Literary Fiction by People of Color discussion

Our discussion book for April is My Soul to Keep by Tananarive Due. The discussion will begin on April 1 and will be led by group moderator William. Here's some information about author Tananarive Due:

Tananarive Due is the American Book Award-winning author of nine books, ranging from supernatural thrillers to a mystery to a civil rights memoir. Her trilogy of books about African immortals with healing blood Began with 1997’s My Soul to Keep, a reader favorite that Stephen King said “bears favorable comparison to Interview with the Vampire.” The trilogy continued with The Living Blood in 2001 and Blood Colony in 2008. The Living Blood received a 2002 American Book Award.

Due also collaborates with her husband, novelist and screenwriter Steven Barnes. In the summer of 2007, Due and Barnes published their first mystery, Casanegra: A Tennyson Hardwick Novel, which they wrote in collaboration with actor Blair Underwood. The series continued with In the Night of the Heat, a 2009 NAACP Image Award winner, and a third Tennyson Hardwick book to be released this year, entitled From Cape Town with Love.

Other books include: The Good House, nominated as Best Novel by the International Horror Guild; The Black Rose, based on the life of business pioneer Madam C.J. Walker, which was nominated for an NAACP Image Award; Joplin’s Ghost, which blends the supernatural, history and the present-day music scene; and Freedom in the Family: A Mother-Daughter Memoir of the Fight for Civil Rights, which she co-authored with her mother, civil rights activist Patricia Stephens Due. Freedom in the Family was named 2003's Best Civil Rights Memoir by Black Issues Book Review.

Due currently teaches creative writing in the MFA program at Antioch University Los Angeles. She is a former feature writer and columnist for The Miami Herald.

Have this one and will be read to read in April.

I've only read excerpts of Tananarive Due's work and am long overdue to read one of her novels. I'm excited!

I wasn't impressed by The Good House. Let's see how this one goes.

I have My Soul to Keep by T. Due on hold at the library. I can't promise to be ready for the discussion. I would love to be ready. I will get here one day. I feel like saying "I'm late. I'm late for a very important date." I'm not late yet, just scurrying.::))

just came in via Amazon. I'm not familiar with her so I'm curious to see why she was chosen. I'm about 30 pages or so into it so far.

I am that far too. I had to get started on an ARC. That might slow me up. I hope to be forgiven again.

I'm shaking my head at myself. I just proudly sauntered up to the counter at the library to pick up my held copy of the book. Turned it over, looked at the cover, head slap. It's the second book in the series, The Living Blood. Which in a previous moment of fail, I've already read out of order. I have no idea how I requested the wrong book. But I will try again, and hopefully not be too late in joining the discussion upon finishing.

Is this book like a horror film then? If so Rashida I would be happy to send you my copy because I don't like horror at all.

although horror isn't normally my cup of tea, this is interesting so far on various levels. My wife will want to read it later though. But, I'm not sure why we are getting into a sequel ahead of the original.

This book is not a sequel. It is the first book of Due's "Living Blood" trilogy. Although there are some mildly "horrific" passages it hardly fits into the mindless violent horror genre but straddles the sci/fi horror line in my opinion.

ah ok, thanks. hadn't seen the first one, but this seems spend a lot of time referencing previous events, so I thought the first book must have covered them. While I would agree that the book isn't exactly part of the "mindless violent horror genre", the paperback addition I have has a quote over the title from Steven King, referencing Interview with the Vampire, so it shouldn't be too much of a stretch to understand why I referred to it as horror. Obviously, it's being marketed that way.

The Good House is in the Horror section of my library, too. I'm obsessional enough to find myself tempted to take something out of Fantasy and put it on the Science Fiction Shelf, or move it from Modern Fiction to Romance. :-)

I think only the readers can look past the marketing to the substance of the book, and see if it can be categorised, and where.

And I still haven't found My Soul To Keep so I'll just be asking questions this time!

Soooo we have our first discussion point. Is the book horror, Sci/Fi, romance, theology? Looking forward to April 1st!

I was turned off by the cover too but the prologue drew me in right away.

