[Rollercoasterider]

I am considering putting this review on Amazon. It's long, but that's me.

This Is Not The Story You Think It Is is an apt title springing from her successful essay in the Modern Love column of the New York Times, I expected this book to be an expansion of the original essay which was, in general, about maintaining a marriage when one partner—in personal crisis—wants out. In her defense, I think that was the author’s intention.
On page 1 the reader learns that her  “husband left last night to go to the dump after announcing that he isn't sure he loves me anymore... and nine hours later, still hasn't come back.” On page 70 the reader learns that he finally calls after about 32 hours. But once she completes her introductory chapter of thoughts about what she feels and is going to do, she wanders into backward reflection, reviewing their early courtship and marriage and their idealistic dreams of escaping privileged upbringings to be free. But page 70 does not resume the story; it is a line of reference breaking up her sentimental journaling.

Her references to privilege and idealism become long-winded in their repetition.

…Or maybe you could just forgive me now for being privileged and still having the audacity to claim there’s ever been pain in my life. And you’ll be kind. And I won’t have to write the damn chapter about WASP society. I’m sensitive about this. There’s nothing I loathe more on the page than poor-little-rich-girl syndrome. But I’m telling you—I grew up with some of the richest people in the world. And pain is pain is pain.

It is as though she has a fear that the world will not take her seriously because she came from privilege. The problem is that she lets that fear take over her book by commenting on it in various forms. It is not what the story is about. It may be an important part of her personal context and a well-edited mention may have helped to round out the story. But her description of she and her husband in their early marriages comes off as bohemian wannabes, lacking authenticity. Seattle excited them because it seemed to be snob-free. Is it? Or is it a different sort of snobbery, a reverse snobbery of artists with education and little money trying to be shabby chic. She describes Montana in similar tones, it wasn’t putting on airs. Her airs are about putting on airs.

Is she worried that the reader will not trust her story? Authenticity is in the telling and the fulfillment of the story’s promise made in the opening lines.

There is nothing wrong with journaling; it is a method of processing. But it is personal and thus may seem self-absorbed when made public.

It’s like when you want to confront someone and you’re advised to write the “bad letter” first. Then throw it away and write a new one. This book is the “bad letter.

At least she is aware. I agree that this book is the bad letter. Up to this point and beyond it, this book is thoughts, such as those that go through my head as I simmer prior to writing. They are frequently sentimental musings I edit away before putting pen to paper, or they go in my journal—which may be in an electronic and public format, but is still a journal.
The story resumes on page 126, but even then it is tidbits of the story between the author’s nostalgia of things past rather than her experience of things present. It is not until the page 14o, the 10th chapter, that the story becomes the focus of the content. Though it remains diffuse and unfocused, the relationship of the author with her husband in crisis remains the focal point for more than 100 pages. But on page 257, the 17th chapter, she starts to meander again.

As literature the meandering content is suitable for individual essays or for journaling, but to make a story—memoir is still story—it needs to be tighter, more focused. Perhaps then the problem is not the author, but her editor who either did not encourage or insist upon mass reduction of extraneous musing or who may have instead encouraged inclusion of the meandering to set the back story. But a story is a promise given in the opening lines and fulfilled throughout. The promised story in this circumstance was about the marriage through crisis. Yes, it was about choosing happiness and choosing not to suffer, but those concepts were nestled in the framework of the relationship. It is for this reason that I give this 3 stars—I was torn between 2 and 3.

But I write for the spouses of men and women who are in a midlife crisis—the left behind spouses who do not want their marriage to end. Though the authors’ skill in bringing the topic to the page was in my opinion lacking due to her lack of focus, I still feel this is an important topic and thus an important book for left behind spouses to read.

Laura Munson’s skill was in what she did. She stood for her marriage with an awareness I rarely see; she detached her emotions from those of her confused husband and invited peace. I work with left behind spouses; I was a left behind spouse and what Laura did is what I did and what I train those men and women to do. It often takes months and even years to find the state of calm she found immediately and most cases are not resolved within the span of a Summer, or even a year, or even two years. Perhaps Laura’s personal success in detaching and recognizing the crisis was not personal was due to her preparation in therapy. She seems to have had a rare therapist who trained her well.

