欧宝娱乐

Wow -- what a fascinating experience, to read "Truth and Beauty" after "Autobiography of a Face" and then to follow up with Suellen Grealy's angry article. I actually thought "Truth and Beauty" was the better book of the two, although perhaps it's not fair to say that because much of my fascination with "Truth and Beauty," at least initially, stemmed from having read "Autobiography of a Face" and the unique, stimulating opportunity to read one person's memoir and then to read how that person was remembered by a close friend.
First of all, I loved the writing. I forgot I was reading a book half the time; I felt like I was experiencing the friendship and the people myself. Also, while "Autobiography of a Face" was well-written, the story gripped me more than the writing. With "Truth and Beauty," the writing was more singular than the story although I enjoyed both. "Autobiography" explored the dynamics of growing up looking like a freak, while "Truth" described a uniquely intimate? codependent? almost physical? unhealthily close, or just unusually close? friendship -- a more universal topic, but written about in such a fascinating and provocative way.
This book made me think a lot about friendship. When does unique closeness become dysfunctional and unhealthy? When friends fall into the roles of "the sick one" and "the well one," even legitimately, how do they break out of that? And should they? If so, at what point?
It also made me think about sociable, charismatic, life-of-the-party people and whether they're just good at masking and filling (or trying to fill) an inner emptiness. Is it better to be introverted?
Then, reading Suellen Grealy's article (not printed in the book, for obvious reasons) raised even more questions for me. I could empathize with Suellen's feelings of exposure and her sense that her private grief had become something public and marketable. At the same time, at the risk of sounding callous, there's another way to look at this. For example, concerning "Autobiography," she expressed irritation that Lucy had selected her vantage point -- but what do you expect a memoir to be?
In describing Ann Patchett's afterword to "Autobiography," Suellen quoted her sister Sarah as saying, "Where are we in this story?" Ann Patchett was describing her memories of Lucy, which didn't include her sisters, whom she never met while Lucy was alive. I tried to understand -- is she angry about the exposure of Lucy, or about the fact that she wasn't included in this expose?
Then, Suellen reacted to the fact that one reading guide for "Autobiography" questioned her mother's parenting skills, and reported that this was blamed on an inexperienced intern. It's true that this may be insensitive to the family, but once you're going to go there, maybe the book shouldn't have been published at all!
Suellen said that, while she respected Ann Patchett's need to write the book as an artist, she would have preferred that she write it and then bury it somewhere rather than publishing it. Right. I sympathize with Suellen's feelings of exposure, but to hold it against Ann that she spent years writing an excellent book, a book that contributes to the literature canon, and then actually wanted to publish it, is not fair.
This happens to be a problem, as I know because a friend of mine is a writer and a journalist and sometimes angers people who appear in her writings (directly or indirectly) because they feel their privacy has been invaded. It's not that I don't sympathize with Suellen's feelings. I can't imagine what her grief must be like, and then to have it bared so publicly outside of her control. However, "Truth and Beauty" was such a worthwhile book in my opinion that I have a hard time relating to her particular complaints. I guess that any book has the potential to expose and hurt people, especially a memoir. Does that mean it shouldn't be written? Does that mean it shouldn't be read?