Scan barcode
mdevlin923's review against another edition
4.0
Jerome Rogers, a 12-year-old-boy, is playing in his neighborhood with a toy gun when he is shot and killed by a police officer. After his death, he comes back as a ghost until he is ready to move on. He visits his family...but there is only one person who can see him: Sarah Moore, the daughter of the police officer who shot him. Both Sarah and Jerome can see another ghost: the ghost of Emmett Till. Emmett Till helps Jerome grieve and inspires Sarah to examine her beliefs.
The story alternates between the events leading up to the shooting while Jerome is alive and the events of the following year while Jerome is a ghost. Rhodes handled the difficult topics of racism, police shootings, and the death of Black boys delicately.
Ghost Boys would be best suited for mature older readers (grades 5-8).
The story alternates between the events leading up to the shooting while Jerome is alive and the events of the following year while Jerome is a ghost. Rhodes handled the difficult topics of racism, police shootings, and the death of Black boys delicately.
Ghost Boys would be best suited for mature older readers (grades 5-8).
brooklyna's review against another edition
challenging
emotional
hopeful
inspiring
reflective
sad
tense
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
3.75
rachg671's review against another edition
challenging
emotional
inspiring
reflective
sad
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
4.0
kspag206's review against another edition
challenging
dark
reflective
sad
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
4.0
pocketbubblan's review against another edition
2.0
Boken handlar om Jerome som mördas av en vit polis, och om Emmet Till och andra svarta barn utsatta för polisbrutalitet, rasism, hatbrott, mord. Ändå fokuserar författaren på att polisens dotter Sarah ska få tröst(av Jerome dessutom!) och bli aktivist, att polispappan/mördaren ska få förståelse av Sarah för att det var ett misstag. Varför handlar så mycket om de vitas sorg, att lära upp vita istället för att visa hur den fruktansvärda händelsen påverkar Jeromes familj, hur svarta kämpar för rättvisa. Jag hade velat läsa mer om Kim, far/mormor, Carlos. Det var dessutom mycket som hastades igenom, så som Carlos roll. Den känns ofärdig och onödig just nu och hade behövt utvecklas.
vdiviesti's review against another edition
4.0
Powerful book exploring the stories of the young black men killed in America.
krystagarbarino's review against another edition
challenging
emotional
informative
reflective
sad
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.0
c100's review against another edition
dark
emotional
reflective
sad
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
5.0
Content Warnings
Graphic: Gun violence, Police brutality, and Child death
mariahistryingtoread's review against another edition
1.0
The more I think about this book, the more angry I get. As a Black woman, myself, I cannot believe the direction Jewell Parker Rhodes chose to take this.
This book bills itself as Jerome, a twelve year old Black boy, coming to grips with not only his murder but the larger historical, social context his murder fits into. And to be fair that theme is the foundation on which everything else is built. However, the inclusion or rather the execution of Sarah's storyline distracts from this point to such a degree that the whole narrative is tanked.
I didn't mind Sarah being a character, in theory. As the daughter of the cop who killed Jerome there is room for a very compelling dynamic. She's the same age and height as Jerome to boot; something that plays some significance in the trial deciding whether her father will be brought up on criminal charges. And at first that's exactly what we get. Sarah believes her father is a good man who was doing his job. Jerome rightfully, obviously, disagrees. The initial friction between these two was what I wanted the whole book to be. Sarah lives a completely charmed life as a result of a lot of societal factors that disproportionately affect Black people leaving her family, on an intergenerational level, in a more advantageous position to climb out of poverty. Jerome lives in a neighborhood so bad that his parents don't even want him outside in the afternoons, considers his family lucky for being only 'a little poor' compared to some of his very poor peers, and is bullied relentlessly at school for being in essence 'a good kid'. You can see the animosity on both sides; Sarah's worldview has been shattered and Jerome will never even get a chance to experience the prosperity Sarah already has at such a young age.
