Homegoing: Connections

by Eden Pope

May 2022

In her article in The New Yorker, Laura Miller explains why she thinks that Yaa Gyasi “bit off more than she was ready to chew” in her first novel, Homegoing. The novel follows two different lineages through generations, one being in Africa, and one being moved into slavery in America within the first chapter. Each chapter of the novel is told from the point of view of a different member of one of the lineages. Both the African American experience and the experience of those who remained in Africa is shown throughout the two lineages, fostering recurring themes of legacy, the “curse” of slavery, identity, and oppression. Miller makes arguments such as the novel having confusion due to the different perspectives with little connection between each chapter and Gyasi seeming to check off boxes when creating each character’s story and place in history. Although I agree with some of the critiques that Laura Miller made in her article, I don’t agree with all of them, especially not to the point that the novel is rough or disappointing as Miller believes.

The first critique that Miller makes is that Homegoing is confusing and messy with the switch between characters for each chapter. Miller believes that the novel would benefit from a central character for the reader to “arrest [their] attention and carry it through the book”. In my opinion, having a main character would inhibit the theme of legacy and family that is shown throughout the novel. The lack of a central character helps to highlight the connections between each character and lineage. As for the novel being messy, I agree with Miller to an extent. Confusion was created in certain areas of the novel. In my opinion, the message and themes of the novel make up for the bit of muddling in the characters and their stories. Gyasi included a family tree at the beginning of the novel, which was helpful and eliminated my confusion almost entirely. In Marcus’ chapter, he describes his connections with his ancestors through his thoughts. On page 289, he begins thinking about research that he wanted to do for college on the convict leasing system, yet “the deeper into the research he got, the bigger the project got.” Although Marcus and Marjorie do not serve as main characters, they help in bringing the entire novel together, connecting their family’s history to their lives, which both removes confusion and emphasizes the idea of legacy and the “curse” of slavery.

Miller also argues that many characters in Effia’s line “come across as walking, talking history lessons”. She gives the examples of H standing for the hardships of the Jim Crow south and Willie embodying the Great Migration. While reading the novel, I did not get this impression at all. I think that each character’s story contributed to the novel positively by showing the effects of slavery and trauma on each generation. