I had high hopes for this from the forward. Smarsh mentions Parton's grace and contrasts it to today's political climate that is so hateful. So I hoped this would show me the feminism she finds in Parton's work and words. Because one of the things I like about Dolly Parton is how generous she is, how antithetical to hate, and how she does her best to steer clear of politics by keeping her remarks personal and full of love and encouragement.
Since Parton explicitly denies being a "feminist" (as she does any other overtly political designation), I was interested in seeing the case Smarsh would make because I agree with the premise that Parton's work has a strong thread of feminism in it. She calls out inequalities without fear. And she doesn't hesitate to dig into the darker side of the unequal burden women often bear in sexual contexts. And I've always admired how Parton leans into her own sexuality and deftly neutralizes those who would shame her for it with genuine wit and daring to speak the unspoken truths at the heart of hypocrisy aimed her way.
And Smarsh does a passable job with Parton's history by tying it into her own. What could have sounded self-serving with a side of over-sharing came across as a genuine attempt to connect with her subject. Smarsh doesn't sugar coat her origins, but she doesn't, uh, dirt-coat it, either, if you get what I'm trying to say. It feels sincere and the parallels she calls out work. And at least some of that is because she's willing to show parts of departure and mismatch while she was at it. This drew me in as a reader and did a good job showing why Smarsh identifies so strongly with Parton and why her own feminism is rooted in those same roots that formed Parton.
I was deeply disappointed, therefore, to see that one of Parton's strongest virtues (or virtue that I value highly, at any rate) is completely ignored by Smarsh. The forward calls it "grace" and I think that's a good designation. Parton is a balm in hateful times. I get the feeling that she truly cares about people as individuals and that her compassion is ginormous. But if Parton is reaching for grace, then Smarsh is explicitly going the opposite direction. By the middle of this collection, it becomes clear that Smarsh is drawing battle lines and hoping to enlist Parton's authority as a partisan on her side. Dolly has always been strongly pro-LGBTQ, expressing admiration for folks in that community, and, for example, being flattered and thrilled with the drag-queen contingent based on her own image that's so prominent there. Smarsh uses this generosity as a wedge to pull Parton to the progressive side and declare Parton something she's never declared herself.
So Dolly is part of her "us" and therefore must be against "them". It feels like, to Smarsh, conservatives are hateful bigots who must be countered at every turn and the essays here are, at least in part, a projection of those attitudes onto Dolly Parton. And she may be right. I don't know Parton's heart or true opinion. I get the feeling that very few do. But to Smarsh, "She come by it natural" becomes a way of saying that of course, Dolly is as much a feminist as Gloria Steinem (a comparison she explicitly makes a time or two) because who wouldn't be, having experienced the background they share?
Anyway, it feels like Smarsh has missed the key attribute that makes Dolly Parton so beloved. Every fan feels like they'd be welcomed by Dolly should they, by chance, meet. Even those fans who drive trucks or have Trump bumper stickers on their cars feel like she wouldn't shun or scold them should they fall into conversation somewhere, even if she had seen the bumper stickers or run across them outside a political rally. This is nowhere more obvious than a performance before president Bush and his wife where Dolly says something complimentary to Barbara Bush. I've seen that clip and I remember thinking that Dolly was being as genuine as ever in pulling out someone who was, perhaps, overlooked, and giving them some of her spotlight. Smarsh saw a deliberate slight to a "powerful man" in a venue where he couldn't object. Same event. Two different interpretations. I dunno, Smarsh may be correct. I'm no Dolly whisperer. But I kind of hope not and in my internal world, I choose to believe Dolly Parton is just as generous, full of grace, as she comes across in so many of her appearances, interviews, and captured moments.
So now I'm having a hard time rating this. Smarsh does some outstanding work, pulling forward a narrative through their shared background. And it feels honest and genuine as she does so. So I'm glad she chose to be so publicly vulnerable, at least in that way. But the political interpretations felt like a disservice and made it feel like all of that was just to pitch the same tawdry disdain, even hate, that so many of us are tired of, right now. I think I'll go with three stars. It was an interesting narrative that was solidly four star material, possibly higher, before she watered it down by projecting her politics on the narrative.
A note about Politics: I hate doing this because I don't do politics in public any more and I'd hate this review to be seen as an invitation to engage on that level. So for the sake of those strongly one side or another who want to convince me to take sides, please don't. I have zero respect for either political party in the U.S., my home. As far as I can tell, the biggest problem with politics is that it's full of politicians. I mean, I guess it's good that we've found a way to identify the unscrupulous and corrupt so easily just by dangling a little power in front of them. But I'd prefer not to have anything to do with them if given a choice. Especially in this time when such discussions turn acrimonious and hateful on a dime.