The Glass Castle, unconditional love, and poverty. Would love to discuss.

[Catherine]

I just finished this book, I've been meaning to read it for years. It left such a strong impression on me-all kinds of thoughts are swirling in my head about the Walls family. Did anyone else feel very moved by this book?

 

First, I have to say I grew up secure and safe, but with very, very little disposable income. My parents made it by gardening, deer hunting, sometimes others' generosity. We never, ever were hungry like the Walls kids were. My needs were met, but I wished for more. Hopefully, many kids are like that and I wasn't just a selfish kid.

 

I'd first like to know-if you also grew up very poor, did you feel resentful of your parents for not providing better for you? Did you find food in school trash, like Jeannette and her brother?

 

Second, unconditional love. When I finished the book, I believed that 3 of the Walls kids grew into successful, stable and happy adults because despite what we might consider neglect, they felt loved and valued when they were kids. Though the parents in the book were deeply flawed, they were still very loving and cared very much for their kids, despite not providing for them.

 

Please, tell me what you thought of this book! I'm dying to discuss it.

[regentrude]

I read the book a while ago and liked it. I have no personal experience with growing up in poverty, so can't comment on this.

But what did strike me when reading was, like you say, that, despite the parents' dysfunction, they did provide some measure of emotional stability and loved their kids - so the book did not leave me feel hopeless and depressed.

[MinivanMom]

I just finished this book a few months ago and absolutely loved it. A friend (who knows my personal background) lent it to me, and it was like reading about my own childhood.

 

I grew up very, very poor (homeless at times), and I never felt any resentment whatsoever toward my mother. I always felt like she loved me and valued the personal sacrifices I made for our family, though she never said so and wasn't loyal to me. In hindsight, she was a very, very selfish and narcissistic woman who put her own desires ahead of her children's needs (may she rest in peace). I can see that now as an adult, but I can also see how her emotional problems, her poor choices, and a variety of unfortunate circumstances limited her ability to provide physical and emotional support to her children. As a child I only saw the good, and I felt an overwhelming amount of loyalty to her.

 

Second, unconditional love. When I finished the book, I believed that 3 of the Walls kids grew into successful, stable and happy adults because despite what we might consider neglect, they felt loved and valued when they were kids. Though the parents in the book were deeply flawed, they were still very loving and cared very much for their kids, despite not providing for them.

 

I'm going to disagree. I think they (the 3 out of 4) escaped the cycle of poverty and dysfunction, because they were highly gifted. Having a (slightly) more stable early childhood where they felt loved and valued probably helped a little, but I think being highly gifted is the main thing. A highly gifted child is able to use their intellectual resources to problem-solve in the situation. They are able to attract the interest and favor of adults outside the family (often teachers!) who will provide them with positive emotional support and guidance. Their intellectual abilities provide a natural escape route, because more doors are open to them: college acceptance, college scholarships, simply being clever enough to be the best darn busboy and move up through the ranks, etc, etc.

 

In my family 3 out of 4 children have grown into "successful, stable and happy adults". We had a similar age divide to the Walls children: 3 closely spaced children who had a stable younger childhood and then a 4th gap baby who had a life of utter chaos. The one who didn't make it was part of the first 3 who had a stable early childhood. The baby has grown to be a happy, successful adult who has never had any problems. The 3 of us who made it were highly gifted and were able to cultivate support systems outside the family. The child who did not make it was not as bright and struggled to make connections. He was also separated from the rest of us for several years (thanks California Family Court system), so he lost the sibling support system to some degree as well. There were other things that contributed to his struggles, but I think the lack of a support system was really, really critical.
 

[kiwik]

Being highly gifted only helps if the child remains free of depression, addiction and other problems common in children who are highly gifted or who live in a dysfunctional situation. it also works better for high achieving gifted kids who are extrovert and attractive to outside adults. And of course those adults have to have good intentions.

[elegantlion]

I read it a couple of years ago. I had varying thoughts. My mom grew up country poor - poverty, but it was years earlier, and no one had anything. My dad grew up in the country and poor, probably not poverty level though. 

 

Ds and I basically live in poverty right now. We're not homeless because of family, we're not without stuff because we weren't always poor, and we're not without stability because I work really hard to create it. Our needs are met and we have Internet - life is grand. That book has crept into my thoughts over the last year because I'd love to neglect everything and just paint. I can't because of ds. I get mad sometimes because I can't provide for ds some of what I think are opportunities he should have at this age. 

 

My parents were very frugal as I was growing up. I never was hungry, without a roof, or without clothes, but we didn't do a lot because money was an issue. IMO, they didn't see the importance of investing into some things, they just saw the financial outlay. It was hard because about 8th grade I just quit asking to do things. I never wanted to be in that situation with ds, yet here we are. I keep wondering if ds will resent the choices I'm making now - which include having less income to spend more time with him and try to homeschool him properly for the last two years. We talk openly about it though and in many ways we're better off in the last year, just with less income.  

 

I think the one thing I remember from the book is the instability. It was a hard book to read and would probably be harder now. 

[Hunter]

I haven't read the book. My childhood was eventful. I was born into a top 1% family in a British colony. By the time I was 6, my parents' substance abuse problems caused them to hit rock bottom, and my mom who was an American brought me to the USA, where I grew up in a variety of welfare slums, ethnic neighborhoods, and cults.

 

My mom did a pretty good job of keeping us fed. But when living with my dad back in the colony, I slept on boats and picked/stole fruit off trees to survive. Adults knew I was easy pickings to abuse, and they abused me, and that is all I will say about that.

 

By the age of 17, I was engaged to an abusive and older American man from my church, and married him 3 weeks after I graduated from high school. I started having babies right away, until my heart failed, and then there were no more. At 21, I was done. I have 2 surviving children. 

 

Minivanmom is right that the more gifted a child is, the greater chance they have to break away. Highly/profoundly gifted 2E not so much, though. My oldest is the less gifted of my two boys, but he was the one that was graduated from junior college and financially independent and living across the country at 19. He pays more in taxes than his dad used to bring home. I don't know what his dad made, but just what came home, and that wasn't enough. My oldest was able to reach out to others and take advantage of every crumb offered to him. He was and is very likeable and funny and fascinating.

