We’ve come to the end of another book and this time we are discussing the supernatural and spiritual implications of the final pages, the modern vision of hope the book seems to hew close to, Kayla’s role in the final scenes, and much more.
I have a lot of thoughts and I don’t know if they’re right. But I think Given and Richie are different because society is now holding people accountable for racist acts. We’re getting better about standing up and saying ‘you can’t do this anymore!’
But, we’re still punishing people for being poor. Richie stole, not because he was bad, but because he had no other options and his siblings were starving. None of the adults in his life were helping them. And if we take a really hard look at our country, we still see that happening to families of all backgrounds.
I think there’s a lot on this book that focuses on how people are punished for doing wrong, but aren’t given grace or the resources to help them after they were punished/held accountable for their crimes.
Kayla is always sick and throwing up because no one is addressing or fixing the underlaying problem. And she’s going to keep being sick in spirit if she doesn’t have an adult to guide her. Jojo can’t do it cause he’s a kid himself. Leonie can’t do it because she hasn’t healed from her brothers death. Micheal can’t do it because he hasn’t healed from his family’s abuse. Pap is the only one, and now he’s going to be suffering too because mam died. This family has lost its anchor, and we’re left not knowing who is going to save them.
And I think that the book asks the question-can we do it? Could we be the person who steps in when a family is suffering? Can we help people heal without judgment or expecting something in return?
I’m raising two kids who aren’t biologically related to anyone in my family or my husband’s. It was a random thing. Their parents can’t raise them because they’re hurt and don’t know how. Their grandma can’t do it anymore because she’s old. So we stepped up. And we have an army of people behind us helping when they can. It takes a community of people who are truly followers of Christ to make a change. I honestly hope one day, my kids can have a relationship with their bio parents. But until then, I’ll protect them and give them the space to heal and break the cycle of generational trauma they’ve been trapped in.
And I think this book is asking people to hear the stories of others before they judge. And instead of judging, reaching out and saying ‘I can help.’ And if there isn’t a system in place to help, demanding one. Because healed adults raise children who grow up to be good humans.
My daughter read this as her common read for the incoming class of 2022 at Duke University. The students were asked to write an essay with this prompt: "The contrasting selfish and selfless traits of the central characters exemplify a skewed balance of altruism and self-interest. In diverse communities how should individuals balance self-care and care for others? " After listening to the podcast discussion I feel this question was very shallow and missed the opportunity to challenge the students to dive deeper.
Heidi talked about how contemporary fiction does a better job of wrestling with our past, our “Original Sin” or “Hidden Wound” as it were. Does it though? We experience culture as literature, others in movies and pop culture. And polling suggests people have never been so pessimistic on the subject of race relations, despite improvements on virtually any metric. Was our prior optimism a false one, or is the cultural “overcorrection” part of the problem?
To expand on that little, the lack of a redemptive arc, or any sense of hope, is consistent with other work in the space. Joseph is as untextured, as much of a blunt instrument, as the sorts of villains Tim laments in Amazing Grace.
Re: why doesn’t Richie find peace at the end of the novel— I agree that there is some internal logic missing, but perhaps (perhaps) Richie is tied to River, and will only disappear at the end of Pop’s life to take him “home”, just as Given disappeared with Mam’s passing.? I might be trying to tie up that loose end for the author on my own with this theory.
The novel brings up the horrific history of enslaved people, and tells a story of lives wasted by drug use… but does it connect the two? Does it try to connect the two? If so, how? It’s interesting that Michael and Misty are white. And Mam and Pop seem like fully functioning decent people. So what does the history of slavery have to do with the choices these characters are making?
Why can’t the dead have peace? Because the living can’t give it to them. That’s why JoJo says he doesn’t owe Richie anything. It’s why the “supernatural” in the book is not really all that supernatural - it’s just the natural world, but sometimes invisible. There’s nothing transcendent about the ghosts - Richie sleeps and “eats” (I remember one scene where JoJo says it’s like Richie is eating Pop’s (?) words); they are bound to the earth and the trees and the water. They are not “super” natural - that is to say, they are really above or outside the natural order. They are just not visible to everyone. The difference between the living and the dead in this book is super thin. There is nothing the living can do to help the unburied - they can only help them sing. Not sure if that is sufficient, even in the world of the book.
In the last line of the book is “Home, they [the tree ghosts] say. Home.” On page 182, Richie says “Home is about earth. Whether the earth open up to you. Whether it pull you so close the space between you and it melt and y’all one and it beats like your heart.”