I am on p. 145 and I definitely would not call it horror -- although there has been some violence. I don't think of it as Sci/Fi, romance or theology (even though religion is often referenced). The main male character is immortal and has lived for hundreds of years, hence he has many secrets. He vividly remembers events from long ago, and those events color his actions in the present.

I cannot categorize this book yet, but I am really enjoying it. I feel a little mystery and crime drama from the book thus far -- there is suspense because the reader is aware something big and bad is going to happen and secrets will inevitably be revealed.

On another topic, this is my first post in this group. I have been a member for many months, lurking, but this is the first time I have been able to get the book from the library on time! I am looking forward to the discussion.

Hi fellow LFPC book discussants! my style of leading this discussion will be a little different...kind of a laissez-faire approach or benign neglect at times. But do intend to hopeful throw out some questions worth pondering or statements that will provoke discussion and keep things moving along. I'll try to not include too many spoilers by asking and including thoughts on the early chapters first and later ones as the discussions evolves.

Feel free to respond to my question posed in message fourteen..just how would one classify this book given its many themes?

And my first softball..Did anyone pick up on the foreshadowing of things to come when early on in Jessica's Spanish class everyone was out with the flu except for the teacher Dr. Wolde?

Well, I've finished it, and I can't say I know yet quite how to classify it, beyond interesting. it's certainly not a vampire story, Steven King's comments aside. There are mystical, somewhat unworldly elements to it, but it's not really a horror story, except perhaps to the extent that Dawit is warped over the years by the horror of the human condition. In any case, I very much like the non-eurocentrict millieu and themes, especially as I've liked Jazz from the 20s for a long time. I'm just surprised neither King Oliver nor Johnny Dodds for that matter, the great clarinetist in Oliver's Creole Jazz Band of the 20's never came up. But I digress.

There's no shortage of foreshadowing throughout the novel, which makes it a little easier to prepare for certain events when they happen. I thought it was interesting that Dr. Wolde spoke so many languages and seemed "mature" for his age.

George wrote: "Well, I've finished it, and I can't say I know yet quite how to classify it, beyond interesting. it's certainly not a vampire story, Steven King's comments aside. There are mystical, somewhat unwor..."

I love work that's hard to classify. That immediately piques my interest. In Nalo Hopkinson's work there can be threads of spirituality woven in with scifi/fantasy type tropes. Is this similar?

I'm not familiar with Nalo Hopkinson, however, it at least sounds familiar.

William wrote: "Hi fellow LFPC book discussants! my style of leading this discussion will be a little different...kind of a laissez-faire approach or benign neglect at times. But do intend to hopeful throw out som..."

Ha, I did not. But I figured out some of the other hints and quickly realized the spelling of his name was just too similar...

T. Due early on introduces religious themes and concepts into the story. I found it intriguing that she assigns deep Christian beliefs to the Jessica character but then has Jessica name the howling and spirits she believes exist in the trees, Night Song. Similar to the animist beliefs of pre-colonial Africa and America. Theology and religion are constant currents in this book. How did it affect ones perception of the characters?

I am reading the book and the characters are interesting, but I do not yet know where they are taking me. Must keep reading... O. Joseph

William wrote: "T. Due early on introduces religious themes and concepts into the story. I found it intriguing that she assigns deep Christian beliefs to the Jessica character but then has Jessica name the howling..."

Might this be a recognition that prevailing religions are influenced by the ones they supplanted? And that the old beliefs don't die? Christian leaders certainly tended to co-opt others' religious festivals and symbols, eg. Easter. Conversely, in my home country the minority Shouter Baptists seem to have successfully merged the religious practices of our African ancestors with Christianity.

I'm interested to hear about the characters....

I generally don't like speculative fiction, but I couldn't put down My Soul to Keep, and ordered The Living Blood and Blood Colony (since I am sick & have been ordered to stay off my feet)

The religious attributes for the two primary characters are interesting to me, given that Ethiopia is the world's second oldest Christian nation and Muslims are, to this day, a minority there.

Does anybody know what the name Wolde (usually Woldegeorges or Wolde-Giorgios) means, or where it comes from?

