« Caught between the Easter Bunny and the Empty Grave | Main | Cosmetic Surgery to the Glory of God? »
April 6, 2010Review: Anne Lamott's 'Imperfect Birds'
Flawed characters make this book stand out.
Anne Lamott's seventh novel features alcoholism, drug addiction, and family dysfunction. This will not surprise Lamott's fans. Her characters — including herself in her five nonfiction books — are always "imperfect birds," and some are clearly on the endangered list. Most are also sensitive, funny, intelligent, and frightened by the messes they keep getting themselves into. That's why we love them, and their author, so much.
Imperfect Birds (Riverhead), released today, continues the story of Elizabeth and Rosie Ferguson that began in Rosie (1983) and Crooked Little Heart (1997). You don't have to have read the first two books to understand the third, though a little background can't hurt. Elizabeth is the alcoholic daughter of two alcoholics. Her husband died in a car crash when their daughter, Rosie, was four. A couple of years later, Elizabeth meets James, an alcoholic would-be novelist. Eventually they marry and begin going to AA meetings. By the time Rosie is 9 or 10, her mother is clean and sober, though inclined to paranoid episodes and panic attacks. As Elizabeth battles her demons over the next several years, Rosie faces her own issues — a child molester, a pregnant friend, competition and cheating, and, always, the need for independence from her hovering mother.
By the beginning of Imperfect Birds, it looks as if Elizabeth, still worrying incessantly, has maybe given her 17-year-old daughter more freedom than the woman-child can handle. Rosie has been on the pill for two years, is sexually active, is unreliable and dishonest, drinks, does a wide variety of drugs, and runs with a fast crowd. Elizabeth more or less knows all this (though she is unaware of the full extent of Rosie's misbehavior) but is afraid to intervene. After all, Rosie's grades are good. She is charming. When things go wrong, she always has a plausible excuse. Most of all, if Elizabeth lays down the law, she might lose Rosie's affection, those fleeting moments of mother-daughter bonding for which Elizabeth lives.
The plot is not the reason to read Imperfect Birds: Rosie does bad things. Elizabeth, in deep denial, keeps hoping everything will turn out all right. James, whose denial is more shallow, sometimes nurtures Elizabeth's hopes and sometimes sees reality. Rosie, along with her friends Jody and Alice and Fenn, keeps on doing bad things, until, inevitably, a crisis forces Elizabeth to see clearly and take action.
The imperfect birds — the flawed characters — are what makes this book stand out. Never have Lamott's people seemed so heartbreakingly real. Yes, I say as the mother of former teenagers: I know why Elizabeth wants to believe the best, I feel the bond she has with her wayward but charming daughter, I understand why the time for action never seems to arrive. Yes, I say as a former teenager myself: I know why Rosie needs to get away from her mother's worries, I understand why her group of friends is so important to her. These are real women living, on a grand and tragic scale, the little conflicts all of us face daily as we and our children grow up.
Still, I keep wanting to jump into the story and shake some sense into them. My heart sinks as Rosie repeatedly jeopardizes her health, her sanity, her very life. I grow more exasperated as Elizabeth ignores the mounting pile of evidence that her daughter desperately needs adult intervention. Yet I, the reader, know so much more about what is going on than Elizabeth does. Lamott is letting me see the oncoming disaster, not with my own limited maternal vision, but with God's eyes.
If Lamott didn't have a wacky sense of humor, reading this book might be depressing. If she didn't have an underlying sense of hope, it could be unbearable. But Lamott — herself a recovering substance abuser, the daughter of two alcoholics, and the mother of a young man just leaving his teens — is a spunky survivor, and she invests her own faith, hope, and love in her characters. As in nearly all Lamott's books, God is never far off. Elizabeth is not a believer, but Rae, her best friend, has enough faith for both of them:
Rae was Rosie's authority on all things spiritual, because her beliefs were so simple and kind. You were loved because God loves, period. God loved you, and everyone, not because you believed certain things, but because you were a mess, and lonely, and His or Her child. God loved you no matter how crazy you felt on the inside, no matter what a fake you were; always, even in your current condition, even before coffee. God loves you crazily, like I love you, Rae said, like a slightly overweight auntie, who sees only your marvelousness and need.
