Is affluence oppressive? / BOOK THREAD (see OP)

[Formerly SK]

May 15, 2012 13:44:12 GMT -5 Cookies Galore said:

Skinny, i don't think she did anything because of Franklin. She had a very intense love/obsession with him and i think the thought of potentially losing him was more scary than whatever she thought Kevin was capable of. Did she believe her son was capable of murder? Would it have mattered if she got to keep Franklin?

Yeah, I agree with you. It doesn't say much about her as a mother, but I agree it is the reason. But that would hardly be unusual. Lots of mothers sacrifice their kids for their man.

[thyme4change]

See, and I feel like if you have a suspicion then you act.

The letters were written with some hindsight. It was hard, because they weren't written in a way that someone would actually write in hindsight, but, I would think that looking back, I would like to say that I wasn't so oblivious that I noticed nothing. You really will never know what she knew or suspected 10 years before she wrote the letters. It is impossible for her to write an objective history. Everything is clouded by "Thursday." Every memory, every feeling, every recollection.

[Firebird]

She had a very intense love/obsession with him and i think the thought of potentially losing him was more scary than whatever she thought Kevin was capable of.

I'm not sure I'd use the word obsession. She didn't say anything about Franklin that I haven't or wouldn't say about DH, and it's not like she totally fell apart when he told her he wanted a divorce. She was sad and upset and hoped he'd change his mind but she didn't go to pieces.

Besides, she said that when she heard about the shooting (not sure if you'd remember this detail, Meghan) that it didn't occur to her Kevin might be the culprit, even though she absolutely believed him guilty of the more minor crimes and incidents up to that point. So I don't think she ever actually thought he would kill. If she thought that, my feeling is she would have done something.

But remember, the entire time Franklin kept insisting there was no problem. He seemed like a decent, levelheaded guy. My own DH is a decent, levelheaded guy. I would have a lot of trouble in that situation myself. Even if you believe something terrible is happening, it's hard to really act on it when your partner - the only other adult close enough to see it, the main person in your life, the person you'd trust WITH your life - insists the danger is all in your head.

It's quite easy to learn to suppress your own instincts, if they're pooh-poohed often enough.

[Firebird]

You really will never know what she knew or suspected 10 years before she wrote the letters. It is impossible for her to write an objective history. Everything is clouded by "Thursday." Every memory, every feeling, every recollection.

Excellent point. The very worst thing that happened - Celia's eye - was the thing she had no way of proving that Kevin caused. Of course it's obvious in retrospect that the things the kid did were seriously fucked up, but at the time most of them were easy to pass off as misunderstandings or exaggerations.

This is way more interesting than our Hunger Games book discussion. Someone remind me to pick a more controversial book next time we want to do a YM book club

[thyme4change]

She had a very intense love/obsession with him and i think the thought of potentially losing him was more scary than whatever she thought Kevin was capable of.

Her recollection of her love for her husband in the letters is also clouded by the hindsight that I mentioned. If my husband was brutally murdered in our backyard, and I found his body, I suspect that I wouldn't dwell on the fact that he had an annoying habit of talking to me during my favorite television show, or admit that I took him for granted, ever. I would have an idealistic, longing view of what we had. I would portray it as perfect until I was ready to move on. If my son is the one that kills him, I suspect moving on would be way, way down the road.

But remember, the entire time Franklin kept insisting there was no problem. He seemed like a decent, levelheaded guy. My own DH is a decent, levelheaded guy. I would have a lot of trouble in that situation myself. Even if you believe something terrible is happening, it's hard to really act on it when your partner - the only other adult close enough to see it, the main person in your life, the person you'd trust WITH your life - insists the danger is all in your head.

I agree with this. My husband is my rock, and I use him constantly as a "second opinion." I'm seriously flawed in the way I perceive life, people and children. I talk to him to get his take on different situations and use that to help me form a better opinion, and a better plan of action. If he doesn't perceive the problem as seriously as I do, I assume I'm over-reacting, which I do often. Of course, if 15 years later I was proven right in the worst possible way, I would have a very "I told you so" and "I knew it" attitude. But, I will also conveniently forget all the things I thought were huge problems that didn't amount to a hill of beans.

