Scan barcode
chichi27's review against another edition
4.0
A good and interesting read that is a journalistic acount of Wilentz's travels in Haiti in the late 1980s. It's a little long-winded, but I pretty much knew nothing of Haiti's history going into the book, and this definitely filled in some gaps.
bougainvillea's review against another edition
2.0
I randomly came across this in my aunt's library today, so I figured I'd skim through it and see what all the fuss was about. I'm not impressed so far, but I've only just begun. This could turn out to be an interesting portrait of foreign journalists in Haiti...
A couple of weeks later:
I finally decided on a rating. It was tough. This book is a good read in that it definitely kept me interested and has lots of behind the scenes info about the Haitian political scene. But so much of it annoyed me and seemed to be pulled out of Wilentz's ass. So, to me, that combination equals 2 stars. It was okay. Just okay.
I have to admit that I was ready to dislike this book for non-literary reasons, but I've also come across a lot of praise for the book in my work -- I came to this reading with some baggage.
I was pissed off almost immediately. From the acknowledgments, p. 6: " [GC] and [JD]'s careful readings of parts of this manuscript were of great assistance in its preparation, as were those of Haitian friends." I guess the Haitian friends are nameless?
Throughout the book, there is a ton of generalizations about Haitians. It is just non-sensical. Imagine if I went to DC, studied the political shenanigans there, then wrote a book in which I talked about how "Americans" behave. Or if I went to a farm in Iowa, studied that population, and again, wrote a book about "Americans."
p. 42, on Michèle Bennett's extravagance: "Haitians in general were disgusted, and the black middle class and the rest of the mulatto elite were jealous." What is she basing this on? She wasn't there, doesn't cite a source, human or text, so how am I not to know this isn't just her projections on Haitian people? Maybe Wilentz herself was jealous.
Here are some more generalizations: p. 160: "Perhaps Dr. Duvalier sometimes felt the power of voodoo in his gut; most Haitians do" A big WTF there! p. 154: "Haitian parents don't feed their children when they know a free meal is on its way." What parents do? p. 122: "Haitians are fascinated by long hair and can't stand to see it around your eyes or near your mouth." Mezanmi anmwe! Also, apparently all Haitians think food cooked over charcoal tastes better. I didn't get that memo. Also on p. 398: "Most Haitians try to look away from the palace, try to avoid it." Maybe this was the case just after 1986, so I'll let this one slide.
In addition to generalizations, there is information that is just incorrect. p. 52: "Up on Avenue John Brown in the hills of Pétionville..." I'll have to check to see if Ave. John Brown extended into Pétionville in 1986. Because right now it's in Port-au-Prince. I did check. No. The avenue has not moved, been shortened or anything like that. I am also not sure why Wilentz insists on misspelling Liliane Pierre-Paul's name. Annoying.
In addition to the above, which is typical of foreign writings on Haiti, unfortunately, this book had me questioning journalistic methods when it comes to book writing. I think all good journalists know fact-checking is important when it comes to writing their articles and I suppose their newspaper or magazine editors try to hold them accountable as much as possible. Although I have of course seen errors in newspaper reports as well. What troubles me with this book, though, is the absence of any methodology.
For example, at one point (p. 177), Wilentz states that Max Beauvoir has always been against illiterate Haitians learning to read. That's a pretty bold statement. I wish there was something to back it up -- a source. How did she learn this? Did he tell her? Did she overhear him talking to someone else? Was it in the newspaper? Is this common knowledge? If this is how journalistic accounts work, I don't like it. Give me a history book anyday. Seems like there's more accountability in historical works. At least when she says Beauvoir claims he can cure AIDS, she explicitly states that he told her so.
There is some very interesting narrative framing at work in this book. At the end of the 5th chapter, Wilentz narrates a chapter describing something that happened to Aristide as though she was there. There is no indication that someone told this story to her. It is thus presented in the book as truth. Then, immediately afterwards, she presents a story that presents Aristide in a negative light, probably to provide balance. However, this story is told to Wilentz by someone who heard it from someone else who himself was not a direct witness. This story is thus presented to the reader as doubtful.
