Today is the day for our second book club discussion! The book picked for this month was "The Underground Railroad" by Colson Whitehead.
So, what were your thoughts on this book? Below are some questions just to help get you thinking if you have a hard time figuring out what you want to say, you definitely don't have to answer any of them!
Things to potentially consider:
- What were the key differences between the various states that Cora visited? What was the author trying to show? - What did you think of the secondary characters? (love interests, the underground railroad workers, slaves in Georgia, the white people in North Carolina, the settlers in Indiana) - Did you like the use of a literal railroad in this book? - What were your feelings about the violence in this book (rapings, beatings, hangings, medical testing, grave robbing, etc.) - How did you feel about the 'reveal' of what happened to Cora's mother?
I'm looking forward to discussing this book with all of you!
Post by rainbowchip on Feb 22, 2017 11:25:11 GMT -5
At first I was surprised at the treatment of Cora by other slaves on the plantation. I've only seen it portrayed as a tight community that has each other's backs. But it makes sense that it wasn't always like that when your actions can cause implications to others. I also had to question myself a few times about the literal railroad. Was I taught wrong?
I'd be interested to hear what others thought of the literal railroad.
I'm not quite done yet, but I have a few thoughts anyway. What is the intended audience for this book? It feels a little YA-ish. Cora seems flat, more like she's the vehicle to tell the story of slavery and the UGRR, rather than the story being about HER. There was a lot of description and very little inner monologue. I thought the secondary characters served to add detail and context to the setting, rather than to Cora's story. For example, Martin's main purpose was to tell the story of why North Carolina was all white. I (shamefully) didn't know that history of NC, so I appreciated it, but I didn't care about him personally. He and Ethel seemed like throwaways - once we understood how dangerous NC was and why, those characters were killed off. I'm on the part where Cora has been captured by Ridgeway, and he's describing the Trail of Tears. Again, he seems like a devise to describe the setting to the reader, rather than terrorize Cora.
I thought the violence was watered down, which was fine because I imagined teens reading this book. Cora's rape was alluded to rather than described in graphic detail (unless there's another one coming...?). I definitely understood how brutal Cora's world is, but it was mild compared to, say Roots. Omg talk about brutal!
Post by CrazyLucky on Feb 22, 2017 13:07:02 GMT -5
I enjoyed the book. The literal railroad was neither good not bad in mind mind, but it did give the author a vehicle to describe how dangerous it was for sympathizers to be part of the UGRR. I haven't read Roots, so I can't compare the violence, but when the book described the treatment of the recaptured runaway slave, I had trouble. Was the Trail of Tears based on something real? The book described it as several miles of hung people. Can you imagine being the guy walking for miles on that road, trying to find his family? One of my favorite parts of the book was when free blacks rescued her. I had recently read a non-fiction book about the UGRR and a lot of that part rang true to the non-fiction book (the title is escaping me right now). I'm interested to hear what others thought.
I had the same issues with questioning who this book is for and why is it being told this way? I mean, if it's supposed to be eye-opening to slavery and the abuses of it, then why is the real atrocities never given much emotional depth? Her rape and her beatings felt removed and I didn't honestly have a true emotional reaction to it beyond the feeling of course that that is a bad thing to happen. But I didn't FEEL it if you know what I mean? You don't even have to show it gory detail necessarily, but an emotional contemplation of it by the character and showing the consequences of it to her mental well being would have been enough to give it more of an impact. It just felt glossed over.
The actual literal railroad annoyed me honestly. I mean, it makes zero sense. If it actually existed, and that's already ignoring how impossible it would be to actually do it in the first place, then the question becomes - how do you keep it from being discovered? I mean, if you find just one part of the track you can then follow it and find all the other underground stops and the people in charge of them etc. Just seems implausible all around. So if something so impossible is brought into the story, I would have expected it to take more of a center stage. Or for the rest of the book to be more fantasy-realism than it was.
The secondary characters just never really jumped out to me. I can't even remember half of their names.
