Educated ~ Tara Westover ~ Mini discussion~ July 19

[BooksAdmin]

You’ve heard about it, everybody is reading it,  you can’t put it down,  but what do YOU make of Educated?  Mark your calendar for July 19 and join us in our new fun Mini Book Discussion Series this summer and help us discuss  Educated: A Memoir by Tara Westover,  an unbelievable and true story which will never be forgotten by anybody who reads it. Come tell us what you think!

How is a Mini  Discussion different from a regular one?

1.  We read the book in its entirety before the first day.

2. We've been using the  ALA "Index card" approach which has worked wonderfully. In essence everybody has been given a (virtual) "index card" which they then "write" on, giving a question they'd like to see discussed or their thoughts on the book or something in the book, just whatever they would like to talk about.  They email that to me (click on envelope under my name or request email address here) and if you don't have email, post your question initially and I'll save it as submitted and we'll put it like the others, in the rota,  and then on July 19 I will take the cards and each day we'll consider a new one submitted in alphabetical order of the person submitting.

We  address  THAT question or thought for an entire day. And we can also look back, after addressing that thought, to something said before.  I love this concept, and that everybody has their day.

Once the cards are finished, anybody can  bring  up anything they like about the book.

Should someone not want to submit a question or thought, no problem, you are as welcome as the flowers in July to participate any way you wish.




Everyone is welcome!

[ginny]

Here is a very good question and answer interview with Tara Westover who wrote Educated from PBS which I think may surprise some people:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvYg_gp0JPchttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvYg_gp0JPc

[ginny]

Another interview, this one audio only from NPR in January with  Tara Westover. In this one she makes some interesting remarks about stopping toxicity in a family or situation and where she is today with her family.

https://www.npr.org/programs/fresh-air/2019/01/18/686464365

[ginny]

Just a note about this book before we start discussing it on the 19th. It appears from the Reviews on Goodreads and other places that the world is totally divided over the book, and passionately so.  You apparently either love it or hate it because it contains elements worthy of both. I recommend reading the one star reviews on Goodreads  as kind of a jumping off place, as they bring up issues that need to be included in the conversation.

I have never seen a book which so  many people alternately absolutely raved over and hated, and of course that makes for a great discussion. It seems to touch many buttons, so it will be fascinating to see what our intelligent readers make of it here.

I thought the NPR interview which has the followup coda of whom in the family she now is in contact with was the most revealing. She is very careful to exonerate and find excuses for her father, not so her mother (though if my own mother ran about telling people today I had a demon in me I am not sure I would find excuses either).

I have my  own strong opinions about what I read, and I hope you'll express yours, too, but without any desire to change the opinions of those here, we're all entitled to the buttons it pushes,  and I personally benefited by reading the GoodReads negative reviews, as I don't need the positive ones: I'm there. 

I think that's why book discussions are so  useful, you get all different opinions about reading the same thing.

Just to say I'm looking forward to this, and the reasons why!

[bellamarie]

Ginny, you  nailed it!  This book is a love/hate book.  Depending on your own personal life experiences, it can, and did touch on subjects that I experienced as a child, living in a home of seven children, with my mother, who feared my abusive/drunken step father.  This book gave me chills, causing so many memories flood my mind.  I have begun writing a book, but what always brings me to a standstill, is how my emotions are still raw, when I relive what happened in our home.  Tara did a great job in giving the reader, a clear picture of how a child lives in a home of abuse, and mental illness.  And, how to survive it.

I love the "mini" discussion format, although, with a book like this, there is so much packed in this book, that if we were reading at the same time, chapter by chapter, it would probably get a lengthy, in-depth discussion.  Knowing our group, we will pick the meat off the bones.

Thank you for the links.  Looking forward to the 19th.   

[PatH]

I'm back from Portland, and have started Educated.  It remains to be seen where I'll end up on the love/hate spectrum, but there's no doubt that I'll finish it--it really sucked me in.

[ginny]

It really does, and it's very well written, too. I'm looking forward to this as well.

Now the way the "Mini" discussions work is that each person, should he or she want to, can submit a topic du jour,  a question they want to discuss, or a thought they had when reading it or anything they want to say they felt about the book which will lthen lead the next day, will be the topic of attention that day.

These can be submitted to me by clicking on the email drawing under my name, you don't need an email account to do it and on  your day we discuss your thought and we can discuss also any prior things we touched on earlier,  but nothing else.  But that ensures that your thought or question or observation gets our full attention on that day.

It's light, it's fun,  and I personally love it.

I have an opening thought for Friday the 19th and then we'll take any submitted in alphabetical order each day after that. This procedure is a recommendation from the American Library Association, and I very much like the concept.

If you would prefer not to do that, once all the topics submitted are touched on, you can be free to bring up anything in the discussion itself as always.

Looking forward to this, very much!

It's light, it's easy, and it's fun.  Everyone is welcome!

[bellamarie]

Ginny,  I'm not so sure I would agree with you on this particular book discussion as being, "light or easy," This is a very serious book, that deals with family dysfunction, horrible accidents, mental illness, and other topics, that gave me chills at times.  But I do think this discussion will be interesting.

Pat, I am so glad you are reading the book, and will be joining us!

Jonathan, Please join us, I look forward to your insight.

I like the index card idea, and even if someone does not want to submit a question, please join us in the discussion.

[ginny]

Bellamarie, I was trying to say that from the POV of the person leading the discussion, the Mini format itself  is light and easy and fun, not the book. I am not sure anybody would consider the book light, easy, or fun.

At least I wouldn't. 

[bellamarie]

Ooops, sorry, my mistake.  Yes, I like this new format.

[ginny]

Not a problem, I wasn't clear.

[Jonathan]

'It's light, it's easy, and it's fun.'

I like that, Giiny, even if applied to the book as a read. Everyone is reading it and telling me, 'I couldn't put it down.' It's a religious household, and so even the calamities are trials, or even blessings, sent from heaven. As recalled by the lost, or black sheep in the family. It takes one to know one. Many readers must be putting themselves into this memoir.

[ginny]

I think you're absolutely right, Jonathan. And depending on what the personal experience or viewpoint of each person IS this should make for a fascinating discussion.

So glad to see you here, hope you are feeling much better!

[ginny]

Good morning, All, and welcome to our new Mini discussion of Educated by Tara Westover!

So you've read it, and you love it or hate it? It's going to be hard to discuss.

For our opening index card,  our first topic du jour, I had a terrible time starting with just one question.  Here are some I considered:  Jonathan's post above refers to a religious family. Is that what  it is? Why did she write this? For what purpose? When you listen to her interviews she defends Dad, saying he's got some kind of disorder mentally (bi polar, perhaps?)  but loved his children and would never put them in harm's way... REALLY? That alone is mind boggling. And seemed to not understand danger...I guess that's one way to put it. And I don't even want to go into  that last  interview when asked to give something positive in her life which might have inspired her to learn,  saying Dad  always said you could teach yourself anything. Education again.  Let's face it, as one of the   Goodreads reviewers said, you can't teach  yourself astro physics (or something like that)  if you don't know it exists. So what does she mean by "Educated?"

