I'm still not sure if this was a great book or a terrible book to read while 38-weeks pregnant. I didn't go looking for Far from the Tree, but I came across a copy a few days ago and felt drawn to it. Throughout this pregnancy (my first) I've felt terrified by the possibility of having a child with a serious intellectual disability. It really bothers me that I feel this way, and I was hoping that this book might help me understand why the thought upsets me so much, and even see how I might come to terms with that situation, should it arise. I think Far from the Tree did help me with this in some ways, but it transmitted a previously nonexistent horror of having a kid with severe autism, so I'm not sure I came out ahead.
This is a pretty long book and I read it in three days without doing much else, so in some ways I obviously must have really liked it. In other ways, though, I had some issues with it, and I'm not sure which star rating to give -- it's either a three or a four.
Okay, so this sounds incredibly cheesy to say, but my heart loved this book while my brain kind of hated it. If you're familiar with the existing discourse surrounding Solomon's topics, and if you expect certain, I don't know, scholarly or intellectual conventions to be followed, there's a lot in here to make you uncomfortable as you read. First, there's a huge conceptual leap of faith in accepting the book's basic premise: Solomon is a gay man born in 1963, and organizes the book in reference to his parents' negative reaction to his homosexuality. He describes homosexuality as a "horizontal identity," not shared with his parents, as opposed to a "vertical" one, which in his case would be qualifiers he shared with them, such as rich, white, and Manhattanite (more on those later). Solomon's homosexuality is thus the controlling metaphor for the very widely varied categories of children he explores: he looks at the relationship between parents who are not and their kids who are deaf, dwarves, affected by Down syndrome, autistic, schizophrenic, severely disabled, musical prodigies, the product of rape, convicted of crimes, and transgender. While the categories in the first half of the book share an obvious consistency, some of the later categories are at best odd and at worst incredibly problematic. Solomon's continued references to his own experience being gay are supposed to function as the glue that holds this all together, and for me this just didn't work. The chapter on children of rape was the most bizarrely out of place: it seemed like he was trying to make this completely divergent topic fit with his other material, but for me it just didn't on any level. The chapter about kids who commit crimes was similarly disparate, and had some real internal problems of its own. The one on musical prodigies, which fit a bit better with the disability stuff, I found tiresome for the most part and if you're not interested in classical music or the people who play it, I might suggest skipping it (there were two interviews I liked -- both of Chinese-American boy prodigies and their mothers -- but I wish he hadn't focused exclusively on the musical set if he was going to look at prodigies, because it veered off into a discussion of classical music that felt irrelevant to the rest of the book and personally bored me a lot).
More distressingly, Andrew Solomon has a tone deafness about class that for me undermined the entire book. While I didn't keep a formal count, it seemed that an overwhelming majority of the families he interviewed in the first (disability) half of the book were extraordinarily well off. This made some sense when he was seeking out parents who'd started schools and organizations, since it follows that that population would have more than the usual amount of resources, but a lot of the families hadn't done anything like that, and it was hard to understand the enormous overrepresentation of rich, Ivy-educated Manhattanites, except by recalling that this describes Solomon's own (vertical) identity. As other reviewers on here have noted, presenting mostly families who have vast economic and social resources presents a very incomplete picture of what it's like for most people to raise a disabled child. There were a few working-class families interviewed here and there, and these were among the more compelling stories in many ways.
While it did not suffer from any such focus on people of great means, the lack of attention to social class and context was most glaring in the "Crime" chapter of the book, which was also the most problematic in its lack of any clear guiding theory or method. This section didn't make sense to me with the rest of the book, and Solomon seems to see no difference between an inner city gang member robbing people, on the one hand, and Dylan Klebold's mass shooting at Columbine, on the other. For Solomon, crime is crime, whether its origins are in drug addition, poverty, or sociopathy, and whether the crime in question is child molestation or robbery. This is so alien to my own understanding of crime, and of the variation in parents' responses to their children's crimes, that this chapter was difficult at times for me to read.
