Meh. A pretty shaky three stars, although there were a handful of sections that were within four star territory.
I liked the idea of this: two friends with completely opposite political views and backgrounds take a road trip and discover common ground. Especially appealing now that we are in a time that (in my short life at least) feels like both sides are more polarized than any time in recent history. Unfortunately, the book just didn’t always land.
One of the main things was the writing. The book is obviously written as a collaboration between the two of them which I am sure can be hard to manage. But there are so many more effective ways to write this than how they did (in my opinion). Do a first person “we” throughout the whole book, with maybe a first person I from both perspectives at the end of each chapter for each individual’s take from each of them when needed. Do alternating chapters; one by Jordan and one by Chris. Write it like an interview in parts where it is clear who is talking. I feel like anyone of those would be better than what they did. Here’s an example:
“Chris shot a look over at Jordan, whose eyes were fixed on the slalom road ahead. It was empty except for us and the long-haul trucks on their way up and down the freeway…...Earlier that evening, we had meandered down the sidewalks of NYC toward Jordan’s Volvo S60, which he had inherited from his grandfather. “It’s not much,” Jordan said.”
Maybe on its own this one excerpt doesn’t seem like much. But it was incredibly odd to read one sentence written from an omniscient POV where it refers to Jordan and Chris as if from out of the narrative, then the next sentence is the two of them saying “we." Yes, things need to be clear to the reader as to who is doing what. But I can’t think of any other book I’ve read with two writers that did it so inelegantly. There aren’t many other reviews of this but the ones I have seen don’t mention this, so maybe this doesn’t bother everyone. But it was honesty distracting the whole time.
I also felt like it was a little disorganized and lacking a central focus. Yes, okay, two friends want to understand the political landscape. And sure, by nature it’s a memoir and about a road trip so it’s bound to be a little meandering, but some of their tangents were just not worth it. Like near the end they spent a few pages describing how they went back to Idaho to look for this one cop a few years after he was particularly nice to them at a traffic stop. (Oh, because also this is not about one road trip, it’s about multiple road trips over the years which I think adds to the disconnect). Pages and pages describing calling different police departments and talking to secretaries about tracking down this unknown officer to say….what, exactly? Thanks? Hey, I realized how much harder this would have been if I was black and I wanna acknowledge that? Why are you nice? Who knows. It sounded like they found him but then they didn’t even say what their final conversation entailed. Huh? Why didn’t they ask him any of their burning questions when they first stopped by him? As far as I can tell, they knew they were writing a book then, too. Shouldn’t they have been ready to ask some hard questions?
I did like some of the sections more than the other, which is natural because they are stopping at different places. The parts with the truck driver, Pete who voted for Trump were fascinating. Pete is a character and it was one of the few times I have gotten a clear picture of how regulations affect people instead of just hearing blanket statements about how regulations are good or how they are awful. I also loved the New Orleans section and when they went to a women’s prison.
There were some well-written sections. I really liked this passage after they had a political disagreement and felt it kinda summed up the whole book:
“Healing, by this point on our journeys, was relatively easy for us. But the tenor of this fight, and its lingering wounds, weighed on our minds. What did it mean that we couldn’t extend out civil dialogue beyond the two of us? It felt like through long and excruciating hours of fights, debates, confessions, and reconciliations, we had earned something---the ability to trust each other so that somehow, despite our differences, we had forged a common language. But our friends didn’t seem to share that language, and in their presence we felt incapable of passing it along or abiding by it.”
So much swirling around in that. It's crazy how groupthink kicks in and it's so much harder to find your bearings in a group. Also makes you wonder what relationships are and should be based on. You see a lot of cutesy posts on Facebook that say things like, “We can disagree on politics and still be friends. It’s called being an adult.” But that’s a hell of a lot easier said than done. Politics encompasses every aspect of life--the military, education, what role the government should play, healthcare, etc. It’s the very frame we think the picture of life should fit in. You’re only kidding yourself if you think you aren’t political- that in itself affects politics/is a political choice. It’s incredibly hard to feel like there are things you fundamentally believe about life that someone else (someone you are close to, no less) is vehemently against. Relationships are built on values and similarities. Or are they completely? Are good times/memories, reliability, and other redeeming characteristics "enough"? How much of our personal politics determines if we are/aren't a good person? How much opposition can one take from a friend before it starts to feel like the relationship isn't worth it? How does it work with a stranger, when you are starting with nothing? Those are the interesting questions I walked away with. I wish I knew the answers!