"

I know that Chloe normally looks more put together, but compared to a corpse, I must look okay, right?

Huh, I don't quite know how to feel about this. Suffice to say, this is one of the more unhinged books I've read in quite some time.

Julie Chan has always been envious of her twin Chloe's life. While Julie rotted away under the care of her abusive aunt after their parents died, Chloe was adopted by a wealthy white couple and grew up amidst money and luxury. When Chloe became a famous influencer, Julie followed from afar, glimpsing into what could've been her life, if only. So when Chloe suddenly dies, Julie naturally seizes the chance to live her twin's life. But the longer Julie masquerades as Chloe, the more she starts to realize that something is amiss.

I have to admit, the part of the premise that got me to read this book was the twin switcheroo bit. It felt very Lindsay Lohan and The Parent Trap. That was such a memorable movie from my childhood, I figured if this switcheroo was half as fun, it'd be worth the read. And it was fun, but with some caveats (and a lot of cringing).

First, this story is crazy, like really unhinged, insane, heretofore unseen levels of crazy. It starts out with a pretty wacky premise and it only gets more so from there. Not only is the plotline crazy, but so is each and every one of the characters. So you've been warned. It's best to just lay back and enjoy the ride, and not worry about how it may or may not be based in reality.

Second, this is very much geared towards a certain audience, and truth be told, that's where I started to feel a disconnect with the story. You know, I'm not that hip and I'm certainly not that young, so there were a lot of references and even some lingo in here I've never heard of before. I also don't TikTok, YouTube, Twitch, or even Instagram much, and I certainly don't follow any influencers or care about their lifestyles. So I definitely felt a bit like an outsider reading this story.

Also, I floundered trying to determine the meaning behind this tale. The lack of likable characters and character growth made it hard to discern something out of the pure chaos this ended up being. And maybe there is no more meaningful message here other than that it's a good story, and I'm trying to make something out of nothing. But I just couldn't shake the feeling that something was missing, and I was waiting for more.

It's clear this is a satire, but for me, in order for that to work, I have to be able to relate to the characters and also understand the underlying commentary. And I just couldn't quite get there on both fronts with this one.

Still, I was impressed with this debut's ability to keep me engaged, even through its zanier moments. In the end, it was a fun/cringey way to spend a few hours, so I can't complain too much.

~~~~~~~~~~~~
� Connect with me � �
"

"I never had plans to read this novel. I knew it was a great American classic, I heard about controversies, and I thought it was a childish story. And then I saw that Percival Everett is retelling this story from Jim’s point of view, so this was my impetus to finally read it. What a frustrating book.


While it started out as childish exploits of a bunch of kids, the tone shifts considerably with the arrival of Huck’s daddy, meeting Jim and morphing into a sad heartbreaking story of loneliness and being an outcast. Huck and Jim are a fantastic duo and their relationship has many beautiful scenes. The scene where Huck was messing with Jim when Jim was so worried that the boy disappeared and then him realizing that Huck was making fun of him and the hurt of it, I felt Jim’s fatherly love for the boy. And at the same time Jim and his love for Huck and his own child is juxtaposed with Huck’s real father, that abusive maniac who only sees Huck as a tool to get money for drink and abuse him for fun. Did I wish Twain went further in writing Jim, not falling to some unfortunate stereotyping, did I wish he would’ve written a father son relationship? I very much did. Can there be even a father-son relationship considering how unequal they were because of the race in those times? I don’t think it can be, they are no equals in the eyes of society and in their own eyes that internalized racism of the day. God, how angry I was when Jim had to prove he was one of “the good ones� staying with stupid Tom and forfeiting his freedom, while I was mentally shouting “run you fool�. I wish Tom died to be honest.


I know it’s a cliche to say, but the Mississippi river is a third main character, I loved the beauty and dangers of it, the freedom it promised.
This is a book with a beautiful first part, about the loss of innocence and love, the only time Huck felt peaceful and happy was sailing that river with Jim.

I never felt easy till the raft was two mile below there and out in the middle of the Mississippi. Then we hung up our signal lantern, and judged that we was free and safe once more. I hadn’t had a bite to eat since yesterday, so Jim he got out some corn-dodgers and buttermilk, and pork and cabbage and greens—there ain’t nothing in the world so good when it’s cooked right—and whilst I eat my supper we talked and had a good time. I was powerful glad to get away from the feuds, and so was Jim to get away from the swamp. We said there warn’t no home like a raft, after all. Other places do seem so cramped up and smothery, but a raft don’t. You feel mighty free and easy and comfortable on a raft.

And then the things I didn’t like at all: I think I developed an allergy for duke/king shenanigans pretty quickly, damn those chapters lasted eternity. And then there’s the ending with Tom Sawyer that I would argue is very important, that makes me so annoyed, frustrated and tired that I wanted to leave this god forsaken society by the end of it and move west, and never be civilized by these disgusting adults. The revelation that both Huck and Jim were both unknowingly free for the most of the book just adds to my confusion. Twain keeps throwing the hypocrisies of the white "civilized" southern society right back at them, right till the end, I loved that part. And now I can't wait to read James"

"I had mixed feelings about this book.

On the one hand, it's clear that Mark Twain was progressive for his day, satirizing the topsy-turvy morals of the slavery-era south. His heroes are two people at the bottom rung of the social ladder - a runaway slave, and the son of the town drunk. Though they're not valued by society, they turn out to be the two most honorable characters of the book. And I appreciated the questions it raised, about how we construct our own sense of morality in the context of broader social morals, and how we deal with potential conflicts between those two. I loved Huck for choosing to go to hell rather than turn in his friend.

On the other hand, it's such a far-fetched farce, with so many over-the-top scenes, one crazy situation after another, so many coincidences, such silliness, that I had a hard time enjoying it. At the end, Tom keeps adding all kinds of superfluous details into the escape plan, just to satisfy his sense of drama. The author seems to think this will be amusing - see how it's a funny game to Tom, see how he's influenced by all the adventure books he's ever read... And I just wanted to smack the kid, and say, "A man's life is in danger! How dare you treat this like a game of make-believe! Just get him out of there, you idiot!"

The humor reminded me a lot of Candide. That style (social satire, ironic farce, fable, whatever you want to call it) can be a great way to make a point. But it's not the same as a novel with well-developed characters and a realistic plot.

Sometimes I enjoy satire, but yesterday, I just wasn't in the mood. I felt like the atrocities committed in our country against African-Americans were just too horrific to laugh at.

I have heard that people often protest this book when it appears on school curricula, because of the repeated use of the n-word. I think I had an easier time accepting that word, because it reflected the common usage of the time, and it felt like part of the natural, authentic voice of the narrator. I had a harder time with the portrayal of Jim as a naive, superstitious, gullible, person, who seems completely dependent on a young white boy to figure out what to do. Jim is good, but he doesn’t come across as particularly smart. He's more an archetype - the noble savage - than a real person.

I think the main value of this book is as a historical artifact. You can see the important role it played if you look at what it was for the time it was written in, and how it influenced other books written in America. But I don’t think it could get published today. I'm glad to say, we've come a long way.

"