Sign in with Facebook
Shawna Finnigan's Reviews > The Queen's Gambit
The Queen's Gambit
by
by
TW// (view spoiler)
I’m going to start off by being completely honest� Thomas Sangster is my celebrity crush and he was in the Netflix adaptation of this show, so that’s why I decided to read this book. While I did like Benny (who Thomas plays in the series), I found this book to have major flaws and I have some very controversial opinions about this book.
Let’s start off with the big one: a man wrote this book. Before anyone comes to attack me, how would you feel if a woman wrote about a man defying gender stereotypes by joining a cheerleading squad? How would you feel about a woman writing about a man’s struggle with testicular cancer? There’s just some topics that it’s better to have someone write about only if they’ve experienced that topic themselves and in the case of this book, this book would’ve been drastically improved if a woman had written it. This book involved a girl who joined a sport that was known mostly for men participating in it and not only that, she also started her period in this book. These two subjects are ones that are very unique to females, so not only did I feel uncomfortable reading these scenes, I felt that those scenes were somewhat inaccurate in parts, too. This book feels too much like a man who wants so badly to be a feminist that he overlooks the fact that to be a feminist, you’ve got to let women share their own experiences and stories. This is probably my most controversial opinion about this book, but someone needed to say it.
My second less controversial opinion that stripped my enjoyment away from the book was the complex chess language used in this book. I was a chess player for four years and competed in women chess tournaments, so I know quite a lot about the sport, but I still got lost in all the chess language and I wonder how people who don’t know much about the game could make it through this book.
The book was also a bit bland and boring. The main character Beth wasn’t a super interesting character and the plot felt like it inched along at a snail’s pace. I can see how people with a refined taste for classics might enjoy the book, but unfortunately I am not one of those people.
My final complaint involves Jolene. She was the only character of color with adequate time in the book, but she was not treated well. She was described as “the black one� and when Beth pictured who she wanted to be, she pictured “a white Jolene.� This screams racism and I wish I could say that this book was published in the 50’s so that I could forgive that more, but it was published in 1983. Jolene was also somewhat painted in a bad light. I expected there to be some racism, but having the only black character that played a role in the book sexually assault the main character didn’t set well with me. And yes, it was sexual assault. There’s no other words for it as Beth never said yes and Beth was only eight. Don’t even get me started on the other sexual things in this book - talk of young girls' breasts, a seventeen year old having sex with a college student, etc�
I still have yet to see the show, but I have higher hopes for the show. The lead actress seems like one who wouldn't put up with sexist and racist crap, so I’m hoping that the flaws in this book were fixed in the show. This book could’ve had potential, but it fell flat on too many elements for me.
I’m going to start off by being completely honest� Thomas Sangster is my celebrity crush and he was in the Netflix adaptation of this show, so that’s why I decided to read this book. While I did like Benny (who Thomas plays in the series), I found this book to have major flaws and I have some very controversial opinions about this book.
Let’s start off with the big one: a man wrote this book. Before anyone comes to attack me, how would you feel if a woman wrote about a man defying gender stereotypes by joining a cheerleading squad? How would you feel about a woman writing about a man’s struggle with testicular cancer? There’s just some topics that it’s better to have someone write about only if they’ve experienced that topic themselves and in the case of this book, this book would’ve been drastically improved if a woman had written it. This book involved a girl who joined a sport that was known mostly for men participating in it and not only that, she also started her period in this book. These two subjects are ones that are very unique to females, so not only did I feel uncomfortable reading these scenes, I felt that those scenes were somewhat inaccurate in parts, too. This book feels too much like a man who wants so badly to be a feminist that he overlooks the fact that to be a feminist, you’ve got to let women share their own experiences and stories. This is probably my most controversial opinion about this book, but someone needed to say it.
My second less controversial opinion that stripped my enjoyment away from the book was the complex chess language used in this book. I was a chess player for four years and competed in women chess tournaments, so I know quite a lot about the sport, but I still got lost in all the chess language and I wonder how people who don’t know much about the game could make it through this book.
The book was also a bit bland and boring. The main character Beth wasn’t a super interesting character and the plot felt like it inched along at a snail’s pace. I can see how people with a refined taste for classics might enjoy the book, but unfortunately I am not one of those people.
