What do you think?
Rate this book


271 pages, Paperback
First published June 1, 2009
Cora: “Emma and Stacy went to the mall without asking me. What kind of friends are they, anyway? I hate them, but all I can do is think about how I want to be invited to join them.” Cora is experiencing the classic social bind – wanting inclusion, feeling terribly vulnerable about exclusion, and having the mixed feelings of love and hatred for complicated friends.All of which I guess is to say that Cora’s only really looking for a sounding board, not a problem-solver. So it stands to reason that even well-meaning (but unsolicited) attempts to offer suggestions will come across as patronizing. Especially in a teen who’s already hormonally-triggered to establish an independent identity and instinctively ready to reject at face value anything her mom has to suggest. This particular dialogue continues along in this vein for another two pages. It’s a believable scene, but nothing much gets resolved.
Mom (Franny): “These kinds of binds are the worst. I know all teens go through them, but it doesn’t make it any easier. What about doing something with Lizzy?” Mom tries to offer the best medicine when responding to a young teen’s upset: empathy, a rational perspective, and an attempt at solving the problem.
Cora: “I don’t want to be with Lizzy! She’s irritating. All she does is talk about her orchestra friends. She’s a total nerd. Why do you always push me toward Lizzy? I want to hang out with Emma.” Mom can try her best, but when a teen needs to unload her emotion on the nearest safe and secure relationship, she’ll find a way. Moreover, she has detected Mom’s agenda to encourage a friendship with a nicer friend.
Mom: ”She never speaks ill of you. How dare you!”Group hug! The thing about the TA approach to relationships is that it places great emphasis on negotiation, whether or not the participants are (capable of or even intent upon) communicating their needs directly. While those needs can be as simple as “I need some attention now,” just following social convention (“I’m hungry, but culture dictates I not ignore you in pursuit of food”), inarticulable (“I need a diversion that stops me from feeling scared and spares me the ongoing embarrassment of showing fear”), or even layered (“I’m hungry and I want company and…”), every interaction represents a quid-pro-quo (that’s the transaction), which, once deciphered, can then be accepted, rejected, or modified. But then, there are far better books out there on negotiation, beginning and possibly ending with Roger Fisher William L. Ury’s bible Getting to Yes, which in theory ought to allow you to ju-jitsu yourself reasonably out of every messy bind you find yourself in (or just cut bait, which Fisher & Ury admit is sometimes necessary).
Kastner (interrupting): “You were watching your parents pretty closely there, Jameel, before you chimed in to side with your dad. What would happen if you didn’t jump in like that?”
Jameel: “I don’t know. I guess we’d get to watch them drive each other crazy, like Mom said.”
Kastner (to Jameel): “How helpful of you to draw off the fire. It seems like you are pretty good at drawing a lot of fire…”
“Yeah, I guess that’s what I’m real good at – drawing fire.”
C--Cool down (self-soothe; control yourself-without trying to control anyone else).
A--Assess options (what are the issues? would it be better to keep talking or postpone?).
L--Listen with empathy (without any "buts" and when you re-engage, start over).
M-Make a plan (consider ways to handle the meltdown and move forward).