|
Post by ScholarGal on Aug 1, 2012 9:38:02 GMT -5
It's time to kick off the discussion of Holy Ghost Girl: A Memoir, by Donna M. Johnson. My first questions are from the first chapter, so feel free to discuss even if you haven't finished the book yet.
Did the scene in Chapter 1 describing the tent setup remind you of convention preps?
How did you feel about Betty Ann's task of keeping the children quiet for the 2-5 hour service?
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Aug 1, 2012 18:12:54 GMT -5
Most definitely it reminded me of convention! We lived 100 miles from Walla Walla, where I think they still use a tent...?
I also could relate to the task of keeping the kids quiet. It was often touted as a wise plan by God, this business of having the kids in every meeting, it taught them discipline and a quiet spirit.
I have to confess, I read all the way through this book before I figured out the obvious: It's an autobiography. I mean, I could hardly believe a child with that weird of an upbringing could grow up "normal" enough to write such an engrossing book! It just never crossed my mind! But when I look at my own childhood (though far less traumatic) I thoroughly enjoyed it. I sure didn't feel in any way underprivileged.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Aug 2, 2012 9:41:45 GMT -5
I do not have vivid memories of convention preps. I remember my Mom and I would go to Freedom preps one or two days a year when we were Upstate New York but I don’t think I was ever there on the days they raised the tents. I do recall looking around in awe, during the meetings, at the huge center poles, the thick ropes and pulleys, the little holes in the top of the tent where the poles went through, the massive iron stakes all around the outside of the tent with the tight ropes holding the poles for the siding. It was all so big and massive and beyond the comprehension of a 6-7 year old mind.
I also remember being at Milford in the 50’s one year when a major hurricane blew up the East Coast. It makes me sit here and smile as I recall the concern and competence that was displayed by all as everyone prepared for that storm which I seem to remember hit right during convention. It is probably a case of selective memory but my recollection is of a time of greater self-reliance than we have grown used to in the modern era of “weather events”.
For the second question, I will use a separate post.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Aug 2, 2012 10:56:07 GMT -5
How did you feel about Betty Ann's task of keeping the children quiet for the 2-5 hour service? I think I got up on the contentious side of the bed this morning. I would find it easier to think of the question if I could modify it just a bit by changing “task” to “role” and by changing “keeping the children quiet” to “minding the children”. For me, these changes soften the question just a little and allow for a more varied response. A 2-5 hour service does seem awfully long in our modern culture. Even in the 60’s I suspect this would have been a long stretch for any child. I am not a child psychologist so I don’t know what impact repetitive experiences of long confined supervision might have on a child. It seems in our modern culture such experiences would be frowned upon. I have always had the impression, however, that children are remarkably resilient and creative in the way they accept and integrate experiences. I have always had the sense that they are even more resilient and creative if they feel loved and cherished throughout their childhood. I recently finished a book about Genghis Khan which calls to mind the regimented and repetitive experiences of children in hunter/gatherer tribes, or the book by Ayann Hirsi Ali about her family’s survival during the famines in Somolia, or all the children in the agrarian culture of the South and Midwest during the dust bowl and depression (The Worst of Times). In each case the children live through experiences that are unimaginable in our modern urban cultures and yet survived to make significant and meaningful contributions to their respective cultures. I guess my point is that I would have more concern for the adults whose minds have lost some of the plasticity of youth and yet submit to voluntary confinement for 2-5 hours. I take as a positive indicator of the experience the way the children were able to create such vivid imagery from their experiences. There are examples of this in the way the author describes the individuals going to the prayer rail, the images she conjures during the rides through the back-country at night and the ability of the children to test their own limits of understanding and rebellion through their games and choices (like smoking Lucky Strikes). As for Betty Ann, I am not sure I necessarily got the impression that she viewed her role as a “task”. I get the impression that a part of her being was nurturing. I liked the way she let Gary rest on her lap even though he drooled on her dress, I like the way she let Donna stretch and lift her legs up off of the hard chair slats, I like the tolerance she showed toward the tiny spats between Pam and Donna and I like the way she simply nodded her head toward “a higher authority, Momma” when she thought Donna might be starting to get a little too far out of line. To me, the description of Betty Ann’s role during the meetings seemed reasonable and balanced. Would I have wanted that role? No way!
