Friday, January 08, 2010

The Book of Negroes by Lawrence Hill

The first Book Club pick of year, in preparation for Black History month, has me loving The Book of Negroes by Canadian author Lawrence Hill. It is a work of fiction written like an autobiography, bringing us the story of Amanita Diallo, a girl ripped from from her village in the interiors of Africa and sold into slavery. In an extraordinary epic that takes Aminata from Africa to America to Canada back to Africa and finally to England, the slave trade comes to gross life, replete with sight, sound and horrific smell.

As we grow older, our enjoyment of fairy tales are often jaded by the realities of everyday life. I mean, who still believes in Prince Charmings and Happily-Ever-Afters? Yet, in many ways, history is much like those same stories, full of heroes and villains, damsels and princes. Like most Canadian-educated children, I learned the story of Harriet Tubman and read Underground to Canada. I knew vaguely about the earlier stories of Black Loyalists and other former slaves who sought refuge on first British and then Canadian soil. I had firmly cast Canadians in the role of the Prince rescuing African Damsels in distress. I know, now, as an adult, that that is far too simplistic role. That, yes, slavery also existed here and yes, as a nation, we profited from the debasement and mistreatment of our first black immigrants. Never has that history resounded so clearly (and with so much compassion) as it did in Hill's writing.

The Book never attempts to be a textbook; instead, it is a story of one woman, like any other, whose life happens to be caught up in the tidal waves of slavery, servitude and freedom. By shifting the focus to Aminata and keeping us firmly enthralled by her, we, the readers, are able to digest the harshest conditions and cruelest torments. Were this a "real" autobiography, i doubt I would have been able to stomach past that first revolution of the moon.

There is talk of adding the Book of Negroes to the school curriculum, thereby effectively replacing Harper Lee's classic To Kill A Mockingbird. I don't see why it has to, why we can't have both? I mean, I read some really terrible books in high school, all in the name of Canadian content. Well, why not replace some of those deadly boring books with something solid, engaging, thoughtful and Canadian? Something that actually speaks to the readers and aren't some weird 70's throwback novel to which no contemporary teenager can relate?

Regardless of what the schools decide, as Canadians (and, indeed, as global citizens) we should make an effort to read this book. It is truly a fantastic piece of writing, one that echo forth long after you've put it down. An absolute must-read.

7 comments:

Unknown said...

Agreed!!!! Love this book! Can't remember To Kill a Mockingbird, must've speed read that one in Grade 9. Speaking of HORRIBLE H.S. BOOKS = Great Expectations.

Malecasta said...

Great Expectations = Dickens = over-rated. :)

Unknown said...

I agree! I never really understood why they tortured us with those kinds of books. Except for exposure to "classic literature", what else were we suppose to learn from them: how to describe a room in 15 pages?

Anonymous said...

Problem is that they waste good books on high school brains.

When you think of it, isn't your life a series of "Great Expectations" followed by abject disappointment? You don't know that when you are 16 - you have yet to live on a complex enough scale to judge.

Yeesh, someone has to defend the classics! When you great-great-grandchildren are reading the book you read in your book club, we can talk turkey about which books are the best.

DK

Malecasta said...

I find it funny that the "classics" all come from a particular period of 70 years or so - the same time the British empire was beginning to lose its footing as a great empire and was trying to establish a "canon" that would support its intellectual superiority, if nothing else. It's hardly fair to say that contemporary books can't be as good as the classics because they're new - a professor of mine once said that if doesn't make you LOVE reading, a book has missed its purpose.

I'm sorry, but VicLit is dry, pompous and nothing more than a reflection of the gossip rags of the time. Good for the Brontes who came through their abusive reclusive childhoods and learned to read and write. These books all espouse the idea that worth of a woman is found in the profit of her marriage... even dear Jane, who I think I would have liked, couldn't live out her fairy tales in real life. And Dickens - well, the man was paid by the word and it shows. He takes a donkey's year to describe the most inane details. Have your read Great Expectations? Here it is: Pip has grand dreams but he is disillusioned by life and a series of misfortunes, but finds love and happiness anyway. There, you saved a few hundred pages of reading.

Are the essential spines of these works worthy of mention? of course! But many are not very well written and embody the snobbery and pretentious nature of their times. I have no problem with "classics" but I do have a problem with the narrow definition of the term. Why don't we learn Chaucer in high school? Milton, Pope, Swift? Instead we have to read the "popular" classics - the Brontes because they think teenage girls will relate and Dickens because Disney made the Christmas Carol. Ugh. I'd take Swift's A Modest Proposal, Pope's Rape of the Lock and Milton's Paradise Lost any day. And just in case you think I'm sexist, there's also Aphra Behn's Oroonoko. Why did I have to wait until I was 19 to be exposed to this stuff instead of their consumer-driven watered down counterparts? Is it because we were all dullards in high school? No, it's because our teachers are too lazy to challenge. Set the bar and people rise to it. Have low expectations and that's precisely what you'll receive.

It used to be "cool" to read Catcher in the Rye and Outsiders, because they were contemporary and spoke to the kids in a language they could understand. Now, it's a wee bit dated. Introducing new books to the curriculum enlivens it. Besides, if the classics were all that's worth reading, then we should just stop writing.

That's a long comment. Sorry :)

Unknown said...

The curriculum does indeed need to be revamped. But I find too, even if they choose The Book of Negroes, the themes are generally the same ... they're just replacing To Kill a Mockingbird, they're not really introducing a new concept or idea.

We also had to read The Great Gatsby as well and The Old Man and the Sea, which were really wasted on a HS brain. What 15 year-old can relate to either of those? The only titles I remember liking in HS were Obasan, Romeo & Juliet and Macbeth.

Malecasta said...

HS titles that were awesome: Obasan, Crysalids, TKaM, Fugitive Pieces, Childhood, Macbeth, Hamlet, King Lear, Othello, (not a big R&J fan), the Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz, ... is it sad that's all I liked (and remember) from 5 years of my life?