Comment: I brought this book from the library by impulse. I had heard of the author's name but had not read anything by her, and this book's blurb made me curious enough to try it.
In this memoir/true crime story, the author shares her perspective of what happened to her family after the attack on her cousins and brother in April of 1991. That night, the three cousins were attacked in an old bridge in the border between Missouri and Illinois, and only her brother Tom survived. In the aftermath, when they all thought justice would be made, they went through the exact opposite, which had repercussions for years and an eternal memory of loss. In this book, the author not only shares this but fictionalizes scenes of what might have happened in the moments she wasn't present. Everyone knows danger is everywhere, but when it affects one's family...
I was aware this author become a very famous name mostly due to her book American Dirt (which I have not read) but I didn't know she also had writen this memoir. Therefore, it was a surprise to find this book at the library but the blurb caught my eye and I thought it would also be a good way to check out her writing style.
The book feels as if it's being told as fiction. The author wrote things in a way to make it have a linear timeline, with bits of information she witnessed (in regards to her close family) and which she learned (such as the evidence of others, who saw/ lived through certain situations) and that she fictionalized according to the information reported later on by the police (for instance, in regards to the assailants). Of course, her POV is beyond partial... I've seen some reviews on this book where people claim her work is too partial to be fairly presented, but this is about her family, this is based on reality, so I can put aside some less achieved narrative aspects knowing this.
It's true, perhaps, that the story as a description could have been presented in a more engaging way, and it does seem that, probably for publishing reasons and to keep the identity of certain people away from the narrative - some family members requested this of mrs Cummins - , there isn't always a fully interwoven blend of who was doing what or how pertinent was someone's personality with the development of events and why she chose to add soemthign in a specific moment. Still, in terms of fluidity of reading and comprehension and even empathy towards what was happening, I think she did a good job.
The events are simple. While at a family holiday, several cousins had the oportunity to get to know one another in a way distance would not allow and Tom, Robin and Julie bonded quite well. On the night before the Cummins were to return home, Tom Cummins and his cousins Julie and Robin Kerry went on to spend some time near the old bridge Chain of Rocks, which was no longer being used since the new bridge had been inaugurated. While there, they randomly exchange some conversation with four guys and then go separate ways. However, the four guys suddenly decide to go back after them and attack them, which includes raping Julie and Robin. This happened on the bridge and the night ends with the three cousins being pushed. Only Tom survived.
When the police comes and then the reporters and the families become involved, the tragedy of this situation twists what Tom has seen and lived through and he is not seen as a victim... from this moment on, the family tries what is possible to help him and to prove that they were, indeed, attacked. Jeanine Cummins was not there but by talking to her brother, to her family and by investigating what led to the moment where those seven people met on that bridge, along with the lawyers and police reports, she created a time line. I dothink the author tried to not write in an exagerated manner... perhaps an editing suggestion, or perhaps enough time had passed that she could choose how to write, but this could be any other report about a crime story.
It's also true that the partiality of the text is a given and the four guys are described in a way that puts them in a terrible light. I don't know how the author could write about her family and what they all went though and not give this biased impression, but she was rather factual about is known to be true. Still, it's true she fictionalizes the four guys' intentions and state of mind and possible reasons for the attack. I have not investigated other sources about this to compare with what she is writing, though. Perhaps this is the real flaw in this book; allowing readers to have official links or something could have given her work more veracity.
Apparently a lot was published at the time of the crime and not everything was correct nor fair, let's say. The author is trying to give a new perspective on what happened and how everyone in her family was affected. I liked the writing style in this book and that includes the notes the author uses before and after the main text, to give context to what she has done. Other readers have commented, however, that during the narrative, for the purpose of that same fluidity, she is writing in third person and not first, and she is a character, narrated by herself after all. That does sound weird at times.
No comments:
Post a Comment