Solomon covered several topics I already know a lot about, and for me these tended to be the weaker chapters and the ones that made me most uncomfortable. While he is conversant with the discourse of disability rights, he is also at many times critical of it. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but in places I felt he missed some important points about people's right to determination. The schizophrenia chapter was another one I didn't like and felt was deceptively selective in the people it represented. Nearly all the schizophrenics he talks about are on Clozaril, which makes sense in a way since he's interested in the most extreme cases, but in another way it doesn't. I also felt that the paucity of the schizophrenic subjects speaking for themselves here, as opposed to being largely represented by their families' narratives, was a bit hard to understand given that these subjects were all adults and capable of language. I've worked with a lot of people with schizophrenia and felt he made the disease sound like a much more totalizing, dehumanizing force than it usually is, and his dismissal of mentally-ill activists felt very dismissive and paternalistic. Much of this was because of his focus on very sick (and, it seemed to me, perhaps disproportionally violent) people, which to some extent makes sense, but I felt it painted a more extreme and bleak picture of schizophrenia than I myself have after years of working in the mental health field. If I hadn't known a lot of schizophrenics who live compromised but not completely horrible lives, Solomon's portrayal would've freaked me out and made me think schizophrenia was the worst thing in the world. This made me question his credibility in the chapters about things I know less about -- such as autism -- that had made a big impression on (i.e., scared the shit out of) me.
So those are some of the issues that I had with the book. Basically, I could have done with a lot less of Solomon's personal pronouncements and analysis, which I sometimes strongly disagreed with and sometimes just found unnecessary and inadequately justified. As I read, I had a very active, angsty critical response that kept being upset by characterizations and generalizations that seemed problematic to me.
But despite all these objections, Far from the Tree is in many respects an exceptionally fine book. While I never bought into the central premise that these subjects are all connected, nearly all of them are fascinating and the breadth of his research is astonishing. What is most impressive, though, is Solomon's skill as an interviewer. Andrew Solomon is clearly a very gifted person who is able to get his subjects to express themselves eloquently about the most intensely emotional and private topics, and then represent their voices and narratives in a way that throws all their dignity and the complexity of human experience into gorgeous relief. If you take out all the problematic stuff this book is a series of narratives, and they are almost all fascinating and profoundly moving. I kind of wish he'd done it as a Stud Terkeley-type oral history and just let his subjects speak for themselves, but that probably wouldn't have worked to make a coherent book, though I might've liked it more.
The book's theme is about parents loving a child who is different from them, whose experience is not what they expected for their offspring and that on some level remains incomprehensible to the parents. It's also about the challenges of raising kids who need a lot of accommodation and support that most other kids don't. Solomon claims in the title and inside that the book is about "the search for identity" but I felt this was an inconsistent theme. This inconsistency reflected the central problem with his basing this on personal experience being gay, which seemed much less relevant in some chapters than in others. It worked in some ways for the Deaf chapter, though not entirely; it worked best in the Trans chapter, which is probably why this struck me as one of the more nuanced and less objectionable treatments in the book.
Toward the end, Solomon quotes William Dean Howells's assertion that "what the American public always wants is a tragedy with a happy ending." With his book Solomon "seeks the nobility buried in Howells's disparagement," and he finds it. The intensity of pain represented by the stories here is nearly overwhelming. What sticks with me most at the end is not so much the physical torments of young children born with severe physical disabilities, but the shocking cruelty and ignorance of other people, in particular the heartlessness of medical staff. Over and over again, parents reported comments by doctors that made me cry when I read them. One example: "Louis asked the doctor whether [his newborn infant] was going to be okay. 'I wouldn't rush to endow a chair at Harvard for her,' he said. Louis and Greta were outraged. 'I couldn't believe that was how he'd tell me that my daughter was likely to be profoundly retarded,' Louis said." Uh, yeah, it's a little hard to believe? But that's really mild compared to many other stories showing how often doctors and the wider society have told parents that there is something so severely wrong with their children that these children aren't deserving of love.