When Mam dies, the earth - represented by Given, I think, with “the boat” he has come with - welcomes her. That’s what she wanted, that’s why she wanted the litany - she was afraid that something would creep in and take her away in a bad way. She died in her own bed - that’s the fundamental difference between her and the tree ghosts. Heidi said the litany didn’t work, but I wonder if maybe it did.
What to make of the difference in tone, grammar, and syntax between the dialogue that the characters speak out loud and the “voice” they use to narrate? It’s markedly different.
At the end of the book I felt like Jojo is lost. It's been happening by degrees through the story, but then when Leoni hits him, that's it. I kinda have hope for Kayla, in a Star Wars "there is another" sort of way, but not much. Maybe she won't be a drug addict, but with no feminine influence, I worry the cycle will be perpetuated into the generation to come.
Also on that penultimate page, JoJo talked about Kayla being “all Mam” but also having a unique quality that allowed her to pull all the threads together in a helpful way. So I think Kayla will be OK? But you’re right, the threat of the perpetuation of the cycle is front and center, and I don’t think the author gives us a clear idea of what lets you out, aside from
I don’t think he’s lost yet; but he’s definitely balanced on the knife’s edge. He remembers soft and beautiful things in those last few pages. I don’t think he will allow his woundedness to overtake him. I agree with Heidi, his anger is formed and focused now - but that also allows him to see the mistakes that have gone before him and avoid them. He has enough of the “camel” in him, I think, to overcome.
This was such an interesting discussion! I really wish it were a live book club, rather than a podcast - I feel like I have to write a paper and submit it just to get my thoughts out! 😂
I’m really intrigued by the “missing generation” - to me the absolute saddest part of the whole book is Leonie dragging Michael down with her. That one moment is more devastating than any other, because in that one moment everyone else’s fate is blasted as well - the lost generation is never self-contained. We have to reckon with it.
My biggest question is this: Does the book offer us any reason for why Mam and Pop are “enough” for JoJo and Kayla, but were never enough for Leonie? They love her and understand her (and her brokenness) - but she never responds to them. But does the book ever offer us an explanation for why Leonie doesn’t respond to them? She seems to have “come out that way”, as my mom would have put it.
Yes, this seems to be the only logical answer but I don’t think Ward fleshes that out enough in the narrative. Or perhaps we are meant to see Leonie as purely chaotic, just as the world is?
I find it fascinating that the fact that Leoni and Michael went off the rails with their drug addiction ended up being merciful for their children as they got to continue living with Pop instead of having to leave and live in an apartment with them, which was their plan, and all evidence points to that being disastrous for the children.
If there's to be a Q&A, can you please address the snake-turned-bird in Richie's narrative (pages 134-135 and 191 in the hardcover). It gave me cockatrice vibes, but it wasn't malicious. Help me understand the imagery, please!
To me, this ending is an experience of the never-ending trauma and turmoil initiated by slavery. Thus, I think Richie and the rest of the ghosts continuing to suffer shows us the limits of hope in the book's world-vision. Whereas, Ma's death provided some hope in that it freed both her and Given. For those who cannot be / have not been freed, there is only a passing consolation (e.g., Kayla's singing).
Where does that leave me as a reader? Especially, since as an upper middle-class, white man have some power? Do I continue to look away from the tree because I cannot/refuse to see the pain? Do I offer some consolation where I can even though what I offer might be limited? How do I act justly and yet accept that my own power is limited? To me, these are the questions the book is asking me to contemplate and struggle with.
In my opinion, To Kill a Mockingbird missed the mark a bit by not forcing me as a reader to answer these same questions. Atticus must have struggled with them but I think Lee chose to give us tidier solutions (and acceptance of evil) than Sing, Unburied, Sing does.
I share Heidi’s disquiet about Richie’s fate. But I feel like narratively it makes sense that Jojo can’t give Richie the rest and the closure that he needs because Jojo can’t give what he himself lacks.
Thank you for introducing me to this book! Definitely a worthwhile read.
WRT the ending I just couldn’t shake the feeling that there wasn’t any “there” there. She tried to offer consolation in a world in which the strong do what they may and the weak suffer what they must.
Thank you for this great discussion. I had found the ending of the book so chaotic that I ended up sort of dismissing the whole experience. I was so helpful to sort through the chaos and look more closely at the various elements and questions that you raised. This is another book I would have never read on my own initiative and I am grateful for being taken down new paths.
