I am having a really hard time with my reaction to Butler's first book in the duology. She is incredibly prescient about the large scale issues impacting our world regarding climate change, the privatization of every aspect of our life, theocratic fascism etc. But those aspects honestly seem barely touched on. Just some cursory table setting at the beginning that really isn't touched on much after the world is established.
Instead, we get the drug-addled poor being sub-human creatures that are constantly raping and killing, walled off communities filled with guns being the best chance people have at safety, and religion being the thing that brings everyone together. And looking at when it was written, it makes a bit of sense. This was published one year before the Biden crime bill signed by Clinton. This was the tough on crime era. Anyone who committed a crime or struggled with drug addiction was largely dehumanized. It still doesn't make it any less disappointing and regressive that Butler leans all the way in to that world view. Historically, these sorts of atrocities (like what happened to the neighborhood at the half way point) have happened. But it's almost always those with power and authority that have committed them. Not some faceless horde of those in poverty.
Don't get me wrong, there's a lot here I like. The writing is incredible. The plotting and characters are so rich and believable. I found the scenes of communal bonding and reliance beautiful. The ideas of mutual aid and community have largely been too far abandoned in favor of independence and self-reliance. And the community part is really the core of the book and makes it worth reading for that message. I just think it's a shame that to do so she relied on dehumanizing those struggling the most.
by rooster4238
3 Comments
It’s been a little while since I’ve read this book, but I wonder if you would say that Butler leans into a dehumanizing view of people who use drugs/struggle with addition, or if she *depicts a society* that holds a dehumanizing view of those people?
Ironically, I would say that they are pretty humanized. Especially Keith. Butler portrays how a person can go down this road and how desperation can drive them to behave this way.
To be clear: I would argue that any portrayal that does not show people resorting to robbery and murder to survive, and only portrays the people in power as doing the murdering (note: the people in power ARE still the ultimate villains.) would be a bad one, lacking nuance. I’m not really interested in a purely fictional vision of poor people as saints, and I don’t think a lot of readers are either, as evidenced by the book’s enduring popularity.
I thought making the main relationship be between an 18 year old girl and a man in his 50s/60s was a super weird move too. I was like, am I reading this right?