Reviews and Comments

This book suffers from two things in terms of its writing and structure. First, there's Graeber's desire to compress as much information into one space as humanly possible, even to the detriment of his own argument and the discussion he wants to push people to have. The second is that it seems, if I'm reading into both authors' writing styles correctly, Wengrow's desire to flesh out those concepts with more detail to further support them. (I say that because I've checked a few of his articles, and he has a tendency to develop even more focused detail than Graeber.)

I could be wrong about who was doing what, but regardless? The end result is a book that is a slog to get through and frequently leaves me forgetting half of what I've read, going back to skim it and remind myself about what they were discussing, and then trying to figure out what most of it has to do with the point being made. Which, yeah, the topics discussed do relate. But it's such a winding detour through excruciating detail that it makes it hard to focus on the overall picture that they're trying to get us to see.

So much of this would've benefitted from focused case studies rather than intertwining and switching between each of them. It also would've dealt better with more clear (instead of verbose and annoyingly lengthy) section titles that could serve as functional reminders rather than quippy sayings.

Overwhelmingly, I wasn't amused with most of this. Despite the obvious amount of time this had to have taken in order to gather all the resources and research, the writing feels rushed and confused. It doesn't feel nearly as solid as it really could've been.

For a book that is touted as a "powerful guide," it's written in the same fluffy self-help style of other books it's likely to be surrounded by. It's not awful, but it's just painfully obvious.

Which, I guess if that's what you need someone to recognise with regards to toxic positivity, it's fine. But for someone who is already very much in agreement with the harms of toxic positivity and has seen and experienced the ways in which it impacts your own marginalised identities? It's like having someone telling you things you already know.

There's not a lot of information; it is definitely more focused on reflections of different elements of toxic positivity. I was expecting it to be one part guide book and one part history (or at least some obvious integration of studies). Though there are notes with references at the back, it's also not clear while reading the chapters themselves. You have to piece them back together yourself, and it's kind of nonsensical.

Frank Miller is not someone who I like, and I honestly think he's done more to harm visual storytelling media than... not. I don't think he's set out to do so (it's not like he can be blamed for being an influence on others), but the grim-dark method of storytelling with excessive panels and small details and a lot of text... It's a very confusing comic book to look at, and it's just... hideous. Very little pops out, many of the elements are hard to follow, and everything has a feeling of sameness. This is especially bizarre when they do try to include bright pops of colour, since it still manages to feel incredibly similar to everything else. It's... not great.

This also doesn't help when there are a lot of perspective shifts. The sameness actually makes it harder to follow than anything else.

The story itself is also... awful. While violence doesn't innately bother me in storytelling (it's something that can be discussed within narratives), the ways violence is portrayed often come off as being... about gratification. And it's regardless of who is doing it. I also find the perception of "excessive violence" as being "more adult" a bit absurd. If anything, excessive and gratuitous violence is something that I'd stop and question as an editor of a story. What is the point of it? How does it drive the narrative or character development? Does it actually harm the story?

But Frank Miller has been known for his... I'd charitably say questionable decisions and statements on these series. And I'm not a fan of those, either. This whole thing isn't gritty; it's needless and infuriating.

I generally really like narratives that are driven by characters, where the focus is primarily on the characters themselves and how one little thing can upend their whole lives... but this book so, so dull.

Also, I wanted to like it because the concept is interesting (a kidnapped child who is unaware that they were kidnapped as a toddler and discovers it because of one small constant "Missing Person" reminder? Intriguing).

Part of the problem is that, as with many books where the characters are teenagers, the author has seemingly forgotten who teenagers are and how to relate to them. And while I'm quite aware that teenagers are prone to being silly and doing goofy things (as everyone is prone to being), a lot of the moments felt distinctly like the ways that adults view teenagers rather than the ways that teenagers actually are. The conversations felt stilted and fake, the relationship structure felt fake... It just... nothing felt genuine.

If anything, I'd attribute that to this book really needing to be... a novella, at most. Definitely a short story. The character focus felt less like something the author wanted to do and more like a way to build up fluff, the way a person would do for an essay that has a wordcount they can't meet.