 

My dad is gone. I love my mom so much, but she cannot accept the PTSD and brain damage I have sustained, and the scandal that happened when I ran from my husband. I miss her. She misses who I WAS, and is tormented by my survival. She hasn't been allowed to have closure and to grieve. Nothing short of my death will relieve her pain.

 

I struggle with how to make her feel respected and loved, without hurting her. Every holiday puts me in a tailspin, because there is no way to make her happy. I am like a zombie to her. Holidays are SO hard because I see myself through her eyes. Rumors continue to swirl about me, and make it to her ears, most of them untrue. She dies a little more at each one. I cannot protect her from what is not even true, or what is told out of context, and I can't recover from damage this severe, and that is not my fault. So I keep our contact just by mail. I carefully choose and send a gift and card for each holiday, but otherwise have no contact with her.

 

My boys had to pick between "The Family" and me. They made the only choice they could. A mom wants what is best for her children. I support them in their choice even if it hurts, and is not fair. Their dad didn't even know how old they were as children. I raised them alone, but now, I am the one on the outside. My sister-in-law said, "Thank you for raising two such fine men for us." I have become a retired nanny and one of my sons sneaks in a phone-call to me once a year or so.

 

I didn't start out in poverty. That is for certain. But I grew up in it. and after my divorce, I was homeless twice. I've done the opposite of breaking out. But one of my boys broke out. Well…kinda sorta. Because now I find out we were not really so broke, but the money just never came HOME. So this kid was cold and fed watered down milk and juice and had holes in his clothes but was firmly entrenched in a middle class extended family that just looked the other way to our plight.

 

It's all very weird. I struggle to make sense of it all. That's what abuse is like though. More than anything it is confusing.

[speedmom4]

I have never read this book but I have heard of it. I think I listened to an interview with the author once on NPR. I am a bit afraid to read it. I just don't want to feel completely depressed! I have never experienced poverty or serious dysfunction.

 

In your opinion is this a completely depressing read?

 

Thanks,

 

Elise in NC

[elegantlion]

I have never read this book but I have heard of it. I think I listened to an interview with the author once on NPR. I am a bit afraid to read it. I just don't want to feel completely depressed! I have never experienced poverty or serious dysfunction.

 

In your opinion is this a completely depressing read?

 

Thanks,

 

Elise in NC

 

No, I don't think it's completely depressing, but it's not a Disney ending either. 

 

I think it's a glimpse into a way of life many people live and no one sees, maybe they see, but not the person, they just view the situation. It's well written and I don't think the author has a chip on her shoulder, but, like Hunter said, it can be confusing to be in those situations and realize its dysfunction. 

 

I won't say it's had a huge impact on my life, but part of it stuck with me. 

[Catherine]

I have never read this book but I have heard of it. I think I listened to an interview with the author once on NPR. I am a bit afraid to read it. I just don't want to feel completely depressed! I have never experienced poverty or serious dysfunction.

 

In your opinion is this a completely depressing read?

 

Thanks,

 

Elise in NC

I think it is most emphatically NOT depressing. It's a story of survival, but also, in my opinion, it is a story of how someone can love their very flawed family. One aspect of Jeannine's childhood that was so striking is the joy of life her parents showed, even through all of the chaos. Even as adults, when the kids have all fled home by 17 or 18 for jobs and their own places, they still cared very much about each other, met often to talk or eat together. I find this very reassuring. The book totally reinforced my idea that the biggest task of parents is to assure that their children know they are loved unconditionally. Everything else is gravy.

 

I can't agree that just being smart is what saved those kids. I know way too many smart kids who are floundering despite loving parents and supportive environments. I finished the book thinking that Jeannette's crazy parents were right about some things-one being, that "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" (to paraphrase), another, that raising healthy children is not only about rules, structure, and safety. The complete freedom they enjoyed as children, in an environment where they knew they were loved, was beneficial.

 

I was struck, for instance, by the repeated attempts "perverts" made to molest the kids in various times and places. Even at the age of 6 (I think I'm remembering this right) Jeannette was certain that what the guy was doing was wrong and she alerted her family to it immediately. Ditto for the at least 3 other near-molesting scenes in the book. She aggressively defended herself (physically!) and called out the "pervert" immediately. I'm not honestly sure if I would have done the same...I think I probably would have felt more shame and it would have kept me quiet.

[pehp]

I think unconditional love can go a long way, but not all the way. I did not grow up in poverty--we didn't have a lot of disposable income, but we also weren't in poverty--and my parents loved us unconditionally.  They were also very well educated and expected that of us.  My sister struggles mightily with depression, self-esteem issues, etc etc and flounders in jobs, money management etc as a result of all that.  Mental illness, or being able to sidestep it somehow, seems to be of primary importance.  Perhaps the successful Walls children were somehow spared the devastation of mental illness. 

 

It was a tough book to read.  I just kept feeling astonished that it was real.  From the opening scene I struggled hard with her parents and their lack of responsibility.  It was tough for me to feel sympathetic to them, although clearly mental illness was an issue, but I felt a great deal of compassion for the children.  

 

 

[MinivanMom]

I have never read this book but I have heard of it. I think I listened to an interview with the author once on NPR. I am a bit afraid to read it. I just don't want to feel completely depressed! I have never experienced poverty or serious dysfunction.

 

In your opinion is this a completely depressing read?

 

Thanks,

 

Elise in NC

 

I found it very positive and uplifting. The author was obviously the favored child growing up (daddy's little girl), and she has very warm memories of her parents. I think she does a wonderful job of giving you a glimpse into the complexities of a poor home headed by dysfunctional, mentally-ill parents. For those who grew up with the privilege of stability, it can be hard to imagine the love and warmth and loyalty that can exist within the dysfunction (particularly amongst siblings). She does a great job of giving you a realistic picture of what that complexity looks like.

