Take a photo of a barcode or cover
lyricalreads 's review for:
Little Fires Everywhere
by Celeste Ng
[ 5🌟 ]
(It should be noted that this novel takes place between 1997-1998. I didn’t realize this until more than halfway through the novel. Also, please not that I read Little Fires Everywhere on my kindle, so when I do quote something, it’s the kindle page.)
I remember seeing Little Fires Everywhere on bookstagram once it was published. In 2017, I wasn’t really venturing into adult fiction; I was content with the YA fantasy novels I was reading. To be honest, I wasn’t remotely interested in reading Little Fires Everywhere. That is until, I reread the synopsis (I had seen something about it on Instagram again) and realized that a major point in the plot revolved around the adoption of a Chinese-American baby. I only occasionally mention this, but I was adopted from China when I was eleven months old, and besides Little Fires Everywhere, I don’t really see the topic of adoption (especially international adoption) being discussed. Since it’s such a crucial part of my identity, it’s a bit odd not seeing stories that you can relate to on such a personal level.
Before I began writing my review, I peeked at some of the reviews on Goodreads. Honestly, I think that enjoying Little Fires Everywhere depends on whether the reader likes Celeste Ng’s writing style. This novel focuses more on character study than being heavily plot-driven. I personally loved how Ng was able to transition from one character’s perspective to another; it was kind of like following a character to see their side of the story and then changing perspective to that of the other character (or characters) interacting with that first character. It’s proving difficult to explain, but this technique has an amazing effect. One day, it would be fun to do a writing exercise with this kind of style.
As I perused other Goodreads reviews, I noticed the lack of discussion on the dividing point within the story: the trial over Mirabelle/May Ling and who should raise her—the wealthy, white couple with the stable household who was in the process of adopting her or her birth mother who had been left with no other choice but to leave her two month old daughter at a fire station because of the situation she was in at the time. This plot point made the people in Shaker Heights choose sides and even divided families, such as the Richardsons, who the novel the follows. Little Fires Everywhere forces the characters—and the readers as a result—to contemplate what constitutes as a family and, as an extension of that, what makes someone a mother. Is it biology? Is it love? Is it both? I will be briefly discussing the conversation that went down in the courtroom, so beware of spoilers, but I will mark when those spoilers begin and end. To me, it was such an important moment, that I have to talk about it. I connected with it on an incredibly personal level.
THE MIRABELLE/MAY LING DEBATE
My first highlight was the line where someone said that “her [Mirabelle/May Ling] name isn’t even really Mirabelle McCullough, for god’s sake” (7). I SCREAMED (internally). There’s no other way to put it. On a similar note, it really bothered me that the McCulloughs didn’t even try to include part of her given name into her name. Couldn’t they have named her Mirabelle May (Ling) instead of Mirabelle Rose? They erased an important part of her history and identity by giving her such a white name.
On a personal note, my parents kept the name I was given at the orphanage, and it’s my middle name. My Chinese heritage/birth is not separated from the name I was given in America. I am both parts. Sure, I remember not liking my middle name because it was so different from those around me who had middle names like Rose or Marie, and so I once told someone that the “N” (my middle initial) stood for Nancy. Now, I’m very proud of my middle name. I love how it means “orchid memory” and that meaning has only grown as I’ve gotten older.
There's another line that really bothered me (but in a good way because people actually voice these kinds of questions): “How can you know it’s her birthday?” That’s also quite a sensitive topic and something I often find myself contemplating. But sometimes, it’s best to leave certain questions alone for a little while.
And there's yet another line that had me internally screaming. It's something Mrs. McCullough said about naming their child: “We felt it was more appropriate to give her a new name to celebrate the start of her new life.” (132) This connects to the middle name comment: they’re deleting part of her identity. When she’s older, it will be her choice whether to keep that part, but until then, I think it would have been better if they tried to intersect the identities (her Chinese side and the American side where she would be growing up in a wealthy suburban area). I honestly question the McCulloughs logic at this point.
Ng adds complexity to the debate by showing the stories of the adoptive family as well, so that readers can form their own opinions. There are many nuances, and there is no one answer.
THE "WHITE SAVIOR"
I'm very glad that Ng addresses the “white savior complex” through Little Fires Everywhere because IT’S A HUGE PROBLEM. In the novel, the supporters of the McCulloughs believed that the couple were "giving an unwanted child a better life. They were heroes, breaking down racism through cross-cultural adoption.” (173) First of all, Mirabelle/May Ling was, in fact, NOT unwanted. But you’ll just have to read the novel to find out more about that My thoughts are all over the place for this second sentence, and there’s actual steam coming from my ears so I’m just going to leave it here.
