For the love of everything holy. I'm adding to this review because 1) apparently it pops up as a frequently read review for the novel and 2) apparently people have a LOT of feelings about this review and feel very strongly they should tell me exactly how and why I am wrong about it. And look, I would be 100% for that if it were debate about the text and interpretative merit etc (and there are a few commenters who do get into that, and that's an interesting debate to have because, truly, there is not one authoritative reading of a text). But many of the comments that pop up trend along lazy assumptions about me as a reader-- the "you clearly just don't get it" variety or the most recent "you clearly doesn't know history." That's possible, but I'm re-posting here to say I think I do get it, but I think the novel did "it" poorly, and that I do know the history, and that's why I wish the novel did a better job with it. There was also a "this is just over-analysis" clap-back, which, yes? That is the exact point of literary analysis, so you got me there.
My original review remains in its entirety below. At the time, I didn't add a lot of layers to it because the book merited very few in my opinion, and because there were other books to read and other shit to do. But sweet mother mary, I'm adding some layers now because people's feelings about my review keep popping up in my Goodreads notifications, and whereas I rightly treat the rest of the internet as the cesspool of anonymous commenters and trolls that it is (and thus pay it no mind), Goodreads is a scared place and I will not let such shenanigans stand. Je refuse!
Let me put some presuppositions to rest before the entirety of Goodreads comes at me about how/why wrong I am about this novel: I am very much aware, if not overly-schooled, in New Zealand and Papua New Guinea history, including the bloody civil war that spanned the late 80's and 90's on Bougainville Island. In my current work, I'm more keenly aware of how the peace accord (signed only in 2001) still is very relevant for the human rights situation regionally. At any rate, that's not to say I couldn't learn more, but I very much get that this book is a sort of historical fiction, or in the very least rooting itself in a history-- in doing such, it's giving us a different way to understand/see history, and the way that some people survived (and survive) the horrors of war, conflict, and loss. I just don't think it's doing it particularly well AND I think it's doing it through a particularly troubling lens (but more on that later). Another relevant piece: I have a PhD in literature with an emphasis in gender and race studies and I taught literature for many years (before a career change) and used sections of this very text before. This doesn't mean that I definitely "right" about this (or any) book, or that my opinion is better or smarter than others' opinions, but it means that I used to read, think about, and write about books for a living, and that now (outside of academia), I still think about many texts critically and thoughtfully (for exceptions, please see my reviews of fantasy series which boil down to "I love this and don't care why").
And so, when I say I hated this book (which I very much did), I say it in a context in which 1) I get there is a history behind this book that this book is trying to reflect and 2) I think a lot about how books try to achieve certain ends and whether or not they get there. To me, Mr. Pip told a history poorly, superficially, and with a troubling lens.
For all its allusion to complexity, the novel does not move far beyond stereotypes and relies on literary cliches: you have a mysterious, wise/cooky older white man, a suspicious black mother figure, an absolutely flat (character) machete-wielding rebel (who should just wear a "bad guy" sign to put a nail in that coffin). The children are drawn to Pop Eye (Mr. Watts) for no apparent reason other than their affinity for all thing white ("we had grown up believing white to be the color of all important things"). Which itself could be an interesting deconstruction of the power of white mythology (and colonial influence). But the novel never challenges or deconstructs this affinity for whiteness, only reinforces it with the focus on Pop Eye and a sentimental adherence to the lessons of Great Expectations--a Victorian, English novel written by a white, male author, can teach- cultural context be damned.
It presents to us (and in the plot, to the island), Dickens' Great Expectations as a sort of civilizing sacred text, bringing vast imaginative opportunities to otherwise "simple" island life. The white, wise teacher (with a white, wise text) becomes the moral instructor for the children of the island, and their back-woodsy parents as well. And he is (soft-spoiler) then queued up for an act of great, white heroism by the end.
It's a book about the transformative power of fiction, and thus asks us to take the power of literature very seriously-- which is exactly what I'm doing when I say I think it's reductive, heavy-handed, has tinges if not overt overtures of colonial nostalgia, and has a questionable "gaze" (told through the eyes of a local, black 13-year-old girl, but one who affects the gaze of a white reader).
Look, this book was shorted for the Man Booker prize, and loads of people, including some literary critics and clearly many goodreads readers, really liked it. That's great-- I don't think they're dummies or racist asshats for thinking so. But I disagree that the book transcends anything other than a tired post-colonial theme of self-reinvention through white eyes.
I also thought the pacing was bad. The end.
*** original review***
I *hated* this book. Let me tell you why: this novel read like this: look at this poor, uneducated island, and these poor, noble-savage ignorant and simple black people who are caught in the middle of a violent conflict between the savage black rebels who will eventually sell you out and the even more savage redskins (no joke, "redskins") who terrorize you, rape you, and machete you into pieces they will then feed to a pig. The violence, indeed, the whole setting, seemed wildly superfluous. The novel was like the literary version of that horrific Mel Gibson movie "Apocolypto" (or however you spell it) which was basically a 2 hour long version of "ooooh, look at the savages and how savage they are! Aren't they savage!!". To add insult to injury, the only "civilizing" force on the island is a white man who sprinkles down the magic of white civilization, imagination, and joy by reading Great Expectations. Look, I loved Tale of Two Cities, but Great Expectations? Come on. Someone needs to tell this author we've moved on from Colonialism (or at least we try to pretend we have). We call it "Post-Colonialism" now. We don't write about people of other races as though only we and our white civilization can save them, like they are only there for us to be saved, like they are only brutalized victims or brutal victimizers. And we definitely don't do it while self-righteously clinging to Great Expectations as a panacea for human understanding. Very "Shakespeare in the Bush" only without the actual intentions of finding anything out about the power of literature, instead it just reads as the power of the white ego.