I'm reading Smashed by Koren Zailckas for the second time. I had a weird reaction to it the first time and I couldn't figure out why. I thought, at the time, it was because a lot of memoirists works, like James Frey's and Augusten Burroughs's had been called into question with regard to their honesty, and that maybe I had just been reading too many of them, but that wasn't the problem at all.
The story is about her being a "problem drinker" in high school and college. Certainly, she illustrates this well, but she stops short of calling herself an alcoholic and, in fact denies that she actually became one at several points along the way. It's clear to me (and everyone else I know who read the book) that she in fact is a recovering alcoholic, no question. She would binge drink each and every time she consumed alcohol. She ended up in several perilous situations and once ended up in the hospital with alcohol poisoning. She sort of romanticizes these things as indescretions of youth and mistakes that everyone makes along the way. I disagree. I drank to get drunk each and every time I drank during the same time frame in my life, as well. I never ended up in the hospital and was never in the types of peril that she put herself in even once. She was colossally irresponsible when drunk but doesn't see it, I guess. She seems to view it as what's it's like to be a woman in the modern age, seems to feel like she needed to "compete with the boys" when she was on the town and that is utter bullshit.
That isn't the real problem here, however. It's apparent that she believes that she was above all of this, even while she was doing it. The book has this pretentious holier-than-thou tone that is stomach-churning. She was "stuck" at Syracuse while her friends went off to the Ivy League and her sorority sisters were bitchy and shallow but they drank and she needed friends to drink with. She takes herself out of the narrative, as if she's a spectator in her own life who has no control over what happens and it's so utterly ridiculous I can hardly describe it. She accepts no responsibility for any of it. "I drank too much, therefore I stopped, but I certainly wasn't an alcoholic. Those people don't grow up in the Boston suburbs." is how she comes across on each and every page.
So, to Koren Zailckas: Get over yourself. You were an alcoholic, which means you still are one, you just don't drink anymore and for that I commend you. But, you have done a great disservice to your readers in denying any culpability for your actions. People read memoirs to learn something and maybe to encourage themselves to get help for any problem they may be having, but all we learned from you is that you thought you were better than everyone you ever hung out with in high school and college. You view your book and the fact that you now live in New York City--which you bring up several times for no apparent reason--as proof of that. In not taking responsibility, you by proxy think you are better than your readers as well, so none of it rings true. It reads only as a snotty 24-year-old who thinks she's unbelievably cool because she managed to get a book published. Shame on you.
8 comments:
While I appreciate your opinions regarding this book, I take issue with some of what you wrote. Of course, I agree that the book is not perfect, far from it, and deserving of SOME of the criticism. I too was uncomfortable with some aspect of it. However, it is somewhat hypocritical to state that "Koren Zailckas is kind of a liar" given the disengenuous nature of your post. You are entitled to your opinion, but your distortion of the facts makes you "kind of a liar" yourself.
Case in point:
"The story is about her being a "problem drinker" in high school and college. Certainly, she illustrates this well, but she stops short of calling herself an alcoholic and, in fact denies that she actually became one at several points along the way. It's clear to me (and everyone else I know who read the book) that she in fact is a recovering alcoholic, no question."
Koren never denies having a drinking problem, however I am uncertain that she is in fact an alcoholic. OTOH, I am equally skeptical of her claims that she never was an alcoholic. The problem is two-fold. First off, our knowledge about her drinking habits is limited to specific events she wrote about in detail, or else implied in general. Second it is impossible to make any determination without a rigorous definition. What does alcoholism mean? The definition depends on who you ask, depending on which doctor, counselor, priest, or minister you consult. Or if you consider the mythology of Alcoholics Anonymous to be canon. In so far as alcoholism is understood as a MEDICAL condition, more evidence is required for a diagnosis than distributed personal accounts. However, most people agree (well except for the lunatic fringe that deny that alcoholism actually exists and refer to the condition as mere "sin"), that alcoholism is a CHRONIC and COMPULSIVE condition. Binge drinking is not necessarily alcoholism, nor is habitual drinking.