I find it interseting that David/Dawit is supposed to have lived for hundreds of years, in both Christian and Muslim societies and yet T. Due casts him now as a confirmed athiest. That to me is a pretty powerful indictment of organized religion on Due's part. But on the other hand she subscribes the very essence of Davids immortality to the "Living Blood", supposed stolen from the body of Christ. Certainly David ought to be a little appreciative and recognize that such power doesn't emminate from man alone?

Let me begin by saying I returned my book to the library, so I may forget a name or two in this post.

To me, the members of the living blood seemed like Buddhists. They had a strong devotion to their teacher, Khaldon, and obeyed his word over all else. He was their incarnation of god, their Buddha. The living blood brothers also were encouraged to withdraw from the world and focus on meditation, study and more esoteric pursuits. And, as in Buddhism, atheism is accepted; while Buddhists do not believe that there is one god in heaven like Christians, Jews and Muslims, they do believe that there is something more than themselves, something greater. In Dawit's case, is the something greater the living blood? Is it Kahldon? Or is it something else?

I really saw the parallel with Buddhism in Khaldon's encouragement of ascetic pursuits. Like Buddhists, the living blood brothers saw suffering in the world and used the fasting, meditation, learning and such to help them avoid experiencing the suffering. Dawit was the only one (besides the man who went crazy) who embraced the world wholeheartedly. He wanted to experience the love and with that came the heartbreak. He did not believe mortals were foolish, dispensable beings. But how to be immortal and not to withdraw from the world. How does one carry around all the pain from the hundreds of years of life? I don't want to spoil the ending, but I think there may be some answers there.

You guys make this sound so intriguing, I may just go to ebay!

Although Davids actions are explained later in the novel...doesn't Jessica come off as more than a little naive..even though supposedly one of the smartest in her class in falling for David so completely. Davids outsized sulking when Jessica broke his 78 rpm recording, her feeling of not being able to touch things in her own house and his rejection of her plans to write a book with her newspaper colleage all pointed to a controlling and abusive man. I suppose love is blind but I thought Jessica was smarter than that.

Hazel wrote: "You guys make this sound so intriguing, I may just go to ebay!"

I ordered a used copy from Amazon that should be here soon. I would have requested it from the library, in which case they might have purchased it, but that usually takes a couple of months.

I might try that, Denise. Some popular US fiction seems difficult to get in my library.

Intellectual intelligence has never equipped a naive young woman in a romantic relationship, Bill, as I suspect you know! Jessica was very inexperienced and a bit of a nerd when she met David. And, in my opinion, this goes double for young, intelligent black women who have never fit in with the crowd. Unlike her sister, Jessica doesn't recognize which behaviors stem from personal idiosyncrasies and which indicate a real problem.

Hi Mina! Yes I suppose that was a little bit of tongue in cheek, devils advocate talking. Literature and life is sadly littered with examples of spousal abuse of partners intelligent enough to know better.

I agree with you both that sometimes even brilliant minds make bad decisions in relationships. In this case, David was so kind to Jessica and Kira that I think Jessica overlooked nagging questions to focus on the good life they had together. I understood Jessica feeling like she could not touch things in her home as a natural expression of a young woman moving into her older husband's home; she had not quite grown into the house yet.

I did, however, keep wondering how she could overlook so much -- David's childhood story, his wealth and intellect. These all seemed suspect to me. I don't know if I would ever have trusted David. But Jessica did trust him. Perhaps because she never had reason to doubt David's love for her.

As it turns out, David had a good reason to act the way he did (or thought he had a good reason for bad behavior). He was not evil or abusive, even if a tad controlling. So, does this mean Jessica was right to be blind to the questions everyone had about David? I am not sure how the author comes down on this. While considering that the outcome of Jessica's relationship with David was very painful, the ultimate ending of the book for Jessica was full of hope and a bright future. And we learn that Jessica's relationship with David was no mistake and that their union produced a miracle that could change the world. HMMMM......

Some notes on David/Dawit...you probably shouldn't read further if you haven't finished the first third of the book...David early on declares himself a misanthrope; someone who hates people. While most employ this term in a tongue in cheek way or for its shock value, David obviously speaks it truthfully. If he does have any fond memories of interactions with humans they were formed long ago as he has no interest in current events and dismisses all pop culture as a waste of time. I find it interesting, though, that Due paints him as a jazz lover/musician who declares that Satchmo was the greatest musician period. Even better than the ones who taught him at his "Life Brothers" colony.

