There are lot's of different types of readers out there. And about as many different types of categorizing them as there are stars in the sky. Genre, style, author, number of books read at a time, when they read, why they read, etc. But today's post is going to focus on a specific type of reader (though it can overlap a bit with the why they read and number of books read at a time categories).This reader is often on a spectrum, though it is usually skewed one way or the other with maybe a hint of mid-line. And that type is, drum-roll please, the re-reader. Now as I said, this isn't exactly clear cut. My style in this category definitely isn't exactly one or the other, but it tends towards one type, which is sort of the point. I get a lot of people mentioning re-reading books, which I understand. Every so often there's a series that I love so much I know I'm going to want to re-read them. Books by Sarah J. Maas and Diana Gabaldon come to mind. But I don't re-read most books that I come across. I'll read a book, like say, The Hobbit, and think it's a great book and really enjoy it. But I'm not going to re-read it. While the number of books I'll re-read is still growing (that happens when you read a large number of books a year) I feel like it isn't as high as some people I know, which is why I consider it a style of reader. Either you love to re-read or you don't. In my case, re-reading is often directly tied to whether I purchase books. If I think I'm going to re-read it, or if I find myself re-reading it, I might decide to purchase it and add it to my library. Otherwise, I'll get it from the library. Because while there's many a bookworm meme out there complaining about Marie Kondo (remember, she said ideally have less than 30 books), I get her point. Now, I haven't watched her show or read her book, so I might be missing something, but I believe her point was that books can cause a great deal of clutter and unless you care about the books as more than just a symbol of status you should get rid of them if you want a clean house. Or, you know, you could invest in more bookshelves, but that can be expensive and not exactly feasible if you already have a lot and are still overloaded. Owning books for the sake of owning books isn't necessarily a good thing. But if you're using those books over and over and over and you take notes and find the little gems that pop out at you every time you read it again, then yeah. Keep that book in your collection. Which brings me back to the reader. And whether you re-read or not. I tend not to. There are some books that I do re-read. And a whole lot more that I don't. If someone wants to discuss them with me I'll probably re-read them. Or if I'm in the right mood and all the other books I want to read are unavailable at the library for some reason I might pick up something for a second time, but on the whole I am not a re-reader. This does not mean I don't have a large collection of books. I do. Most of them were free ones that i picked up at conferences. Which is great, except I'm moving and I know that most of them are not going to be ones that I want to keep enough to move them with me. Which means I have some hefty reading to do before I leave. And potentially some giving away before I've read them but keeping the titles/authors so that I can read them eventually. I feel like my point got a little lost up there though, so here it is. I don't re-read that often. But I know some friends that do. Most of the time it's because of similar reasons to me (most people I know don't re-read books that they don't like) but I feel like sometimes the threshold for deciding to re-read books is different for each individual. So you might have one person who re-reads way more books than someone else because that threshold for "liking enough to want to re-read" is lower. Where do you think you fall on this spectrum? Are you an avid re-reader or is your threshold pretty high? Let me know in the comments. Happy Reading!
0 Comments
Diversity in Literature is a big buzzword phrase nowadays, as well it should be. Society as a whole has come to the conclusion that diversity is good, and whitewashing is bad. Representation matters. A lot of times the argument for diversity is played out in terms of jobs, schooling, and movies/TV shows. There have been a lot of newer TV shows and movies that have brought the idea of representation to the forefront (looking at you Always Be My Maybe by Netflix), but sometimes we forget to talk about representation in books too. After all, you can use your imagination and make the characters in books look like whatever you want them to look like in your head right? To some extent, yes (depending on whether or not the author puts a lot of effort into describing his/her/their characters). But then you also get those rather disturbing arguments about how Hermione Granger is/isn't black. And you realize that unless it is explicitly stated that a character is/isn't a specific race/ethnicity you'll get jerks saying that it doesn't matter what you imagine in your head, the representation isn't there. So it's actually still pretty important for representation to be clearly, irrevocably, stated by the authors, even if descriptions are relatively open-ended. This is especially true in certain genres, such as romance.
