Reviews - Island of the Blue Dolphins

Island of the Blue Dolphins by Scott O'Dell

1.76k reviews for:

Second book of the year and it's another childhood reread. Not sure why they've been appealing to me so much recently.

This was one of my favorite books when I was in elementary school, probably around 12 years ago or so. I had brief memories here and there, but wanted to go back and get those memories again. And it worked. I love rereading stories I haven't visited in awhile and coming to scenes I remember, or comparing my thoughts then vs. now.

Overall I don't have much to say about this book as a story itself. It didn't grip me but it also didn't bore me. It's a quick read. I had fun revisiting, but if this were my first time reading it's definitely just a meh book to me, granted I am not it's target audience.

I do take some issues with who wrote this book and his portrayal of the events. Now, personally, I'm not someone who thinks that writers can only write about people exactly like them, including demographics. In fact, I think that mindset is ironically anti-progressive, and highkey censorship of fictional writing which I don't fuck w. However, I do think there's something to be said about writing and profitting off of a story which is not yours to tell, and I especially think there's something to be said about it when that story has a good amount of inaccuracies that could potentially harm either/both the community and demographic the story is about and/or other communities and demographics. I won't go too much into the inaccuracies as I myself haven't gone and done complete research, but I read a few good articles that do go over them in detail and explain why they are potentially really harmful, so if you're interested search up 'The Island of the Blue Dolphins inaccuracies' or something and I'm sure you'll find the articles. All I'll say on this topic is that this does strike me as not a white man's story to tell, especially because it's based off of true events. There's a difference between writing a story as a white person about someone who happens to be non-white, and writing a story about being non white. Of course, it's important that stories aren't colorblind as someone's race and other demographics have a massive role in their experiences, perspectives, etc. but I still think a white author can write a story with nuance surrounding the topic of race while also not writing a story about those topics. But this isn't a story about a woman living on an island and she also just happens to be Native American. This is a story of acts of genocide against indigenous people (including against the Aleuts by the Russians which this nuance is not at all discussed in the book, instead painting Native Alaskans out to be the bad guys with no acknowledgment that their actions were likely controlled by Russians). This is a story of Catholicism being used as justification for kidnapping and cultural destruction of an entire native tribe. This is the story of the last remaining member of the Nicoleño tribe because yes, a large detail that is excluded from this narration is that every single one of the people who were "saved" by "the white men" died very shortly after arriving to Santa Barbara. This was due to disease. Sound familiar? It should, because it was a genocidal tactic used against Indigenous North + South Americans and African people long before the 19th century. This is the same fate that befell The Lone Woman of San Nicolas Island, and she died a mere 7 weeks after arriving on the mainland due to dysentery, and this fact is also not in the story. I should wrap this up, so basically what I'm saying is ultimately this is a very white washed portrayal of an important piece of Indigenous and Californian history, written by a white men for white children. Both a sign of the times and a sign of the continuous diminishing of genocide against Indigenous people which is inherently part of what makes a genocide a genocide. A part that continues today.

I should probably rate this lower just for those reasons but for nostalgias sake I can't and also I didn't not enjoy the book. I just think it's important that anyone who reads this in the future do so with the proper context and knowledge of the misportrayals.