As most ethnic groups that live close together and children are in private schools, this book certainly sheds a bad light on that particular Chasidic group. Long-time residents with shared backgrounds usually care for their elderly and absorb and protect their “different” individuals. Maybe there were more parts to the story, as the perspective was from child to young adult, yet, there was little mention of others in their shul or neighborhood supporting or helping this family. The word “crazy” continued. I’ve rolled over sixty-seven years, and I would never have been allowed to call a person “crazy.” She also refers to herself as an idiot – a classification that has not been used for years. “Crazy” is insulting and shows the lack of empathy, not just diagnosis. That word would not have been in her school text. Before the author was born, my small, Midwestern town knew of such children and their disorders; they were special needs children before the name – this book seems 1800’s to me.
Delivery of past and present between paragraphs at times, slight confusion. This is a story that should be shared with humanity for the sake of autistic spectrum disorder and I think it’s possible in this memoiristic approach, this added a healing aspect to tell her story, and lack of disaster in the end for her brother.
I expected a tad more from someone with a masters in creative writing. It’s not difficult to retell, describe an existing story of your life. Plus, it’s been written once in another form. The prose is above average, narration very good, yet lacked depth for me. She nabbed conveying the words and thoughts of a child and carried that voice consistently. The title of the book, I consider good for the reader, you question if it means she did not love her brother; this could allude to the balance throughout the book of whether her parents actually loved each other; or are these words put together for the title to alert that the entire book is not a bed of roses read? It is a unique story because of the religiosity; however the circumstances are not unique. There could be the denouement, yet, she presents new fears at the end as she had questioned genetics with her first pregnancy and again during the second baby. Book reviews are to highlight strong and weak points of a book, which those views are merely the views of one reader. Rarely do I criticize more than one element of a book, yet, again, this is an educated writer and I believe it offers feedback for future writings. There are general rules of how many times, in a manuscript, should an author begin a sentence with “I.” Scanning this book, it’s overladen with such sentences or paragraph introductions. Another example was the description, “It was dark outside, the moon dangling from the clouds like an old man’s lantern.” In many high school or college classes, points subtracted if making an analogy and no substitution for the word, “like.”
I enjoyed the historical elements of her family as that added depth and reasoning for her questioning some of the oral traditions. Believe she could have shortened her word count by eliminating some of the repetitions of her ancestry, it was crucial, but excess invites criticism.
Also, because the author mentioned wigs, her mother’s and others, I think the reader deserves one to two sentences explaining the custom. Since she spoke of Talmud teachings, this could be introduced under that category. I’m Jewish, so this element was descriptive, yet not all Jews are cognizant of whether this is to create privacy; head covering as the men do with a kippah; or head covering to place a psychological barrier between wearer and others – which could have played well into this story as many in her community did not help or support their challenged child. For those (millions) who have never heard of this practice, I think it should have a short explanation.
When a writer introduces a character (Kathy) and mentions the person several times – three-fourths of the book, shouldn’t there be some closure on Kathy? I think last mentioned is her gift for Nachum for his bar mitzvah. If there was such a neighbor, given the name Kathy for the book, that was a good example of their friendship and the role she played in Menuchah’s life, contrasting the teaching of fearing and not associating with goyim. Nonetheless, she vanished. Menuchah when to college and did not keep in touch with her forbidden friend, or Kathy and husband moved?
One book review stated: “ . . . an honest critical eye and a gentleness.” As an avid reader, the critical eye would have been the last physician who was able to diagnosis and help her brother. (One has to think there was someone in the U.S. to make this diagnosis.) Otherwise, I read it as caring parents, respectful siblings and a loving family in Israel. The sister’s critical eye was mere criticism without opening her eyes until she had experienced many birthdays and even then, there were times she still questioned her brother, knowing he did not . . . and could not and did not want to go back to the times of his youth. By page 330 she submitted five questions to him as they walked, knowing this approach was disturbing.
As I’ve now investigated more information on the author, (I knew of the first book, but had not read it) if correct, she states she is now agnostic. That might be why she did not hyphenate the word G-d. I support any world religion, agnostics and atheists – the last two many times are in the hard sciences. There are probably many reasons she chose to leave that sect, maybe one of them was, as I stated, the lack of support. For my sake, I hope they were not as cold as portrayed and her teacher, Mrs. Friedman, well, she could have been a nun in another story. :smiling: Just my personal observation, I have sometimes been surprised at the level of education of many Chasidic Jews, yet, their holdings to what I would consider superstitious, has surprised me. Superstitions were commonly connected with lower socioeconomic and educational levels. A perfect example would be the lack of communication in her immediate family and the notion of tapping on Nachum’s lip before birth. Extensive detail toward Shabbat and tradition yet comes across as people having too many children and lack of time to enjoy and communicate with each one of them.
This is painful to put in print, but throughout the book, I could think of one word, “brat.” It wasn’t because her disciplines were a stare or a higher pitch to her mother’s voice, she appeared to be quite rebellious, and discipline does not always address that issue, she didn’t appear to love anyone in her life and not respectful of rules or others; or, unable to write to that depth although now a prolific writer? Maybe it was merely this book? Thousands of Americans have tragedy in their immediate family, yet they still form kindness and humor at a young age. There were a few examples of affection with her teasing father, and maybe the author was trying to show this void – to exhibit the crisis and flaws. The occurrence of her mother and her exasperation were understood in print and the loving, accepting family in Israel brought some warmth to the read. (Where these book reviews promised humor, uh, I saw none.) Either a cold child – she being “handicapped” for lack of caring, friendship toward others after a certain age . . . or the beginning of a narcissistic personality when honest empathy is not possible? Brother and sister having an adult conversation when she realizes he has read an article she published about him, not expecting him to read that, there is this exchange: “’Yih-yes,’ he answered. ‘But – but. But when you were a little girl – you, you you – you were also autistic?’” What did I miss? Did the book imply she was at a higher level in the autistic spectrum, therefore explaining her behaviors?