She invited calm and yet it did not means she was without doubt, fear, frustration, anger… But she trusted her intuition and stepped aside. So I would like to look at some of the things she understood and did—or in some cases some of the things she refused to do.

I refuse to be in the position of oppressor.
This is a dance he’s doing. An aggressive one now. It’s one thing to be in pain and go off like a dying dog for awhile. … But he’s opting instead for something else, and I can see it plain as day. He’s trying to get me mad. So he can play victim to an irate wife.

This is a recognition of his projection. Most people do not grasp this initially and instead take it personally which fuels the fire. It is her detachment that enables her to “see it plain as day.”

“Do you think it’s another woman?” she says.
“I doubt it. He’s too firetrucked in the head right now to have another woman involved.”

Though Laura’s actions were well executed, her knowledge was not always accurate. I see many left behind spouses saying similar words. But that is often when there is infidelity. I am not saying confusion is a sign or symptom of infidelity. But men and women in midlife crisis are lost in their internal chaos are more susceptible to marriage predators. These vulnerable spouses are seeking the feeling created by infatuation—which they will interpret as being in-love. The infatuation chemicals are their addictive medicine for their midlife depression.

Let this [helicopter lessons] be what cures him.

Hope for a guide rather than a cure. There are no cures; life must be experienced.

But I know that I must slowly detach from outcome. Go slowly. Trust.

She verbalizes these ideas to herself, recognizing the power in her affirmations.

What can we do to give you the distance you need, without damaging our family?

She practiced that question with her therapist. It is perfect. If you are a left behind spouse who does not want your marriage to end, write down those words and practice them. For some the time where they can be used may have passed and yet it may also come again—because people in midlife crisis cycle.

…it’s common to get mean when we’re functioning on victimhood, rather than self-responsibility.
So you’re not going to let me have the place in town.
…Good God. He’s making this easy. I never said anything about letting or not letting you do anything.

She picked up in the key word letting. Most are not attentive and attuned enough to catch the subtleties of specific words. But to Laura it was easy. Most left behind spouses at that stage—early—are so attached and emotional that they might agree because they are still trying to control.

I’m afraid I’m going to have a breakdown. I’m losing my mind.
Honey. You’re already there. This is a breakdown. It’s what you do with them that counts.
…What can you commit to? I ask him, suddenly unafraid.
I can commit to our kids. I can commit to the garage studio space. I can commit to looking into helicopter school. I can commit to…I guess I can commit to a future with you. But not with any confidence…whatsoever.

This shows the desire and yet hopelessness within her husband. This is the hopelessness of depression. It is also a typical feeling of those in midlife crisis—though many do not verbalize it to their spouse who is too upset to be able to understand. He wants a future with his wife but doubts in the possibility.

How can he love me if he currently loathes himself?

Precisely. A person must be able to love their Self before they can love others.

Maybe he can find love for himself through his love for the children. And maybe, then, he can find love for me. I am going to live as though that has already happened.

That is her Acting As If affirmation. I believed it from the beginning—truly believed. Affirmations are meant for the present as though what you are saying is true now, to speak them otherwise would be to leave them in the past or to doom them to the eternal future—tomorrow.

But I was in this fog. Couldn’t see past my nose. I couldn’t deal. I just wanted out… But she’s clear. I still love him. That’s the problem. But…I firetrucked up. And now he’s moved on. … And for the most part, I’m alone. It firetrucking sucks.

This is common. Many of the midlifers who leave their spouses regret it in the end. It may not seem like they ever will, but once they come through the crisis and the fog clears, they look back at the life they left and the damage they did to make their hasty exit and they guilt and regret may send them into another depression.

I’m not treating him like he’s been bad. I’ve been this sort of bad, and I know that self-punishment is more than enough.

