Small Great Things

3.5?

I feel that this book was much better than My Sister's Keeper. However, I felt that there was this huge plot hole: In the beginning of the book Ruth says the baby is born ‘without a face...but where an ear should have been, there was a twist of lips and a single tooth. Instead of a face there was a swirling eddy of skin with no features.' Which I took to mean no nose and likely an under- or abnormally developed respiratory system. But then it never seems to come up again. It doesn't come up when they're going through medical evidence and Turk posts a picture of his son on the blog and I thought mentioned something about his nose. I am just so confused and annoyed, it seems contradictory and fairly major. And depending on Turk specific bent of white supremacy should also have then hated his son or demanded a plastic surgeon immediately. (Edit) So discussed this in book club and it seems Ruth was discussing a different baby that had died and it took the mother a little while to accept their death

Touched a little on colorism (Ruth and her sister have differing complexions and appear to be treated differently for it) but didn't call it by name. Also touched on (white) privilege, but again not by name and just referred to things as ‘racist' not even ‘systematic racism'. I am glad that the term ‘generational wealth' was used.

Something else that pissed me off, and not for the reason one might think: Turk spits on Ruth IN court. The only consequence is he leaves the court, where he then talks to the media. Spitting AT someone is assault, how come Kennedy doesn't mention this? I don't necessarily expect Ruth to know or be in the mindset to be aware of her full legal rights.

I still am processing how I feel about hearing Turk's side of things. I can't recall how I heard this form of argument, but it was something like when we teach about the moon landing, the shape of the Earth, or the Holocaust we don't give ‘equal time' to the “opposing view”. We might mention that some people thought the moon landing was a hoax but it wasn't and explain, some people think the Earth is flat but it's not and explain, some people are Holocaust deniers or think that things were greatly exaggerated but it happened and explain. Having Turk's narrative (which did contain conspiracy theories such as white genocide and thinking that the Holocaust was greatly exaggerated) feels like he was given almost equal time of Ruth's story. I understand that it was his baby that died, but I think of this as Ruth's story, how she was a scapegoat for the death of a child and how she handles the fallout. I understand Picoult wanting to expose the reader to Turk so we could understand how hate can manifest, how hate can have a human side, and also to have Turk change, a redemption.

And the twist Britt's mother is black. I'm fine with that. I under that complexion differences can WIDELY differ. I had just assumed that the twist was going to be revealed in court where due to cognitive dissonance Britt and/or Turk would say or do something to have the case be overturned, thrown out, or otherwise resolved in Ruth's favor. Additionally, having the reveal in court would have been safer for Britt as well as Adele. But instead Britt kills herself and the case ends as a hung jury. Also was it a little weird for Adele to abandon Britt? I understand that maybe she wanted to get away from potentially abusive Francis (and he did threaten to kill her) and start over with maybe the choir director (would have been so cool if that guy turned out to be Wallace). Would a ‘white passing' baby have fit into her life would she have had the energy, means, or ability to fight for custody of Britt?