OnlineBookClub.org

[This is a discussion topic for the March 2016 book of the month Eating Bull by Carrie Rubin.]


Connie lied to her son Jeremy about his father being dead. Could you see yourself doing that in her situation?

Jeremy had something of an emotional breakdown upon discovering the truth. How might you have reacted in his shoes?


***
View Eating Bull on Amazon | View Eating Bull on Bookshelves

I probably would have reacted the same way. To go your whole life thinking your father is dead, only to find out he isn't would be crushing. You wouldn't be able to trust that person who lied to you. What else had she lied about? I think she should have told him about his dad and who he was and how he was. It would have been easier for Jeremy to hear it all his life then it would be for him to hear it come from behind a closed door.

I couldn't see myself doing that in her situation. She should have told him the truth when he was old enough to understand. Jeremy's reaction was understandable, and I think I would have probably reacted the same.

Unfortunately, I can see why Connie might have done it. However, she had several years to own up to it. Yes, he would have been upset, but at least he'd have heard it from her, to his face, and not through a door.

That's not a secret that would likely stay buried forever.

I would have shut down into an emotional breakdown as well. If one of the main people you trusted came to you with a lie about your life, who do you know go to for advice and comfort since you know longer have faith in your constant comforter.

Gravy wrote:Unfortunately, I can see why Connie might have done it. However, she had several years to own up to it. Yes, he would have been upset, but at least he'd have heard it from her, to his face, and not through a door.

That's not a secret that would likely stay buried forever.

I completely agree! I also understand Connie's desire to protect Jeremy, but the truth would have come out eventually.

LivreAmour217 wrote:

Gravy wrote:Unfortunately, I can see why Connie might have done it. However, she had several years to own up to it. Yes, he would have been upset, but at least he'd have heard it from her, to his face, and not through a door.

That's not a secret that would likely stay buried forever.

I completely agree! I also understand Connie's desire to protect Jeremy, but the truth would have come out eventually.

I also understand where Connie came from initially. She didn't want to worry about her son going through any more pain than he already had through the years. She told him a little about his father, but only good things that he could latch onto. If he found out his father was an addict and murderer from the beginning he probably would have never wanted to even meet his father. At least this way he had some positive things to relate to him. I think she should have told him sooner, but I understand why she didn't tell a five year old that their daddy tried to kill someone. With Jeremy's emotional issues that probably would have given him nightmares.

Parents often lie or postpone to tell the truth to their children. is it right? I don't know. In most cases, including this one, it's wrong and might cause children more harm than if they knew the truth from the beginning. I've got the feeling that Jeremy knew something deep inside and that also caused his emotional insecurity.

Scott wrote:[This is a discussion topic for the March 2016 book of the month Eating Bull by Carrie Rubin.]


Connie lied to her son Jeremy about his father being dead. Could you see yourself doing that in her situation?

Jeremy had something of an emotional breakdown upon discovering the truth. How might you have reacted in his shoes?


***
View Eating Bull on Amazon | View Eating Bull on Bookshelves

Okay first things first, I could definitely see myself lying to my son about that. TO A CERTAIN AGE. If he asks me where his dad is, I would be the first to tell him the honest truth. But until my son was old enough to know that his dad wasn't around (say if he was 3 or 4) I probably would do what Connie did, until he was old enough to understand why. On the other hand...the lie was too detailed. If I had lied as Connie did, I would have said that he was no longer a part of the family and left it at that. I would not have told my son that he was dead instead of in jail, nor would I change his name. That was taking things way too far. You do not tell a child that his father is dead and that his name is XYZ. I will admit that this really bugged me about Connie in general. I already said in another post that she was a good mother for trying but for nothing else. This only backs up my claim. By lying to Jeremy (again not saying it's right in any way, shape, or form), she was trying to protect her son, to spare his feelings, etc. But in the end her actions led to Jeremy being hurt by something that could have been avoided.