Yes I'd say Dad has some issues but then there's  Mom, who is strangely left out of the ameliorating descriptions and actually her Essential Oils (buy some on Amazon today!) certainly    almost look like witch "potions," but who now refers to her daughter as possessed of a demon?  And then there's "Shawn," is that his "name" in the book, the psycho brother?  Almost certifiable, abusive, one constantly worries over his own wife and children, where is Child Protective Services? Seriously! ....MERCY,  where to even start??

Finally, considering all of the above, I think I'd  like to start, strangely enough,  with the title and what it seems to imply, because I THINK it shows the reason she wrote the book.

Why would she call her memoir "Educated?"

On the surface that seems an obvious question, doesn't it?

I would not have titled this "Educated."  What would YOU have titled it?

But she is referring to herself, or is she?

Because she called it Educated,  I wonder what that implies: is it  in comparison with anybody or anything? And essentially then  why she wrote it?  Is it saying that she, now certainly by anybody's standards, educated,  now sees the light and that's the benefit of education? If so what does that make  the rest of the people in the book, her family, some of whom also have PhD's. So why did she write it, then? What do you think  she means by the word "educated?" And does that imply anything  at all about the people depicted in it? 

I think that title implies a lot more than a reference to her education, but  I may be wrong. What do YOU think?

Everyone is welcome!

[Jonathan]

'I would not have titled this "Educated."  What would YOU have titled it?'

'So what does she mean by "Educated?" '

She does use the word 'educated' in a variety of contexts. including the reading of 'Dad's books, which were mostly compilations of the speeches, letters and journals of the early Morman prophets....In retrospect, I see that  this was my education, the one that would matter, the hours I spent sitting at (Tyler's) desk, struggling to parse narrow strands of Morman doctrine in mimicry of a brother who'd deserted me. The skill I was learning was a crucial one, the patience to read things I could not understand.' (p 62 )

But first of all, in the Prologue, as a child, she watches as 'On tne highway below, the school bus rolls past without stopping.' (xiii) Then follows the ordeal of her education.

As an alternative title I would suggest SHRIVEN. She must tell her tale, like the ancient mariner in Coleridge's Rime. Dad is the albatross. Keeping us readers. like the wedding guest, mesmorized.

 

[Jonathan]

The memoir is the most popular of literary genres. The plaudits on the back cover of my book has Educated in company with Wild and The Glass Castle. The road to Cambridge is wilder than the Pacific crest trail and the scrapyard in Idaho is tougher than anything made of glass.

[bellamarie]

Good afternoon all!  I have been waiting with bated breath, to begin this discussion. 

Ginny, such a great intro to the beginning of our discussion, and yes, I asked myself over and over, why did she title this book, Educated?

As a retired K-8th grade teacher, mother, grandparent, and religious teacher for over 30 years, I see education through many different prisms.  Tara, I feel has manipulated the market, and tricked the buyers, by using a pencil, and the title of the book, Educated, to draw them in, thinking this has to do with "education", as in classroom learning.  If a person considering buying this book has no prior knowledge of it, does not read the excerpts, and only goes by the cover, many, like myself as being in education, may instantly want to read it, since as Jonathan has pointed out,

The memoir is the most popular of literary genres.

Guess we should all heed, “You can never tell a book by its cover.”

The phrase is attributed to a 1944 edition of the African journal American Speech: “You can't judge a book by its binding.” It was popularized even more when it appeared in the 1946 murder mystery Murder in the Glass Room by Lester Fuller and Edwin Rolfe: “You can never tell a book by its cover.”  https://www.google.com/search?q=quote+never+buy+a+book+by+its+cover&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS722US722&oq=quote+never+buy+a+book+by+its+cover&aqs=chrome..69i57j33.10804j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

I was discussing this book with my neighbor friend, who has taught special needs students in grades 5-6 for almost 40 years.  She has not yet read the book.  I told her, for someone to write a book and title it Educated, attend Cambridge and Harvard, two of the most prestigious colleges, and earn a PhD in Intellectual History, she seems to me to be "uneducated."

Now in all fairness, I do give her credit for finally leaving Idaho, going to BYU, Trinity College, Cambridge and Harvard.  But, and you knew it was coming, what exactly did she learn?  Yes, book knowledge, mostly she was interested in history, once she realized her Dad had completely misrepresented the government, and the Illuminati, coming for the neighbors. But other than book knowledge, the entire book seems more focused on telling her family life story.  I didn't see it about religion.  If anything, the Mormons would not want to be associated with this family, knowing their distorted, evil, controlling and dangerous thinking and actions.  The parents refuse medical care in the most extreme times, the mother is giving out healing oils with no licenses. 

In Tara's interviews, which I have listened to, and Ginny has pointed out, 

When you listen to her interviews she defends Dad, saying he's got some kind of disorder mentally (bi polar, perhaps?)  but loved his children and would never put them in harm's way...

NEVER put them in harm's way?  Are you kidding me?  She tells one dangerous incident after another, where she and her brothers were put in harms way, due to her father's stubbornness, and need to do things his own way. 

Just how much can we actually believe of her accounts in the book, when she contradicts herself, in these interviews?  Where do I begin, and how long would it take me, to reach an end with my frustrations with her, and this book? 

Oh Ginny, you touched on so many issues, that I myself was asking, after reading this book twice, watched her video interviews, and read hundreds, if not thousands of reviews, of not only her family members, but of readers who also have read the book. 

I need to stop here, because I can feel my blood pressure boiling.  Thank goodness it's National Ice Cream month, and Sunday is National Ice Cream Day, because I intend to cool off with a nice bowl of one of the five flavors my hubby just came home with from Kroger's, who has their half gallon on sale for only $ .99 today and tomorrow. 

Before I leave, I will give you an answer to your question,  "What would YOU have titled it?"

Abuse.. One Perspective, One Survivor 

I have spoken over the years with my siblings, since my parents have died.  We all have our own personal perspective, of events that happened in our family/home growing up.  As I stated before, I was raised in an abusive home. My mother remarried, after my biological father was killed in a train wreck, when I was just 3 yrs old, second youngest of seven. I refuse to call this man my step-father, because not one of us seven children ever called him anything other than, Bob.  He was a drunkard, abuser, and the memories my siblings and I talk about, are usually all in sync, some because they were older, have more memories than myself.  No one denies the abuse, no one has different facts of the incidents, we all know what happened, we just might have different emotional scars, depending on the level of abuse we each received individually.  I asked my mother one day after I was married, and she was divorced from this man, "Why did you stay with him all those years?"  I knew she suffered at the hands of this abuser as well. I have never blamed her, I only needed to ask the question, once I knew we were all grown and safe.  Her answer would have never mattered, or changed how much I loved her, because I have been educated, as to why women stay in abusive relationships. I just needed to ask the question.

