4 Stars
I read Sharon Bala’s debut novel, The Boat People (https://schatjesshelves.blogspot.com/2018/05/review-of-boat-people-by-sharon-bala.html), which I loved and which I don’t think received enough recognition. I was equally impressed with her sophomore title.
Claire Talbot is a publicist for Children of the World, an international aid charity. The organization is on the verge of bankruptcy so Claire is thrilled when she is able to arrange for Dallas Hayden, a well-known actress, to volunteer at their orphanage in Central America. Dallas documents everything on social media so the exposure brings in much needed donations. Then Dallas decides to adopt a baby and promises a massive donation. But a journalist, Emmanuelle Clemmons, digs into the charity’s operations and uncovers a shocking crime which could ruin its reputation.
The novel explores philanthropy and international charity organizations which are often ineffective if not even exploitative. One of the characters remembers how as a teenager she’d worked with an inner-city ministry “traipsing downtown to save the souls of fallen women.” She now realizes “What did she, a middle-class virgin, know of homelessness and pimps . . . She’d been so bloated with arrogance, so secure in the righteousness of all her actions, the delusion that she knew what was best for complete strangers.” Her conclusion applies to several people who have good intentions but it’s obvious that these do not guarantee good outcomes.
The book emphasizes how philanthropy is an expression of power: “philanthropy was an act of supremacy, the giver forcing their desires on the unwilling recipients.” Donations are often given with expectations: “There was no such thing as a gift; there were only strings donors could yank to make recipients do their bidding.” And the wealthy demand fanfare: “Stamping their names on hospital wings and law schools, like dogs marking a fence.” Such donations can be problematic: “Every millionaire wanted to stamp their name on a new building, but once the ribbon was cut, mundane expenses, like payroll and hydro bills, were left to the charity, stretching operational budgets thin, necessitating more fundraising to attract more major donors who demanded more buildings. But hey! The robber barons got to jack off their egos.” Is it a stretch to argue that “’It’s a threat to a nation’s democracy when the people calling the shots and deciding how to solve a country’s biggest problems are outsiders with deep pockets and no stake in the outcome’”?
Some organizations use philanthropy as a distraction and to rehabilitate tarnished reputations: a grocery chain is embroiled in a price-fixing scandal and the charity’s founder tells a representative, “’I think we can work together to make customers think differently about your brand’” though a director argues she doesn’t want the charity to become “’a laundromat for dirty corporations.’” And it’s unfair that “glamorous causes monopolized attention and resources, leaving others orphaned.” In the novel, for example, there’s a boy who could use the actress’s help but would “anyone want a nine-year-old boy when there was a baby girl in the picture.” Employers sometimes have employee campaigns, and Emmanuelle complains about “the employer’s fingers in her pocket, skimming her meagre salary to pad the coffers of the VP’s pet charity.” And why should stores get the credit for donations made by customers at the till?
The book is replete with deeply flawed characters who may want to do good but also have self-serving hidden agendas. Claire, for instance, is looking for redemption after years of helping wealthy corporations escape the consequences of wrongdoings. Emmanuelle wants to reveal the truth but there is no doubt that she wants to advance her career. Dallas is hoping that the positive vibes of her adopting a child will help her get an Oscar nomination. Everyone makes ethical compromises to achieve their goals. One woman admits to ignoring “her better judgment, lured by the false promise of yet another big cheque.”
The author does make suggestions as to what would improve charity organizations. She implies that it would be best to put money into people’s hands instead of setting up an “elaborate middleman scheme.” One of the director’s says, “’The problem with foreign aid is foreign aid. No one is saying How can we give people a hand up and, once they’re on their feet, let them take charge?’” Emmanuelle argues, “’Interventions should be dictated by local needs, not foreign whims.’” Even Claire asks, “’Why do we have orphanages anyway? Why does anyone? Especially if it would be cheaper to give families money and let them keep their kids at home.’” In her Gratitude notes, the author mentions family members who “quietly change lives, without strings or fanfare, exactly the way good deeds should be done.”
There is so much in this novel. I think it would be a great choice for a book club because there’s so much to discuss. The book is sometimes an uncomfortable read because the reader knows things cannot end well, but it is very thought-provoking and so I have to recommend it.
Note: I received an eARC from the publisher via NetGalley.
No comments:
Post a Comment