[Firebird]

I would have an idealistic, longing view of what we had. I would portray it as perfect until I was ready to move on. If my son is the one that kills him, I suspect moving on would be way, way down the road.



So very much that. It's especially hard if you start out with a fuzzy, somewhat idealized picture of your spouse, as Eva seems to do. I can relate to that also. On any given day, I pretty much think DH is the greatest guy alive. On a bad day, I still think I'm lucky to have him.

Of course I don't actually think he's perfect - if pressed, I could name his greatest flaws and I'd certainly never indulge my adoration of him at my children's expense. But on a day to day basis, I let myself believe he's the cat's pajamas in every way, because that's how I want to see him. I can only imagine how much I'd idealize him if I lost him in the way Eva lost Franklin. He'd pretty much be elevated to sainthood after that.

[Formerly SK]

But remember, the entire time Franklin kept insisting there was no problem. He seemed like a decent, levelheaded guy. My own DH is a decent, levelheaded guy. I would have a lot of trouble in that situation myself. Even if you believe something terrible is happening, it's hard to really act on it when your partner - the only other adult close enough to see it, the main person in your life, the person you'd trust WITH your life - insists the danger is all in your head.

You know it's funny, my DH is also a very decent, levelheaded guy. He had the total Beaver Cleaver childhood. But I actually dismiss his opinions sometimes because he doesn't have any grasp of negative. He's never had a genuine evil happen to himself or anyone close to him. He's 1000% honest and happy and optimistic and doesn't completely get that there are people out there who are the opposite. We've never had to deal with a Kevin situation, but based on our autism experience I'm pretty sure I'd be ignoring my DH's opinions and chasing my son to every specialist I could to see what help I could get for my child. I guess it's a personality/temperament thing.

I think there is a confidence thing too to my above statement. For several years when I'd describe one of DS's issues to a friend they'd always chime back to me, "Oh my child does that too! That's totally normal!" I know they meant well, but it was completely frustrating to have everyone dismiss my concerns. At my core I had faith in my assessment though so I didn't listen to them and ignore DS's issues. I just stopped talking to my friends about it because I knew they wouldn't be helpful. His autism was my battle to fight alone (with DH and therapists of course). Perhaps that is why I was so frustrated with the mom in the book. She never rose to the fight.

[Cookies Galore]

May 15, 2012 14:14:07 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

She had a very intense love/obsession with him and i think the thought of potentially losing him was more scary than whatever she thought Kevin was capable of.

Her recollection of her love for her husband in the letters is also clouded by the hindsight that I mentioned. If my husband was brutally murdered in our backyard, and I found his body, I suspect that I wouldn't dwell on the fact that he had an annoying habit of talking to me during my favorite television show, or admit that I took him for granted, ever. I would have an idealistic, longing view of what we had. I would portray it as perfect until I was ready to move on. If my son is the one that kills him, I suspect moving on would be way, way down the road.

But remember, the entire time Franklin kept insisting there was no problem. He seemed like a decent, levelheaded guy. My own DH is a decent, levelheaded guy. I would have a lot of trouble in that situation myself. Even if you believe something terrible is happening, it's hard to really act on it when your partner - the only other adult close enough to see it, the main person in your life, the person you'd trust WITH your life - insists the danger is all in your head.

I agree with this. My husband is my rock, and I use him constantly as a "second opinion." I'm seriously flawed in the way I perceive life, people and children. I talk to him to get his take on different situations and use that to help me form a better opinion, and a better plan of action. If he doesn't perceive the problem as seriously as I do, I assume I'm over-reacting, which I do often. Of course, if 15 years later I was proven right in the worst possible way, I would have a very "I told you so" and "I knew it" attitude. But, I will also conveniently forget all the things I thought were huge problems that didn't amount to a hill of beans.

that is true, the recollection would be more intense than reality.

[Firebird]

He had the total Beaver Cleaver childhood. But I actually dismiss his opinions sometimes because he doesn't have any grasp of negative. He's never had a genuine evil happen to himself or anyone close to him. He's 1000% honest and happy and optimistic and doesn't completely get that there are people out there who are the opposite.