Another large problem I had with this book was a problem of my own making - I read "Homegoing" before this one. And that book is AMAZING and I am so glad we'll be discussing it for book club in the summer. But after reading such an insightful book about slavery and it's consequences stretching out for generations in both Africa and America - this book just paled in comparison on all levels for me.
Post by kelliebeans104 on Feb 22, 2017 14:02:05 GMT -5
I wasn't a huge fan of this book. I never felt any attachment to Cora at all, which removed any emotional connection to whatever happened to her. Even though so many terrible things happened along her journey, I never felt I was there experiencing them with her. It read more like a non-fiction book to me than a fiction book.
I also didn't like the jumping to secondary characters. A lot of those stories seemed out of place and added no value to the overall story line.
I did actually like how the underground railroad was a literal railroad. I do agree that it totally wouldn't have been plausible but it was kind of cool to visualize the escapes that way.
I was also annoyed with the mother's story. All that build up within the book and she gets bitten by a snake and dies? Ugh. I didn't like that.
I'll jump in later when I'm home, but I felt like the detachment a lot of people disliked from Cora was a realistic survival mode kind of thing. Can you imagine living through slavery without letting at least some of your mind disconnect from those feelings? They owned people. It's almost impossible to actually take in -- my life, my body wholly belongs to someone else in the eyes of the law and society. That sentiment was always at the forefront in the writing IMO.
This book was such a disappointment to me. I feel bad for not liking it but I found the writing flat and really had to push myself to finish.
I guess I'm not sure what the book was going for. I have read other books about slavery that really made me emotional and captivated me as a reader (Homegoing is one, The Kitchen House is another). This book did not. It did pick up for me after Cora landed in North Carolina. I found her journey interesting but once she was rescued I became bored again. Once she was in the settlement it felt like the author forgot what his point was as well?
The actual railroad didn't bother me. It is so not plausible but I think it did give the reader a way to understand just how difficult it was to be an abolitionist. Cora's mother dying by snakebite? Dumb. That just seemed like it didn't belong at all and I would have preferred to have no formal resolution than that.
I thought this book was just ok. Like many others have mentioned, I felt no connection to Cora or many of the secondary characters. I thought the writing was flat and pretty boring. The violence, rape, hangings were definitely horrible, but I did not feel anything for the characters experiencing that. I was disappointed by the lack of connection to any of the characters.
I did not care for the literal railroad either. I just couldn't get over how implausible the whole thing was and found that distracting.
I kind of wish they would have left Cora's mother a mystery. The snakebite and resolution to that story line was disappointing after dragging that story line through the entire book.
Overall, I was disappointed in the book after hearing many rave reviews before I read it. I read Homegoing after I finished this and it made me even more disappointed because Homegoing was so amazing.
I'll jump in later when I'm home, but I felt like the detachment a lot of people disliked from Cora was a realistic survival mode kind of thing. Can you imagine living through slavery without letting at least some of your mind disconnect from those feelings? They owned people. It's almost impossible to actually take in -- my life, my body wholly belongs to someone else in the eyes of the law and society. That sentiment was always at the forefront in the writing IMO.
Yeah I see what you mean - you have to almost detach yourself from it in order to survive it. And I think the book did really show that exact point in a small way when she was forced to be an actor of sorts in the museum. At first she ignored the spectators and their jeers and stares. But then after a while she stared people down to make them uncomfortable. As a reader however I felt more uncomfortable reading the previous book club book than I ever did with this, and this was a much more horrifying topic. This book just didn't "stare me down". I felt like the sentiment was there, but the execution of it was off in some way. Like I said, reading Homegoing first really made me more critical of this book than I think I would have been had I not read it.
I didn't like the book. Like others, I agree with the lack of character development being a big issue with the book. I couldn't get invested in the characters. The jumping around in the timeline and third person narrative made the problem worse. Sadly, it was an unmemorable book for me. I read the book recently but I can't recall much that happened in the book without looking at notes.
I found the literal take on the underground railroad annoying and the more I read the more it annoyed me. It gave the book a cartoonish feel, almost like it made light of the actual railroad in a way. It grated my nerves and sadly will be the only thing that I will probably always remember about this book.
