Alex's Reviews > Gone with the Wind

Gone with the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
Rate this book
Clear rating

by
3144945
's review

did not like it
bookshelves: 2017
Recommended for: racists

Margaret Mitchell was a racist and in 1936, 70 years after the Civil War, she whined for a thousand pages about how much she missed slavery. If you'd like to hear why slavery was terrific and black people are inferior to whites and they liked being slaves, here is your epic. If that sounds unpleasant, you're not going to like Gone With the Wind.

A non-racist book can have racist characters, and all the characters in this book are racist. Is the book itself necessarily racist? Yes. It has an omniscient narrator, and many long, racist passages that are clearly not from any character's perspective; they feel like the nonfiction interludes in War & Peace. Is it possible Mitchell means for us to disagree with her omniscient narrator? No. There's no evidence whatsoever of that, and the passages that defend the South and slavery are written with passion and supported by racist scenes in the story. This book intends to be racist; Margaret Mitchell believes what she says; she was a racist person who wrote a hateful book. I can prove it and I'm about to.

We start off in the glory days of the Old South, as a young, callow, beautiful Scarlett O'Hara flirts with everyone's boyfriends. Happy slaves bustle around:

"The house negroes of the County considered themselves superior to white trash...they were well-fed, well-clothed and looked after in sickness and old age. They were proud of the good names of their owners and, for the most part, proud to belong to people who were quality."

We meet some of them, Scarlett's "small white hand disappearing into their huge black paws and the four capered with delight at the meeting and with pride at displaying before their comrades what a pretty Young Miss they had."

Faithful slave Mammy is introduced, with her "kind face, sad with the uncomprehending sadness of a monkey's face" - "the mottled wise old eyes saw deeply, saw clearly, with the directness of the savage and the child, undeterred by conscience when danger threatened her pet." Mammy is one of the few morally pure characters in the book, but it's always that noble savage quality.

Luckily Scarlett stays away from the slave quarters, where "the faint niggery smell which crept from the cabin increased her nausea."

But then war comes. Here's noble and boring Ashley, the limpest point of the oncoming love triangle, describing what the war is about. Notice that his vision of the South is indivisible from slavery:

I hear the darkies coming home across the fields at dusk, tired and singing and ready for supper, and the sound of the windlass as the bucket goes down into the cool well. And there's the long view down the road to the river, across the cotton fields, and the mist rising from the bottom lands in the twilight. And that is why I'm here who have no love of death or misery or glory and no hatred for anyone. Perhaps that is what is called patriotism.

After the War and during Reconstruction, things get really dark (get it? lol) as Northerners ruin black people: "Some of the free negroes were getting quite insolent. This last [Scarlett] could hardly believe, for she had never seen an insolent negro in her life."

But "The [Freedmen's] Bureau fed them while they loafed and poisoned their minds against their former masters." And here's much more from the omniscient narrator:

[They] furthermore told the negroes they were as good as the whites in every way and soon white and negro marriages would be permitted, soon the estates of their former owners would be divided and every negro would be given forty acres and a mule for his own. They kept the negroes stirred up with tales of cruelty perpetrated by the whites and, in a section long famed for the affectionate relations between slaves and slave owners, hate and suspicion began to grow.

[Now Southerners] were looking on the state they loved, seeing it trampled by the enemy, rascals making a mock of the law, their former slaves a menace, their men disenfranchised, their women insulted.

This eventually leads to the formation of the noble Ku Klux Klan, who merely attempt to protect Southern women from being raped by uppity former slaves. Here's a Klan member now:

"'Wilkerson had gone a bit too far with his nigger-equality business. Oh yes, he talks it to those black fools by the hour. He had the gall - the - ' Tony sputtered helplessly, 'to say niggers had a right to - to - white women.'"

"The negroes were on top and behind them were the Yankee bayonets," thinks Scarlett: "She could be killed, she could be raped and, very probably, nothing would ever be done about it."

And here's the omniscient narrator summing it up:

It was the large number of outrages on women and the ever-present fear for the safety of their wives and daughters that drove Southern men to cold and trembling fury and caused the Ku Klux Klan to spring up overnight. And it was against this nocturnal organization that the newspapers of the North cried out most loudly, never realizing the tragic necessity that brought it into being.

