I think MBM is a three thumbs up read. Here's why. 1. Farmer's portrayal. Paul Farmer is flawed, and because he is flawed, he's the perfect protagonist. Kidder never downplays Farmer's achievements, but I agree that he doesn't idealize him. By showing his flaws--how he cries a lot, is rude (i.e. comma) and too stubborn--Kidder makes Farmer real. It gives him an underdog quality.
2. Chronology and organization. The book makes a big circle. It starts small with Zanmi Lasante and evolves into an international spread of free health care for the poor and a battle against bureaucracy. But the last two chapters end the book in the same way it began, with Farmer's idea of attention to the individual. I especially enjoyed the penultimate chapter because it intimated that Farmer's work will continue without him, that many have adapted his ideology of doing whatever can possibly be done to save just one person. Then the ultimate chapter zooms in to Farmer's eleven-hour house call, all for the sake of one patient. So I thought wrap-up was beautiful, especially when contrasted to the middle of the book, where the focus was less on the individual patient and more on international politics.
3. Small and big have equal representation. Kidder documents the progression of PIH and its creation of TB treatment worldwide. But he also follows the cases of individual patients and their specific ailments to show how Farmer treats each one with care. I thought the balance was great.
4. Concessions. I like how Kidder wasn't afraid to address the flaws with Farmer's liberation theology. He treated Goldfarb's ideas with respect, and all others streams of thought that directly countered Farmer's.
My one point of contention: So this is pretty small, but I hated how Kidder felt he had to distance himself from Farmer's ideology so as not to be pinned a commie. When Farmer's doing his work in Cuba, praising the Cubans for their advances in health care (and arguably for their communist practices), Kidder interjects his own opinion: "I just wondered what price in political freedom its people paid for [good health care]" (208). Okay, Kidder. You're documenting Farmer and his views on health care. Are you seriously so lacking in self-esteem that you have to quickly interject "I like Farmer but, America, I swear to you, I'm not a commie!" I thought he could have left his own opinion out. Instead, I really liked his way of putting in a giant direct quote from Farmer on the issue of how supporting Cuba may turn off supporters. Kidder should have left himself out of it though.
All in all, I thought it was a great book. Kidder had a hook on my emotions, which is probably why I cheered for Farmer all the way.
I did not enjoy this book all that much. It's not that I had a distaste for Farmer or his methods, I just thought the narrative was agonizingly slow paced and meandering. It was interesting how he managed to work in different aspects of Farmer's work but reading it felt like more of a chore than I thought it should.
I don't think I'm going to go as in depth as Sarina did, but I'll still summarize my take on the book... I really enjoyed how Paul Farmer was known as this "Robin Hood" type of character and his deeds were so miraculous even though he came from basically nothing. I think Kidder reveals how there is a constant meaning to life, and he does so through Farmer. I just think Farmer is such an interesting character and Kidder's text has this indirect affect on people. Kidder introduced Farmer as a person who did what he could to make positive changes in the world, and Kidder's book I think changes the way people view the world and various situations.
I'm suffering from AP-writing withdrawal and the only cure is pursuing nostalgia-inducing websites. I have read 10 kristoff articles and now I'm here, screaming to the world, HELLO I LOVE YOU!
9 comments:
I think MBM is a three thumbs up read. Here's why.
1. Farmer's portrayal. Paul Farmer is flawed, and because he is flawed, he's the perfect protagonist. Kidder never downplays Farmer's achievements, but I agree that he doesn't idealize him. By showing his flaws--how he cries a lot, is rude (i.e. comma) and too stubborn--Kidder makes Farmer real. It gives him an underdog quality.
2. Chronology and organization. The book makes a big circle. It starts small with Zanmi Lasante and evolves into an international spread of free health care for the poor and a battle against bureaucracy. But the last two chapters end the book in the same way it began, with Farmer's idea of attention to the individual. I especially enjoyed the penultimate chapter because it intimated that Farmer's work will continue without him, that many have adapted his ideology of doing whatever can possibly be done to save just one person. Then the ultimate chapter zooms in to Farmer's eleven-hour house call, all for the sake of one patient. So I thought wrap-up was beautiful, especially when contrasted to the middle of the book, where the focus was less on the individual patient and more on international politics.
3. Small and big have equal representation. Kidder documents the progression of PIH and its creation of TB treatment worldwide. But he also follows the cases of individual patients and their specific ailments to show how Farmer treats each one with care. I thought the balance was great.
4. Concessions. I like how Kidder wasn't afraid to address the flaws with Farmer's liberation theology. He treated Goldfarb's ideas with respect, and all others streams of thought that directly countered Farmer's.
My one point of contention: So this is pretty small, but I hated how Kidder felt he had to distance himself from Farmer's ideology so as not to be pinned a commie. When Farmer's doing his work in Cuba, praising the Cubans for their advances in health care (and arguably for their communist practices), Kidder interjects his own opinion: "I just wondered what price in political freedom its people paid for [good health care]" (208). Okay, Kidder. You're documenting Farmer and his views on health care. Are you seriously so lacking in self-esteem that you have to quickly interject "I like Farmer but, America, I swear to you, I'm not a commie!" I thought he could have left his own opinion out. Instead, I really liked his way of putting in a giant direct quote from Farmer on the issue of how supporting Cuba may turn off supporters. Kidder should have left himself out of it though.
All in all, I thought it was a great book. Kidder had a hook on my emotions, which is probably why I cheered for Farmer all the way.
Wow way to make everyone else look really lazy Sarina.
I did not enjoy this book all that much. It's not that I had a distaste for Farmer or his methods, I just thought the narrative was agonizingly slow paced and meandering. It was interesting how he managed to work in different aspects of Farmer's work but reading it felt like more of a chore than I thought it should.
ditto what mark said
I don't think I'm going to go as in depth as Sarina did, but I'll still summarize my take on the book...
I really enjoyed how Paul Farmer was known as this "Robin Hood" type of character and his deeds were so miraculous even though he came from basically nothing. I think Kidder reveals how there is a constant meaning to life, and he does so through Farmer. I just think Farmer is such an interesting character and Kidder's text has this indirect affect on people. Kidder introduced Farmer as a person who did what he could to make positive changes in the world, and Kidder's book I think changes the way people view the world and various situations.
I'm suffering from AP-writing withdrawal and the only cure is pursuing nostalgia-inducing websites. I have read 10 kristoff articles and now I'm here, screaming to the world, HELLO I LOVE YOU!
We need to have an AP Writing party after the exam.
Post a Comment