article, but I didn't know much about her until I heard her interview on the radio one night when I was driving to Provo. I was really impressed with her, and I look forward to reading her book. Her story would be amazing, even if it had no connection at all to Mormonism. She is pretty amazing! I need to read the book. Just all the nonsense she grew up with and didn't know how bad it was. One tough girl, I'm way too powder puff.
Bernard Gui Posted July 24, 2018 Author Posted July 24, 2018 19 minutes ago, Tacenda said: She is pretty amazing! I need to read the book. Just all the nonsense she grew up with and didn't know how bad it was. One tough girl, I'm way too powder puff. Others who were involved have a different take. Everyone has a story.
jkwilliams Posted July 24, 2018 Posted July 24, 2018 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Others who were involved have a different take. Everyone has a story. Of course. That's how memory works. I particularly liked this from the New Yorker's review: Quote This story, remarkable as it is, might be merely another entry in the subgenre of extreme American life, were it not for the uncommon perceptiveness of the person telling it. Westover examines her childhood with unsparing clarity, and, more startlingly, with curiosity and love, even for those who have seriously failed or wronged her. In part, this is a book about being a stranger in a strange land; Westover, adrift at university, can’t help but miss her mountain home. But her deeper subject is memory. Westover is careful to note the discrepancies between her own recollections and those of her relatives. (The ones who still speak to her, anyway. Her parents cut her off long ago.) “Part of me will always believe that my father’s words ought to be my own,” she writes. If her book is an act of defiance, a way to set the record of her own life straight, it’s also an attempt to understand, even to respect, those whom she had to break away from in order to get free. It's not so much saying her memory is true, but that it is her memory, and recounting it her way is an act of defiance. I quite like that. Edited July 24, 2018 by jkwilliams 4
Bernard Gui Posted July 24, 2018 Author Posted July 24, 2018 1 hour ago, jkwilliams said: Of course. That's how memory works. I particularly liked this from the New Yorker's review: It's not so much saying her memory is true, but that it is her memory, and recounting it her way is an act of defiance. I quite like that. Some have challenged the precision of some of her early childhood memories and conversations. I prefer to suspend judgement of all concerned.
jkwilliams Posted July 24, 2018 Posted July 24, 2018 Just now, Bernard Gui said: Some have challenged the precision of some of her early childhood memories and conversations. I prefer to suspend judgement of all concerned. That’s just it. You don’t have to accept her version, just acknowledge it’s hers.
Bernard Gui Posted July 24, 2018 Author Posted July 24, 2018 (edited) 11 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: That’s just it. You don’t have to accept her version, just acknowledge it’s hers. It's not that I don't accept it. One of her brothers commented on it from his engineering viewpoint, something like the 80/20% rule. Not sure what that is, but if 80% of a report is accurate, the other 20% can be, well, not ignored, but considered insignificant in the whole picture. Since I wasn't there, I view it as an interesting story. That's just it----a story. Other friends' and family members' stories should be heard, too, to provide balance. I'm not eager to make too much of it. Edited July 24, 2018 by Bernard Gui
jkwilliams Posted July 24, 2018 Posted July 24, 2018 Just now, Bernard Gui said: It's not that I don't accept it. One of her brothers commented on it from his engineering viewpoint, something like the 80/20% rule. Not sure what that is, but if 80% of a report is accurate, the other 20% can be, well, not ignored, but considered insignificant in the whole picture. Since I wasn't there, I view it as an interesting story. Other friends and family members should be heard, too. I'm not eager to make too much of it. I'm familiar with the 80/20 rule, which is that often we spend 80% of our time on issues that provide only 20% of the benefits, which is not a productive use of our time. Rather, we should spend most of our efforts on those things that matter most (by analogy, that provide 80% of the benefits). As for suspending judgment, it's pretty much impossible to gauge the accuracy of someone's personal childhood memories. I find it more productive to try to understand why she tells the story the way she does and how she interprets them. The accuracy of the memory is secondary.
