Comments (0)

By jamie, February 22, 2012 4:28 pm

After I saw the film, one of the scenes from The Help that stayed with me was where Hilly (the worst of the racist white women) tells her black maid that she will not loan her the money to help her twin sons attend college because she is a good Christian, and Christians don’t help people who can help themselves. Fast forward to today, and we still have people with this kind of philosophy – it’s as though they skipped the entire New Testament.

Back to Hilly: I read though page 332 (through chapter 25), and Hilly in this book is far worse than the one in the film. After the infamous toilet scene (I think it was in the trailers), she gets her husband to install the toilets into segregated bathrooms as part of her “home health sanitation initiative.” This “good Christian” can easily destroy someone else’s life if they do anything to cross her. And her friends might not agree with her, but she manages to keep them under her control – they seem to admire her, but maybe it’s just fear.

It seems that a major purpose of the League (led by Hilly) is to raise funds for “The Poor Starving Children of Africa” – Skeeter tries to point out the irony of this, but she misses it completely. My mom has always said that “charity begins at home” but I think sometimes people find it easier to contribute to an idea rather than something in their immediate vicinity. And of course they are doing something, which is a good thing, and there are plenty of worthy causes that are outside of our immediate surroundings. I guess what I’m trying to say is that what matters most is how we treat people right next to us – that comes first.

I wish I could have heard Stockett’s thought process when she was writing the following scene:

“Lord, I say, getting irritated all over again. “What am I doing? I must be crazy, giving the sworn secrets a the colored race to a white lady.”
“It’s just Miss Skeeter, she ain’t like the rest.”
“Feel like I’m talking behind my own back,” I say….”I just… I want things to be better for the kids,” I say. “But it’s a sorry fact that it’s a white woman doing this.”

I should probably let it go already, but she is a white woman writing a book about a white woman writing a book about black women – what was she thinking put that dialogue in there? Is she saying that someone else should have written this story but since no one did, she took care of it? Is she acknowledging that she might be crossing a line by writing this book in the way she did?

I can’t let it go because some of her choices are downright awful – it’s as though she looked up every negative stereotype about people of color and made sure not to miss a single one. We have the woman with a ton of kids, and of course she conceived the first one as a teenager – in a car. We have the woman beaten by her drunk man, the one she swore she wouldn’t be with after growing up with a drunk father – A white woman figures out her secret, but only because she “saw things” while she was being raised in a “white trash” family. And there is that one scene where a black woman stares at a roach (crawling on the floor in her house – she actually mentions roaches more than once in describing the maids’ homes) – she compares her skin color with the color of the roach. Are you kidding me?

The bit I liked in this section was a conversation between two of the maids about whether color/social lines really exit. Is it alright to be honest with someone of a different race? How honest? How much can you care without crossing the line? The book is set during the Civil Right Movement, but I guess some people have those questions today, too. Look at any high school cafeteria and you will see how segregated it is – my students tell me that they spend most of their time with people from their own race/ethnicity. Why? Because “that’s just the way it is.”

Comments (0)

By jamie, February 20, 2012 7:02 am

When I teach my students about Jim Crow laws, they are always shocked to learn that “separate but equal” did not mean “equal” at all. One thing I like about this book is that Stockett continually emphasizes the unequal nature of Jim Crow – she even has her most racist character chant “separate but equal” when referring to the obviously unfair laws – hopefully this will enlighten some who don’t understand how bad it really was in the South at the beginning of the Civil Rights movement.

The most interesting example of the “separate but equal” clause in action: public libraries. Aibileen, after she establishes a strong rapport with Skeeter (the two are collaborating on a book of stories told by black maids), she works us the nerve to ask her to find books at the “white library,” books she has waited for for months at the “black library.” The saddest example – hospitals. Several stories have already been told about how doctors will not treat people who are not of their race, even if the sick or injured person is dying, and even if that person is a child. She also mentions that, in all of Jackson, Mississippi, there is not a single black police officer – I need to look that one up before I teach about race this semester.