THE COURTROOM
replace "post" with section
During the private trial, Ed Lim, Bebe’s lawyer, asks Mrs. McCullough questions on whether she and her husband know anything about Chinese culture or Chinese history. Mrs. McCullough, in response, says that she and her husband will make sure that their daughter maintains a connection to her birth culture, but when Ed Lim asks, how, Mrs. McCullough is silent. Later, she mentions that the “Pearl of the Orient [a restaurant] is one of our very favorite restaurants. We try to take her there once a month.” (296) Okay, first of all, “orient” is now the incorrect word to use, and second of all, there’s a huge difference between American Chinese food and actual Chinese food.
Then, there's the conversation where Mrs. McCullough tells the judge/Ed Lim that they were deciding on a bear, and they picked the panda bear. They thought “perhaps she’d [Mirabelle/May Ling] feel more of a connection to it” (297). SHE’S NEVER SEEN A PANDA BEAR NOR A BROWN BEAR NOR A POLAR BEAR IN HER ENTIRE LIFE SHE'S BARELY A YEAR OLD.
And the second-hand embarrassment continues! Mrs. McCullough is questioned about the dolls that Mirabelle/May Ling has. Mrs. McCullough responds (after not really getting the question which prompted Ed Lim to ask what the doll's eye colors were): “You look at the toy aisle—most dolls are blond with blue eyes. I mean, that’s just the default.” At this, she tried to backtrack: “They just want to make a generic little girl. You know, one that will appeal to everyone.”
I W A S S C R E A M I N G (I don’t think I can say much more on this). I never truly understood how important it is to have something that reflects the way you look until now when I read stories like Little Fires Everywhere which spark a, usually unexpected, familiarity with the situation. At the point that the story is set, there weren’t even Chinese Barbie dolls. This small conversation emphasizes how important it is for, say literature (but honestly insert any form of media), that tells many different stories about many different kinds of people.
As the last note for this section, I pretty much highlighted the entire conversation that occurred in the courtroom.
***SPOILERS OVER***
CHARACTER STUDY
I find character studies fascinating. Yes, I also love the wild twists and turns often found in the fantasy books I read, but there’s something about sitting down and getting a holistic picture of a character. A reader can see who they are in the they way the speak, the way they think (and since Ng uses the omniscient third person, readers get a good look into their thoughts), how they make decisions. There were definitely points when each of the character’s annoyed me, particularly Mrs. Richardson, but I wasn’t really reading because I connected (or liked) the characters. I was curious about the choices they would make and the stories they had to tell.
However, Mrs. Richardson, in particular, made me think about how I view my own life. Like Shaker Heights, the town I grew up in emphasized education and going to college. In fact, the high school is at the center of the town. My class and the classes before it and after it are expected to get into a (good) college directly after graduation. A lot of people eventually come back after having families of their own. I guess, one day, I would like kids, but I can’t help thinking if I’m much different from Mrs. Richardson who planned out that she would go to college, get a job with a newspaper, get married, and have kids. Little Fires Everywhere made me actually think about how I thought about my life and where it may take me. At this point, I know I would love to travel but that involves making money, and it would nice to have a job I at least semi-enjoyed. But then again, do I really want every step of my life planned out for me?
WRITING STYLE & OTHER THOUGHTS
I really liked Ng’s style of occasionally looking into the future (this is also difficult to explain) but only for a few sentences. Readers can see the impact of a character’s choice that they made in the present. I also liked how Ng structured the story. She started from the ending events in the beginning and then looped back to that point in the end. Ng went a little beyond the full-circle point in order to give readers a glimpse into what happens to the characters.
I can see why this book would make a good book club book because of all the discussion questions it brings up. The debate over Mirabelle/May Ling would probably prove to produce good conversations as different readers take different perspectives on the subject. I highly recommend reading Celeste Ng’s interviews in the back and skim through the discussion questions in the back of the book. It’s a good way to contemplate and digest what you read in Little Fires Everywhere.
Little Fires Everywhere explores the black and white division of “right” and “wrong,” the nuance of humanity and life, second chances and mistakes, the changing of beliefs and the evolution of a human life.