I have a lot of thoughts and I don’t know if they’re right. But I think Given and Richie are different because society is now holding people accountable for racist acts. We’re getting better about standing up and saying ‘you can’t do this anymore!’
But, we’re still punishing people for being poor. Richie stole, not because he was bad, but because he had no other options and his siblings were starving. None of the adults in his life were helping them. And if we take a really hard look at our country, we still see that happening to families of all backgrounds.
I think there’s a lot on this book that focuses on how people are punished for doing wrong, but aren’t given grace or the resources to help them after they were punished/held accountable for their crimes.
Kayla is always sick and throwing up because no one is addressing or fixing the underlaying problem. And she’s going to keep being sick in spirit if she doesn’t have an adult to guide her. Jojo can’t do it cause he’s a kid himself. Leonie can’t do it because she hasn’t healed from her brothers death. Micheal can’t do it because he hasn’t healed from his family’s abuse. Pap is the only one, and now he’s going to be suffering too because mam died. This family has lost its anchor, and we’re left not knowing who is going to save them.
And I think that the book asks the question-can we do it? Could we be the person who steps in when a family is suffering? Can we help people heal without judgment or expecting something in return?
I’m raising two kids who aren’t biologically related to anyone in my family or my husband’s. It was a random thing. Their parents can’t raise them because they’re hurt and don’t know how. Their grandma can’t do it anymore because she’s old. So we stepped up. And we have an army of people behind us helping when they can. It takes a community of people who are truly followers of Christ to make a change. I honestly hope one day, my kids can have a relationship with their bio parents. But until then, I’ll protect them and give them the space to heal and break the cycle of generational trauma they’ve been trapped in.
And I think this book is asking people to hear the stories of others before they judge. And instead of judging, reaching out and saying ‘I can help.’ And if there isn’t a system in place to help, demanding one. Because healed adults raise children who grow up to be good humans.
That’s what it seemed like to me anyway.
My daughter read this as her common read for the incoming class of 2022 at Duke University. The students were asked to write an essay with this prompt: "The contrasting selfish and selfless traits of the central characters exemplify a skewed balance of altruism and self-interest. In diverse communities how should individuals balance self-care and care for others? " After listening to the podcast discussion I feel this question was very shallow and missed the opportunity to challenge the students to dive deeper.
Heidi talked about how contemporary fiction does a better job of wrestling with our past, our “Original Sin” or “Hidden Wound” as it were. Does it though? We experience culture as literature, others in movies and pop culture. And polling suggests people have never been so pessimistic on the subject of race relations, despite improvements on virtually any metric. Was our prior optimism a false one, or is the cultural “overcorrection” part of the problem?
To expand on that little, the lack of a redemptive arc, or any sense of hope, is consistent with other work in the space. Joseph is as untextured, as much of a blunt instrument, as the sorts of villains Tim laments in Amazing Grace.
Great comparison!
Re: why doesn’t Richie find peace at the end of the novel— I agree that there is some internal logic missing, but perhaps (perhaps) Richie is tied to River, and will only disappear at the end of Pop’s life to take him “home”, just as Given disappeared with Mam’s passing.? I might be trying to tie up that loose end for the author on my own with this theory.
The novel brings up the horrific history of enslaved people, and tells a story of lives wasted by drug use… but does it connect the two? Does it try to connect the two? If so, how? It’s interesting that Michael and Misty are white. And Mam and Pop seem like fully functioning decent people. So what does the history of slavery have to do with the choices these characters are making?
Great question.
Another comment:
Why can’t the dead have peace? Because the living can’t give it to them. That’s why JoJo says he doesn’t owe Richie anything. It’s why the “supernatural” in the book is not really all that supernatural - it’s just the natural world, but sometimes invisible. There’s nothing transcendent about the ghosts - Richie sleeps and “eats” (I remember one scene where JoJo says it’s like Richie is eating Pop’s (?) words); they are bound to the earth and the trees and the water. They are not “super” natural - that is to say, they are really above or outside the natural order. They are just not visible to everyone. The difference between the living and the dead in this book is super thin. There is nothing the living can do to help the unburied - they can only help them sing. Not sure if that is sufficient, even in the world of the book.
In the last line of the book is “Home, they [the tree ghosts] say. Home.” On page 182, Richie says “Home is about earth. Whether the earth open up to you. Whether it pull you so close the space between you and it melt and y’all one and it beats like your heart.”