Unlike Tara, her siblings, or the mother in this book ...I, my siblings, nor our mother, would ever, try to defend or deny, abuse.   

[ginny]

Oh GOSH what good points and titles! I would never have come up with either.

And your titles and your points actually illuminate several things that make the book especially hard to read. Let's look at that in the next post.

I love those titles. Shriven, indeed, that's a good reason why she wrote the book. That poor child. Abuse: One Perspective, One Survivor, love that one, too. That's it, both of them, in a nutshell.

I can't do better than either.

She strikes me in the video interviews as a very impressive, attractive extremely intelligent young woman. I have a feeling if we met either Mom or Dad we'd not have the same impression. What an awful awful thing to happen to that child, or any child in that situation.

One of the things that I dislike extremely about the book is that it makes me so judgmental of the people in it. We all know nothing "makes" you feel any way, you do that to yourself.

My title for the book would be Ignorant because that's what that family is, to me.  I HATE being that judgmental. HATE it.

Using  religion as an excuse for their ignorant behavior.. Unfortunately they are not alone in this world, there are multitudes out there just like them.  Good heavens, how angry it made me to read it.  I was angry FOR her. I'm glad she got out. Why she would ever want to see any of them again is beyond me.   

How on earth she manages to say something nice about any of them is beyond  me. Why does she?

Because it's the only family she has? The only parents she has?

[ginny]

Jonathan:

The road to Cambridge is wilder than the Pacific crest trail and the scrapyard in Idaho is tougher than anything made of glass.

Is the reader supposed to get the impression the scrapyard is tough? Manly men type of thing? The father tells the little girl to get up on top of the fork lift which he knows is unstable to ...I can't even finish this sentence. That's not tough. That's stupid and foolhardy and  ignorant....Her matter of fact narration from the POV as a child has us anxiously peering over her shoulder protectively, holding our breath in fear.

It really IS well written, isn't it?




She is the youngest of 7. What strength it must have taken .... I can't imagine.

 I believe she can't speak about her mom  as she does about Dad  because he continually denied there was a problem with the brother  while Mom acknowledged it to her but then backed down to Dad.  For whatever excuse she then failed to stand up for her daughter. She betrayed her.

[Jonathan]

I see the book as an attempt at reconciliation with her father and the rest of the family. Even with that sadistic brother, Shawn. Tara would like to go home to her beloved Buck's Peak.

I can well imagine all the reader responses. I'm staying away from the reviews and interviews.

[ginny]

Jonathan mentions something I had forgotten: the reading of 'Dad's books, which were mostly compilations of the speeches, letters and journals of the early Morman prophets....In retrospect, I see that  this was my education, the one that would matter, the hours I spent sitting at (Tyler's) desk, struggling to parse narrow strands of Morman doctrine in mimicry of a brother who'd deserted me. The skill I was learning was a crucial one, the patience to read things I could not understand.' (p 62 )

So SHE turned a sows ear into a silk purse herself, and sees the gold pot under the rainbow (somehow) by trying to learn to read. I spent half the book wondering how the poor child learned to read because  she acknowledges that Mom "kind of quit" with the homeschooling and excuses that because she was so busy with 7 kids the essential oils business and all that she just didn't have time. I am sure I wouldn't have had the time either, that's why some children go to public school. That's so poignant about the school bus going by, leaving her behind. Good quote, Jonathan, it's apparent that Dad was  once a different person and something turned him nuts.

I read Bellamarie  saying, "The parents refuse medical care in the most extreme times, the mother is giving out healing oils with no licenses."

Yes, and she also was a midwife and wanted to stop, with her brain damage from the accident (caused by  Dad's insistence) she felt she might cause real  harm.  She was not up to it.  Why did she not stop?  We know the reason for that, too, don't we? The proverbial Elephant in the Living Room is Dad, isn't he?

We need to talk more about education, too, and how it might change one, and truth and lies, and so many other things: what a rich rich canvas the author has given us, I will be interested in what you all  think about all the provocative questions coming up, if only I can stay dispassionate about the book long enough to do so.

Wonderful opening points!

Love it!

[ginny]

Bellamarie ends her post saying none of her family would ever deny the abuse in her family.

Jonathan says I see the book as an attempt at reconciliation with her father and the rest of the family. Even with that sadistic brother, Shawn. Tara would like to go home to her beloved Buck's Peak.

I am afraid you've both put  your fingers on it. I have a feeling she does want reconciliation with her father and family. Why?  Would any of you? Child's life was a combat zone.

What do you think her chances are? Continue to make excuses for Dad or give up and join the snake pit? Play more "games"  with Shawn? She can't go home again, can she? Her eyes are that much more opened by what I think she means by "educated."

But is what she said TRUE? Stay tuned for tomorrow's topic but in the meantime please give us  your thoughts!

[PatH]

There are so many things to talk about it's hard to know where to start.  The reaction I felt to the book wasn't anger, it was oppression.  After about a quarter of the book, I started feeling like I was under a dark cloud, a kind of indefinite wave of suffocating menace, getting stronger as the book went on.  Still, I couldn't put the book down, and eventually the menace seemed to lighten more and more, evaporating as Tara pulled farther and farther from her family, more and more into the real outside world.  I don't know if this is how it seemed to Tara, but she somehow got me to feel the mood.

[bellamarie]

Jonathan, 

I see the book as an attempt at reconciliation with her father and the rest of the family. Even with that sadistic brother, Shawn. Tara would like to go home to her beloved Buck's Peak.

She went back to her "beloved Buck's Peak" for her grandmother's funeral, and look how that went.  She was snubbed by family members, rejected by her mother, because Tara wanted her to meet her without the Dad, and had to stay with her Aunt Angie, because she was not welcome in her family's home.  pg 234-236

Ginny, 

I have a feeling she does want reconciliation with her father and family. Why?  Would any of you? Child's life was a combat zone.

She may indeed want reconciliation, but writing this book would be the last way to bring that about.  If anything, they have a lawyer speaking on their behalf, who has said:

“Tara’s parents are disappointed Tara would write a book that maligns them, their religion, their country, and homeschooling,” he said.

“The Westovers have hundreds of people that rely on their business, so they’ve instructed me to not let the allegations go unanswered,” Atkin said.

https://www.hjnews.com/preston/news/educated-should-be-read-with-grain-of-salt-says-family/article_0583f217-6fd2-51de-a891-9ca32adb589c.html

Interesting, how he mentions their concerns, are for their business, NOT possible family reconciliation.

Ginny, 

She strikes me in the video interviews as a very impressive, attractive extremely intelligent young woman.

I got quite a different impression of her in the videos, if anything I was shocked at how young, immature and not well educated she seemed.  When asked what is next for her, she seemed like a deer in headlights.  She mentioned it took her six months to learn how to write this book.  I could not believe I heard her correctly, and played that again. After her attending two of the finest colleges in the world, it took her six months on grammar, etc.?  I also got the impression in the video interview, she was being very cautious about what she said about her parents, either to not alienate them any more, to defend them, or to not give more credence to a possible defamation of character lawsuit. 

