Scan barcode
niakayjones's review against another edition
3.0
So at this point, I've watched both the American Fiction movie and this book which it was based on (in that order). The book and the movie were created twenty years apart and I definitely think the time difference was very visible through the content in each of the respective mediums. For example, I appreciated the usage of Bill's character a lot more in the movie, but I think that's because the queer representation has changed within twenty years. Also, the performance by Sterling K. Brown sells the character. In the movie, I also appreciated how Lisa's character did not die from gun violence as she did in the book. but again, I think that's because the movie is a product of its time--created in the 2020s when many of us have grown tired of seeing Black characters fall victim to brutality and violence in such a way. Also in general, I think due to the time in which it exists and the more concise nature of films in general, the movie had more space to be light-hearted in comparison to the book, which felt a lot heavier. With the actor's performances, there was more room for humor as well which I appreciated in this work. The room for satire exists and I'm glad the movie was able to use it.
Now, the book uses what it can best: prose and its language within it. For this to be a reflection of writing, language, and representation, I think the book uses its medium best in the way. It's heavier because you're able to see into the mind of Monk unlike in the movie. With all that goes on with his mother, sister, the book, his relationship with Marylin, the book, his father, his father's secret child and lover, and his brother, it makes sense that the book has a much different tone. I thought it was especially important to see the "Pafology" all written out and have that be put against the way in which Monk writes and thinks. The contrast is important for both the story itself and for Monk's characterization. I also thought since the book had more space, they were able to do a lot more with Monk's father and Lisa's character. The dynamic between him and Lisa really drives Monk's motivation throughout the book in regards to how he goes about the Pafology. There's a need for him to take his sister's place and fulfill his duty of being the responsible kid. There's also this different dynamic between the siblings and how they were pit against one another that I found interesting to add to Monk's characterization. He was the outcast and the golden child and hated being both. Also, the entire thread of Fiona and Gretchen I thought was significant in regards to their family dynamics. Especially when seeing the contrast in life between Monk and Gretchen. Oddly, the inclusion of Latin phrases throughout added to the story in a way I did not expect. They made certain moments more resonant and complex and as a whole, told me more about Monk's father, Monk himself, and their relationship. Speaking of the Latin, I found the ending of the book to be far more resonant than the movie. I think the language and the feelings he has going on stage were depicted better through the prose. Ending the book on the Latin phrase was the perfect way to fully wrap it up.
I think I rated the movie higher just because I enjoyed it more. I assume though that's just because its tone is more reflective of what I jive with, but I still appreciate both and my opinion is very much subject to change. Though I just want to give another applause to the construction of the prose, because that was the strongest element of the book to me. There's definitely more to say, but I'll leave it at that.
Now, the book uses what it can best: prose and its language within it. For this to be a reflection of writing, language, and representation, I think the book uses its medium best in the way. It's heavier because you're able to see into the mind of Monk unlike in the movie. With all that goes on with his mother, sister, the book, his relationship with Marylin, the book, his father, his father's secret child and lover, and his brother, it makes sense that the book has a much different tone. I thought it was especially important to see the "Pafology" all written out and have that be put against the way in which Monk writes and thinks. The contrast is important for both the story itself and for Monk's characterization. I also thought since the book had more space, they were able to do a lot more with Monk's father and Lisa's character. The dynamic between him and Lisa really drives Monk's motivation throughout the book in regards to how he goes about the Pafology. There's a need for him to take his sister's place and fulfill his duty of being the responsible kid. There's also this different dynamic between the siblings and how they were pit against one another that I found interesting to add to Monk's characterization. He was the outcast and the golden child and hated being both. Also, the entire thread of Fiona and Gretchen I thought was significant in regards to their family dynamics. Especially when seeing the contrast in life between Monk and Gretchen. Oddly, the inclusion of Latin phrases throughout added to the story in a way I did not expect. They made certain moments more resonant and complex and as a whole, told me more about Monk's father, Monk himself, and their relationship. Speaking of the Latin, I found the ending of the book to be far more resonant than the movie. I think the language and the feelings he has going on stage were depicted better through the prose. Ending the book on the Latin phrase was the perfect way to fully wrap it up.