It's definitely an issue of temperament. I could see why you'd dismiss DH's opinions if that's the case. In our relationship, DH is the pessimist and I'm the one who tends to believe that things will work out okay. So if I were the one nursing this horrible suspicion and he was dismissing it, that would mean one of two things - either he can't see the situation clearly or I'm exaggerating.

Experience has taught me that the latter scenario is more common. So of course I'd be more inclined to suppress my own suspicion even on a larger matter, if DH looked at the same set of facts I did, shrugged, and told me, "It's no big deal babe. He'll grow out of it."

[Firebird]

Yeah, I agree with you. It doesn't say much about her as a mother, but I agree it is the reason. But that would hardly be unusual. Lots of mothers sacrifice their kids for their man.

I don't really think this is fair. Just because someone really loves their spouse doesn't mean they'd put that person ahead of their children. Or that by not taking Celia and running for the hills right away, she was doing that.

Again, she had no proof. The doctors didn't question Kevin's story, her husband didn't question it, and Celia herself backed it up. All she had was her gut sense that Kevin was behind it, and that simply wasn't enough for her to split her family apart. Maybe not the smartest choice in hindsight, maybe not the choice you would make, but I don't think that decision makes her a bad mother or one that put her man over her child.

[Firebird]

It was hard, because they weren't written in a way that someone would actually write in hindsight,

What do you mean by this, Thyme?

[Firebird]

At my core I had faith in my assessment though so I didn't listen to them and ignore DS's issues. I just stopped talking to my friends about it because I knew they wouldn't be helpful. His autism was my battle to fight alone (with DH and therapists of course). Perhaps that is why I was so frustrated with the mom in the book. She never rose to the fight.

I think it would be super hard to hold onto your faith in your assessment of your kid if everyone assumed that assessment meant that YOU were doing something wrong. Imagine if, instead of dismissing your concerns, all your friends reacted with something more like "Um... wow... that's really bad... it shouldn't be happening... I don't know what to tell you, I'm a good mom and my kid has NEVER acted that way" (or otherwise implied that were YOU doing something differently, this wouldn't be happening).

Franklin didn't just dismiss Eva's concerns, he actively used them against her as evidence that she wasn't trying hard enough, she was a bad mother, she wasn't bonding with Kevin the way she should be, she was against him from the start. He's this poor helpless kid in Franklin's opinion, and Eva is just being SO MEAN to him.

That would be much harder than fighting against mere apathy or unconcern, I think. Even if she COULD have proven something was wrong with Kevin, no doubt Franklin would have turned it around on her and blamed the problem on her lack of attention to him as a small child or something.

So she had a personal interest in ignoring/denying her instincts. Not only could she pretend there was nothing wrong with her son, she could maintain the delusion that there was nothing wrong with her as a parent.

[thyme4change]

It was hard, because they weren't written in a way that someone would actually write in hindsight,

Well, she wrote with such detail, and quotes, and descriptions that you just don't have access to. If I had to write a letter about a mundane conversation I had with my college boyfriend 20 years ago, I'd be lucky if I could remember the gist of the conversation - but when writing about the lunch they had with friends 20 years prior, she could describe the little girl, the kitchen, the shirt her husband was wearing, the exact dialoge (even though it was beyond mundane.) She descibed the toy the girl was playing with, the lunch they ate and the entire afternoon interaction. She was also able to describe the walk home, the sounds that were around her and the feelings they had as they had a conversation about having children. Shit, I couldn't explained what happened an hour ago in that much detail - much less 20 years ago! Because of all that detail, you aren't reminded that this is a two-decade old memory, being rehashed and rethought as a therapy exercise to heal such a huge wound. You said yourself you thought it was strange that the daughter was never even mentioned, not once, until the timeline in the story reached her. Memories don't work that linerally (is that a word??) They get convoluted and messy in our brains.

However, because it is a book, all of that detail is necessary to draw us in, and the chronological nature of the story was important. It had to be that way, so it is most definitely a forgivable sin. But, it makes it hard (for me) to remember that this isn't an objective account, but a biased, flawed memory. Point of view in story telling is so important, and learning the concept has changed how I criticize movies.