|
|
|
Post by emy on Aug 2, 2012 16:47:05 GMT -5
I have to admit that I am struggling with this book. I'm not sure why, but maybe others have some idea? I have seen convention tents set up a few times and when I started reading the paragraph or two about it, I thought it might be similar. But I would have to say, no. First, none of the ones I saw had 7 poles. So usually they went up in just a couple of hours. No truck was required to pull up the poles and there were far fewer than 27 (?) men! As far as Betty Ann's role? I wouldn't have wanted to keep children quiet for any longer than 2 hours at a stretch without my husband - but been there, done that! I saw a difference, in that quietness like we have at convention didn't seem to be necessary. Little incidents caused more disturbance than I observed at our conventions. (e.g. falling off a bench). Randall came and went as he wanted (mostly went?). Everyone, including children, were more physically active and moved around the tent area pretty freely. I think if we attended, we would not see much similarity. (Will we be discussing the prologue later?)
|
|
|
Post by ScholarGal on Aug 2, 2012 16:59:36 GMT -5
Emy, I plan to discuss the prologue a little later. Personally, it baffled me until I was about halfway through the book. Like DD, I initially didn't quite approach the book as autobiographical. I think my mistaken impression was shaped by the voice mail about raising the dead.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 3, 2012 8:59:04 GMT -5
As you all probably know I wasn't raised with conventions, and attended my first convention in my late 20s. And yet I found a lot of touchpoints with Donna's early childhood experience. She comments warmly about that experience at several points in the book, and experiences a sense of loss, when her mother decided, for whatever reason, to leave the kids in the custody of other caregivers. From the age of 6 until my early teens we were part of a post-WW2 Dutch immigrant community in a small Canadian Prairie city. The community was close, reasonably small (43 families), interacted well with the society at large, and still felt unique and apart from it. When Donna writes about chairs that were clipped to 2 by 1 lumber with spacers, that brought a wave of personal childhood nostalgia flooding back. The Dutch people had built a church building but did not have the money to finish the upstairs sanctuary at first, so everyone met for a couple of years in the basement, seated on stacking chairs clipped to lumber posts so they'd stay nicely spaced. Similar exigencies lead to similar solutions I guess. So, the "feel" for Donna, was similar for us: a Christian subculture, a close caring extended family and community, separation from the background culture, and also, lots of kids. Some of those common conditions with my own childhood were a product of the times: this was the post-war baby boom with lots of kids around, parents did not micro-manage their kids lives the way they do today so there was a lot of freedom for 'adventure', and also, the dawn of rock 'n roll and the Kennedy assassination were shaping forces that we saw through a uniquely Christian perspective. So her experience on the tent circuit was more pronounced than my own, but I see a lot of touchpoints.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 3, 2012 9:09:45 GMT -5
I have to admit that I am struggling with this book. I'm not sure why, but maybe others have some idea? Perhaps you could venture an idea why. I breezed through the book in a day, and was completely absorbed from beginning to end. But I'm not sure "why" either. The day after, my brain felt a bit askew, trying to sort it all out. As far as sitting for extended hours, it's interesting how parents and kids make that work. The most brutal time for us was Christmas. Let's say Christmas was on a mid week day, which was the worst case. You'd have church twice on the Sunday before, on Christmas Eve, twice on Christmas day with the main service an extra long one, again on Boxing Day (called Second Christmas Day), then twice on the following Sunday, then again on New Year's Day, and I think there was also something on New Year's Eve. And again twice the following Sunday. A cousin of mine told me recently that she never goes to church because she had an entire lifetime's worth in her first 20 years. In addition to Sunday church, there was Bible school or Catechism class (depending on age), boys and girls club (now called Cadets), church camp, church bazaars and picnics (which I loved), vacation bible school, and just plain social events. I remember that in order to pass the time in church, we devised all kinds of games to play with the hymn book. One of my brothers recently described a form of baseball which involved randomly opening the hymn book, and decided based on the hymn number how the batter/ runner did. Ending in 1 is a single, 2 a double, etc. 5 a strike-out, 6 a sac-fly, you get the idea. Mentally, you'd have to keep track of runner's position, number of outs and the score.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Aug 3, 2012 12:35:39 GMT -5
