Comments on: SorryWatch Reads: A Thousand Pardons

By: A Thousand Pardons, redux | SorryWatch

A Thousand Pardons, redux | SorryWatch — Mon, 02 Dec 2013 01:38:33 +0000

[…] Reviews named A Thousand Pardons (apology-centric novel previously discussed on SorryWatch) to its list of the Best Books of 2013. (On the other hand, Bookforum said its “awkward mix […]

By: Katherine Catmull

Katherine Catmull — Fri, 31 May 2013 17:10:38 +0000

In reply to snarly.

I think what I was trying to say (and again, have not read book, so . . . I don’t know if this even applies to the book) is that in some ways the thing about good/correctly done apology is that it is an _action_, the action of causing yourself to experience shame–which is why people resist it so fiercely. If one could easily fake a good/satisfactory apology, people wouldn’t offer crappy ones all the time, and wouldn’t have to be forced at gunpoint (or publicist-point, or Sorrywatch-blog-point) to offer correct ones.

So to that extent, it doesn’t totally matter if it’s sincere or not. To apologize correctly is to expose yourself to public shame, which is why it’s so painful to do. I have apologized for things that I did not 100% believe were my fault–I used to do this at work sometimes, just because I hate it when all work comes to a halt while we try to parcel out blame and defend ourselves etc. But anyway: those pragmatic, not-entirely-sincere apologies were just as painful as the ones I’d make when it really WAS 100% my fault.

I think if you can apologize correctly WITHOUT feeling any shame . . . I don’t know, you might be a tiny bit of a sociopath? but in that case you’re never going to feel real/useful/sincere shame anyway.

I only just while I was writing that last comment figured this out about apologies, this performative or action quality they have, and it’s super interesting to me!

By: snarly

snarly — Fri, 31 May 2013 16:36:42 +0000

Helen TELLS people to be sincere, but gives them scripts to make them SOUND sincere even if they’re not. I’m not sure whether this is meant to be ironic or cynical, this notion of using sincerity because that’s what makes apologies go over whether the sincerity actually real or not. I can’t explicate on this without spoilers…and I do recommend the book if anyone wants to email about this privately!

By: Katherine Catmull

Katherine Catmull — Thu, 30 May 2013 12:30:18 +0000

Well in one of the bits you quote, Helen says, “you have to be sincere,” and I think that’s true of a good apology. A good apology has a performative quality–not in the sense of “it is a performance” (although that too) but in the sense that it performs an action in itself — the action of avoir honte, I guess, the act of experiencing shame. If it were easy to fake a good apology, people wouldn’t resist it so passionately, wouldn’t add in wriggle words , etc.

I guess I’m arguing that no matter how grumpy and insincere you feel, to apologize in the correct form is to _experience real shame_, and in that sense to apologize for real.

Of course: I have not read the book! ahahahah

And mostly I just wanted to comment that “the business of showpology” is a delightful phrase.

By: tanita

tanita — Wed, 29 May 2013 22:29:47 +0000

This sounds like a good book – though the question of sincerity, when Helen was Apology Central, raises a point. I remember hearing in college French class madame say “Shame!” to someone for not doing their homework. The phrase is literally “avoir honte” – have shame. Perhaps it’s the residual rigidity of Puritan values in American society which creates exaggerated public shock and attempts to hand shame around like hors d’oeuvres, thus creating these Byzantine public apology dances in the first place. If we could pass on the shame-pushers, people might experience actual emotional connection to their actions – feelings for real! – and then sincerity might make a comeback. I don’t think it’s idealistic to hope that, but …it’s hard to imagine how it could happen.