Tayari's Blog: Mom Friendly, I Swear!

Comment #1, by Jackie

Thanks for the info. I posted a comment on the site suggesting she take you up on your offer of a free copy.

Don't let this kind of ignorance dismay you. You are in good company. Consider that Obama still has people who believe he is a Muslim extremist despite everything he has said, despite everything that has been reported showing that he is NOT Muslim and part of a sleeper cell. Ignorance abounds in our society because it is easier than being informed.

Comment #2, by Michael Fischer

Oh good grief, another person who only wants to read about butterflies and rainbows. Reminds me of the students who think that any book that tackles a remotely serious issue is "depressing."

Comment #3, by Tara Betts

First of all, Ms. Donlon needs to read the book, then critique. So that just dismisses everything else before I even read the rest of that brief thought (hardly a review). Then, I'm also a wondering a novel about an actual historical event that the author experience growing up in GA does not represent the state? What state is she living in? I suppose many other parents who lose their children to abduction and violence are not a concern she has to stomach. In short, I feel that she's being insensitive to people who may have experienced that horrendous ordeal.

Comment #4, by Jeni

Hi all. I responded to some of the comments Tayari and Jackie on The Shelf Life blog Friday, but wanted to address the other concerns here.

Michael, I assure you I read about many subjects, and generally stay away from "butterflies and rainbows." In addition to reading all sorts of books, with historical fiction being my favorite genre, I work on the city desk in Memphis and read more than my fill about tragedies, abuses and other serious issues daily. I know some things that people have done to children that you wouldn't even want to imagine. I have two kids of my own, and it makes my heart heavy to think of any child living in fear.

Tara, the blog item wasn't a critique or a review. The Shelf Life is keeping up with the "50 States of Literature" series at Columbia University, and I mention the state selection every week. We've had a lot of comments on those posts, usually by people who disagree with the choice and offer their own idea. That's why I noted others would surely have their own suggestions.

I'm puzzled that you think me to be insensitive, when most people who know me think I'm too sensitive when it comes to matters of abuse toward children. It makes me almost physically ill when a child goes missing in Memphis, or a carjacker takes a car with a child strapped in the back seat. I pray for those children on my way home from work in a city that sees far too many children die far too early.

I'm sure Tayari has written a lovely book -- she could hardly have been considered for the Pushcart if she didn't have gravitas -- it's just that the underlying subject matter affects me in such a way that it's hard for me to read. It's like when I had my kids, every child became my child, and it's hard for me to imagine any of them suffering. Surely you can understand that.

Comment #5, by ast

Fascinating series. I understand Jeni's emotions around the atrocities that happen to children, but I fail to follow the logic. Because the subject matter is sensitive to one person, the book isn't a good choice? Suppose Elie Wiesel's "Night" or Morrison's "Beloved" were selected as representative of a specific time or place. Would people protest the choice of either book b/c of the painful, difficult subject matter? This may be a poor analogy, as I am comparing books that relate to the Jewish holocaust and the Af-Am holocaust, which, in general, are such touchy subjects that people are more likely to tiptoe around texts that deal with them. It is curious to me that a book about people living their lives during the Atlanta child murders does not get at least a similar reaction. Are the Atlanta child murders such a non-event that they don't deserve even this level of "let me think about this, b/c I know people are sensitive about it...?" And isn't this part of what the book seeks to rectify, the marginalization of this period of trauma that afflicted a very specific population of people? Of course this is a painful topic. Unfortunately, for black children and parents of the '80's, it was not one that any of us had the luxury of choosing "not to read." We wondered if it would come to our state, this terror, much as Virginians beyond metro DC wondered if and when the DC sniper was moving into their territory. It seems to me that if people are not able to deal with painful historical issues and the attending emotional work that is required, they simply, and rightfully, stay away from work that engages them. At the risk of using another bad analogy, there are a lot of television shows (I'm thinking of Law & Order) that deal with a lot of horrible crimes against human beings. Certainly these shows are difficult to watch for the most sensitive among us, and most of us probably limit our watching of such shows to a level we are comfortable with. But I don't understand how that would translate into, "I've never watched this show, but I understand that it features many crimes of a graphic nature. Isn't there something better to represent this category in the Emmy's?" I've simply never heard this argument. Probably because it doesn't make sense. There are tons of things that are painful to watch/read that are, nonetheless, works of art par excellence. The beauty of a work of literature is that it will be around for the rest of our lives, and for those that come after us, so that whenever one is able to tackle the sometimes difficult subject matter that serious works of fiction often deal with, whether it's at 18 or 80, that book will be there. Human sensitivity I can relate to. This particular logic, I can't.