****Sidebar on point of view - the movie "Julie and Julia" - did you notice that Julia Childs was basically flawless? You know how it could be that way? Because it wasn't really suppose to be Julia Childs. It was Julie's version of Julia Childs - which was idealistic and flawless.

[Firebird]

If I had to write a letter about a mundane conversation I had with my college boyfriend 20 years ago, I'd be lucky if I could remember the gist of the conversation - but when writing about the lunch they had with friends 20 years prior, she could describe the little girl, the kitchen, the shirt her husband was wearing, the exact dialoge (even though it was beyond mundane.)

Got it. Yeah, I noticed that too, especially now that I'm on a second reading. Unless she was wearing a wire for 20 years, there's no way she'd remember all that detail.

Though I'm a bad example, because my memory is notoriously poor. I do have friends who can recall events with startling detail, so I guess it is possible. It's a little creepy

[Formerly SK]

I think it would be super hard to hold onto your faith in your assessment of your kid if everyone assumed that assessment meant that YOU were doing something wrong. Imagine if, instead of dismissing your concerns, all your friends reacted with something more like "Um... wow... that's really bad... it shouldn't be happening... I don't know what to tell you, I'm a good mom and my kid has NEVER acted that way" (or otherwise implied that were YOU doing something differently, this wouldn't be happening).

I think there is validity to your point. 50 years ago, autism was blamed on mothers' apathy towards their children. In that environment it would be really hard to stand up and say that there's a problem and you need guidance.

I don't really think this is fair. Just because someone really loves their spouse doesn't mean they'd put that person ahead of their children. Or that by not taking Celia and running for the hills right away, she was doing that.

Again, she had no proof. The doctors didn't question Kevin's story, her husband didn't question it, and Celia herself backed it up. All she had was her gut sense that Kevin was behind it, and that simply wasn't enough for her to split her family apart. Maybe not the smartest choice in hindsight, maybe not the choice you would make, but I don't think that decision makes her a bad mother or one that put her man over her child.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I'm pretty black/white on this issue, no doubt because my parents routinely lived by decisions that hurt their kids. But yes if I suspect that my child is being harmed I will throw every ounce of myself into stopping it. Maybe you don't immediately divorce over a suspicion, but separation, marriage counseling, complete workups of Kevin by professionals etc would be required for starters. I can tell when my kids hurt each other deliberately and when it is an accident without having seeing the incident. I believe there is a lot of data you can gather to make the correct decision. But she didn't even lift a finger to get that data. She didn't give her suspicions importance.

[Firebird]

debthaven, any reviews of the movie you'd recommend with detailed spoilers? I have a website that I go to for all my spoiler needs*, but they didn't review this movie and now I'd like to watch it if the eczema scene is either omitted or not too graphic (that's the only scene I probably couldn't watch).

*PluggedIn Online, if anyone cares - it's a Christian fundamentalist website that reviews movies and books and video games with an obvious bias, but I like it because it breaks down violent and sexual content in detail and warns about anything anyone could possibly find upsetting in any way.

[973beachbum]

Psychopaths are estimated to make up 1 percent of the population but constitute roughly 15 to 25 percent of the offenders in prison and are responsible for a disproportionate number of brutal crimes and murders. A recent estimate by the neuroscientist Kent Kiehl placed the national cost of psychopathy at $460 billion a year — roughly 10 times the cost of depression — in part because psychopaths tend to be arrested repeatedly. (The societal costs of nonviolent psychopaths may be even higher. Robert Hare, the co-author of “Snakes in Suits,” describes evidence of psychopathy among some financiers and business people; he suspects Bernie Madoff of falling into that category.) The potential for improvement is also what separates diagnosis from determinism: a reason to treat psychopathic children rather than jail them. “As the nuns used to say, ‘Get them young enough, and they can change,’ ” Dadds observes. “You have to hope that’s true. Otherwise, what are we stuck with? These monsters.”