All of this wonderful tension is ruined by Sarah mostly being good already. Following their first tumultuous conversation Sarah is basically on the Black lives matter train. She's not quite so militant yet, but she's heading that way. I am aware that there are kids that live under prejudiced parents, who do not feel the same way as said parents. However, I do not see the point in adding Sarah at all if her character is not intended to explore both sides of the equation. She's fundamentally on Jerome's side from the beginning, she's just a little ignorant. It's too rapid a progression. She needed to be close-minded for longer.
I also hated how Jerome's death is reduced to a teaching moment for her and her family.
First, it's important to know that Emmett Till is a non factor. His presence felt like a gimmick because of how little he appears. He’s set up as a mystery. Jerome doesn’t know who this other random ghost boy is. He learns his name, yet he doesn’t know the story keeping him in the dark longer as to what his purpose as a ghost might be. Except, this takes place in the smartphone era. It takes two seconds to Google something. But, instead the two just sit around waiting to be told and then inevitably end up Googling it anyways so like what was the point?
It would have been better if Sarah looked it up and got the wrong version of events (i.e. the whole ‘he whistled at a white lady’ thing) instead of what we now know to be the truth. This adjustment is so minor it wouldn’t affect the trajectory of events at all and it would better communicate how insidious racism can be; it literally warps history.
When Emmett Till does appear the first plot defining thing he does is comfort Sarah at Jerome’s trial, then tells Jerome he needs to talk to Sarah in order to help himself.
Why is it always the Black persons' job to educate white people? Jerome is DEAD and he still must find a way to inspire this white girl to have empathy for his race. If Jerome forces her to see for his own reasons, that's one thing. There can be a commentary there about how Black death seems to be the only catalyst for white activism. It also would give Jerome some much needed agency to choose to focus on Sarah for his own motivations.
Instead the whole reason Jerome is even a ghost hinges on this white girl seeing the light. It’s so reductive; Jerome has to die so a white person can go on to incite change in his name. On top of that why is everything put on the white girl’s shoulders in the first place? It is important to have allies, but the point of allies is to provide backup not to speak over the experiences of the minority. I found it deeply problematic that Sarah was given the task of telling Jerome’s story as the implication is that as a white person she has more credibility than a Black person. In some circles, yes, that’s where being an ally comes in, but she does not inherently hold more sway by virtue of her race.
I’m somewhat rewriting the book here, but I feel that the story desperately needed Kim (Jerome’s little sister) to be able to see Jerome too. Having a Black person serving as more than an impetus for Sarah’s personal growth would be beneficial. Like I already established, Jerome and Sarah have totally opposite lives. Jerome is unfortunately a prop. Kim being there balances this as she is less inclined to be as forgiving. I can admit that Jerome is somewhat correct in his assertion that he, as a ghost, has no need for hatred - more on that later. Kim has no such qualms and could really lay into Sarah. The Black characters have more power in the events of the story and it’s more realistic to have somebody be unrepentant in their ire with Sarah. I’m not trying to blame Sarah. I know it’s not in any way her fault. I just think that it is better to convey that via a character working through their misplaced negativity, in-story. It would be helpful for Black kids to understand those feelings are normal and have an example of how to process it.
The addition of Kim would shift to the characters all helping each other to grieve their former lives as well as offer a perspective from all sides. This book plays at exploring the big picture when it only scratches the surface.
The ending is the icing on the whole awful cake. I did not like the direction the story had taken, but the book had enough strengths that while disappointed I wasn’t too upset. That all changed upon getting to the ending. This isn’t a spoiler, it’s reality so I’m not going to censor it; the case to bring Jerome’s killer up on charges is dismissed. By this time, Jerome has made his peace with his passing. He goes to see Sarah who has become almost obsessed now that she’s become more aware of how much bigotry is built into modern society. She has made a website linking Emmett Till to Jerome and other young Black boys, telling their stories. Again, this is where Kim would fit right in. Kim is literally Jeromes’ sister. Wouldn’t it make more sense to have her participate in a website attempting to expose the truth especially since she would have things to share about her own brother? If not that, at least have Sarah ask her to help. It seems so disingenuous to place this girl whose sort of friends with his ghost in a position to tell Jerome’s story. She barely knows him. Again, why is she - an ally - in charge of this venture?