I must disagree with you, Jackie, when you say David is not "evil or abusive, even if a tad controlling". I think T.Due took a misstep, if her intention was to make David a sympathetic protagonist, when David killed Peter. Peter was completely innocent of any involvement other than knowing his wife and supporting her career. David killed Peter because of jealosy, control and fear of discovery. None of these reasons are enough to make the killing justifiable.
Yes, Jackie, the reasons for other acts of violence become clear as the novel progresses and some might be considered in defense of self and family but Peters killing left me without much empathy for Davids character. He himself says he hates people and feels no remorse for the killing of innocents.

But didn't David's fear of discovery cause him to kill Peter? At least that is how David justifies it to himself, I think. And, David does feel regret for having killed Peter -- at least David comes to see that killing Peter was unnecessary. And despite the fact that David killed Peter, I don't think he is evil. I think David has human (mortal) feelings that he tries to quash by killing -- killing is easier for him than experiencing the pain of jealousy in this case. But that leads me to the question of why killing is the easy way out for David? Is he truly a misanthrope?

I think David is conflicted. He strives to be a misanthrope, but feels love and pain and the need to be around people. At the same time, David knows that to remain a satisfied immortal he cannot immerse himself in the mortal world -- but he really wants to. This conflict is why he avoids returning to his teacher, who David knows will keep him away from the world for a time; David craves the world and life and he cannot bear to leave it.

At the same time, David knows that all the mortals will die. Perhaps it is easier for David to see their death at his own hands, than to suffer as the mortals deteriorate before his eyes. So maybe there are two main reasons David kills, 1. to protect his secret, and 2. to ease his personal suffering.

Jackie wrote:
So maybe there are two main reasons David kills, 1. to protect his secret, and 2. to ease his personal suffering. I agree. Perhaps this has little to do with David's misanthropy or his immortality; we mortals kill each other daily, and for similar reasons.

Dawit's experience does raise interesting questions about how morality - our social codes about how we live together in community - are related to our mortality, the consciousness that our lives, and the lives of those we love, are finite. I think this question is also raised by Jessica and David's interfaith relationship: Islam and Christianity are two different sets of moral codes.

By juxtaposing these two characters, cultures & religions, Due seems to ask us:
- Is it possible to have something that is evil in one moral code (killing to protect one's people, for example) be value-neutral in another?
- If so, what does that mean to you, to consider that your own faith practice and moral codes might not be universal or "right" for everyone?
- What are the implications of this moral relativism for black communities, most of whom define christian protestantism as a required part of black community, social values and morality? Think about this hard - Dawit has had the experience of being black for longer than anybody I know of ...

This book is a page turner, but not a lightweight!

Mistinguettes,
You are mistaken...there is no interfaith relationship, unless you consider, as some people do, atheism a religion. David has lived among Muslims but Jessica tries very hard in the first chapter to explain to Kira the ramifications of David's atheistic beliefs. David does not believe in heaven and will not meet up with Princess there.
Islam certainly teaches of the Paradise/heaven in the hereafter just as Christianity does. And as far as the relative 'moral codes' of the 2 religions they are much more similar than not.
Which brings me back to my original point about the killing of Peter, I can think of no religion that justifies, no matter the reason, the killing of innocents as was Peter's. Where as almost all religions excuse it in the name of self defense. Why else is there any justification for the mass killings engendered by war?
But one doesn't have to be religious to grasp this universal concept. Even atheists, like David, operate with a certain innate sense and amount of morality.

William:

Hmm. I see religion as a set of customs, perceptions, rituals and beliefs that are shared cultural practices. So just as Jessica is not so big on Jesus but is culturally Christian, I see Dawit as an atheist who is culturally Muslim.

In this way, I see a very deeply Islamic worldview in David/Dawit. I see it in his conscious struggle with submission of his individuality (Islam is all about submission); in his constant struggle with the tension between loyalty to his brethren and compassion for human suffering ( anti-tribal monotheism being the fundament of Islam); and most of all in his deep "fasting" or renunciation of relationship as a form of spiritual discipline. These struck me as deeply Islamic cultural practices, even in the absence of a belief in God.