When Elizabeth desperately needs to pray, the only god she can imagine is "an entity called 'not me,' lowercase." Rosie believes "in something, some sort of energy field or force, like a cross between the oceans and their cat, Rascal." It is enough. Eventually truth begins to set them free.
Which is not to say that the ending is happy, or that it is unhappy. Elizabeth and Rosie still have a long way to go. This will not surprise Lamott's fans, who expect her books to be a lot like life. But funnier — even when they are breaking your heart.
For more on Lamott's faith, see Agnieszka Tennant's delightful 2003 interview for Christianity Today magazine.

Comments
Unless something has drastically changed in her life since her last book, I am again disappointed with Christianity Today's acknowledgement of Anne Lamott as a Christian author.
Posted By: muse | April 6, 2010 12:00 PM
Just the part of the book you quoted made me want to read the book. So God loves me even before coffee? Thank goodness for that: I don't drink coffee.
Thanks for reviewing this. I'll see if I, too, want to shake sense into the characters.
Posted By: Laura Droege | April 6, 2010 1:55 PM
muse, I don't think LaVonne ever declared Lamott as a Christian author or not. Are there ideas here worth considering?
Posted By: Sarah Pulliam Bailey | April 7, 2010 10:46 AM
Muse, I'm wondering who you are to declare who is a Christian and who is not? Are you willing to say to Ms. Lamott's face that, despite her claims of faith, you have decided that she is not a Christian?
Regardless, this is simply a book review, not a commentary on the spirituality of its author.
Posted By: Robyn | April 7, 2010 2:10 PM
I would be the last person to say whether a person is a Christian or not, that is for God to decide. But if you're a universalist, I guess it really doesn't matter.
Posted By: muse | April 7, 2010 3:40 PM
Muse -- you're simply lying. And you're lying in the stifling, judgmental, self-righteous way that gives all Christians a bad name. You said quite clearly in your first post "I am again disappointed with Christianity Today's acknowledgement of Anne Lamott as a Christian author." So obviously, you don't consider Lamott a Christian yourself. Either that, or you're saying she's not an author. At least admit what you yourself say, rather than pretending that "I would be the last person to say whether a person is a Christian or not." On top of that, you're wrong, of course. And should CT review only books considered "Christian" by authors deemed (by you?) to be "Christian"? Or do we encounter the real world, and forget the pretentious barriers that we ourselves erect?
Posted By: M-Creek | April 8, 2010 3:30 PM
Thank you for an insightful review of Anne Lamott's latest book! You capture perfectly what makes her books so appealing to me: her wry depiction of our messy, painful, joyful lives unexpectedly infused with hope and grace.
Posted By: a thoughtful reader | April 8, 2010 8:38 PM
Anne Lamott is a Christian. Read some of her nonfiction work. She doesn't toe the fundie line, but when push comes to shove, she's a far, far better Christian than many of the ultra-conservatives that love to condemn her.
Posted By: K. | April 10, 2010 7:58 PM
Hey, get off my back. She admits she's an universalist. She would be disappointed in me if I did not acknowledge that she is. If that's the case it doesn't matter whether she's a Christian or not. Do you want me to cite the interviews?
Posted By: muse | April 12, 2010 4:26 PM
We live in a society that believes there are no absolutes, no objective truth. Everything is relative. We are a secular nation and so only secular solutions are allowed to be discussed.
Every generation that has ever existed has had its troubled teens, but in the absence of religion, in the absence of firm community standards, and in the absence of the virtue of personal accountability, the percentage of troubled teens can only increase. It’s hard enough to be a teenager, but pile on broken families, drugs, sex and no values and you have a recipe for emotional stress.
Teens are hard-wired to rebel. It’s part of the experience. Teens will be teens, which is why adults have to be the adults.
http://www.drug-addiction-support.org/Troubled-Teens.html
Posted By: DA Wicker | June 7, 2010 7:52 PM
So not impressed with this book on any level:
http://bookblogbydana.blogspot.com/2011/04/imperfect-birds.html
Posted By: Dana | April 28, 2011 11:34 AM