I have to admit that I am struggling with this book. I'm not sure why, but maybe others have some idea? I’ll take a stab at the question. I am finding the emotional weight of the writing to be intense. The author has the ability to capture and express the “quality” of innocence and feelings she experienced as a 3, 4 and 5 year old in a manner that is believable, captivating and moving. Beyond the description of her own feelings as a youngster, she is also able to capture the experience of witnessing a person of intense single-minded passion. Exposure to intense, single-minded, never-ending passion can be overwhelming in its own right. It can suck all of the oxygen out of a room. As I read this book, the author captures the passion of Brother Terrell with non-judgmental conviction. What I find unsettling about the book is the juxtaposition of Donnas’ innocence and Brother Terrell’s passion.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 3, 2012 14:13:25 GMT -5
I have to admit that I am struggling with this book. I'm not sure why, but maybe others have some idea? I’ll take a stab at the question. I am finding the emotional weight of the writing to be intense. The author has the ability to capture and express the “quality” of innocence and feelings she experienced as a 3, 4 and 5 year old in a manner that is believable, captivating and moving. Beyond the description of her own feelings as a youngster, she is also able to capture the experience of witnessing a person of intense single-minded passion. Exposure to intense, single-minded, never-ending passion can be overwhelming in its own right. It can suck all of the oxygen out of a room. As I read this book, the author captures the passion of Brother Terrell with non-judgmental conviction. What I find unsettling about the book is the juxtaposition of Donnas’ innocence and Brother Terrell’s passion. That answer makes a lot of sense. Here I thought that Emy might just be bored. Of course, only she can tell us for certain.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Aug 3, 2012 15:55:30 GMT -5
I have to admit that I am struggling with this book. I'm not sure why, but maybe others have some idea? Interesting how that is sometimes. Is it just your frame of mind at the time? Or are human beings are just infinitely complicated? I was not able to get through Life of Pi. I have owned a copy of the book for a few years now and dusted it off for the previous book club selection – and despite being a voracious reader - was still unable to get through the first few chapters . I listened to Holy Ghost Girl (booktape) a couple of months ago, even though auditory is my weakest learning style (Kinesthetic is first for me, visual second, auditory a distant third). This may be leaping ahead (sorry ScholarGal), but for me, the main take-away from the book was yknot’s earlier observation: “…children are remarkably resilient and creative in the way they accept and integrate experiences. I have always had the sense that they are even more resilient and creative if they feel loved and cherished throughout their childhood.” I do think Donna was loved, in spite of the (glaring) deficiencies in her upbringing. I feel fortunate that I was a well-loved child. I think it gives a person a good foundation for life. Sometimes we think that if the circumstances of our upbringing were different in some way, or had our parents been more supportive “this” way or “that” way – life would have been easier for us. I worked closely for several years with someone (Gen Y) whose parents had been perfectly loving and supportive in what many might consider an ideal environment. Her big “thing” was that she was never going to live up to her potential and that she might be a disappointment to her parents. What this taught me is that we all have our “stuff”, not matter how ideal/not ideal our childhood circumstances may have been.