"She would binge drink each and every time she consumed alcohol."
EACH AND EVERY TIME? Or NEARLY EACH AND EVERY event she wrote about.
"She ended up in several perilous situations and once ended up in the hospital with alcohol poisoning."
Which is indicative of a very serious condition, no doubt, but a one-time overdose does not an alcoholic make. You seem to forget that it is the frequency of drinking more so than the severity of infrequent events that makes the determination. Who is the alcoholic? Someone who drinks daily or almost every day and is almost perpetually inebriated (but manages to keep SOME control) or someone who drinks once a month, but usually to unsafe levels? Once again there is a nomenclature problem.
"She sort of romanticizes these things as indescretions of youth and mistakes that everyone makes along the way."
I do not think that is the case at all. I merely you think you are excessively cynical, at least with regards to your take on the matter. And this is coming from someone who considers himself a professional cynic!
"I disagree. I drank to get drunk each and every time I drank during the same time frame in my life, as well. I never ended up in the hospital and was never in the types of peril that she put herself in even once."
Obviously, Koren's alcohol consumption was far more dangerous than yours ever was, but would you consider yourself an alcoholic? After all, you "drank to get drunk each and every time," which many people would consider abuse, though not necessarily alcoholic. If you would answer yes, then by that definition, Zailckas was undeniably an alcoholic. But if you would answer no, then where is your yardstick to make the determination. Unless you are a medical professional, social worker, or substance abuse counselor you have none.
"She was colossally irresponsible when drunk but doesn't see it, I guess. She seems to view it as what's it's like to be a woman in the modern age, seems to feel like she needed to "compete with the boys" when she was on the town and that is utter bullshit."
She was colossally irresponsible when drunk, granted. However it is blatantly dishonest to state that she continues to deny responsibility to the present. As for the nonsense you wrote about her belief that she drank "to be a modern woman" and to "compete with the boys," that can not be further from the truth. That is a strawman, and the exact opposite of what Zailckas thought. In fact you bothered to read any reviews or the back of the fucking book, you would know that Koren wrote the memoir precisely to dispel the popular notion that the prevalence of female binge drinking is some misguided form of "girl power."
"She takes herself out of the narrative, as if she's a spectator in her own life who has no control over what happens and it's so utterly ridiculous I can hardly describe it. She accepts no responsibility for any of it."
Indeed, she does seem to describe her actions in such a way. It is obvious that Koren Zailckas has what some psychologists call a "weak locus of control." She does seem to have difficulty accepting personal responsibility for her actions, but at least to her credit, she describes her drinking in terms of "bad choices," rather than taking the cowardly Alcoholics Anonymous approach and describing alcoholism as some "incurable disease."
[Small aside: I find the Alcoholics Anonymous cult to be a worhtless organization. For one, as an atheist I find it extremely insulting that, should I ever succumb to alcoholism, I must admit what a pathetic weakling I am and surrender all determination to some "Higher Power."]
"So, to Koren Zailckas: Get over yourself. You were an alcoholic, which means you still are one, you just don't drink anymore and for that I commend you."
Koren Zailckas may or may not have been an alcoholic. I do not know enough to make that call. At most she WAS an alcoholic (a claim which would not surprise me), but if she has quit drinking, she is no longer. The notion that, "once an alcoholic always an alcoholic," or that a alcoholism is an "incurable disease" has no basis outside of the A.A. cult's propaganda. I grant that it is true in some cases, where some alcoholics are never actually cured, but abstain almost religiously from alcohol, but that is not universally true.
"But, you have done a great disservice to your readers in denying any culpability for your actions. People read memoirs to learn something and maybe to encourage themselves to get help for any problem they may be having"
Well, when I read a memoir, I can learn from it without having the lessons spoonfed to me like I'm a fucking four-year-old! I read about events and think, "what did the author do wrong?" and "how did she wind up like that?" Not, "gee I better do what she says!" By making that statement you insult your own intelligence as well as that of anyone who reads your blog.
