This was about as far from what I was expecting as it could possibly be. I heard Smart speak about her experience in an interview with Terry Gross and was enGROSSed. Not the case here.
I should have known what I was getting into, but there's just a childlike naivety about this text. And I'm not just talking about the littered paragraph breaks for dramatic effect or the unnecessary and overuse of both italics and exclamation points. It's entirely on the surface and takes a conversational tone where I was really expecting a learned and psychological adult reflection piece. Very surprising because, when she speaks, Elizabeth Smart definitely has a presence about her.
Perhaps my distaste really all stems from the feelings I just can't get over that the LDS and/or Evangelical beliefs are "so cute." Like, "Aw, you really think that, dear? You're so precious." Sure I'm an ass, but when she's talking about a literal interpretation of parting the sea alongside earnest expectation that her god might make a similarly impossible feat reality for paragraph upon paragraph, without so much as implied acknowledgement that this was only a desperate hope lacking any potential to be realized, my eyes start to hurt from all they rollin'.
Of course, the woman isn't a writer. I rarely expect dazzling prose when I pick up a run-of-the-mill memoir. But here I've got to blame the co-author Chris Stewart for this mash-up of choppy sentences and for letting all this crap fly:
(1) If you can't put something to words, explicitly saying that you can't capture the experience in words isn't conveying anything except a lack of talent. Case in point:
"I can't describe the terror!" (p. 26)
"He would torture and brutalize me in ways that are impossible to describe." (p. 46)
I'm sure there were others that I forgot to dog-ear.
And in the same vein:
"It was no fun at all" - ???? (p. 122)
"weird" (p. 79)
You really think I'm wasting my time for that kind of non-detail?
"Then he proceeded to urinate" is about as heinous a detail you're going to find. And you're gonna get it on repeat. Ad nauseam. But please understand, I don't at all mean to imply that Brian David Mitchell isn't a heinous person or didn't do heinous things; I'm just saying that Smart is keeping us (and perhaps herself) at arm's length and I even wonder if that's unwittingly.
"He went on to describe what they were going to do" (p. 74). Uhm, ok?
What I was really craving to know and understand, picking this up, is how she managed to cope with this life for so long and how it impacts her even to this day. Because to say that the experience is no longer affecting her or that her existence is completely divorced from it (as she continually implies and even expressly states) is total denial. Her story is severely lacking in any emotional depth and she represents herself as only a shell of feeling at best, as her descriptions are completely devoid of internal reflection. I mean, for crying out loud, she's talking about how she hated the pattern on the sheets they slept on ("I didn't like the print one bit," p. 70). She even describes the print as "horrid" in the same passage-- REALLY? That, of all you have endured, is what resonates with you? This is unequivocally the epitome of superficial reflection.
(2) There's also overuse of blanket words like "crazy" or "evil" or "mean." Like, he wasn't crazy; just evil, which is not exactly illustrative of any point. Needs to be gone back over with a fine tipped brush to paint a bit more nuance. A little more 'show us, not tell us' would be much appreciated.
In repeatedly reminding us that he's "not crazy," perhaps what she really means is that he was not unfit to stand trial or is/was not suffering from psychosis and is fully cognizant. But there's certainly a DSM diagnosis for all his delusions of grandeur, at the very least. I'm not here to diagnose, but I'm also not here to say "just mean" and "not crazy."
And (3) a qualifier like this:
"I don't know what the exact definition of despair is..."
Presumably you've had 10+ years in reflecting on your experiences and many years in writing this text to look that up? Obviously that's just in there for dramatic effect. And to me it's just plain cheap.
It is utterly amazing to me that the text could be so sparse and at the same time completely littered with unnecessary verbiage (see remarks on bedsheets, above). An enigma.
On top of and severely more egregious than all the above flaws is her obvious privilege and the way it colors her description and seemingly even affects what she takes away from her experiences. Worse yet, she ostensibly holds a boastful pride for that privilege.
"I thought back on a girl I knew in junior high. She was a friend to the Polynesians, the Mexicans, the Caucasians. She was friends with everyone. She was just so nice. So I thought, ok I can be like her" (p. 73, emphasis added).
"My abduction was to become the most publicized case since..." (p.67).
And then:
"I don't know what drove so many people to try to help me..." "light blue ribbons and buttons with my picture began to appear from California to Maine..." "hundreds of thousands [of posters] distributed nationwide..." "And to this day I remain the luckiest girl in the world!" (all p.67). In all seriousness, is this genuine naivety?--LUCK? Does she really not understand that this is the way sensationalized for-profit American media works (and the audience response it begets)? Yes, the search absolutely should have been omnipresent, as it should be for any missing child, regardless of how "pretty" (or white?) she is. Even after these years of reflection and even working with and advocating for victims, with countless many more abductions since, she really doesn't see that the inequity between her search and any other comes down to the "pretty" "blond hair and blue eyes" she continually revisits in her text? I have to wonder if she even comprehends the fact of that injustice? Use your privilege for good. It's time to make a change in the way the Smarts are treated versus the way the families of Amanda Berry, Georgina DeJesus, Michelle Knight, Avonte Oquendo, etc., are treated.
I'll qualify my rating and what I've said with a statement that I wholly respect anyone's effort to confront and/or come to terms with a victimizing experience. And I certainly admire the courage that doing so necessarily requires and I fully admit that writing about trauma can be freeing and cathartic. However, as I was reading this I was not convinced that Ms. Smart has actually come to terms with her past. The will power she was so emphatic about only takes one so far. I sensed throughout an adamant tone of denial, as if she were on the defensive about any further struggle that is typically part and parcel to an extended traumatic experience such as hers. Flashbacks, PTSD, nightmares.... it was as if she were trying to convey that she is immune to any after-effects and emotionally impermeable to the manipulation of her captors, which to me is actually frighteningly apathetic.
She was adamant, "there was no Stockholm Syndrome going on with me!" -- well, let that speak for itself. Again, a bit more 'show us, not tell us'. It seems as if she was obsessed with being rescued and refused to take matters into her own hands or responsibility for her own fate, even when surrounded by bystanders (in libraries, on buses, and eventually in various shelters) and even when confronted by police, no less. I'm no professional but that's utterly helpless behavior and her statements that she didn't want to be viewed "at fault" for her escape seem to imply some sensitivity to the emotions and concerns of her captors, which, as a vulnerable 13-year old who was wholly relying on them for basic necessities (in addition to being tortured and manipulated by them), would be completely understandable.
And then in the end there's that admission that she refused any professional help or counseling. Admirable if you can get through it at all, let alone on your own, but, again, I am not convinced that she truly is past the experience (or that it would ever even be possible to truly be "past" it-- coping is a lifelong journey, but her tone and manner vehemently deny this fact).
If you're really interested, listen to the Fresh Air interview with Terry Gross instead. But then don't get conned into reading it.
Admittedly I should try to have more respect for this tortured girl, but instead my response is clouded by disdain for how much slop is published merely on the basis that it will sell. Is this review going to be censored? Or am I flattering myself again?
<< crickets >>