PatH.,

I started feeling like I was under a dark cloud, a kind of indefinite wave of suffocating menace, getting stronger as the book went on.

I actually felt a bit of anxiety, and panic, for the children, Shawn's wife and his children, especially after he slaughtered their dog.  One incident after another, of danger lurking.  Not to mention wondering when the psychotic brother Shawn, was going to torment Tara for no reason.  There were times reading this book I felt like vomiting, from the ugliness and cruelty.  It never lightened for me, just when I thought things would be better, it only showed the parents or siblings were trying to deny, control, or demand Tara stay within the fold of the family.  Even when she was not living there in Buck's Peak, she could not escape it from her mind. 

Ginny, to answer your question, if any of us would want reconciliation, I personally after living in an abused home, resoundingly would answer NO!  Once I married, and moved to a new state, I never wanted to see that man, ever again. If anything, I got complete pleasure and closure, testifying against him in court, on behalf of my mother, in their divorce.

Tara, mentioned she went to counseling, any good counselor would help her deal with staying away from toxic people in her life, and love them from afar.  I sense she needs ongoing therapy, because her interviews gave me cause to think she is still trapped, in that dysfunctional, sadistic family. 

Education is the process of facilitating learning, or the acquisition of knowledge, skills, values, beliefs, and habits. 

https://www.google.com/search?q=education&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS722US722&oq=education&aqs=chrome..69i57j0j69i65j0l3.4144j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

“knowledge without application is like a book that is never read' Christopher Crawford, Hemel Hempstead.”
― Christopher Crawford
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/application

I feel Tara must now learn how to apply, her education. 

Education is an ongoing process, it never ends, even after earning degrees and PhDs....

[ginny]

Wow, what great points here this morning, thank you both.

I agree, Pat, and I loved your coming into the light type of lessening  of oppression, it's almost like a horror story, isn't it, you keep screaming at the woman in the old movies who hears a noise NOT to light the candle and go out there, but of course she does and so do you, too, along, fearfully.

Yes it's quite a roller coaster ride.

I spent some time thinking about it last night and wanting to say something positive about the book, in the interest of not being oppressive about it, myself. . I can't truly think of anything positive about the family except the one brother who did reach out to her and support her and the friend Charles who backed her up about "Shawn," and if that name is not spelled correctly I can put in his real name. I don't feel any obligation to cover him up from public censure.

I couldn't remember how the book started, and finally did, and both Jonathan and Bellamarie have mentioned her beloved Bucks Peak, poor child. You find comfort wherever you can , don't you? So that's how it starts, a child's memory of what's good and strong and comforting. A mountain.

But in the interest of fair play we need to try to present all sides. Here is Bellamarie's question du jour, what do you think?

After reading the book twice, and listening to two interviews of Tara Westover, and reading hundreds of reviews, then reading an article where her older brother does not agree with her memories, her parents and other siblings say she is more or less fabricating incidents, and their lawyer has said, "Although “there’s a little germ of truth,” in “Educated,” the book falsely portrays the Westover family, Atkin said" 

“My hope is that people will read the book with a little grain of salt,” Atkin said.

https://www.hjnews.com/preston/news/educated-should-be-read-with-grain-of-salt-says-family/article_0583f217-6fd2-51de-a891-9ca32adb589c.html

First, let me identify myself. I am Tyler Westover, brother number three in this book. In her book, in numerous places, Tara interprets for me and other members of my family things that we did, said, thought, and even felt. I cannot speak for the other members of my family, but in my case I think in many instances she greatly incorrectly conveyed my experiences. In the interest of a balanced viewpoint, it seems that I should at least attempt to share a part of my perspective, while still supporting her as much as I can. I do recognize this is her memoir, and she describes her experiences from her paradigm. However, it seems reasonable for me to explain my perspective and outline events that demonstrate the validity of my perspective, in my review."

https://www.goodreads.com/questions/1337824-i-saw-mentioned-that-tyler-westover-has

My question is this:  When an author writes a memoir, it is nonfiction, yet admits inside the book, she is not present when something happens, and gets bits and pieces from others, or that "THIS IS HOW SHE SEES IT HAPPENED",  how is the reader to believe any, or all of her accounts, when those who were present, disputes her?

[ginny]

Here's my reaction to that, an excellent excellent question. and one of the difficult ones we need to ask.

First I believe every word she's written about her own observations. What she actually saw, the primary history she lived. I always do believe every word. It's her story as she felt it and lived it and that's all she's writing. That's all anybody can write.

As we all know in relating history there are three kinds of sources: primary, secondary and tertiary.

Primary is what the person writing actually lived, saw, and experienced. Secondary is what others write or say about it who did not actually experience that very same event.. Tertiary is what others analyze it as. 

So her primary testimony to me is accurate, in that it's what she felt, saw, and expressed the best she can. But then how can two primary sources which disagree differ?  Memory is a tricky thing, that's been proven recently our childhood memories (GASP!) may in fact not be accurate. (Try telling THAT to anybody, but it's true, they find.)   Three people can personally have experienced one event and got something different emotionally or whatever out of it. A room full of people burst in on will NOT agree in almost any way on how the person who burst in looked or what he wore or did.

So this is her memory, her life. It's how she felt.  She's entitled. In a normal family surely after all these years somebody would say Oh I'm so sorry, so sorry for your hurt and anger ...no...she is "possessed of a demon,"  according to her mother. There is real ignorance in that family, versus what real education is, enlightenment, and I don't care how much money they make or how, that is profound Ignorance with a capital I, and there's nothing religious or justifiable about it. It's frightening, isn't it?  Ignorance and want, so it goes we always have with  us, but as the Ghost of Christmas Present told Scrooge, beware the boy (Ignorance) the most.

I am not surprised she looks a bit nervous in interviews. I can imagine the backlash and vitriol coming at her day and night  from the nut cases of Buck's Peak, her own support group, their fans and every other nut case on earth.  She has had nothing at all to back her up but the one brother who seemed to be backing off from the backlash and the outsider, her date, "Charles," who was the only one to dare to say that Shawn's game was abnormal. And it made all the difference to her. This kind of Ignorance and abuse depends on secrecy and isolation. FAUGH.

I mean let's face it folks, when your own  mother in 2019 says you are possessed of a demon, wouldn't you be nervous facing cameras and criticism? I certainly would. It takes a tremendous amount of strength to do what she's doing. Where did she get that? From dear old mom n dad? No from surviving somehow their....ARGGGH

And I agree, Bellamaire, if she DOES want reconciliation this is absolutely the worst way in the world to go about it, but what else can she do really? She has tried.  They won't listen. And she is angry and she should be. She sees that not everybody in the world actually lives like these cretins (that's part of being "educated" ),  and yes there may be some payback here, she's exposing their Walton facade as just that.