That being said, if I had been in Jeremy's shoes...wow. I probably would have done EXACTLY what he had done. To have what you think is a strong bond with your mother and then find out she's lied to you for 15 years? That is a lot to handle on its own, not to mention all the other strife that Jeremy had on his plate, what with the murderer on the loose and the whole lawsuit interview being so close. Talk about stress overload. I felt extremely bad for Jeremy and didn't blame him for running away or needing to get some air. On the other hand, though, a part of me also thinks I would have talked to my mother about it. Yes it would be hard to find the words or to hide my anger/hurt feelings, but it would have been the mature thing to do. Jeremy is 15 and with all of the things happening in his life...you'd think he would have handled something like this more maturely.

Even more so than Connie, though, I blame Sue for dropping this bomb on Connie right before the interview. That was not the best move. Knowing how dangerous Terry Harjo was, Sue should have informed Connie that he was out of prison the minute that she received the phone call. Not doing so was incredibly selfish and could have potentially gotten them all killed if Terry was as violent as Connie let on and had gone looking for them.

I understand Connie's good intention of trying to protect Jeremy from the truth about his father. That being said, I think it was a mistake. Jeremy should have been told the truth when he was old enough to understand. I agree with several of the other posts that bring up the issue of trust between Jeremy and Connie. To find out that your mother had been lying to you about such a big issue your whole life would make you question whether you could ever trust her again.

Being a mother, I can see why Connie hid the truth from Jeremy. She wanted to keep him safe. However, when he became older and could understand why she hid things from him, she should have told him about his father and let him make his own decision about how much he wanted to know about his father. Jeremy's reaction was understandable. He was hurt and had been lied to all his life by the one person he should have been able to trust. It was a tough situation for everyone involved.

I, personally, did things differently. My oldest kid is my child out of wedlock and I never lied to her about her father. Though they never met, she knows the entire story. It worked out fine for us, no lies, no blame, no bitterness.

I too can see why Connie lied...She wasn't ready to tell Jeremy the truth and in all likelihood he wasn't ready to hear it. And yes, as others have said, the truth would have to come out eventually. It would have been much better if Jeremy had heard it straight from his mother rather than through a closed door, but hey, things happen.

While I probably would have done something similar in Connie's situation, I don't think I'd have settled on telling my son that his father was dead. That's a lie entirely too easy to disprove. Instead I would have fudged the truth. I'd wait to tell my kid the horrible truth (but I'd plan on telling it eventually, when I was ready and my child was old enough to understand). Until then, I'd tell him "Dad's gone somewhere else, he can't be here with us right now, but he loves you very much". That sort of thing. It was clear to me that Connie wanted Jeremy to have a positive view of his father, which I totally support. I think making it clear that Jeremy's father was alive but couldn't be there for the family would be a better alternative to saying that he was dead.

And I know that what I've suggested would come with its own problems. Kids are curious - undoubtedly questions would be asked. Where is he? Why can't he be here? How do you know? But kids are also very intuitive - when you don't want to tell them something, they get the feeling that something's wrong. So while Jeremy may not have accepted such a lie as easily as the death lie, he would have been better prepared to hear the truth, and I think it would have been easier for him to understand why his mom lied in the first place. Still not an ideal situation/perfect solution, but I think a less extreme lie would have had less extreme consequences.

gali wrote:I couldn't see myself doing that in her situation. She should have told him the truth when he was old enough to understand. Jeremy's reaction was understandable, and I think I would have probably reacted the same.

Agreed. I think three years old might not be a good time to describe 'daddy's flaws', but definitely when he was enough and mature enough to handle the truth, she should've told him. But, it goes back that she partially neglected Jeremy throughout his childhood, that's how he got to be the way he is. In other words, not telling him fits her parenting.

I also would probably act very similarly to the way Jeremy did. To find out the one person in his life that he felt he could always depend on lied to him and probably with no intention on telling Jeremy the truth any time soon.

I think Connie should have told the truth when Jeremy was old enough to understand it properly. I can see from her point of view why she would want to lie but it has done more harm than good. I had a feeling that she had also latched onto the lie herself as she seemed to have such a detailed story. Maybe living through that lie made the past for her a bit more bearable as she felt ashamed of who she had been with.