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Aug 3, 2012 17:24:06 GMT -5
Did the scene in Chapter 1 describing the tent setup remind you of convention preps? Yes, reading about the tent setup did remind me of convention preps. But, the setup for the meeting and dining tents for convention were almost insignificant in comparison with the tents described in the book. The largest tent that I helped to setup was 3 poles. It could be set up with just five or six men. It was only erected once a year. We didn't put down any special flooring, as described in the book, like wood chips or saw dust. So, it is amazing to think of raising a tent that was as large as two football fields and that could seat over 5,000 people and that could be taken down and packed in a night for transportation to the next revival. (Just imagine setting up and then later having to pack away, over 5,000 wooden chairs.) As a 2x2, we would marvel at how smoothly convention would run- a miracle it was called- but Brother Terrell seemed to have a pretty efficient operation himself. I couldn't help but think of carnivals and how quickly that they can disassemble the rides, tents, etc., and load the animals and hit the road to the next show. I wonder if anyone calls that a miracle? I did have a general sense that these traveling evangelists were very much like a circus coming to town. I remember that we would always have to be extra careful not to pack the tents up damp or wet. They would rot before the next year if that happened. We had a rule of not taking the tent down on a Sunday (the Lord's rest day- we called it), EXCEPT if the weather forecast called for rain on a Monday, THEN we would take the tent down on Sunday. Some of the workers could not leave for the next convention preps until the tent dried out and could be taken down and packed. This was one of the contributing reasons that caused the workers to move away from tents to sheds/buildings. I have also "sat" with the tent during a thunderstorm before convention to make sure that the canvas could be raised and lowered as needed to help ensure that the rain ran off properly. The tent missions of the middle part of the 20th century must have been a sight to behold. It is amazing to think of the preachers filling up a tent with over 5,000 people.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Aug 3, 2012 21:52:56 GMT -5
Sidebar: Try being the watchman during a snowstorm!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 3, 2012 22:02:34 GMT -5
Did the scene in Chapter 1 describing the tent setup remind you of convention preps? Yes, reading about the tent setup did remind me of convention preps. But, the setup for the meeting and dining tents for convention were almost insignificant in comparison with the tents described in the book. The largest tent that I helped to setup was 3 poles. It could be set up with just five or six men. It was only erected once a year. We didn't put down any special flooring, as described in the book, like wood chips or saw dust. So, it is amazing to think of raising a tent that was as large as two football fields and that could seat over 5,000 people and that could be taken down and packed in a night for transportation to the next revival. (Just imagine setting up and then later having to pack away, over 5,000 wooden chairs.) As a 2x2, we would marvel at how smoothly convention would run- a miracle it was called- but Brother Terrell seemed to have a pretty efficient operation himself. I couldn't help but think of carnivals and how quickly that they can disassemble the rides, tents, etc., and load the animals and hit the road to the next show. I wonder if anyone calls that a miracle? I did have a general sense that these traveling evangelists were very much like a circus coming to town. I remember that we would always have to be extra careful not to pack the tents up damp or wet. They would rot before the next year if that happened. We had a rule of not taking the tent down on a Sunday (the Lord's rest day- we called it), EXCEPT if the weather forecast called for rain on a Monday, THEN we would take the tent down on Sunday. Some of the workers could not leave for the next convention preps until the tent dried out and could be taken down and packed. This was one of the contributing reasons that caused the workers to move away from tents to sheds/buildings. I have also "sat" with the tent during a thunderstorm before convention to make sure that the canvas could be raised and lowered as needed to help ensure that the rain ran off properly. The tent missions of the middle part of the 20th century must have been a sight to behold. It is amazing to think of the preachers filling up a tent with over 5,000 people. Interesting, but one small point: I think it took more than a day to set up or take down Terrell's tent. Somewhere it mentions this, but I don't remember the exact number of days required.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Aug 3, 2012 23:35:46 GMT -5
I’ll take a stab at the question. I am finding the emotional weight of the writing to be intense. The author has the ability to capture and express the “quality” of innocence and feelings she experienced as a 3, 4 and 5 year old in a manner that is believable, captivating and moving. Beyond the description of her own feelings as a youngster, she is also able to capture the experience of witnessing a person of intense single-minded passion. Exposure to intense, single-minded, never-ending passion can be overwhelming in its own right. It can suck all of the oxygen out of a room. As I read this book, the author captures the passion of Brother Terrell with non-judgmental conviction. What I find unsettling about the book is the juxtaposition of Donnas’ innocence and Brother Terrell’s passion. That answer makes a lot of sense. Here I thought that Emy might just be bored. Of course, only she can tell us for certain. That comes close to my reaction, but that's not totally it either. Maybe the idea that people would be reminded of convention (and that was my impression before I ever started reading) just turned me off when I actually read about the revival meetings? I'm still not sure, but then I still haven't finished the book!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 4, 2012 9:30:17 GMT -5
That answer makes a lot of sense. Here I thought that Emy might just be bored. Of course, only she can tell us for certain. That comes close to my reaction, but that's not totally it either. Maybe the idea that people would be reminded of convention (and that was my impression before I ever started reading) just turned me off when I actually read about the revival meetings? I'm still not sure, but then I still haven't finished the book! My overall impression of the younger David Terrell and the revival meetings was mainly favourable. Later it clearly went off the rails; it almost seems that a "demon" went from the girl named Doreen into Terrell. (That was the one he healed after a long fast.) But my impression of the earlier times was favourable, and I believe any comparison between the two would be largely positive. But I may not be looking at it the same way you are.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Aug 4, 2012 10:15:21 GMT -5
well, emy, of course convention is much more subdued. It can't be compared directly, just in the excitement and anticipation.
