The Help

[Deleted]

Aug 13, 2011 12:08:19 GMT -4 Shanmac said:

the women tell their stories in their own words, and she just records them, almost like a historian. And, realistically, in that time and place, that was probably the only way to get those stories out there. But I get why some people find that objectionable.

But, as has been explained in numerous critical articles, Skeeter would not have been the only way for the maids to get their stories out. Not even close. Not only was there the black press and black-owned/black-friendly publishing companies but the white, mainstream press was increasingly reporting stories of real life under segregation. The idea that Skeeter is their only hope, their voice, is pretty offensive. The problem is that there's no other way to describe Skeeter's actions other than "exploitation", whether it is well-intentioned on her part or not. If the book and movie, in 2010-2011, don't directly address that instead of waiting for the reader and viewer to draw their own conclusions, that's offensive. No, we don't need Skeeter to be presented as Evil, but casting the ever-likeable Emma Stone and bathing her in golden sunlight and smiles is obejctionable. In terms of early 1960s race relations, Skeeter would have been part of the problem and little to no part of the solution.

Mississippi Burning: FBI agents are heroes of the Civil Rights Movement. Black people pray and sing spirituals, Lord, Lord.

Driving Miss Daisy: abusive white boss is funny when she treats her black employees like crap. When she declares her chauffeur to be her "best friend", the director allows the audience no critical exploration of this bullshit.

The Long Walk Home: white housewife reluctantly helps black women during a bus boycott because, dammit, those floors aren't going to clean themselves. She is bathed in golden sunlight and smiles.

Enough.

[bklynred]

This is what I don't get: ok, there might have been some (not many, and probably incredibly risky) ways for the maids to have gotten their story out. But maybe that was happening in Kentucky and not in Mississippi. Is it not the author's prerogative to write about what she recalled from her own childhood and how things may have played out? I mean to an extent, the author is Skeeter. She's the person telling us what the real deal was behind closed doors. As shanmac mentioned, the book doesn't end happily, with a march on Washington or the maids all quitting to start their own investment club. Their strike against oppression was handled in a pretty unique way, and in a way where repercussion from their employers was close to impossible.

Again, I'm curious: How could this story have been made better (with "better" meaning different things to different people): less white people, more radically acting maids, erase Skeeter from the story entirely? Should Aibileen have been the "leader"? And would that ring true in the 60s deep south?

[divasahm]

I have not yet read the book or seen the movie, but let me share this with you:

Quite a while back, my mom mentioned the book to me. I told her that I was aware (from Facebook) that this book was very popular with book clubs, and told her what little I knew about the plot. Then I went out and bought her a copy. She finally had time to read it while recovering from a mild stroke, and when I dropped by the other night to check in after our roadtrip, she handed me dinner and the book.

"What did you think? Do you want to see the movie?"

"Well...I hated it."

Some background: Just a year or two after this story is set, my parents were open and ardent desegregationalists in our small town in east Texas, and yet as a young matron of the times, my mother had help. Anyone who came to help our family became the object of my mother's blanket protection. When Berta's husband died, we took over enough food to feed all comers, and we were the only white people at the funeral. When Ida had a lump in her breast, Mom took her to her doctor and made sure that she had the care she needed to survive (and she did). We had help once or twice a week (less than most others who had help every day), but Mom's friends were often annoyed with her for paying our ladies more than the going rate--Mom always responded, "They can't live on less."

Mom has had a hard time articulating what exactly it is that she hates about the book, but the gist of her thoughts seems to be that merely writing about these women (or recording their stories in their own words) wasn't enough--that Skeeter could have and should have done more for them, although again, she can't quite explain what she means by that. I'm hoping to sit down and read the book once the kids are back in school so I can figure it out for myself.

Last night's conversation:

Mom: "So, have you started the book yet?"

Me: "Of course I haven't started the book yet! I'm knee-deep in laundry from the trip BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE HELP!" ( )

Mom: "And that's exactly how it should be. Everyone should be cleaning up after themselves instead of paying someone less than a living wage to do it for them."

[thingee]

Aug 14, 2011 17:01:14 GMT -4 @dguzpy said:

Aug 13, 2011 12:08:19 GMT -4 Shanmac said:

the women tell their stories in their own words, and she just records them, almost like a historian. And, realistically, in that time and place, that was probably the only way to get those stories out there. But I get why some people find that objectionable.

But, as has been explained in numerous critical articles, Skeeter would not have been the only way for the maids to get their stories out. Not even close. Not only was there the black press and black-owned/black-friendly publishing companies but the white, mainstream press was increasingly reporting stories of real life under segregation. The idea that Skeeter is their only hope, their voice, is pretty offensive. The problem is that there's no other way to describe Skeeter's actions other than "exploitation", whether it is well-intentioned on her part or not. If the book and movie, in 2010-2011, don't directly address that instead of waiting for the reader and viewer to draw their own conclusions, that's offensive. No, we don't need Skeeter to be presented as Evil, but casting the ever-likeable Emma Stone and bathing her in golden sunlight and smiles is obejctionable. In terms of early 1960s race relations, Skeeter would have been part of the problem and little to no part of the solution.