My final complaint involves Jolene. She was the only character of color with adequate time in the book, but she was not treated well. She was described as “the black one� and when Beth pictured who she wanted to be, she pictured “a white Jolene.� This screams racism and I wish I could say that this book was published in the 50’s so that I could forgive that more, but it was published in 1983. Jolene was also somewhat painted in a bad light. I expected there to be some racism, but having the only black character that played a role in the book sexually assault the main character didn’t set well with me. And yes, it was sexual assault. There’s no other words for it as Beth never said yes and Beth was only eight. Don’t even get me started on the other sexual things in this book - talk of young girls' breasts, a seventeen year old having sex with a college student, etc�
I still have yet to see the show, but I have higher hopes for the show. The lead actress seems like one who wouldn't put up with sexist and racist crap, so I’m hoping that the flaws in this book were fixed in the show. This book could’ve had potential, but it fell flat on too many elements for me.
Sign into Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ to see if any of your friends have read
The Queen's Gambit.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
December 15, 2020
– Shelved
December 15, 2020
– Shelved as:
to-read
September 4, 2021
–
Started Reading
September 4, 2021
–
0.0%
"I'm leading a BOTM discussion for this book in Book Nerds Unite! Feel free to join in on the discussion if you've read the book or if you want to read it this month.
Here's the link to the group: /group/show/...
If you send me a message, I can send you an invitation to the group if that's easier for you :)"
page
0
Here's the link to the group: /group/show/...
If you send me a message, I can send you an invitation to the group if that's easier for you :)"
September 7, 2021
–
Finished Reading
Comments Showing 1-9 of 9 (9 new)
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Rosa
(new)
-
rated it 3 stars
Oct 09, 2021 11:49PM
I, for one, am glad that he wrote it.
reply
|
flag
It doesn't "scream racism" to have Beth want to become "a white Jolene." She wants to be like Jolene, but she can't be black, so she wants to be like Jolene in other, interior ways. I did find the sexual assault very disturbing and confusing. I don't know why it's there.
How disturbing is a 17-year-old having sex with a college student? It's not like she had sex with a college professor or one of her teachers.
I agree, but only in part. First off, 1983 was 38 years before this TV series and that's a fairly long time ago for cultural mores to have changed. I was around then, and things WERE different -- feminism was different -- ideas about race different. On top of that, the novel is set in the 1950s-1960s. Tevis was a fairly old guy when he wrote "Gambit" and I think it was his last novel. The 50s were probably when he was an adult and he is reflecting what people thought THEN.
It's a real problem when you judge books or films or other works FROM THE PAST by the standards of TODAY -- it even has a name -- "presentism". And such people forget that in another 38 years... your kids or just people in general will judge YOU by new standards you don't even know about. So please try to evaluate a book or film by its actual merits, and consider when it was created and produced and published, and how that era might be DIFFERENT than today.
THAT said... there are some problematical things in the book. I don't think Tevis writes women particularly well, and Beth never seemed "real" to me. I know she's supposed to be Aspergerish, but she's just really a very flat character.
I too was very deeply troubled that Beth is sexually assaulted by Jolene, and very little is made of this, and they even become close friends later on in life. Uh... no. In fact, that is deeply creepy. (It would be creepy for two boys, also.) It should be noted that the television series entirely leaves this out.
Also: in the novel, Beth is plain or average looking. In the TV series, they strangely choose to make Beth a ravishing beauty -- actress Anya Taylor Joy, who has starred in numerous films. Being very beautiful would have absolutely changed the trajectory of Beth's life -- she would have very likely been adopted, for starters, as an adorable 8 year old. In school, she would have had lots of boyfriends and lots of interest from men her entire life. Dating and socializing likely would have distracted her from chess.
I also have a lot of problems with the idea that you can play absolutely top competitive chess while stoned out of your mind on tranquilizers. Uh.... no. Very little in this book relies on Beth having to be an addict ON TOP OF her other problems like being an orphan. It has the tendency to make the book (and TV show) sound very "movie of the week social problems -- slash -- ABC Afterschool Special".
i completely agree, i though the exact same
rebecca wrote: "yeah� there was a lot of questionable activities going on in this book. beth said a racist slur to jolene TWICE, jolene definitely sexually assaulted her (which scarred me lowkey), yet somehow they..."I absolutely do NOT think author Walter Tevis was a racist, but I think he was reflecting what the customs and mores of the 1950s would be. The novel is set in the 1960s -- mid to later 60s, I think -- that means Beth at 20 would have been born around 1945 or even earlier. She's older than a BOOMER, technically.
So she's not going to think like someone today who is GenX, Millennial, etc. There was little knowledge back then of lesbianism or even general female sexuality. A little girl back then might not have recognized she was being sexually assaulted by another GIRL. That said, the AUTHOR did know this, and he handled it very very clumsily.