In the Holy Roller lexicon, "shouting" is another word for dancing in the spirit. Believers clap their hands and sway, stamping one foot and then the other as the organ, trombone, drums, guitars, and tambourines pull them into an ecstatic dance that wipes out the conscious mind and leaves the body with little control over its movements.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Aug 4, 2012 10:25:14 GMT -5
That comes close to my reaction, but that's not totally it either. Maybe the idea that people would be reminded of convention (and that was my impression before I ever started reading) just turned me off when I actually read about the revival meetings? I'm still not sure, but then I still haven't finished the book! I am still not sure that I understand your struggle with the book, emy. I can only speak from my own experiences, sometimes I struggle with the subject matter of a book I am about to read, it just doesn’t interest me. Sometimes I am looking forward to reading about the subject matter but I don’t care for the author(s) writing style and that turns me off. There are actually some subjects that I really don’t want to read about, I am concerned that if I read someone else’s ideas about a subject, their ideas will influence (contaminate) my own ideas about the topic. When I really analyze these situations it often turns out that I lack confidence in my own grasp of the subject matter and would prefer to have a firmer grasp of my own ideas before reading someone else’s ideas. Other times I approach a book or an article from a defensive crouch. My own ideas are so firmly entrenched that I don’t even want to hear or think about another point-of-view. This happens to me most often in the arena of politics and I have a constant struggle with myself to expose myself to other ideas and other ways of looking at political policy alternatives, it is seldom an enjoyable task for me but I must acknowledge occasional pleasant surprises and real learning. This last problem also creeps up a lot for me here on TMB. Sometimes I will start to read a thread or a post and if I am self-aware enough to stop, step outside myself and take a look at myself, I will see that I am literally coiled into a defensive crouch that defies description. I become so prepared to fight back that I have no chance of ever grasping the actual intent or meaning of what is being posted. I have actually frightened myself from time to time with the negative intensity of my anticipation. All I can do is shake myself, laugh at myself and then start-in again, hopefully more prepared to understand another point of view. As far as Holy Ghost Girl is concerned, I found it to be an intense reading experience. After learning of your struggle with the book, I started to think of the book as listening to someone’s testimony. The author is guileless. She doesn’t seek to blame nor offend, only remember. Her religious experiences were very different from my own but her human emotions and experiences transcended doctrine, for me. What was most beneficial for me was that some of her descriptions opened up considerations for me that I have allowed to lay dormant for many years. But, more on that later. Because of my own close association with the setting of the book in both time and place, I found her story (testimony) to be highly impactful for me. But even without that, it is well written and provocative. I continue to recommend that everyone interested continue to push on through initial reluctance.
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Aug 5, 2012 15:33:57 GMT -5
That comes close to my reaction, but that's not totally it either. I find the book to be very disturbing. It documents everything that I hate about religion: abuse of authority by "men of God", spiritual blackmail, fraud, deception, alienation of family (using the exact same New Testament verses that some workers use to justify familial alienation), greed, license for lasciviousness, and hypocrisy. But, perhaps, more than anything else, because the "men of God" used God as a cloak to steal from the poor or helpless. If David Terrell (and the thousands of other preachers like him, including some workers) were the only preachers that I had known, then that alone would be "proof" enough for me that there isn't a God. I'd choose atheism over following such despicable charlatans.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Aug 5, 2012 17:01:10 GMT -5
I find the book to be very disturbing. It documents everything that I hate about religion: abuse of authority by "men of God", spiritual blackmail, fraud, deception, alienation of family (using the exact same New Testament verses that some workers use to justify familial alienation), greed, license for lasciviousness, and hypocrisy. But, perhaps, more than anything else, because the "men of God" used God as a cloak to steal from the poor or helpless. If David Terrell (and the thousands of other preachers like him, including some workers) were the only preachers that I had known, then that alone would be "proof" enough for me that there isn't a God. I'd choose atheism over following such despicable charlatans. Those are some very powerful feelings, sacerdotal. Like you, I also found the book to be unsettling but for different reasons and in different ways from the way that you describe. But, I also found some of the author’s recollections and reflections on some of the people in her young life to be uplifting. Certainly, her own indomitable attitude is a testament to the resiliency of the human spirit. Her