Scan barcode
womxyn's review against another edition
challenging
emotional
hopeful
informative
reflective
sad
5.0
halschrieve's review against another edition
4.0
Schulman’s short 1990 novel was brought up again recently when a journalist noticed that the main named villain in this novel is none other than a roman a clef edition of Donald Trump. Named Ronald Horne, he looms less as a political figure than a dark vague corpulence embodying the worst parts of the 1980s fetish with wealth and power. At the time of writing, Horne and the snarky passages about his dastardly new developments along the waterfront/his offers of sponsorship to corporate art would have rung timely , if a little too pissed off and earnest to seem sophisticated in a landscape where multilayered allusions and ambivalence tend to get more accolades. Today, of course, a reread of this text makes schulman appear at the very least focused and prescient if not prophetic about the direction that New York and America were heading. But leaving the analysis of this as “the villain is Donald Trump!” is limiting.
If the main named villain of the piece is Ronald Horne and all he stands for as a developer hungry for power , the less obvious villains of “people in trouble” are complacency, lack of empathy, and a tendency to excuse oneself when confronted with moral dilemmas. As noted by Schulman, the musical RENT bears startling similarities to this novel in terms of characters and plot components—a half closeted woman artist about to leave her straight male partner, the straight man and his own art and concerns, the queer scene around them, questions of rent strike and politics and AIDS and homelessness. The main difference in terms of content is that where in the late nineties RENT lionized white artists who hate their parents and made poverty porn art and drink and do drugs and go on rent strike for no apparent reason in a milieu where much seems wrong but nobody can satisfactorily explain why, People In Trouble looks at similarly semi-dumb, mostly-oblivious (slightly older) white artists in a similar world, but has a clear vision of the material causes of the problems they see around them. Where RENT and many narratives of HIV and homelessness in New York interpret the issue as senseless tragic decay that can be combated only by uplifting song and a will to continue to party, Schulman paints a portrait of a city in which HIV based housing discrimination is casting people out on the streets, racist rezoning is changing the face of neighborhoods, drug addiction is met with callous ambivalence and lack of services, and white New Yorkers feign innocence and shock.
If the villain of the novel is complicity and silence, the hero is collective action. To be honest, none of Schulman’s main characters are particularly good people. Even the lesbian who the closeted woman leaves her boy for is at best morally conflicted. The real hero of the story is an organization meant to be a fantasy version of ACT UP. There are no visible obvious heroic leaders of this fantasy organization, and their activity takes place mainly in the background, circling closer and closer to the story. On the one hand, I sort of resent the lack of gay male characters and scenes in the novel —the only gay male characters we see are friends of the story’s main actors. On the other hand, I think it speaks to Schulman’s very consistent politics that there are no lionized figures from her own group saving the day for all New York. Instead, salvation (or rather its beginning) comes in the form of decentralized radical action which eventually prompts people to join in and fight back —and perhaps set a real estate developer on fire in a pile of corporate art.
Schulman has always puzzled me as being both an optimist and a pessimist—friendly and outgoing and willing to talk with almost everyone and build coalitions across enormous differences while at the same time having a very cynical view of most activist movements and modern political efforts toward meaningful change. I don’t know if her approach is effective at getting what she wants to get done done. Some people find her condescending or just weird. But this story was good for me to read in order to understand better where she and others from her generation come to us from.
If the main named villain of the piece is Ronald Horne and all he stands for as a developer hungry for power , the less obvious villains of “people in trouble” are complacency, lack of empathy, and a tendency to excuse oneself when confronted with moral dilemmas. As noted by Schulman, the musical RENT bears startling similarities to this novel in terms of characters and plot components—a half closeted woman artist about to leave her straight male partner, the straight man and his own art and concerns, the queer scene around them, questions of rent strike and politics and AIDS and homelessness. The main difference in terms of content is that where in the late nineties RENT lionized white artists who hate their parents and made poverty porn art and drink and do drugs and go on rent strike for no apparent reason in a milieu where much seems wrong but nobody can satisfactorily explain why, People In Trouble looks at similarly semi-dumb, mostly-oblivious (slightly older) white artists in a similar world, but has a clear vision of the material causes of the problems they see around them. Where RENT and many narratives of HIV and homelessness in New York interpret the issue as senseless tragic decay that can be combated only by uplifting song and a will to continue to party, Schulman paints a portrait of a city in which HIV based housing discrimination is casting people out on the streets, racist rezoning is changing the face of neighborhoods, drug addiction is met with callous ambivalence and lack of services, and white New Yorkers feign innocence and shock.
If the villain of the novel is complicity and silence, the hero is collective action. To be honest, none of Schulman’s main characters are particularly good people. Even the lesbian who the closeted woman leaves her boy for is at best morally conflicted. The real hero of the story is an organization meant to be a fantasy version of ACT UP. There are no visible obvious heroic leaders of this fantasy organization, and their activity takes place mainly in the background, circling closer and closer to the story. On the one hand, I sort of resent the lack of gay male characters and scenes in the novel —the only gay male characters we see are friends of the story’s main actors. On the other hand, I think it speaks to Schulman’s very consistent politics that there are no lionized figures from her own group saving the day for all New York. Instead, salvation (or rather its beginning) comes in the form of decentralized radical action which eventually prompts people to join in and fight back —and perhaps set a real estate developer on fire in a pile of corporate art.
Schulman has always puzzled me as being both an optimist and a pessimist—friendly and outgoing and willing to talk with almost everyone and build coalitions across enormous differences while at the same time having a very cynical view of most activist movements and modern political efforts toward meaningful change. I don’t know if her approach is effective at getting what she wants to get done done. Some people find her condescending or just weird. But this story was good for me to read in order to understand better where she and others from her generation come to us from.
zedohee's review against another edition
to retry at a later date. rn it’s egging on a bad mood.
mothmans_mum's review against another edition
4.0
Really good. Great characters. Very moving. I’d heard that Jonathan Larson ripped this off to write RENT and I believe it (this is infinitely better). Angry, political, artful.
notlikethebeer's review against another edition
3.0
I'm still not entirely sure how I felt about this?? I read most of it in one go, then took a break cos life got busy, then finished it, which I think affected my view cos it was quite a hard book to pick back up- there were lots and lots of characters, and I felt a bit lost towards the end! However, when I read the bulk of it, I absolutely adored it: I loved both Molly and Kate, and I loved the ways that their characters were explored together and separately. I do wish there had been more focus on Kate and her exploration of gender, and Molly and her exploration of sexuality/romance, as opposed to... well, any of the chapters with the guy haha. This novel is incredibly richly written, it was super immersive and engrossing which I adored. I also loved the way in which it built up? It felt so foreseeable and yet so shocking? Like a good movie where you can see the villain growing and growing. I'm excited to read more Sarah Schulman!!
thoranorak's review against another edition
challenging
dark
emotional
reflective
sad
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
dan_quags's review against another edition
dark
emotional
sad
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.0
vinnyvince's review against another edition
dark
emotional
hopeful
reflective
sad
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
3.0
uncouthsibyl's review
adventurous
emotional
funny
hopeful
inspiring
mysterious
tense
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.5