MAYBE she hopes Fair Dad will finally BE educated and see the light. I wouldn't hold my breath because I think he's seen it all his life.

And how revolting it is to have to be this judgmental but what can ANYBODY do faced with this mess? Is there anything except her which is remotely praise worthy? Help me with this.  THEY, all of them, to this book hire a lawyer (and as Bellamarie says, they seem strangely  (really?) more interested in their business than her) and put it down to demons? I ask you.

What justification can any of us offer for any of this? Is there a bright light (other than the author herself) to come out of this?

As for the Secondary sources, the differing opinions, if primary sources disagree then why wouldn't secondary sources?

So who can you trust?

And of course the Essential Oils people need to spin  to try to hang on to their...facade. I don't believe one word any of them say, because other outsiders who have seen some of this (like Charles) have added the stability of shock reactions that a normal person if there is such a thing would have at their behavior.

I believe her, all the way. If I could, I'd put an arm around her in those interviews, but she doesn't need me,  I'd be the one shaking up there, not her, she'd have to hold me up.

WONDERFUL question and one being raised continually about other things, too, which I hope we can get into also.

What do YOU think? About any or all of this?

[ginny]

And one more:

Bellamarie said, "
I feel Tara must now learn how to apply, her education."

I think that's exactly what she's done in Educated.

[PatH]

That's a super question, Bellamarie, the central problem of reading a memoir.  And here the story is told by someone who, whatever version you believe, is describing a childhood full of traumatic events, the hardest to remember correctly, especially if you are yourself in shock or pain.

Tara is very aware of this problem, as a historian should be.  She distrusts her childhood journals.  When Shawn fell off the pallet and suffered a serious head injury, the doctors said his personality might change, and he had shown some violent tendencies.  How much was this a change in this sadistic tormentor?

Page 131

Reflecting on it now, I'm not sure the injury changed him that much, but I convinced myself that it had, and that any cruelty on his part was entirely new.  I can read my journals from this period and trace the evolution--of a young girl rewriting her history.  In the reality she constructed for herself nothing had been wrong before her brother fell off that pallet.  I wish I had my best friend back, she wrote.  Before his injury, I never got hurt at all.

More after I take a break.

[Jonathan]

'Is there a bright light (other than the author herself) to come out of this?'

Of course there is. But first...such amazing posts.  The family must be in a turmoil. Going to court would be foolish. I think Tara's story is an appeal for forgiveness all around.

The poor soul. She's homesick. But there is a streak of stubborn pride. God bless her.

[bellamarie]

Ginny, 

As we all know in relating history there are three kinds of sources: primary, secondary and tertiary.

Thank you for the information you provided on relating history, and the three sources.  Sad to admit, we all don't know this, or at least, I sure didn't. I must say, I just got an education!     

Ginny,

First I believe every word she's written about her own observations. What she actually saw, the primary history she lived. I always do believe every word. It's her story as she felt it and lived it and that's all she's writing. That's all anybody can write.

I believe her, all the way.

I presented this particular question about what can we believe and what is possibly fabricated or embellished, because as I read the book, Tara herself was contradicting things.  I am a huge believer that non fiction should deal factually, not supposition or imagination.  You can not speak and say, how another person thinks or feels, unless they have told you directly, these are indeed their thoughts and feelings.  Tara has crossed this line, numerous times. 

The entire story of Luke being set on fire, for me is inconsistent, and full of her imagining what happened, yet on pg. 68 Tara writes,

"I remember that lunch with unsettling clarity. 

Then on pg. 73 

"Now, at age twenty-nine, I sit down to write, to reconstruct the incident from the echoes and shouts of a tired memory.  I scratch it out.  When I get to the end, I pause.  There's an inconsistency, a ghost in this story.  I read it.  I read it again.  And there it is.  Who put out the fire?  A long-dormant voice says, Dad did.  But Luke was alone when I found him.  If Dad had been with Luke on the mountain, he would have brought him to the house, would have treated the burn.  Dad was away on a job somewhere, that's why Luke had had to get himself down the mountain.  Why his leg had been treated by a ten year old.  Why it had ended up in a garbage can.  I decide to ask Richard.  He's older than I, and has a sharper memory.  I call.... he remember the spilled gasoline.  I ask how Luke managed to put out the fires and get himself down the mountain, given that he was in shock when I found him.  Dad was with him, Richard says flatly.  Right.  Then why wasn't Dad at the house?  Richard says, Because Luke had run through the weeds and set the mountain afire.  So Dad put Luke in the truck and told him to drive to the house, to Mother.  Only Mother was gone.  Right. 

I think it over for a few days, then sit back down to write...  On the mountain something is happening.  I can only imagine it but I see it clearly, more clearly than if it were a memory.

I am confused, Tara says, she "can only imagine" [/i], and in the same sentence says, "I see it clearly."  

Here is where the entire Luke incident, becomes Tara's imagined version.  I don't doubt Luke was set afire. I doubt Tara, other than what she pieces together from what she heard, or imagined, has NO idea what actually happened.

The cars are stacked and waiting, their fuel tanks ruptured and drained.  Dad waves at a tower of cars and says, "Luke, cut off those tanks, yeah?"  And Luke says, "Sure thing, Dad."  Luke lays the torch against his hip and strikes flint.  Flames erupt from nowhere and take him.  He screams, fumbles with the twine, screams again, and takes off through the weeds.

Dad chases him, orders him to stand still.  It's probably the first time in his whole life that Luke doesn't do something when Dad is telling him to.  Luke is fast but Dad is smart.  He takes a shortcut through a pyramid of cars and tackles Luke, slamming him to the ground.  I can't picture what happens next, because nobody every told me how Dad put out the fire on Luke's leg. 

I try to imagine the moment of decision.  Dad looks at the weeds which are burning fast, thirsty for flame in that quivering heat.  He looks at his son.  He thinks if he can choke the flames while they're young, he can prevent a wildfire, maybe save the house.  Luke seems lucid.  His brain hasn't processed what's happening; the pain hasn't set in.  The Lord will provide, I imagine Dad thinking.  God left him conscious. 

I imagine Dad praying aloud, his eyes drawn heavenward, as he carries his son to the truck and sets him in the driver's seat.  Dad shifts the engine into first, the truck starts its roll.  It's going at a good speed now, Luke is gripping the wheel.  Dad jumps from the moving truck, hits the ground hard and rolls, then runs back toward the brushfire, which has spread wider and grown taller.  The Lord will provide, he chants, then he takes off his shirt and begins to beat back the flames.

*  Since the writing of this story, I have spoken to Luke about the incident.  His account differs from mine and Richard's.  Dad took Luke to the house, administered a homeopathic for shock, then put him in a tub of cold water, where he left him to go fight the fire.  This goes against my memory, and against Richard's.  Still, perhaps our memories are in error.  Perhaps I found Luke in a tub, alone, rather on the grass.  What everyone agrees upon, strangely, is that somehow Luke ended up on the front lawn, his leg in a garbage can.[/size]  pg. 75


Tara has spoken for, thought for, and felt for her Dad and Luke throughout this entire incident, without ever being present. This is called, "fiction."   The only thing she could honestly account for is when she found Luke, and she is not even sure about that.  Richard was not there when Luke was set afire, so again, she is calling someone who can only go by what he was told, or saw once Luke was at the house. 