descriptions of individuals are so crisp, I have been able to imagine knowing many of them and liking some of them, particularly those she describes with warmth and compassion. Although not the point of the book, I found myself returning over and over again to the question “What happens to a person like David Terrell, when and how do they “lose” their way?” The trite response is: power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. But I am looking for something more than a pithy observation. When he started out, I believe he actually believed, he actually cared, he actually wanted to help people as best as he knew how and in the only way he knew how. (Perhaps my starting assumption is not valid.) But then as his fame and celebrity increased he seems to have lost all of those touchstones and became consumed by his narcissism and personal greed. Why? How does success rob a person of perspective and self-awareness? Why does paranoia replace compassion? Tough, tough questions! I am sure all of us have witnessed these types of transitions in people from nearly every walk of life but there is something particularly unsettling when it is observed to happen with those in positions of trust and even more so when “God” is used as the validation for the disregard and abuse of others.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Aug 5, 2012 19:25:52 GMT -5
In spite of Terrell's believing and caring, he still took on a woman and 2 children, who were invited to travel in the same vehicle as his family, and it wasn't long before he was fondling the woman's legs under cover of the dark of night!!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 5, 2012 19:29:57 GMT -5
I find the book to be very disturbing. It documents everything that I hate about religion: abuse of authority by "men of God", spiritual blackmail, fraud, deception, alienation of family (using the exact same New Testament verses that some workers use to justify familial alienation), greed, license for lasciviousness, and hypocrisy. But, perhaps, more than anything else, because the "men of God" used God as a cloak to steal from the poor or helpless. If David Terrell (and the thousands of other preachers like him, including some workers) were the only preachers that I had known, then that alone would be "proof" enough for me that there isn't a God. I'd choose atheism over following such despicable charlatans. Those are some very powerful feelings, sacerdotal. Like you, I also found the book to be unsettling but for different reasons and in different ways from the way that you describe. But, I also found some of the author’s recollections and reflections on some of the people in her young life to be uplifting. Certainly, her own indomitable attitude is a testament to the resiliency of the human spirit. Her descriptions of individuals are so crisp, I have been able to imagine knowing many of them and liking some of them, particularly those she describes with warmth and compassion. Although not the point of the book, I found myself returning over and over again to the question “What happens to a person like David Terrell, when and how do they “lose” their way?” The trite response is: power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. But I am looking for something more than a pithy observation. When he started out, I believe he actually believed, he actually cared, he actually wanted to help people as best as he knew how and in the only way he knew how. (Perhaps my starting assumption is not valid.) But then as his fame and celebrity increased he seems to have lost all of those touchstones and became consumed by his narcissism and personal greed. Why? How does success rob a person of perspective and self-awareness? Why does paranoia replace compassion? Tough, tough questions! I am sure all of us have witnessed these types of transitions in people from nearly every walk of life but there is something particularly unsettling when it is observed to happen with those in positions of trust and even more so when “God” is used as the validation for the disregard and abuse of others. He excused his unethical deeds one step at a time. But I believe that because he had to be "holy", having once excused an unethical act, that act then became permissible from that point forward. Perhaps we all do that to some extent. Perhaps it's better to work with a little less strict standard, but one that you do hold yourself to. I'd have to say that these weren't the worst people in the world. In many cases, I felt they were misguided. And looking back on life, none of us have the right answer in every situation. The biggest mistake Donna's mother made was putting the call to evangelism ahead of the call of motherhood. Her affair with Terrell might have confused the analysis, that is, she had a noble aspiration, but Terrell's companionship may have spoken louder subconsciously. Very religious people are often out of tune with their psyche's, and repress their more basic emotions, only to become subject to them in the worst kind of way. To her credit, she ultimately decided in favour of the children. The most interesting case was the woman who lied to Donna about her mother signing her over to herself. This was probably the worst event that happened in Donna's childhood, but I do think this woman meant well. She and her husband belonged to a church that had ex'd Terrell, and she no doubt thought the kids had to rescued from this crooked evangelist. Back in the 50s and 60s that kind of thinking was much more common. People still think they can change kids from another culture over to ours, or break the "cycle of abuse" in another family, but genetics often proves to be much stronger.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 5, 2012 19:34:36 GMT -5
