Cut Me Loose - By Leah Vincent. Anyone read it? Thoughts?

↑ MaBelleVie ↓

Tue, Jan 28 2014, 6:06 pm

BlueRose52 wrote:

amother, IHMO, your questions are a perfect example of the ridiculous lengths some will go to in order to discredit a person who says something they don't like.

I'm actually the one who brought up the psychiatrist (I'm not amother) and I do think it's relevant and not just as justification to invalidate her story. Most of the book is an exploration of her young adulthood, during which she made numerous, repeated dysfunctional choices. That is not typical for someone in good mental health. If she did (does) suffer from poor mental health, that changes everything. A person with mental illness will experience life very differently from someone mentally healthy.

↑ BlueRose52 ↓

Tue, Jan 28 2014, 6:58 pm

amother wrote:

I think its fascinating that a highly educated ex-yeshivishe Footsteps darling and board member is seen as someone who could do no wrong and be completely honest about everything she writes and any questions about her story is dismissed. Not just by the otd community but by the religious community as well. Why isnt she being held to the same standard that other memoirists are held on? Why is any criticism regarding her book, dismissed?

You think she's seen as someone who can "do no wrong"? Have you read the book?! From what I gather, it's full of one self-destructive act after another!

Actual criticism is fine. But simply calling her a liar based on flimsy evidence and parsing her account like it's a piece of gemara is just absurd. Memoir's are not meant to be perfect historical accounts, and when the author leaves out irrelevant details that you'd like to hear about it doesn't make the story they're telling any less true. That there are parts of the tale missing doesn't mean it's not true.

Look, if someone were to say, "her account of seminary Y is totally off because I was there that year with her and that thing she talks about never happened," that is a valid criticism. But commenting on how "it doesn't make sense that she'd be scared by a threat of being locked up because based on your understanding of who she is, she couldn't have known that being locked up is anything to be worried about," is just preposterous.

Saying, "I knew her family and they wouldn't ever do what she describes" also simply isn't valid, because no one really knows what goes on in a family other than that family's members. On that topic, here's something that a FB friend posted:

Quote:

You can't decide how her parents parented or how they took their religion seriously based on your understanding of the Orthodox social map. (Although if we're dealing with that, her family isn't only "out of town yeshivish," they're also Avigdor Millerites, and her father is the rabbi, which can lead to a certain kind of social disconnect with the rest of the community - I saw it myself in the way the children of the local rabbonim were viewed as inherently expected to be frummies - and their parents encouraged it too, knowing everyone is watching.)

I would give the example of my own dear father. A frum man, yes, but not a fanatic. If I were to tell people who know him that, for example, he used to fight with my sisters every shabbos, for years, about them going to shul, when they really wanted to sleep in, most people who know my father would be sure I was making it up. And yet it is entirely true. I can give many more examples where my father seemingly arbitrarily broke type and us kids had conflicts over frum things that would make him seem much frummer than anyone who knows him would ever suspect. And if they'd say me or my sisters were probably lying, they'd be the one who didn't know what the hell they were talking about.

A valid criticism would be that her portrayal of someone in the book is unfair because she leaves out a whole bunch of important details about the person (or the circumstances) which would give the reader a whole different perspective of the person.

↑ Frumdoc

Tue, Jan 28 2014, 7:05 pm

On Amazon, the book was compared to Prozac Nation and other memoirs of young girls which certainly seem to put it in a category of dysfunctional individual in dysfunctional environment. Prozac Nation and it's follow up book (More, now again), are prime examples of a very disturbed young person, talented yet unable to function in a healthy way in society primarily due to her own issues as well as her family's problems, which were in the realm of severe dysfunction but not actual abuse.

So that is where she stands in the eyes of the outside world. is it more a book about a person or a community? Easy for some to assume that she is blaming the community for her problems, whereas she may be just describing them.

↑ amother ↓

Tue, Jan 28 2014, 7:16 pm

BlueRose52 wrote:

As I've said before, I read the book. All of my questions/criticism is about the book and her personal story (I only wrote several of the amother comments on this thread and all of them had to do with Leah's book itself, which I did take the time to read). Her book left me confused because there are gaps in the story so I am asking for clarification. Not sure why you get so defensive about that.

