Wednesday, May 15, 2013

A little review of Little Way and some little remarks

I'm still not ready to write my full review of LWoRL. But I enjoyed this short review from Audrey.

I liked Ruthie but I was not crazy about her brother, the author. He brought too much of himself and his religion into his story.

I commented on this review positively. There was a negative reaction stating "Why would you criticize an author for bringing in his spirituality when it is very obvious, from reading the description of the book or the jacket/back cover, that this is going to be a major topic within the book?" So my reaction was to clarify why someone might be nonplussed with the manner in which religion is brought into the story.

This is the reaction most people I know have to the book. The story of Ruthie is basically used a delivery system for the author's own political ideologies and religious experiences. And while I don't doubt the possibility of real supernatural phenomena occurring to some people, all the people I know who feel compelled to trumpet them come off as pretty arrogant. That's my assessment when reading about his personal visitation by the Virgin Mary and the postmortem vision he has of his sister. The former doesn't add one thing to the story, the latter feels entirely contrived.

So Audrey agrees with one of my two main thoughts about how the book is flawed—it's too much about the author. This is my other main thought: I still don't think Rod Dreher understands his sister, Ruthie, and mischaracterizes her motives by superimposing his own belief system on hers. Maybe this will help explain what I mean....



Here's Dreher on Andrew Sullivan's Vimeo Channel. Try to ignore the weird visuals here, stifle your guffaws, and concentrate on what he is saying.

He starts off by saying that Ruthie had a bad attitude about Rod having left the old homestead to go live elsewhere. I think this misses the main point; I think Ruthie was irritated with her brother because of his endless vocal contrarianism. He told his father that he was a socialist, he sat inside watching VH1 instead of going out hunting craw-daddies, he read books and hung out with the town "liberals", and all evidence points toward his having no unspoken thought on any topic. This habit would unfortunately inexorably link his plans to bolt from his hometown with his hating everything about it, not a reasonable pursuit of his fortune or his education or whatever. After that, each call back home would probably be an announcement of some new, big-city experience—discovering some new food or restaurant, seeing someone famous, etc. This is commonly known as bragging which, when coupled with contrarianism, is not a good formula for winning friends and influencing people. Numerous examples in the book bear this out, believe me.

And we know what happened when he got the big jobs in the city. He went all contrarian at National Review and flipped out because people teased him about shopping at the farm market. He started all these arguments about how small towns were great and authentic and all the stuff that ended up in his first book. That's why it rings hollow when he claims he learned all these things from his dying sister; he had been going on about all this stuff for years.

It's ironic to me that one of Rod's oft-touted proofs for the greatness of his sister's "little way" is the big line at her wake. When discussing the topic of the many friends the Lemings had who helped them through Ruthie's illness with his wife, she points out to him that they have a lot of friends, too. But he retorts that they don't have a "deep bench". This struck me as a strange remark until I realized that it is a sports analogy. Could Rod's use of this analogy—probably subconscious—demonstrate that his relationship to his sister is still primarily a competitive one? Well, now that he's moved back, the line at his funeral better be at least as long as his sister's, dammit! (This is the point Kathleen is trying to make here, by the way.)

Like I said, I'm still not ready for a full review. For now I'll let Keith, Pik, Diane, Kathleen, SVS et al state more reactions to my thoughts below.

34 comments:

  1. Not having read the book, and not knowing either of these people, one thing comes out from the video and your note above.

    I wonder whether Dreher is projecting his own attitudes onto Ruthie. As you say, Dreher was an annoying and arrogantly contrary PITA, who kept rubbing her nose in his fancy schmancy better-than-thou ideas. Maybe Ruthie was just tired of his shit after all those years, but Dreher interprets it as her having a bad attitude about his leaving. It may have instead been a great relief to her when he finally left.

    And then he and his poor wife show up with that damn bouillabaisse. Doesn't matter if it might taste great -- if Rod likes it, Ruthie hates it.

    (Actually, I might be projecting onto Ruthie myself here. Dreher is so pretentious that I'm predisposed to dislike anything that he likes.)

    And in the video, Dreher says that Ruthie "rejected" moving away into the "meritocratic" lifestyle. Coming from a small town myself, the people that I know who stayed there (incl. those who went away to school) didn't stay there because they "rejected" anything. They just wanted to raise their family in the same town they were raised in, among their own family and friends, because they liked it there. There wasn't any "I Reject!" about it. So this too sounds like projection on Dreher's part.