William, I get that you find Dawit's murder of Peter morally repugnant from within your moral code. But why? Is it because it's sinful and he won't go to Heaven? But that idea requires mortality, and Dawit cannot die. Can one be immortal and live a moral life? Can immortals have a moral code that is different from the moral code of mortals?

And isn't Jessica's head just totally wrecked by discovering that rebirth after death, healing the afflicted, raising the dead, and The Blood that "will never lose its power" is ...well, not quite as unique as her religious culture taught her it was?

You are certainly free to believe whatever you wish about Davids religious "culture". Just as in Jackie's previous post when she said she believed the Brotherhood to be more like a Buddhist enclave. I'm sure other readers may feel his actions more Christian in nature. I happen to take T. Due at her word when she says explicitly that he is an atheist. And that he is an atheist because he has lived within and rejected all faiths.
My distaste for the killing of Peter stems from nothing more that the fact that I know of no religion or even organized society that condones the killing of innocents and I challenge you to show me one that does. Notions of sin and heaven have no sway and are not considered. I really can't even comment on the moral code of immortals because I've never met one and my knowledge of their moral code is limited to what T. Due describes of it to me. If your asking me can a fictional immortal have a moral code different that of mere mortals..well sure ..isn't that what this entire book is about?

Muslim, Christian, Bhudddist, animist, and more concepts...all are available to the readers of this book...and T Due does a masterful job of weaving them in the books plot threads

Mistinguettes wrote: "Can immortals have a moral code that is different from the moral code of mortals?"

wow. a ton of interesting questions here. i had planned to come here to express dissatisfaction with this book, instead i find myself eager to return to it (i'm a bit over half way through). i'm not crazy about due's writing, but it pleases me greatly to see people here say that they find the book a page-turner. clearly, due deserves the accolades she has received, even though *i* find the narrative a bit too mired in details and, consequently, slow. in other words, i like her and want her to be liked, even though i am non finding this book my cup of tea.

i think mistinguette's question is really central to this book. me, i really, really dislike david -- find his ruthless and exploitative to the max -- but you, mistinguettes, bring up a ton of really valid points (including that he has been black for longer than anyone any of us knows; not sure about the implications of this but they seem worth exploring).

that due writes about black people in this literary fantasy/speculative novel is interesting. i suspect there are not many african american authors who deal in this genre and have achieved such literary status.

since i live in miami, i am really pleased the book is set here. not many books set in miami, either.

anyway, yeah, what does immortality do to people? not much good, it seems. all of dawit's killings, so far, seem horrific and despicable to me, and i don't buy the ethic relativism of "but he's immortal." at the same time, well, we don't know what it is like to be immortal, and, frankly, i don't want to know, either!

I reread this book for the discussion, having read it a long time ago. I very seldom reread books, but I enjoyed this one as much as I did the first time. I really like the details and they didn't slow me down at all. David's atheism is not surprising - think of the number of people who lose faith in a god because of the horrible things that they have witnessed in a normal life span. David has witnessed and performed countless despicable acts and, in my opinion, has become his own god. I see his world view as more Middle Eastern than Islamic, especially in his memories of the way that women were supposed to behave. Although he loves his wife for her inquiring mind, he doesn't value her independence and sees both Jessica and Kira as his possessions. I agree with the ghostly grandfather - there are no good monsters.

I don't see Jessica as just culturally Christian, but as a genuine woman of faith, who even sees the Blood as a gift from God. At her lowest point, she feels abandoned by God, but that is not uncommon for people of faith. And she takes the very dubious gift of the Blood and turns it around to do good, certainly called for in Christianity as well as other religions. We are clearly supposed to take her beliefs seriously or Kira would not have had her final visit with her grandfather, a strong affirmation of life after death.

I'm now seriously fighting the urge to reread the rest of the trilogy. My to-read list is growing too fast for do-overs! (But I may reread the next two anyway - I loved this trilogy!)

Wow, what a great discussion. Lots of insight and plenty of food for thought. I've been reflecting upon Mistinguette's remarks, in particular. . .
Anyway, the following are some of my own impressions.