 

There are several situations where someone abuses or attempts to abuse her and her siblings. Her stories of fighting back are admirable (she was one spunky kid), but her parents' lack of reaction is disturbing. Unfortunately, it is very common for neglected children in these situations to be targeted for abuse.

 

[MinivanMom]

I think it is most emphatically NOT depressing. It's a story of survival, but also, in my opinion, it is a story of how someone can love their very flawed family. One aspect of Jeannine's childhood that was so striking is the joy of life her parents showed, even through all of the chaos. Even as adults, when the kids have all fled home by 17 or 18 for jobs and their own places, they still cared very much about each other, met often to talk or eat together. I find this very reassuring. The book totally reinforced my idea that the biggest task of parents is to assure that their children know they are loved unconditionally. Everything else is gravy.

 

I can't agree that just being smart is what saved those kids. I know way too many smart kids who are floundering despite loving parents and supportive environments. I finished the book thinking that Jeannette's crazy parents were right about some things-one being, that "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" (to paraphrase), another, that raising healthy children is not only about rules, structure, and safety. The complete freedom they enjoyed as children, in an environment where they knew they were loved, was beneficial.

 

I was struck, for instance, by the repeated attempts "perverts" made to molest the kids in various times and places. Even at the age of 6 (I think I'm remembering this right) Jeannette was certain that what the guy was doing was wrong and she alerted her family to it immediately. Ditto for the at least 3 other near-molesting scenes in the book. She aggressively defended herself (physically!) and called out the "pervert" immediately. I'm not honestly sure if I would have done the same...I think I probably would have felt more shame and it would have kept me quiet.

 

I don't mean that being smart is some sort of magical protection against making poor choices. Smart kids in stable situations (whether working or upper class) will make a range of choices.

 

However, something different happens in a really bad situation. The kids most likely to get out are the smart cookies. It doesn't matter whether it's foster kids or trauma survivors, it seems to be kids with that fabulous combination of intelligence and resiliency who manage to figure out a way to a more stable life. That doesn't mean that all bright kids get out. But of the kids who get out, I think the overwhelming majority are bright.

 

In psychology they use the term "invulnerables" for these sorts of kids. They seem to defy all odds. No matter what life throws at them, they are going to be just fine. I know there are better sources, but this is what I have on hand. From The Hurried Child:

 

"We are just beginning to learn what factors lead some children to become case hardened in the crucible of stress. Some of what we know can be used in suggesting ways of combating stress in all children. But it is also true that invulnerables may be gifted children who in other circumstances would have outstanding careers. Such children are a good example of nature-nurture interaction. In a favorable environment a bright, creative child is gifted; in an unfavorable, stressful environment he or she is an invulnerable."

[Pronghorn]

There are a couple of genes associated with resiliency. I don't remember their names, but I have read about them. I believe they are probably more important than giftedness.

[VinNY]

I just read this book again. First time was when the book came out.  My daughter read it for her Memoir class so it was in the house again.

 

It was frustrating to read again as some have mentioned above regarding the parent's lack of concern over the perverts and particularly how the parents screwed up the family's chance of stability when the Mom inherited her Mom's home and estate. 

Both parents possibly were bi-polar...interesting article :http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/magazine/how-jeannette-walls-spins-good-stories-out-of-bad-memories.html?_r=0

 

[rocassie]

I read this book quite a while ago.  I enjoyed it but it hit a little to close to home.  The author was able to articulate so well feelings I have regarding my childhood but unable to put those feelings into words.

 

I agree with others about intelligence and resiliency.  However, I would take it a step further and say it is also a love of reading.  Books open a window of possibilities that life doesn't have to be the way it is.  The majority of people (including myself) I know IRL or I have read about that escaped abuse, neglect, and poverty (although not always poverty) read quite voraciously.  

 

The subject material is really heavy but I'm glad she was able to make a success of herself and maintain a strong relationship with her family.

[Miss Tick]

I read this book a while ago, but first read the sequel/prequel about her grandmother. That book helped me maintain some empathy for the mom at the start of Glass Castles, although I couldn't maintain it. Perhaps I am just too removed from the author's situation.

 

I was struck by the scene toward the end where she is scolded by her professor for saying that perhaps some people choose homelessness. It hadn't occurred to me at that point even as I was reading the book that her parents might have been choosing that.

[shinyhappypeople]

I just finished this book, I've been meaning to read it for years. It left such a strong impression on me-all kinds of thoughts are swirling in my head about the Walls family. Did anyone else feel very moved by this book?

 

First, I have to say I grew up secure and safe, but with very, very little disposable income. My parents made it by gardening, deer hunting, sometimes others' generosity. We never, ever were hungry like the Walls kids were. My needs were met, but I wished for more. Hopefully, many kids are like that and I wasn't just a selfish kid.

 

I'd first like to know-if you also grew up very poor, did you feel resentful of your parents for not providing better for you? Did you find food in school trash, like Jeannette and her brother?

 

Second, unconditional love. When I finished the book, I believed that 3 of the Walls kids grew into successful, stable and happy adults because despite what we might consider neglect, they felt loved and valued when they were kids. Though the parents in the book were deeply flawed, they were still very loving and cared very much for their kids, despite not providing for them.

 

Please, tell me what you thought of this book! I'm dying to discuss it.

 

When my dad worked, he was a long haul truck driver who kept most of his paychecks for himself.  So, we were very poor.  We moved at least once a year, sometimes more (I later found out that many of those moves were due to being evicted for nonpayment of rent).  I can't remember how many elementary schools I attended (I think 6? 7?)  My mom actually had to legally separate from dad a couple of time so we'd qualify for food stamps, because on paper it looked like our family had enough income.  I wish she'd just divorced him, but we were involved in a conservative religious group that believed that marriages should stay intact no matter what.  

 

How did I feel toward them?  Resentful isn't the right word.  Frustrated, confused, helpless... I didn't understand enough about money and how the world works in order to resent my parents.  I also didn't fully understand the level of care that parents are supposed to provide.  Turns out that my version of "normal" was very abnormal.