I love romance novels. I've read a lot of romance novels in many genres and will likely continue reading them throughout my life. But sometimes there's a representation problem. For example, a lot of historical romances are about white, hetero-normative, neuro-normative, usually skinny/muscular, Christian heroines/heroes. This is one reason why I'm writing a historical novel with a Jewish heroine. I want to see myself represented in the books I love to read. If you look at contemporary romances or paranormal romances there's a bit more variety usually. But it can still be difficult to find books that aren't hetero-normative, neuro-normative, and full of skinny/muscular forms of beauty. There are also a lot of white people. Thankfully for the genre, a lot of new authors are writing books that increase representation. Helen Hoang is one of them. I haven't read very many romances that are about Asian characters. I also haven't read very many romances about non-neuro-normative people, though they are out there and can be quite good. This is one reason I loved Helen Hoang's novel The Kiss Quotient. I'm currently reading the second novel she wrote, The Bride Test, and it's holding up very well too but I'm focusing on The Kiss Quotient in this post. Without giving too much away, The Kiss Quotient is the story of Stella, a thirty year old woman with Asperger's, a syndrome on the Autism spectrum, and Michael, an escort who is part Vietnamese (his mother is Vietnamese and his father is of Swedish origin and is all around a bad person). They meet when Stella hires Michael to teach her how to become proficient at sex. Stella's experiences so far have been lackluster to say the least, and horrific if we're being accurate. She thinks she needs practice, because she wants to have a relationship, she just doesn't know how to get there without thinking of pilot fish cleaning a sharks teeth when she's French kissing. So she hires a professional. Michael has a lot on his shoulders. He hates escorting but has to do it to help his family pay the bills. But he likes Stella, and he can't afford to turn down the offer she gives him in order to help her. So he agrees to help her through the lesson plans she's created and then let her go to find the man she wants. But things get sticky. I'll leave the synopsis at that, but suffice to say, this was a super fun read and I loved it. Helen Hoang is funny. I laughed out loud so many times. But she's also real. In both The Kiss Quotient and The Bride Test there are times when I had a sort of epiphany. I'm white, which means that try as I might I won't ever really understand exactly what it is that minorities go through. I'm also neuro-normative (at least I think I am, I've never gotten tested), so I will never understand exactly what it is that non-neuro-normative people go through. How they have to deal with overstimulation, or obsessions, or compulsions, etc. But Helen Hoang brought those experiences to me through her writing. I won't ever understand exactly what it would be like, but I have a better understanding of it now than I did before. And I still got to enjoy a fun, sexy, hilarious book about love and all the issues that come with it. In short, read The Kiss Quotient. Then read The Bride Test. Then read The Heart Principle. And start adding books with diverse characters into your repertoire. It's worth it, and it will help make the world a better place. (And if you need help finding some, just ask me; I'm always willing to give out book recommendations). Happy Reading! Though I've made this statement before and not followed through, I think today's post is going to be short. This is partly because I have to finish reading (and start formulating discussion questions for) a bookclub book. And this bookclub is this coming Wednesday (i.e., in three days). And I haven't finished the book yet.
