Controlling Your Own Destiny

Peter, great book choice. Man in the Gray Flannel Suit (MGFS) was as entertaining as a Chicago Cubs playoff implosion. (see picture) I read the version of the book for legally blind people. It was the fastest 550 pages I've ever read.

The Everyman

Given that the title of the book suggests that Tom was just like every other working man, I shouldn't be surprised that I too (like Glenn and Peter) saw similarities between my life and his, though perhaps for different reasons.

• Like Tom, I'm not a big risk taker. I am comfortable in my government job, and I'm not really looking forward to buying a home in the current unstable market, even though the right time to do it would be in the next year when my job moves locations.
• I liked how the author described the inner thoughts of Tom and his wife. They'd often start with these over dramatic 'What if scenarios' and slowly calm themselves down with more rational thinking. I'm more unstable in my thoughts than I am on the outside.
• I don't think my wife realized exactly who she was marrying when she married me. She does now, and things are great. But there was a long time where I tried, unsuccessfully, to hide my weaknesses from my wife.
• I had great empathy for Tom when he got shot down by Ogden after the first draft of the speech. MGFS says, "Ogden and Hopkins had simply told him the same thing in two different ways: to rewrite my speech. In spite of this, Hopkins had somehow left him eager to try." My PhD advisor is an Ogden, telling me to rewrite without giving suggestions for feedback and definitely not making me eager to try.

The Hippy Message (or lack thereof?)

Note: I'm a little unsure of the authors intentions or other readers interpretations, and I realize that this book was written in 1956.

Tom mentions on multiple occasions that he thinks it is strange that it is deemed worse for him to have fathered a child with a woman that was not his wife than it was for him to have killed 17 people. I agree that it is a strange paradox that the context of war justifies the killing and destruction of life but not the creating of life (at least not outside of marriage). Tom feels more guilty about his dishonesty with his wife than his actions with Maria, which would seem to say he agrees with the '60s slogan 'Make Love Not War'. However, I didn't feel like MGFS was promoting a promiscuous or immoral lifestyle. It seemed to be saying that a lot of crazy things happened during the war, and it is difficult to understand or justify any of them. And the paradox of taking life versus creating life is just that, an interesting paradox. Just like you might learn about the Mpemba paradox and say, 'Hmm, isn't that interesting.'

Mpemba paradox: Hot water can under certain conditions freeze faster than cold water, even though it must pass the lower temperature on the way to freezing.

From my understanding, there was a hippy culture in the '60's that said do whatever you want, whatever makes you feel good. MGFS, on the other hand, derides the philosophy of Hopkins' daughter in her efforts to simply entertain herself. In fact, MGFS promotes taking responsibility of your own actions, like Tom taking care of his son in Italy. I imagine Tom's initially cynical approach to the business world as being very popular in the '60's, and MGFS says it doesn't have to be that way. Be honest and take chances and you can succeed.

Speaking of Paradoxes

As I was Googling paradoxes to find one that fit my point, I also found this one

Petronius' paradox: "Moderation in all things, including moderation."

MGFS seems to be saying that the ideal life is the 9 to 5 version, balancing work and family, but at the same time we need the Hopkins of the world. (I agree on both counts.) In the church we seem to say that the ideal is the ideal for everyone, and while sometimes the ideal doesn't work out (some people never get married, get divorced, etc.), it doesn't alter that ideal. So in the ideal world (in heaven?), would everyone work 9 to 5 and have a good home/work balance or would the ideal world have some Hopkins?

I know that we are each blessed with unique characteristics and talents. Each ward needs a balance of these characteristics, and the scriptures tell us that the body can't say it has no need for the eyes, etc. So I'm sure in heaven we won't all be identical, even though we will be one. Still, I'm having a hard time deciding what I think Hopkins should have done. Clearly, I hoped that he would have had a better home life, but if he would have been unhappy building that home life and if he could make a real difference for good in the world by sacrificing that home life, would the world be better off if he had spent his time at home? Ugh, I think I'm just rehashing my Paul Farmer questions. Nevermind.

The happy ending

Peter seems to not like how the book had a nice happy ending. However, I found that this is what makes the book so great. I think Peter makes a great point about how we should do what is right no matter what the consequences, and I agree that telling the truth doesn't always work out well. What I like about the happy ending isn't that Tom got the job he wanted or that the housing project was going to work out. The great part is the transformation of Tom and Betsy from this hopeless couple without direction just riding along in the current to a more unified couple with a sense of purpose and determination to dictate their own future. There is nothing more depressing than the feeling of not having control over your own life, and I think the real happiness at the end of the book is that Tom and Betsy have taken responsibility and now control their own destiny.

Final Notes:

Glenn, I also found the mental health subplot ironic. I kept thinking the final speech would involve some personal experiences to drive home the message.

And speaking of destiny, the Cubs' destiny will once again be put in the hands of Kerry Woods, who pitched the game after the Bartman game. Having personally watched Woods blow a game, I wouldn't get your hopes up, Peter.