Reviews and Comments

I really love what this book is trying to do, and I really enjoyed so much of the story up to the very end of it because... it was just meh?

Not sure what the editing process was for this book or what conversations took place during it, but it feels very much like Alma was going to play a much stronger role than she did. There was so much choreography in the beginning about Alma being the colonialist monster, trying to revitalise and support colonialism within Vietnam, and trying to exploit Vietnamese people, and trying to rewrite that colonial history to support European histories...

... and then that ball was just kind of dropped for the focus on the house being parasitic. Sometimes the 'Alma' ball was picked back up, but I don't think it was used very well. And I have to wonder if parts of that were to make white and/or European audiences more comfortable. Or if it was an unintentional pulling back from what was being said, even if there were a lot of strong lines left in.

My student's pretty quick at reading this. For her English level (she's more in the "intermediate" level with regards to school-based fluency tests but still struggles with using the language as she would normally use it), this is really good.

There've been a lot of new words for her (words like ravine, creek, cavern), but the images also really help her to get an understanding of what they mean.

It's also age-appropriate for a 12-year old, especially one who likes magic-based fantasy. This has been one of the biggest difficulties that I've had in finding books for students, honestly. Most suggestions for 'new readers in English' are for really young kids, and a lot of younger teenagers just don't want to read stories intended for kids between the ages of 6-8 (and, if we're honest, a lot of books 'made for' young children are also things young children tend to side-eye quite a lot).

This book is really well-written, and the structure employed in it really has the feel of both talking to a grandparent (whether or not they're actually your own) and/or the local town gossip. I love this about this book because it makes it just so easy to read through.

I also love that one of the core elements of the story (one that, if people know about Fried Green Tomatoes, is the most well-known) is just kind of... tossed out there a couple times and in ways that make a person go "Wait, did she just say what I think she said?"

But I do find it incredibly difficult to recommend. Part of it is because I know people can find its use of racist and ableist slurs frustrating and bothersome (which I also can completely understand). While it's understandable that sometimes the perspectives match with the characterisation, there are some moments where it feels a bit off.

Also, there's a lot of Mary Kay propaganda in parts of it, which is very weird considering it's an MLM. And I say that it's propaganda because Evelyn manages to get the Pink Cadillac and other high-level rewards... which is very unlikely. Ninny telling her she'd be good at it is cute in a very naive kind of way, but Evelyn actually succeeding in an MLM is fucking wild. (And Mary Kay reps have used the connection between Fannie Flagg and Mary Kay Ash to post the story about how the former was friends with the latter and gave a speech to an Emerald Seminar in 1992.)

Something else that I'm also genuinely annoyed by is that Evelyn's goal is to... lose weight? And rather than focus on her struggle to appreciate herself despite her body and society's attempt to force her to hate it (something that I think is taught via Ninny), she takes the lessons of her friend and heads to... a fat farm in California? Which is pretty frustrating, even if not a major plot point.

This book is really well-written, and the structure employed in it really has the feel of both talking to a grandparent (whether or not they're actually your own) and/or the local town gossip. I love this about this book because it makes it just so easy to read through.

I also love that one of the core elements of the story (one that, if people know about Fried Green Tomatoes, is the most well-known) is just kind of... tossed out there a couple times and in ways that make a person go "Wait, did she just say what I think she said?"

But I do find it incredibly difficult to recommend. Part of it is because I know people can find its use of racist and ableist slurs frustrating and bothersome (which I also can completely understand). While it's understandable that sometimes the perspectives match with the characterisation, there are some moments where it feels a bit off.

Also, there's a lot of Mary Kay propaganda in parts of it, which is very weird considering it's an MLM. And I say that it's propaganda because Evelyn manages to get the Pink Cadillac and other high-level rewards... which is very unlikely. Ninny telling her she'd be good at it is cute in a very naive kind of way, but Evelyn actually succeeding in an MLM is fucking wild. (And Mary Kay reps have used the connection between Fannie Flagg and Mary Kay Ash to post the story about how the former was friends with the latter and gave a speech to an Emerald Seminar in 1992.)

Super easy to read this book when you've read all but one essay in it multiple times already. (Or, in some cases, have come back to the essay multiple times, skimming it for the piece of information you remember existing within its text.)

This book frustrates me, much like many of the David Graeber projects that have come out since his death. There's a hollowness to it that feels like someone trying to build a person up into some kind of Anarchist God (or Anthropologist God), and it's exhausting. Certainly, there must be more people out there than this one man who often and frequently neglected whole swathes of criticism that would've fueled his analyses. I'm sure there must be more people out there than the one guy who—though his work was engaging, sometimes insightful, and interesting—frequently extrapolated his more modern examples to beyond useless because he rarely looked at the context in which those examples fit (a superb irony for an anthropologist who had careful consideration for the nuance of the past).

At best, his work regarding patriarchy was surface level, and I don't care how many people try to convince me otherwise while highlighting the works in which he showcases those very surface level critiques. "The Bully's Pulpit," which is present in this book, is a perfect example of not understanding how the targeting of Bosniak boys and men over the age of 15 is part of a patriarchal problem, nor does it really explore why it was that Bosnian Serbs could successfully target them and pretend they weren't engaging in genocide, but it is also a perfect example of how that that very idea he had around boys and men can be extrapolated and misattributed by the "male loneliness epidemic" manarchists.

There is one "new" essay, which I have not found anywhere online. It's "The Revolt of the Caring Classes." Perhaps someone should lift it and post it to TAL, ensuring that the collection is complete. Perhaps it's good as a free ebook that collates a lot of his most commonly referenced essays, but I couldn't in good conscience recommend someone pay for this (saw a hardback in my local bookstore for €32, which is a bit pricy for things that've been widely distributed multiple times). Other essays included were turned into longer works (such as "There Never Was a West," which fueled much of what became The Dawn of Everything and "On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs," which became Bullshit Jobs).

It's baffling that this is the choice that would be made, either by the editors or the publisher. Certainly, it would've been more interesting to engage in his unpublished works over these often referenced pieces.

I am really struggling with the introduction to this book. In my most charitable, all I can say is that she wrote it hastily in order for her and her publishers to meet a deadline that would best allow them to profit from pandemic books.

But there are some lines and paragraphs that really stick out like sore thumbs, like how we're fortunate that hundreds of children died because it could've been much worse. Idk, I think any children dying to a pandemic is awful. I would've also thought she'd put some numbers up next to those for how still-living children were impacted by the loss of their caregivers because they died (which maybe she'll do... at some point?).

But there's a lot of attempts to justify the existence of schools because of all the responsibilities they have (but shouldn't) without even a glimmer of asking whether that makes any sense or what we could do instead.