Bernard Gui Posted July 24, 2018 Author Posted July 24, 2018 7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I'm familiar with the 80/20 rule, which is that often we spend 80% of our time on issues that provide only 20% of the benefits, which is not a productive use of our time. Rather, we should spend most of our efforts on those things that matter most (by analogy, that provide 80% of the benefits). As for suspending judgment, it's pretty much impossible to gauge the accuracy of someone's personal childhood memories. I find it more productive to try to understand why she tells the story the way she does and how she interprets them. The accuracy of the memory is secondary. Unless, of course, others use the memories for their own agendas. Then accuracy becomes important.
jkwilliams Posted July 24, 2018 Posted July 24, 2018 Just now, Bernard Gui said: Unless, of course, others use the memories for their own agendas. Then accuracy becomes important. Everyone uses their memories for their own agenda. That's what humans do.
mfbukowski Posted July 24, 2018 Posted July 24, 2018 Interesting how we naturally give slack to someone reconstructing their own memories of a situation if they are a sympathetic character. But if we are talking about Joseph Smith and the first vision is an entirely different story. And for some odd reason it seems to me that those most willing to cut sister Westover some slack might be hardest on Joseph. I don't know if that's true it's just something that seems to me. We all reconstruct our pasts, because there is no such thing as objectivity about subjective memories. I suppose it's just that those with whom we most closely relate must be telling the truth while those who are different than ourselves are easier to see as liars and scoundrels. It would be interesting to meet her parents, and get their side no matter how bizarre at might be. 1
Bernard Gui Posted July 24, 2018 Author Posted July 24, 2018 Sister Gui here, My daughter and I read the book, Educated which prompted lengthy discussions. It is currently a very popular book especially among lit group crowds. For us this booked raised a lot of questions. Questions about faith and medicine, memories and witnesses and parental "rights". What constitutes abuse? neglect? reckless parenting? Who do you believe when there are conflicting versions of an event? How fragile is "sanity" when those you trust tell you that your recollections are the results of your own frenzied mind? What things do I do in the name of faith that others might consider kooky? What is my relationship between faith and modern medicine? Where do I draw the line? Can one be an extreme Latter-day Saint? I know faithful members of the church that put a lot of stock in essential oils, naturopathic medicine and other alternate forms of health care. I personally do not. But I also enjoy pretty good health. I consider the advice of medical doctors acknowledging that they don't know everything. They're human, doing the best they know how and sometimes make mistakes too. Ultimately, I am responsible for choices that impact my health and try to make these choices prayerfully. In Tara's memoir I think she is saying her parents claimed the health care choices they made for their family were directed by the spirit. Her parents claimed that hospitals and modern medical practices were evil. In one incident her father suffered life threatening burns in an explosion in his scrap yard. When her mother's "miracle oil" heals him, he claims it is God's will to show His power. Her dad says that he would intentionally do it again to demonstrate his faith in God. Where do we draw the line between faith and fanaticism? There are a couple of somewhat recent conference talks that addressed this issue. At the time of those addresses my daughter remembered wondering why modern medicine was being discussed in conference. Apparently there are other members of the church who refuse modern medical services and share the Westover family view of faith and healing. 2
jkwilliams Posted July 24, 2018 Posted July 24, 2018 Just now, mfbukowski said: Interesting how we naturally give slack to someone reconstructing their own memories of a situation if they are a sympathetic character. But if we are talking about Joseph Smith and the first vision is an entirely different story. And for some odd reason it seems to me that those most willing to cut sister Westover some slack might be hardest on Joseph. I don't know if that's true it's just something that seems to me. We all reconstruct our pasts, because there is no such thing as objectivity about subjective memories. I suppose it's just that those with whom we most closely relate must be telling the truth while those who are different than ourselves are easier to see as liars and scoundrels. It would be interesting to meet her parents, and get their side no matter how bizarre at might be. It's not about cutting people slack or deciding who is "telling the truth." It's about understanding that memory is a creative act and learning what we can from that act.
Bernard Gui Posted July 24, 2018 Author Posted July 24, 2018 35 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Everyone uses their memories for their own agenda. That's what humans do. Not disagreeing at all. Of course that's what we do.
