*spoilers*
I found this to be an extremely manipulative and stupid book. A Pro-Bullying book. A book that tells you how to be a horrible lousy friend, whilst still maintaining an air of self-righteousness. A book with a pretentiously hypocritical main character to lead the way. Sorry not sorry.
Also a book that advocates for blaming people for things they didn’t do. The protagonist keeps insisting on helping people who hate him for no reason, and there’s this obvious implication that he owes them something. Meanwhile he shows contempt for people who are minding their own business, sitting in their houses, being warm, having cocoa, and listening to Christmas music. Paul Fisher is an ass. Sorry not sorry.
Also, fuck sports. Fuck the fact that stupid, boring, ball-obsessed activities that involves being violent a-holes towards other people was shoved down my throat all throughout my childhood, but meanwhile important things like art, writing, reading, or nurturing animals were always scoffed at/or I wasn’t allowed to explore them. Sorry not sorry.
The book is full of all sorts of gaslighting. We’re supposed to believe Joey is a big horrible racist, but Victor literally calls every Asian person he sees “Chinese” (spoiler, the Asians in this book are Filipino, not Chinese), and that’s literally never acknowledged. We’re supposed to believe the “opposing team” is the one that’s violent, when Paul’s Tangerine team is actually the one that got violent first. We’re supposed to believe Tino and Victor “didn’t mean anything against Joey’s brother” by interrupting the memorial for him, but they were the ones who’d been bullying him for no reason earlier. In fact, the whole ending conflict reeked of “Hey Costello family, I’mma let you finish, but Luis Cruz had the most tragic backstory of all time.” It’s gross. The whole book reminded me of “True Diary of a Part-Time Indian”. Fake morality, sports crap, forced reading in schools, toxic little middle school boys—these books are the epitome of the notoriously toxic phrase “boys will be boys”.
Here’s something really important that I think more people need to realize: Two things can be true at once. I know that’s a hard concept for people to grasp (especially someone who used to communicate with me on here), but I’m here to tell you that it IS possible to hold two coexisting thoughts in your head simultaneously, without them being contradictory. They can, in fact, both be true. None of this “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” crap. Instead, you can condemn two people at once. You can condemn both Voldemort and the Dursleys…even though they’d be sworn enemies, no doubt. I’ll get more to this in a minute
Among the lesser problems I had with the book were the boring, mundane details of everyday life (think Twilight), a protagonist that makes Bella Swan look like an intriguing and riveting and dynamic character, and a whole bunch of sports (yuck). And no, it’s not just because of the recent rise of privileged athletes who bash my country. I’ve just always hated sports.
But for me the biggest criticism is that the bullying is ignored or justified in various ways. When it’s not being glossed over and swept under the rug, it either has the disgustingly typical excuses made for it (“it’s just a joke, bruh”, “boys will be boys”), or, the book is emotionally manipulating the reader by blatantly justifying the bullying by having it turn out later that *spoiler* the person getting bullied is supposedly a racist (there’s several inconsistencies with that sudden characterization, but who’s keeping track?). So it’s as if the book is saying, “Well this person turned out to be a bad person themselves anyway, so, it’s OKAY that the bullying happened.” Except, actually—no. Incorrect. I know the popular opinion is that if someone is the victim of racism, that suddenly automatically makes any/all behavior on their part okay, but that’s not true. That’s not how it works. Again—you can be against BOTH things. You can acknowledge that racism is wrong. And, you can also acknowledge that bullying is wrong too. Isn’t that neat? The existence of one doesn’t justify the other. But, this book goes down the classic victim-blaming route of, “If someone bullies you, then YOU need to ‘chill out’—not the bully, the one who’s attacking, antagonizing, and harassing another person. It’s YOU who’s the problem.” It doesn’t surprise me that I’d been made to read this twice in school, since this is the same gaslighting, pro-bullying dogshit dribble our schools peddle out. It goes hand-in-hand with what these abuse institutions—I mean, schools—are constantly pushing. The protagonist also does the narcisisstic bully-apologist crap of, “Well, I was okay with it, why aren’t YOU okay with it?”
