A thought about the book…

[Indigo Blue]

From Jill’s book:

“We understand that no family is perfect and that you can recognize the beauty in your story while still acknowledging the difficult parts and even setting boundaries. It shouldn’t make you unloving. It’s like roses and thorns, the two can coexist, and I do love my family. The highs aren’t invalidated by the lows and vice versa.” (Jill Duggar)

 

 

I admire her for this way of thinking about a family that let her down so deeply and also abused her.

This is in contradiction with what I have learned in the past few years from reading several books, articles, and watching tons  of videos where it is often deemed necessary to cut off your entire family. Period. 

This leaves me with contradictory feelings inside about these two seemingly differing and opposite views. 

I don’t want to be unloving, but I don’t want to be vulnerable to being treated badly, even abused.

Yes, I do love my family, but I recognize the need for boundaries. 
 

What do you think Jill means by “It’s like roses and thorns, the two can coexist”?

Do you think that means one should not be harsh and cut off family? That one should set boundaries accordingly but be loving as you are able despite what they do? 

Or is she simply saying that we should set our boundaries as tightly as needed, even to the point of cutoff, but keeping the love of one’s family in your heart so that we don’t let ourselves become a different type of person….a harsher, more hard version of ourselves?

What do you think she is saying? Do you agree with it?

 

 

[Katy]

It means Jill’s been through a lot of therapy, she can appreciate the good while recognizing and calling out the bad, and in this case cutting people off has nothing to do with anything she is saying. She’s warning readers she will discuss both the good and the bad because some people only want to hear one side. She’s setting an expectation for readers. 

She seems exceptionally good at following her faith, and calling out the bad while not letting people continue to abuse her. But that look years of work, hiring a lawyer, and helping her husband through law school. She’s still in therapy. Everything about boundaries here is something you’re trying to force into the meaning. She has boundaries, but in this phrase she isn’t discussing them. 

[Innisfree]

I think it depends on the ratio of roses to thorns, and just how big the thorns are.

[ScoutTN]

Setting boundaries often is the loving thing to do. 

[catz]

I think this is how one person is processing their story and childhood.  Just because one person who has had trauma has enough fame to be published with use of professional writers and editors and broadly read doesn't mean her words carry more meaning or weight than anyone else's way of processing.  She must have approved final editing.  But I doubt ever poetic series of words is directly out of her head.  She isn't super educated, she doesn't have a background in trauma or psychology.  

I will say Michelle has shown up when her kids have had newborns and that level of help is something I never had personally.  But this is a woman who blanket trained kids and what they ate as children varied when cameras were on vs not on.  And quietly allowed her kids to be exploited for years.

I said this in the other thread.  Jill is still quite young.  Her take and her boundaries too may continue to evolve over time.  Also note that there were periods of time mentioned where she was very low or no contact with her parents.  The last bit where she talks about JB holding her newest and how she liked to see him as Grandpa D sounded a bit delusional to me.  For a few seconds, he held her baby and played the role of doting grandfather.   At the end of the day, he would sell that kid's childhood on auction for his own comfort and financial gain and there isn't any indication he wouldn't.  The boundaries that are working for her now, may not in the future.  The boundaries she sets have nothing to do with how anyone else may need to set their own boundaries for their own health and well being.  I could see Jill having strong relationships with some siblings that may weigh that she keep the peace just enough with everyone else to maintain those relationships.  It also seemed like the things she was willing to discuss in the books were in response to things already in the public sphere and had been a source of media or gossip.  It seemed like she was intentionally not violating her sibling's privacy or putting brand new stories out there though I am sure there are more stories.

I did therapy for a while as a young adult with a baby.  I had parents I think were doing the best they could with the tools they had, but they weren't raised in emotionally healthy families.  Anyway, my thinking and boundaries have definitely continued to evolve over many years.  And I do have a reasonably ok relationship with my mom (my dad died suddenly years ago).  

Anyway, Jill is not a scholar or a prophet or a philosopher.  And I don't think she would say she is.  I wouldn't overthink this in terms of your own experience.

Edited September 16, 2023 by catz

[EKS]

I think she means that you can appreciate the rose and even interact with the rose while being cognizant that there are thorns.  If you know where the thorns are, you can alter your own behavior so that you don't get hurt.  You can love the rose and hate the thorns and not have the thorns diminish the beauty of the rose.  That sort of thing.

It would be great if people could understand nuance to this degree in other aspects of life as well.

[Lecka]

To me the statement about roses and thorns is just stating the reality of her life growing up.

 

I don’t read it as prescriptive.  

[Indigo Blue]

IMO there are enough thorns to make it justifiable for her to move thousands of miles away and start over. Many times when she thought he was being a rose, he was really being a thorn. She always found out after the fact. 

44 minutes ago, catz said:

At the end of the day, he would sell that kid's childhood on auction for his own comfort and financial gain and there isn't any indication he wouldn't.

100 percent. 
 

Maybe I am misinterpreting her words, or the words that she supposedly wrote herself. 
 

Healthy indifference is a good place to be IMO.  Not being unloving but also not being too vested in the “roses” parts. But only Jill knows what is best for her or how she should feel. I respect that. 