Many left behind spouses are so caught up in their attached emotions that they want their spouse to feel guilty, not just the healthy guilt, but they want him to feel the pain. They assume that it cannot rival their own pain and they want him to know what hurt feels like. They want his to feel the shame of his abusive actions. Most are not able to let go and trust so quickly. The pain of the midlifer is often significantly greater than the pain of the spouse left behind. The midlifer feels the guilt of leaving the family, he or she is now a bad or irresponsible parent with angry children and a new man or woman pressuring for commitment—and controlling since the midlifer has a spouse at home. The confusion was present before the angry and reactionary behaviours began; the new behaviours merely make the guilt and confusion worse. Laura knows this!

The fact that he’s doing things that are so unlike him has me know even more that this is a crisis of self.

It is this that gives many left behind spouses hope. The spouse in a midlife crisis often becomes his opposite—sometimes this opposite Monster is present only in moments or cycles and sometimes the Monster is always there. But this Monster is so clearly different, that it can enable the realization that you are the spouse of a sick person rather than someone in a bad marriage. It clicked for me a few weeks after the Bomb Drop when my husband’s erratic behaviour was cycling to various age-related personalities within minutes to a few hours of one another.

And here’s what I am convinced of. In fact, I think it’s the key to a relationship. Any relationship:
If you get out of someone’s way, they will fight and they will kick, but eventually, there’s nothing they can do but look at themselves and get real. Or totally self-combust in a life of lies. Or the dear opiate, denial.

Step aside and let them either transfer their projections to someone else (my personal choice is the affair partner), or look in the mirror. Eventually only the mirror will be left.

…abuse is just bait. To get you to be the one who freaks out.

It’s hard not to be a fish when someone is dangling a juicy accusation worm test-to-see-what-I-can-get-away-with worm at you. But if you eat even one worm, you are on the hook.

The next week I tell my therapist that I’m afraid I’m setting a new protocol that we’ll get stuck in.

Yes, this is the fear of cake-eating, enabling and wearing footprint patterned clothing. It is a risk. Laura walked the tightrope and her fears were real and valid. Her therapist helped her to determine boundaries:

I will not put up with violence. Or verbal or physical abuse of our children. I can play at this strategy for quite some time. … But I figure six months would be, for now, dignifiedly pragmatic.

That brings me to the last thing I feel needs a rating. What was the degree of difficulty for what Laura went through? People have referred to her husband as having a serious or even severe midlife crisis. Midlife crisis averages 2-7 years. Laura’s husband never left the home to live somewhere else and returned emotionally and mentally to the marriage within about four months—compared to the range of 24 -84 months. I know midlife crisis and from her descriptions her husband was behaving in typical midlife crisis fashion, that I will not deny. But perhaps he was on the brink and did not fall into crisis. Why? Was it because of how Laura handled the situation?

Partly, but she saved him by refusing to save him; she left him alone to rescue himself. To give her the credit is to discredit the other left behind spouses out there who make the right moves and yet their spouses still leave, still commit adultery, scream hate for a few years…Many in midlife crisis will simply transfer their projections to a willing scapegoat.

For the time Laura spent in the crisis, her degree of difficulty matched that of other left behind spouses—about a 4. The men and women I work with are 4-5. But living at that difficulty for a few months is a cake walk to those of us who lived it for the typical years-long range. And most of the left behind spouses I work with are dealing with infidelity—which exacerbates the problem.

Laura Munson accepted the process of her husband’s crisis and trusted in that process. Acceptance of the process has the benefit that it can shorten the crisis, but that is dependent on the midlifer looking in the mirror. Do your part as a left behind spouse and let the midlifer do their part—or choose to not face the mirror…yet. But a denial of the process will make it longer because a left behind spouse in denial remains attached to the spouse, begging-and-pleading and eating worms. The midlifer has no time for the solitude which is necessary for the mirror work.

[trusting]

Great review.  I had read the article a few months ago and was interested in reading the book.  It sure did seem like she "got off easy" with the length of the crisis seeming to be only a few months. 