This is all demonstrated in the action. Scarlett O'Hara's headstrong ways nearly get every man in town hung. (view spoiler) Divorced from its context, this is a brilliant scene. It's done entirely from Scarlett's point of view, so the actual gun fight is totally off page. What we see instead is the wives, with Northern soldiers in their living rooms waiting for the men to return - surrounded by enemies, their faces frozen into nonchalant expressions, desperately and silently scheming to save their husbands' lives. It's great stuff, as long as you can forget that you're being asked to root for the KKK to get away with lynching a man.

And here's a pretty long series of quotes. Again, they're all from the omniscient narrator - that is, from the book itself.

The South had been tilted as by a giant malicious hand, and those who had once ruled were now more helpless than their former slaves had ever been.

The former slaves were now the lords of creation and, with the aid of the Yankees, the lowest and most ignorant ones were on top. The better class of them, scorning freedom, were suffering as severely as their white masters...Many loyal field hands also refused to avail themselves of the new freedom, but the hordes of 'trashy free issue niggers,' who were causing most of the trouble, were drawn largely from the field-hand class.

In slave days, these lowly blacks had been despised by the house negroes and yard negroes as creatures of small worth...Plantation mistresses had put the pickaninnies through courses of training and elimination to select the best of them for the positions of greater responsibility. Those consigned to the fields were the ones least willing or able to learn, the least energetic, the least honest and trustworthy, the most vicious and brutish...[but now] the former field hands found themselves suddenly elevated to the seats of the mighty. There they conducted themselves as creatures of small intelligence might naturally be expected to do. Like monkeys or small children turned loose among treasured objects whose value is beyond their comprehension, they ran wild - either from perverse pleasure in destruction or simply because of their ignorance.

To the credit of the negroes, including the least intelligent of them, few were actuated by malice and those few had usually been "mean niggers" even in slave days. But they were, as a class, childlike in mentality, easily led and from long habit accustomed to taking orders.
...
Here was the astonishing spectacle of half a nation attempting, at the point of bayonet, to force upon the other half the rule of negroes, many of them scarcely one generation out of the African jungles.
...
Thanks to the negro vote, the Republicans and their allies were firmly entrenched and they were riding roughshod over the powerless but still protesting minority.

Man, just read that last sentence again. Wow.

Anyway, this is all very difficult for poor Scarlett: "The more I see of emancipation the more criminal I think it is. It's just ruined the darkies. Thousands of them aren't working at all and the ones we can get to work at the mill are so lazy and shiftless they aren't worth having. and if you so much as swear at them, much less hit them a few licks for the good of their souls, the Freedmen's Bureau is down on you like a duck on a June bug."

She complains that Northerners "Did not know that negroes had to be handled gently, as though they were children, directed, praised, petted, scolded...How could anyone get any work done with free niggers quitting all the time?...[It's] too dear a homeland to be turned over to ignorant negroes drunk with whiskey and freedom."

And with the final word, here's a former slave himself, Big Sam, who "galloped over to the buggy,his eyes rolling with joy and his white teeth flashing, and clutched her outsretched hand with two big hands as big as hams. His watermelon-pink tongue lapped out, his whole body wiggled and his joyful contortions were as ludicrous as the gambolings of a mastiff. ... 'Ah done had nuff freedom. Ah wants somebody ter eed me good vittles reg'lar, and tell me whut ter do an' whut not ter do.'"

Okay, is that enough? That was gross to type out. And don't think I'm cherry-picking the only racist passages; this book is soaked in racism. God's nightgown, this book is fuckin' racist. Pat Conroy, in a despicably fawning introduction, sees fit to mention that "No black man or woman can read this book and be sorry that this particular wind is gone," and what the hell kind of thing is that to say? "White people, on the other hand...you gotta be a little bummed out, right?" Is that what you meant, Pat?

And look, yes, it's too bad that this book has destroyed itself with hatred, because it's got a lot going for it. It certainly has Scarlett O'Hara going for it. She's fuckin' terrific, a towering antiheroine, amoral, selfish and brave - somewhat like the South itself. Rhett Butler, her swarthy and cynical love interest, is pretty good too, although he can't stop mansplaining amorality and he might have some kind of social learning disability. (He's also a murderer, by the way: "I did kill the nigger. He was uppity to a lady, and what else could a Southern gentleman do?”) They have sortof a proto-50 Shades thing going on, including a fairly kinky love scene that's not explicitly described but Scarlett was definitely into it. Third love triangle corner Ashley sucks, no one cares about him.

It also taught me the phrase "God's nightgown!" which is certainly a great thing to yell.