In spite of Terrell's believing and caring, he still took on a woman and 2 children, who were invited to travel in the same vehicle as his family, and it wasn't long before he was fondling the woman's legs under cover of the dark of night!! I think it was just one leg.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Aug 5, 2012 19:53:58 GMT -5
In spite of Terrell's believing and caring, he still took on a woman and 2 children, who were invited to travel in the same vehicle as his family, and it wasn't long before he was fondling the woman's legs under cover of the dark of night!! I think it was just one leg. ;D
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Aug 5, 2012 20:27:11 GMT -5
In spite of Terrell's believing and caring, he still took on a woman and 2 children, who were invited to travel in the same vehicle as his family, and it wasn't long before he was fondling the woman's legs under cover of the dark of night!! I don't disagree, emy. The most cynical view would suggest that he always had a manipulative personality and had the capacity to size people up, see their weaknesses and exploit them for his benefit. Donna Johnson suggests this early on when she is describing Terrell's childhood and says; "Being singled out by God brought the kind of attention that was hard to come by for kids in large, poor families." I was unable to generate "empathy" for the man at any point as I read the book. As described, he is not the type of fellow I have much affection or respect for. That being said, I prefer to give a fellow the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise, so I am willing to consider the possibility that he started out with good intentions and that he was led astray by fame and fortune. I have no data to support that position so perhaps he was little more than an opportunist from the beginning. I will certainly yield to the consensus on this issue.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Aug 5, 2012 20:48:06 GMT -5
He excused his unethical deeds one step at a time. But I believe that because he had to be "holy", having once excused an unethical act, that act then became permissible from that point forward. I think you are right about this. As the author says; "The path to perdition is tediously routine for a Holy Roller girl." Perhaps we all do that to some extent. Perhaps it's better to work with a little less strict standard, but one that you do hold yourself to. This type of question I think we have discussed before and as you know I do not buy into your solution. I am not comfortable with working "with a little less strict standards". I'm one of those - a standard is a stardard - type guys so your solution makes me uncomfortable. Particularly for spiritually inclined people, I think that it is better to remain self-aware. You'll know when your behavior crosses a line of ethical behavior. When you do - ADMIT IT! to youself. After acknowledging the misstep (no matter how grievous) decide what you want to do about it and then go back and habituate your commitment to yourself.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 5, 2012 22:52:57 GMT -5
He excused his unethical deeds one step at a time. But I believe that because he had to be "holy", having once excused an unethical act, that act then became permissible from that point forward. I think you are right about this. As the author says; "The path to perdition is tediously routine for a Holy Roller girl." Perhaps we all do that to some extent. Perhaps it's better to work with a little less strict standard, but one that you do hold yourself to. This type of question I think we have discussed before and as you know I do not buy into your solution. I am not comfortable with working "with a little less strict standards". I'm one of those - a standard is a stardard - type guys so your solution makes me uncomfortable. Particularly for spiritually inclined people, I think that it is better to remain self-aware. You'll know when your behavior crosses a line of ethical behavior. When you do - ADMIT IT! to youself. After acknowledging the misstep (no matter how grievous) decide what you want to do about it and then go back and habituate your commitment to yourself. I do think though that it is best to have a standard that aligns with your internal compass, and that is based on compassion for others. People live by rules for many different reasons than a genuine care or concern for others. Actually, some of those rules and the motivations for them could be quite humorous. Jezebel. Thrown from the castle window and devoured by dogs who left only her skull, hands, and feet. I saw her severed hands lying there in the street, rings stacked on slender fingers that ended in long red nails. The sun reflecting off gold sandals crisscrossing her tiny, unbloodied feet. Her skull rolling to a stop against the curb. She never should have worn all that makeup. (from HGG)
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Aug 6, 2012 22:54:50 GMT -5
I have checked with my local library and they hold both books (Holy Ghost Girl & The Life of Pi) so when I have to return my present books in a couple of weeks I will get them out. They are out on loan but I can request them. You guys make them seem interesting and I feel like I am missing something. A late starter on these books but better late than never
|
|