No Flannel in Vegas

Mental Health

I think the book’s tone was really effective in communicating that underlying theme of mental health—I felt like I was reading the business world’s version of Crime and Punishment until halfway through. In fact, I read the first half of the book without thinking much about it, and I felt like I was reading a 50’s self-help business/financial book like Good to Great or Rich Dad, Poor Dad. I was upset to see the feelings I had in common with Tom Rath—the desire to succeed in the business world, the unhappiness we sometimes have at work, desire to keep up with the Joneses., etc. It made me think about what my real priorities are.

Not only my feelings, but my thought patterns are often similar to Tom’s: every time something difficult happens to me, I have similar phrases to Tom (I say, “what’s the worst that can happen?” The answer is never as bad as eternal damnation or the like). I find it interesting that Tom had more difficulty coping with “normal life” than with the war. I half expected Tom to go from mentally unhealthy to mentally unstable. Is it because war has so many absolutes? or is it because the war left so many questions up in the air, while day to day life had more questions he was able to answer?


What is your goal in life: Striving for success at home and at the office

I really believe that to run General Electric, you have to be General Electric. I don’t envy any CEO of a large company, especially now, and I’m glad I don’t really have to climb a corporate ladder. But I don’t believe that in order to own a successful business, you have to be obsessed with it. I have three friends that started a business in their late twenties. They provide a valuable service in a niche market, make very good money, and haven’t worked more than 30 hours a week in the last three years. I agree that the world progresses faster because of extremely dedicated people, but I believe you can be dedicated to more than one thing—I felt like one of the themes of the book was choose between being successful in business and being successful as a husband and father. I don’t think that there always needs to be a choice. I have to drag myself away from the office, but once I’m gone, I don’t think about it any more. My time becomes my own and my family’s. I really don’t feel bad not being a Paul Farmer—I’d much rather be a full time dad than a full time engineer. Part of that may be that I don’t feel capable of solving the world’s problems, but it may be just selfish.


Honesty

I love Tom’s honesty decision. It is so refreshing a change mid-book, I felt like finally I had got to the book I had wanted to read. Also, dealing with his skeletons didn’t pose a challenge for him once he got straightened out. Hopefully we can be as honest. I have a friend at work who is uniquely honest who reminds me of Tom—I value his opinion more than most people I know, because he doesn’t play the game—he gives it to me straight up. It hurts more, but I’d rather have my pride hurt than produce crummy work. When Tom chooses family over career, the author is generous—Tom still has a job and doesn’t need to worry too much about money.

My Choice

What if Tom’s boss had fired him when he said he didn’t want to work in California, Betsy left and took the kids when Tom told her about his past, and he lost the house because he didn't have a nice Judge doing leg work for him? Would he have the same bright outlook, or would he return to skepticism and sarcasm? I felt almost cheated of the answer—I wonder if Wilson was tempted away from a challenging conclusion by hopes of a great Hollywood picture with Gregory Peck. I hope, like Peter said, that “acting with integrity and honesty just has to be its own reward”.

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.

Glenn's Gray Comment

Peter, thanks for suggesting this book. I haven't found the video yet, but the story was entertaining and thought provoking.

In contrast to 3rd Policeman, I didn't enjoy the early part of the book. I too saw a part of myself in Tom Rath, his inward critical nature; once this was realized, or perhaps admitted, I enjoyed the book more, in part because I saw the transformation in Tom that occurred when he was honest to himself and others. The story is encouraging to me, in that I can conquer my flaws, and that honesty really is the best policy.

The Ralph Hopkins character reminds me of the Wizard of Oz, an almost mythical man that people rarely ever saw. Mr. Hopkins was instrumental in Tom's journey (realizing who he wanted to be), just like the Wizard was instrumental in Dorothy's.

I would agree with you, Peter, that people like Ralph Hopkins are catalysts in this world, speeding up progress. Edison may be an example of that. But there is also something admirable about being balanced and being content.

A couple of additional thoughts:
The book may also have been appropriately titled, "The Men in the Gray Flannel Suit." Yes, Tom was the only one in a gray flannel suit, but I think the function of the title is more than just to point out to us who the main character is, there was a meaning there. To me, the suit symbolized the corporate costume, and when the individual was in dress, he had to act as he thought he was supposed to act and say what he thought he was supposed to say.

I found it ironic that the committee Tom and Ralph were working on is a mental health committee. All of the characters seem to have some "issues."

I liked the intermittent flashbacks in the novel that gave us insight into the characters and helped us understand how they got to the where they were and became who they are. It reminded me of the flashbacks in lost.

The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit -- My Hero

My thoughts on this month's book club, in no particular order.