Now, you may be thinking You have time, though or Three days, with one being a holiday? You can do that or Dang girl, why did you procrastinate? I don't know why I wrote "Dang girl." My only excuse is I've been re-watching some episodes of Parks and Recreation and Donna's voice was in my head as I wrote it out. Anyway. My response to all of the above statements/questions is this: I started reading this book two weeks ago, it is 538 pages long, and I'm only on page 356. Now, I've also been reading other books during this time. So there's been some procrastination going on. But this is also a super dense book that isn't reading easily for me, which brings us back to the title of this post. I like book clubs because they help get me out of my comfort zone when it comes to reading. I get to read new genres, authors, and styles, which is really awesome since my personality is very much "If it ain't broke don't fix it" when it comes to branching out of activities. Sometimes. Sometimes I'm adventurous. But usually I stick to what I know I like. So book clubs help me experience new things that I might come to enjoy I just didn't know it before. They also keep me reading even when it's a book I'd otherwise put down. Most of the time I finish books I otherwise wouldn't. Sometimes even the "deadline" and pressure of a book club can't get me through a book. Which brings me to this book. I'm less than 200 pages from the end and I have three days left. Thankfully, one is a holiday. Unfortunately, I also have afternoon/evening plans on said holiday, so it may not be as productive in terms of this book as I want it to be. On the bright side, an organization already created discussion questions for this book, which means I don't necessarily need to write my own. However, the book club itself is somewhat temporary and the reason it started was quite specific, which means I'll need to create at least some questions regarding that topic. All of which means I'll be using this evening and as much time as I can spare tomorrow reading, hopefully finishing, and then creating questions for Amos Oz's A Tale of Love and Darkness. And this finally brings me back to the title of this blog post. In some cases, this particular book might be a good book club book. But not for me. This particular book is incredibly dense and is not easy to read. Since I've got a pretty hefty amount of stress in my life at the moment already, this does not make for a good book club book. At least not a monthly book club. But hey, at least we're all reading it and can discuss something over snacks when we get together. Even if it's less about content and more about other things. Do you have books you wish you'd read in a book club because it would have forced you to finish? What about books you wish you'd never chosen for a book club (if you've ever been part of one)? Do you think your answers would change based on life events? Let me know in the comments. Happy Reading! I love Young Adult novels. Not all of them are good, but that can be said for any novel at any age level. What I like about YA novels though, is that the good ones often present a view of the universe that is very nuanced and help expose young adults (and all other readers) to ideas about what is, what should be, economic systems, social issues, etc., within a safe world. Readers are free to explore these topics without having to "worry" about whether the vast majority of their friends will agree with whatever political view the book takes, because it's just a book. I'm not saying this doesn't happen for adult books, but oftentimes adults take adult books too seriously and can get offended if they see someone reading a book they think contains ideas that are "wrong." Young Adult books don't necessarily carry this stigma (though you always have to be careful for those people worried about whether it is "appropriate" based on cursing, sexual activities, etc.). The point is! Young Adult novels are a great way for people to gain basic understanding of complex ideas without worrying that someone is going to slap a book out of their hands or dismiss its ideas because it's written by a "radical."
The Red Rising trilogy (which is the opening salvo of a larger series) is an example of a YA series where there's a lot that can be unpacked if you want. Or there's the option of just enjoying the story. Overall it help tells a message about the dangers of white-supremacy (or any sort of supremacy but in our current world it's white-supremacy), capitalism, technology, and societal norms. It does not go the way of Dune and the Butlerian Jihad (i.e., robots/AI taking control of everything and humans fighting back), but in some ways is much more insidious. It's biological science technology involving genetics, the reproductive system, and micro-chipping. Things that seem hugely science fiction right now, but which aren't actually that far away. The basic premise of of the series is that humanity has been separated into different colors, each color holding a place in the hierarchy of society. Reds at the bottom, Golds at the top. Through genetic engineering Golds are superior in size, strength, and supposedly everything else. Reds and other colors (Grays, Obsidians, Pinks, Violets, Blues, Oranges, etc.) are useful but inferior. Society has rules, Golds enforce those rules, and everyone is happy. Except, obviously to the reader, they aren't. Darrow, a Red hell-diver, is called upon by the Sons of Ares to infiltrate the Golds and help bring about the revolution. He is remade as a Gold and pushed into what amounts to a military academy. And let me tell you, it's way worse than the Hunger Games. The series is violent, disturbing, and heart-rending. I've cried and yelled and almost thrown the book (yes, I stopped myself in time but did end up slamming it against my table). It is not a story that has a happy ending, though I suppose Pierce Brown may pull something out of his hat in this last book, but it is a very important story to read. Even if you don't read it as a commentary on capitalism, white-supremacy, social norms, technology, and/or the human condition it is a series worth reading. Because as much as I love happy endings, it's important to be reminded that sometimes things don't turn out well. There are wars, traumas, and horrors in our world, but that doesn't mean we give up. That is, in my opinion, the most important message of this series (though there are a whole lot more if you read deeply). So read those happy books like I do, but maybe pick these up too. Because it never hurts to be reminded that we can always get back up again and there is always something worth rising for. Happy Reading! It doesn't always happen but sometimes when I review a book on Goodreads.com I give it less than three stars. I don't like to do this. I know how much work goes into writing/publishing/marketing/selling a book, and I'm still on the writing portion of mine. But sometimes I need to rate a book just "ok", which is a two-star rating on Goodreads. And the thing is, this book, and others in the series, have storylines which are worth a three-star rating at least. I'm on the third book in the Parasol Protectorate series now. I started reading the series last week. Obviously I like these books right? And I do. I just do not like the writing style.
