« Guest Post: Paranoia … | Home | A Tribute to Lt Mark … »

Clint Van Winkle's Soft Spots: A Review

(Spoiler warning: This post contains plot descriptions for Clint Van Winkle's "Soft Spots".

To read the entire "War Memoirs" series, please click here.)

On the surface, Clint Van Winkle's Soft Spots is incredibly similar to Jarhead. (Read our Jarhead review here.)  Both are creative types who went to college after a gulf war to learn creative writing. Both books open with a "going through old gear" scene. Both lose friends after the war. Both are works with literary aspirations--Jarhead more so--and both experiment with narrative.

The primary difference is that Clint Van Winkle wrote a good, but by no means perfect, book.

The title refers, vaguely, to those "soft spots" soldiers feel when returning from a war, particularly veteran's struggles with PTSD and post-war life.  Death haunts Van Winkle, particularly those deaths he caused. Most of the book takes place in Arizona after Van Winkle has come home from the war, though it jumps back in time—for the most part effectively—to cover Van Winkle’s experience manning a turret during the invasion of Iraq. In the present, he takes college courses that bore him, drinks himself into oblivion, and relives his warexperience. Quickly he receives a diagnosis of PTSD, denies it, and then accepts it.

The memoir, because it is based on real life, lacks a satisfying conclusion. At the end, Van Winkle, in a seemingly random decision, moves to Wales and his problems conveniently evaporate. He also has an epilogue on a new treatment of PTSD that feels really out of place, an attempt to bring closure to something that can’t be closed; to a problem that one new cure cannot solve. 

There are other flaws in Soft Spots. The whole thing reads like a confessional; the book is writing-as-therapy exercise in a way. And if I'm being intellectually honest, I kind of hate that type of writing. Van Winkle barely pulls it off. His sheer honesty helps, like when Van Winkle opens with a passage about threatening to kill his wife that is so raw, you can’t help being moved. But at the same time, his immediate analysis of the event is too manufactured; he writes best when he forgets he is writing.

The message of the book, at least one of them, is good. Van Winkle goes to war angry and blood-thirsty, looking to kill but that isn't the came Van Winkle that returns home. He explains the change when talking with his grandfather.

"When I got back from Iraq, and saw my Grandpa, we talked about war again. However, we talked about it in a different manner than we had years earlier. We talked about the places we saw, and the friends we gained. We bypassed the death and shooting. Our wars were sixty years apart but weren't really any different. It didn't matter how many years separated our wars or where we traveled to fight them. Blood still dried the same way around wounds, and charred bodies still crusted over the same as they always have. It didn't matter that he'd fought in a "good war" and I'd fought in a controversial war; because the effect turned out to be the same: Neither of us could find anything praiseworthy about combat."

Again, the strength of this chapter is limited by the incomplete narrative. His change from gung-ho warrior into regretful veteran seems incongruous; it happened off the page somewhere. When did he become less violent? When did he connect with his emotions? I don't know, neither will you. Like real life, it probably happened over time but this makes for unsatisfying reading.

Despite all the honesty, you still believe that Van Winkle isn't telling you something. The book feels self-censored, like he looked into his soul but decided to only give you ninety percent. It makes the whole entire exercise feel hollow.

Overall, this is a good book, one of the better war memoirs I've read so far. It is honest, has a good message, and overall there is more to like than dislike in Soft Spots. I still think it would have worked better as a novel—Clint would have been freer to establish a better story structure and write a more honest book—but it works fine right now as memoir.

five comments

I think Eric C keyed in on a great passage about the Grandpa and Van Winkle talking about war. I have talked with Vietnam vets and its amazing how similar the emotions are from war to war. The details change but the feelings are the same.


Interesting you should talk about feelings, Michael…

Has any of you ever given reincarnation a thought and which experiences people bring along from the past?

Eric, I get your point re the novel and it’s of course a very good and valid point! Yeah, you should think, he would then feel free to write anything… but would he still be able to find a publisher?
I get the feeling, they are not that interested in novels which have too much to do with how things really work in real life.
If it’s not mainstream and superficial enough, they fear they won’t be able to sell it.


Exactly! modern publishing believes that if it isn’t memoir (read: based on real life) they won’t publish it. It is really frustrating, because I believe memoirs are less real than novels, the truth and accuracy they deliver isn’t as authentic.


Yep, Eric, you couldn’t be more right!!! In every aspect!


Van Winkle’s book contains the best description of PTSD I’ve ever read. I’ve read a number of interesting comments and reviews of this book and, in my professional role, many books on PTSD. Van Winkle is the only author who gets across the feelings of its disconnection and disjointedness. He splays himself and offers his viscera in his well-chosen words. His portrait of PTSD works because it is far more raw than a novel can be. I read almost all of it in an evening, but forced myself to put it down so I could savor the agony when finishing it the next day. A friend who is an English teacher and author, with no experience with PTSD, took a couple of weeks to read it because it is so raw and bold.