I have to say, I really did like the writing style, it was the only thing that got me through most of it because the length (Last minute reading) was kind of intimidating. While there were a lot of things I loved about this story, I also realized that books ragebait me way too easily because I was genuinely crashing out for around half the book if not more. I feel I also have to add that, though the girl “Tortilla”‘s name is probably not pronounced the same as the food, I absolutely thought of both her and her name that way.
Things I liked first: I loved that the story subverted expectations at times, often for a sense of realism. I really thought Medouze would play more of a role throughout the book than he did, mind you as soon as the scene of Jose waiting for Medouze who didn’t come home happened, I knew he wasn’t going to make it, but before that scene I really thought he was going to be a relatively consistent character. That being said, I agree with killing him off. The circumstances our characters were living in often resulted in death, untimely or otherwise, and it’s entirely likely that there were many signs a child, like Jose, would simply not have noticed. On the other hand, I really thought when M’man Tine got sick, and went to the hospital, I 100% thought that ‘hospital’ was being used the way parents tell their kids the family dog went to the ‘butterfly farm’. It just seemed like the logical progression in that moment?
I also like how they portrayed the casual violence, especially throughout the beginning of the book as an introduction, and it persisted throughout. Children learn from the actions of those around them, so I thought it was a really good detail that they showed the cruelty of the children’s actions, for example towards animals, rather than much of the adults’. Like: “with other friends, I enjoyed catching, so we could play with them and mutilate them afterwards, tiny crabs whose holes dotted the bank…” (pg. 82). It’s as though it doesn’t even register to them, because it likely doesn’t, their concept of morality is entirely based on the actions of others. In fact, the kids only seem concerned when their actions come back with consequences.
Now what I didn’t like: Those goddamn kids. Oh my god. They were all awful and frankly deserved worse punishments than they got (generally). I get that they were in unfortunate circumstances but they were just such brats that if any of them died, including Jose, I probably would have celebrated. Genuinely, I couldn’t help but imagine having to deal with them and they are precisely why I don’t want, and generally hate children, especially ones like that. I mean the alley kids literally committed arson? With stolen matches? For no good reason? “‘We have set fire to Mr. Saint-Louis’ garden! No more fence, we’re going to see what’s inside!’ Already, a huge cloud of smoke rose above the hedge of branches. Everybody was jumping about and frolicking, and that new-found joy also got me to dancing and shouting” (pg. 41). Like genuinely they should’ve been tossed in the fire they started because what even. Even the school kids generally sucked (albeit less).
Q: What do you think the adults should’ve done with those kids in the alley, considering their actions? Is there a right answer?
One reply on “Man, it really was those goddamn meddling kids – Black Shack Alley”
This issue of cruelty has also come up in other blogs… it’s interesting to compare readings in this way, because others have focused on the care and strong bonds between the characters. What will this tell us about the type of society we see in the novel, where both phenomena exist?