Well, let’s see how I go with this post on Percival Everett’s Pulitzer Prize winning novel James. I read all but 30 pages of this novel before my reading group’s meeting on 27 May. I was not at the meeting as I was in Far North Queensland, but I wanted to send in some notes, which I did. The next day, our tour proper started and I did not read one page of any novel from then until the tour ended. So, it was some 15 days later before I was able to pick it up to finish it. I found it surprisingly easy to pick up and continue on but, whether it will be easy to remember all my thoughts to write about it, is another thing. However, I’ll give it a go.
I greatly enjoyed the read. The facts of slavery depicted here are not new, but Everett offers a clever, engaging and witty perspective through which to think about it, while also being serious and moving. In terms of form, it’s a genre-bender that combines historical and adventure fiction, but I would say these are overlaid with the road novel, a picaresque or journey narrative, those ones about freedom, escape and survival rather than adventure.
Now, I’m always nervous about reading books that rewrite or riff on other books, particularly if I’ve not read the book or not read it recently. I’m not even sure which is true for Huckleberry Finn, given I came across that book SO long ago. Did I read it all in my youth? I’m not sure I did, but I don’t think it mattered here, because the perspective is Jim’s, not Huck’s. More interesting to me is the fact that at times James reminded me of Toni Morrison’s Beloved, such as when James says “we are slaves. What really can be worse in this world” (pt 2, ch 1) and his comment on the death of an escaping slave, “she’s just now died again, but this time she died free” (pt 2 ch 6).
Before I say more, however, I should give a brief synopsis. It is set in 1861 around the Mississippi River. When the titular slave, James, hears he is about to be sold to a new owner some distance away and be separated from his wife and daughter, he goes into hiding to give himself time to work out what to do. At the same time, the young Huck Finn fakes his own death to escape his violent father, and finds himself in the same hiding place as James. They set off down the river on a raft, without a firm plan in mind. The journey changes as events confront them, and as they hear news of a war coming that might change things for slaves. Along the way they meet various people, ranging from the cruel and brutal through the kind and helpful to the downright brave. They face challenges, of course, and revelations are shared. The ending is satisfying without being simplistic.
“It always pays to give white folks what they want” (James)
All this makes for a good story, but what lifts it into something more is the character and first-person voice of James. Most of you will know by now that Everett portrays James as speaking in educated English amongst his own people but in “slave diction” to white people and strangers. On occasion, he slips up which can result in white people not understanding him (seriously!) or being confused, if not shocked, that a black man can not only speak educated English but can read and write. Given the role language plays as a signifier of class and culture, it’s an inspired trope that exemplifies the way slavery demeans, humiliates and brutalises human beings.
James – the book and the character – has much to say about human beings. There’s a wisdom here about human nature. Not all slaves, for example, see things the same way. Some are comfortable in their situation (or, at least, fear change), while some will betray others to ingratiate (or save) themselves. But others recognise that there is no life without freedom and will put themselves on the line to save another. We meet all of these in the novel. And, of course, we meet white people of various ilks too. Some of the most telling parts of the novel are James’ insights into the assumptions, values and attitudes of white people and into how slaves, and presumably coloured people still today, work around these. It would be funny if it weren’t so deadly serious:
“White folks expect us to sound a certain way and it can only help if we don’t disappoint them … The only ones who suffer when they are made to feel inferior is us. Perhaps I should say ‘when they don’t feel superior’ …” (pt 1 ch 2)
AND
It always made life easier when white folks could laugh at a poor slave now and again. (pt 1 ch 12)
Everett piles irony upon irony, daring us to go with him, such as when James is “hired” (or is he “bought”, he’s not quite sure) to perform with some black-and-white minstrels, and has to be “painted black in such a way as to appear like a white man trying to pass for black”:
Never had a situation felt so absurd, surreal and ridiculous. And I had spent my life as a slave. (pt 1 ch 30)
There are other “adventures” along the way of course – including one involving a religious revival meeting. James is not too fond of religion, differentiating him, perhaps, from many of his peers.
Is James typical of slaves of the time? I’m not sure he is, but I don’t think that’s the point. This is not a realist novel but a novel intending to convey the reality of slavery and what it did to people. James jolts us into seeing a slave’s story with different eyes. We are forced to see his humanity – and perhaps the joke is on “us” white people. Making him sound like “us” forces us to see him as “us”. We cannot pretend he is other or different. This is seriously, subversively witty, I think.