There are places in the book where Wilentz takes pain to mention that she was actually at the scene and an occular witness to the events she is describing. Then there are others where she uses third person omniscient narration, and I'm thinking to myself where is she getting this? and why should I accept it as truth? I still don't know. I read her bibliography, but there's no way it could account for all of the information in the book.
Wilentz evokes an event at the national palace to which Aristide was invited, but did not attend "of course', she says. p. 337: "I almost wished he had. I wanted to know whether Namphy had drunk as much..." That was the important issue for her? Probably meant to be flippant or something, but comes off as rather insulting. But, even more importantly, this passage makes it clear that Wilentz is using Aristide as a trustworthy informant. What he says is accepted as truth. Isn't that kind of strange since he obviously has stakes in the politics being played out? Again, I'm not sure how this journalistic writing is supposed to work so maybe it's normal to just pick a side. But if that's the case, I wish she would just say so explicitly.
I do have to say that her portrayal of Aristide is quite interesting. Among the adjectives she uses are: "cute" "innocent" "angelic" "childlike". She also basically describes him as mentally unstable and mentions a number of times that he was developing a "culte de la personnalité." You think?
Wilentz comes off as awfully naive in this book. Of course that might be intentional. She could be playing the part of the cute, unsuspecting, but earnest and good-intentioned foreign journalist who just wants to help. She'd fit right in these days. Which reminds me that the section on foreign aid was very depressing to read, especially because so little has changed in that regard in the decades since the book was written. If anything, the situation is worse.
There are things I did like about the book. I enjoyed her description of Pasteur Wallace, because she seems to share my dislike of him, but at least that description was based on actual conversations and personal observations from visits to his place. It was interesting to read about people I only know from newspaper accounts or did not know well and to see them fleshed out a bit as "characters." The section on the Ruelle Vaillant massacre was interesting and timely, since I'll be teaching [a:Evelyne Trouillot|518712|Evelyne Trouillot|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1289353406p2/518712.jpg]'s "Une petite carte tachée de rouge" this week and my students always ask for more info. (I have since taught that session and one of my students informed me that he was not yet born in 1987. Wow. I am getting old!) Amy Wilentz is a good writer. Her style is engaging. I wonder if she writes fiction, and if she does, I'd be interested in trying it. But there is too much about this book that bothers me for me to recommend it to anyone else. And the fact that it is so widely recommended troubles me, because I think it highlights a lot of what is so wrong with US-Haiti relations.
Pretty early on in the book, Wilentz admits to stealing a logbook from PV Macoute headquarters in 1986. She says 3 years later she still has the book because she doesn't know who the appropriate authorities are that she could turn it over to. I wonder where this logbook is now. It would not suprise me to learn that she still has it.
I wish I knew how Wilentz decided who to name and whose names to keep quiet. For example, p. 132: "a friend of mine from the democratic sector, a man who would later become a senatorial candidate" If he ran for senator, why not include his name? And wtf is the democratic sector? Especially since she basically condemns all Haitian politicians except for Aristide. There is also the Well-Placed Embassy Official. Yet, she does name an embassy spokesman. There are so many phrasings that annoyed me in this book: p.75, wrt to slavery: "these Africans were understandably resentful of their new life." You think? On p.340: "one of the country's few uncorrupted lawyers." Who says stuff like that? How does she know? Not all lawyers are high-profile or involved in politics. The fact that she can cite [b:The Magic Island|605545|The Magic Island|William B. Seabrook|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1176232934s/605545.jpg|592096]as a legitimate source was a big turnoff.
The whole Joyce/eggplant woman story is eerily reminiscent of Roumain's
[b:La Montagne ensorcelée|3330333|La Montagne ensorcelée|Jacques Roumain|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1328494535s/3330333.jpg|2786264]. (That's not a complaint, just an observation.)