The TV series was made recently (2020, I think) and chooses to entirely leave this out. But that's really presenting an awkward picture of the two women's friendship as adults. Is Jolene just a generous good friend? or someone who is attracted to the charismatic Beth? drawn by Beth's fame and potential wealth as an adult?
I did not read this book in 1983, but only when I heard about the TV series (I don't get cable, so I had to wait a long time to see this at a relative's house!).
The TV series has good production values -- frankly, many cable series today look as good as any theatrical movie -- a fine cast of professional actors -- as I said, Anya Taylor Joy is a major movie star -- the sets and costumes are excellent. But I don't think the writers/showrunners have the foggiest understanding of how people thought -- behaved -- believed -- in the 1960s -- not even the 1980s when the book was written -- so they overlay things that are far too modern into the text, and cut everything problematical (racist remarks, cuz then you wouldn't like Beth as much -- Jolene's molestation of Beth, cuz then you wouldn't like Jolene and she's the sole token black character!).
Also, as I state above in more detail.... by making Beth gobsmackingly beautiful, like a professional fashion model of the 60s -- complete with a whole wardrobe of designer 60s outfits! (that would have cost a fortune and how would Beth know much about fashion or style anyways?) -- they slant the story tremendously. It's the story of an Aspergerish chess champion who happens to be a woman, at a time when women were not widely accepted in the chess world -- a woman who is plain, focused, driven, career-obsessed -- not a great beauty who is a fashion-plate.
Once something becomes a film or TV show.... once those visuals burn themselves into your mind... it Is very hard to know what you would have thought about the NOVEL if you had read it "cold". This novel existed for 37 years BEFORE it was filmed for television and likely tens of thousands of readers. The novel definitely stands alone apart from the TV series.
I agree. I can’t believe a visual representation is better than the written work. It changes the pacing, imaginative shooting and effects speed up the slow parts and the history of her childhood is dripped throughout. Oh and Jolene isn’t a child molester. I mean seriously.
Nikki wrote: "I agree. I can’t believe a visual representation is better than the written work. It changes the pacing, imaginative shooting and effects speed up the slow parts and the history of her childhood is..."Yeah, technically what Jolene is doing to Beth (who is a child while Jolene is a physically mature teenager) is child molestation. I am not sure how you define child molestation otherwise.... do you think this is a consensual sexual encounter? a cute adolescent romance? Beth is, at the time of the encounter, far too young to consent to sex with ANYONE... whereas Jolene is more experienced, advanced, physically mature.
If we dont call this what it is... how can we ever hope to stop (or at least lessen) the occurrence of this kind of abuse/exploitation? say, in a family where it is often an older brother or stepbrother doing this abuse on a younger sibling? Would you feel differently if this was heterosexual rather than lesbian in nature?
As to your other comment: MOST of the time, I find novels richer and more complex than movies made from then... but not always. Sometimes a film is actually better! or the two works are equally good, just in very different ways. But 95% of the time, the novel is better (IMHO)... here there are just SO MANY changes and confusing stuff (like about Beths mother, now a genius driven to suicide) and as I state above, reimagining Beth as a stunning redheaded beauty and 60s fashion icon (vs. a plain Jane)... they just turn the story on its head and I think rob it of some of its power.
It is also worth noting that this was WRITTEN in the early 80s and published in 1982 (and that Walter Tevis passed away not long after)... it reflects the period in which it was written. And the thematic motivation is clearly based on Bobby Fischer, and the idea of a young, genius chess player who is a social misfit... only in the spirit of 1980s feminism (yeah, it was a thing), Tevis chose to make Beth female. Was it a mistake? would anybody have adapted it to a film series in 2020 otherwise? because not only did Tevis really struggle to make Beth feel like an authentic female... the sad truth is that in 40 years, there have been exactly NO female grandmaster chess champions who won all the tournaments and put the men to shame. Some fine players, yes. A superstar? not even close.
This fact is actually pretty fascinating, since this is not a physical competition... it is totally mental... and as a feminist and woman myself, I certainly think that men & women are equal intellectually and should be able to compete equally (and that there is no such thing as a male vs. female BRAIN).... however, facts are facts and while Walter Tevis might have thought in 1983 that this could happen... it simply did not happen and shows no signs of happening.
I felt the same way, I could only get one chapter in before I had to put it down because the sexualization and the racist undertones were just way too much. I was really looking forward to enjoying this book too :/
Plenty of romance novels have dual pov, or there are companion novels from the woman's and the man's perspective. Only writing autobiography makes all fiction impossible. And the social good books do is in increasing empathy - to do that you have to imagine other people who are different from you.