If we are going to post reviews from fb then I will go ahead and post one that I saw today from someone who read the book:

Quote:

I read the book. It's a decent enough read, although it's not going to enter the pantheon of great literature. I got the feeling that Leah is showing the reader a carefully planned out version of her life; the one she wants the reader to see. To be fair to her, she is frank and takes responsibility (to a degree) for the sordid episodes in her life. She certainly does not shy away from describing them and the horrific effects they had on her. But, in those sordid episodes, her father's statement to her that she is co-dependent rings very true. She formed co-dependent relationships with her father, her mother, her friend Shulamit, to a degree with her sister in Israel, with the Rastafarian who raped her, with the married college professor. Each of those relationships were abusive to the author; each took its toll on her. What remains entirely unexplored and unanswered is why is, or (hopefully) was she co-dependent? Without the answer to that question, Ms. Vincent has revealed a great deal of chaff about herself, but none of the kernel. And that poses a huge risk to the OTD community that holds her out as a role model and success story. Indeed her ivy league education is most impressive. But the Orthodox, especially the Chareidi community, defends itself against the OTD community by claiming that that it is only the "meshigeners" who go OTD. Anyone who seriously reads this book with some objectivity, will be left wondering "what makes her tick?"

It seems as though this reviewer is also left with more questions than answers so I guess I'm not the only one questioning Leah's account/book/story.

↑ BlueRose52 ↓

Tue, Jan 28 2014, 7:21 pm

By the way, I'm obviously not against criticizing her. I criticized her on the first page of this thread! And I've been critical of her in other forums where it's been discussed. But I don't find most of the criticisms people are saying here to be very cogent. They sound more like rants against someone who the reader just doesn't like.

My personal feeling (based on her other writings) is that she seems to exaggerate the severity of things to some degree and isn't careful to construct a fully accurate and fair picture in the mind of the reader. But I don't call into question whether the things she describes occurring actually happened.

For example, in the WSJ review of her book, it starts off saying, "At age 15, Leah Vincent was preparing for marriage."

Now, to me that's totally an inaccurate way of describing things. It sounds like when she was 15, she was about to get married! But everyone knows not even chassidish people marry girls off that young, let alone a yeshivish family like hers was. So how could she write something so false?! The answer I think is that she wrote it (or described it to the reporter) intending it to mean that at the age of 15, the main thing that was of any concern in her life, was her marriage prospects. Everything she did, everything she learned, everything she wore, was viewed in the light of shidduchim. That's how, "at age 15, she was preparing for marriage." Which is an entirely plausible and believable scenario! But the average reader won't know this at all. They'll obviously read it in the wrong way.

Now, I'm not sure if she wrote/spoke those words, so in this case, it might not be fair to judge her for it, but I'm using that as an example of something that gives a misleading portrayal of a situation, which makes something sound way worse than it actually was. That's a problem I see in much of her writing.

Last edited by BlueRose52 on Wed, Jan 29 2014, 5:09 am; edited 2 times in total

↑ BlueRose52 ↓

Tue, Jan 28 2014, 7:29 pm

amother wrote:

It seems as though this reviewer is also left with more questions than answers so I guess I'm not the only one questioning Leah's account/book/story.

I'm sorry, but the sentence, "Anyone who seriously reads this book with some objectivity, will be left wondering "what makes her tick?" is not at all saying "I doubt the veracity of her account!" Nothing in that review indicates any doubt about the author's story! Sure, they're left with questions, but they're not questioning the truth of it all.

And the fact that anyone would interpret such a neutral statement in such a negative way simply makes me doubt that they have the ability to be critical in a fair way at all.

↑ marina ↓

Tue, Jan 28 2014, 7:34 pm

amother wrote:

I just want to point out that the OTD community is not at all accepting of memoirs. They are very very skeptical even when it comes to their own.