Mississippi Burning: FBI agents are heroes of the Civil Rights Movement. Black people pray and sing spirituals, Lord, Lord.

Driving Miss Daisy: abusive white boss is funny when she treats her black employees like crap. When she declares her chauffeur to be her "best friend", the director allows the audience no critical exploration of this bullshit.

The Long Walk Home: white housewife reluctantly helps black women during a bus boycott because, dammit, those floors aren't going to clean themselves. She is bathed in golden sunlight and smiles.

Enough.

Certainly the book could have been published without Skeeter writing it, but I think what was important to this story is that it was a book that got read by other white people, to help them recognize how horrific their behaviour was. Having the book published by a mainstream publisher is what got it the mainstream attention it did. Would Skeeter's social circle have read a book written by a black woman, about black women? Doubtful. It seemed to me that Skeeter hoped to change the thinking of her peers and others like them.

[Deleted]

Aug 14, 2011 17:46:00 GMT -4 @thingee said:

Certainly the book could have been published without Skeeter writing it, but I think what was important to this story is that it was a book that got read by other white people, to help them recognize how horrific their behaviour was. Having the book published by a mainstream publisher is what got it the mainstream attention it did. Would Skeeter's social circle have read a book written by a black woman, about black women? Doubtful. It seemed to me that Skeeter hoped to change the thinking of her peers and others like them.

Then the book within the book, and the 2010 novel, is an example of yet another symptom of ingrained racism: oppression isn't real and proven until a white person says it exists. Black Like Me made racism a "real" thing to whites because a white man (disguised as a black man) was the victim. All those millions of black people who told the same story? Well, they're exaggerating, playing the race card, or have a victim mentality! Like I said, Skeeter may have the best of intentions but at the end of the day, she seeks to better her own life on the backs of black women (it's not like she sticks around to help desegregate Mississippi or fight for women's or workers' rights), which makes her not one iota better than her peers. If the book doesn't address that in some way, the author deserves criticism.

[baileydash]

Will there ever be a mainstream film about the civil rights movement that doesn't have a white protagonist?

[Deleted]

Aug 14, 2011 20:50:00 GMT -4 baileydash said:

Will there ever be a mainstream film about the civil rights movement that doesn't have a white protagonist?

My best guess is no, no there will not.

Okay, let me be less cynical. Spike Lee's Malcolm X was a solid box office and critical hit but that wasn't about the civil rights era as most white people would like to remember it. There have been a few tv movies over the years that have been quite good as well. But there are still so many terrific stories to tell. It's just a matter of studios being willing to spend the money and put black writers and directors in charge. Unfortunately, there's little evidence that white writers and directors really "get it" not so far anyway.

[bklynred]

Hmmm....so Skeeter got success off the black women's backs...to me this implies the maids got nothing from the deal, and were weak enough to be taken advantage of by a woman they all knew was not truly of the upper crust. In reality, the women found a safe place to vent their frustrations,annoyance, anger, and even pity for their employers. I read the book but not recently, but doesn't Aibileen also continues writing as the larger project con? Although most of the help's situation doesn't immediately change, the idea that Aibileen has a library card & is writing material (albeit info on how best to get a strawberry stain out of a favorite skirt). I'm not even sure how much to write about this without spoiler tags, as it seems most have not read the book or plan to.

[Karrit]

I read the book for book club. I am not sure I would have read it otherwise, because the "black vernacular" really put me off when I first picked it up at the book store.

But once I got into the story, I could overlook that aspect and let the book really move me. Like Shanmac, it made me cry. Not just weep, but really sob about the human damage of racism. And I think it made me sob because it is easy enough to sit in the year 2011 and say "Of course segregation and racism are evil," but really and truly wonder if I had been raised in 50's Jackson, MI if I would have been more like Hilly or more like Skeeter. It really bothers me, because I am a "go with the flow" kind of gal, and I don't know that I would have thought about the injustice of it all if I had been of my grandmother's generation. So, that is why I liked the book. It really made me think about my attitudes and I don't think I came away from it thinking smugly "I would never have been like that."

I also think that the message of the book is not just about the racism and civil rights in the sixties, but also the power of the written word. Abilene is a writer even before she and Skeeter start to collaborate on the book. It was something that kept Abilene sane in the midst of a painful world.

The book shouldn't be free from criticism. I have seen a lot of valid critiques but I just don't agree with the viewpoint that this is not the author's story to tell. That smacks a bit of censorship to me.

[Witchie]

My 90 yo grandma read the book. She absolutely loved it. My mother read the book, too. She loved it. All of my mother's book club members, many of whom grew up in the South, who were discriminated against and told to go around back for service, they loved the book. They lived with Jim Crow laws. But...they didn't look at this book and feel that it shouldn't have been written because it came from the white girl/savior POV. My grandmother worked as a housekeeper. I grew up listening to her talk about her good friend, Mrs. W, the white woman my grandmother worked for when she was younger. My grandmother helped to raise Mrs. W's kids. I've never heard my grandmother, who can cut a person with a word, say anything negative about Mrs. W and her family. They shared a special friendship. To this day, my grandmother talks fondly about Mrs. W.