Scan barcode
A review by anakuroma
Alice Austen Lived Here by Alex Gino
2.0
TW: Mentions of homophobia
Note: I am a non-binary, queer, white person
I hate giving this a low score - but I've got thoughts(tm) and wish the good intentions of this book weren't so frought.
The good: Gino has a great talent for the easy but expansive language middle-grade fiction needs. The topic was interesting and I enjoyed having so many queer characters living between the pages of a single book, rather than the single character for 'diversity points' (thought like the gay trash I am I will still squee when they show up).
The bad: I just didn't...feel this book. I didn't get excited or learn anything about queer history. I learned *OF* Alive Austin, but learned about as much from this book as I would have from reading a museum plaque. I didn't get that emotional connection that books can so artfully plant the seeds of.
Sam was our most developed character, but they still didn't have much character to them. Towards the end of the book they became completely self absorbed and it was very frustrating. Them accusing their teacher of being homophobic for giving their report of a queer figure 4 points less (93) than the winning essay's score of 97 points, with no proof aside from assumptions made me want to pull my hair out. 93 points on a queer essay, with a full 15/15 score for the topic? I just was flabbergasted that they would just jump to "I got an astounding grade for my essay, but not the best therefore teacher = homophobic" is incredibly damaging and not helpful to the queer cause.
As other reviewers have stated I was also uncomfortable with Sam's (12 yo) relationship with Jess (25 yo). Towards the end of the book they were described as 'found family' sure, but still, having things like bare-skin belly high-fives and letting the kid watch you change shirts so they can 'get used to and normalise fat bodies' is noooooooot it. It just had me cringing. Also the needless drama of Jess saying she is not Sam's "best" friend was just weird, needless drama for the sake of a story with no real ending conflict so one had to be invented.
Lastly, the contest. I found it unbelievable that, of Audre Lorde vs Alice Austin, the winner ended up being Alice Austin. So much of this book's message was about the lack of non-white race rep in local history, yet Gino decides their choice of Alice Austin should win over Lorde? I was just so confused.
That's really what this book left me feeling. Confused. And I could understand the lingo. Someone NOT knowledgeable in activism or gender/queer history is going to be incredibly confused by this book. Acronyms are unexplained, non-binary is unexplained, fat activism and ableism is occasionally called out, but never explained. Example (TW, ableist language):
"You must think I'm an idiot."
"I do not, and don't use ableist language in my house."
That's the only time ableism is mentioned. But in order for the reader to understand this, they must know what ableism is. Does a young reader know? I hope so, but it's still not a common word. Will they know that the ableist language referred to was 'idiot'? If Gino had included a small explainer, or re-worded it differently, readers could have come away with more awareness of ableism, perhaps rethink their own use of the 'i' word. Instead that interaction is locked behind the wall of knowledge some readers don't have yet.
If you aren't going to make the books language accessible, one you can learn from, how can it be helpful and learned from? Be activism?
That's the bottom line. It's a book for queer folk who have already got their I's dotted and T's crossed - their history already learned and acronyms and activism sorted. It's not that books like this CAN'T exist - bring on the fully queer don't-pander-to-the-cis/straights books! But, especially for a middle grade book about 'learning queer history', it is nearly inaccessible for those starting that learning journey.
Note: I am a non-binary, queer, white person
I hate giving this a low score - but I've got thoughts(tm) and wish the good intentions of this book weren't so frought.
The good: Gino has a great talent for the easy but expansive language middle-grade fiction needs. The topic was interesting and I enjoyed having so many queer characters living between the pages of a single book, rather than the single character for 'diversity points' (thought like the gay trash I am I will still squee when they show up).
The bad: I just didn't...feel this book. I didn't get excited or learn anything about queer history. I learned *OF* Alive Austin, but learned about as much from this book as I would have from reading a museum plaque. I didn't get that emotional connection that books can so artfully plant the seeds of.
Sam was our most developed character, but they still didn't have much character to them. Towards the end of the book they became completely self absorbed and it was very frustrating. Them accusing their teacher of being homophobic for giving their report of a queer figure 4 points less (93) than the winning essay's score of 97 points, with no proof aside from assumptions made me want to pull my hair out. 93 points on a queer essay, with a full 15/15 score for the topic? I just was flabbergasted that they would just jump to "I got an astounding grade for my essay, but not the best therefore teacher = homophobic" is incredibly damaging and not helpful to the queer cause.
As other reviewers have stated I was also uncomfortable with Sam's (12 yo) relationship with Jess (25 yo). Towards the end of the book they were described as 'found family' sure, but still, having things like bare-skin belly high-fives and letting the kid watch you change shirts so they can 'get used to and normalise fat bodies' is noooooooot it. It just had me cringing. Also the needless drama of Jess saying she is not Sam's "best" friend was just weird, needless drama for the sake of a story with no real ending conflict so one had to be invented.
Lastly, the contest. I found it unbelievable that, of Audre Lorde vs Alice Austin, the winner ended up being Alice Austin. So much of this book's message was about the lack of non-white race rep in local history, yet Gino decides their choice of Alice Austin should win over Lorde? I was just so confused.
That's really what this book left me feeling. Confused. And I could understand the lingo. Someone NOT knowledgeable in activism or gender/queer history is going to be incredibly confused by this book. Acronyms are unexplained, non-binary is unexplained, fat activism and ableism is occasionally called out, but never explained. Example (TW, ableist language):
"You must think I'm an idiot."
"I do not, and don't use ableist language in my house."
That's the only time ableism is mentioned. But in order for the reader to understand this, they must know what ableism is. Does a young reader know? I hope so, but it's still not a common word. Will they know that the ableist language referred to was 'idiot'? If Gino had included a small explainer, or re-worded it differently, readers could have come away with more awareness of ableism, perhaps rethink their own use of the 'i' word. Instead that interaction is locked behind the wall of knowledge some readers don't have yet.
If you aren't going to make the books language accessible, one you can learn from, how can it be helpful and learned from? Be activism?
That's the bottom line. It's a book for queer folk who have already got their I's dotted and T's crossed - their history already learned and acronyms and activism sorted. It's not that books like this CAN'T exist - bring on the fully queer don't-pander-to-the-cis/straights books! But, especially for a middle grade book about 'learning queer history', it is nearly inaccessible for those starting that learning journey.