I also find it highly suspicious and overly-convenient that Joey only started being racist well over halfway through the book, after VOLUNTARILY switching to a school where he KNEW the majority of kids there were nonwhite, AND not showing any hostility toward them until AFTER they’d started bullying and egging him on. Not to mention, having all of his closest friends at his other school be minorities too. Make of that what you will, but I’m not buying it. It’s just trying to justify the previous nasty behavior of the other characters. I’ve seen this a few other times in fiction: GoT butchering/assassinating Daenerys’ character to try to justify the other characters’ bigotry and the writers’ misogynistic views, as well as the character Ray on that trash 90s show, Beverly Hills. He’d shown no signs of violence or abuse beforehand, was always treated like crap for no real reason, and then suddenly conveniently becomes abusive (even though the other characters have been abusive, but I guess it was always okay because they were rich). Point is, inconsistent, poor, and bad writing/characterization doesn’t really work for me. If someone is actually racist, murderous, or a domestic abuser, they’re probably going to show signs of that beforehand. And, even if someone is like that from the start, that still doesn’t cancel out or absolve you from any wrongdoing that you’ve done. Hear that, Emma Gonzalez?
The irony is also not lost on me that while Paul sat down and cried over not being able to play on the soccer team at his first middle school, this idiot simultaneously spends the rest of the book calling people wimps for not wanting to go to school for their own mental health (an abusive institution that bullies people), and telling everyone else around him to “calm down.” Okay pot. Keep calling all the kettles around you black. Someone getting bullied is a lot more serious than you not being able to play some stupid sport. He also ends the book as a macho dudebro saying, “I’m SuCh A bAd DuDe NoW, hAhA nERds!” The arrogance reached vomit-inducing levels.
The entire conflict is between dog crap and…dog crap. What a choice. Literally Tino and Erik (the main event rivalry in this book) are both the same kind of person.
There are blatantly stupid situations in the book where clear bullying is going on, but for some reason the one getting bullied is the one who is demonized. It’s so stupid and makes my brain hurt. Paul reminds me of a revoltingly vile person I actually trusted and was loyal to for 4 years, who would always pretend to be that “good, moral, kind, caring, upstanding” person who totally stood for justice, but would simultaneously defend people who would bully me, and act like I was the problem—and say things like, “you’re making a big deal out of nothing”—whilst simultaneously being allowed to voice his criticisms and concerns of other people. It was only ever okay when he did it, not when I did. This is subtly narcissistic, gaslighting, demeaning, and abusive (and in the case of my “friend”, a racist, despite pretending with all his might to be the opposite). These people are the fakest of the fake. Paul will freak out if Joey doesn’t want a hall guide on his first day of classes, but it’s totally fine to bully people. It’s fine to hassle, harass, or intimidate someone who isn’t doing anything to you, but God forbid, you decline a tour guide of the school. Because THEN, you’re calling Paul blind, and oh dear. He’ll get gung-ho about that, even though it’s fine for others to call you whatever they want. But it’s oh so horrible to say “you’d have to be blind to get lost around here”, but not what the guys are doing to Joey. Fuck off. There is not a single interesting, root-able, or likeable character in this book, and the plot is nothing but boring sports games. What exactly am I supposed to be getting out of this?
Teresa is a hypocrite too. That dog (yeah, I’m going to call her that, Paul) said Joey couldn’t say anything about her brother, but she’s fine with these animals (yeah, I’ll call them that too—if you are violent and/or a bully, you’re an animal, and go ahead and twist that in any way you’d like) harassing or getting violent with others. Or vandalizing things. Just shut up, Teresa.
More Paul-bashing: Could you have created a more boring protagonist? I’m sorry, but when all you talk about is sports and tangerine-growing, I’m not interested. I probably wouldn’t even be mentioning this if he wasn’t also a bad person, but he is. So I don’t feel bad about calling him boring. The book basically has three components: a play-by-play of every football/soccer game (they’re both the same thing to me), information overload on tangerines and Florida agriculture, and the mc being an asshole. When it’s not mundane, it’s promoting bullying. When it’s not promoting bullying, it’s mundane and boring. Paul definitely high-key reminds me of someone I knew in real life who pretended to care about me, until he decided to demonize me for standing up for myself against a bully—and I used to listen to that pig talk about football, without complaining, and actually being supportive. Don’t you just love going the extra mile for someone only for it to end up being a total waste of time? Never extend an olive (or tangerine) branch to someone.
I also love how the mom was made out to be a total Karen because she actually cared about whether or not her husband and son lived or died. Boy. The standards for Karens have dramatically dropped. I remember when it used to mean wanting to RUIN a person’s life—not caring about it (especially when it’s your own kid).
There was also a silly storyline about Paul feeling oh so guilty about “ratting” the guys out who vandalized part of a carnival. First of all, why is it wrong to hold people accountable for their actions? I know this is the age of dEsTrOyInG sTaTuEs iS coOl, but most normal people know that there’s no excuse for destroying other peoples’ property. Secondly, he was literally defending himself. He’d have taken the fall for something he didn’t do. Why was he supposed to have done that instead?
The “shocking twist” at the end was not shocking or a twist at all. It’s fairly obvious from page 1.
No. Just no.