Small Great Things
question
How well does this author represent tough topics
Janet
Jun 04, 2017 02:43PM
Just finished this book and am excited at how well Jodi Picoult researches and guides the reader not toward her beliefs but to examine one's own.
I think she just wanted to make a political statement. I am insulted by her continued negative portrayal of white Christian Conservatives. But she is a good author and has the right to her opinion. I just won't be reading any more of her recent books. I get enough politics in my face constantly.I a not a rascist and neither is Rand Paul, Glen Beck or Donald Trump, to name a few.
I agree that the author wrote this novel in a way that causes the reader to examine their own beliefs. I can't count how many times as I was reading Small Great Things that I put the book down and turned to my husband with a baffling question about race and culture. It has actually taken me longer to finish the book than I planned because it has sparked so many conversations. I find this book to be fascinating!
Prior to reading the novel, I read a lot of ad hominem reviews of it regarding the author's attempt to write the story of Ruth, a black woman on trial for murder of a newborn. The argument the reviewers are making in my opinion is that character development is lacking with Ruth; because being that Picoult is a white author, she can not authentically tell the story of a black woman. Other reviews focused on the author's intended audience, where here, the argument seems to be that the book was written for white woman whom would read this novel and feel less guilty about white privilege or their own prejudices and racial bias'. I happen to disagree with both perspectives of other readers. I feel this novel is so much deeper than that.
I don't believe the author's main premise is to have readers connect with Ruth as a black woman, I believe the author is trying to get the reader to examine their own beliefs. Here you have the story of two individuals: Ruth a black woman and Turk a male white supremacist. These are two equally flawed characters. Ruth's internalized racism and issues with self-love; and Turk who has been brainwashed into hate so deeply, that he rejects facts and truths. There was no shortage of tough topics. I thought the novel was well done.
Prior to reading the novel, I read a lot of ad hominem reviews of it regarding the author's attempt to write the story of Ruth, a black woman on trial for murder of a newborn. The argument the reviewers are making in my opinion is that character development is lacking with Ruth; because being that Picoult is a white author, she can not authentically tell the story of a black woman. Other reviews focused on the author's intended audience, where here, the argument seems to be that the book was written for white woman whom would read this novel and feel less guilty about white privilege or their own prejudices and racial bias'. I happen to disagree with both perspectives of other readers. I feel this novel is so much deeper than that.
I don't believe the author's main premise is to have readers connect with Ruth as a black woman, I believe the author is trying to get the reader to examine their own beliefs. Here you have the story of two individuals: Ruth a black woman and Turk a male white supremacist. These are two equally flawed characters. Ruth's internalized racism and issues with self-love; and Turk who has been brainwashed into hate so deeply, that he rejects facts and truths. There was no shortage of tough topics. I thought the novel was well done.
all discussions on this book |
post a new topic
Sep 06, 2018 12:37PM · flag