Jerome feels bad that Sarah is inside on such a beautiful day. He tries to encourage her to not let this whole thing consume her. Alright, fine so far. Sarah explodes furious at her father for doing what he did, saying she hates him. That’s when Jerome - THE MURDERED TWELVE YEAR OLD VICTIM - tells her that her Dad just ‘made a mistake’. He says that he was just following in the footsteps of those that came before him. He wasn’t taught any better and that Sarah has the chance now to do some good by showing him how to be better.
What a harmful, naive way to resolve this story. Her dad isn’t some casual racist man who through the power of words will repent his racist ways. He’s a bigot who actively lied on the stand - purposely and/or subconsciously - and killed a child. He shot a kid in the back, no warning, and watched as he died, refusing to call for an ambulance. To have that same child turn around and defend this racist man is beyond words. Putting the onus on a child to forgive anyone who has mistreated them to any degree similar to Jerome’s is dangerous not to mention disgusting. The book ends with Jerome looking on in bittersweet contentment as Sarah goes to her now borderline alcoholic father (due to the trauma of the events of the novel, ugh, cry me a river racist cop) to start a dialogue about his side of the story.
I have no words for how absolutely deplorable I found this outcome to be. I understand the point Rhodes is making; this man is a product of his surroundings. We need to enlighten those who hate us, is a common enough sentiment by a subsect of the Black community. I do not begrudge those who choose this path. It’s true that some racist, bigoted individuals can change. It takes a lot of fortitude, but it’s entirely possible and actually essential that we use information to combat the hateful lies propagated by those living in prejudice.
That being said, this massively missed the mark. This man has crossed a line too far for us to attempt to rehabilitate him. It also ignores aspects of his character in order to make this viable i.e. the aforementioned premeditated steps taken to ensure Jeromes’ death. Forgiveness is mired in subjectivity. Some people view letting go of the pain, as a form of forgiveness. Others view forgiveness as someone asking for it and you actively choosing to give it. Some people don’t think the person needs to ask for you to choose to forgive them. That’s part of where the murkiness comes up. I don’t think that Sarah’s father deserves to be forgiven. Jerome can choose to do so. However, this decision is not made in a vacuum. To forgive someone for an act so heinous has larger connotations. Jerome encounters other Ghost boys, Black boys in the wrong place at the wrong time, once Emmett Till finally gathers the mettle to tell Jerome his story. That’s when Jerome realizes that his death is one in a long line of atrocities committed against Black people.
Is Jerome’s forgiveness meant to extend to all those murders as well? Regardless of circumstance, we should strive for forgiveness in every case of Black death perpetrated in the name of white supremacy? Tamir Rice’s murder is the inspiration for this book. Is Rhodes really implying that the cop who killed him lacks culpability on some level as he was raised in a society that emboldened such actions? How is that fair, to give these killers the benefit of the doubt, in terms of their intentions when the kids they’re killing aren’t given the same chance?
It makes me heartsick to think about a Black kid reading this thinking that they are reacting incorrectly to trauma for not being as enlightened or pious as Jerome is. There is no right or wrong way to feel in circumstances like the one in this book as long as you aren’t hurting anybody. It’s not right to act as if Jerome’s is the singular method for achieving grace.
I just think it’s so dismissive to Jerome’s pain, to his family’s pain, to the pain of anybody out there who has lost someone to police violence to suggest in shape or form that Black people must be the arbiters of morality. We don’t only have to educate white people, but we have to do it with a smile even as they twist the knife in, because we are supposed to take the high ground no matter what. We shouldn’t have to sublimate our pain to try and make white people respect us. If they can’t respect our pain, then maybe they aren’t worth the effort.