Bernard Gui Posted July 24, 2018 Author Posted July 24, 2018 Just now, jkwilliams said: It's not about cutting people slack or deciding who is "telling the truth." It's about understanding that memory is a creative act and learning what we can from that act. Creative act? It's one thing to try to recreate what happened. It's another thing to compose new material. Some of the reviews expressed the opinion that maybe it's too soon in their lives to be telling these stories, that waiting for perspective and wisdom gained over time may be more appropriate.
jkwilliams Posted July 24, 2018 Posted July 24, 2018 Just now, Bernard Gui said: Creative act? It's one thing to try to recreate what happened. It's another thing to compose new material. Some of the reviews expressed the opinion that maybe it's too soon in their lives to be telling these stories, that waiting for perspective and wisdom gained over time may be more appropriate. Every "recreation" of the past is its own creation because it is an assignation of meaning. Otherwise, how do we explain that a memory means something different 10 years later than it does 10 minutes after the event?
Steve-o Posted July 24, 2018 Posted July 24, 2018 This is one I've really wanted to read. Thanks for the reminder and recommendations.
ALarson Posted July 24, 2018 Posted July 24, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said: Creative act? It's one thing to try to recreate what happened. It's another thing to compose new material. Are you saying that you believe she made some of it up (her story)? 1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said: Some of the reviews expressed the opinion that maybe it's too soon in their lives to be telling these stories, that waiting for perspective and wisdom gained over time may be more appropriate. That may be true (that it is "too soon" for them). But apparently the author felt it was the right time for her. She's telling it from her perspective now regarding the wisdom she gained from her experiences. I'm sure most readers will understand that and also know that her story continues on. Maybe she'll write a second book years down the road with even deeper understanding and perspective. But that doesn't mean it's not appropriate for her to write about it and speak about it now. Edited July 24, 2018 by ALarson
mfbukowski Posted July 24, 2018 Posted July 24, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, jkwilliams said: It's not about cutting people slack or deciding who is "telling the truth." It's about understanding that memory is a creative act and learning what we can from that act. Yes that is what I said but my comment was about whom we believe when they give an account of the memory they have created. I think you missed the point. It's like this: Quote That’s just it. You don’t have to accept her version, just acknowledge it’s hers. We choose who's version we accept according to inevitable prejudices since there is no objective evidence available to anyone. Edited July 24, 2018 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted July 24, 2018 Posted July 24, 2018 (edited) duplicate Edited July 24, 2018 by mfbukowski
jkwilliams Posted July 24, 2018 Posted July 24, 2018 1 minute ago, mfbukowski said: Yes that is what I said but my comment was about whom we believe when they give an account of the memory they have created. I think you missed the point. No, I got your point. I would say it's more a function of the stakes involved in believing someone else. I doubt anyone here has any huge investment in whether Tara Westover's account is 100% accurate (whatever that means).
Calm Posted July 24, 2018 Posted July 24, 2018 2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: Unless, of course, others use the memories for their own agendas. Then accuracy becomes important. Is anyone using her work for their own agenda? 1
jkwilliams Posted July 24, 2018 Posted July 24, 2018 5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Yes that is what I said but my comment was about whom we believe when they give an account of the memory they have created. I think you missed the point. It's like this: As I said, acknowledging that the account is hers isn't about believing her at all. 1
mfbukowski Posted July 24, 2018 Posted July 24, 2018 1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said: Creative act? It's one thing to try to recreate what happened. It's another thing to compose new material. Some of the reviews expressed the opinion that maybe it's too soon in their lives to be telling these stories, that waiting for perspective and wisdom gained over time may be more appropriate. Which is exactly what Joseph Smith gets flak for doing. - That's my point.
ALarson Posted July 24, 2018 Posted July 24, 2018 (edited) 20 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: As I said, acknowledging that the account is hers isn't about believing her at all. I have not read the book (just saying that up front). But I have read some about her and from her. My impression is that she told the truth regarding what she remembers and how she personally interpreted what took place. I have 5 siblings. I've learned that when we get together, we each have our own memories and interpretations (or how we internalized certain situations growing up). None of us are making things up or lying, but we sometimes remember different events differently (not vastly different, but with different details or impressions). Some of it just simply has to do with what age we were at the time (one of the older kids or one of the youngest). I'd imagine that is what is taking place here and it doesn't mean she's not being truthful or is not honest (or that she has an agenda). Edited July 24, 2018 by ALarson 1
Recommended Posts