Unequal Childhoods - Annette Lareau [246]
15. After drafting a brief summary of each family’s reaction to the book, I mailed four of the nine families a package with a copy of my draft of their reaction and a letter inviting them to either write their own summary of how they reacted (which I promised would be reproduced, unedited, in the second edition of the book) or edit my version. As a friendly gesture, I also included a box of chocolates. I had working addresses for all the families except the Drivers and McAllisters. The McAllisters had moved again, and the telephone numbers I had were no longer in service. I tried to reach them by leaving a message on a relative’s answering machine, but this strategy was not successful. The Drivers also had moved; I could not reach them via Facebook, telephone white pages, or Google. (Later, Wendy contacted me via Facebook. She updated me on her family and work status. When I suggested that we get together, however, she declined.) Rather than mailing a package to the Yanellis, I went to see the family (bringing my draft summary, beer, and chocolate). Mr. Yanelli said my draft was “on the money,” an accurate statement of their feelings “at that time.” I called the Brindles and left a message; Ms. Brindle immediately returned my call. I later e-mailed the description to her eldest daughter, who read it to her over the phone. Ms. Brindle approved it. I also e-mailed Ms. Taylor. At her suggestion, and with her permission, I replaced my summary with her response to me. For clarification, I added an introductory note and edited her message, particularly for length. The responses of the remaining families varied. The Marshalls contacted me in a warm e-mail; both Ms. Marshall and Stacey wrote to me (separately), saying that they were “comfortable” with the portrait. The Tallingers also responded. Mr. Tallinger edited the summary I had drafted; his edits made it clearer and more precise. His e-mail message was friendly and humorous (he said that they were doing “concerted cultivation” on me). I spoke with Ms. Handlon by phone. She was cool. She said that she had received the package and had given it to Melanie. I indicated that the letter was addressed to her and her husband as well as to Melanie. She said that she would look at it. She did not get back to me. The Williamses did not reply either.
16. Ms. Tallinger ended contact in 2004. In January 2010, though, she responded, in a friendly manner, to a follow-up e-mail I had sent to the family about a package I had sent to the home (with a box of chocolates and a description of the family’s reaction to the book). Correspondence regarding the Tallingers’ reaction was handled exclusively by Mr. Tallinger, however.
17. I did not hear directly from Melanie about how she felt about the book or its description of her. However, she came home while I was interviewing her father. I was sitting on the floor, talking across the coffee table to Mr. Handlon. I stood up and, as Melanie stood next to the piano, told her that I had learned that the book had upset her and that I was very sorry about that. She (keeping her face impassive) nodded but did not chat. My efforts to draw her out were not successful. She disappeared into the back of the house, and I continued my interview with her father.
18. The Williamses’ reaction is more vague than the reactions of the other families. My suspicion is that they were offended by an endnote in the first edition (n. 18, to Chapter 6). In the note, a fieldworker expresses discomfort with a mock game of peek-a-boo in which the parents treat Alexander as if he were a very young child. In addition, from the beginning, Mr. Williams had been unenthusiastic about being in the study; he saw it (correctly enough) as an “invasion of privacy.” The family’s portrait may have made him feel vindicated. Given the e-mail exchange with Ms. Williams, I agonized over whether I should contact them again. In the end, I felt I needed to give them a chance to say their piece (if they wished). I sent