21st Century Literature discussion
This topic is about
Freshwater
2019 Book Discussions
>
Freshwater, Entire Book
date
newest »
newest »
Mod
Mod
Sort of felt like the use of multiple spirits was both literal and metaphorical at the same time. It's one of those narratives that really seems to thrive in those grey areas where things aren't easily defined and survival uses whatever tools it can.
It's been a while since I read this, but I remember keenly wanting to explore Igbo culture/spirituality in more depth. Didn't get much further than some quick web searches resulting in some decent summaries like Igbo Spirituality 101.
I remember reminding myself as I was reading not to simply write off the spirits as simple metaphors for mental illness or split personalities of some sort. How did others interpret this?
Marc wrote: "I remember reminding myself as I was reading not to simply write off the spirits as simple metaphors for mental illness or split personalities of some sort. How did others interpret this?.."In addition to seeing them as spirits in Igbo folklore capable of inhabiting and controlling a body, I saw them as buffers created in the mind of a young child to help her deal with the trauma of abuse.
I read and reviewed this novel a year ago. Rather than regurgitate my thoughts, here's what I said in my review:
She projects these buffers to the outside world in order to protect her inner core. They assume a life of their own in her mind. Plagued with guilt and self-blame for the abuse she experienced, she punishes herself by feeding her internal spirits with cuts in her skin. She absolves herself for destructive and callous behavior toward her many lovers by claiming Asughara controls her. All the while, she wages a constant battle within herself and between her many selves for control.
This is one of my lifetime favorite books, but one warning - I MUCH prefer the print to the audio.I almost never reread, but I've read it twice - and within one year! I raved about it so much that my IRL book group decided to read it for our next meeting, and the only thing they liked about it was that it was short ;)
My review is too long to paste here, but here's a link to it
Mod
I like your assessments (both Tamara and Marc) that these spirits are real and unreal. Inhabiting Ada both as a response to trauma, and also as a representation of her own fractured spirit. In the interview posted in the previous thread, Emezi's response when asked about the ogbanje was:
"It’s a bit of a difficult term to describe, just because it’s not an English term. Most of the times it gets translated as a spirit that’s born into a human body. But I’ve been finding that people start thinking of it as a binary. They think, Is it really a spirit if it’s in a human body? And they start trying to divide it into two because the description splits it that way. Really, it’s not one or the other. It’s both at the same time. It can’t be split."
In the same interview, Emezi says that the ogbanje is a more useful lens to look at mental illness than Western ones. I think that if Ada had come from a different culture, she would have been inhabited by different spirits, but that doesn't make the experience any less legimate.
Mod
I almost never reread, but I've read it twice - and within one year! I raved about it so much tha..."
Excellent review, Nadine. I think you pulled the perfect quote out to summarize Ada's state regarding her inhabitants; ' "Exactly." I patted her hand. "We're the buffer between you and madness, we're not the madness." ' Do you think this is the crux of what Emezi found superior about the ogbanje as a lens for mental illness over the Western one; namely the idea that her fractured personality is a solution, and not itself the problem?
I tried listening to it on audio as well, but like you, I found to too dense (in the positive sense) to be appreciated outside the printed page. Sad that your IRL club didn't appreciate it. I hope they actively disliked or hated it, rather than being indifferent. It always feels like someone has stomped on part of your soul when you show them something that touched you deeply and their response is "Meh, it was okay, I guess".
Whitney wrote: "quote out to summarize Ada's state regarding her inhabitants; ' "Exactly." I patted her hand. "We're the buffer between you and madness, we're not the madness." ' Do you think this is the crux of what Emezi found superior about the ogbanje as a lens for mental illness over the Western one; namely the idea that her fractured personality is a solution, and not itself the problem?.."When I read that line on my own it sent chills down my spine - it seemed like a cruel taunt. But after the discussion here, it's starting to sound to me like the intention is protective, even if their actions can be as mean or petty as any human's.
Sad that your IRL club didn't appreciate it. I hope they actively disliked or hated it, rather than being indifferent
They weren't indifferent, that's for sure! One member looked for reviews and told everyone how highly regarded the book is, so that helped a bit. But I think when my turn comes around again to pick a book, I'll go with something that has a linear plot ;)
Mod
Thanks for sharing your reviews. I had a psych professor who once asked whether we thought personality was more Ike a peach with a solid unchanging core somewhere in the middle or more like an onion with many layers but ultimately nothing permanent after all were peeled away. Freshwater almost feel like it creates a peach pit protected by layers of onion.
Interesting review here: https://openlettersreview.com/posts/freshwater-by-akwaeke-emezi
It raises a couple interesting questions mostly centered around Nigerian culture's antipathy toward homosexuality and non-traditional gender definitions/roles:
1) Does this book use Nigerian myth/spirituality in a kind of romanticized way that doesn't address the harsh cultural reality Ada would have dealt with in Nigeria?