In the end, this book does not live up to the hype. In fact, it's quite problematic. I'd be interested to see her post-earthquake introduction, but I bet I already know the tone. Eyerolls galore.
A couple of weeks later:
I finally decided on a rating. It was tough. This book is a good read in that it definitely kept me interested and has lots of behind the scenes info about the Haitian political scene. But so much of it annoyed me and seemed to be pulled out of Wilentz's ass. So, to me, that combination equals 2 stars. It was okay. Just okay.
I have to admit that I was ready to dislike this book for non-literary reasons, but I've also come across a lot of praise for the book in my work -- I came to this reading with some baggage.
I was pissed off almost immediately. From the acknowledgments, p. 6: " [GC] and [JD]'s careful readings of parts of this manuscript were of great assistance in its preparation, as were those of Haitian friends." I guess the Haitian friends are nameless?
Throughout the book, there is a ton of generalizations about Haitians. It is just non-sensical. Imagine if I went to DC, studied the political shenanigans there, then wrote a book in which I talked about how "Americans" behave. Or if I went to a farm in Iowa, studied that population, and again, wrote a book about "Americans."
p. 42, on Michèle Bennett's extravagance: "Haitians in general were disgusted, and the black middle class and the rest of the mulatto elite were jealous." What is she basing this on? She wasn't there, doesn't cite a source, human or text, so how am I not to know this isn't just her projections on Haitian people? Maybe Wilentz herself was jealous.
Here are some more generalizations: p. 160: "Perhaps Dr. Duvalier sometimes felt the power of voodoo in his gut; most Haitians do" A big WTF there! p. 154: "Haitian parents don't feed their children when they know a free meal is on its way." What parents do? p. 122: "Haitians are fascinated by long hair and can't stand to see it around your eyes or near your mouth." Mezanmi anmwe! Also, apparently all Haitians think food cooked over charcoal tastes better. I didn't get that memo. Also on p. 398: "Most Haitians try to look away from the palace, try to avoid it." Maybe this was the case just after 1986, so I'll let this one slide.
In addition to generalizations, there is information that is just incorrect. p. 52: "Up on Avenue John Brown in the hills of Pétionville..." I'll have to check to see if Ave. John Brown extended into Pétionville in 1986. Because right now it's in Port-au-Prince. I did check. No. The avenue has not moved, been shortened or anything like that. I am also not sure why Wilentz insists on misspelling Liliane Pierre-Paul's name. Annoying.
In addition to the above, which is typical of foreign writings on Haiti, unfortunately, this book had me questioning journalistic methods when it comes to book writing. I think all good journalists know fact-checking is important when it comes to writing their articles and I suppose their newspaper or magazine editors try to hold them accountable as much as possible. Although I have of course seen errors in newspaper reports as well. What troubles me with this book, though, is the absence of any methodology.
For example, at one point (p. 177), Wilentz states that Max Beauvoir has always been against illiterate Haitians learning to read. That's a pretty bold statement. I wish there was something to back it up -- a source. How did she learn this? Did he tell her? Did she overhear him talking to someone else? Was it in the newspaper? Is this common knowledge? If this is how journalistic accounts work, I don't like it. Give me a history book anyday. Seems like there's more accountability in historical works. At least when she says Beauvoir claims he can cure AIDS, she explicitly states that he told her so.
There is some very interesting narrative framing at work in this book. At the end of the 5th chapter, Wilentz narrates a chapter describing something that happened to Aristide as though she was there. There is no indication that someone told this story to her. It is thus presented in the book as truth. Then, immediately afterwards, she presents a story that presents Aristide in a negative light, probably to provide balance. However, this story is told to Wilentz by someone who heard it from someone else who himself was not a direct witness. This story is thus presented to the reader as doubtful.