But it is totally, irredeemably ruined by its racism. Look, I'm not trying to be "politically correct" here. That's not even a thing; it's a term made up by haters to excuse hate. Gone With The Wind angered me. I don't like hearing black people described as stupid monkeys over and over again. I didn't enjoy reading the book because I was constantly pissed off by how ignorant and hateful it is. It was racist at the time it was written; it's racist now; racism is the point and the message, and to ignore it is to disrespect its author's intentions, which were racist.

Books matter. We use stories to describe and define society. If we allow this book to become part of the foundation of our past - if we call it a classic, as some people have - we're basing our past on a terrible lie. And it is a terrible lie, in case we need to say that out loud: Slavery was bad, black people didn't like it, almost everyone else didn't either, and the South were the bad guys in the Civil War.

And books are also our companions. When we choose to read, we're spending significant amounts of time - hours and hours - deep in their worlds. This companion is full of hate. These hours and hours will be spent listening to her yell about insolent niggers. If you find it unpleasant to hang out with viciously hateful racists, you won't like this book. It's the most racist book I've ever read. I didn't like it.
172 likes · flag

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read Gone with the Wind.
Sign In »

Reading Progress

June 19, 2017 – Started Reading
June 19, 2017 – Shelved
June 21, 2017 –
15.0% "Among many, many other things, Mitchell sucks at poker: four of a kind against an ace-high full house is a fucking unlikely scenario."
July 6, 2017 – Shelved as: 2017
July 6, 2017 – Finished Reading

Comments Showing 1-50 of 132 (132 new)


Iris Yeah but you get that all the time in movies and books. It makes it more exciting, as opposed to ridiculous.


message 2: by Warwick (last edited Jul 06, 2017 07:42AM) (new)

Warwick I thoroughly enjoyed that comprehensive and convincing take-down. The "tragic necessity" of the KKK? Good lord (God's nightie), I had no idea. Reminds me somewhat of my experience reading The Confessions of Nat Turner.


message 3: by Alex (new) - rated it 1 star

Alex Thanks, Warwick!

You mean Styron's Nat Turner? Is it super racist? I've read the actual Confessions, which were crazy disturbing, but not Styron yet.


message 4: by Pechi (new) - added it

Pechi Great review! I'd planned to read this book but not anymore.


message 5: by Warwick (new)

Warwick Yeah, the Styron novel. Not everyone thinks so, but I found it an incredibly creepy book to get through.


message 6: by Alex (new) - rated it 1 star

Alex Interesting. I liked Sophie's Choice so I'd been planning to get to Nat Turner eventually. I guess I still will, just to see for myself.


message 7: by Alex (new) - rated it 1 star

Alex Oh - and happy to help, Pechi, that was (clearly) what I was hoping some people would say.


Susanna - Censored by GoodReads I've read Styron (I also liked Sophie's Choice quite a lot), and do plan to get to his take on Nat Turner. (At least Styron can write.)


message 9: by Alex (last edited Jul 06, 2017 11:09AM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Alex Susanna, you mentioned the "Lost Cause" argument re. the Old South in connection with this book, and I meant to mention to you that they actually refer to it as a Lost Cause (with caps) repeatedly, so you are right about that.


Susanna - Censored by GoodReads Interesting - I didn't know that. (About the caps.)


message 11: by LdyGray (new) - added it

LdyGray This review is 1,000,000 times better than the book, and should be included in all "Top Books to Read" lists in its place.


❀⊱RoryReads⊰❀ Great review. This book has been recommended to me by several friends, and I refuse to read it. The film was revolting enough thanks.


message 13: by Wendy (new)

Wendy Thanks for giving me another reason to procrastinate on reading this book. It's on all the must-read classic book lists--but it seems it's growing more and more obsolete? I don't see myself ever picking up this book, and should probably just chuck my old copy at some point.


message 14: by Ajax (new) - rated it 1 star

Ajax Great job reviewing an abysmal book. You did the hard work that I could not bear to do. 1000+ pages of hatred and justification of atrocity. Thank you!


message 15: by Mindy (new)

Mindy This is a fantastic takedown. Wow! Making me glad that I never wanted to read this.


message 16: by Alex (new) - rated it 1 star

Alex It's so gratifying to hear that I've helped to ruin a beloved classic for a few people! Thanks, y'all.


message 17: by Peggy (new) - rated it 1 star

Peggy Bravo. You said everything I wanted to say, much better than I could have said it. I see apologies for this book all over the place. It's a shame, because the book does have merits. But racism and Lost Cause-ism shouldn't be excused or propped up any more.


message 18: by Alex (new) - rated it 1 star

Alex Thanks Peggy! I thought you said it quite well!