 

I never ate from trash cans at school, but I had many, many days when my only meal was dinner.  Again: normal(ish).  It's not that there was never any food (I think that there was at least a little food in the cabinets), it's that my mom wasn't able to get it together enough to make sure I was eating breakfast and lunch.  In our family, the stress of the psychological abuse and poverty rendered my mom incapable of being there for me.  No one was really in charge.  On the bright side, the feeling of hunger doesn't phase me, I'm stoic in the face of disaster (ok, in reality, I briefly fall apart and then I look disaster square in they eye and dare it try to take me down).

 

As for WHY some people seem to rise above their raisin' while other remains stuck in poverty and chaos... I don't know.  I don't think it's intelligence.  Or, if it IS intelligence, I think it's only one small piece of the puzzle.

 

There are three of us kids: my older brother, my older sister, and me.  We've all had different outcomes in life.

 

My older brother is very intelligent.  Despite this, he has led a chaotic life, awful marriage, seriously neglected his own children (CPS-worthy stuff).  He's always looking for easy money and the next "get rich quick" scheme.  We're no longer in direct contact.

 

My older sister has normal intelligence but struggled in school.  Looking back, I believe she had childhood onset bipolar disorder.  That sucked for everyone.  Up until she was in her mid/late 30s her illness was poorly controlled.  She was emotionally abusive to her children, lived in poverty, and had a series of difficult relationships.  For the last ten years or so, she's found the right combo of medication and therapy to help her manage her illness.  She has been rebuilding her life, and healing her relationship with her children.  She is a WARRIOR, and I am so unbelievably proud of her. :)  For her, what held her back was mainly her illness.

 

Me:  Academics come very easily to me, I'm physically healthy, have no mental illness beyond mild, chronic depression, and I managed to not marry my first serious boyfriend.  That's probably why my life has been more stable than my siblings' lives.  

 

We have a very modest income, but the kids are provided for, we have a very stable family life, we've lived in the same house for 14 years (I hate moving) and my husband is an awesome human being.  I think I was just really determined not to settle for the lowest common denominator of life.  I knew there was a better life out there and I was going to grab it. I read a lot.  Books were my gateway to what was possible.   

 

I never cared about having a lot of money. I craved lots of safety, stability and a warm home life, and we have those in spades.  I guess I'm just very resilient, determined and ridiculously confident.  

 

And, honestly, I've been very, very lucky.  I came close to marrying a very controlling, manipulative man when I was in my early 20s.  Marrying him would have taken me down a road that I don't even want to imagine.

 

I'm not sure if this is TMI, but hopefully it helps answer some of your questions.

[MinivanMom]

I read this book a while ago, but first read the sequel/prequel about her grandmother. That book helped me maintain some empathy for the mom at the start of Glass Castles, although I couldn't maintain it. Perhaps I am just too removed from the author's situation.

 

I was struck by the scene toward the end where she is scolded by her professor for saying that perhaps some people choose homelessness. It hadn't occurred to me at that point even as I was reading the book that her parents might have been choosing that.

 

I found that to be the most moving scene in the book. I think it struck a little too close to home, because I have been scolded many, many times for the (somewhat benign) opinions I have expressed about mental illness, poverty, neglect, homelessness, etc, etc. I have learned the hard way that I shouldn't ever discuss these things with people who have not experienced or dealt with them at some level personally.

 

Now I will only express an opinion if someone says something harsh or prejudiced about the mentally ill, poor, or homeless, and I always preface it with information about my past so that it doesn't come across as holier-than-thou. I'm sometimes surprised by the lack of compassion people have.

[Coco_Clark]

I was raised poor but with needs met, much like what you describe.  We always had food, but never new clothing or cable tv or cars that you could depend on starting in the morning.  We had state payed lunches at school.  We moved every year to 2 years because of non payment or because there was cheaper rent at such and such place. Our power or water would get shut off occasionally.  I think of it as lower middle class, but maybe it was "worse" than that.  I never resented my parents for it.  But that may also be because we had "more" every year than they year before, they were always doing things to better our situation.  By the time I graduated and left (oldest) we were firmly middle class with cable tv and all. 

 

My husband was a bit poorer than me.  And things slowly got worse rather than better as he grew up (mostly because more kids kept coming, he's also an oldest).  I don't know if he resented it, per se, but its definitely affected his decisions as to how many kids we should have. He doesn't want to repeat history and our financial situation comes up every time we talk about having another.   

[Pen]

I haven't read it, but this thread makes me want to.

[Catherine]

I haven't read it, but this thread makes me want to.

It is worth it IMO. It really helped to reorient me to what is important. I've recommitted to making sure I show my kids clearly that they are loved no matter what. It also got me thinking about the whole "free range" thing and though I am not what you would call overprotective, I have definitely sometimes acted to save them from failure and I wonder if that has been a mistake. The Wall kids protected each other fiercely, fought off dangerous people with fists and even a gun. They were extremely independent.

 

I was telling my 17 tonight that his grandfather, my father, bought his farm when he was 17. 95 acres, a tumbledown house and barn, for $2800 in 1952. He paid it off years before I was born. That kind of independence and initiate seems rare to me these days.

[creekland]

I haven't read it, but this thread makes me want to.

 

Ditto. 

 

Not having read the book, so solely based upon IRL situations, I think those who "make it" from these situations have a strong genetic component and intelligence to think outside the box.  Those who "make it" often make some of the "best" adults IMO.  However, many/most do not break the cycle even with intervention.

 

I'm pondering the suggestion that those who make it tend to read more - giving them alternative futures to contemplate rather than just the one they see.  It's definitely a possibility, esp for some.

[Catherine]

Yes, I think reading is key. Jeannette talks about how her mom had taught all of them to read well before the age of kindergarten, describes the family reading "parties" in the evenings after dinner, frequent trips to the library. They had no money for TV, but her parents disdained it as well and maintained that reading and talking were better. But I do think that reading provides a kid with a means to escape their situation and also a way of knowing that other realities exist. I think fantasizing is underestimated as a means of coping with a challenging situation.