The story itself takes place in a steampunk rendition of Victorian England. The aether (a common entity in steampunk literature) sort of takes the place of electric and magnetic advances. In addition to this classical steampunk trope, supernatural creatures, vampires and werewolves, join the cast, and the main character herself, a Miss Alexia Tarabotti, is a preternatural. Preturnaturals aren't a common paranormal creature. In this world, vampires and werewolves are created out of mortals that had extra "soul." Similar to scientific understanding in our current world, the book's world doesn't really have a good explanation of what the "soul" is. But they know that mortals who have an excess survive the change to vampires or werewolves. In contrast, a preternatural has no "soul." They live, they have consciences, they reproduce exactly the same as humans would. But they have no souls, and their touch renders supernatural creatures mortal again. So, in essence, they're the opposite of a supernatural. Hence the term preternatural. I won't get into the actual plot of the book, but just reading that short description of the type of world the book contains is amazing. It's exactly my type of book. But the characters, who I mostly like, and the intricacies of the world itself weren't able to make up for the writing style. It was written in third person, which as an author I like because it gives me some freedom to switch perspectives without having to indicate in a chapter or section heading which characters is speaking. It can, however, be difficult for a reader if viewpoint changes too often without an indication or pattern (as often happens in the Parasol Protectorate series). In this series' case, I think the possible issues with third-person are compounded because the author doesn't always refer to the same characters in the same way. For example, sometimes she'll call the protagonist Alexia but other times she'll call the protagonist Miss Tarabotti. And there isn't a pattern I've been able to detect that indicates why she's using a different moniker. This was jarring for me in the first book, and has been in the second book as well. I'm not far enough into the third book to make a judgement on that yet. Long story short (though it isn't if you consider the length of this post), I've given the first two books of the Parasol Protectorate series two-star ratings because the writing style is so jarring, but they are at least three-star worthy in terms of characters and storyline keeping me interested. If you like steampunk and paranormal reads (yes there is romance thrown in too) feel free to read the book(s) and give me your opinion on them. Maybe you'll catch a pattern I missed and I can go back and up my rating. Or we can just gab about the book itself. Happy Reading! Last year and this year I've been trying to increase my non-fiction reading repertoire (though I cheat a little bit and count memoirs as non-fiction, which is a debatable classification that I take full advantage of) because I prefer fiction to non-fiction. Part of this is because reading is at least a partial escape for me, and I don't really want to read about the real horrible things happening in the world. This is also why I prefer romances and fantasy with at least a mostly happy ending. Part of it is that non-fiction reads differently than fiction, and often the writing style in non-fiction books is one that often leaves me with glazed over eyes even when the topic is interesting. However, I do want to be well-informed and I don't want to push myself into a corner with my reading, so in 2018 and 2019 I've given myself the goal of reading at least one non-fiction (memoirs included) book per month. And for April 2019 I read The Monopolists: Obsession, Fury, and the Scandal Behind the World's Favorite Board Game. Somewhat surprisingly (though I don't know why it would be a surprise as I like board games) the history of Monopoly is fascinating.
