Is "Memory of Trees" memorable?

(gayla marty site)

The late Tom Snyder used to say there was a snag in interviewing book authors, at least some of them. Snyder was a journalism pioneer, hosting a very late night (by the standards of that time) talk show on NBC that became very spontaneous. Often he would interview book authors.
Sometimes these guests, instead of giving informative answers based on their research, would say "you'll have to read the book." This kind of blatant book plug was rude and unacceptable. The host would have to try to steer the conversation back on some kind of constructive course. Some choice words might be shared in a commercial break.
I felt like uttering some choice words (or at least "sheesh") after reading an article about a book in Saturday's Star Tribune. (The paper is actually called "Early Sunday" if you buy it at the newsstand.) The book might be good although I'm somewhat skeptical.
The headline and subhead were inviting. The article and photos were displayed very prominently starting on page E1 (cover of the Variety section). Seated at DeToy's Restaurant and sipping my morning cups of coffee, I got my reading glasses perched on my nose just right and began reading.
It seemed like a classic article about baby boomers and transition. Boomers feel the whole world should feel such fascination with all their adjustments in life. Us boomers are definitely fascinated with chronicling them.
So I started reading and after wading in a few paragraphs I suddenly thought "wait a minute, this wasn't written by a Star Tribune staff writer."
So I glanced back at the byline. Sure enough there was an unfamiliar name and a "special to the Star Tribune" tag. "Special" is a pretty broad brush term. In this age of easy online journalism, anyone can stretch their writing legs and hope to maybe get something published in the legacy media, if that's what floats your boat.
The Minneapolis paper, meanwhile, has gone through bankruptcy, applied the machete liberally in making cuts, and pretty soon we've just got to start noticing the effects of this.
This space-eating feature article, written by someone whom I'll just consider a "freelancer," is evidence of the dwindling standards one can expect now in the crumbling newspaper industry. I'm not even faulting the writer. I'm faulting the paper.
How can I characterize the article? It's so meandering it's hard to sum it up here. So the prime fault is its meandering nature, by someone who appears to want to impress us with her writing ability. She uses novel-writing techniques to be descriptive in ways that don't further the subject matter. I'm not reading a novel, I'm reading a newspaper. I want easy-to-grasp background and information, not that I'd mind some compelling storytelling.
Although it's hard to be precise, it seems the article is about boomer-age people who have been forced, apparently by the economy, to leave the countryside. Such stories might be very illuminating and helpful. Maybe the book in fact reaches its target, but the article doesn't point in a very promising direction. It's too busy convincing us of the erudite and intellectual airs of both the author and article writer.
The headline was "View from the Treetops." The name of the book is "Memory of Trees: A Daughter's Story of a Family Farm," and its author is Gayla Marty. The Star Tribune article was written by Stephanie Wilbur Ash.
Ash observes of someone that "she's 71 but you'd never guess." The gem just cited was in parenthesis. Minus any context suggesting the relevance of age or appearance, this is just stupid. Is there something wrong with looking like a normal 71-year-old, whatever that might represent?
Trying to get a grip on the basic facts, as I read, was impossible. There is a quote from someone endorsing the book (in overblown fashion) but the background of that person isn't even reported. So right away I'm thinking "this is amateurish."
Is this what is becoming of my old friend, the Star Tribune (and before that the Tribune and Star, separate newspapers)? It's almost painful to keep writing this post. Ash quotes the author saying she's fascinated by the trees rather than the wide open spaces of farm country. Why? We never learn. But Ash says this orientation is one of the things that sets this book apart. We learn that the author gathered a leaf collection when young. Nothing real revealing there.
"It is an intimate story," Ash concludes of the trees and leaf fixation.
We learn that Marty's mother was part of an interesting arrangement where two sisters married two brothers. Ash then writes that "over time, religious ideology and economics fractured the families."
Fascinating, I guess. But those facts are then allowed to just sit there.
People are forced into transition all over the place by economics, which is sort of a catch word for "stuff happens." It's no more traumatic for farm families or baby boomers than for anyone else. Again, if Ash were able to report on this story in a way that made it seem unique or compelling, fine.
Maybe that story unfolds in "Memory of Trees" and Ash failed to relate it properly. I'm reminded of that problematic refrain on Tom Snyder's "Tomorrow" show: "You'll have to read the book."
I might not be writing this post were it not for the fact that Ash begins gushing over the author about midway through, emphasizing Marty's academic and refined qualities. Ash writes that "Gayla is a thoughtful, compassionate writer of deep faith."
A puffy, subjective sentence like this would never be written by a Star Tribune staff writer. Its effect would be lessened if Ash could just do better providing supportive material for this and other assertions.
The worst weasel words in the whole article were these: "(Gayla is) the quintessential baby boomer Minnesota farm girl who left for college in Minneapolis in 1976, but still kept farm ties and habits."
Oh, it's great to see a kid from "Petticoat Junction" leave the farm and "make good" in the big city, isn't it? I suppose some of her peers had to "stay behind" in the country.
But Marty pines so wistfully for the country now. Why? The trees? Why the trees?
What is a quintessential baby boomer? Is it someone who engaged in particular types of foolishness in the early 1970s? Is someone like this just an irritating narcissist?
U.S. Senator James Webb expressed some irritation with the term not long ago, suggesting that boomers were just people who happened to be born in the same general time period.
"Memory of Trees" is a paean, but is it a condescending paean?
The author is an academic person and maybe that's why we're supposed to be impressed. If she's fascinated by trees, we're just supposed to assume there's good reason for this, because someone with academic credentials obviously has a firm basis for all her feelings.
Hubris?
She says her tree focus sets her book apart from similar works (not specified) that emphasize open spaces. Academic people reflexively seek to stand apart from others. It keeps them in their exclusive circle.
There was once a popular song called "I Talk to the Trees," made popular, I believe, by the Smothers Brothers. Maybe Marty talks to the trees. Maybe her book is actually good. But I don't think I'll be shelling out for it. If it comes to the Morris Public Library, fine, I'll give it a shot, and maybe I'll find it's not a compilation of pretentious intellectual drivel.
That would be a pleasant surprise and I'd be delighted to write a new post!
-Brian Williams - Morris mn Minnesota - bwilly73@yahoo.com