[MinivanMom]

Regarding attachment:

 

I think what jumped out at me from the book was the strong attachment that the Walls children had to one another. Yes, Jeanette had a deep attachment to her father, but I did not get the impression that her siblings (particularly the older sister) had similar feelings. The primary attachment bond was to one another as siblings. I think it's interesting that the older sister (who seemed to be least attached to the parents) was the one who got out and supported the younger siblings in getting out.

 

I know my siblings and I were similarly attached to one another. We were like a little family and - as things devolved over time - I stepped in as the oldest to "mother" my younger siblings. I was the one who got out and then watched over them and made sure that they did the right things to get out too. It's a very common dynamic with sibling groups in foster care as well, which is why it can be so devastating when siblings are split up by social workers.

[Hunter]

I played the mom role, but that made the other siblings see me as a separate class of people from them, and less of a person. There were the parent people that needed to be obeyed and respected no matter what, and there were the children people that needed to be protected and taken care of and given oppurtunities, and then there was me, a non-person with none of the rights and perks of either of those groups of people. My role was to be the perfect one, the one that filled in for others, the one that BECAME what was NEEDED. Any attempts to be an individual or to show creativity or uniqueness was mocked and squashed. I knew that even my body was not mine and belonged to others to do anything they wanted to it.

 

Reading books did give me a window to see the world, but I was always VERY aware of the glass that separated me from that world I got to see in the books. I knew down to my bones that what existed was not for ME. I think it did help me to know what was out there for OTHERS, but I had no idea any of it was possible as options for me. 

[LucyStoner]

I used to buy this book by the case and give it out to donors as a thank you. It was very popular and usually engendered very generous follow up gifts.

 

As to invulnerables/resiliency/kids-who-get-out, I dunno. I got out. I credit a mix of things- strong relationship with one of my brothers, a strong mother, reading, being smarter than average, a great teacher in high school, mental healthcare, being a very stubborn person. There's no magic elixir. I think it is a mix of things. There are three of us. Two of us are basically ok and out of poverty. One of us is a train wreck, but had all of the same opportunities. Genetics (he has a different bio dad), substance use and a lot of I dunno what the heck play into that.

[freeindeed]

Thanks for this thread. I just finished The Fault in Our Stars and was looking for my next book to read. You just picked it.

[SarahW]

I haven't read the book, but it sounds interesting.

 

When I was growing up my family didn't have any extra money. We were very frugal. I remember shopping at discount stores for bread, and hanging cloth diapers outside to dry. Those sorts of things have stayed with me, and I still see every empty container as a possibility to be repurposed, not trashed.

 

My DH, on the other hand, doesn't understand this. His parents weren't rich, but they had enough money to do vacations and whatever. So now that we live around the poverty level, he feels really bad that he can't give our kids all the things his parents gave him. I, on the other hand, raise my eyebrows at buying happy meals. The few times we went to fast food when I was a kid, we ordered cheeseburgers off the menu and then shared a large fry and drink between us. Happy meals were out of the question as an unnecessary luxury. But the few times I have broached the idea to DH that our kid doesn't need to get a happy meal every time we go to McD's - oh boy, I may as well have been speaking Chinese! DH understands love in terms of things, I definitely do not. Don't get me wrong, I am still miffed that my parents never spent the money to get me braces. But I think going to the park and playing together is a much better family outing than dropping a bunch of money on an amusement park or some other packaged "attraction".

 

As an example, just recently there was "Astronomy Night" at a local park, where an astronomy club set up big telescopes for everyone to look through. CP had fun on the playground, fun listening to the special music, and looked through the telescopes at the moon and Jupiter a bunch of times. As were leaving he said that was "the best day of his life," And it only cost me a dollar to tip the musician. DH, though, had stayed home. He didn't think it would be any fun. Maybe because it was free? I don't know, but we had a long discussion that night about the value of quality time over money.

[Another Lynn]

I think Dr. Ben Carson also talks about reading making a big impact on his perspective - how life could be different. 

[Catherine]

OKBud, yes, there is a big, big difference between the perception of poverty as a trial and a punishment, and seeing it as a game to "win". The Walls family scrapes in the beginning of the book are mostly about playing this game. Sometimes what they did was flat out illegal, like hotwiring a house for free electricity, or running away from debts. But much was also about playing and winning the survival game: filling the car with green grapes being sold for 5 cents a pound, then eating them for more than a week. The difference in attitude is significant. In the first, you are a helpless victim, the latter, a clever hero seeking the next challenge.

 

And yes, minivanmom, attachment is key to survival. I think it doesn't even have to be an entire childhood, but just someone who believes in you, who shows unconditional love, and shows you the way out of a bad situation.

 

It is honestly heartwrenching for me to read some of your accounts of your own childhoods. Even though I don't know you in real life it's touched me very much to know what you have been through and survived.

[MinivanMom]

OKBud, yes, there is a big, big difference between the perception of poverty as a trial and a punishment, and seeing it as a game to "win". The Walls family scrapes in the beginning of the book are mostly about playing this game. Sometimes what they did was flat out illegal, like hotwiring a house for free electricity, or running away from debts. But much was also about playing and winning the survival game: filling the car with green grapes being sold for 5 cents a pound, then eating them for more than a week. The difference in attitude is significant. In the first, you are a helpless victim, the latter, a clever hero seeking the next challenge.

 

And yes, minivanmom, attachment is key to survival. I think it doesn't even have to be an entire childhood, but just someone who believes in you, who shows unconditional love, and shows you the way out of a bad situation.

 

It is honestly heartwrenching for me to read some of your accounts of your own childhoods. Even though I don't know you in real life it's touched me very much to know what you have been through and survived.

 

Interesting.