    Again, I don't know either of these people so this is speculative on my part. Pauli will steer me right if I am off track.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think lots of small towns have little adolescent Rays. I too would have opted for Live Aid instead of hunting craw daddies. But Ray expected not mere acceptance, but *reverence* for what he apparently considered to be self-evident superiority, and it stuck in his craw (pun!) that such wasn't the case. He seems to think finally, at long last, he will be treated with reverence now because of his loss (which he writes a book about to make sure no one forgets). and also the "reverence" will be literal since he's starting his own freakin church.

      Delete
    2. Indeed so, kathleen.

      Not only are those who stay in their hometown different from what Rod says, but those who leave are different from Rod, too.

      When I and others I knew who left did go back, it's safe to say that we were pretty much "when in Rome". You go home to visit, you go with the flow there because you are a guest. The folks back home want to see you because they love you, not because they want education about the right way to live/eat/think (least of all from you), or to show proper reverence for you, on your schedule of course. And somehow we understood that.

      Delete
    3. I remember being confused when people in the small town I grew up in would angrily state that, "I am getting out of this town as soon as _______." Whatever, turning 18, graduating. I never felt that way. I used to say to them "What's wrong with Grove City?" There main answer was that there was nothing to do and other places are cooler.

      Then at some point I needed a job and moved to the city. I didn't feel one way or another about it, not that I recall. It's interesting to note that many of the complainers still live there. I'm guessing that think they just complain about other things now.

      People carry their world inside them. They have the same problems regardless of where they pitch their tent. That's how I see it.

      Delete
  2. Yeah, that's pretty much my point when I write "I still don't think Rod Dreher understands his sister, Ruthie, and mischaracterizes her motives by superimposing his own belief system on hers." He's got this idea that it's was right and noble to stay in one spot, and Ruthie was right to value that. I think it's totally Rod's "BIG WAY" of doing things, and not the things themselves, that pisses everybody off.

    Also you put it well explaining how, in remaining in her hometown, she really didn't reject anything other than Rod's rejection. It's like accusing me of rejecting an atheist's beliefs because I believe in God. Again: it's Rod's interpretation of everything from his own ideology.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would have noticed that you expressly made the very point that I was making, except I was distracted by this overwhelming desire to click on that hipster face just below.

      Delete
    2. Yes, I thought something like that must have happened. I think everyone is tempted to see events in life as reinforcing their own beliefs, thus requiring humans to engage in self-examination before interpreting events. Dreher displays a lack of realization of this tendency in himself.

      Delete
  3. So the obvious question is, if Ruthie had so much to teach him, why isn't there any evidence at all of any of her having yet rubbed off on him? Instead there is one veiled instance of him getting back at her after another. "No one would even know who she was if it wasn't for me". He's bringing missionary religion to the natives. He's bringing literary culture to the natives. He eats at "the Baton Rouge Galatoire's", not, Heaven forbid, at country mouse's plain food country diner. He's plowing her "little way" under and out of sight just as fast as he can. This is like the parable of the Bad Prodigal Son: "The PS is back, and this time he's getting even!". Starring Christoph Waltz, directed by Quentin Tarantino.

    On another note, I hope this isn't too far afield and maybe someone who understands this better than I do can answer it. All this IRS messing around with the Tea Party got me thinking about it and to my non-expert eyes it seems egregious.

    We're not getting all this info about Rod & Ruthie strictly or even primarily from Rod Dreher's personal sources. The bulk of it is being funneled through The American Conservative through Dreher's blogging there.

    TAC, the blog Rod Dreher blogs for, is the magazine of some 501(3)(c) non-profit institute, but TAC itself solicits donations in the guise of being a non-profit organization itself. So how can that institute/TAC retain its tax-exempt 501(3)(c) status while Rod Dreher uses it daily as his personal profit pubilicity machine to promote his book? Or, why is Dreher not having to pay personal income taxes on the value he extracts from TAC to personally promote his personal book? It's not as if he just mentioned his book in 1 or 2 posts. He's soliciting people to donate money to an organization he is actively using to promote his personal business on an ongoing basis. How come he's not jeopardizing the 501(3)(c) status?

    Keith

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Keith, I don't know about your last question, but maybe we'll find out, seeing that I just emailed your comment in question form to a bunch of people at TAC including Wick Allison.

      Delete
    2. Doesn't something not smell right? I wasn't aware tax exempt status could be legally used for personal back scratching, at least not overtly.