9 to 5 vs. Mover and Shaker
This goes back to one of our earliest discussions. What's the relative value (or are they even commensurate) of the "heroism" of working day in day out, raising a family, going to church, participating in town meetings, etc. vs. giving your whole life over to your passion ( a la Paul Farmer). I felt like the moral of the book was largely that sacrificing the family life for the passionate life is a poor trade off, at least when the passion (as in the case of Ralph Hopkins) is for business, even good business. But then there's that little snippet of dialogue at the end, when Ralph let's himself go, and says (paraphrasing) "we're the ones who get things done." And he's right, I think. If there weren't those people who obsessively dedicated themselves to things, whether it's research, or business, or healthcare, the world would not progress at the speed it does.

Atonement, Honesty and Facing our Demons
A large part of the novel was about Tom recognizing that he couldn't run from his responsibilities. I loved the way, early on in the book, that he hid behind his cynicism. And it scared me that the cynicism seemed so familiar to me. I often find myself wondering about the "political" advisability of statements, relationships, etc. rather than the rightness of them. It wasn't until Tom faced his responsibilities, in the form of standing up for his beliefs about the big speech, that his life started to turn around. And it wasn't until he faced up to his biggest responsibility, his obligation to Maria and their son, and his biggest sin, hiding it from Betsy, that he became a whole man again.

Striving for Success
Another point that hit perhaps a bit too close to home was the Rath's struggle to succeed, particularly in the form of the nicer home in the nicer neighborhood. I'm a little sensitive about the fact that we bought a home in a "good" town, with a "good" school district, and paid tens of thousands of dollars extra to do so. The reason was to be close to work (which happens to be located within the "good" town), but I'm ashamed to admit that I get a little thrill out of telling people I live in Lexington, and having them tell me what a nice town it is, how great the schools are, etc. This sort of materialism is checked in the book by the Angel of Destruction, in the form of Edward Schultz. And it isn't until after the school board meeting, when the Raths stand up (in this case it's primarily Besty) and stop scheming and are up front and honest about their intentions that the situation starts to really turn around.

The Big Moral
So this is a big moral book. The moral seems to me to be: If you are honest with people, accept your responsibilities, and act with integrity the world will reward you. But when you turn your back on your responsibilities either out of fear (like Tom early on) or selfishness (like Ralph), or when you are dishonest, like Edward, the world will reflect that back at you as well. Sort of a karma-based capitalism.

While I think it's true that the world is largely what you make out of it, I also think that the idealized vision of everything working out if we're just honest and forthright is a bit misguided. It reminds me of one of the more powerful lessons I learned about tithing. It was a story from a returned missionary from, I believe, Guatamala (no one you know, Alvin). He told how a man, newly baptized, struggled to decide whether to pay his tithing or buy food for his family. He decided to pay his tithing, knowing the Lord could bless him. And then went hungry for three days until his next paycheck. Sometimes acting with integrity and honesty just has to be its own reward.

Last week in church our sacrament meeting talks were about having joy despite trials. I was conducting the meeting, and as I concluded shared one of my favorite Neal Maxwell anecdotes. After the Nazi invasion of France, when the British troops were withdrawing from Dunkirk, the rearguard were able to send a brief message to the troops in the channel. The message they chose was "but if not," a reference to Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, who told King Nebuchadnezzar that they believed if he threw them into the fiery furnace their God could save them. But if not, they still would refuse to worship the false idols of Babylon.

It also reminds me a scene near the end of "Man for All Seasons" when Meg is pleading with her father to sign the King's Act and save himself. I've copied the dialogue below:

(Meg) - In any state that was half good, you would be raised up high, not here. It's not your fault the state's three-quarters bad. If you elect to suffer for it, you elect to be a hero.

(Thomas) - That's very neat. But look now. If we lived in a state where virtue was profitable, common sense would make us saintly. But since we see that avarice, anger, pride and stupidity commonly profit far beyond charity, modesty, justice and thought perhaps we must stand fast a little even at the risk of being heroes.

(Meg) - But in reason! Haven't you done as much as God can reasonably want?

(Thomas) - Well, finally it isn't a matter of reason. Finally, it's a matter of love.

The End
That's enough of my random thoughts. I hope you all liked the book as much as I did.

September PVS Book Club

Sorry for the delay in posting my final decision on the September book. I appreciate those who voiced an opinion on the three books I selected. On further consideration, I decided to go with none of the above.

Instead, I'm choosing The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit. Written in 1955, it's the story of a young father struggling to find balance and fulfillment in home and career. It has the added benefit, for those less literarily inclined among us (*cough* Alvin *cough*), that it was made into a movie starring Gregory Peck.

One caveat: I haven't finished the book yet, so am unable to give a full content advisory. However, based on the first 50 pages the profanity is kept to "hell"s and "damn"s, and there is little else that is offensive (unless you find pervasive Martini drinking offensive).

I finished The Third Policeman a couple of days ago. I'll try to get my thoughts in order for a post later tonight.