Researchers have linked coldblooded behaviors to low levels of cortisol and below-normal function in the amygdala, the portion of the brain that processes fear and other aversive social emotions, like shame. The desire to avoid those unpleasant feelings, Waschbusch notes, is part of what motivates young children to behave. “Normally, when a 2-year-old pushes his baby sister, and his sister cries, and his parents scold him, those reactions make the kid feel uncomfortable,” Waschbusch continued. “And that discomfort keeps him from doing it again. The difference with the callous-unemotional kids is that they don’t feel uncomfortable. So they don’t develop the same aversion to punishment or to the experience of hurting someone.”

Waschbusch cited one study that compared the criminal records of 23-year-olds with their sensitivity to unpleasant stimuli at age 3. In that study, the 3-year-olds were played a simple tone, then exposed to a brief blast of unpleasant white noise. Though all the children developed the ability to anticipate the burst of noise, most of the toddlers who went on to become criminals as adults didn’t show the same signs of aversion — tensing or sweating — when the advance tone was played.

There actually have been a fair amount of studies on this. They do know that only about 50% of children like this will not "grow out" of it and not become criminals. About a quarter of the prison population are psycopaths so they have enough people to study.

[Firebird]

I believe there is a lot of data you can gather to make the correct decision. But she didn't even lift a finger to get that data. She didn't give her suspicions importance.

You've sold me on this part, at least. I do find it odd that she never took Kevin to a specialist behind Franklin's back now that you've mentioned it.

I just don't think I'd divorce DH at the first hint of suspicion that someone was hurting our kid that he didn't agree with, depending on what that suspicion was and on what I was basing it. But it definitely sounds like a personal family dynamic issue as much as anything else - in our house I'm the Pollyanna and DH is DJ Doommeister, and it sounds like it's a bit of the opposite in yours.

I'm sorry your parents didn't put your interests first as a kid.

[thyme4change]

Isn't that the point of the book? Is to walk the fine line between what occurred naturally, and where Eva should have reacted differently? She is writing the letters to work through her feelings about her involvement of the raising of this murderous child. She is bouncing between absolving herself, and full blown guilt. The book wasn't suppose to answer anything, just ask the questions.

**Spoiler*** I actually didn't like the last paragraph of resolution. I think having Kevin completely flip and feel remorse was cheap. Especially so abruptly. He was totally proud of himself two weeks ago, and now suddenly, he is sorry. Boo. The author chickened out by not leaving those characters unresolved.

[Formerly SK]

I just don't think I'd divorce DH at the first hint of suspicion that someone was hurting our kid that he didn't agree with, depending on what that suspicion was and on what I was basing it. But it definitely sounds like a personal family dynamic issue as much as anything else - in our house I'm the Pollyanna and DH is DJ Doommeister, and it sounds like it's a bit of the opposite in yours.

Yeah, our house is the opposite. I have a brother addicted to meth who occasionally gets clean for a bit. DH would have no issues letting my brother stay with us once sober (he's homeless) whereas I feel he needs to have time under his belt and several conversations (via phone) with me where I can assess his mental state and then maybe he can come for one night. DH always sees the best in people whereas I subscribe to the "Fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me" philosophy.

I'm sorry your parents didn't put your interests first as a kid.

Thanks. I know they did their best and they just weren't able to be good parents. It's in the past and it is what it is. There are silver linings to the experience so I focus on those.

**Spoiler*** I actually didn't like the last paragraph of resolution. I think having Kevin completely flip and feel remorse was cheap. Especially so abruptly. He was totally proud of himself two weeks ago, and now suddenly, he is sorry. Boo. The author chickened out by not leaving those characters unresolved.

I agree with you. I don't buy for a second that after 18 years of being a sociopath towards everyone Kevin suddenly feels remorse. Bull. And that the mother would buy it after all the suspicion she felt towards him during his childhood. I was really shocked.

[Firebird]

**Spoiler*** I actually didn't like the last paragraph of resolution. I think having Kevin completely flip and feel remorse was cheap. Especially so abruptly. He was totally proud of himself two weeks ago, and now suddenly, he is sorry. Boo. The author chickened out by not leaving those characters unresolved.