All in all, if you like Celeste Ng’s writing style and don’t mind a more character-driven story, read this incredible novel!
(It should be noted that this novel takes place between 1997-1998. I didn’t realize this until more than halfway through the novel. Also, please not that I read Little Fires Everywhere on my kindle, so when I do quote something, it’s the kindle page.)
I remember seeing Little Fires Everywhere on bookstagram once it was published. In 2017, I wasn’t really venturing into adult fiction; I was content with the YA fantasy novels I was reading. To be honest, I wasn’t remotely interested in reading Little Fires Everywhere. That is until, I reread the synopsis (I had seen something about it on Instagram again) and realized that a major point in the plot revolved around the adoption of a Chinese-American baby. I only occasionally mention this, but I was adopted from China when I was eleven months old, and besides Little Fires Everywhere, I don’t really see the topic of adoption (especially international adoption) being discussed. Since it’s such a crucial part of my identity, it’s a bit odd not seeing stories that you can relate to on such a personal level.
Before I began writing my review, I peeked at some of the reviews on Goodreads. Honestly, I think that enjoying Little Fires Everywhere depends on whether the reader likes Celeste Ng’s writing style. This novel focuses more on character study than being heavily plot-driven. I personally loved how Ng was able to transition from one character’s perspective to another; it was kind of like following a character to see their side of the story and then changing perspective to that of the other character (or characters) interacting with that first character. It’s proving difficult to explain, but this technique has an amazing effect. One day, it would be fun to do a writing exercise with this kind of style.
As I perused other Goodreads reviews, I noticed the lack of discussion on the dividing point within the story: the trial over Mirabelle/May Ling and who should raise her—the wealthy, white couple with the stable household who was in the process of adopting her or her birth mother who had been left with no other choice but to leave her two month old daughter at a fire station because of the situation she was in at the time. This plot point made the people in Shaker Heights choose sides and even divided families, such as the Richardsons, who the novel the follows. Little Fires Everywhere forces the characters—and the readers as a result—to contemplate what constitutes as a family and, as an extension of that, what makes someone a mother. Is it biology? Is it love? Is it both? I will be briefly discussing the conversation that went down in the courtroom, so beware of spoilers, but I will mark when those spoilers begin and end. To me, it was such an important moment, that I have to talk about it. I connected with it on an incredibly personal level.
THE MIRABELLE/MAY LING DEBATE
My first highlight was the line where someone said that “her [Mirabelle/May Ling] name isn’t even really Mirabelle McCullough, for god’s sake” (7). I SCREAMED (internally). There’s no other way to put it. On a similar note, it really bothered me that the McCulloughs didn’t even try to include part of her given name into her name. Couldn’t they have named her Mirabelle May (Ling) instead of Mirabelle Rose? They erased an important part of her history and identity by giving her such a white name.
On a personal note, my parents kept the name I was given at the orphanage, and it’s my middle name. My Chinese heritage/birth is not separated from the name I was given in America. I am both parts. Sure, I remember not liking my middle name because it was so different from those around me who had middle names like Rose or Marie, and so I once told someone that the “N” (my middle initial) stood for Nancy. Now, I’m very proud of my middle name. I love how it means “orchid memory” and that meaning has only grown as I’ve gotten older.
There's another line that really bothered me (but in a good way because people actually voice these kinds of questions): “How can you know it’s her birthday?” That’s also quite a sensitive topic and something I often find myself contemplating. But sometimes, it’s best to leave certain questions alone for a little while.
And there's yet another line that had me internally screaming. It's something Mrs. McCullough said about naming their child: “We felt it was more appropriate to give her a new name to celebrate the start of her new life.” (132) This connects to the middle name comment: they’re deleting part of her identity. When she’s older, it will be her choice whether to keep that part, but until then, I think it would have been better if they tried to intersect the identities (her Chinese side and the American side where she would be growing up in a wealthy suburban area). I honestly question the McCulloughs logic at this point.
Ng adds complexity to the debate by showing the stories of the adoptive family as well, so that readers can form their own opinions. There are many nuances, and there is no one answer.
THE "WHITE SAVIOR"
I'm very glad that Ng addresses the “white savior complex” through Little Fires Everywhere because IT’S A HUGE PROBLEM. In the novel, the supporters of the McCulloughs believed that the couple were "giving an unwanted child a better life. They were heroes, breaking down racism through cross-cultural adoption.” (173) First of all, Mirabelle/May Ling was, in fact, NOT unwanted. But you’ll just have to read the novel to find out more about that My thoughts are all over the place for this second sentence, and there’s actual steam coming from my ears so I’m just going to leave it here.
