
I don’t read a lot of non-fiction, but I make an exception for biographies and memoirs. My interest is especially piqued by “the story behind the story” books, that reveal what really happened to a person when the public image of that tale is either very one-sided, or a lot of facts have been left out. (Marie Antoinette is a great example of this.)
I also appreciate memoirs by still living people that are somewhat famous for something not necessarily related to what the book is about — like, we all know Stephen King is a horror author, but I’ve loved reading his autobiographical essays that don’t focus on his writing, and discuss just regular life stuff from his past, the things that helped shape who he is as a person, not simply as a writer.
Because of this interest, I went through a phase when I gobbled up a number of Bill Bryson’s travel audiobooks (when he’s known as more of a historian and journalist), the autobiography of advice columnist Amy Dickinson (mostly because she literally lives five miles from my house, and I’d run into her at the local library a few times), and several other, varied lifestories of people who worked at the Ivy League university near my residence. The “behind the scenes” looks at the non-famous, non-public-image sides of these real, still human people.
Anyway, as I’ve completed these, I’ve come to find there are some major differences between biography and memoir, the most obvious being that memoir is, of course, more reliant on the subjective feelings and views of the author. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. And sometimes that’s what we’re after. Sometimes we don’t want to read “just the facts, ma’am.” When I choose a memoir over a biography, it’s because I’m in the mood for those “behind the scenes” tidbits.
But recently, I finished two memoirs that were touted more as biographies, and both included a fair amount of “facts” — but I realized after reading, while reflecting on the content, that a whole lot of what the authors discussed as “actually happening” simply didn’t add up to, well, being that.
First is Glass Castle by Jeanette Walls, who is a journalist who has worked in New York City for a long time and for a number of publications. The short, uncontested version is that she came from a very poor family from West Virginia, with neglectful, borderline abusive parents, and she and her siblings worked hard for their college scholarships that got them decent jobs and out of a bad home situation. All of this is easily backed up or confirmed; and, unfortunately, realistic enough that I highly doubt anyone would immediately claim fictionalization. However. There are many things brought up in the course of this book that make me seriously wonder.
To begin with, Walls refers to various incidents from her childhood that sound downright horrific — such as catching herself on fire while cooking for herself, because her mother wouldn’t (yes, wouldn’t) — and yet, there seem to be no follow-up actions, consequences, or events to things that should have been incredibly impactful on Walls’ entire life. Supposedly, the family was constantly “on the run” until Walls was a tween, because the father was an alcoholic who charmed people and then conned them out of money, and the mother was a manic depressive who would rather paint landscapes and still-lifes than take care of her children. The impression is given early on that bill collectors, social services, and extended relatives were frequently trying to track the family down — and I don’t give a damn that this was the 1960s and 70s, the fact is, if the children were THAT neglected and THAT much on the official radar, SOMEBODY would have eventually caught up to them and taken the kids away or put the father in jail or SOMETHING.
It makes a lot more sense that, once the family was back in West Virginia (after traveling across many states in Walls’ early life), the father’s alcoholism and the mother’s depressive episodes were easier to hide in a small town where people weren’t quite sure what to do. The idea that the school/teachers helped the kids work their hardest to get top marks and huge scholarships so they could get away from this type of homelife totally rings true. But. And it’s a pretty huge but. The intense contradiction of the portrayal of Walls’ childhood versus her adolescence makes me, quite honestly, feel that the former was largely fictionalized to sell books.
I mean, if a young child burns herself badly, wouldn’t there be, well, problems arising from that? Wouldn’t she suffer from PTSD, including nightmares, an intense fear of fire, a refusal to cook, to undress around anyone else (because of the scar tissue???), and other, natural reactions to such an accident? Wouldn’t she have physical obstacles, such as skin that didn’t heal well, or a limited range of motion in certain limbs, or…again, scar tissue? The impression is given that Walls experienced this and it’s used as a way to show how terrible her parents were — and then it’s never really brought up again. Apparently this sort of thing — which supposedly was happening to Walls and her siblings often — didn’t emotionally traumatize them or result in any rebellious behavior on their part. They’re all portrayed as model students and well-liked adults, and the idea that repeatedly being malnourished and possibly abused by relatives and witnessing their parents’ drinking and arguing and hitting each other did not do anything to them long-term — other than make them want to be financially secure — is downright RIDICULIOUS.