When Mam dies, the earth - represented by Given, I think, with “the boat” he has come with - welcomes her. That’s what she wanted, that’s why she wanted the litany - she was afraid that something would creep in and take her away in a bad way. She died in her own bed - that’s the fundamental difference between her and the tree ghosts. Heidi said the litany didn’t work, but I wonder if maybe it did.
Another question:
What to make of the difference in tone, grammar, and syntax between the dialogue that the characters speak out loud and the “voice” they use to narrate? It’s markedly different.
Really helpful discussion.
At the end of the book I felt like Jojo is lost. It's been happening by degrees through the story, but then when Leoni hits him, that's it. I kinda have hope for Kayla, in a Star Wars "there is another" sort of way, but not much. Maybe she won't be a drug addict, but with no feminine influence, I worry the cycle will be perpetuated into the generation to come.
Also on that penultimate page, JoJo talked about Kayla being “all Mam” but also having a unique quality that allowed her to pull all the threads together in a helpful way. So I think Kayla will be OK? But you’re right, the threat of the perpetuation of the cycle is front and center, and I don’t think the author gives us a clear idea of what lets you out, aside from
The luck of the draw.
I don’t think he’s lost yet; but he’s definitely balanced on the knife’s edge. He remembers soft and beautiful things in those last few pages. I don’t think he will allow his woundedness to overtake him. I agree with Heidi, his anger is formed and focused now - but that also allows him to see the mistakes that have gone before him and avoid them. He has enough of the “camel” in him, I think, to overcome.
This was such an interesting discussion! I really wish it were a live book club, rather than a podcast - I feel like I have to write a paper and submit it just to get my thoughts out! 😂
I’m really intrigued by the “missing generation” - to me the absolute saddest part of the whole book is Leonie dragging Michael down with her. That one moment is more devastating than any other, because in that one moment everyone else’s fate is blasted as well - the lost generation is never self-contained. We have to reckon with it.
My biggest question is this: Does the book offer us any reason for why Mam and Pop are “enough” for JoJo and Kayla, but were never enough for Leonie? They love her and understand her (and her brokenness) - but she never responds to them. But does the book ever offer us an explanation for why Leonie doesn’t respond to them? She seems to have “come out that way”, as my mom would have put it.
The death of Given? It’s a good question and that’s the best answer I’ve got.
Yes, this seems to be the only logical answer but I don’t think Ward fleshes that out enough in the narrative. Or perhaps we are meant to see Leonie as purely chaotic, just as the world is?
I find it fascinating that the fact that Leoni and Michael went off the rails with their drug addiction ended up being merciful for their children as they got to continue living with Pop instead of having to leave and live in an apartment with them, which was their plan, and all evidence points to that being disastrous for the children.
If there's to be a Q&A, can you please address the snake-turned-bird in Richie's narrative (pages 134-135 and 191 in the hardcover). It gave me cockatrice vibes, but it wasn't malicious. Help me understand the imagery, please!
To me, this ending is an experience of the never-ending trauma and turmoil initiated by slavery. Thus, I think Richie and the rest of the ghosts continuing to suffer shows us the limits of hope in the book's world-vision. Whereas, Ma's death provided some hope in that it freed both her and Given. For those who cannot be / have not been freed, there is only a passing consolation (e.g., Kayla's singing).
Where does that leave me as a reader? Especially, since as an upper middle-class, white man have some power? Do I continue to look away from the tree because I cannot/refuse to see the pain? Do I offer some consolation where I can even though what I offer might be limited? How do I act justly and yet accept that my own power is limited? To me, these are the questions the book is asking me to contemplate and struggle with.
In my opinion, To Kill a Mockingbird missed the mark a bit by not forcing me as a reader to answer these same questions. Atticus must have struggled with them but I think Lee chose to give us tidier solutions (and acceptance of evil) than Sing, Unburied, Sing does.
I share Heidi’s disquiet about Richie’s fate. But I feel like narratively it makes sense that Jojo can’t give Richie the rest and the closure that he needs because Jojo can’t give what he himself lacks.
Thank you for introducing me to this book! Definitely a worthwhile read.
WRT the ending I just couldn’t shake the feeling that there wasn’t any “there” there. She tried to offer consolation in a world in which the strong do what they may and the weak suffer what they must.
Thank you for this great discussion. I had found the ending of the book so chaotic that I ended up sort of dismissing the whole experience. I was so helpful to sort through the chaos and look more closely at the various elements and questions that you raised. This is another book I would have never read on my own initiative and I am grateful for being taken down new paths.
Agree, major thanks to the hosts for unlocking this book!