Monday’s Not Coming. By Tiffany D. Jackson.
Katherine Tegen/HarperCollins. $17.99.
There is something exceptionally annoying
about books that insist they are capital-I Important and capital-M Meaningful
and lots-of-capitals Not To Be Ignored Because They Deal With Major Issues. A
really good writer can get away with this sort of pompous self-puffery by
treating issues of the day with style, sensitivity and an awareness that the
audience reading the book is likely to be a diverse one that will not
necessarily share the author’s viewpoint or sense of societal outrage. And then
there are authors such as Tiffany D. Jackson, who basically come forward and
try to “guilt” readers into finding a story such as Monday’s Not Coming significant even though the plot creaks, the
style is dull, the structure is difficult to follow, and the characters are
portrayed in a way that prevents the book from striking a chord with people who
are not willing to be “guilted” into
empathy.
There is
something significant underlying this novel: the plight of the multiply
marginalized, of girls who are virtually invisible by reason of their skin
color and/or behavior and/or activities and/or family situations and who can
therefore disappear without making so much as a ripple in society. In fact, Monday’s Not Coming is loosely based on
real-life incidents in Washington, D.C. But what matters is not the realism or
lack of realism of the foundational story – what matters is how cogently the
author communicates it. And that is where Monday’s
Not Coming falls short.
The story is about eighth-grader Claudia
Coleman and her best and only friend, Monday Charles – who mysteriously
disappears one day. Monday is not there when Claudia returns to school after
the summer, and Claudia gets more and more worried as the days pass and Claudia
never shows up – and no one seems to have any idea of where she is, or even to
care very much. The school removes Monday from its system, her phone does not
work anymore, and even Monday’s family seems, if not indifferent, then
strangely quiet about Monday’s disappearance, giving different and incomplete
explanations at different times. So far, so good from a storytelling
standpoint. But Jackson wants to tell the tale in a capital-I Important (or capital-I
Intriguing) way, and it does not work. Claudia is part of the problem: she is
in her midteens (the book is intended for readers ages 13 and up), but she
sounds much of the time like a preteen, and a young one at that. Jackson
herself is another part of the problem,
because she structures the book in multiple timelines that are very difficult
to follow and overly complex. “Before” deals with Claudia finding out that
Monday is missing, “After” has to do with the time when Claudia has learned
what happened, and then there are chapters such as “One Year Before the Before”
and “Two Years Before the Before,” which confuse matters considerably and make
it difficult to figure out just what occurred or was learned when. And Jackson is
prone to melodrama, as when she reveals that Claudia suffers from PTSD because
of Monday’s disappearance and presents other plot twists, including the
“reveal” that marks the book’s climax but that is somewhat anticlimactic. The
result is a story that often seems overdone and overemphatic.
There is sex and talk of sex in Monday’s Not Coming, and bullying, and
drug and alcohol use, and there are issues of abuse and privilege (in the form
of gentrification of “culturally rich” but impoverished neighborhoods) and
mental health and being downtrodden and so forth. Make no mistake: these are
legitimate issues. But loading them onto a book that is also loaded with a
creaky, self-consciously “literary” style rather than being told in
straightforward fashion with, perhaps, a few flashbacks, simply makes the story
less compelling than it could be. This could easily have been a family story –
one that would connect with families of all types and colors and income levels
– because at its heart, Monday’s Not
Coming is about what secret-keeping does to people and how dangerous it is
to be silent when you see things that are not supposed to be seen. But by
making the book overcomplicated in design and making the protagonist sound much
of the time like someone far younger, Jackson vitiates a potentially powerful
story.
It has become fashionable in some circles
to assert that if you haven’t “been there” yourself, you cannot possibly react
“properly” to a story about people who are different from you – because of
gender, sexual preference, skin color, ethnicity, religion, or some other
characteristic. That is nonsense, and pernicious nonsense at that. Certainly an
author who wants to reach only people
like herself can write stories about people like herself in language that she
believes only similar people will
understand. And there is nothing whatsoever wrong with that: some books are
self-limited by design. But when an author seeks to reach out beyond those who
have “been there,” to show people who have not
“been there” what it feels like to “be there,” she has an obligation to present
relatable material and relatable characters in such a way as to connect with people who have not personally
experienced the living conditions of those characters. Retreating behind a wall
of “you’re not like me so you can’t possibly get it and besides you’re a
racist/sexist/some-other-epithet” accomplishes exactly nothing if the purpose of a book is to reach out.
If its only purpose is to reaffirm what others who have “been there” already
believe, that is a different matter. Walling oneself up with one’s imagined
“tribe” is a protective maneuver, and sometimes an effective one. But it comes
at the expense of genuine connection with members of other “tribes” who may
genuinely want to understand matters that go beyond their personal experiences.
Monday’s Not Coming is too
disjointed, too ill-structured, and ultimately too unconvincing in its
narrative to offer more than a “guilt trip” reason for people who are not like these characters to care about
what happens to them.
No comments:
Post a Comment