This is a particularly sad week to think about this book, isn't it?


message 19: by Peggy (new) - rated it 1 star

Peggy Alex wrote: "Thanks Peggy! I thought you said it quite well!

This is a particularly sad week to think about this book, isn't it?"


Yes, it is. Yes, it is.


message 20: by Mila (new) - rated it 5 stars

Mila Unfortunately, Gone with the Wind is still one of the most read and most loved books among Americans. The film is still the highest grossing of all time (adjusted for inflation). The film and the book are classics.

I find it vile, but there are things I like, or even love, about both the book and the movie. I don't think that's ever going to change.


message 21: by Roman (new)

Roman Cabay "Ah, can't you feel the breeze of a great society, once proud and great? Where everyone knew their place, and society was a haven for real Americans?"

No. No I can't.


message 22: by Alex (new) - rated it 1 star

Alex High five!


Michelle Yes!! I couldn’t pinpoint exactly what I disliked about this book. Yes, it was racist. Yes, it was misogynistic, but I’ve loved books that have dealt with these issues. But after reading your review, I could pinpoint it. The clearly racist voice of the narrator bothered me too much. Racist characters and ideals I can deal with but for the author to be so racist and try to show/convince the reader why slavery/racism/misogyny is ok etc, was just too much for me. It was despicable. Also the glimpses of domestic abuse was ignored throughout.


message 24: by Teresa (new) - added it

Teresa The author is a very talented writer, but you’re right. This book is very racist. It’s quite horrifying. Some of the passages are downright shocking.


message 25: by Alex (new) - rated it 1 star

Alex Thanks for dropping me a note, Michelle and Teresa! I'm glad I'm not the only person appalled by the racism in this book.


message 26: by Mimi (new) - rated it 1 star

Mimi Great review words cannot express how much I loathe this book. I had a polite disagreement about it recently when someone excused it with that 'it's of its time' responses....when of course any basic research will demonstrate that it was considered a highly offensive book at the time; so much so that Selznick had huge problems with getting it adapted for the screen. I find it incredible that people excuse it as 'feminist' and/or a wonderful romance - sure if you like rooting for heroines whose existence is literally off the back of years of oppression, brutal rape 0f slaves and rofound systematic racism. Not to mention the 'glorification' of the beginnings of the KKK, with whom Margaret Mitchell had strong family ties via prominent members. Disgusting, horrible, vile racist bilge...


message 27: by Alex (new) - rated it 1 star

Alex Thanks, Mimi! Believe it or not, I was surprised by this book. I'd seen the movie so I knew that was racist, but I...thought the book would be more nuanced? So many people call it a classic, it can't just be vitriolic racist trash, right?

Well. My bad.

I didn't really get into how problematic it was for its actual time, did I? There was so much to say, it's racist in so very many ways. I worked really hard on this review, because I deeply want to destroy this book forever. Picture me reading this bs for like two weeks, just underlining all the racist stuff. It was unpleasant. Also it didn't work, the book still exists, darn it.

Anyway, thanks for reminding me of this; I don't think the opening is as strong as it could be; I'm gonna try to tighten it up and then hope it gets a few more likes, because nothing would make me happier than if this was the top review for this hateful, shitty book.


message 28: by lucky little cat (last edited Nov 03, 2018 08:10AM) (new) - added it

lucky little cat God's nightgown, that's a great review! My favorite part: where you say books matter. Those quotes are repeatedly nauseatingly gobsmackingly astonishing, they're such a revelation. Thanks for including them.

And most damning is how popular this book was through most of the 20th century.


message 29: by Mimi (new) - rated it 1 star

Mimi No from my reading it was toned down considerably for the film . I read a biography of Hattie McDaniel a while back and the fact that she was ostracised by a number of nascent civil rights' groups for her part in the film. But I agree with you, I found the film hard to stomach and the book even more so, but like you made myself deal with it as wanted to know what I actually thought. I usually pass on books/DVDs I don't want to charity but threw both of these straight in the trash.