And this brings me to my concluding point which is that the novel interrogates the idea of what is a “good” white person. No matter how “good” or “decent” we are, we cannot escape the fact that we are white and privileged. No matter what we say or do, how empathetic we try to be, it doesn’t change the fundamental issue. James makes this point several times, such as “there were those slaves who claimed a distinction between good masters and cruel masters. Most of us considered such to be a distinction without difference” (pt 1 ch 15). I suppose this is “white guilt”, but I don’t really know how to resolve it. Talking about it feels like virtue signalling, but not talking about it feels like a denial of the truth. There were times when the book felt a little anachronistic, but that’s not a deal-breaker for me because historical fiction is, fundamentally, the past viewed through modern eyes. And how are we really to know how people felt back then?
I’d love to know what you think if you’ve read the novel (as for example Brona has!)
Percival Everett
James
London: Mantle, 2024
303pp.
ISBN: 9781035031245
Whispering Gums 
I’m so undecided about reading this book. Honestly, does not appeal AT ALL (and I read a sample chapter and it did nothing for me…). However, so many readers I trust have said it was fabulous. Maybe I should listen to the audiobook (because less effort) – what do you think? Would that work well for the story?
I’m interested that it does not appeal AT ALL, Kate – but I love that despite this you read my post! I have to admit say that initially, when it first appeared, it wasn’t high priority for me, mainly because of the Huck Finn aspect, but I was glad that my reading group scheduled it.
It’s always hard to guess how an audio book would go, but I think that this one, with its action and strong use of dialogue would work well. Although James/Jim has two voices, I think it would still be clear in an audio version who was who. It is a good story.
A couple of people in my book group listened to the audio of James and from memory, I think they liked it…(it’s a year since we read it and I usually only remember the scathing responses, so the fact that I’m basically drawing a blank about that meeting must have meant we all enjoyed it!)
I understand that reasoning Brona! It does feel like a book that would work well, so I suspect your memory – or, lack thereof – is the case.
For me it would not, Kate W, because I’m not a reader like ST – genuinely wanting to sample everything she can. I have my peculiar tastes and am wedded to ’em.
But she can always offer something, and will definitely have an answer for your question that I so often wonder about.
Thanks MR for your confidence in me. I wonder that you wouldn’t be interested in this. I think James’ wit might appeal to you!
I really enjoyed reading James (reviewed it March 24, 2024) and thought that for whatever kind of person who reads it after reading Twain’s Huckleberry Finn, it enlarges our view of the truth (and by “truth” I mean awareness of whose eyes we’re looking through when we experience the events recounted in these books).
Thanks Jeanne … I will come read yours as soon as I have caught up with all the post holiday backlog! But, I like your definition of “truth” here.
Interested to read Kate W’s comment that the sample chapter was not enticing. I can definitely see how this would happen. I told a friend that I’d read a sample chapter and found it a bit tedious (I’m not a good reader of dialect/accent/argot). My friend begged me to persevere, whilst insisting that she couldn’t explain why, that I would understand once I got a little further into it. I trust her so I soldiered on. After just a few more pages, I did indeed understand and I am so grateful to her for giving me a push.
I feel like the novel had something important to say. It said it well, and it will stay with me.
Oh how interesting karenlee. It sounds like the sample chapter doesn’t do it justice? Or, is it just the sort of book that can’t work with any chapter as a sample chapter because it really is about the whole. I don’t do the sample chapter thing, so have not come across this problem in my reading experience.
It points to my laziness more than anything. I’m not good with dialect and I think the sample had a lot of dialogue in James’ voice. I thought it was going to be tedious. My friend pointed out that it wasn’t used as much as I expected and that, once I understood the reason for it, I would want to continue (so the sample chapter had not yet ‘outed’ the nature of the dialogue, how it was used in such a deliberate fashion).
I do understand Karenlee. There’s so much to read that we sometimes use feelings/experiences like this to weed out books. We just can’t read everything so we need reasons for not reading something, even if those reasons aren’t necessarily good ones. Haha!
Like Kate I’m sure and many others I read all your reviews. I find Reviews interesting for themselves whether or not I will read the book, and just by the law of averages I mostly will not. That said, I don’t enjoy any authors, but particularly US ‘university’ authors, proving they are cleverer than the original author. I am happy to let Huck Finn stand on its own.
Thanks Bill. I understand your wanting to let Huck Finn stand on its own, but I think it’s a shame to wipe out a whole group of authors on the basis that they are “US ‘university’ authors”. That feels like to broad a brush-stroke to me as I think, as with anything, there’s a wide range of skills within any “group” one might define. Also, the definition itself feels problematic to me. What is a “university author”? Someone who has only ever worked at a university? Someone who teaches creative writing and writes themselves in their spare time? Someone who has been given a non-teaching position at a university on the basis of their reputation and the quality of their work? And so on. I’m not sure you can lump them all in together and treat them the same?
