When Pauline Dakin was 23 years old, her mother and her mother’s United Church of Canada minister friend, Stan Sears, arranged for her to meet with them at an out-of-the-way New Brunswick motel. They wanted to explain why it was that Pauline, her younger brother Ted, and mother Ruth had been on the run since Pauline was around seven. Pauline was told that because Sears had counselled an ex-Mafia operative (who’d been trying to mend his ways) and because Ruth had been married to a man (Pauline’s father) whose success in the financial sector was due to his connections with organized crime, Sears and his wife Sybil, as well as Ruth Dakin and her two kids were (and continued to be) under the surveillance of organized crime. Underworld kingpins apparently believed the Sears and the Dakin families possessed too much information about mafia operations and needed to be taken out. According to Sears, an elaborate shadowy anti-Mafia system (known only to Canada’s Privy Council) was in place to protect members of the two families. Trusting Sears and her mother, Pauline lived in a sort of paranoid state for some years after this meeting. She was frequently updated by Sears and/or her mother as to the activities of “O”—organized crime—and the forces of good that were attempting to keep the Sears and Dakin families safe.
Dakin’s story was far better suited to be a newspaper or magazine feature piece than a memoir. At over 300 pages, it is an incredibly tedious read. It doesn’t take too long for the reader to figure out that though Sears apparently functioned well in the “real world”, he appears to have been deluded (in a full-blown psychiatric sense) and that Ruth Dakin was as well. It is also quite possible he was a sociopathic con man par excellence. The author tries too hard to defend her mother, even going so far as to suggest she possessed sound critical faculties. Yes, really. Clearly, Ruth and Stan had more than just a few screws loose.
I completed the book only because I was curious about how Dakin would explain this folie a deux—not particularly satisfactorily, it turns out.
In more capable hands, the story might have made for an interesting book, but Dakin is such a bland writer and provides so many unnecessary details, it didn’t stand much of a chance. In the end, I felt the all-too-familiar resentment that occurs when I’ve persisted with something that I had doubts about from the start. Books on people’s capacity to delude themselves, and take vulnerable children with them along for the ride, can be valuable cautionary pieces. So much of this book, however, was repetitive, saccharine, and unnecessary. Clearly, my response is not that of the majority, but I’d still advise: don’t waste your time!