 

One of the most troubling things about my mother was that she was always a victim. She genuinely felt like things just happened to her, like she didn't have any autonomy or choice. She never asked for what she needed or advocated for herself. She couldn't see her actions leading to consequences; life was just completely out of her control. As I got older (think Jr. High age), I began to really be aware of this flaw in her thought process. I remember times where she would just break down and cry or she would become completely catatonic and unable to do anything, and I would try to give her options. I would say, "You have a choice. You can do (x choice) or (y choice)," and she just couldn't or wouldn't do anything, because she didn't believe she had any control over the outcome of her life.

 

To tie everything we've been discussing together: I became obsessed with a number of books that had strong, female protagonists who made choices. They would be in these absolutely impossible situations with no solution. Yet they would consciously make what they felt was the right choice, and they changed their circumstances and the outcome of their lives. In Jr. High I was obsessed with Jacob Have I Loved, where the protagonist struggles with learned helplessness in the shadow of her twin sister before dramatically choosing a different life away from her family. Later on I was obsessed with Jane Eyre and with The Tenant of Wildfell Hall. I just loved this idea that I was in control of my life and destiny. I used to watch my friends' parents and adult women from my church, and I would ask them all sorts of questions about the choices they had made when they were younger and the consequences of their choices and how they felt about their choices. It was something I needed to work out. The literature helped me do that to some extent, but I also actively sought out examples of real people doing it right to replace the model I had been given. It was very empowering.

[elegantlion]

I haven't read the book, but it sounds interesting.

 

When I was growing up my family didn't have any extra money. We were very frugal. I remember shopping at discount stores for bread, and hanging cloth diapers outside to dry. Those sorts of things have stayed with me, and I still see every empty container as a possibility to be repurposed, not trashed.

 

My DH, on the other hand, doesn't understand this. His parents weren't rich, but they had enough money to do vacations and whatever. So now that we live around the poverty level, he feels really bad that he can't give our kids all the things his parents gave him. I, on the other hand, raise my eyebrows at buying happy meals. The few times we went to fast food when I was a kid, we ordered cheeseburgers off the menu and then shared a large fry and drink between us. Happy meals were out of the question as an unnecessary luxury. But the few times I have broached the idea to DH that our kid doesn't need to get a happy meal every time we go to McD's - oh boy, I may as well have been speaking Chinese! DH understands love in terms of things, I definitely do not. Don't get me wrong, I am still miffed that my parents never spent the money to get me braces. But I think going to the park and playing together is a much better family outing than dropping a bunch of money on an amusement park or some other packaged "attraction".

 

As an example, just recently there was "Astronomy Night" at a local park, where an astronomy club set up big telescopes for everyone to look through. CP had fun on the playground, fun listening to the special music, and looked through the telescopes at the moon and Jupiter a bunch of times. As were leaving he said that was "the best day of his life," And it only cost me a dollar to tip the musician. DH, though, had stayed home. He didn't think it would be any fun. Maybe because it was free? I don't know, but we had a long discussion that night about the value of quality time over money.

 

Very interesting observation. I'm in the midst of a divorce, but exdh was the same way. He wasn't raised wealthy either, but he worked from the time he was a teen and did what he want with his own money. He also had a hard time just letting go to enjoy the moment if it didn't cost. I had never thought about that being a difference in our upbringing, but you're spot on. 

 

Fortunately, I can live very minimally and feel okay most of the time. Heck, now being frugal is being green. I can hang out my laundry, skip fast food, eat lighter and not feel like it's a response done out of lack, but out of purpose. Right now I'm being entertained by the city band at the park down the street. Free concert. 

[shinyhappypeople]

Something that hit me last night:  there is poverty and there is abuse, and they are two separate issues.  Sometimes the two go hand in hand, but not always.  Poverty isn't abuse, and I don't think poverty scars.  Growing up poor can make you strong, empathetic, and wise.  Add in abuse and it's a different ballgame.  I think that's the problem you see in The Glass Castle, in my story, and in others as well.  It was never about the money.  Comparing Glass Castle with Gifted Hands (Ben Carson) illustrates what I'm talking about.  

 

[LucyStoner]

I disagree. Poverty that leads to instability or lack of critical needs can definitely scar. I was not abused by my parents. They weren't the greatest parents but I was not abused by them and they did a lot right for me. There's also research showing the the stress of poverty itself can have a lasting impact and even affect gene expression, the nervous system and, isolating for all other risk factors, dramatically increase the risk for chronic health problems.

 

I have dealt with PTSD and panic disorders. I assumed this was all because I was sexually assaulted as a pre-teen. It seemed logical to me that this must have stemmed from the most traumatic episodes of my life, right? When I was 19 I started seeing the guy I would marry and I realized rapidly that a panic response to sexual contact wasn't conducive to my goals in life and I did the whole 9 yards of therapy, sex therapy and workshops and "homework". It took a couple of years but I was able to reach a point where I could have a marital relationship with someone that was both enjoyable and safe feeling for me. Problem solved, right? Right.

 

I kept having symptoms though but very infrequently and not in sexual situations. It was baffling but I dealt with it. Sometime after my mom's death my symptoms came to a head again but not at all linked to sexual contact. Everything I'd done to heal from that seemed to be working just fine. It took some time to see it clearly, but for a mix of reasons, parenting my own children as the reached the age where things had been worst for me financially was raising serious issues for me. I was having panic attacks and stress reactions and flashback type moments to very seemingly non -traumatic places and incidents. I realized that the poverty itself was my trauma. Being homeless, staying fed, playing the game you have to play to survive. It all was stress I'd been carrying for decades. Finding a good therapist again and working through some of those issues the same methodical, focused way I worked through the sexual assault finally let me start having months and now a couple of years without those sorts of traumatic moments.

[LucyStoner]

I don't think the two previous posters are disagreeing honestly.

 

Yes, poverty is traumatic, but by itself its not abusive. Living through an extended draught, or having a rogue animal terrorizing your homestead or something like that would be more analgalous to living in poverty than physical or sexual abuse.