There are so many other places throughout the book where I found discrepancies.  So, while I trust Tara believes what she wrote, even she admits to her inconsistencies, uses her imagination as her source, and admits to possibly being incorrect. 

Jonathan,  You are a sweet and endearing man, and I think you would forgive Tara if you were her father, sight unseen.  I sense that Tara has, and will continue to return to Buck's Peak, since she has Aunt Angie there to visit.  With a constant reminder of all she lived through, and knowing her parents have ostracized her, I can't even imagine wanting to be back with them.  What could you see changing should she return to her family fold?  No one has changed, but possibly Tara. Shawn would still target her with his violence, her parents will never admit wrong doing, to do so, would harm their "million dollar business."  Her other siblings relying on their parents for work and income are not going to go against them, to welcome Tara into their homes.  ONLY if and until Tara is willing to include her father, and live by their sadistic life ideals, will she be considered back into the home.  That is NOT going to happen.  She has been, "Educated."  Once you learn something, you don't unlearn it.  You may not always apply it, or use it every day, but you have that knowledge to always draw from. 

Interesting how you think,

Tara's story is an appeal for forgiveness all around.

I can't ever imagine her family seeing this story other than what their lawyer has spoken for them, "maligns them, their religion, their country, and homeschooling,”

[bellamarie]

PatH., 

And here the story is told by someone who, whatever version you believe, is describing a childhood full of traumatic events, the hardest to remember correctly, especially if you are yourself in shock or pain.

Giving the knowledge of what all Tara has lived through, I would not expect her to have complete clarity in all incidents, although she states she does have "unsettling clarity", then admits to imagining how things happened.  She speaks, feels and thinks for others, which as her brother stated:

First, let me identify myself. I am Tyler Westover, brother number three in this book. In her book, in numerous places, Tara interprets for me and other members of my family things that we did, said, thought, and even felt. I cannot speak for the other members of my family, but in my case I think in many instances she greatly incorrectly conveyed my experiences. In the interest of a balanced viewpoint, it seems that I should at least attempt to share a part of my perspective, while still supporting her as much as I can. I do recognize this is her memoir, and she describes her experiences from her paradigm. However, it seems reasonable for me to explain my perspective and outline events that demonstrate the validity of my perspective, in my review."

I don't question Tara lived through a horrendous childhood, but she has graduated from two of the most prestigious colleges in the world, she has studied history, she said she spent six months learning "how" to write this book, after earning her PhD. She tells us she has gone through counseling, and obviously felt ready to tell the world her story.  So, if anything, I as a reader, would expect her memior/ non-fiction, to not have embellishments, fabrications, suppositions or imaginations, to be sources for the incidents that happened.  There are standards a writer should follow when writing a book, labeling it non-fiction.  I don't want to appear to be hard on her, but as I read the book, many times throughout it, I called foul play, when I saw contradictions, inconsistencies, and her creating imaginary stories, in place of real life facts.

As a reader, I expect non fiction, to not have fictitious parts in it, where the writer admits she is creating the scenario from her imagination, especially when it deals with other family members, whose characters can be brought into question.     

[Jonathan]

Forgiving Tara...sight unseen. Have I been taken in by this extraordinary piece of writing? Is she avengeing herself for having been demonized by her father? What was her purpose in telling the world about a sorry family turmoil? Did she feel a need to unburden herself? She has certainly succeeded. Has she added coals to the fire? She faces the prospect of being taken to court for damage done to the reputation of a respected family.

Bellamarie, you are one close reader. You make a good case for your argument. But I'm going to stick with my view of seeing the book as an olive branch to her father. An extraordinary man. She needs her father. He should be made to see that. He has let her down.

[ginny]

I agree, Jonathan.

I think you raise some very good points, Bellamarie, I noticed them, too, but I got a different impression from them.

But first Pat brings up this:
 
 And here the story is told by someone who, whatever version you believe, is describing a childhood full of traumatic events, the hardest to remember correctly, especially if you are yourself in shock or pain.

When  a person is experiencing terrible shock and trauma (and this IS a child, after all),  then my understanding is that their perceptions are really  (as seen in the classic psychological test of a room full of adults when somebody bursts in threatening them) not objective at all. Objective being what a robot would have recorded as truth. Their reactions and memories of the very same event  are personal and amazingly different  to each person, they are subjective. We can't say they aren't true? They are true to them, they are their truth,  no matter what anybody else says at the moment, afterwards perhaps one tries to reconstruct what might or must  have happened. I think Dad and Luke and the fire is a perfect example and you've put your finger right on it, that's a good one.

Dad is the "ghost" here. She doesn't remember seeing him. She, with her need to make him the hero would remember that. I think the fact she does not is that he was not there.  Richard says of course he was there, he took him home, did this and that and then heroically went out to fight the fire. She does not remember that. And THAT is a lot to forget, isn't it?

Dad apparently lacked the  presence of mind to pick  up the phone and call an ambulance after putting "homeopathic" salves on the burns... I can't tell you ...I can't even continue this thought. THAT was seen to be normal and natural in this circus in which that child grew up.

To me, here, this revision is not any sort of fiction except that she can't even believe her own child self, she has such a need to make Dad OK. She  consistently appears to exonerate her father from any and all blame, (so that she can be reconciled?  So that since everybody in that entire family does under pressure or fear exactly what he says no matter what it is, or how outrageous, then yes, she now dutifully records in her book, her ultimate and apparently only  courtroom for justice,  what others say here?) To me, that's the most honest reaction anybody could have. It was such a shock,  Dad is a ghost, she does not "remember,"  most significantly his helping at all. But she dutifully records it as Richard said it.


Apparently Dad was once a happy man too, she remembers that. Apparently Shawn her friend , poor child, was once happy,  too but then the brain damage not once, how many times did he experience severe head injury?  Wouldn't anybody with half a brain think that IF he's experiencing psychotic episodes (apparently only with  children and the less powerful girls he encounters, right?) then perhaps something other than an oil might be applied?

??
What other inconsistencies have you seen, bellamarie? You have read the book twice, and closely. I could only stomach it once. I could not put it down, I was VERY glad to see her triumphant ending, but I also now can't pick it back  up and desperately want to say something positive about SOMETHING in it.

On Brother Tyler speaking out, I  read that, too, and I wondered at the time about   his change of attitude.  Isn't Tyler the one who went back into the family business? Spokesman, is he now for them?

Just saying.


Why is everybody so taken with this book, do you all think?

[bellamarie]

Jonathan, 

But I'm going to stick with my view of seeing the book as an olive branch to her father. An extraordinary man. She needs her father. He should be made to see that. He has let her down.