Just like in the film, the women’s organization sends aid for “Starving Children in Africa” – they do not send money, opting to ship canned goods instead. “Hilly rolls her eyes. ‘You cannot give these tribal people money, Mary Joline. There is no Jitney 14 Grocery in the Ogaden Desert. And how would we know if they’re even feeding their kids with it? They’re likely to go to the local voodoo tent and get a satanic tattoo with our money.’” This reminds me of today, when people say we should drug test welfare recipients – it seems this demand is based on the erroneous assumption that poor people don’t know any better and would be more likely to spend their money on drugs and alcohol than on feeding, clothing and housing themselves and their children. (It also shows complete ignorance about welfare reform, but I digress.)

hiding a secret – the white girl is freaking out, while the black maid appears cool and collected – “I guess she’s grown deft at hiding her feelings.”

Unlike the film, the book paints a very clear picture of the risk these women take to even meet together let alone share the stories they are sharing – especially in Jackson, Mississippi. The book depicts some real-life events, including the assassination of Medgar Evers, NAACP leader who devoted his life to the fight for integration. Even if no one arrested them (which could have happened) or murdered them (also a possibility), they could have been punished in other ways – the book takes us through the though process of some of the maids, imagining losing their jobs and their homes, and moving in with their children, resulting in their children losing their jobs and homes (and possibly their lives) as well. I am curious to see how this plays out at the end of the book – in the film, Aibileen does not appear to be in fear for her life after her secret is discovered.

Comments (0)

By jamie, February 18, 2012 4:10 pm

I had a few reservations about reading this one – namely, I was concerned about a work of fiction describing the experience of black maids working for white women written by a white woman. As I read, I am consciously aware of the race of the author and am annoyed with some of the choices she makes. The “Terrible Awful” from the film, which has only been hinted at so far – how dare this woman write this? I wonder why more people aren’t upset about this horrible plot point, or maybe they are and I just missed out on the controversy – all I have heard abut this book is praise. I read through page 103, so if you haven’t read the book (or at least seen the movie), be aware that this post may contain spoilers.

The book is told from various points of view, and the sections narrated by the African American maids are written with poor grammar – sometimes the author is so heavy-handed with this that I find myself rolling my eyes. Some of things she has the women say (and do) seem incredibly inappropriate for this white author to have written.

In one scene, Aibileen is told by Minny that her prayers (which she writes down every night) have more power than everyone else’s. As part of her evidence: “Week after Clyde left you, I heard that Cocoa wake up to her ******* spoilt like a rotten oyster. Didn’t get better for three months. Bertina, she good friends with Cocoa. She know your prayer work.” Really? Is she saying that Aibileen prayed for harm to come to the women her husband left her for? Who does that? That’s not what it means to pray for one’s enemies, as anyone who has been to any church (not just Christian, although I am assuming that the author is writing these women as self-proclaimed Christians) surely knows. What about “vengeance is Mine, sayeth the Lord?”

In another scene, referring to the film, Gone with the Wind: “I sure didn’t like that movie, the way they made slavery look like a big happy tea party. If I’d played Mammy, I’d of told Scarlett to stick those green draperies up her white little pooper. Make her own d*** man-catching dress.” Funny that Stockett would mention another book written by a white woman who inappropriately handled black characters.

Have you read this novel? Seen the film? Do you think I’m being too rough on the author? Not rough enough?

Comments (0)

By jamie, November 7, 2011 7:17 am

The other day a student asked me for my opinion on the Harry Potter books. When I replied enthusiastically and positively, he looked dismayed and informed me that “those books are satanic and they teach kids about witchcraft.” I disagreed, of course, and asked him if he has read the series – of course he has not. That’s pretty typical, unfortunately – people form opinions about a book without actually reading it.

Have you ever avoided a book because you were pretty sure you would disapprove of the contents? I don’t like the horror genre (in books or films), so I steer clear of that section (even the covers sometimes give me the creeps!), with few exceptions. That’s just a matter of personal preference, though. I don’t like to put scary thoughts in my head. I don’t think these books should be banned, however.

Unlike the Harry Potter universe, where the characters celebrated Christmas, this book keeps “creatures” out of the Christian holidays. (I have read to page 224 – through Chapter 17.) Diana, the lead witch, is a pagan, and she establishes ancient rules prohibiting creatures from participating in human religion and politics. I think this choice makes more sense, but some readers might disapprove of the choice.