THE COURTROOM
replace "post" with section
During the private trial, Ed Lim, Bebe’s lawyer, asks Mrs. McCullough questions on whether she and her husband know anything about Chinese culture or Chinese history. Mrs. McCullough, in response, says that she and her husband will make sure that their daughter maintains a connection to her birth culture, but when Ed Lim asks, how, Mrs. McCullough is silent. Later, she mentions that the “Pearl of the Orient [a restaurant] is one of our very favorite restaurants. We try to take her there once a month.” (296) Okay, first of all, “orient” is now the incorrect word to use, and second of all, there’s a huge difference between American Chinese food and actual Chinese food.
Then, there's the conversation where Mrs. McCullough tells the judge/Ed Lim that they were deciding on a bear, and they picked the panda bear. They thought “perhaps she’d [Mirabelle/May Ling] feel more of a connection to it” (297). SHE’S NEVER SEEN A PANDA BEAR NOR A BROWN BEAR NOR A POLAR BEAR IN HER ENTIRE LIFE SHE'S BARELY A YEAR OLD.
And the second-hand embarrassment continues! Mrs. McCullough is questioned about the dolls that Mirabelle/May Ling has. Mrs. McCullough responds (after not really getting the question which prompted Ed Lim to ask what the doll's eye colors were): “You look at the toy aisle—most dolls are blond with blue eyes. I mean, that’s just the default.” At this, she tried to backtrack: “They just want to make a generic little girl. You know, one that will appeal to everyone.”
I W A S S C R E A M I N G (I don’t think I can say much more on this). I never truly understood how important it is to have something that reflects the way you look until now when I read stories like Little Fires Everywhere which spark a, usually unexpected, familiarity with the situation. At the point that the story is set, there weren’t even Chinese Barbie dolls. This small conversation emphasizes how important it is for, say literature (but honestly insert any form of media), that tells many different stories about many different kinds of people.
As the last note for this section, I pretty much highlighted the entire conversation that occurred in the courtroom.
***SPOILERS OVER***
CHARACTER STUDY
I find character studies fascinating. Yes, I also love the wild twists and turns often found in the fantasy books I read, but there’s something about sitting down and getting a holistic picture of a character. A reader can see who they are in the they way the speak, the way they think (and since Ng uses the omniscient third person, readers get a good look into their thoughts), how they make decisions. There were definitely points when each of the character’s annoyed me, particularly Mrs. Richardson, but I wasn’t really reading because I connected (or liked) the characters. I was curious about the choices they would make and the stories they had to tell.
However, Mrs. Richardson, in particular, made me think about how I view my own life. Like Shaker Heights, the town I grew up in emphasized education and going to college. In fact, the high school is at the center of the town. My class and the classes before it and after it are expected to get into a (good) college directly after graduation. A lot of people eventually come back after having families of their own. I guess, one day, I would like kids, but I can’t help thinking if I’m much different from Mrs. Richardson who planned out that she would go to college, get a job with a newspaper, get married, and have kids. Little Fires Everywhere made me actually think about how I thought about my life and where it may take me. At this point, I know I would love to travel but that involves making money, and it would nice to have a job I at least semi-enjoyed. But then again, do I really want every step of my life planned out for me?
WRITING STYLE & OTHER THOUGHTS
I really liked Ng’s style of occasionally looking into the future (this is also difficult to explain) but only for a few sentences. Readers can see the impact of a character’s choice that they made in the present. I also liked how Ng structured the story. She started from the ending events in the beginning and then looped back to that point in the end. Ng went a little beyond the full-circle point in order to give readers a glimpse into what happens to the characters.
I can see why this book would make a good book club book because of all the discussion questions it brings up. The debate over Mirabelle/May Ling would probably prove to produce good conversations as different readers take different perspectives on the subject. I highly recommend reading Celeste Ng’s interviews in the back and skim through the discussion questions in the back of the book. It’s a good way to contemplate and digest what you read in Little Fires Everywhere.
Little Fires Everywhere explores the black and white division of “right” and “wrong,” the nuance of humanity and life, second chances and mistakes, the changing of beliefs and the evolution of a human life.
All in all, if you like Celeste Ng’s writing style and don’t mind a more character-driven story, read this incredible novel!