You see, the game itself was originally an argument against monopolies and, to some extent, capitalism. I won't go into the whole history but the game of origin was called The Landlord's Game and was invented by Lizzie Magie in 1904. It had two ways to play, monopoly style and non-monopoly style. As the game spread and people put their own spin on the game, including making homemade boards, it became known as the monopoly game, as the monopoly style was the one most used. But I'll let you read the book to get the whole story. ;) While it wasn't my favorite book ever to read, at this point I'm unsure whether a non-fiction book will ever receive that distinction for me, it was very interesting because it went about telling the history of Monopoly through the lens of a game developed in the 1970s (I believe the official date is 1977), Anti-Monopoly. The cool thing is, while I hadn't really noticed such a game before, I actually saw one today at the Labyrinth board game store in Washington D.C. I don't know if it's just because I read this book and so I noticed the game for the first time, or if the game had just never been sold in any of the stores I've purchased games from before, but it was really cool to see the Anti-Monopoly game, especially because this book made the topic so interesting. The Monopolists is written by a journalist, and therefore has a journalistic tone. That is, it tries very hard to be objective even though no human being can be completely objective. That being said, overall I think the book did a fairly good job of not overtly telling us that big corporations are jerks and shouldn't be trusted. It was surely implied, at least it was in my mind, but it wasn't an in-your-face statement. The book also increased my interest in trademark/copyright law (which is something I'll need to deal with at some point as an aspiring author anyway) and how since cases like the Anti-Monopoly case went through laws have changed to better protect the big corporations from their iconic products entering into the public domain. Mickey Mouse anyone? Overall, I enjoyed The Monopolists. I think it was well written, well researched, and the topic was quite interesting. I suggest it for anyone who is interested in the history of games, underdogs winning court cases, commentaries on current economic systems, and enthusiasts of the Monopoly game itself. If you end up reading it, or have a non-fiction book suggestion for me, let me know in the comments! Happy reading! And because I like big books, when they all come in for me at once at the library it means I don't always finish them before they have to go back...Since I don't like to pay fines for overdue items, I bring them back and then have to put them on hold again. This has been my life the past few weeks. A lot of books that I really want to read have come in for me at the library, but I've also been pretty busy with work, applying for scholarships for an international PhD, and trying to finish the first draft of last year's NaNoWriMo novel. All this means, not as much time for reading, and therefore I've had to return books before I've finished them. :(
That being said, I am reading a book right now that I've had on hold for a while and I'm not going to let it go back to the library without finishing it because I've been waiting for it to be published for over a year! It isn't that big, actually, only 354 pages, and it is quite entertaining. What is the book you ask? The Winter of the Witch by Katherine Arden. It is the final book in a trilogy that are based on Russian folk-tales. One reason I love it so much is that here in the U.S., we don't always get to experience the mythologies of other cultures. Vikings and Greeks and Romans, yeah, we've pretty much all heard some form of those. And the Fae of Great Britain are pretty popular too. But outside of those "big" mythologies, we don't get much exposure to the mythologies of other cultures here in the U.S. The trilogy starts with The Bear and the Nightingale, which I say anyone who likes folk/fairy-tales should read. The series concludes with the book I'm currently reading, and while I'm only 60-something pages in, I definitely know it's going to be a good book. It's already been a wild ride and I'm really looking forward to what happens next! That's why today's post is going to be so short, because I really want to get back to reading while I have time today (I still need to spend some time on my novel and finish making lunches for the week). If you want, let me know what you're reading and what your favorite mythology/folk/fairy-tale stories are in the comments. I'm always up for discussing them and finding new stories to love! Happy Reading! Spoiler Warning: For those of you haven't watched the movie or read the book but want to do so, please be aware that there are spoilers in this blog post. Do not read if you do not want spoilers. Thank you.And with that lovely comparison picture I'm just going to jump right into the first, but hopefully not last, post of the category "Book Vs. Movie!" When you read that, you should hear a deep announcer voice in your head that then echoes off into the distance after the last syllable. Please tell me I'm not the only one who hears that every time I type out "Book Vs. Movie!"