Yes, sometimes it's more courageous for an author to leave things messy and horrible than to hint at better days ahead. It's always tempting to tie things up neatly, though, to avoid depressing the hell out of your readers if nothing else.

I too found Kevin's turnaround a little unbelievable (although you could argue that feeling real fear for the first time in his life might have opened his mind/heart to the empathy thing, even if just a crack). I wondered what his end game was, why he'd be trying to make his mom believe he was sorry.

I thought his coffin gesture was very nice and even touching but yes, it did ring cheap after virtually every other scene in the book showed him as a sociopathic dick who didn't care about his mom.

So I would have liked the book best if the author had skipped Kevin's little act of remorse but left in the part about Eva saving a room for him with the book on the shelf. That would have shown that she still had some hope left even when things were at their most hopeless, and THAT is what redemption is all about IMO.

[thyme4change]

There are several books I've read where it seems like the author has no idea how to end the book, so someone at the publisher tacks on some useless happy platitude that appears as if they haven't even read the book. If I let it, it can ruin the whole book and piss me off.

[Firebird]

There are several books I've read where it seems like the author has no idea how to end the book, so someone at the publisher tacks on some useless happy platitude that appears as if they haven't even read the book. If I let it, it can ruin the whole book and piss me off.

Indeed. The Da Vinci Code had an ending like that. Grr.

There's nothing wrong with ending a book on a sad note. Nothing makes me happier than a hint of redemption, as I've said, but I don't like EVERYTHING getting resolved right before the words "The End," especially if the issues were things that would never be resolved in real life.

This is part of why I like Khaled Hosseini so much. He manages to blend that subtle note of redemption without taking away from the fact that there are really, truly horrible things going on that might never get any better. The ending of The Kite Runner was one of the most perfect endings I think I've ever read, for that exact reason. A Thousand Splendid Suns was almost as good.

[thyme4change]

The other ending that irritates me to no end is when they are setting it up for a sequel or series, and they didn't warn you. I read a book where a couple in love were being chased by a bad guy. Blah, blah, blah, 20 chapters later, she is in hiding and gets a letter from her lover that he hasn't figured out a way to kill the bad guy - but he is still trying. End of story. WTF! So lame. I was pissed!!!! If I ever meet that author, I will kick her in the stomach. Waste my time, like that. Just rude.

[Firebird]

PS - Tilda Swinton plays Eva? HELL YES. I adore her. Now I think I do need to see this movie.

ETA: Watched the trailer. Fuck it, I'm watching this.

*shiver*

[thyme4change]

Generally I don't like seeing movies that were made from books that I read. I absoluttely refuse to see "Water for Elephants." It was such a perfect book - so incredibly enjoyable. What good could possibly come from making a movie out of it?? Same with "Time Traveler's Wife" - it is such a weird thing, that lives in my imagination and words only - a bunch of special effects can only cheapen it.

But this, I might see. I'll probably watch it when I travel or some other time when I won't have to subject my hubby to it. I have to be careful about what movies I ask him to watch.

[Firebird]

I usually see the movies, but I do tend to have low expectations. Sometimes they're very good and other times they might as well not have bothered.

I thought Time Traveler's Wife was pretty good, but I am/was absolutely obsessed with that novel and happy to get my hands on anything that had anything to do with it. Though I always thought Dylan McDermott would have made a much better Henry DeTamble. For some reason, that's just the guy I pictured while I was reading.

Now the question is how I get my hands on this movie. Hopefully I can order it through Netflix. Now that some genius made the moronic decision to close all the Blockbuster stores, I have to find other ways to get my movies

[Firebird]

If I ever meet that author, I will kick her in the stomach. Waste my time, like that. Just rude.

Note to self: Do not ever write a book Thyme doesn't like while pregnant

[thyme4change]

Do not ever write a book Thyme doesn't like while pregnant

LOL! I probably wouldn't actually get violent. Considering I can't remember the name of the book or the author, I'm not terribly concerned about it. But, you never know - I could snap!

[Firebird]

I still can't find a review with good spoilers, but I'll risk it. Interestingly, one of the comments on the reviews I did read was from the author. She really liked the adaptation. That's kind of rare, especially when the writer didn't do the screenplay.