The happy ending of this tragedy is that these parents nearly all do love their children, fiercely and often at the cost of enormous sacrifice and effort, and always in a way that is transformative to the parent, which sounds corny but in the book it really isn't. One really striking thing is how many of the parents said, even after losing their children to early death, that they would never exchange that experience or child for a different one, and that this child was the best thing that ever happened to them. The whole book is about the strength of parental love, which sounds dumb, but it does avoid saccharine cliches, evident by its darkness in the areas where there are exceptions -- most disturbingly, for me, in the autism chapter, which represented the most miserable group of parents aside from the rape victims, which I don't really count because I don't think the rape section fit into the book.
Far from the Tree did make me think more about why the idea of having an intellectually disabled child upsets me so much. The answer was somewhat illuminating, and made me think a lot about being a parent, and why I'm doing it, and what I need to consider more carefully. A big theme of this book was that parents have expectations of what their children are going to be like, and that they tend to want their children to be like them. While obviously any parent would hate to see her child sick or in pain and most of us want our kids to have as few obstacles to overcome as possible, the thought of having a kid who is, say, deaf or who can't walk doesn't freak me out. While I do value my mobility and really hope my kid has that advantage too, my ability to hear and walk, like being attracted to men, isn't something I feel defines me in an important way and I don't have a strong emotional attachment to my daughter doing those things. But when I think about raising a kid, I do fantasize about teaching her to read, and look forward to watching her learn to think and articulate her thoughts with words, because these are things I care about, that are important to my sense of who I am and why I enjoy living in the world. I also look forward to seeing her interact with other people and form personal relationships, because while I might not be very good at it, my sense of connection with others is hugely important to me. So ultimately, being afraid to have a kid who is very limited mentally, who isn't highly verbal or who lacks the ability to form connections with others, springs from my own narcissism. In wanting a daughter who'll be capable of and interested in these things that I value, I'm not so different from the aging football star who tries to force his son to become quarterback, or the super-feminine mom dismayed by a daughter who takes androgens and goes by Steve. You shouldn't have children because you want them to be like you, and you need to let go of your expectations of how your kids will be because however they are you're going to need to love them. This book helped me think about that, and it also helped me conceptualize how a parent's hopes and expectations for her kid can be really damaging, if they're inflexible or overvalued. Solomon uses disability and other difference almost metaphorically to illustrate how parental love must not be contingent, and how difficult that can be for parents truly to understand and put into practice. This was one level where his gay thing did sort of work in pulling it together, and where most of the disparate topics gained some kind of cohesion.
While his book did a good job of illustrating these points, they're hard to remember. When I got to the largely incongruous and mostly boring Prodigies chapter (which seems to have been written when Solomon got burned out halfway through and decided to have a little fun about something he personally enjoys but I don't, i.e., classical music), I was like, "Jesus, my kid better not want music lessons, dragging her around to all those practices, and sitting through fucking recitals, ugh, I'd die..." Then I jarringly remembered that just three chapters earlier I'd sworn I'd be thrilled as hell to wind up with any kid who isn't physically assaultive, nonverbal, and prone to smearing shit all over the walls.
Obviously, I could totally wind up with a kid who does all these things, or who, despite my fervent hopes, plays violin. Far from the Tree simultaneously terrified me by making me read story after story about children missing parts of their brains who will never be able to care for themselves, and also comforted me, by showing that in these situations, many (though not all) parents are able to step up to the plate. Far from the Tree demonstrated that you don't stay the same person you were when necessity demands more from you. I think Solomon does a great job of showing the dangers of hagiographies and depictions of these parents that make them seem like superheroes, while showing the strength that people do display when faced with really difficult situations. I cried like fifty times while reading this book, sometimes in horror and despair at human cruelty and suffering, but more often at stories of people proving themselves to be highly decent human beings. It is an optimistic book: things are generally better now than at any time for most of these groups of people -- though as Solomon discusses in depth, selective abortion is shrinking the numbers of some, such as those with Down syndrome, even as public understanding and access to services improve. And while there are certainly tons of shitty, terrible people and parents out there, there are also good people and good parents, which is a comforting thought as for the first time I prepare to try and become one myself.