Having heard so much praise of Due’s work, I was fully prepared to enjoy MY SOUL TO KEEP. However, that turned out not to be the case. I didn’t enjoy MY SOUL TO KEEP . . . I loved it!

I think what I liked most about the book was David/Dawit’s complexity. Even though he was a murderer, who grossly over-rationalized his actions, a part of me couldn't help but feel sorry for him. Perhaps the sympathy I felt for him stemmed from the extensive details about his history, particularly the portion having to do with his life as a slave. I do know, for me, David/Dawit embodied both the best and the worst of what it means to be human--intelligent, attractive, artistic, emotional, self-centered, manipulative, unpredictable, owning the ability to justify murder--all of which made him a great monster.

Even though he claimed to be an atheist, his actions and thought-processes seemed very much in line with those of a religious zealot. While every religion has its zealots, David/Dawit's actions reminded me of the Christian-aligned anti-abortionists who attempt to murder those who perform abortions. Both David/Dawit & Mahmoud kill (and are prepared to kill) in order protect what they hold sacred-- the Living Blood. David/Dawit goes one step further when he begins killing in order to bestow/force "the gift" of the Living Blood onto those he claims to love. To me, this would suggest that, David/Dawit looks upon the gift of the Living Blood as a means of Salvation and himself as the bestower of such.

I found the statement which occurs through-out the text, “There are no good monsters” both unsettling and thought-provoking. The statement has me wondering about the definition of the word “monster.” Really, what is a monster? If there truly are no good ones, how might we come to view Jessica and her daughter? I suppose I’ll have to read the next book in the series to find out, huh? :-) :-)

NB:Spoiler Alert!

I found Lori's introduction of the term "zealot" to be particularly helpful in thinking about Dawit (and it sent me to the dictionary to understand the word's history. Foreshadowing abounds!)

I'd also love to follow the thread Jo brought forth: How much of David/Dawit's murderous brutality is related to the degradation of being enslaved, whipped to what should have been death, and later lynched -- and living to remember it?

The book makes it clear that Dawit went through a period during the Civil War when he participated in the slaughter of any number of people in reaction to Adele's murder, but I don't think his murder of Peter has any direct relationship to his enslavement. Peter's death is rationalized as necessary to keep Dawit's existence, and his group, hidden. The real question to me is whether that was his actual reason, or his raging jealousy over Peter's relationship to his wife and his need to possess his wife.

Rebecca wrote: "Due's mention of skin tone is also I think her way of making a statement. Any ideas of what she is thinking or where she is going with it?"

what do you mean, rebecca? whose skin tone? do you mean in general?

I'm typing with my eyes closed so as not to be spoiled by the discussion already taking place. Excuse any typos. :) I just had to rush in and say "I finally got the book!". I'm going to read as fast as I can to jump in with you all. And I went ahead and picked up next month's book selection whiles i was at it, so I wouldn't be so horribly delayed in joining again. See you soon!

A couple of things about the story that to me was not germane or consistent. Jessica's mother Bea gets raped by her employer and as a result delivers her Uncle Joe. Besides the fact that it paints her father as a man with a generous spirit who raises the child as his own..what is the point of putting this into the story? I kept waiting for uncle Joe or the situation to reappear or be followed up but when it didn't it just felt extraneous information to me. Powerful but unnecessary given all else that takes place.
I also couldn't really find a good enough reason for David/Dawit to have finally bonded with his human family. It would seem to me that after hundreds of years he would get more jaded not less so. Even though he had feelings for Adele, Christina, Rufus and Rosalie, he always viewed them as only temporary..he moved on quickly and felt nothing after about only a month apart. It doesn't really add up to me that with this knowledge of his ability to easily forget, even in one case after being lynched together, that he would now decide to settle down and raise a family.

It didn't seem odd to me at all, William. Dawit was always someone who wanted that connection. He was still mourning his first wife who died all those years ago. After the horror of Adele's death, it took him a very long time to heal, but when, in spite of his intentions, he fell in love again, he was determined that he would not lose one more of his loved ones. His love was very possessive and controlling, but it was a strong one.

The Uncle Joe story, in my opinion, just added to the back story of how Jessica's family dealt with terrible occurrences - they turned them into something good, even at great personal cost. That was what Jessica did with the Blood.