Here's an example of a book review of Unorthodox that virtually excoriates the book:
http://www.unpious.com/2012/02.....odox/

↑ amother ↓

Tue, Jan 28 2014, 7:39 pm

BlueRose52 wrote:

I wasnt trying to cast doubt or discredit Leah. There are gaps to Leah story so I wanted to get answers/clarification for them (and I am not the only one who is questioning the gaps in her story). For example, I asked if she was/is not aware of yeshivishe girls going to college since Leah made it seem as though they (yeshivishe girls) really dont go to college and that she was the first yeshivishe girl to go to Brooklyn College with a presidential scholarship (which obviously isnt true). I bought up a few other things based on the book that left me with more questions than answers but I dont have time to rehash it now. We can all agree that Leah is a good writer and leave it at that.

↑ amother ↓

Tue, Jan 28 2014, 7:44 pm

marina wrote:

Yes, the otd community is having a very different reaction to Leah's memoir than they did to Deborah's memoir. I believe it has to do with the fact that Leah is a Footsteps board member so she has the support of footsteps, which means that she has the entire otd support. Deborah, otoh, was not interested in footsteps which made them angry so they went completely against her. (this is the unofficial word on the street, not sure if its true or not so dont quote me on this).

↑ BlueRose52 ↓

Tue, Jan 28 2014, 7:50 pm

amother wrote:

I somewhat get the feeling also like this. Not that they were angry at Feldman for not being part of Footsteps (I'm pretty sure no one gets blacklisted for choosing not to be a part of Footsteps), but that Leah is a very respected figure, so it's tempering some people's criticism, whereas Feldman was somewhat of an outsider, so people didn't have that reservation.

And also, obviously, people really took issue with many supposedly factual portrayals in Unorthodox. That's why they were so critical.

Clarissa ↓

Tue, Jan 28 2014, 9:01 pm

Why are people criticizing the author or her book anonymously? If I've read a book, I'm proud to talk about it, because I like having opinions of books. This is like showing up to a book club with the other people blindfolded or in masks.

As far as people critiquing it or analyzing the author without reading it, that I really don't understand. If you don't want to read it because such a story is disturbing to you, just say so. But you can't criticize the author or her story without doing so.

Deciding that people like or don't like it based on her involvement with Footsteps is just silly. Give people a little respect.

↑ Clarissa ↓

Tue, Jan 28 2014, 9:19 pm

amother wrote:

Could we stop giving these individuals theyve craved for all their lives? I know many ppl, including myself that have had hellish childhoods & have painstakingly worked our a$$es off to grow up & get our lives together. I'm sick & tired of these whiny, hate filled, I-need-media-attention, memoirs.

Hello, amother. I fear you don't understand that people who have lived interesting lives and can write well (this part is important) might want to share their stories. If they weren't interesting, they wouldn't be published. This one was not only published, it's received positive reviews. That tells me that, although you have admirably gotten through a hellish childhood, you may not have written a book, gotten an agent, found a publisher, had your book published and garnered positive reviews. If you go to a bookstore, you will see many autobiographies, usually written by people who've overcome difficult circumstances. Are you hostile about all of them, or just this one?

↑ Clarissa ↓

Tue, Jan 28 2014, 9:25 pm

BlueRose52 wrote:

First of all, how are we to have a discussion of a book on this forum without it being done anonymously?

Secondly, what's so wrong with criticizing anonymously? Why is it so important that an idea have an identifiable name attached to it?

Because one person can post ten different posts that appear as if they're from ten different people. I don't think that makes for decent discourse.

People who post as themselves or as amother can agree with themselves as amother, which distorts things further.

Last edited by Clarissa on Tue, Jan 28 2014, 9:28 pm; edited 1 time in total

penguin ↓

Tue, Jan 28 2014, 11:16 pm

I will play devil's advocate here for a moment, although I personally think that there is a lot of untruth, based on seeing the interview and knowing some of the family. Also, IIRC, Rabbi Miller says in his letter that Leah had been treated by a psychiatrist, and I choose to believe him.

I also find it extremely hard to believe that Leah's mother actually threatened to have her locked up for wanting to go to college.

However, I can envision a scenario where Leah knows who Dr. Menkin is and what he does without ever having seen him professionally. This would be if Dr. Menkin is a member of the shul or community, and perhaps has even given a talk to the community as a psychiatrist.

Perhaps some Pittsburgher here can enlighten us.

Although my money is heavily on the side of truth being with the parents, I am just pointing out that some folks here have missed this possibility!