Educated memoir- Tara Westover

[Anonymous]

I think they shunned her when she mentioned the abuse.

She’s not the only educated sibling. Three out of the four boys are educated, with at least one (maybe 2) with PhDs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think they shunned her when she mentioned the abuse.

She’s not the only educated sibling. Three out of the four boys are educated, with at least one (maybe 2) with PhDs.

Either there's a God who truly went out of her way to help that family, or Tara is simply lying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone find information about her family? Like, did they really become that wealthy?

Very early on, reading about the abuse (before she got into the physical abuse) made me very uncomfortable.

I thought the writing was terrible in some parts. But, it was an interesting read. It confirmed my worst suspicions about survivalists, unfortunately. And, yes, I know not everyone is abusive or bipoloar. But, good god, her parents were awful people.

That's how she chose to portray them.

I'm not convinced that's the case. Many details don't add up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone find information about her family? Like, did they really become that wealthy?

Very early on, reading about the abuse (before she got into the physical abuse) made me very uncomfortable.

I thought the writing was terrible in some parts. But, it was an interesting read. It confirmed my worst suspicions about survivalists, unfortunately. And, yes, I know not everyone is abusive or bipoloar. But, good god, her parents were awful people.

That's how she chose to portray them.

I'm not convinced that's the case. Many details don't add up.

I think that the abuse happened, and that alone makes her parents terrible people, especially her mother if she knew about Shawn's abuse but let it go. I do believe that. I think her dad is mentally ill and obviously put her in danger. A lot.

I am not sure if I believe the injuries, or the horse riding story, and other little stories.

The business is very successful and that I do believe. More and more people are turning away from medicine and doctors, so it is no surprise that her oil business is lucrative.

[Anonymous]

I wonder if her trauma has caused her to misremember some things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone find information about her family? Like, did they really become that wealthy?

Very early on, reading about the abuse (before she got into the physical abuse) made me very uncomfortable.

I thought the writing was terrible in some parts. But, it was an interesting read. It confirmed my worst suspicions about survivalists, unfortunately. And, yes, I know not everyone is abusive or bipoloar. But, good god, her parents were awful people.

That's how she chose to portray them.

I'm not convinced that's the case. Many details don't add up.

Why are you so invested in poking holes in her story?

Abusers love to discredit survivors, and that's how you come across.

[Anonymous]

Finally read this book. Wow, as someone who lived through a mini-version of what she describes, I identified so much with all of it.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that people are internet-sleuthing this to try to prove that she "faked" it and was exaggerating. But she does absolute backflips in the book to question her own memories -- in fact, the reality and reliability of memories is a MAJOR theme in the book. And to see the mental process of her questioning her own memories (due to her family gaslighting) was painful to see, because that's what I've experienced myself.

If she was completely falsifying everything, then that's what they would have said. Not vague "Oh, Tara is our beloved daughter we still love her even though she's lost to Satan." Instead, the MO is to gaslight: insist that she misinterpreted what she saw, and then turn the tables by discrediting her as evil.

The fact is, when you insist that someone who has gone through trauma remember every single detail correctly, you're imposing an impossible standard on them. Nobody's memory is 100% perfect; and every person has their own perspective. What abusive leaders & parents do is turn around this inherent imperfection of memory to try to prove that the victim did not experience what they actually know that they did.

[Anonymous]

Drew's amazon review:

"In the interest of full disclosure, I'm the Drew from this book, and although Tara and I are no longer together I’ve met all of the key figures in this book on many occasions. Although I don’t have as intimate a knowledge of growing up in the Westover family as a sibling would, I observed first hand everything Tara describes in the third part of the book and heard many stories about earlier events, not just from Tara, but from siblings, cousins, and her parents themselves. I find the claims of factual inaccuracy that have come up among these reviews to be strange for two reasons. First, in a post-James Frey (“A Million Little Pieces”) world, publishers are incredibly careful with memoirs and “Educated” was extensively fact checked before publication. Second, no one claiming factual inaccuracy can do so with any precision. While every Westover sibling, as well as their neighbors and friends, will have different perspectives and different memories, it is very difficult to dispute the core facts of this book. “Educated” is about abuse, and the way in which both abusers and their enablers distort reality for the victims. It’s about the importance of gaining your own understanding of the world so you’re not dependent on the narratives imposed on you by others. I’ve heard Tara’s parents attack schools and universities, doctors and modern medicine, but more importantly, I’ve seen her parents work tirelessly to create a world where Shawn’s abuse was minimized or denied outright. I’ve seen them try to create a world where Tara was insane or possessed in order to protect a violent and unstable brother. I was with her in Cambridge when Shawn was calling with death threats, then saw her mother completely trivialize the experience. For Tara’s parents, allegiance to the family is paramount, and allegiance to the family requires you to accept her father’s view of the world, where violence is acceptable and asking for change is a crime"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone find information about her family? Like, did they really become that wealthy?