I'll jump in later when I'm home, but I felt like the detachment a lot of people disliked from Cora was a realistic survival mode kind of thing. Can you imagine living through slavery without letting at least some of your mind disconnect from those feelings? They owned people. It's almost impossible to actually take in -- my life, my body wholly belongs to someone else in the eyes of the law and society. That sentiment was always at the forefront in the writing IMO.
Yeah I see what you mean - you have to almost detach yourself from it in order to survive it. And I think the book did really show that exact point in a small way when she was forced to be an actor of sorts in the museum. At first she ignored the spectators and their jeers and stares. But then after a while she stared people down to make them uncomfortable. As a reader however I felt more uncomfortable reading the previous book club book than I ever did with this, and this was a much more horrifying topic. This book just didn't "stare me down". I felt like the sentiment was there, but the execution of it was off in some way. Like I said, reading Homegoing first really made me more critical of this book than I think I would have been had I not read it.
I love the bolded line and feel like you hit the nail on the head. I read Small Great Things and Homegoing right after The Underground Railroad. I have some issues with Small Great Things but I was definitely uncomfortable during some of the book and felt a connection with the characters. I thought Homegoing was outstanding and didn't want it to end! If I had just read The Underground Railroad and not followed up with 2 books involving race issues and slavery, I probably would have given it a little higher rating. Following up with the books I did solidified my disappointment in The Underground Railroad. Save
Post by CheeringCharm on Feb 22, 2017 17:17:08 GMT -5
I wasn’t that crazy about the fact that he made the Underground Railroad into an actual railroad. I found it distracting (I kept wondering about the mechanics of it being built) and ultimately I didn’t think it added anything to the story that couldn’t have been done by describing how the actual, historic Underground Railroad worked. For me, the strongest, most compelling parts of the novel were the ones in which he was describing events that could have happened in a realistic way: the kidnapping of slaves in Africa, the harrowing Middle Passage endured by Cora’s grandmother, the early scenes on the plantation, the terrifying flight from the plantation through the swamp, what it was like for Cora hiding out in the attic for so many months etc. etc. I also feel like making the network into an actual, functioning railroad takes a bit away from the ingenuity and sheer strength of will exhibited by the real people who risked their lives and found a way to lead people from bondage to freedom working with what they had at hand.
This is probably an UO but I liked the secondary chapters, especially the one on the grave robbers, which I thought was really interesting and I'd like to read more about that time period. This passage stuck out to me from that section as particularly revealing:
"The other students uttered the most horrible things about the colored population of Boston...Yet when his classmates put their blades to a colored cadaver, they did more for the cause of colored advancement than the most high-minded abolitionist. In death the Negro became a human being. Only then was he the white man's equal."
Probably another UO but I also liked the reveal of what happened to Cora's mother. It just seems so true to life to me. We (humans in general) often seem to assume that things are more complex than they really are. Cora and the other slaves imagined her mother as being the only one who ever made it off the plantation alive and that gave Cora the strength and determination to do it herself. And meanwhile, she never even made it out of the swamp. It seemed more realistic and sadly ironic and fitting of life than a chapter explaining that she had been hiding out in Canada.
CheeringCharm Very well said -- I agree on all those points.
I actually liked the flatness of the writing -- for me it made the fact-based situations more emotional and hard to take because it was written so matter of factly. It felt like he didn't have to try to make us feel it because the horror of the situation was just that bad. I was definitely involved with the story and the characters.
I know it's fiction, but the actual railroad as the Underground Railroad feels weird to me. Since the rest of the book aligned historically with events and people, the single anomaly was weird, it even had me doubting whether there really were segments that were real RR. I read a lot of historical fiction and often feel like I learn something along the way, if you didn't know much about this era you would could take the tracks underground as a legitimate piece of this narrative. ETA: maybe I missed every piece of symbolism and nuance if this book, Valentine was made up, were the SC and NC and other state guidelines for the treatment of blacks just a narrative on present day or legitimate scenes? I don't know...
I couldn't pinpoint what was not catching me about this book, maybe it was the flat emotionless main character or the unprovoked violence, but I put the book down for a break often. I also kept waiting for the point or peak of the story and felt like there was a lack of depth to the details of things, like it was preaching at you instead of narrating the character experience if that makes sense.
