People Kill People by Ellen Hopkins: The Book I Am Most Conflicted About
TW: child abuse, racism, domestic violence, sexual assault... I'm probably not even remembering all the trigger warnings because there are so many of them. Just know that this is not a book for the faint of heart.
Oh boy. I don't know what to say about this one. Actually, I do, I just don't know how to articulate it in writing.
So.
This book follows 6 teens in Tuscon, Arizona. It is told through a mix of verse and prose, though mainly prose. We are told at the beginning of the book that one of the characters, and all of them have motive to do so, acquires as gun. And one of them shoots and someone dies. The 6 teens are very different: we have 2 teen parents; 2 white nationalists; a disabled, fat, LGBTQ character; and a latino character.
An interesting this about this book is that it is told from the perspective of Violence, somewhat similar to how The Book Thief is narrated by Death. At times I even forgot that the book was from a character perspective because a lot of the novel is voiced through the second person, and it's super creepy, as you feel as if violence is speaking to you directly and manipulating your thoughts. It's super easy to comprehend when you're reading the book, but very hard to explain. In my opinion, Violence being the narrator was the best part of the book.
Now, on to my rants.
Ellen Hopkins makes it clear in her author's note at the beginning of the book that a) the viewpoints of the characters do not reflect her own, and b) she supports gun control. But she wanted this book to at its core explore the reasons people have for pulling the trigger. And this is where I ran into a few issues. I think the title of this book is very misleading. The term "people kill people" is something that is generally said by people who don't support gun control; their argument is that it's not the guns that are the problem, it's the people behind the guns that are the problem. And this is not the overall message/argument of the book at all. In fact, any one with common sense will, at the end of this book, feel that the overall message of the novel is that we need to have better restrictions on guns. But, people who are very staunch supporters of gun control may see the title of this book and immediately be turned off, especially if said person has been the victim of gun violence, had family members suffer from gun violence, or even survived a mass shooting. I can't speak for, say, the Parkland survivors, but if I were in that situation, if I had experienced what they had experienced, just seeing the title of this book would make me angry, and I would choose not to read it. But like I said, the title is misleading and the book is very supportive of gun control, albeit implicitly. So, that's just one issue I had with it. It seems minor, but it didn't feel minor to me.
An even bigger issue for me than the title was simply that there was something about this book, something I can't quite pinpoint, that didn't sit well with me. There was just something about this book that bothered me. And it had nothing to do with the fact that I'm biracial and two of the perspectives in this novel are that of white nationalists. But that does lead me to another issue I had with this book: 2 of the characters are white supremacists, but none of the main characters is black. Obviously there was a latino character to stand in contrast with these two characters, but I think that if you're going to have 2 main characters that are white supremacists, there needs to be at least 1 black main character, especially in the context of this book. I mean, you can't talk about white supremacy and not talk about its effects on the African and African American community. And while this book is very diverse, what with the different sexualities, socio-economic situations, races, etc., but for the topics this book was covering it wasn't diverse enough and I felt the book suffered because of it.
Like I said, I am very conflicted about this book. I am settling on a rating of 3 out of 5 stars for now; the book was compelling, I was never bored, the format was incredibly creative, and it addressed an important issue. I'm not sure I would actively recommend this book; it's definitely not one of the books that deals with important issues that I recommend to everyone in the way that I recommend The Hate U Give and The Female of the Species, but I still hope that a lot of people read it, and that you pick it up, particularly if gun violence is an issue you're passionate about, not because it's a great novel, because it's not, but so that we can have these very important discussions that this book stimulates.
While i haven't read the book my interpretation from your review personally is since there have been many books dealing with racism (esepcially towards black people) that maybe the author decided to take a different take on it plus she has another book dealing with that stuff so maybe she decided to cut it our and put it in that book instead. This is however my interpretation from what you said about the book itself and hopefully doesn't come off negative
ReplyDeleteHi Devon, thank you for your response. No, I totally respect your opinion and your comment doesn't come across as negative. However, this was my first Ellen Hopkins book, and I don't think, unless a book is part of a series, that there should be an expectation that a reader has read an author's previous books. And while I respect that maybe the author chose to put something in a different book instead, it doesn't change the fact that, in my opinion, the book needed more diversity, and putting it into another book doesn't really make People Kill People less problematic (for lack of a better word). Here's an example: let's say an author, let's call him John, writes Book A with characters that are inherently racist, and John doesn't challenge his characters problematic viewpoints, and as a result, the message the reader gets isn't a positive one and they are maybe left feeling like the book itself is racist. Now, say John has written another book, Book B, with racist characters, and he does challenge their problematic viewpoints. The fact that he challenged those viewpoints in Book B really has no bearing on the fact that he didn't challenge those viewpoints in Book A. I hope I'm making sense!
Delete