I admire you for sticking by your conviction, and I will respectfully agree to disagree, with your views.  Olive branch, hmmm.... for me, it's more like this book, is an entire Conifer tree, she speaks of in her first paragraph, has fallen on the entire family.  "the heavy conifers trees sway slowly"

I am just not seeing this "extraordinary man" you see her father as.  Throughout the book she is blaming her father for everything, that has gone wrong with the family.  Every incident, she points out, it is because he used bad judgement, demanded things be done his way, and controlled the mother.  I can't imagine a man like him ever changing, especially after she has made their entire life a mockery to the world.  I do agree with you on the fact, "he let her down." She may feel as if she needs him in her life, but the likelihood of that happening, seems next to impossible.  He is not a man who seems capable of change, he time and time again, put his children in harm's way, watched them be injured, suffered pain, as well as himself and his wife, and yet as soon as he could, he repeated his behavior.  He refused to believe Tara, when she finally told him about the abuse she suffered from Shawn.  He demands she apologize for not mentioning she was home schooled, giving them some credit, for her success in graduating BYU. 

I actually thought for a short moment, when Tara's father and mother came to visit her at college, he had seen the light. But it turns out he was there to stop her from going to Cambridge.

pg. 250  He disapproved of my going to Cambridge.  "Our ancestors risked their lives to cross the ocean, to escape those socialist countries.  And what do you do?  You turn around and go back?"

We learn even more, of why he did not want her to go to Cambridge, when he and her mother go with her to the airport.

pg. 251  It was as if Dad wanted to give me until the last second to change my mind.  We walked in silence.  When we arrived at security I hugged them both and said good-bye.  I removed my shoes, laptop, camera, then I passed through the checkpoint, reassembled my pack, and headed for the terminal.

It was only then that I glanced back and saw Dad, still standing at the checkpoint, watching me walk away, his hands in his pockets, his shoulders slumping, his mouth slackened.  I waved and he stepped forward, as if to follow, and I was reminded of the moment, years before, when power lines had covered the station wagon, with Mother inside it, and Dad had stood next to her, exposed.

He was still holding that position when I turned the corner.  That image of my father will always stay with me; that look on his face, of love  and fear and loss.  I knew why he was afraid.  He'd let it slip my last night on Buck's Peak, the same night he'd said he wouldn't come to see me graduate.  "If you're in America," he'd whispered, "we can come for you.  Where ever you are.  I've got a thousand gallons of fuel buried in the field.  I can fetch you when The End comes, bring you home, make you safe.  But if you cross the ocean. . . "

Reading this, truly brought tears to my eyes.  Her father was vulnerable, fearful, loving, caring, exposed, he was a parent needing to know he could rescue his daughter if time called for it.  In his own distorted beliefs of the world coming to an end, he needed his family to be together.  This just might be the only part in the book that showed me the reader, how much he truly loved Tara.

So, yes, Jonathan, he did let her down in many ways, put her in danger many times, but as a father, you can see better than me, the relationship between a father and daughter. I had no father to understand these dynamics. Thank you for being a part of this discussion, we need a father's point of view.

Maybe, just maybe, she does need her father.  Sadly, I don't see much hope for this relationship to reunite, but then never is a long time, and love can endure all things.  They are a Christian family, who believes in forgiveness.  In her own words, "The Lord will provide."

[bellamarie]

Ginny, 

To me, here, this revision is not any sort of fiction except that she can't even believe her own child self, she has such a need to make Dad OK.

I appreciate your take on the entire creation of Luke's incident, but the only problem with your theory, is Tara admits she "Imagines" what happened.  She creates a complete scenario in her mind, of what each person felt, said, thought and did, even though she was not even there.  That is fiction, regardless as to why she chose to invent this story, be it to make her father the hero, or any other reason, by the mere definition of "fiction."

fiction. A fiction is a deliberately fabricated account of something. It can also be a literary work based on imagination rather than on fact, like a novel or short story. The Latin word fictus means “to form,” which seems like a good source for the English word fiction, since fiction is formed in the imagination.

https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+of+fiction+in+literature&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS722US722&oq=definition+of+fiction&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j0l5.9048j1j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8


I just came across an interview of Tara, and found this interesting:

You write with the flair of a novelist. How did you learn that?

Everything I wrote at the beginning was awful. Then I became obsessed with the New Yorker fiction podcast.You can hear these wonderful things like Margaret Atwood reading a Mavis Gallant story and then she and Deborah Treisman, the New Yorker fiction editor, will discuss why it works. They’ll bring up all these weird little things that writers do that make it much easier to say – “Yeah, I can do that too”.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/feb/17/tara-westover-education-interview-i-was-13-when-i-first-went-to-another-childs-house

So she became, "obsessed with the New Yorker fiction podcast." 

I'm not saying her entire book is fiction. Yes, there are other parts I flagged, where she admits, she imagines this or that, and speaks, feels and thinks for others.

Ginny, 

You have read the book twice, and closely. I could only stomach it once.

Yes, I did read the book twice.  I first read the book earlier, before you had decided to have it as our July mini discussion.  I was lucky enough to get it from my library, finished it, and passed it on to my friend, who is in an online book club and they were going to discuss it.  She was on the waiting list at the library, #54, so she was really excited I could pass mine on to her, and she returned it to the library for me.  When you announced Educated would be our July mini discussion, I knew there was no chance I was going to get a copy from my library.  This book is as you know, is a very popular read.  So, I bought the book, skimmed through it, making post it notes, where I felt was interesting to discuss, and all the discrepancies, inconsistencies, contradictions, and parts she was making up from her imagination, and where she would footnote, saying she could be incorrect.

I understand a child who has been traumatized can distort things, block things, reconstruct incidents, etc, etc.  As I have said before, I am a child from a dysfunctional, abusive home.  Who better to understand how a memory works, from being raised in a home like this, even though every person experiences their own personal trauma, and has their own individual scars and perceptions.  But, I can honestly tell you, that I would NEVER reconstruct any incident that happened in my life, admitting it is from my imagination, write it in a book, that would reach worldwide readers, and possibly damage any of my family's characters. 

For me, that is unthinkable, cruel, selfish, and a fraud.  It's bad enough any child/family would have to live through even half of what Tara says happened in their home, but to write a book about it, when you admit you can't count on your own memory, seems irresponsible, and for the publisher to allow it to go to print, and be sold as non-fiction, knowing there are fictitious parts in the book, is unethical, in my opinion.

From the same interview as above:

How do you feel about this very personal book being published?
I am already in pre-emptive therapy with a brand new therapist. You probably think I’m joking but I’m not. I told him, “I’m fine right now but in two weeks when this book comes out I might be freaking out.”

I'm glad to know she is still in therapy. 

Jonathan, I found this and wanted to share it with you.  It's from the same interview as above.