I like that I'm still reading and have the benefit of your insights! charlatti, I've been thinking about your comments specifically. I agree with your point, but I think the author missed the mark. For example, I just read this passage, when Cora learns what happens to Lovey:
"Cora covered her mouth to hold in her scream. She failed. Ridgeway gave her ten minutes to regain her composure. The townspeople looked at the colored girl laying there collapsed on the ground and stepped over her into the bakery."
I feel more like a witness to this scene, like I'm a townsperson stepping over her. I can imagine Cora's grief, of course, but the author fails to make me feel it, you know? There are ways to do that without losing the detachment aspect. Like, "Cora heard a wail and was started to realize it was coming from her."
I think he meant for you to feel like a townsperson. How did they live that way, completely ignoring the suffering literally right in front of them? How do we live that way now? Perhaps not quite as literally, but there's a great deal of stepping over people going on in this world. Cora isn't the lens for that moment. MrsAxilla
I don't think he wrote this to be historical fiction in the traditional sense. We're meant to put ourselves in more parts -- that's the point, to me, of the secondary characters and their chapters and the point of seeing ourselves briefly as townspeople or museum goers or whatever. We may have ended slavery but we haven't ended our terrible treatment of people and particularly people of color.
I finally finished! Here are my thoughts before I go through all the replies:
I did enjoy (or maybe appreciate is a better word) the book. The biggest part that threw me for a loop was the actual, literal underground railroad - I don't really think that added anything to the story. In fact, I think it detracted, since it provided these sort of magical avenues where once you were in them you were safe, for a while, whereas in reality it was really hard to stay unnoticed on the road.
Were the ads for runaway slaves that were printed before each section close to reality for how the slaves would be described? It's wild to me that so many people made a living trying to track down people with such minimal descriptions.
The violence overall didn't capture the horror of slavery. Yes, there were a few graphic elements of the descriptions (notably the descriptions of what happened to the runaways), but I think Whitehead purposefully toned down the atrocities. Why, I can only speculate.
I was really sad to read about Cora's mother in the end, and to realize how Cora's feelings of abandonment were misplaced throughout. However, on the other hand they helped to give her the courage to escape herself, so that's something.
I'm not quite done yet, but I have a few thoughts anyway. What is the intended audience for this book? It feels a little YA-ish. Cora seems flat, more like she's the vehicle to tell the story of slavery and the UGRR, rather than the story being about HER. There was a lot of description and very little inner monologue. I thought the secondary characters served to add detail and context to the setting, rather than to Cora's story. For example, Martin's main purpose was to tell the story of why North Carolina was all white. I (shamefully) didn't know that history of NC, so I appreciated it, but I didn't care about him personally. He and Ethel seemed like throwaways - once we understood how dangerous NC was and why, those characters were killed off. I'm on the part where Cora has been captured by Ridgeway, and he's describing the Trail of Tears. Again, he seems like a devise to describe the setting to the reader, rather than terrorize Cora.
I thought the violence was watered down, which was fine because I imagined teens reading this book. Cora's rape was alluded to rather than described in graphic detail (unless there's another one coming...?). I definitely understood how brutal Cora's world is, but it was mild compared to, say Roots. Omg talk about brutal!
You could be right about the intended audience, but I think Cora's flat-ness could also be seen as a self-protective device, to try to avoid feeling all of the horrible things that have happened to and around her. There is a little bit at the very end
Another large problem I had with this book was a problem of my own making - I read "Homegoing" before this one. And that book is AMAZING and I am so glad we'll be discussing it for book club in the summer. But after reading such an insightful book about slavery and it's consequences stretching out for generations in both Africa and America - this book just paled in comparison on all levels for me.
Even though I had a more positive impression of The Underground Railroad than many seem to have, I'm definitely looking forward to reading Homegoing after reading all of the comments here!