Again, it leads me to conclude that the most basic version of Walls’ parents — alcoholic and manic depressive, not good with money, wanting to love their kids but not being sure how to — is what’s really true. And I have to believe that most of the rest was created by editors wanting to capitalize on Walls’ established name as a well-known journalist.
This is a theory shared by many other readers of this “biography.” A lot of the reviews I read cited the way Walls describes certain things that she’d have no accurate memory of, because she was so young — which was something I noted — as well as the lack of coherent follow-through that would have been occurred with (for example!) major accidents or life-threatening circumstances. I was also deeply disturbed by the notion that Walls’ parents literally almost killed her or a sibling (more than once!) because they were such clueless morons, AND YET when the kids grew up they still wanted to take care of their dying father and forgive their pathetic excuse of a mother. Bunches of real people have cut ties with their abusive families and never looked back — and THAT makes sense, considering human nature, societal advances, and modern therapists’ advice. Walls’ story just does not.
The other memoir that will be sticking in my craw (and very possibly moving me away from the genre) is Wild by Cheryl Strayed. This is the tale, supposedly, of one woman who, grieving the loss of her mother, hiked the Pacific Crest Trail (which does exist, and runs from the California-Mexico border to Washington state). And, yes, her mother did die, from cancer. Yes, that sucks. So, I’m definitely not here to claim the author had no trauma or crap she was dealing with, because she clearly was.
My complaints begin with the idea that a person who was — by her own admission — so incredibly unprepared for such a major undertaking — in the legit wilderness — actually survived. Without being eaten by a bear, falling off a cliff, getting overheated in the desert, running out of clean water, getting done in by one of the many hitchhikers she got rides from (when she got lost or exhausted on the trail, which happened a lot), or collapsing into the snow that she didn’t think would still be on the Sierra Nevadas in June.
There is NO WAY this woman hiked even the part of the Pacific Crest Trail she claimed to. It’s extremely possible that she indeed planned to do this, started to, made it maybe a few days, before realizing how extremely not cut out for this she was, and then took a Greyhound bus to Portland, Oregon, where she eventually settled. Honestly, if that was the truth, and the book was about the acceptance of her failure, and how even the attempt had changed her thinking about her loss and her life, I would’ve been fine with that.
Instead, the book switches back and forth between her “hike” and remembering things that happened right around or after her mother’s death. The hiking chapters are filled with elaborate descriptions of Strayed, with some Superwoman-like ability, managing to develop Green-Beret-level survival skills, and getting herself through desert, snow, past wild animals, finding her way back to the trail after going miles off course (despite barely understanding how to use a compass), and being beloved by every other hiker she encounters and the many random motorists who pick her up (right off the trail, hefting a massive backpack, dirty and smelly and looking like a strung-out hippie). NOPE. Nope, nope, nope!
I don’t buy for an instant that people were in awe of her, a young single woman, hiking the Pacific Crest Trail — since women have been hiking the Appalachian Trail for years — nor that all those people would’ve immediately seen her as worthy of their friendship, when she portrays numerous instances when she needed help from more experienced hikers, and got it, but didn’t even seem grateful, and did nothing for them in return. She claims that later down the trail, she’d meet up with these people again, and everyone would be so excited to see her, and I couldn’t help but wonder, Why???
The flashbacks about Strayed’s behavior after her mother’s death are deeply upsetting. She freely admits to heroin use, to cheating on her husband (with a bunch of different men, by the way), and not being able to maintain relationships with her siblings and stepfather (gee, can’t imagine why…). She agrees that these actions led to her husband wanting a divorce, but also wails on for several chapters about having to let him go (while acknowledging she singlehandedly destroyed their marriage).
She also constantly touts her academic achievements (a double major in college), but shows that apparently all she has are book smarts — the ongoing issue with her hiking boots being too small, and she keeps losing toenails because of it, for example, is a recurring theme throughout the PCT chapters. It takes her about four weeks, if I followed the timeline correctly, to find a way to call the store where she bought the boots and ask for a different size. She even keeps track of how many toenails she has left, in a similar fashion to keeping a scorecard — and, just, WHAT?!