I get what you mean about getting to the top of the list. I saw some people give it low ratings too, as it has a high overall rating. I appreciate you doing it, as an ethnic minority woman, noticed when I bring this stuff up to people who are apologists for this stuff, they try to turn it into something about feelings/personal reactions and so harder to challenge effectively.

BTW did you come across this when you were looking at it?
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...


message 30: by Celina (new) - added it

Celina Wow. I read this book when I was 10 and I knew it wasn’t good but I didn’t realize just how vile it was. Thanks for the update.


message 31: by Laurie (new)

Laurie Holy shit, Alex. This review is a public service.


message 32: by Alex (last edited Nov 03, 2018 04:25PM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Alex for pete's sake, of COURSE it's about feelings & personal reactions and what is wrong with their feelings and personal reactions, did they get broken?

gah

And thank you lucky little cat, Celina and Laurie! It is very nice to hear nice things considering how hard I worked on this and how incredibly unrewarding the work itself (of retyping racist stuff) was!


message 33: by Alex (new) - rated it 1 star

Alex oh and no I don't...think I read that particular piece? But I have it bookmarked now!


message 34: by Kathleen (new)

Kathleen Fabulous review, Alex. Love your point about the time we spend in these book worlds--so important!


Joanne Fate I loved this book and yet totally agree with you on many levels. I think it's quite amazing that anyone would finish such a long book that they hated. I never even start anything that I think I might enjoy. I do a lot of books with lots of social and emotional angst, and this book has plenty of angst. It's important to understand its racist roots and her agenda. While I loved the book it's not the type of book I would search out again. Generally I'm more drawn to books that are anti-slavery.

I really appreciate your reviews, even when I have a different rating.


message 36: by Mimi (new) - rated it 1 star

Mimi I think it's quite amazing that anyone would finish such a long book that they hated.

I can't speak for Alex but novels are as much cultural artefact as they are forms of literature or literary pursuit. 'Gone with the Wind' was highly controversial both at the time of publication and now, it therefore has an interesting publication history. In addition despite the appallingly racist content and the revisionist history it represents, it has for a particular community/communities of readers retained an appeal. It continues to circulate and like all books therefore takes on new meanings and significance. So it can be read as much as a text that has cultural/historical/social resonance as for 'entertainment'.

In addition it has, or so reviews by readers keen on the book suggest in this and other fora, perpetuated a distorted myth of the South and Southern history which many take as truthful or accept as an elegy for some form of lost 'noble' heritage - this is helped by the fact that there are many who have read the novel who have not also read with the same close attention actual histories of the Civil War or of the legacy of the South.

The fact that this book has remained so popular despite its distorted representation of the Civil War and of the practice of slavery is in itself of interest. It says something about contemporary attitudes as much as it does that of the past. As one reviewer noted, If Margaret Mitchell’s characters are bitter, backward-looking, self-contradictory, hypocritical, and yes, racist, they’re not alone, and the particular shape their bitterness, racism and nostalgia take is still with us.

That is why I read it. But just as you cannot imagine reading a book of this length if you hated it, I cannot imagine anyone reading this book - over the age of 14 perhaps - and loving it.


message 37: by Mimi (last edited Nov 06, 2018 03:16PM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Mimi Since I clearly work up in a rant-y mood. I will add one more point. It really annoys me when people in reviews defend this book on the basis of the feistiness/feminist qualities of Scarlett O'Hara. Firstly because Scarlett O'Hara is not real, she's a textual construction and much of the way in which she is constructed is in relation to racist representations of black women, her femininity is built using them as a backdrop against which she is supposed to stand out. And secondly are there no books with feisty heroines, that are not also appallingly racist, available?


Patrick King Despite your very long review you didn’t understand this book. It was not slavery she missed. You should read it again preferably with an open mind.


message 39: by Mimi (new) - rated it 1 star

Mimi Despite your very long review you didn’t understand this book. It was not slavery she missed. You should read it again preferably with an open mind.

Perhaps it's you who needs to invest time in re-reading starting with the actual thrust of Alex's review, then moving on to pay closer attention to the representation of race in this novel: use of imagery, choice of language, depiction of characters, deployment of metaphor and simile.


message 40: by Mimi (new) - rated it 1 star

Mimi Despite your very long review you didn’t understand this book. It was not slavery she missed. You should read it again preferably with an open mind.