I wasn’t that crazy about the fact that he made the Underground Railroad into an actual railroad. I found it distracting (I kept wondering about the mechanics of it being built) and ultimately I didn’t think it added anything to the story that couldn’t have been done by describing how the actual, historic Underground Railroad worked. For me, the strongest, most compelling parts of the novel were the ones in which he was describing events that could have happened in a realistic way: the kidnapping of slaves in Africa, the harrowing Middle Passage endured by Cora’s grandmother, the early scenes on the plantation, the terrifying flight from the plantation through the swamp, what it was like for Cora hiding out in the attic for so many months etc. etc. I also feel like making the network into an actual, functioning railroad takes a bit away from the ingenuity and sheer strength of will exhibited by the real people who risked their lives and found a way to lead people from bondage to freedom working with what they had at hand.
This is probably an UO but I liked the secondary chapters, especially the one on the grave robbers, which I thought was really interesting and I'd like to read more about that time period. This passage stuck out to me from that section as particularly revealing:
"The other students uttered the most horrible things about the colored population of Boston...Yet when his classmates put their blades to a colored cadaver, they did more for the cause of colored advancement than the most high-minded abolitionist. In death the Negro became a human being. Only then was he the white man's equal."
Probably another UO but I also liked the reveal of what happened to Cora's mother. It just seems so true to life to me. We (humans in general) often seem to assume that things are more complex than they really are. Cora and the other slaves imagined her mother as being the only one who ever made it off the plantation alive and that gave Cora the strength and determination to do it herself. And meanwhile, she never even made it out of the swamp. It seemed more realistic and sadly ironic and fitting of life than a chapter explaining that she had been hiding out in Canada.
I also kept wondering about the mechanics of constructing and operating a literal underground railroad.
And, I agree that the secondary chapters were interesting, especially the very last one about Cora's mother. But, I've always loved books that tell stories from multiple perspectives.
WHITEHEAD: Actually, I was pretty reluctant to immerse myself into that history. It took 16 years for me to finish the book. I first had the idea in the year 2000, and I was finishing up a long book called "John Henry Days," which had a lot of research. And I was just sort of, you know, getting up from a nap or something (laughter) and thought, you know, what if the Underground Railroad was an actual railroad? You know, I think when you're a kid and you first hear about it in school or whatever, you imagine a literal subway beneath the earth. And then you find out that it's not a literal subway, and you get a bit upset. And so the book took off from that childhood notion. And that's a premise, not that much of a story. So I kept thinking about it. And I thought, well, what if every state our hero went through - as he or she ran North - was a different state of American possibility? So Georgia has one sort of take on America and North Carolina - sort of like "Gulliver's Travels." The book is rebooting every time the person goes to a different state.
ETA and also this:
WHITEHEAD: Yeah. I think, you know, once I made the choice to make a literal underground railroad, you know, it freed me up to play with time a bit more. And so, in general, you know, the technology, culture and speech is from the year 1850. That was my sort of mental cutoff for technology and slang. But it allowed me to bring in things that didn't happen in 1850 - skyscrapers, aspects of the eugenics movement, forced sterilization and the Tuskegee syphilis experiment. And it's all presented sort of matter-of-factly...
WHITEHEAD: Actually, I was pretty reluctant to immerse myself into that history. It took 16 years for me to finish the book. I first had the idea in the year 2000, and I was finishing up a long book called "John Henry Days," which had a lot of research. And I was just sort of, you know, getting up from a nap or something (laughter) and thought, you know, what if the Underground Railroad was an actual railroad? You know, I think when you're a kid and you first hear about it in school or whatever, you imagine a literal subway beneath the earth. And then you find out that it's not a literal subway, and you get a bit upset. And so the book took off from that childhood notion. And that's a premise, not that much of a story. So I kept thinking about it. And I thought, well, what if every state our hero went through - as he or she ran North - was a different state of American possibility? So Georgia has one sort of take on America and North Carolina - sort of like "Gulliver's Travels." The book is rebooting every time the person goes to a different state.
ETA and also this:
WHITEHEAD: Yeah. I think, you know, once I made the choice to make a literal underground railroad, you know, it freed me up to play with time a bit more. And so, in general, you know, the technology, culture and speech is from the year 1850. That was my sort of mental cutoff for technology and slang. But it allowed me to bring in things that didn't happen in 1850 - skyscrapers, aspects of the eugenics movement, forced sterilization and the Tuskegee syphilis experiment. And it's all presented sort of matter-of-factly...