I’m not saying Jerome can’t encourage Sarah to talk to her father. I know that some people would also have the empathy or goodwill or whatever to do so. What I am saying is that if that was the intended conclusion then I needed to see a more realistic, accurate depiction of how being the victim of this tragedy would affect his entire community. Without that nuance this does its impressionable young audience a disservice. None of the characters felt real. It was clear that there was a goal in mind when Rhodes was writing, and it did not matter if it was good or not so long as the goal was reached. There was not nearly enough on Carlos (the first friend Jerome has ever had), Kim, Jerome’s Grandmother, his parents, or heck, even his bullies. It was either rushed, like Carlos’ guilt over his hand in Jerome's death, or glossed over like Jerome's parents’ inability to even look at one another any more. I needed to see the full force of the suffering inflicted on the people important to Jerome’s story before I could even consider feeling bad for Sarah’s dad, of all people. He caused this, yet I see more or an equal amount of how he’s struggling over Jerome’s own father? How does that make sense?
So much of this story was side-tracked by, in my opinion, Rhodes’ attempts to mitigate potential alienation by white readers. It’s insane that a book featuring a murdered Black boy as the protagonist still feels the need to cater to a white audience. The very nature of the subject matter suggests a sizable group of people won’t be interested, for a multitude of reasons, in the first place. I’m not going to pretend to know all the ins and outs of writing a book in terms of how much sway editing or publishing has over the book. I will say I’m disappointed either way. I wanted to like this book so much - in fact I did still like it for quite a while longer than I should have. I just reached my limit.
I’m not going to write Jewell Parker Rhodes off right now, but she is certainly on thin ice going forward.
This book bills itself as Jerome, a twelve year old Black boy, coming to grips with not only his murder but the larger historical, social context his murder fits into. And to be fair that theme is the foundation on which everything else is built. However, the inclusion or rather the execution of Sarah's storyline distracts from this point to such a degree that the whole narrative is tanked.
I didn't mind Sarah being a character, in theory. As the daughter of the cop who killed Jerome there is room for a very compelling dynamic. She's the same age and height as Jerome to boot; something that plays some significance in the trial deciding whether her father will be brought up on criminal charges. And at first that's exactly what we get. Sarah believes her father is a good man who was doing his job. Jerome rightfully, obviously, disagrees. The initial friction between these two was what I wanted the whole book to be. Sarah lives a completely charmed life as a result of a lot of societal factors that disproportionately affect Black people leaving her family, on an intergenerational level, in a more advantageous position to climb out of poverty. Jerome lives in a neighborhood so bad that his parents don't even want him outside in the afternoons, considers his family lucky for being only 'a little poor' compared to some of his very poor peers, and is bullied relentlessly at school for being in essence 'a good kid'. You can see the animosity on both sides; Sarah's worldview has been shattered and Jerome will never even get a chance to experience the prosperity Sarah already has at such a young age.
All of this wonderful tension is ruined by Sarah mostly being good already. Following their first tumultuous conversation Sarah is basically on the Black lives matter train. She's not quite so militant yet, but she's heading that way. I am aware that there are kids that live under prejudiced parents, who do not feel the same way as said parents. However, I do not see the point in adding Sarah at all if her character is not intended to explore both sides of the equation. She's fundamentally on Jerome's side from the beginning, she's just a little ignorant. It's too rapid a progression. She needed to be close-minded for longer.
I also hated how Jerome's death is reduced to a teaching moment for her and her family.
First, it's important to know that Emmett Till is a non factor. His presence felt like a gimmick because of how little he appears. He’s set up as a mystery. Jerome doesn’t know who this other random ghost boy is. He learns his name, yet he doesn’t know the story keeping him in the dark longer as to what his purpose as a ghost might be. Except, this takes place in the smartphone era. It takes two seconds to Google something. But, instead the two just sit around waiting to be told and then inevitably end up Googling it anyways so like what was the point?
It would have been better if Sarah looked it up and got the wrong version of events (i.e. the whole ‘he whistled at a white lady’ thing) instead of what we now know to be the truth. This adjustment is so minor it wouldn’t affect the trajectory of events at all and it would better communicate how insidious racism can be; it literally warps history.
When Emmett Till does appear the first plot defining thing he does is comfort Sarah at Jerome’s trial, then tells Jerome he needs to talk to Sarah in order to help himself.
