This isn't a book review, even though the content type under the title of this page says "Book Review." This is more of a rambling set of thoughts about why I picked up this book, and why I want you to read it too.

Okay. So.

It has been a long while since I've read a book that moved me to tears as well as to laughter. It has been a long time since I've read a book that left me feeling that the world can be a better place, that my life can be a better life. It has been a long time since I've read a self-help book that I has been as inspirational as this one is (which is kinda saying something: I've read a lot of self=help books).

The big caveat of this is, of course, that I didn't read this book, I listened to the audio book, and am very thankful I did. The book is a series of six lectures by Brené Brown as she goes through her research on shame and vulnerability, some the findings, and many of the ways that one can improve one's life. Not improve it in the "have more wealth" way or "eat this, lose pounds, get laid" way (though, maybe the same result could happen), but in the base, fundamental joy one has in being alive.

Ooof, now there's a big promise to make.

Right.

Okay, so, why did I read this book?

I've seen Brené Brown's Ted Talk, The Power of Vulnerability, when it went viral back in 20111. Ugh. Five years ago.

The audio book was on sale, and I recalled the video when I was buying a book for my mom, so I threw this one into my cart, too. I don't know what lured me to the book specifically, to be honest, so let's go with impulse purchase.

Which is to say, when the student is ready...

Brené's style of speaking, and way of interleaving personal experiences, hard times and humour together, makes this an amusing listen. The studies she cites, her motivation for her research in this world of shame, and the permission she gives too the listener to _be_, is just amazing.

That permission, that you're allowed to say no, that you're allowed to say yes, that choosing discomfort (for the briefest of times) over resentment (for a much longer time) is worth the effort, that breathing and mindfulness and calm and understanding, and shit, I just can't list all the of amazing parts of this book without trying to cite the whole thing, so, yeah.

I'm going to add this this book to my recommended, repeat-read, buy-many-copies, hand-it-out-to-all-my-friends list that currently includes "The Happiness Hypothesis" and "The Antidote: Happiness for People who can't stand Positive Thinking."

This book is a series of lectures that Brené Brown gave when her book Daring Greatly was coming out. I plan to read that one soon.

Yeah, as much as I think the author could be considered certifiably insane based on her obsession with tidying up, I will say that this is the book that can seriously help to declutter a life, if the reader is willing.

Willing. When the student is ready, the teacher appears. This is a good book for decluttering, purging when one is ready.

The book gives you permission to let go. It gives you permission to give away items you don't use. It gives you permission to THROW AWAY items you don't use or want.

The book cautions the reader not to dispose of items by burdening someone else with the items. Don't give your sibling something from your parents if neither of you want said something, for example.

The two biggest take-aways for me were 1. don't keep it if it doesn't spark joy, and 2. once you've read what is on a paper, it has done its job, you can toss it.

I recommend this book to anyone who wants to purge. Hoarders will need more than just this book. Not-yet-a-hoarder will benefit.

Before reading

This book has been in my to-read pile for, well, um... uh.... 20 years? No, that's not quite right, but let's go with it. I have it in paperback and audiobook form, and finally decided that, dammit, I am going to read or listen to this book and finally remove it from my to-read pile. In reality, I want to read it because I want to see if my "If you see the movie, and someone tells you the book is better, don't bother to read the book, because you already know the high points" theory, formed after reading This Is Where I Leave You having seen the movie first, is valid. I've seen the Gone With The Wind movie. I saw it waaaaaaaaay long ago, before I was old enough to understand the nuances of the plot, story, messages. I plan on watching the movie again after finishing the book.

After reading

I was not expected to be moved by this book, as Scarlett O'Hara really isn't a nice person. As Rhett puts it, she has one of those flexible consciences that allows her to survive, but said conscience doesn't make for a pleasant person. That said, the whole Southern genteel society which seems to use gossip as its internal fuel, is one that I am REALLY sure I would have suffered greatly in.

I also struggled with this book. The language bothered me a lot, even though it was acceptable language at the time. The whole "I'm bothered by this" is also amusing to me. I curse like a sailor, using f--- and sh-- ALL THE TIME in my language, yet reading "niggers" and "darkies" bothers the crap out of me. The descriptions of life in the South around the Civil War era bugged me, too, until I realized that both THE BOOK IS FICTION, and it really didn't portray the bad stuff well at all. There was no whipping or abuse at Tara, the O'Hara plantation, because Ms Ellen was, of course, a lady. There was no physical retaliation when the original Tara foreman was fired (for getting the next door's "white trash" daughter pregnant, but come on, let's be real, in real life, it was probably a slave who was pregnant). The book seems to make slaves an okay thing to own (but hiring convicts for manual labor isn't).

The book had various classifications of people, including field niggers, house niggers, white trash, crackers, and those received. The house niggers looked down on field niggers and the white trash (poor white people), while the white trash envied the house niggers, and I was all, what, really? Then I remembered, the book is fiction. I couldn't tell if this happened, it could, why not given human nature, but, really did they? And then I thought, maybe, even though this is fiction, it might be true. Or, it really might be what Mitchell projected happened, she was born into a rich family, she heard Civil War stories on the knees of Confederate veterans, she formed her image of the Civil War South when she was six. So...

Yeah, reviewing Wikipedia, "Perhaps the most enduring legacy of Gone with the Wind is that people worldwide would incorrectly think it was the true story of the Old South and how it was changed by the American Civil War and Reconstruction. The film version of the novel "amplified this effect". Scholars of the period have written in recent years about the negative effects the novel has had on race relations by its resurrection of Lost Cause mythology." As for the Lost Cause, it is the "belief was founded upon several historically inaccurate elements. These include the claim that the Confederacy started the Civil War to defend states' rights rather than to preserve slavery, and the related claim that slavery was benevolent, rather than cruel."