I think I rated the movie higher just because I enjoyed it more. I assume though that's just because its tone is more reflective of what I jive with, but I still appreciate both and my opinion is very much subject to change. Though I just want to give another applause to the construction of the prose, because that was the strongest element of the book to me. There's definitely more to say, but I'll leave it at that.
bmanatee_reads's review against another edition
challenging
dark
funny
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.5
amanda_marie's review against another edition
challenging
dark
emotional
funny
reflective
relaxing
sad
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.5
The first person POV really helps sink you into the mind of Erasure, so it reads almost as a diary as the narrator comes up with jokes, reminisces, and devolves. It is at times incomprehensible without a Google search open, but that adds to the eccentricities of the narrator, for he doesn’t know how to be comprehensible anymore. It was a bit jarring to read an entire novel within a novel, and some of the asides were confusing. But the book overall covers so many topics and issues, makes fun of itself while making fun of others, and parodies a life we’re still living over 20 years post publication.
Content Warnings
Moderate: Classism, Suicidal thoughts, and Racism
caitie711's review against another edition
challenging
dark
emotional
funny
reflective
sad
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
sonnyjim91's review against another edition
challenging
funny
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.25
meg_thebrave's review against another edition
challenging
dark
funny
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
3.75
thereaderofbooks's review against another edition
challenging
funny
medium-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? Yes
4.0
meawarren's review against another edition
4.0
Read this before watching the movie American Fiction, and as typical, enjoyed the book more but enjoyed both for different reasons. A good story about how stereotypes permeate society and the lengths one will go to in order to break through.
charles_vivian's review against another edition
challenging
funny
informative
reflective
sad
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.5
I watched the film first and must say it was a very accurate adaptation!!!
I feel like I was definitely too stupid to read this book as there were points where it would reference all these big philosophers and artists that I know absolutely nothing about lol but outside of that there was still very much to enjoy!
<SPOILERS BELOW>
I loved the way it portrayed the narrative voice of a writer! There were segments of “story ideas” and small little scenes that would interject the text - including the entire novel the character publishes in the world of the text, which is written out in full over about 70 pages.
I also was very invested in the family drama - a daughter killed by an abortion protester, a mother developing Alzheimer’s, a brother coming to terms with his sexuality, and a dead father who leaves letters revealing he had another child with another woman.
It also explored a very interesting dialogue about racism, the publishing industry, and the commercialisation of black stories. None of Monk’s books get mainstream recognition and his novel ideas keep getting rejected by publishers, where he’s told he’s not writing “black enough” - so he writes a parody of “black fiction” that incorporates racial stereotypes and it goes completely viral and racks up both commercial and critical success. I felt this exposed the double standards of supporting art made by minorities - the way in which the world refused to read the work of a black author until he played up to the stereotypes of what it means to “be black” and then they completely lapped it up.
One gripe is that the author seemed obsessed with referring to everyone as fat?!? He just couldn’t seem to stop body shaming everyone it was really weird lmao
I feel like I was definitely too stupid to read this book as there were points where it would reference all these big philosophers and artists that I know absolutely nothing about lol but outside of that there was still very much to enjoy!
<SPOILERS BELOW>
I loved the way it portrayed the narrative voice of a writer! There were segments of “story ideas” and small little scenes that would interject the text - including the entire novel the character publishes in the world of the text, which is written out in full over about 70 pages.
I also was very invested in the family drama - a daughter killed by an abortion protester, a mother developing Alzheimer’s, a brother coming to terms with his sexuality, and a dead father who leaves letters revealing he had another child with another woman.
It also explored a very interesting dialogue about racism, the publishing industry, and the commercialisation of black stories. None of Monk’s books get mainstream recognition and his novel ideas keep getting rejected by publishers, where he’s told he’s not writing “black enough” - so he writes a parody of “black fiction” that incorporates racial stereotypes and it goes completely viral and racks up both commercial and critical success. I felt this exposed the double standards of supporting art made by minorities - the way in which the world refused to read the work of a black author until he played up to the stereotypes of what it means to “be black” and then they completely lapped it up.
One gripe is that the author seemed obsessed with referring to everyone as fat?!? He just couldn’t seem to stop body shaming everyone it was really weird lmao
readingmermaid's review against another edition
challenging
dark
emotional
funny
reflective
sad
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
5.0