Why is it always the Black persons' job to educate white people? Jerome is DEAD and he still must find a way to inspire this white girl to have empathy for his race. If Jerome forces her to see for his own reasons, that's one thing. There can be a commentary there about how Black death seems to be the only catalyst for white activism. It also would give Jerome some much needed agency to choose to focus on Sarah for his own motivations.
Instead the whole reason Jerome is even a ghost hinges on this white girl seeing the light. It’s so reductive; Jerome has to die so a white person can go on to incite change in his name. On top of that why is everything put on the white girl’s shoulders in the first place? It is important to have allies, but the point of allies is to provide backup not to speak over the experiences of the minority. I found it deeply problematic that Sarah was given the task of telling Jerome’s story as the implication is that as a white person she has more credibility than a Black person. In some circles, yes, that’s where being an ally comes in, but she does not inherently hold more sway by virtue of her race.
I’m somewhat rewriting the book here, but I feel that the story desperately needed Kim (Jerome’s little sister) to be able to see Jerome too. Having a Black person serving as more than an impetus for Sarah’s personal growth would be beneficial. Like I already established, Jerome and Sarah have totally opposite lives. Jerome is unfortunately a prop. Kim being there balances this as she is less inclined to be as forgiving. I can admit that Jerome is somewhat correct in his assertion that he, as a ghost, has no need for hatred - more on that later. Kim has no such qualms and could really lay into Sarah. The Black characters have more power in the events of the story and it’s more realistic to have somebody be unrepentant in their ire with Sarah. I’m not trying to blame Sarah. I know it’s not in any way her fault. I just think that it is better to convey that via a character working through their misplaced negativity, in-story. It would be helpful for Black kids to understand those feelings are normal and have an example of how to process it.
The addition of Kim would shift to the characters all helping each other to grieve their former lives as well as offer a perspective from all sides. This book plays at exploring the big picture when it only scratches the surface.
The ending is the icing on the whole awful cake. I did not like the direction the story had taken, but the book had enough strengths that while disappointed I wasn’t too upset. That all changed upon getting to the ending. This isn’t a spoiler, it’s reality so I’m not going to censor it; the case to bring Jerome’s killer up on charges is dismissed. By this time, Jerome has made his peace with his passing. He goes to see Sarah who has become almost obsessed now that she’s become more aware of how much bigotry is built into modern society. She has made a website linking Emmett Till to Jerome and other young Black boys, telling their stories. Again, this is where Kim would fit right in. Kim is literally Jeromes’ sister. Wouldn’t it make more sense to have her participate in a website attempting to expose the truth especially since she would have things to share about her own brother? If not that, at least have Sarah ask her to help. It seems so disingenuous to place this girl whose sort of friends with his ghost in a position to tell Jerome’s story. She barely knows him. Again, why is she - an ally - in charge of this venture?
Jerome feels bad that Sarah is inside on such a beautiful day. He tries to encourage her to not let this whole thing consume her. Alright, fine so far. Sarah explodes furious at her father for doing what he did, saying she hates him. That’s when Jerome - THE MURDERED TWELVE YEAR OLD VICTIM - tells her that her Dad just ‘made a mistake’. He says that he was just following in the footsteps of those that came before him. He wasn’t taught any better and that Sarah has the chance now to do some good by showing him how to be better.
What a harmful, naive way to resolve this story. Her dad isn’t some casual racist man who through the power of words will repent his racist ways. He’s a bigot who actively lied on the stand - purposely and/or subconsciously - and killed a child. He shot a kid in the back, no warning, and watched as he died, refusing to call for an ambulance. To have that same child turn around and defend this racist man is beyond words. Putting the onus on a child to forgive anyone who has mistreated them to any degree similar to Jerome’s is dangerous not to mention disgusting. The book ends with Jerome looking on in bittersweet contentment as Sarah goes to her now borderline alcoholic father (due to the trauma of the events of the novel, ugh, cry me a river racist cop) to start a dialogue about his side of the story.