Yes to the bottom! The chapter on SC also distracted me a lot because of all the mentions of the skyscrapers and elevators and the eugenics movement. I knew that happened but I thought it was more like the 1930s and I kept getting puzzled by that, lol.
Much of the novel was written in such a stark, straightforward way and I personally thought its realism was its main strength. I was definitely drawn in by Cora and her journey and I think the flat, unemotional writing helped amp up the horror of what he was describing. I know I was reading it with eyes wide open, especially the early chapters. But then you have these two almost science fiction aspects to it (the railroad and the modern city and medicine) which were really jarring and distracting to me as the reader. I didn't think they really fit.
I am realizing with this book that I am a reader who takes things in the stories I read at face value. If the character and author tell me this is the character's experience, I believe them, straight up. Apparently symbolism is lost on me, unless I'm reading a mystery, then I turn my analysis cap on. I missed so much of the pieces that were not meshing with the timeline, it crossed my mind but I went on my merry way. Feel like a dumb reader after this book!
I'm not quite done yet, but I have a few thoughts anyway. What is the intended audience for this book? It feels a little YA-ish. Cora seems flat, more like she's the vehicle to tell the story of slavery and the UGRR, rather than the story being about HER. There was a lot of description and very little inner monologue. I thought the secondary characters served to add detail and context to the setting, rather than to Cora's story. For example, Martin's main purpose was to tell the story of why North Carolina was all white. I (shamefully) didn't know that history of NC, so I appreciated it, but I didn't care about him personally. He and Ethel seemed like throwaways - once we understood how dangerous NC was and why, those characters were killed off. I'm on the part where Cora has been captured by Ridgeway, and he's describing the Trail of Tears. Again, he seems like a devise to describe the setting to the reader, rather than terrorize Cora.
I thought the violence was watered down, which was fine because I imagined teens reading this book. Cora's rape was alluded to rather than described in graphic detail (unless there's another one coming...?). I definitely understood how brutal Cora's world is, but it was mild compared to, say Roots. Omg talk about brutal!
You could be right about the intended audience, but I think Cora's flat-ness could also be seen as a self-protective device, to try to avoid feeling all of the horrible things that have happened to and around her. There is a little bit at the very end
where she regrets not acting on her love at Valentine farm
that humanizes her more, now that she has been away from slavery for a while.
When I first posted I was only 60% through, and now I'm almost done. I think the emotional aspect is revealed later in the book. For example, we know very little about what Cora thought about while locked in the attic for all those months. Later we find out she dreamed about Ceasar, knew his fate, and did all her grieving for him. I guess I was expecting to experience the journey with Cora and was maybe disappointed that I couldn't. But then again, I CAN'T, can I? The author isn't doing the emotional work for me. The reader is left to empathize with Cora...or not.... I'm reminded of our discussions on CEP where POC tell us white women that they are DONE. They have more important things to do than hold my hand and wipe my tears.
I was convinced, once Cora reached SC, that she had actually been captured and her travels on the railroad and what she found in SC, NC, etc. were imagined by her to avoid the torments of slavery and torture. Especially the literal railroad seemed like what Cora thought she'd find when Caesar told her the plan.
I did like the book--to me, the flat style read like a defense mechanism. And each location played with the idea of how blacks and whites might coexist, but each was still exploitative, even without slavery. Especially the Indiana section showed that freedom doesn't really mean freedom. It's a powerful message for people today who argue that slavery was a long time ago so people should be "over it."
I was convinced, once Cora reached SC, that she had actually been captured and her travels on the railroad and what she found in SC, NC, etc. were imagined by her to avoid the torments of slavery and torture. Especially the literal railroad seemed like what Cora thought she'd find when Caesar told her the plan.
I did like the book--to me, the flat style read like a defense mechanism. And each location played with the idea of how blacks and whites might coexist, but each was still exploitative, even without slavery. Especially the Indiana section showed that freedom doesn't really mean freedom. It's a powerful message for people today who argue that slavery was a long time ago so people should be "over it."