There was also, close to the end of the book, a big hippie music thing, where, while on a break from the trail, she ate a bunch of vegan food and hooked up with someone in a band, and… Well, it just felt surreal after all the wilderness exploits and raw and even gruesome comments about her mother’s death and her drug-and-sex-addled past. And it also made me feel that this woman who was so concerned about growing up, about acting mature after ruining her marriage and her health and possibly any chance at higher education or a good career…had, after at least a month on the trail, learned absolutely nothing. If, after enduring all the weather and animal and getting lost drama, she jumps at the first opportunity to get drunk and high with a bunch of hippies and have a one-night stand with one of them, this indicates she didn’t actually want to change. This does not sound like a person who really took some intense real-world lessons to heart. It made me feel very ambivalent towards the author as I continued reading.
Especially since it was soon after the hippie music stuff that Strayed admitted…her mother was a terrible parent. Her mother was often neglectful, selfish, didn’t encourage her children, or even seem to care what they needed out of life; she was so stuck on toxic positivity that she never recognized her own failings or tried to adjust her parenting style so that she wasn’t stoned, or working too late when the kids didn’t have a babysitter, or not deliberately trying to piss off the neighbors, so that no one wanted to socialize with the family. Her kids were isolated, and insulated from the real world, and because of this bombshell, a lot of Strayed’s previous narration now makes sense. Her utter entitlement — doing drugs because she felt like it, sleeping around because she felt like it — driving a wedge between herself and her family but not recognizing her part in it, being somewhat aware how she was living was damaging but trying to deflect the fact she needed to take responsibility for super-crappy decisions. Like mother, like daughter, it would absolutely seem.
And it made me wonder — more than the disparate “facts” about her ability to survive in the wilderness with no formal training and little preparation — just how true this account is. I mean, Strayed spends big chunks of the book professing how much she loved her mother, how close they were, how she hated that they wouldn’t get to share so many more years together. And, yet. This sudden confession that, actually, the mom was a failed, flaky hippie with a chip on her shoulder about mainstream society, who taught her kids they didn’t need anything but each other… That’s not loving. That’s not wholesome, or uplifting. That’s controlling, manipulative, and unbalanced.
And after getting that bombshell dropped on my head less than 100 pages from the end of the book, I feel manipulated. Which is it, Strayed? Was your mom awesome, a paragon of parenting? Or was she a terrible witch and deep down you always knew that but didn’t want to say it out loud because she’d suddenly died?
If the book had started with all the mom’s failings, and a contrite, confused author’s response to the news this person whom she kind of despised had cancer, it would have felt completely different.
When Strayed finally reaches her end goal of the Bridge of the Gods in Portland, Oregon, I didn’t experience elation or satisfaction; I truly felt cheated. So much of this tale seems fabricated, or at the very least highly exaggerated, and I know it’s meant to be inspiring and we’re supposed to root for the narrator…but I seriously couldn’t believe this woman actually does have a successful career, as an advice columnist, nonetheless. If she was half as irritating and dumb in real life as she came across in Wild, I’m genuinely shocked she went on to find such vocational acclaim.
I mean, yes, people do change, and sometimes when it’s been years since we did something (Strayed took her hike in the late 1990s, which we all know was a while ago now), we can develop rose-tinted views of events or people that in the moment we were either angry or hurt or stupid over. But this whole reading experience made me think, “If this is a person who becomes a lauded advice columnist…this could be why the world is such a mess.”
The only good thing is that I got the book from a Little Free Library.
It’s going into my recycling bin.
Memoirs aren’t meant to be entirely factual, because you can’t make concrete statements about someone’s feelings or opinions. But when editors and publishers don’t fact check the parts of memoirs that require it (as one reviewer pointed out, Strayed wrote that she brought a professional camera on her hike, but she doesn’t have a single photograph of her time on the PCT, and that in itself is quite sketchy), they are simply letting down readers, and really the whole of society. How many publishers have gotten in trouble for not looking into a slightly dodgy or slightly unbelievable account, and later journalists or attorneys proved to them the “firsthand” tale was totally made up? (Hint: There are enough to make my point.)
All in all, I think I’m done reading “biographies” for a while.