Very early on, reading about the abuse (before she got into the physical abuse) made me very uncomfortable.

I thought the writing was terrible in some parts. But, it was an interesting read. It confirmed my worst suspicions about survivalists, unfortunately. And, yes, I know not everyone is abusive or bipoloar. But, good god, her parents were awful people.

That's how she chose to portray them.

I'm not convinced that's the case. Many details don't add up.

Why are you so invested in poking holes in her story?

Abusers love to discredit survivors, and that's how you come across.

Wow talk about abusers -- that's what you are doing, because someone dares to voice her doubts?

Examine yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Drew's amazon review:

"In the interest of full disclosure, I'm the Drew from this book, and although Tara and I are no longer together I’ve met all of the key figures in this book on many occasions. Although I don’t have as intimate a knowledge of growing up in the Westover family as a sibling would, I observed first hand everything Tara describes in the third part of the book and heard many stories about earlier events, not just from Tara, but from siblings, cousins, and her parents themselves. I find the claims of factual inaccuracy that have come up among these reviews to be strange for two reasons. First, in a post-James Frey (“A Million Little Pieces”) world, publishers are incredibly careful with memoirs and “Educated” was extensively fact checked before publication. Second, no one claiming factual inaccuracy can do so with any precision. While every Westover sibling, as well as their neighbors and friends, will have different perspectives and different memories, it is very difficult to dispute the core facts of this book. “Educated” is about abuse, and the way in which both abusers and their enablers distort reality for the victims. It’s about the importance of gaining your own understanding of the world so you’re not dependent on the narratives imposed on you by others. I’ve heard Tara’s parents attack schools and universities, doctors and modern medicine, but more importantly, I’ve seen her parents work tirelessly to create a world where Shawn’s abuse was minimized or denied outright. I’ve seen them try to create a world where Tara was insane or possessed in order to protect a violent and unstable brother. I was with her in Cambridge when Shawn was calling with death threats, then saw her mother completely trivialize the experience. For Tara’s parents, allegiance to the family is paramount, and allegiance to the family requires you to accept her father’s view of the world, where violence is acceptable and asking for change is a crime"

Wow, thanks for posting that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone find information about her family? Like, did they really become that wealthy?

Very early on, reading about the abuse (before she got into the physical abuse) made me very uncomfortable.

I thought the writing was terrible in some parts. But, it was an interesting read. It confirmed my worst suspicions about survivalists, unfortunately. And, yes, I know not everyone is abusive or bipoloar. But, good god, her parents were awful people.

That's how she chose to portray them.

I'm not convinced that's the case. Many details don't add up.

Why are you so invested in poking holes in her story?

Abusers love to discredit survivors, and that's how you come across.

DP. It's not "voicing doubts" to use an impossible-to-meet standard based on a presumption of disbelief in someone's abuse. Even the legal system only requires a "reasonable doubt." Trying to discredit someone's story of abused because you feel (on what basis, again?) that a few details are incorrect makes it seem like for whatever reason, your orientation is to deny that abuse can happen.

If someone wants to actually show she falsified her memoir, then I'd be open to reading that. But so far, all I've seen is some armchair googling. The way the book is written makes extremely clear that she went to great efforts to verify her memories. If you STILL want to disbelieve her (or you just think "they weren't dirt poor, so it wasn't that bad!" then yes, you do appear to just want to discredit her.


Wow talk about abusers -- that's what you are doing, because someone dares to voice her doubts?

Examine yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone find information about her family? Like, did they really become that wealthy?

Very early on, reading about the abuse (before she got into the physical abuse) made me very uncomfortable.

I thought the writing was terrible in some parts. But, it was an interesting read. It confirmed my worst suspicions about survivalists, unfortunately. And, yes, I know not everyone is abusive or bipoloar. But, good god, her parents were awful people.

That's how she chose to portray them.

I'm not convinced that's the case. Many details don't add up.

Why are you so invested in poking holes in her story?

Abusers love to discredit survivors, and that's how you come across.

Wow talk about abusers -- that's what you are doing, because someone dares to voice her doubts?

Examine yourself.

DP. It's not "voicing doubts" to use an impossible-to-meet standard based on a presumption of disbelief in someone's abuse. Even the legal system only requires a "reasonable doubt." Trying to discredit someone's story of abused because you feel (on what basis, again?) that a few details are incorrect makes it seem like for whatever reason, your orientation is to deny that abuse can happen.

