I know that all our books so far have dealt heavily with poverty, and I appreciate that. Giving a realistic sense of being without is important. Yes, Anne Hathaway in Les Mis did an amazing job, but that is a very dramatic sense of the concept. Reading these things, especially Eleanor & Park and now, this are really interesting to me. No, I’m not trying to look at poverty like you would a lion at the zoo, but it is interesting to me simply because I have never experienced anything like what is described. I have never really connected to the stereotypical “poor” character in a lot of books because they are only defined by their income. Eleanor, Violet, and Piddy - oh weird, they are all girls… - are shown as so much more than that. Most authors that I have read are very heavy-handed in their portrayal of poverty - it’s like Fox News’s description…
I really appreciate how this book flips what we have come to expect on its head - specifically with Mitzi. Eleanor and Violet are the odd-ones-out in their respective books. But in YDWTKYA, Mitzi is the odd-one-out. She got away, she - in the narrative - is defined by her wealth and how that affects Piddy.
Of the books we have read, this is the only one with a solely interior look at poverty. The other two were of an exterior view, only what Eleanor and Violet wanted Park and Titus - respectively - to see.
No comments:
Post a Comment