Also, however well-intentioned or otherwise, it seems a little presumptuous/bordering on arrogant to criticise someone's explicit review of a book when you yourself have not written anything that in any way makes plain your specific, presumably alternative 'reading' of this text - you have simply given it five stars and left it at that. If you wish to put forward a counter-perspective to Alex's, a more productive way to do it is to actually articulate that perspective, not simply assume that someone else should take your word for it. However, so far what is implied in your rating and comments is that you have either disregarded/failed to recognise/ or simply do not consider the extensive, incredibly racist depictions fundamental to this narrative distasteful or an impediment to your enjoyment. If so that is your prerogative, unfortunate though that may be, just as Alex has the right to his reading of the same text.


message 41: by Mimi (last edited Nov 06, 2018 03:17PM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Mimi In addition it's not even clear what the referent of 'she' is in your comment. If you mean the central character she is framed by a wider overall narration, it's not possible to effectively claim that the racism represented in actions/thoughts/speech of the character/s are a means to expose racism rather than endorse it as there is no vehicle for authorial separation from the ideological stance taken in the novel.


message 42: by Alex (new) - rated it 1 star

Alex Patrick wrote: "Despite your very long review you didn’t understand this book. It was not slavery she missed. You should read it again preferably with an open mind."

Yes it was, full stop.


message 43: by Alex (new) - rated it 1 star

Alex Joanne, I appreciate your perspective! I'm glad we agree about what the book's about, anyway.

Mimi said it more elegantly, but to piggyback: I take books seriously, I take my identity as a reader seriously, and I want to have an informed opinion on books that some people consider "classics." And by the time I figured out how racist this book was, I wanted to murder it - so I kept reading in order to build my case, which I think I've done.


message 44: by Alex (new) - rated it 1 star

Alex This dude's an idiot, I'm gonna block him. I can't be spending all day explaining reading to racists.


message 45: by Mimi (last edited Nov 06, 2018 03:18PM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Mimi I've blocked him too, I use that tool far more than I thought I would. I'm reading Stuart Hall's memoir at the moment. He was brought up in Jamaica and one of the things he talks about is the way in which there's a popular 'romance' myth that slavery simply ended with emancipation but of course that's very far from the truth. That history, that reality persisted not just in social and economic terms but in how it (has) continued in its long aftermath to be one of the key shaping forces both in the history of those linked to slavery by their ancestors and their identities and the history/identities of those who sustained it or defined themselves in relation to it. And so one of the other things that is so insidious, I think, about this novel is that it is not just a book about the past but an attempt to restate and reinforce a racialised past in the present. The fact that it continues to be read, without an acknowledgement of what it represents or even with a disavowal of what it represents, suggests the persistence of racialised ways of thinking that impact on the present; and in some senses a longing to reinstate and recuperate those ways of thinking, that particular social hierarchy. And it also illustrates the legacy of slavery in the South on society (a legacy that justified lynching and segregation long after the fact right up to the time of the Civil Rights campaigns of the 1960s). I get the impression that that legacy and its continued force is one of the things that Faulkner was writing about. That's why I think GWTW can't just be read or excused as of its time, any time in which it continues to resonate and in which its representations are not wholly rejected makes it of that time too. It's not a book in which there are some awkward, dated terms or one or two uncomfortable scenes, racism, and the defining of a particular 'superior white' identity in relation to the enslaved, is in the very fabric of the text.


message 46: by Alex (new) - rated it 1 star

Alex Mimi wrote: "not just a book about the past but an attempt to restate and reinforce a racialised past in the present."

Yes! Yeah, I totally agree on all points. It has a specific mission, and that mission is specifically racist.

I really tried to lay out a clear case for why this isn't a book where racist things happen but a racist book. That dude wasn't listening to what we're saying, and that's booooring.


message 47: by Mimi (last edited Nov 06, 2018 03:20PM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Mimi Totally and what's weird to me is this not solely (if it that wasn't bad enough) about some 'white' guy reading the book and overlooking the way black people are represented. It's also a book which represents white characters poorly, what reasonable person would want to identify with Scarlett O'Hara and Rhett Butler and the attitudes they represent? For me, they are effectively like two people making out at the site of a lynching...because that is what the culture of those characters and the founding of the KKK led to.


message 48: by Savanah (new)

Savanah I have watched the movie, so I bet the book is good too.


message 49: by Alex (new) - rated it 1 star

Alex not sure you totally followed my message here, Savanah


lucky little cat That's a kind answer, Alex. I know it's exhausting being the mature one. Hang in there.


« previous 1 3
back to top