[Mermaid]

Thanks for this insightful review. I'd been reading about her story in the papers and wondered what the book would be like. I can certainly learn something from her attitude.
My H saw the story too, some time ago, and his attitude was to recognise similarities with his story, and wanted a wife like that (at that time, I was too busy ranting at him lying to go out with OW).

But yes, it does seem that she got off lightly.

[sambriony]

RCR thanks for a great review.All I will say is she got off lightly this time whos to say her H is complete in his crisis.MH will tell you how her H has appeared to dip in and out of crisis for some time.Maybe Laura journey isnt over yet?

[MarkedandHealed]

RCR, thank you very much. I was going to get the book and despite the obvious flaws, that I already suspected, I think I'll go pick it up tomorrow.

Let's see, now I'll be reading five books at once. LOL.

She did seem to get off easy, but she also did many things right, so let's give her credit for that.

[Buggy31]

Can't wait to read this!  I read this article last summer and had been very curious about the "length" of his crisis.  It seemed so short compared to everything I've read.  I was skeptical.  It's nice to have that aspect of this crisis explored.  I took a very similiar stance and yet the outcome for me has not been a spouse who has moved through the crisis.  My experience has led to cake-eating, denial and cycling.  Each MLCer is truly unique yet it's essential to understand the overall process to respond.

[OldPilot]

For the time Laura spent in the crisis, her degree of difficulty matched that of other left behind spouses—about a 4. The men and women I work with are 4-5.

I question the use of the #4? Is this out of 10? Or 5?
You state that the LBS that you work with is 4-5. Is that almost the same?

Now I have not read the book and only going by your review and the NY Times letter.
To me on a scale of 1-5(5 being the worst).
Laura Munson's husband was a 1 or 2.
I believe most of the people you work with have far worse sich's than Laura Munson.
I would certainly include your husband in that group,only by what you have written.

Overall I think it is a great review of the book.
I also think that maybe the editors felt that MLC by itself was not as good a selling point as the first 140 pages.

BRAVO RCR!!!

[Rollercoasterider]

I question the use of the #4? Is this out of 10? Or 5?
You state that the LBS that you work with is 4-5. Is that almost the same?[/font][/size]

It is out of 5 because I was trying to be consistent to the Amazon rating system.
I considered putting all of us at 5, but I think 4-5 (4.5-5 really) gives those with epsecially severe Monster MLCers some validation. It is hard to have a depressed and low-energy MLCer who lives at home and pain is relative and each perosn will find difficulty in different places. But I think that a taunting Replayer who flaunts the affair in public is especially painful and frightening.

To me on a scale of 1-5 (5 being the worst).
Laura Munson's husband was a 1 or 2.[/font][/size]

I considered rating her degree of difficulty at a 2, but realized that I was doing that when considering the scale of time. Her husband during the brief crisis looks no different than any of the Newbies here who have a spouse at home and no infidelity...yet. He had typical Replay behaviours with projection and Monster spew as well as cycling. Her total degree of difficult over a short MLC--2 years would be diluted, of course. But I want to be fair to what she did experience even though it was brief.

At Bomb Drop Sweetheart's alienator was waiting in the wings, but it was not physical. What I experienced for the first couple months with his cycling, confusion, wanting me more and less all at the same time parallels Laura's experience.

[justasking]

I believe that trying to work out the degree of difficulty in being the LBS is so subjective and all about the resilience of the spouse.

Laura Munson may think she had the MLCer from hell but we know that on the timing issue their journey was much much less than most of ours on the forum. Therefore it is also about whether any research into others journeys is taken into consideration. RCR and OP I know you will have this knowledge and therefore your scoring will be, I believe more accurate.

Joe/Josie Bloggs on the street may standardise her timings as accurate and feel there is no hope if their spouse takes longer to come back. Unless they look for answers and find this or other supportive forums.

[onmyfeet]

I'm confused. I searched for both Laura Munson and This Is Not The Story You Think It Is on Amazon, but didn't find either one.