      But maybe all this IRS scandal explains exactly why it can, at least if you spend as much space bashing Republicans as Dreher and TAC do.

      Keith

      Delete
    3. Wick Allison responded to my email with your comment, Keith:

      Has this fellow ever watched a program on PBS? Has he ever bought a book by the host of that program? In fact, doesn't the host make a fortune off his books and tapes and CDs because of that program? Or has he ever bought a book by a mega-church pastor?

      Welll... HAVE YOU EVER DONE THOSE THINGS, FELLOW KEITH????

      Delete
    4. Heaven knows, Mr. Allison, it could be a way this little.

      Keith

      Delete
    5. A "conservative" is using the goings-on at PBS to justify amcon's tax exempt status? The crass commercialism of PBS is exhibit No. 1 why it should not be subsidized by the tax code as a nonprofit (let alone get public funding).

      Delete
    6. Let us fill out these complaint forms and send them in to the IRS. That way we'll test his theory.

      Delete
    7. I have to think the enduring lesson of Ruthie Leming is how many extraneous interests keep making a buck off her death, like an unending parade of carrion beetles, each snipping off its own delicious bit of rotting flesh. Dreher himself - SNIP! Dreher's agent - snip! Dreher's publisher - snip! Grandmother's Buttons in SF - snip! Wick Allison, smirking as he enjoys his tax-exempt bits - snip! snip! snip!

      That's the sad but true "little way of Ruthie Leming" - a whole host of opportunistic alien scavengers dissects and reduces you to little bits profitable only to themselves and others and carts them away to feed their hungry grubs.

      In another year Ruthie Leming will be remembered only as the vague, two-dimensional subject of another failed banal book by a guy with a dead, soulless voice and forgotten as the long since dissipated leaf drift of random bar and restaurant receipts.

      Keith

      Delete
    8. Really nice, Keith. I sent your carrion beetle comment to Mr. Allison. Thought it would amuse him.

      Delete
    9. Ha-ha-ha!

      Did you also give him the good news, that CorkyFest® is definitely on? Maybe he'll want to carry it on his newest ambition, D-TV. That is, if Stormfront doesn't outbid him.

      One of these days Ron Unz is going to come to him and say, look, I was okay with that grad student Larison, and I was even okay with Dreher, even though he's so very much unlike any of the others - and unlike any other person I've ever met. But now Joan and Melissa Rivers? Really?

      Keith

      Delete
    10. I did not know that channel 24 (on our cable here in Dallas) is the "DTV" channel. I just know it as the Beverly Hillbillies channel.

      Delete
    11. Pik, with Rod Dreher in his stable now to ride point on them there's really nothing left to stop Wick from cornering the market in lonely, existentially terrified cat ladies.

      Keith

      Delete
  4. First thought, why is dreher dressed like an Easter egg?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hah. Pik says he can't stand the thought of liking something (foodtsuffs, for instance) that Dreher likes.

      I'll go farther. I can't even stand looking at the guy. I could not stomach watching that vimeo.

      I know that sounds un-Christian and uncharitable, but, well, it's visceral. The guy simply makes me sick. I can still pray for him and wish him well, but I cannot stand the sight of him.

      Delete
    2. That was kind of my reaction too. I actually met Ray in person way back around 1995 in his Washington Times days. If you had told me that 18 years later would transmogrify that earnest boy into the fortysomething with thinning hair disguised with Greenwich Village mousse and Truman Capote glasses, I wouldn't have believed you.

      -The Man From K Street

      Delete
  5. A "conservative" is using the goings-on at PBS to justify amcon's tax exempt status? The crass commercialism of PBS is exhibit No. 1 why it should not be subsidized by the tax code as a nonprofit (let alone get public funding).

    Well put!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Not sure what sort of conservative that Wick Allison still is, no matter what he calls himself.

    According to his Wikipedia entry:

    In September 2008, he published an article in D Magazine entitled "A Conservative For Obama", in which he endorsed then Senator Barack Obama for President. In May 2011, he recanted the endorsement citing "serial disillusionment" with the two major US political parties. However, in September 2012, Allison told The Daily Beast, "I will probably vote for Obama, unless I have a Gary Johnson–inspiration in the voting booth. (My vote in Texas is wasted anyway)...Romney is the opposite of conservative, with a plan that is fiscally reckless and a foreign policy that is unnecessarily militant. Obama has done about the best that could have been done, considering the united GOP opposition in Congress. My questions about Obamacare and my disappointment that we are not already out of Afghanistan are not enough to make me embrace a candidacy that even George W. Bush would have been repelled by—and, having had time to reflect on his own record, perhaps is.”