 

But. Honestly, I've never personally met a family entrenched in poverty that really went untouched by some kind of abuse from neglect to violence. And, again, there's this invisible, floating mental distinction somewhere between poor and impoverished.

What I was specifically disagreeing with with the statement that poverty, on its own, doesn't scar. I agree that poverty on its own is not abuse but I don't think something has to be abusive to scar. IME and from all I have read, poverty does have a lasting impact. My husband from affluent roots was abused by a parent but he is free from so much of the burden I carried just from the poverty on its own.

 

I would agree that there are degrees of stability within poverty. Living in the same ramshackle house for 18 years and eating beans 6 nights a week with no extras ever, is a form of poverty but probably has a different impact than moving every year or more and being homeless.

[NASDAQ]

Poverty isn't abusive if the parents aren't choosing it, but it can still be massively traumatic. Cancer or early death of a parent aren't abuse either, but people can and often are traumatized by them.

 

I read this book in labour with the now-four yo but I didn't think it described a "good enough" childhood. These were people who were choosing instability. It's great that the kids got out okay, but it's no great testament to the parenting.

[MinivanMom]

Poverty isn't abusive if the parents aren't choosing it, but it can still be massively traumatic. Cancer or early death of a parent aren't abuse either, but people can and often are traumatized by them.

 

I read this book in labour with the now-four yo but I didn't think it described a "good enough" childhood. These were people who were choosing instability. It's great that the kids got out okay, but it's no great testament to the parenting.

 

This.

 

I don't think Jeanette was trying to tell a story that rationalized her parents' choices or tried to prove that they loved her. I certainly hope that no one walks away from the book thinking, "See, those kids mostly turned out okay." 

 

I do think it's a story that can help people understand why it can sometimes be more traumatic for children to be removed from their home and placed in foster care. No matter how poor or neglectful the situation, there is often love and warmth mixed in there, as well as deep attachment and loyalty on the part of the children toward one another and toward their parents. These situations are often very difficult and emotionally complex.

[MistyMountain]

I read this book a little after it came out before my kids were born and I started reading it again. What I remember from the first time was the instability, lots of moves and packing up in the middle of the night only being able to grab one thing, how they went hungry a lot and the really horrible conditions in the WV home and how the parents didn't take care of it. This time I definitely picked up on how the kids are gifted. I do think it makes a difference on the fact that they eventually get out that before the dad started drinking he exposed them to a lot of knowledge and that the parents taught them to read early and exposed them to a lot of books. It is still surprising that they did so well in that area with so much instability. I was trying to find the studies that show that the kids that get out of a situation like that are smarter and all I found was how poverty itself has a huge effect on IQ. 

 

Reading it this time I do see the love they had at least in the early years. It makes me mad how they let the cupboards go bare so often and that the dad had such a drinking problem, was controlling and emotionally abusive towards the mom at best and did some physically scary things at the worse and the mom never considered leaving him. He literally drank money that could have gone to food and couldn't hold a job. Hunger happens in 3rd world nations but to let it happen here is just not right. I am not surprised the girls didn't end up having kids. It sounds like they decided not to but I bet if they wanted them they would have fertility problems from going hungry so much. I was super skinny growing up naturally and my girls are too. I don't know that we could make it through going without that often. I also can appreciate the independence they are given but they also need a little bit of a balance to that to where the parents at least know where they are and check in with them and give them consequences for things like playing with fre. They get in a lot of trouble with fire and near misses with rapes. They let the youngest wander from at least 18 months. I think it is interesting how she doesn't really describe much sibling rivalry. 

 

 

[LucyStoner]

Poverty does have a marked impact on IQ. My friend and I were joking today that maybe that meant that we just had a fair number of IQ points to spare. :D - she is also a first generation high school and college grad from vey impoverished situations (she completed a doctorate on top of that). We were both always tracked into the gifted programs in schools (when we went to schools with such programs.)

[*Lulu*]

We were a lot closer to the edge than we looked from the outside.

 

We lived in a middle-middle class neighborhood. But the house belonged to my grandparents and there were many months that we couldn't pay the rent. If we hadn't been living in a family owned home we would have been homeless several times. We had years of my mom being the sole paycheck.

 

When my dad did start working again it coincided with his return to functional alcoholism and that brought its own set of troubles.

 

This book will definitely going on my list to read. Although, I think I'll hold off until I'm in a good place emotionally; it sounds like it might cut a little close right now.

[NASDAQ]

MistyMountain, there is something called resilience. If you look for work on resilient kids in poverty you will find studies on the types of inherent qualities that seem to be associated with children who have fairly good outcomes despite poor beginnings. Higher IQ is considered to contribute positively to resilience. Strong family ties also contributes positively to resilience.

 

Unfortunately poverty is a major stressor and threatens many of the factors that contribute to resilience.

[shinyhappypeople]

Poverty isn't abusive if the parents aren't choosing it, but it can still be massively traumatic. Cancer or early death of a parent aren't abuse either, but people can and often are traumatized by them.

 

I read this book in labour with the now-four yo but I didn't think it described a "good enough" childhood. These were people who were choosing instability. It's great that the kids got out okay, but it's no great testament to the parenting.

 

I hear you.

 

I guess I mean that it's not inherently traumatic.  It certainly is for some people in some situations, but it's not a given that a child raised in poverty will be traumatized by the experience.  OTOH, a child who experiences abuse (molested, beaten, neglected) is likely to be traumatized by those events.  By trauma I mean something deeper and more persistent than grief or sadness.

 

I think one of the things that's difficult about this conversation is that I suspect we're (all of us, not just you and I) each operating with slightly different definitions of poverty/poor, trauma, abuse and so on.  It can make it hard to explain what I'm thinking.  

 

Another issue is that poverty is relative.  I was never homeless.  Does that mean we weren't really poor?  No, of course not, but it definitely reminds me that as bad as things were for me, they were worse for some other kids.  

 

I read The Glass Castle years ago, but I really want to read it again.