2) How did you read the same-sex desire for a kiss as being portrayed by an opposite-sexed spirit?
Neither of these things troubled me while reading the book, but they seemed like interesting discussion questions. Ultimately, it felt like this book sort of cast off the obsessive need to narrowly define ourselves in favor of embracing coming to terms with living with those selves that inhabit us.
Marc wrote: "I can' imagine trying to listen to the audio version of this being a bit challenging!Thanks for sharing your reviews. I had a psych professor who once asked whether we thought personality was mor..."
Thanks for the review, Marc - very interesting indeed. I wish it was an interview with Emezi, I'd love to hear their response.
Mod
I did not realize they were actually raised Catholic. Found that out here: https://i-d.vice.com/en_au/article/d3bjyz/akwaeke-emezi-freshwater-adama-jalloh
Just a quick correction. Emezi does not identify as female and does not use female pronouns. Emezi uses "they" and "their".In related news, Webster's has chosen "they" as the word of the year: https://www.merriam-webster.com/words...
Mod
Clearly, subconsciously (and maybe consciously) I think of Emezi as a she. I don't have the slightest hesitation using the pronoun they as a gender-neutral substitute for generic instances of he or she in writing/speech, but I seem to have a pretty strong resistance to identifying specific individuals with they. Not excusing myself here, just realizing that although I don't think I have any hangups with anyone's gender/sexuality, I think I still do expect some sort of leaning toward one side of a traditional gender binary...
David wrote: "Just a quick correction. Emezi does not identify as female and does not use female pronouns. Emezi uses "they" and "their".In related news, Webster's has chosen "they" as the word of the year: ht..."
I corrected my comment too. I knew this but forgot.....I think it's a combo of this book being nominated for the Women's Prize and following them on Instagram, where their pictures strike me as female. My brain traveling a too well-worn path.
Marc and Nadine, I think there is a lot to it being new and so sounding strange and being difficult to adjust to. I remember when Prince (the musician) was going through his phase of being known by an unpronounceable symbol and being referred to as "The artist formerly known as Prince" or more simply just as "The Artist". During that time he was interviewed by Oprah Winfrey and several times in the interview she called him "Prince" only to correct herself a moment later. He wasn't annoyed by this because he knew she was not doing it on purpose to slight him and he understood that it was a difficult adjustment. He appreciated that she was trying. I would hope Emezi feels the same way.
Mod
It raises a couple interesting questions mostly centered around Nigerian culture's antipathy toward homosexuality and non-traditional gender definitions/roles:..."
This review strikes me as the type that goes on my pet peeve list, namely one that criticizes a book for not being the one the reviewer wants, rather than reviewing the book that was written. The reviewer thinks Emezi should have engaged in more critical commentary on Nigeria's queer politics, but this isn't a book about external systems of oppression. Ada see a therapist. Emezi also fails to condemn the historical biases of western psychology against LGBT communities; and it's no more relevant than their failure to condemn Nigerian attitudes. It's just not the intent of this novel.
Mod
Definitely. It's a difficult paradigm shift when one has been conditioned their whole life to see people in terms of a binary gender norm.
Who remembers the Saturday Night Live skit about "Pat", where the entire source of humor was that people couldn't tell what gender Pat was? I cringe to recall.
Whitney wrote: "This review strikes me as the type that goes on my pet peeve list, namely one that criticizes a book for not being the one the reviewer wants, rather than reviewing the book that was written."I share that peeve and agree with your assessment of this review. Sometimes criticizing a book for what's not in it is legitimate because it can be reasonable to say that an author cannot really take on a particular subject without also writing about something that was left out, but as you point out in your comment this isn't the case with this book. It also seems a strange criticism from the reviewer since there can be no doubt that Ezemi is familiar first hand with the queer politics of Nigeria. That Emezi left it out was not just an oversight or an omission.
Whitney wrote: "David wrote: "Marc and Nadine, I think there is a lot to it being new and so sounding strange and being difficult to adjust to. I remember when Prince (the musician) was going through his phase of ..."I'm used to being around gender nonconforming people at work and at home, since I've lived in very progressive niches in the US, so it doesn't feel unnatural to me. I think their gender identification doesn't stick in my head because I don't interact with Emezi personally to reinforce it, and the book was nominated for a women's prize. Plus their presentation on Instagram strikes me as feminine. I think that's where my brain trips up - that someone can present as feminine but not identify as female. Which makes sense to me, it's just a harder habit to break than using nongendered pronouns.
What did people think? Where did this book fail or succeed for you?
What did you think about Emezi's use of inhabitation by spirits to express multiple personalities? Do you think it was meant to be literal, metaphorical, or an undefined mix of both? Or is the question itself off-base?
How well did the different narrators work for expressing Ada's different personalities and what role each played in Ada's life / lives?
Why do you think this book garnered such critical acclaim? Does it speak particularly to changing ideas about identity?
As usual, feel free to ignore my questions and discuss anything about this book that you find interesting.