[Indigo Blue]

1 hour ago, Innisfree said:

I think it depends on the ratio of roses to thorns, and just how big the thorns are.

I agree so much. 

[Harriet Vane]

The others in this thread have offered some solid wisdom, I'll just add a few thoughts.

On the writing process, speaking as an editor, teacher, and as a professional writer myself:

Working with a ghost writer is a process that is unique to each writing pair. For clarity, I'll refer to the two writers as the ghost writer and the narrator (though usually the main narrator's voice is considered to be the author). There's no way to know how much Jill wrote versus the ghost writer, or what Jill might have said in an interview versus wrote down. Many times the ghost writer writes the whole thing based on interviews. Sometimes the narrator has actually written the whole thing and the ghost writer cleans it up, or similarly in the case of a previously published author who is busy or aging a ghost writer might compile a new book from a variety of older, previously-published writing. Most commonly there is a grand mishmash of all of the above--interviews, emails, journal entries, original writing from the narrator, and so on. I bristled a little at what Catz said about the likelihood of Jill saying something like this--there's absolutely no way to know without knowing that writing pair. The education of the narrator is not a great predictor of the likelihood of eloquence from that narrator. In other words, sometimes well-educated individuals write stilted, lifeless prose and sometimes uneducated individuals write with poetic elegance, and there's all the shades and flavors in between. Often the difference is actually that a more highly-educated writer handles grammar/punctuation/spelling conventions more skillfully. My point is that Jill may have said or written something along those lines or perhaps the ghost writer supplied it verbatim, but there's really no way for us, outside the process, to know.

And speaking as someone with a complicated, dysfunctional upbringing and as a foster mom:

I really like the way that paragraph is phrased, and as I mentioned, I appreciate what others in this thread have offered in the way of interpretation. There are definitely relationships that need to be cut off, as in the case of egregious long-term abuse or immediate risk of abuse. There are many, many shades of boundaries in between that may involve strong boundaries of all shapes and sizes or cutting off relationships temporarily or permanently. It's complicated and it's individual. I really like the paragraph you quoted because it allows for a genuine appreciation of happy memories and good connections while also acknowledging that terrible dysfunction and deep injustices happen, often side by side. Those of us who have had to grow up in unhappy homes feel the push-pull of this acutely.

[Katy]

46 minutes ago, Indigo Blue said:

Maybe I am misinterpreting her words, or the words that she supposedly wrote herself. 

She likely didn’t write them herself. She spoke to her named ghostwriter, Craig Borlase. Craig wrote the words. 

[catz]

54 minutes ago, Harriet Vane said:

I bristled a little at what Catz said about the likelihood of Jill saying something like this--there's absolutely no way to know without knowing that writing pair. The education of the narrator is not a great predictor of the likelihood of eloquence from that narrator. In other words, sometimes well-educated individuals write stilted, lifeless prose and sometimes uneducated individuals write with poetic elegance, and there's all the shades and flavors in between.

I didn't mean to make judgement either way.  I am not trying to cut Jill down at all. Just that there is a ghost writer involved and I would be careful subscribing a ton of weight to a quote from the book like the OP seemed to.  Having gotten through the book, I don't even get the feeling Jill would be comfortable with quotes pulled and over analyzed to be applied beyond her situation.    There are biblical references to rose and thorns, that idiom is old and can be seen in a lot of lit sources.  It's not like she OR the ghost writer originated "every rose has its thorn".

I think Lecka said it well when she said she doesn't read it as prescriptive.  It's an artistic way of describing Jill's situation at this moment in time.  The words and metaphor application may or may not be Jill's.  But either way, I wouldn't read into it like a great unveiling of philosophical thought that we all should carry forward.  It's a reasonable description of her situation and trying to maintain some of the relationships in her life right now.  Someone else might describe their family relationships as a field of daisies, and someone else like a mountain path, someone else as a dark abyss of doom and someone else like a lovely stream with occassional rapids and storm.  

I totally agree that the end result is likely a mish mash of sources, writing, promptings, etc.

Maybe Jill and/or her ghost writer are into 80's music!  😂

 

Edited September 16, 2023 by catz

[freesia]

I think it means that we have a tendency to be black and white about how we see things. We think it’s either good or bad. So, if we look back and see good it can be hard to reconcile it when we also see bad. She’s saying it’s ok to see that the good things and the bad things were both true. One doesn’t negate the other. In her case, there was a lot about her childhood and parents that she enjoyed and treasures. Those experiences are not negated by the abusive control that she also experienced. Neither is the abuse negated by the good times. 
 

Someone close to me was involved with a toxic narcissist.  For years every time they told the story, they were told this person had been abusive. They rejected that bc if the care and support they had felt from this person. It took years of maturing and some counseling for this person to be able to understand that just because there are good aspects to the relationship didn’t mean the guy wasn’t also abusive. And just bc he was toxic didn’t mean there weren’t any good times. That was a big step and allowed my person to move on. I thought of this when I read those lines. 
 