If someone wants to actually show she falsified her memoir, then I'd be open to reading that. But so far, all I've seen is some armchair googling. The way the book is written makes extremely clear that she went to great efforts to verify her memories. If you STILL want to disbelieve her (or you just think "they weren't dirt poor, so it wasn't that bad!" then yes, you do appear to just want to discredit her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Drew's amazon review:

"In the interest of full disclosure, I'm the Drew from this book, and although Tara and I are no longer together I’ve met all of the key figures in this book on many occasions. Although I don’t have as intimate a knowledge of growing up in the Westover family as a sibling would, I observed first hand everything Tara describes in the third part of the book and heard many stories about earlier events, not just from Tara, but from siblings, cousins, and her parents themselves. I find the claims of factual inaccuracy that have come up among these reviews to be strange for two reasons. First, in a post-James Frey (“A Million Little Pieces”) world, publishers are incredibly careful with memoirs and “Educated” was extensively fact checked before publication. Second, no one claiming factual inaccuracy can do so with any precision. While every Westover sibling, as well as their neighbors and friends, will have different perspectives and different memories, it is very difficult to dispute the core facts of this book. “Educated” is about abuse, and the way in which both abusers and their enablers distort reality for the victims. It’s about the importance of gaining your own understanding of the world so you’re not dependent on the narratives imposed on you by others. I’ve heard Tara’s parents attack schools and universities, doctors and modern medicine, but more importantly, I’ve seen her parents work tirelessly to create a world where Shawn’s abuse was minimized or denied outright. I’ve seen them try to create a world where Tara was insane or possessed in order to protect a violent and unstable brother. I was with her in Cambridge when Shawn was calling with death threats, then saw her mother completely trivialize the experience. For Tara’s parents, allegiance to the family is paramount, and allegiance to the family requires you to accept her father’s view of the world, where violence is acceptable and asking for change is a crime"

Wow, thanks for posting that.

Yep. I think it makes clear that EVERYONE in the family knows that Shawn/Travis abused her (and Audrey). But what they truly disagree with is that Tara didn't accept the abuse. They think she should have understood that Shawn was just like that, and suck it up for the good of the family. The "fact" they disagree with is that Tara decided not to accept the abuse, and to name it correctly.
th

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone find information about her family? Like, did they really become that wealthy?

Very early on, reading about the abuse (before she got into the physical abuse) made me very uncomfortable.

I thought the writing was terrible in some parts. But, it was an interesting read. It confirmed my worst suspicions about survivalists, unfortunately. And, yes, I know not everyone is abusive or bipoloar. But, good god, her parents were awful people.

That's how she chose to portray them.

I'm not convinced that's the case. Many details don't add up.

Why are you so invested in poking holes in her story?

Abusers love to discredit survivors, and that's how you come across.

Wow talk about abusers -- that's what you are doing, because someone dares to voice her doubts?

Examine yourself.

Classic gaslighting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone find information about her family? Like, did they really become that wealthy?

Very early on, reading about the abuse (before she got into the physical abuse) made me very uncomfortable.

I thought the writing was terrible in some parts. But, it was an interesting read. It confirmed my worst suspicions about survivalists, unfortunately. And, yes, I know not everyone is abusive or bipoloar. But, good god, her parents were awful people.

That's how she chose to portray them.

I'm not convinced that's the case. Many details don't add up.

Why are you so invested in poking holes in her story?

Abusers love to discredit survivors, and that's how you come across.

Wow talk about abusers -- that's what you are doing, because someone dares to voice her doubts?

Examine yourself.

DP. It's not "voicing doubts" to use an impossible-to-meet standard based on a presumption of disbelief in someone's abuse. Even the legal system only requires a "reasonable doubt." Trying to discredit someone's story of abused because you feel (on what basis, again?) that a few details are incorrect makes it seem like for whatever reason, your orientation is to deny that abuse can happen.

If someone wants to actually show she falsified her memoir, then I'd be open to reading that. But so far, all I've seen is some armchair googling. The way the book is written makes extremely clear that she went to great efforts to verify her memories. If you STILL want to disbelieve her (or you just think "they weren't dirt poor, so it wasn't that bad!" then yes, you do appear to just want to discredit her.

You are trying to bully people by calling them names. Sorry, we're not in kindergarten.

Multiple posters have shared specific examples where facts contradict her story. But, hey, if you want to bury your head in the sand and call everyone who doesn't abuser or worse, it's your right as an anonymous dcum poster.