    Here's a graph from the 2008 "A Conservative for Obama" piece linked to in the Wikipedia entry:

    But I now see that Obama is almost the ideal candidate for this moment in American history. I disagree with him on many issues. But those don't matter as much as what Obama offers, which is a deeply conservative view of the world. Nobody can read Obama's books (which, it is worth noting, he wrote himself) or listen to him speak without realizing that this is a thoughtful, pragmatic, and prudent man. It gives me comfort just to think that after eight years of George W. Bush we will have a president who has actually read the Federalist Papers.

    Ohh-kay. If Obama is offering a "conservative view of the world", then it may be that I don't understand the meaning of the word "conservative".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeccccchhhhh. Another "conservative" for Obama. Gimme a freakin' break.

      Never trust somebody named Wick.

      Delete
    2. A magazine salesman whose conservatism has a little something for anyone who might want to buy his mags promoting a blabbermouth something who has a little something for anyone who might want to buy his book. I'd call that a match made in Heaven.

      But, cruelest of all - cruelest of all - from now on to eternity what will the planet's archetype be of a St. Francisville intellectual? Not any nice young St. Francisville man or woman coming up who might actually have some serious intellectual chops. Certainly not Walker Percy. Nope. From now on the face of St. Francisville intellectualism will belong indelibly to troll-haired Corky St. Dreher.

      Way back here somewhere Pauli quoted someone accusing Rod Dreher of making the ordinary people of SF look like hicks. But it's more subtly damaging than that.

      By inadvertantly - and ironically - promoting his new neon visibility as St. Francisville's intellectual Jubilation T. Cornpone ("old toot-yer-own-horn-pone") as ruthlessly as the Visigoths overran Europe, Dreher has effectively poisoned the well of anticipatable mental achievement in SF from the top down, the hidden blessing being no one will look further to actually evaluate the regular folk and may blessedly leave them alone.

      "I'm a writer and I'm from St. Francisville!"

      Yeah, kid...From now on I'd maybe keep that to yourself. Just sayin'. And you can thank Wick, too.

      Keith

      Delete
    3. This is nuts, however it is exactly Andrew Sullivan's viewpoint. Obama is conservative compared to Bush, McCain, Romney, etc.

      Delete
  7. Pauli, your take on Rod's magnum opus has gotten me very interested. I should just go and find the book and read it for myself and compare notes with what you're saying. Then I'll add to my previous "book review."

    By the way, I have to admit that, some days, Rod's blogging gets to be rather odd and baffling. For example, for the life of me, I cannot understand why he continues blogging about that ultra kinky essay by Emily Witt. What's the point? Or what kind of points is he out to win? If his reaction always ends up being "Run", then there's really nothing left worth discussing. Why keep at it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oengus, you should read it. I think you'd enjoy parts of it. It has helped me understand him, and has helped me understand his story, i.e., how he got so whacked in the head.

      WRT ultra kinkiness on the brain, I have only this to offer: if you don't chase those demons out immediately, they set up camp.

      Delete
    2. Oengus, the ultra kinky stuff brings in the comments and I'm guessing that his employer measures the comment count so when it gets slow talkin about Ronnie or whoever, Rod throws in some outrage to gin up the comments.

      Delete
    3. SVS is right. The AmConMag site employs those little "teaser" alerts which pop out from the bottom right corner of the page. You've got to harvest those impulse clicks from the curious.

      Delete
  8. Slightly off-topic, but...does anyone here remember Young Fogey a/k/a Serge a/k/a John Something of A Conservative Blog for Peace? I could never quite figure out what he was religiously -- Orthodox but with High Anglican and Latin Trad sympathies, or sumpin'? Anyway, apparently he has reverted to Catholicism (as of 2011...I'm kind of slow WRT such news, I guess).

    In a recent post, he points out something interesting WRT Dreher (toward whom he bears no animosity, BTW). He says that, as far as he can tell, Rod has never spent any time in Cradle-type Orthodoxy, such as a Greek Orthodox parish or even a predominantly ethnic Russian Orthodox parish. All of Rod's experience has been in the weird, hothouse, "intentional," and often intensely anti-Catholic milieu of Convert Orthodoxy.

    Very interesting, when you think about it!

    ReplyDelete