So this is all complicated. Because this is a very complicated book and I think – glancing at reviews from both non-white and white people – a polarising one? And obviously it is its own kind of problem if white people won’t talk about books by Black people, but also, as a white person, it feels (rightfully) icky to be passing judgement on books by non-white authors. Not that I think writing your thoughts about a book need to be inherently passing-judgementy. But also … it kinda is?
I think for me there are two complicating factors about Queenie which boil down to 1) how it was marketed and 2) who it is for.
It pinged on my radar as a Black romcom and because it was also British I was all very there. I think the exact terminology was “the Black Bridget Jones.” Which, um, no? Not at all. This book is not a Black romcom. For a start there is absolutely no rom and, while the com is there, the humour is grim AF. This is a book about trauma and recovery from trauma. And comparing it to Bridget Jones, a book about a privileged white woman whose problems are largely self-inflicted, feels just … sort of … so horrendously wrong I can’t quite process it. Not, I hasten to add, that there *couldn’t* be a book which was a Black take on Bridget Jones: I think that might be super fun. It’s just this book is not that book.
And I don’t know what marketing it this way was supposed to accomplish: is it because it was assumed (probably correctly? Who knows?) white people wouldn’t be interested if it wasn’t pitched as being like something we knew we already liked? And I will say, as a white reader, when I realised I wasn’t actually reading a Black romcom but a book about Black trauma I just sort of adjusted my expectations and buckled in anyway? But, then, the stakes for me were lower. And, of course, I can’t speak for people who aren’t me (and, let me clarify, I’m not even trying) but I can’t help wondering how a Black reader might feel in the same position. Not to imply marginalised experiences are all the same, but as a queer reader, if someone gets me to buy a book on the grounds that it’s a queer romcom and it turns out not to be a queer romcom at all, I generally feel furious and exploited. And that’s not because I want ALL queer books to queer romcoms but as someone belonging to the group the book is ostensibly about and for I feel I deserve appropriate marketing. I don’t want to feel tricked or deceived, and I want to be allowed to make meaningful decisions about the sort of content I want to consume. Especially because books about queer pain aren’t an abstract experience for me.
For the record, how books get marketed, and who they’re marketed to, is—in my experience—a publisher issue, not an author choice. And, obviously, the goal with any book is to reach as large a potential audience as possible, which becomes especially tricky when you’re selling across axes of marginalisation. But if this was a queer book I’d feel it was attempting to appeal to a majority audience at potential cost to the people it directly affects.
Again: that’s about publishing. Not about authors. And, again, I could be wrong. Marginalised people are not monoliths and I can equally see why someone might feel liberated or represented by this book, and why they might feel triggered or stereotyped. From a broader marginalised-identity-in-general perspective, it feels like it’s as important to write about frailty and self-destruction, as it is to write more explicitly about strength and empowerment. But no book exists outside its context and one of the on-going problems with writing about ANY marginalised identity is that we still live in a world where Representation is, well, sort of its own tyranny. In that any depiction of a person of marginalised identity will not be read as the portrayal of an individual but as a general statement on all people of that identity.
Gah.
So with all that preamble out of the way, I will say that as a white person with zero standing for whom, perhaps, the book was intended: I found lots to value in this book. And I did feel that one of the things the narrative was doing was peeling back the layers of romcom-style tropes, not to criticise those tropes exactly, but to explore the ways in which we are socially encouraged to accept (and even encourage) certain behaviours without also recognising that they can equally be manifestations of real trauma.
Because, on the surface, Queenie IS a romcom heroine. She’s got a quirkily diverse friendship group, her relationship with her boyfriend is falling apart leading her to obsess over him, she goes on a series of catastrophic dates with unsuitable men, she’s fucking up at work etc. etc. Except it quickly becomes apparent that none of this is cute, funny or normal. The book opens with the heroine having a lost coil recovered, but it soon becomes apparent she’s actually had a miscarriage (a quiet grief that saturates the whole book, and which—like much of the trauma Queenie faces—largely goes culturally unexamined). Her catastrophic dates quickly devolve into objectifying, barely-consensual, definitely abusive sexual encounters. And even Queenie’s friends take too long to recognise that she isn’t just playing the Hot Mess Heroine Making Some Poor Choices After A Breakup. To be fair, she’s not completely honest with them but because Queenie’s behaviours cloak themselves in tropes everyone just assumes she’s basically fine.
When she really isn’t. And for all that Queenie is an incredibly engaging heroine, there are deep layers of trauma within her, much of it racialised. It is, I will say, slightly overwhelming to read about how hostile Queenie’s world feels: I don’t think she meets a single white man who doesn’t objectify or abuse her, and most of the women aren’t much better. Her family, too, carries a history of abuse, both personal (her mother’s second husband was physically and emotionally abusive to both Queenie and her mother) and political (her grandparents are explicitly Windrush generation, the book references the BLM movement and the murders of Breonna Taylor and George Floyd, the primarily Jamaican neighbourhood where Queenie grew up is undergoing aggressive gentrification). I think one of the aspects of the book I found most fascinating was way all these narratives are woven through Queenie’s sense of her own identity (or example, something she has to deal within in the latter half of the book is accepting both her need, and her right, to have therapy—partially because of resistance to it in Jamaican communities in general, but also her pain is constantly invalidated by the understanding of what other Black people have lived through and are living through). The way it ultimately crystallises into a very simple question: how can you love yourself when so many of your experiences are shaped by hatred.
So yes. NOT A FUCKING ROMCOM.
All of which said, I adored the fact the relationships ultimately centred by the book are friendly and familial. As a queer reader, chosen family always gets me in the feeling places, and by the end of the book Queenie’s decision to focus on the people who love her—her complex, difficult Jamaican grandparents, her very damaged mother, her hyper-religious aunt and said aunt's abrasive daughter, her two closest friends—instead of needing a romantic relationship to ease the pain of the life she has lived feels both hard won and genuinely celebratory. Although I will say that one of the side-effects of the book’s priorities is that the element of Queenie’s trauma explicitly related to Black men (springing from the abuse of her stepfather) is never really addressed. It feels so far out of my lane to comment on this and, obviously, not all trauma can (or should) be wrapped up in a neat little bow at the end of a book so full of complexities but … I don’t know. Was this an okay thing to leave sitting there? Especially given the fact white men consistently treat Queenie appallingly too. I do recognise that trauma isn’t logical, nor do I think giving Queenie a Nice Black Boyfriend would have been the right ending here either because it would have gone down that messy route of suggesting the answer to Bad Men is Good Men (regardless of race). But. Yeah. I don’t know. I just don’t know.
Basically there’s a lot I think I need to accept I Don’t Know TM when it comes to this book. For example, I do think one of its major themes was about what it means to be—to use a difficult term—a strong Black woman. Which by necessity required an exploration of weakness. Of the idea that strength takes different forms and can, in fact, encompass weakness: that it is something you work towards, not something you inherently have. That it can be both taken away and found for yourself. I don’t know how that would feel to someone who isn’t me.
So I guess I’ll just leave it with: there was a lot I personally found incredibly powerful in this book, despite the themes it is actually really funny, and the writing and the dialogue is *chef’s kiss*. Obviously, it’s not my place to comment more broadly than that. But if you do decide to read it, especially if its subject matter is directly relevant to you in any way, please take care of yourself.