Fiction is a bit tricky for me to blog about because I don’t want to give away too much of the story, but I still want to talk to you about the books. I will say that so far we have learned about the discrimination between the different types of non-humans, and that Harkness folds this into the dialogue without taking it over the top. Also, in her universe, creatures live in the human realm (unlike in H.P. where they have their own cities). As such, they regularly interact with humans – presumably they can even marry humans, but not other creatures (?) – and spend their lives hiding in plain sight, known to one another by various supernatural means (for witches, they feel different physical sensations based on what creature is looking at them – vampire stares feel cold, etc.).

Our lead characters are in academia. [SPOILER ALERT] The vampire studies DNA in an attempt to discover why members of his kind appear to be headed for extinction (along with the other creatures). There was a bit of DNA talk in Twilight, but I found it ridiculous; Harkness does a far better job, and when I read the scene in the lab, I actually felt dismayed that I will likely have to wait a couple of years for this story to be resolved. I read more slowly when I am really enjoying a work of fiction – I don’t want it to end! – and I find myself doing that already with this book and I’m not even half way though. AND there are two more books planned. I also try to avoid starting a book series unless it is complete – Harry Potter was a rare exception.

Comments (0)

By jamie, November 5, 2011 2:02 pm

I always forget how entertaining it is to read fiction until I pick up a novel. This one is so much fun that I am tempted to spend the entire weekend reading. (It’s not going to happen – if I don’t get two exams written tonight, as well as tackle the seven loads of laundry in various stages of completion, I will be sorry. Dinner is in the crock pot, so I have at least one other accomplishment to speak of for today.) I read through Chapter 9, through page 109, and I am hooked.

Deborah Harkness is a history professor, and this is her first novel – it’s the first of a planned trilogy. Don’t worry – this is not a horror book. I’m not interested in those. The main character is a witch who does not want to be a witch – she is a highly esteemed professor and researcher, and wants her accomplishments to be based on her own merit, not her use of witchcraft. So far she has met a vampire who is at least 500 years old (he’s cute – hm, wonder where THAT part of the story is leading…), and she has found a mysterious ancient text that has been lost for an unknown amount of time and apparently only she can read it – well, this may or may not be true; we still don’t know much about the book, other than her discovery has attracted all sorts of “creatures” to her and she may be in danger.

As a dedicated Harry Potter fan, I find myself trying to decide whether this new one is appropriate for kids who grew up with Harry and his friends. Harkness’ book is not written for children, and so far I think some kids might get restless with how much slower this story is to Rowling’s – the witch in this book describes spending hours in the library conducting research, and much of the “adventure” so far takes place in the minds and memories of the main characters, but I find Harkness’ descriptions rich and entertaining.

I haven’t read too many vampire books. I tried with Anne Rice, but only lasted until the beginning of the fourth book. I know she is very well loved and respected as a writer, so I will just say that I am not a fan based on the little I have read of her work, and that you are free to disagree. I have also read the Twilight series (Team Jacob!), and I enjoyed it, but I can’t help but see it as disturbing in terms of the messages it sends to young girls. I always have at least one defensive student when I discuss these books in our unit on gender inequality. (Let’s face facts – however much he “sparkles,” Edward is a known predator who stalks a young girl, repeatedly sneaks into her home while she is sleeping, and later takes complete physical and psychological control over her. However guilty and conflicted he feels about it, he still does it, and he is surely old enough to know better. But somehow this is all acceptable because “it’s true love.” Oh dear.)

I enjoy reading how every author either builds on existing creature lore or tries to refute it (sunlight may or may not kill a vampire, they might have fangs or not, etc.) Are there any well written vampire books that do NOT give us at least a glimpse of the guilt vampires feel at being deadly predators/damned? Oh, and what about daemons? What are they in other books?

Anyway, Harkness’ book might be made into a movie too – the film rights are spoken for at least. Then I started trying to mentally cast the lead roles in my head. If you read this one, be sure and let me know who should play Diana and Matthew.