There are places in the book where Wilentz takes pain to mention that she was actually at the scene and an occular witness to the events she is describing. Then there are others where she uses third person omniscient narration, and I'm thinking to myself where is she getting this? and why should I accept it as truth? I still don't know. I read her bibliography, but there's no way it could account for all of the information in the book.
Wilentz evokes an event at the national palace to which Aristide was invited, but did not attend "of course', she says. p. 337: "I almost wished he had. I wanted to know whether Namphy had drunk as much..." That was the important issue for her? Probably meant to be flippant or something, but comes off as rather insulting. But, even more importantly, this passage makes it clear that Wilentz is using Aristide as a trustworthy informant. What he says is accepted as truth. Isn't that kind of strange since he obviously has stakes in the politics being played out? Again, I'm not sure how this journalistic writing is supposed to work so maybe it's normal to just pick a side. But if that's the case, I wish she would just say so explicitly.
I do have to say that her portrayal of Aristide is quite interesting. Among the adjectives she uses are: "cute" "innocent" "angelic" "childlike". She also basically describes him as mentally unstable and mentions a number of times that he was developing a "culte de la personnalité." You think?
Wilentz comes off as awfully naive in this book. Of course that might be intentional. She could be playing the part of the cute, unsuspecting, but earnest and good-intentioned foreign journalist who just wants to help. She'd fit right in these days. Which reminds me that the section on foreign aid was very depressing to read, especially because so little has changed in that regard in the decades since the book was written. If anything, the situation is worse.
There are things I did like about the book. I enjoyed her description of Pasteur Wallace, because she seems to share my dislike of him, but at least that description was based on actual conversations and personal observations from visits to his place. It was interesting to read about people I only know from newspaper accounts or did not know well and to see them fleshed out a bit as "characters." The section on the Ruelle Vaillant massacre was interesting and timely, since I'll be teaching [a:Evelyne Trouillot|518712|Evelyne Trouillot|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1289353406p2/518712.jpg]'s "Une petite carte tachée de rouge" this week and my students always ask for more info. (I have since taught that session and one of my students informed me that he was not yet born in 1987. Wow. I am getting old!) Amy Wilentz is a good writer. Her style is engaging. I wonder if she writes fiction, and if she does, I'd be interested in trying it. But there is too much about this book that bothers me for me to recommend it to anyone else. And the fact that it is so widely recommended troubles me, because I think it highlights a lot of what is so wrong with US-Haiti relations.
Pretty early on in the book, Wilentz admits to stealing a logbook from PV Macoute headquarters in 1986. She says 3 years later she still has the book because she doesn't know who the appropriate authorities are that she could turn it over to. I wonder where this logbook is now. It would not suprise me to learn that she still has it.
I wish I knew how Wilentz decided who to name and whose names to keep quiet. For example, p. 132: "a friend of mine from the democratic sector, a man who would later become a senatorial candidate" If he ran for senator, why not include his name? And wtf is the democratic sector? Especially since she basically condemns all Haitian politicians except for Aristide. There is also the Well-Placed Embassy Official. Yet, she does name an embassy spokesman. There are so many phrasings that annoyed me in this book: p.75, wrt to slavery: "these Africans were understandably resentful of their new life." You think? On p.340: "one of the country's few uncorrupted lawyers." Who says stuff like that? How does she know? Not all lawyers are high-profile or involved in politics. The fact that she can cite [b:The Magic Island|605545|The Magic Island|William B. Seabrook|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1176232934s/605545.jpg|592096]as a legitimate source was a big turnoff.
The whole Joyce/eggplant woman story is eerily reminiscent of Roumain's
[b:La Montagne ensorcelée|3330333|La Montagne ensorcelée|Jacques Roumain|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1328494535s/3330333.jpg|2786264]. (That's not a complaint, just an observation.)
In the end, this book does not live up to the hype. In fact, it's quite problematic. I'd be interested to see her post-earthquake introduction, but I bet I already know the tone. Eyerolls galore.
More...