I have no words for how absolutely deplorable I found this outcome to be. I understand the point Rhodes is making; this man is a product of his surroundings. We need to enlighten those who hate us, is a common enough sentiment by a subsect of the Black community. I do not begrudge those who choose this path. It’s true that some racist, bigoted individuals can change. It takes a lot of fortitude, but it’s entirely possible and actually essential that we use information to combat the hateful lies propagated by those living in prejudice.
That being said, this massively missed the mark. This man has crossed a line too far for us to attempt to rehabilitate him. It also ignores aspects of his character in order to make this viable i.e. the aforementioned premeditated steps taken to ensure Jeromes’ death. Forgiveness is mired in subjectivity. Some people view letting go of the pain, as a form of forgiveness. Others view forgiveness as someone asking for it and you actively choosing to give it. Some people don’t think the person needs to ask for you to choose to forgive them. That’s part of where the murkiness comes up. I don’t think that Sarah’s father deserves to be forgiven. Jerome can choose to do so. However, this decision is not made in a vacuum. To forgive someone for an act so heinous has larger connotations. Jerome encounters other Ghost boys, Black boys in the wrong place at the wrong time, once Emmett Till finally gathers the mettle to tell Jerome his story. That’s when Jerome realizes that his death is one in a long line of atrocities committed against Black people.
Is Jerome’s forgiveness meant to extend to all those murders as well? Regardless of circumstance, we should strive for forgiveness in every case of Black death perpetrated in the name of white supremacy? Tamir Rice’s murder is the inspiration for this book. Is Rhodes really implying that the cop who killed him lacks culpability on some level as he was raised in a society that emboldened such actions? How is that fair, to give these killers the benefit of the doubt, in terms of their intentions when the kids they’re killing aren’t given the same chance?
It makes me heartsick to think about a Black kid reading this thinking that they are reacting incorrectly to trauma for not being as enlightened or pious as Jerome is. There is no right or wrong way to feel in circumstances like the one in this book as long as you aren’t hurting anybody. It’s not right to act as if Jerome’s is the singular method for achieving grace.
I just think it’s so dismissive to Jerome’s pain, to his family’s pain, to the pain of anybody out there who has lost someone to police violence to suggest in shape or form that Black people must be the arbiters of morality. We don’t only have to educate white people, but we have to do it with a smile even as they twist the knife in, because we are supposed to take the high ground no matter what. We shouldn’t have to sublimate our pain to try and make white people respect us. If they can’t respect our pain, then maybe they aren’t worth the effort.
I’m not saying Jerome can’t encourage Sarah to talk to her father. I know that some people would also have the empathy or goodwill or whatever to do so. What I am saying is that if that was the intended conclusion then I needed to see a more realistic, accurate depiction of how being the victim of this tragedy would affect his entire community. Without that nuance this does its impressionable young audience a disservice. None of the characters felt real. It was clear that there was a goal in mind when Rhodes was writing, and it did not matter if it was good or not so long as the goal was reached. There was not nearly enough on Carlos (the first friend Jerome has ever had), Kim, Jerome’s Grandmother, his parents, or heck, even his bullies. It was either rushed, like Carlos’ guilt over his hand in Jerome's death, or glossed over like Jerome's parents’ inability to even look at one another any more. I needed to see the full force of the suffering inflicted on the people important to Jerome’s story before I could even consider feeling bad for Sarah’s dad, of all people. He caused this, yet I see more or an equal amount of how he’s struggling over Jerome’s own father? How does that make sense?
So much of this story was side-tracked by, in my opinion, Rhodes’ attempts to mitigate potential alienation by white readers. It’s insane that a book featuring a murdered Black boy as the protagonist still feels the need to cater to a white audience. The very nature of the subject matter suggests a sizable group of people won’t be interested, for a multitude of reasons, in the first place. I’m not going to pretend to know all the ins and outs of writing a book in terms of how much sway editing or publishing has over the book. I will say I’m disappointed either way. I wanted to like this book so much - in fact I did still like it for quite a while longer than I should have. I just reached my limit.
I’m not going to write Jewell Parker Rhodes off right now, but she is certainly on thin ice going forward.