Dear Ms. Rankine,
For the English 115 course I’m currently taking, we have been given the opportunity to read your book Citizen. Although I am still currently reading it, I would like to compliment the style and approach you decided to take with the book. Especially the second person narratives. At first, I questioned why you decided to take this type of approach but now understand why. The second-person perspective in a way forces you into the situations of each racial encounter, which makes you feel more involved. When looking at sections 1 and 3, I like how you provide these second-person narratives about microaggressions to the audience. These rude and awkward scenarios demonstrate the shock and disbelief many of these people feel when a microinsult is thrown their way. The story on page thirteen is a great example. The narrator is stuck in an offensive conversation about affirmative action. The woman explains how affirmative action has “affected” her son’s chance of getting into the university while they are waiting for their food. The line “this exchange, in effect, ends your lunch. The salads arrive” (13), which really demonstrates how people don't realize the effects words can have, even when it's not intentional. Instead of thinking, people instead tend to blurt out what's on their mind. It reminds me of an article I once read while learning about microaggressions. According to Derald Wing Sue, author of “Racial Microaggressions in Everyday Life”, many people “harbor unconscious biases and prejudices that leak out in many interpersonal situations and decision points” which is something your narratives demonstrate quite well.
Although I understood most of the content from the earlier sections, when analyzing section 4, I found myself very confused. I would like to understand what exactly your intentions were when writing this section. Instead of stating the point, you take a more abstract approach. To be honest, I’m still not entirely sure what the message was exactly. You write about how “you can’t put the past behind you. It’s buried in you; it’s turned your flesh into it's own cupboard” (63) but what exactly are you trying to imply? Could it be that our history perhaps will continue to cause conflict in our lives or that maybe we shouldn't try to defy our past because it makes us who we are? I notice that you focused on themes of the body’s senses, such as vision, hearing, and pain so could it be that are you perhaps trying to show the importance of history through the creation of a narrative? From your writing, your views on putting the past behind yourself seem to express this idea that it's pointless to disregard one’s narrative. Could this be the message of this section, to not let anyone throw out your past and the person you are? One last thing I would like to mention is could this section be your attempt as maybe a transition to the next section of the book? On the very first page, you set up the narrative by describing the setting. You're drifting off to sleep staying away from your devices. However, on page 65 you talk about fumbling around for the remote to mute the TV as if you turned it on because you now can't sleep. Should I expect maybe a deeper meaning to the whole message of the book when moving forward? I guess I’ll find out when I continue to read. Anyways I’m enjoying your book so far and I look forward to finishing it soon.
Thank you for your time,
​
Jared Balduzzi