In short, you make some valid points, but they are overshadowed by your own pompous opinions, strawman statements, and regurgitation of the Al-Anon mythos as if it were scientific truth. As for pretentious writers, in defense of Zailckas, she at least wrote a true story, or an account of her life that at lease appears to be factually accurate to the best of her recollection with only minor embellishments, and that is verifiable. I am curious what you think about Tucker Max! If anyone is a pretentious douche it is Fucker Max, a serial liar who fabricates obviously fictitious accounts of his life and believes himself to be accomplished because of the masses of American idiots who buy his sub-par writing. (I guarantee that "Tucker Max" is not even his real name, but at best a pun on his actual name.) Lest you ask why I change the subject, I am pointing out someone who is infinitely more pretentious, a fraud and a compulsive liar, and the nexus of irresponsibility.
Finally, you seem to forget an important fact. Namely that Koren Zailckas is HOT!!!! So who gives a shit what she writes?
Maaaaan, I had to scroll through all of those comments on my iPhone. I felt like I was on Survivor trying to make a fire.
I think what we can take away from all of this is that Pat rules and that KrazyEdd is actually Koren Zailckas.
I just think she is a terrible prose stylist. And she clearly doesn't know what the word "viscous" means.
Oh, all of you miss this one thing (okay, two): (a) it is okay to be an alcoholic, and (b) Koren's life seems to be proof of that. The closest anyone has come to getting this is the commenter who said she's hot.
You clearly did not understand the message she was trying to get across in the book. the truth is, she technically was not an alcoholic, she was never physically addicted to alcohol. Throughout the entire book, she agrees that she has a drinking problem, the same way girls all over America have drinking problems that are not acknowledged because they are technically not an alcoholic and these habits are often disregarded as a phase of life. just because you had different experiences with drinking does not mean thousands of girls, who are not alcoholics, have not had similar experiences to Koren.
I see so much nonsense, and yet the ironically named "KrazyEdd" appears to be the lone voice of reason. My apologies to Pat O'Brien, but KrazyEdd totally p4wned you with his response. He tore you a new asshole! (Figuratively speaking.)
What did we all learn?
* "Adam" needs to get off Pat's nuts.
* KrazyEdd kicks ass! (And so does Russell!)
* Which brings up the next point, Zailckas IS hot!
* Edd is absolutely right about AA. Alcoholics Anonymous is a fucking cult. (Want to quit drinking? Step 1: admit you have a problem. Step 2: Quit! That's it! Optional Step 3: Apologize and make amends for your prior alcohol-related fuck-ups.) So what's all this twelve steps bullshit they tell you? And someone please explain what the fuck this "Higher Power" shit is about? Please understand that Al-Anon is not fundamentally about treating alcoholism. That is their secondary directive at best. Their prime directive is to expand and grow in membership and adherents, believers and syncophants, and ultimately, in money, power, and influence. That is what cults do. They're just a bunch of kooky Jesus freaks if you ask me.
So naturally, Alcoholics Anonymous will have a very lose definition of alcoholics to get as many "patients" as possible whom they may treat and who then preach the gospel of Al Anon. The worst part is that if you read reviews of this book on Amazon, virtually every review the least bit critical of this book parrots the Alcoholics Anonymous propaganda. (I.e. "alcoholism is fundamentally incurable" or "only a '12-step' program can cure/treat alcoholism.") Some even positively promote AA as if they were a legitimate rehabilitation program, rather than the smarmy religious cult that they are. Rather than limit themselves only to substantial criticisms (i.e. "this book was badly written" or "the story(ies) is/are boring"), both of which can be legitimately argued with regards to this book, the critics generally used arguments similar to O'Brien above, when they did not overtly pimp the AA cult. This invalidates their reviews as biased attacks rather than legitimate criticism, and unfairly lowers the score, making the book worse than it actually is.
* Finally: No offense to the OP, but one of the last people I would ever go to for advice about responsible alcohol consumption is anyone whose name begins with letter O and an apostrophe.
Post a Comment