In August, my book club’s selection was James by Percival Everett.
This is one of those posts that I might should skip. I had a similar trepidation when I posted my review of Where the Crawdads Sing. (A post which currently has more than 160k views, by the way.)
But as I felt then, the universe needs a little equity. James has received a ton of positive press – not to mention the Pulitzer Prize and National Book Award, and I just don’t get it. Especially since (unlike with Crawdads), so many readers that I’ve talked to agree about its shortcomings.
Going into this read, I was optimistic—I’ve enjoyed other works by Percival Everett. But as feedback trickled in from fellow readers (whose taste I usually trust), most responses were lukewarm at best. By the time my book club gathered, it was clear I wasn’t alone in feeling disappointed.
I scheduled James alongside Their Eyes Were Watching God since both novels rely heavily on Black dialect in their telling, but from there the similarities ended. Our discussion made that clear.
Book Club Discussion Points (contains spoilers!)
Premise vs. execution
- Everett’s focus on language, dialect, and code-switching may have been an intriguing concept, but it came at the expense of storytelling.
- Instead of trusting readers to interpret meaning, Everett has James explain what’s happening, which felt condescending.
Purpose and message
- If the point is to show that enslaved people and Black individuals were more intelligent and capable than credited, that’s true—but that’s obvious and widely undisputed. This idea feels too simplistic for a full novel.
- By framing dignity and value around European philosophers, esoteric language, and “white” ideals, Everett seemed to undercut the richness of Black culture unintentionally. (Why does James need to reference Sartre to demonstrate his intelligence?)
- In contrast, Their Eyes Were Watching God elevates Black voice and culture authentically, without over-relying on external validation.
Comparisons to other “retellings”
- Unlike Demon Copperhead, which stayed true to Dickens’ David Copperfield, James diverges sharply from Twain’s Huck Finn.
- Missing humor, major character rewrites, and timeline inconsistencies left us frustrated.
- We expected more of Twain’s The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn; the opening hinted at it, but that quickly unraveled.
Character concerns
- Some characters, like Sammy, appeared and disappeared with little purpose.
- Duke and King could have been developed more.
- The portrayal of all white characters as bad and all Black characters as good felt one-dimensional and reliant on stereotypes.
Plot issues
- The “magic” notebook strained credibility—its survival through multiple storms and river drownings didn’t feel plausible.
- Huck as James’ son felt contrived. It could have easily been built into the narrative, with James longing to be reunited with Huck, but instead was dropped in abruptly at the end – which made it feel like a last minute decision. To the point above, if all Black characters are good and all white characters are bad, Everett either had to make Huck bad or Black.
Overall Impression
While the book itself fell flat for most of us, it did spark a robust discussions. Typically, this results in a higher score, but in this case, the conversation reinforced our low opinions.
Scores: High score: 3; Low score: 2; Avg. score 2.4.
***
One last thought from me: Late in the book, around the time James witnesses Katie’s rape, I realized what could have made this novel great. If Everett had focused on re-imagining The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn through the lens of the very real and brutal experiences of African Americans at the time, the result might have been far more powerful. By the end, it feels as though Everett recognized this himself—and perhaps he went back and added in the beating and lynching of Young George for stealing a pencil, and the theft and abuse of young Sammy. But if this is what he was trying to do, the conclusion arrives too late.
Comments
Powered by Facebook Comments