Boundaries and contact are separate. Good times or love don’t really impact what a healthy level of interaction is. If you set a boundary and your person continues to hurt you, you need to control your interaction no matter how many good memories/feeling of love you have for that person. You can love them fully and cherish wonderful memories with a person and still not have them in your life if they are abusive. 

[Harriet Vane]

25 minutes ago, catz said:

I didn't mean to make judgement either way.  I am not trying to cut Jill down at all. Just that there is a ghost writer involved and I would be careful subscribing a ton of weight to a quote from the book like the OP seemed to.  Having gotten through the book, I don't even get the feeling Jill would be comfortable with quotes pulled and over analyzed to be applied beyond her situation.    There are biblical references to rose and thorns, that idiom is old and can be seen in a lot of lit sources.  It's not like she OR the ghost writer originated "every rose has its thorn".

I think Lecka said it well when she said she doesn't read it as prescriptive.  It's an artistic way of describing Jill's situation at this moment in time.  The words and metaphor application may or may not be Jill's.  But either way, I wouldn't read into it like a great unveiling of philosophical thought that we all should carry forward.  It's a reasonable description of her situation and trying to maintain some of the relationships in her life right now.  Someone else might describe their family relationships as a field of daisies, and someone else like a mountain path, someone else as a dark abyss of doom and someone else like a lovely stream with occassional rapids and storm.  

I totally agree that the end result is likely a mish mash of sources, writing, promptings, etc.

Maybe Jill and/or her ghost writer are into 80's music!  😂

 

I love that song! May 80s music live on forever!😎

And yes, I agree fully with the way you've framed it here.

[Indigo Blue]

I’m not a writer, but I’m familiar with someone using a ghostwriter. I have always assumed that a person used a ghostwriter on a spectrum of sorts. Meaning they used the ghostwriter a little or a lot, depending. But I always have assumed that anyone who publishes a book is aware of what is in their book, reads it over, and gives their stamp of approval and the okay, “yes, this is true to my experience even though you have written it more eloquently than I could have, and I give the final approval to publish as is”. 
 

So, am I understanding correctly that people may use a ghostwriter and monitor very little or not at all? Because, to me, that’s leaning toward becoming a biography. Am I totally clueless here?

I can totally believe that she may not have written my quoted paragraph herself, but I was certain she must have surely read it and thought, yes, this is what I want to say. This is how I feel. 
 

She also very well could have written that herself. There is no way to really know. 

 

 

Edited September 16, 2023 by Indigo Blue

[Indigo Blue]

Thanks for all the thought- provoking replies. 
 

That particular paragraph just stuck out to me, and I wanted to get some thoughts out about it. 

[Indigo Blue]

@Harriet Vanethank you for giving your perspective as a professional writer. 

2 hours ago, Harriet Vane said:

Those of us who have had to grow up in unhappy homes feel the push-pull of this acutely.

And this is so true!

[Ginevra]

6 hours ago, Indigo Blue said:

Do you think that means one should not be harsh and cut off family? That one should set boundaries accordingly but be loving as you are able despite what they do? 

Or is she simply saying that we should set our boundaries as tightly as needed, even to the point of cutoff, but keeping the love of one’s family in your heart so that we don’t let ourselves become a different type of person….a harsher, more hard version of ourselves?

I think it means that she is not telling other people how tight their boundaries need to be; just that you can decide with your spouse where to place them. For her, for example, she would surely not sign anything her dad cooks up again; she does not trust him to have her best interests at heart when it comes to money/fame things. So that’s wisdom. But it does not mean she has to banish her whole family from her life forever. 

Other people will have to decide what is warranted in their own families. I never cut my family off entirely but I did decide there were places I wasn’t inviting my mom or dad in because too much knowledge gave them too much power. Essentially what they call the “Grey Rock”. 

 

[Harriet Vane]

5 hours ago, Indigo Blue said:

I’m not a writer, but I’m familiar with someone using a ghostwriter. I have always assumed that a person used a ghostwriter on a spectrum of sorts. Meaning they used the ghostwriter a little or a lot, depending. But I always have assumed that anyone who publishes a book is aware of what is in their book, reads it over, and gives their stamp of approval and the okay, “yes, this is true to my experience even though you have written it more eloquently than I could have, and I give the final approval to publish as is”. 
 

So, am I understanding correctly that people may use a ghostwriter and monitor very little or not at all? Because, to me, that’s leaning toward becoming a biography. Am I totally clueless here?

I can totally believe that she may not have written my quoted paragraph herself, but I was certain she must have surely read it and thought, yes, this is what I want to say. This is how I feel. 
 

She also very well could have written that herself. There is no way to really know. 

 

 

Typically the narrator will read every word the ghost writer writes. Most people want to be sure that they like what is written and that they agree with it. 

[Katy]

So Jill did cut off her dad, but is still on the family group text messages. At one point her husband said if he didn't stop individually contacting her, they would file a protective order.

https://www.today.com/parents/jill-duggar-dillard-dad-jim-bob-duggars-reaction-book-rcna105274

[ktgrok]

Keep in mind that really, she doesn't have to be the one to limit contact, because her father has already taken that step. She is sticking to her boudnaries of not letting him control her which means HE stepped back. She didn't have to.