Internal experiences of my psyche aside, I tend to have a love-hate relationship with books that are turned into movies or TV shows, mainly because I'm also a fandom girl, which means that I tend to get bogged down by the little details that "just aren't right" in the movie and angry at the gigantic changes that often happen (moral of the story, you probably don't want to ask me what I thought of the Percy Jackson and the Olympians movies). Moving on. I think that modern society, most especially in the Western capitalist world, has done a great disservice to men and women when it comes to conceptions of beauty. I'm sure you all probably have thoughts of your own on that topic, and a quick Google search will show you a plethora of other opinions too, but the point of this post isn't to debate the consequences and origins of body-shaming. Today, I'm going to be giving my take on the Young Adult novel turned Netflix film book celebrating fat-positivity and the rise of a teen beauty pageant contestant. Three Big Differences: It's been a few weeks since I read the book, and because of Netflix it is super popular right now and therefore I had to return it to the library and do not have it in front of me to remind myself of small details, so I'll just discuss three big ones. #1 Where's the love triangle? For those of you who haven't read the book, I'm sure that's a major spoiler, sorry but I did warn you at the top there would be spoilers. One of the huge differences between the book and the movie was the lack of Willowdean's love life, and El's as well to some extent. There was a definite love triangle going on, and it started during the summer when Bo and Willowdean started going out (the timeline of the movie is completely different from the book, though I give the movie some leeway because they do have to condense things a lot), then Willowdean found out Bo didn't tell her he was going to be attending her school (another huge difference that I'm giving some leeway for, see above) and they sort of broke up, and Willowdean went to the dance with a different boy from the football team who is super sweet but the spark isn't there, and she still likes Bo and Bo still likes her, and this new boy likes her too, and it's like every other teen love triangle: a mess. But this was missing from the movie. Potentially because of time constraints. Potentially because of how confusing it was. Potentially a bit of both. I'm both glad the movie didn't try to fit it all into the movie, but sad as well. Because the movie shares and overall uplifting message, but the book is able to add greater depth to what fat girls and boys go through, especially in high school. Now as for El's love life with her boyfriend, who we see at the very beginning of the movie and then hear is puking in the bathroom at the end of the movie but otherwise know nothing about, is also more detailed in the book. And it actually causes some added tension between Willowdean and El which increases the intensity of their "break" during the pageant. And that's a perfect segue into the next gigantic difference. #2 Willowdean and El break up I fully acknowledge that time cannot truly be compared in movies and books, because while both tend to skip days/weeks/months as the plot needs, books can add it tons of little details to the days whereas movies...can't. There is no way a movie is going to be able to do what a book can do because people start leaving at 2 hours. Most of the time, anyway. So I understand why the movie may have chosen to have El and Willowdean's fight work out the way it did. But in the book? El wasn't even supposed to sign up. That's when the fight started. And cracks were already showing before that when Callie (El's friend from where she worked) dropped a line to Willowdean that El might have confided more about her first time to Cali than she did to Willowdean. That, coupled with a lot of the other stuff, pushed the breaking point much earlier in the book, which means it lasted longer too. The main basis for the fight was the same, however, so I accept the slight changes the film made for time. #3 Missing characters!!!! So, there are at least two relatively main characters from the book that never made it into the movie. And unfortunately I can't remember their names (which is really bad and I'm sorry) and since they aren't in the movie, they aren't mentioned anywhere but in the book! And I don't have the book right in front of me. However, these two characters were relatively important to the plot of the novel. One, is Millie's very good friend who enters the pageant with Millie, Hannah, and Willowdean. The second, is the third leg of the love triangle mentioned above. Obviously, the movie was still able to tell the story without these characters, but it's difficult for me as a reader to fully love a film that cuts characters, even if it is for a good reason. Conclusion: Read the book. And watch the film. As far as book-to-movie films go, Dumplin' did pretty well. There were some large differences, and probably a whole lot more small ones than I caught, but the overall message was the same. Conventional forms of pretty? They should mean less than we think they do; and while it can be incredibly difficult to do so, ignore those conventions and just be yourself. Also, Dolly Parton is queen. ;) This has been another long post, so I'll leave it at that for now. Definitely reach out or leave a comment if you want more detail though. I'm always willing to talk books. Happy Reading! This past weekend I read The Hate U Give by Angie Thomas. A popular YA novel in its own right, it is also now a major motion picture. But before you decide to write it off as just another dystopian novel that got turned into a movie, I suggest you actually read the story (heck, I'll accept reading the synopsis on Amazon.com or listening to a family member or friend describe the plot to you).