Post by rachelgreen on Mar 2, 2017 10:54:03 GMT -5
I really suck at remembering to come back for discussions.
The literal train, I honestly got confused for a chapter or two because I thought, "wait...it wasn't really a Railroad. Or am I wrong?!" It was distracting for me. I got too caught up imagining roaring through hidden tunnels covered in soot and trying to figure out the engineering aspect of creating the tunnels in that day and age.
I also felt detached from the story. I didn't mind the secondary chapters but so many places I wished for more details instead of gloss overs. It's been a couple months since I read this book but what was it? Nearly a year of her hidden in the attic?
As for the ending to her mother, I'm one of the lone ones who liked this revelation. I spent way too much of the book wondering how a mother could leave her child to that world without ever trying to find her or free her. Granted, I don't know what I would do if I were in those shoes but I would like to think I wouldn't leave my girls behind. It was fitting to me. I agree with the pp who said that sometimes it's the simplest answer that is the truth.
WHITEHEAD: Actually, I was pretty reluctant to immerse myself into that history. It took 16 years for me to finish the book. I first had the idea in the year 2000, and I was finishing up a long book called "John Henry Days," which had a lot of research. And I was just sort of, you know, getting up from a nap or something (laughter) and thought, you know, what if the Underground Railroad was an actual railroad? You know, I think when you're a kid and you first hear about it in school or whatever, you imagine a literal subway beneath the earth. And then you find out that it's not a literal subway, and you get a bit upset. And so the book took off from that childhood notion. And that's a premise, not that much of a story. So I kept thinking about it. And I thought, well, what if every state our hero went through - as he or she ran North - was a different state of American possibility? So Georgia has one sort of take on America and North Carolina - sort of like "Gulliver's Travels." The book is rebooting every time the person goes to a different state.
ETA and also this:
WHITEHEAD: Yeah. I think, you know, once I made the choice to make a literal underground railroad, you know, it freed me up to play with time a bit more. And so, in general, you know, the technology, culture and speech is from the year 1850. That was my sort of mental cutoff for technology and slang. But it allowed me to bring in things that didn't happen in 1850 - skyscrapers, aspects of the eugenics movement, forced sterilization and the Tuskegee syphilis experiment. And it's all presented sort of matter-of-factly...
Yes to the bottom! The chapter on SC also distracted me a lot because of all the mentions of the skyscrapers and elevators and the eugenics movement. I knew that happened but I thought it was more like the 1930s and I kept getting puzzled by that, lol.
Much of the novel was written in such a stark, straightforward way and I personally thought its realism was its main strength. I was definitely drawn in by Cora and her journey and I think the flat, unemotional writing helped amp up the horror of what he was describing. I know I was reading it with eyes wide open, especially the early chapters. But then you have these two almost science fiction aspects to it (the railroad and the modern city and medicine) which were really jarring and distracting to me as the reader. I didn't think they really fit.
I don't go here so I hope you don't mind me jumping in. But I didn't really take the book as a book about slavery per se. As in not to necessarily tell the history and atrocities of slavery. I think the book was more of a dystopian novel of what it would be like if slavery had never ended. I do think the book took place in the 1900s, 1930s is a good guess.
Post by expectantsteelerfan on Mar 2, 2017 20:55:48 GMT -5
Add me to the groups who 1: can't remember to come back on discussion day. 2: found the flat writing to read like a defense mechanism. I am an outsider looking in, and he didn't let me forget that, which I appreciated. and 3: liked the revelation of Cora's mother's ending.
The literal underground railroad annoyed me a ton though. I remember being a kid and thinking it was a real railroad and then feeling stupid when I learned it wasn't, and this made me second guess myself for a hot minute.
Finally, I loved that he included some of the medical issues black people faced beyond the end of slavery. This is something I was unaware of until recently reading about the Tuskegee syphilis experiment for a grad. class, and the medical mistreatment really resonated with me and made me think about the lasting ripple effects of that kind of atrocity.