mercedes's Reviews (299)

i recently finished reading black beauty by anna sewell, an 1877 novel written from the perspective of a horse. a preachy, moralistic book, it was written with the intentions of getting readers to care about the welfare of horses, and to treat them with more kindness. 

while this is often described as a children’s classic, it wasn’t written with the intention of becoming one, and indeed there are things within the book that may be too morbid for young children. i attempted to read this as a child and gave up in the first few pages, and i’m glad i read it in full for the first time now, because i feel i can fully appreciate it. 

i wasn’t expecting to like this as much as i did, but it was a thoroughly enjoyable experience and i wouldn’t mind rereading it in the future. there were so many quotes i loved in this—some of which i’ve included pictures of. while this classic is short and simplistic, it works. i like horses now which i suppose is what anna sewell was going for! 

“now, i say that with cruelty and oppression it is everybody’s business to interfere when they see it.”

i don't think i've ever laughed out loud so much when reading a book... jerome is a genius at observational humour

It's really a travesty that this is seen as the definitive book with an autistic protagonist. You don't have to get far into the book to realise that this is not a book for autistic people themselves—rather, it feels like the book equivalent of a trip to the zoo, for people to point at and observe the extremely stereotypical autistic mind.

Before I get further into the review, I do want to say that I think given how old this book is, and the fact that the author did very little research about autism, there are a lot of aspects that feel very relatable and that I'm sure ring true to a lot of other autistic people, too. Going into this, I wasn't expecting to see a reflection of myself, so I was pleasantly surprised at some of the ways in which Christopher describes how he sees the world. However, I don't understand why Haddon's reasoning for doing such little research is "there is no typical person who has Asperger's syndrome, and they're as large and diverse a group of people as any other group in society." Why is Christopher a walking stereotype, then? Again, this book was written almost twenty years ago. I'm not trying to say that the characterisation of Christopher is a moral failing, or any failing, of the author, but that refusing to properly research autism because autistic people are all different feels like a flimsy excuse when Christopher isn't different, he's exactly like the majority of autistic characters that have been portrayed in media for decades.

Christopher likes maths. And trains. And computers. He's immature about sex. He can't stand physical contact. He doesn't understand jokes and can't tell them. He looks down upon other disabled people for being 'stupid', and believes his way of thinking about the world is superior. He barks at people who get close to him. He takes things literally. All of these are very stereotypical ideas about autism which for some reason are often seen as default autistic traits. They are not. The problem becomes when people are only exposed to this stereotype of autism. When this book is the only book on autism they read, and Atypical and The Big Bang Theory the only tv shows with autistic characters they watch. Characters like Christopher are what people think of when they think of autism, and I think people should be aware when they go into the story that there is a lot within that is not necessarily intrinsic to autistic people, and that although you may only be exposed to this one archetype of autism within media, the majority of autistic people are not like this—we really are all different. 

My biggest problem with the book is the violence. Christopher himself is mostly violent via self defence. Okay, sure. But he details multiple times ways in which he could hurt people with his swiss army knife, talks about wanting to hit and stab people, and knocked another disabled child unconscious. Why? We get many descriptions of fear and anger and yet when it comes to feelings of happiness and love we get a pitiful sort-of-smiling drawing and that's about it. It's not just Christopher that's violent, either—both of his parents have been physically violent towards him and often shout at him, and it's treated as if it's this thing that's... inevitable. By virtue of Christopher being autistic, naturally his parents are going to be easily frustrated, shout, and be violent. You can see this sentiment plastered throughout the top goodreads reviews, parents detailing how hard and horrific their life is because they have an autistic child, how nobody can live with us without feeling this same stress and annoyance detailed in the book... etc. Which is funny, because an important moment in the book for me is when a character shouts at Christopher, "don't you ever think about other people for a second?" despite the fact that Christopher hasn't shown these people any malice, and that time and time again it's non-autistic characters who have zero empathy for him. And that's how it feels reading those reviews, the lack of empathy, the sentiment that unhappiness is inevitable in the presence of autistic people. I can't help feeling like this book encourages that idea, and it's sad. A review from a literary critic even described walking in an autistic person's shoes as 'alien'. We are people! We see the things you say about us! Christ.

I cannot recommend this book. While some parts of it gave a good idea of what it's like to be autistic, the bad outweighs the good. I hate thinking that people have read this and come away thinking that this is what all, or even many, autistic people are like. I also hate that I can't even recommend something in its place, because the state of autism in media is dire. Please, I just want autistic people to be portrayed as people and not a gimmick for others to gawk at. Reading this book and the responses felt so dehumanising. 

my feelings for mansfield park varied greatly during my time reading it. i took it on holiday with me in june, intending to finish it while i was there... which obviously didn't happen. i had times where i would read 50 pages in a day, days in a row where i would read none at all, or a short amount at a time, and then back up to a lot of pages again—which i feel goes along with the pacing of the story, as well. you're thrown into mansfield park just as fanny is, learning about the different characters, and then there's a very long stretch of time in which it details the visits of the cast of characters to and from mansfield park, and then you get close to the end, where suddenly everything is happening.

i wasn't a fan of the pacing. i grew to enjoy the leisurely pace it set, taking my time reading it and really getting to know the characters within. but by the end it felt so rushed—everything is cleared up incredibly quickly and conveniently. just as i was starting to really like the story again, it sent me right back to my feelings of disappointment.

i LOVED henry crawford. i was willing to begrudgingly accept edmund as the love interest— mostly because there's not anything i can do about it—as long as it was properly set up, and not just quickly mentioned two pages from the end of the book. i understand the moments between fanny and edmund throughout the book are essentially the set up, but it didn't come across that way to me at all. even if you ignore the comments about edmund being like a brother to fanny, and fanny like a sister to edmund, he really comes across like a reflection of fanny's brother william. to me, it was impossible to see edmund's love and defence of fanny as anything other than familial affection. it's hard to see edmund's love of fanny being romantic when he declares that mary crawford is "the only woman in the world whom [he] could ever think of as a wife." giving us a disclaimer in the last few pages of the book that, don't worry, edmund really does love fanny now, and it all happened at the perfect and convenient time, does not make me care at all for them being together.

mansfield park is only my second austen after pride and prejudice and i definitely see why it's almost universally considered the least favourite. austen herself is a little disparaging about it in a letter to her brother, saying that it's "not half so entertaining" as pride and prejudice—which it isn't. i didn't hate it, and it isn't a bad book by any means. i enjoyed my time reading it. i just didn't care for a lot of the choices made in the book and i unfortunately didn't really like fanny price. i may go back to it in the future, and it'll be interesting to see if my opinion changes.