[MistyMountain]

I found some articles on relient kids in poverty and it mentions reasoning ability but it said it doesn't necessarily mean they need a high IQ. I do think that the high IQ did have a big part of why they were really successful enough to go to an Ivy League School and for her brother to move up to a high position but t wasn't the only thing.

 

The articles say the important factors besides reasoning ability for the kids that manage to get out are resilience, they thought that they are in charge of their circumstances,  they are social, have good self esteem, they have some positive traits of the opposite sex, the have autonomy and they often had emotional supports outside of the family. The older kids did have all that. The Grandmother on the moms side was a positive role model,  the parents did love them and gave emotional support in the beginning of their childhood at least, they were encouraged to be independent and they believed that they were in charge of getting out. They even had traits of the opposite gender. The girls were active and stood up for themselves and the boy hung out with his sisters a lot and was very caring. 

 

 

[shawthorne44]

I am really enjoying the book.  I noticed one thing it shared with the The Great Santini, and My Losing Season.  They are all relate stories that are seriously messed up, and you can tell that the author recognizes that the stories aren't exactly normal but the author doesn't realize truly how out there messed up the parent was.  

 

It isn't the poverty that has stood out to me so far.  It is the complete self-centerness of the parents.  You put the kids in the back of the U-Haul, including the baby.   You tell them to not talk otherwise they will be arrested.  Then you say that the trip will take 14 hours by Highway, but it will be longer because you will probably take scenic side trips.  Scenic Tour !?#@   

[Mukmuk]

nm

[Murphy101]

For me, the resentment wasn't about being poor. It was the lack of mutual sacrifice. I'd have one pair of holey jeans and shoes two sizes too small. My dad would have ostrich skin $400 boots. I would get screamed at if I asked for $5 for a weeks worth of school lunches. It was normal for me to not eat breakfast or lunch most days and often dinner too. But dad would have a steak dinner, while mom would get a beef patty that she would halve with me if I was lucky enough to be at the table.

 

Love and mutual sacrifice from someone who has your back in the trench creates an entirely different dynamic, usually without resentment, towards those you share the trench with.

 

Of my parents four kids, I'm the only one to make it out of the cycle. But oddly enough, two of them make far more income than my dh and one of them actually had a modesty luxurious life of freeloading for nearly their entire adult life (she married a man whose father bought their home and paid their bills!). Yet without exception, their lives are just as dysfunctional, if not MORE dysfunctional, than what we grew up with. Their homes are full of power trips, bootheels, poverty, abuse and so forth.

 

They claim I'm an uppity rich b---- bc I was the spoiled baby of the family. *eyeroll*

[shinyhappypeople]

I am really enjoying the book.  I noticed one thing it shared with the The Great Santini, and My Losing Season.  They are all relate stories that are seriously messed up, and you can tell that the author recognizes that the stories aren't exactly normal but the author doesn't realize truly how out there messed up the parent was.  

 

It isn't the poverty that has stood out to me so far.  It is the complete self-centerness of the parents.  You put the kids in the back of the U-Haul, including the baby.   You tell them to not talk otherwise they will be arrested.  Then you say that the trip will take 14 hours by Highway, but it will be longer because you will probably take scenic side trips.  Scenic Tour !?#@   

 

This!  It's one thing to be poor.  It's another thing to be a selfish moron.  

 

Honestly, I don't see the "love" for their children that other people are seeing.  I see parents who feel warm fuzzy feelings for the kids on a semi-regular basis, but LOVE goes a hell of a lot further than the warm fuzzies.

 

I really, really need to re-read this book.

[elegantlion]

For me, the resentment wasn't about being poor. It was the lack of mutual sacrifice. I'd have one pair of holey jeans and shoes two sizes too small. My dad would have ostrich skin $400 boots. I would get screamed at if I asked for $5 for a weeks worth of school lunches. It was normal for me to not eat breakfast or lunch most days and often dinner too. But dad would have a steak dinner, while mom would get a beef patty that she would halve with me if I was lucky enough to be at the table.

 

Love and mutual sacrifice from someone who has your back in the trench creates an entirely different dynamic, usually without resentment, towards those you share the trench with.

 

 

 

Wow, you have just summed up not my childhood, but recent events in my *um* adult life. If I said anymore, I'd violate board rules, yeah it's hard when you're trying to make homeschooling work with no money while other people in the household are eating out lunch everyday because they feel they "deserve" it. 

[LucyStoner]

 

It isn't the poverty that has stood out to me so far. It is the complete self-centerness of the parents. You put the kids in the back of the U-Haul, including the baby. You tell them to not talk otherwise they will be arrested. Then you say that the trip will take 14 hours by Highway, but it will be longer because you will probably take scenic side trips. Scenic Tour !?#@

I once moved cross country, laying down on boxes in roughly a foot of space between the boxes and the roof of the a VW bus. It was me and my older brother up there, my little brother was in an early baby seat the was placed on the floor between the driver and passenger seats. It.was.freaking.nuts. But it was also rather fun. And my parents didn't splurge on themselves at our expense by and large (alcohol for my dad and cigarettes for my mom being the exception there). We were all in it together for the most part. To get out at rest stops we had to slither down and be caught by mom. I learned a lot about how to fix those pancake engines on trips like that.

[MinivanMom]

This!  It's one thing to be poor.  It's another thing to be a selfish moron.  

 

Honestly, I don't see the "love" for their children that other people are seeing.  I see parents who feel warm fuzzy feelings for the kids on a semi-regular basis, but LOVE goes a hell of a lot further than the warm fuzzies.

 

I really, really need to re-read this book.

 

I think the love and mutual sacrifice were between the siblings. The warmth and support were amongst the siblings. The loved each other and watched out for each other.

 

I think Jeanette had a deep love for her parents (particularly her father), but whether that feeling was mutual is up for debate. I think the parents probably did love the children to some degree, as much as they were capable of loving anyone besides themselves. Obviously their ability to display love and to put their children's needs above their own desires was greatly limited by alcoholism, mental illness, and general selfishness. I think the selfishness displayed by the parents was the saddest part of the story.