My generalization goes: US university authors teach theory and so need increasingly ‘clever’ stratagems to prove they can subvert theory (probably true of the French too from what little I’ve read). And the cleverness overwhelms the writing.
But I am sure there are many good writers who accept university positions because that, for most literary writers, is the only reliable source of income.
Oh Bill! I understand your generalisation but am glad you recognise it as that, and that there are different US university authors and different reasons for working in a university.
I’m a bit intrigued that you like creative or experimental writing – and yet here it seems like you are not allowing any US university author to be creative but as just using a clever stratagem? I think we should judge each on its own merit?
Everett published eleventy-billion books before James, all with small presses, all zooming along under the radar with the “writer’s writer” tag, and then the film “American Fiction” brought him into the limelight, where he seems to have been squinting ever since. I don’t like anyone’s cleverer-than-thou tone either, but he’s not at all supercilious…he’s humble about his own cleverness, and maybe even a little churlish with the media with all this attention. (A recent piece in the NYT captures that.) If James puts you off as a retelling, I think The Trees would suit you very well, Bill (the others might be harder to find). And, Mizzz Gumzzz, I bet you would enjoy his quieter, observant stories about marriage (like So Much Blue, but I doubt you’ll be looking for another, given your current stacks/plans). I was reading Twain all year until May, and I’ve been reading James slowly since then: it really is surprising how easy it is to pick up the story after some time has passed (not done yet).
I had mixed feelings about James. I loved some of it, but I thought other parts were a little dull and the pacing had issues. I much preferred The Trees.
Thanks Cathy, did you post on it? I’ll go have a look. I haven’t read anything more of his, but would certainly be interested. I didn’t find any of it dull – that I recollect, given my disjointed read. I think my reading group discussed pacing, but I don’t know from what perspective.
I didn’t review it, but did share my thoughts on a Booker round up: https://746books.com/2024/11/12/its-booker-prize-day/
Oh thanks, I’ll look at that!
I loved it. Our book group read it and a few Australians didn’t think the language James used when talking to his master or others in authority was real then their language would change when talking to other slaves. This annoyed me as dialect does change especially back then. They had to portray themselves in a certain way but could use their own language when relaxed with others. We all do it to a degree. This disappointed me that intelligent people didn’t realise thus.
I think it would have irritated me a bit too, Pam, because I agree with all you say here. As you say, most of us change our language in different situations. And I understand in particular that oppressed people, like slaves, do this for a number of reasons.
I loved this book. My review is on my site, but I think well aligns with yours. https://yarrabookclub.wordpress.com/2024/10/08/james-percival-everett/
Oh thanks Rach, I will come read yours.
Enjoyed your review! I have not read the book yet. My husband–James–just read it and very much enjoyed it and now it is sitting near the top of my TBR pile. I hadn’t planned on reading it but my James told me that I’d really be missing out if I didn’t, plus he wants to talk to me about it 🙂
Thanks Stefanie. I’m so glad you didn’t. It’s always lovely when your partner wants to talk about a book isn’t it? Not that I’m trying to “guilt” you into it, or anything! Seriously though it is a good read, and a great one to discuss. I’m so sorry I missed my reading group’s discussion of it.
If I were to write about this book, I would likely refer to the way James speaks as “standard English” as opposed to “educated English” because using “educated” implies that speaking a certain way means you have little or no education, whereas the truth is that plenty of folks speak in dialects and are highly educated.
Also, never in a million years would I have thought to call the story of Jim and Huck Finn a road novel, but you’re so right, and I love that descriptor.
Thanks Melanie, I did wonder about how to describe his English. Maybe “standard” is better. My bother was that I wasn’t sure how “standard” would be taken either, because our “standard” English is different to yours, so I’m not sure there is one standard English.
I did wonder about the “road” description but it just felt right to me, so I’m glad you love it.
I think standard just means what we’ve standardized in order to compare other regions and dialects, but you’re right, I didn’t even think about how Australian and U.S. standardizations would be different. So maybe adding the country would help?
I think it would because they are different.
Your spellings are different to ours eg color vs colour. Your usages too eg gas vs petrol. And the one that is changing the fastest, your pronunciation. Many Aussies don’t even notice that they are pronouncing words the American way compared with how we did a generation or so ago. For example, we would say d’fence (hard to write this without phonetic symbols) while you say it more like deefence. We say cerem’nee whereas you tend to say it more like ceremoanee. We say tERritree whereas you say tERritORee. But Aussies are more and more saying these words the American way.
I loved reading these. I could hear them all in my head.