Can you see yourself becoming reconciled with them?
I will always hope that we might be reconciled, and I hope for the sake of my brother’s wife and family that he’s mellowed and changed. But while I’ll always watch for signs that the family culture has shifted away from secrets and enabling, I don’t wait for them.

Do you miss your family?
I miss them every day, but I can also feel comfortable with my decision not to have them in my life.

I wish just one person in all the interviews she has done, would ask her, "Have you reported the abuse to the authorities, to protect Shawn's wife and children?"  Or,  "Do you know if Child Protective Services has ever investigated, or looked into any possible abuse with Shawn's family?"

Whether Shawn has a mental illness, schizophrenia, brain damage, or a narcissist, he is an abuser, and a danger to his family, and any one else around him.  Tara knows her parents, and some siblings are in denial, or out right defend and protect Shawn.  I wonder, before she wrote this book, years back when she left home, after confronting the parents, realized the dangers, after Shawn slaughtered the dog, did she do anything to bring attention to Shawn's violence to the authorities?  I'm not holding her accountable, or responsible for Shawn's actions, I just am curious as to whether any investigations have taken place, or any reports filed. 

[ginny]

Good morning, Everybody! Having been awakened at 3 am with the extremely negative  emotions this family seems to bring out in me I decided I was determined today to veer now (I feel they've had their 15 seconds of fame with me, 14 too many), to the positives  and what I suddenly discovered  at 3 am must surely be the message of the book, even in answer to Jonathan's question which I just now have seen (this is in edit) the purpose of it, otherwise why would so many people love it?

Love it or hate it? What, I asked myself at 3 am, IS there to love?

Turns out there's a lot.

But first, Bellamarie, I can see that you feel strongly this is a work in places of fiction, and you've provided definitions and much proof. I don't see it the same, but you are certainly entitled  to your opinion which I won't argue with.

You do raise a lot of good questions. To this one: did she do anything to bring attention to Shawn's violence to the authorities?  I'm not holding her accountable, or responsible for Shawn's actions, I just am curious as to whether any investigations have taken place, or any reports filed. 

I hope there have been, I doubt any exist. What's her physical proof? She has no physical proof of her own issues, the dog disappeared,   and everybody says she is lying. Even now. And  as in so many domestic violence issues what can the police do if everybody says it didn't happen.  The headlines are full of why something was not reported at the time, it seems. Maybe the lesson here for all of us is report now repent later.

On this: He was still holding that position when I turned the corner.  That image of my father will always stay with me; that look on his face, of love  and fear and loss.  I knew why he was afraid.  He'd let it slip my last night on Buck's Peak, the same night he'd said he wouldn't come to see me graduate.  "If you're in America," he'd whispered, "we can come for you.  Where ever you are.  I've got a thousand gallons of fuel buried in the field.  I can fetch you when The End comes, bring you home, make you safe.  But if you cross the ocean. . . "

Again I think you may have put  your finger on something, here is what does seem to be an expression of love.

What struck me when I read  it, perhaps I was numbed by that point, is the 1,000 gallons buried in the field. That's illegal here, and I thought, everywhere.  It raised some other questions for me which I had all though the book. No records. Scrap  yard. Own a car. And shockingly, they have a computer, a phone, a TV, thus  electricity. So not quite as primitive as we're led to believe. I was very surprised at that, but I shouldn't have been because the POV here is of the child's impressions.    No paperwork no records of birth for many of the kids. I wondered throughout the last half of the book if taxes are paid or if in fact they are also buried in the back yard. She MAY here have exposed more than we think.  But enough about them.

I'd like to look today at  the incredible message that somehow gets downplayed in the sinkhole of this dysfunctional family so that it doesn't get downplayed in this discussion,  and I think it's because of the matter of fact way she writes.....

[ginny]

Let's discuss  the soaring positive luminous thing out of all this which she downplays as if it were normal: her rise.  Her many achievements,  modestly downplayed as if a matter of fact everyday accomplishment. All this and STILL she rises.

Somehow, despite even being provided with proof she exists, without any education at all, she manages to take the ACT, pass it, go to Brigham Young University, graduate with honors, go to talk to an advisor and be advised to try for Cambridge, she can do university work and she qualifies, gets the scholarship and graduates from Cambridge University, surely one of the top universities in the world,  with a PhD.

AND write a bestselling book.

Surely THAT  is anybody's idea of incredible achievement! And she's so young.

How? What do you think allowed her to do this? What sort of characteristic or dedication?  How did she teach herself to READ? To do advanced math which she says is like a language in itself, I  loved that.

Where did this severely marginalized child  get the...the wherewithal, the inner strength, the dedication, the mind boggles, it really does because she has literally thousands of "sisters" in this world, not related to her, under similar  dire circumstances, who try but  never rise from the dreariness and duplication of their circumstances, what on earth would it take to do this? What characteristics?

What enables some people to achieve as incredibly she has? I believe that's the message: you can overcome whatever, you can rise, but it will cost you if you're involved in this cult like kind of upbringing. Her achievement is an  inspiration to anybody oppressed by circumstances, isn't it?

I think it's this quality of the book which lifts it into the "Love it" category.

What do you think?

[ginny]

Jonathan, what a great topic du jour, also!

Somehow I missed this entire post and it's a great one:

Forgiving Tara...sight unseen. Have I been taken in by this extraordinary piece of writing? Is she avengeing herself for having been demonized by her father? What was her purpose in telling the world about a sorry family turmoil? Did she feel a need to unburden herself? She has certainly succeeded. Has she added coals to the fire? She faces the prospect of being taken to court for damage done to the reputation of a respected family.

Extraordinary is right. Since I just saw this I need to go think more about her purpose in writing this, but I agree it's extraordinary, it may in fact be more extraordinary than we first thought. I just read something totally unconnected with this which may in fact add something to the table, I must go find it.

I would love to see this go to court, she's not without witnesses and in  a court all of our witnesses now have to tell the truth, right?

[PatH]

Wow, so many different issues to tackle.  I still have a final section of yesterday's discussion to post, and Bellamarie raises so many interesting questions, then Ginny starts a whole new major question.  I want to be like Stephen Leacock's hero, who "leaped on his horse and rode off in all directions".

Some little things: I doubt she tried to report Shawn's violence.  If she had, the family uproar it would cause would have been too major not to be part of the story.

Bellamarie, I saw the same thing you did in that interview.  Tara knows perfectly well that reconciliation won't happen, but she still can't help longing for it.  You could just hear that longing in her voice.

[Jonathan]

'Where did this severely marginalized child  get the...the wherewithal, the inner strength, the dedication, the mind boggles...What enables some people to achieve as incredibly she has?'

Good questions, Ginny. I find the answer in her using her experience and her reason. She has in fact become an Illuminati, that bugbear of her father's tortured mind, which depends on revelation.

I loved your posts, Bellamarie. All I can say is that this book is beyond fiction. It's into parable or some such thing. Much can be learned from it. And the family should be satisfied as long as she shares the royalties. Can the family get back together? It will be Tara's doing.