Red-Light Cameras Not So Special?
Cubs Combat Casino
The Return of The Chicagoist Reader Meet-Up
County Sales Tax Rollback Vetoed - Here We Go Again
PHOTOS: Peaches And Amanda Blank At Metro
At this point in his career Roger Ebert has earned the right to write about whatever subject that strikes his fancy, and he does so with eloquence, wit, passion and keenly honed journalistic instincts. Ebert also cut his teeth in newspapers when reporters and columnists had a reputation for hard-drinking and late night war story sessions at the Billy Goat; Ebert has said on many occasions that this is what newspapermen did.
A reflective Ebert looks back at thirty years of sobriety in today's Sun-Times. As with most of Ebert's writing since his health problems started in 2006, this look back on the day he decided to quit drinking is lent added gravitas from his experience:
"I've known two heavy drinkers who claimed they never had hangovers. I didn't believe them. Without hangovers, it is possible that I would still be drinking. Unemployed, unmarried, but still drinking--or, more likely, dead. Most alcoholics continue to drink as long as they can. For many, that means death. Unlike drugs in most cases, alcohol allows you to continue your addiction for what's left of your life, barring an accident. The lucky ones find their bottom, and surrender."
Ebert gives credit for his sobriety to Alcoholics Anonymous and manages to do so without sounding defensive regarding A.A.'s criticisms that participants place their recovery in a higher power, or that it's "cultish." "A 'cult?' How can that be, when it's free, nobody profits and nobody is in charge?" Ebert writes. "Maybe, (A.A.'s founders) thought, drunks can help each other, and pass it along."
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
i'm curious why he decided to do make this decision. it's breaking the 11th tradition of AA, which is to remain anonymous at the level of press, radio and film. it's a pretty big no-no. but, there's no AA police, so he gets to make this decision on his own conscience, which was pretty clearly thought out.
my best to him.
Did you actually read the article? Because he addresses that a number of times, with great erudition. AA isn't fight club y'know.
Against the Wall is right, this will be debated by some, though ultimately it's simply a matter of Roger's choice to share. Considering how "recovery" is now fodder for exploitive TV shows, quack doctors and celebrities looking to get some publicity, reading a piece by an author whose struggle was personal, and thus far private, is something of a revelation.
As always, Ebert is a class act and a treasure.
Roger.
--Today, at a meeting in Reno, a new lady announced your article. I couldn't wait to read it. I've always liked you as a movie guy.
--Did you know that the editors of Time Magazine once approached Bill W.(AAs co-founder) about doing a cover story on him and on AA? Time was aware of the Traditions. On the cover they planned an artists conception of Bill from the rear as if he were the speaker at an AA Meeting. Not even a depection of his face was to be used. His name was not to be used. They explained to him the impact the cover of Time had. How many more millions of people read the cover story.
--Bill thought it over. It was a hard decision for him. He liked the idea. And he refused. He reasoned that though he'd be keeping the Letter of the Tradition, he be breaking the Spirit of the Tradition. He also felt that while short term some people would get sober, long term many, many more would get drunk. Did you know that there is no mention of AA on Bills or Bobs headstone? 30 years and still the intoxication of alcoholic exceptionalism.
--Ironically the most interesting aspect of this story is the Tradition break. As always AA will gain. It will cause great debate which will make the Traditions come alive for the new.
Thank You