I feel as though Anne Lamott is on the verge of being a psychopath. Throughout the book she tries to give tips on how to get past Writer’s blocks, but the ways she does it is un-ideal for an actual person with Writer’s block. She writes as though she’s teaching a class, sometimes straying off subject which leads her readers into confusion.
Although as a fellow Writer I appreciate her incite, I don’t agree with her methods. Personally, I found her language to be harsh and her idea of what other’s go through to be bias and too specific. I believe she should have actually gone out and took a survey of how people felt before they begin to write which would have made her argument more convincing. She expressed hate towards the people of whom writing came more naturally to and expected her audience to agree with her. Well I don’t. With Lamott growing up in libraries and her father being a Writer, I feel as though she was more pressured into becoming a writer herself which I believe is an art not made for everyone. Lamott is trying to follow in her father’s footsteps, but she shouldn’t because if she experiences what she says she has in the book, she should go get help. My criticisms of her are basically the same as her critics and although she doesn’t believe in what they say, she should listen to them and re-look at herself. Despite her recognition of being a Best Seller, I'm not sold on her arguments.
Hello. I really enjoyed reading this post! I agree with you that she did take her rantings a bit too far at a few points throughout the book. You calling her a psychopath suggests that her writing did have an impact though, even if it wasn't in the most ideal sense... In your suggestion that she "get help," I smiled and thought two things; one is, maybe writing is her therapy and secondly, she probably does go to some kind of counseling (I thought she had mentioned something about this in the book). Anyway, I, like many people, think there is something to the whole "insane artist/ creative genius" thing, so she could just be trying to assert her legitimacy as an author. Who knows?
ReplyDeleteShanel, interesting post! Can you elaborate a bit more about what you see her arguments as? What do you think the point is she's trying to make?
ReplyDeleteShanel, took some courage for you to write this response, especially as it seems most of the class was in raptures over Bird by Bird. However, I do have to disagree with your criticism of Lamott's character. I truly believe that if most of us look deep within our own hearts we will recognize some of the same jealousies Lamott admitted to. All of us want to do well in our chosen fields, be it writing or astrophysics. When Lamott seemed to go "too far" (as both you and Reemi noted) I got the feeling she was rather exaggerating her own feelings for dramatic effect, while still confessing to a core of less than stellar emotions all humans possess. One cannot help being jealous, and I think Lamott recognized that and did her best to acknowledge the emotion so as not to let it poison her. Lamott is human, and she seems to delight in using humor to highlight her humanity, and ours, while poking fun at the petty little thoughts that do exist in all of us.
ReplyDelete