First of all, this book is only as dystopian as our current society here in the United States of America. Now, for those of you who still think our country is the absolute greatest in the world, we're still living in a pretty dang dystopian society. And from my perspective, it's been getting worse for a number of years. But back to the novel. The gist of the novel, for those of you who didn't go and read the synopsis, is that it is the story of a black, teenage girl who witnessed one of her best friends getting shot by a police officer at a traffic stop. The boy who was shot was black. He was unarmed. He was not making any threatening moves to the police officer. That isn't a spoiler, by the way, because it all happens in the first few chapters. The rest of the book details the weeks that follow. Starr, the main character, has to navigate talking to the police after the "incident", dealing with gang activity in her neighborhood, trying to stay afloat in a private school where she is one of three black students, and deciding whether she should talk to the media about her, and her deceased friend's, side of the story. It is a commentary on racial tensions in the U.S.A. and the unacknowledged racism that is shoved down our throats every single day until it seems natural rather than learned. It is depressing, rage-inducing, and a book I think everyone should read (but especially white people, because we need to get our ish together). What I want to focus on today, though, is not how well-written and timely this book is. I'm not going to discuss anything related to a reference interview; sometimes I will, but not today. Today, I want to talk about a very specific sub-plot in the book between Starr and a classmate she used to think was a good friend, Hailey. Hailey has...issues. Hailey is, I think, what many white people are when they think they are being "good" but missing the point entirely. Now, Hailey says some very racist things throughout the course of the book. But when she's called out on it by Starr and others, she responds with an outraged, "I can't believe you're calling me racist!" Do you see the problem? It's not just in books. See, racism is systemic violence, and it is pretty much baked into every single day of our lives. Unfortunately, racism is framed as a personal failing of the individuals of our society. So rather than white people recognizing that something they said/did was racist and taking the necessary steps to stop saying/doing that racist thing, white people respond defensively and try to use logic to worm their way out of responsibility. This actually makes the whole situation worse, because the person who was the object of the words/act now has additional violence heaped on them because they are being told that their feelings do not matter, only white people's feelings matter. This is a subtle violence against minorities in some ways. It isn't something that is easily called out. After all, if all a white person has to do is say "But I'm not racist" to get out of taking responsibility, then what is the point of a minority even saying something? We even saw this issue in the recent congressional testimony of Michael Cohen (Lind, 2019), where a mention of a racist act by President Trump was conflated to be an accusation of racism. Regardless of your opinions about whether President Trump is or isn't racist (we're not going to get into it here), the pattern is the same. Rather than a discussion about how a white person could take responsibility for doing something racist and then make efforts to not do it again, it became a back and forth argument about how you shouldn't call someone racist. First, if someone is racist you should call them out on it. Second, that ignores the fact that racism is not a personal failing but a systemic problem. The Hate U Give gives us white people insight into how anyone can say/do something racist. It isn't the main point of the book, and is in fact a very small subplot, but I think it is just as important and ties into the broader theme. For example, characters in the book say that the cop who shot the black teenager wasn't racist, he was a nice guy, his life has been torn apart by this too. But why did he stop the kids in the first place? They weren't speeding. All that was wrong was a broken tail-light. How can that turn into a shooting? Because we are all trained to be racist by our society. And it is an active fight not to be. And even when you're fighting it, you can still do something racist. You can still say something racist. But what needs to happen then is not to get defensive about being a good person and not being racist. It is to accept that what you did was wrong and then take steps to make it better. And once you've done that, don't do it again. It isn't something you can say sorry for and then repeat. This is a longer post then I meant it to be, but I think that's what is so great about the book. The Hate U Give made me think, and it made me focus on things that I do and that I see others doing. It has given me a better awareness of my own prejudices, and I hope it has given me even greater motivation to watch what I say and do. The Hate U Give shows us some of the issues in our society in a well-written and accessible novel. I encourage everyone to read it and find their own lessons in its pages (it's also on audiobook *wink*). Happy Reading! References: Lind D. (2019).This Cohen hearing fight was everything wrong with how America talks about “racism”: An argument about whether Trump is “a racist” became a heated fight between House Democrats and Republicans. Retrieved from https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/2/27/18243173/cohen-hearing-trump-racist-comments Thomas, A. (2017). The hate u give. |
AuthorThe author is a librarian who reads "too much" (is there such a thing?) and talks just as much. As an aspiring author she gets bogged down by grammar rules when she just wants to forget them to make a sentence flow, but never seems to be able to. She appreciates thoughtful comments and constructive criticism, but internet trolls beware, she's read enough fantasy novels to know how to defeat the monsters. Archives
October 2020
Categories
All
|