Yeah, so, back to the book.

The book wasn't what I was expecting it to be, even though I've seen the movie way back when. The book is a tale of longing, duty, and loyalty. It's a book about surviving, about accepting the present as it is instead of living in the past. It is a cautionary tale about the loneliness of a life lacking vulnerability. It's about the stupidity of a woman unable to see beyond herself.

And, it's the story about a lifelong desire for a love that can never be fulfilled.

That is what caught me off guard. The yearning, wanting of one person, while the beauty and love of another (better fit) remained at arm's length.

I mean, think about it, the need of the Civil War to end slavery is enough of a tragedy. This whole book is a tragedy. Those dreaming of a lost past that never really existed. Those with unrequited love. Those who died for a cause not their own. The whole thing. A tragedy.

A tragic love story. Huh.

So, other parts of the book that stood out for me.

When Scarlet was describing Ashley, she notes, "He was as proficient as any of the other young men in the usual county diversions: hunting, gambling, dancing, and politics." In an era without television (parents generation) or the internet (our generation), without telephones or cars, what did people do to fill their days? Right. Diversions. Though, Ashley did also read a lot. (Books. Bah.)

There's a part about, at 10 years, boy slaves were sent the cobbler, the cow man, the mule boy, the wheelwright or carpenter, to see about their aptitudes. If they "showed no aptitude for any of these trades, they became field hands and in the opinion of the negroes, they had lost their claim to any social standing at all." Again, "Huh." True? Not true? Makes sense, but it makes the assumption that slaves were "happy" workers. It sounds good on paper, but was it true?

And the description of Scarlett's mother's world:

Ellen’s life was not easy, nor was it happy, but she did not expect life to be easy, and, if it was not happy, that was woman’s lot. It was a man’s world, and she accepted it as such. The man owned the property, and the woman managed it. The man took the credit for the management, and the woman praised his cleverness. The man roared like a bull when a splinter was in his finger, and the woman muffled the moans of childbirth, lest she disturb him. Men were rough of speech and often drunk. Women ignored the lapses of speech and put the drunkards to bed without bitter words. Men were rude and outspoken, women were always kind, gracious and forgiving.

I live in a world of gender inequality, yes, but I have not know the level of inequality that existed even 100 years ago: women haven't yet been able to vote in the United States for 100 years, that's coming up in 4 more years. Again, "I can imagine, but is this real?" How could a family survive in the wild West without some level of equality? Ehhhhh... uncomfortable about this, too.

“That’s not courage,” he said tiredly. “Fighting is like champagne. It goes to the heads of cowards as quickly as of heroes. Any fool can be brave on a battle field when it’s be brave or else be killed..."

Yuuuuuup.

Yeah, so there's a repeating pattern in Scarlett's behaviour and that's in continually wanting what she doesn't or can't have. Sometimes, the longing is for "Home! If she were only home, Yankees or no Yankees. Home, even if Ellen was sick. She longed for the sight of Ellen’s sweet face, for Mammy’s strong arms around her." The entire book is a longing for Ashley. There's a longing for a man to be strong and take away her burdens. And, of course, the longing for security and love. At no point is Scarlett satisfied, nor does she ever seem grateful for what she has. I want to believe this was a deliberate choice by Mitchell, to create an ironic character who scoffs at those pining for a past that will never be restored, while simultaneously striving for a future that will never be.

In this book, the only person I could relate to or even like was Rhett (also, likely written this way). Seriously, the man kept dropping truth bombs. "Then you’ve made the only choice. But there’s a penalty attached, as there is to most things you want. It’s loneliness.” Even the passing remarks have "Huh. Yes." truths in them.

And then, there was this line, "And she could understand his shrewd caginess, so like her own, his obstinate pride that kept him from admitting his love for fear of a rebuff."

If ever two characters unable to communicate were written, it was Scarlett and Rhett. Together, they would have been unstoppable. And neither could be vulnerable to the other. Right, this book was written 150 years too late for these fictional characters. More's the pity.

So, the book.

I enjoyed it. I'm glad I read it. I'm more glad I remembered THE BOOK IS FICTIONAL as I was reading it. It's an entertaining book and easy to think it was non-fiction. It wasn't. Made up from 70 years after the fact, from a winner's perspective. I'm looking forward to watching the movie again.

I cannot figure out why I have this book. I thought maybe it was on some Book Riot list, but I can't figure out which one. Can't say I liked this book. I can say I didn't enjoy this book.

The premise is post-apocalyptic world (most of which are usually interesting), a war veteran is home trying to take care of his wife and son, while still fighting his own demons. The back of the cover says, "When a girl in town is murdered, David tracks the killer, while battling his own past." That back of the cover fails to mention said girl is his son's best friend. Also fails to mention that said girl is the neighbor girl.

So, why did I not enjoy this book? Couple reasons: the world described was hazy and completely unclear. I know what a farm looks like. I know what a dust storm looks like. I feel I should have been able to picture this world given my experiences with both, but I couldn't. The world was hazy. The characters were hazy. I didn't connect with any of them.

The author's style of writing also put me off. Ala Ulysses, quotes were absent from the characters words. I would have to stop and reread parts of the books (many, many, many times) in order to understand what was said and who said what. Each reread broke me out of the flow of the book. The no-quotes thing might be good for the author, it is crap for the reader.

The ending was reasonable, even if sad in the many lives changed. One hopes the characters can draw strength from doing the right thing in a seriously messed up world. That there are people who do the right thing, even at great personal cost, makes this book somewhat compelling.

My copy will be going into the Little Lending Library out front of Andy's house. I hope someone else enjoys this book more than I did.

The war was hard on him. It was hard on both of us. You come back and still see problems and you think you ought to fix ‘em.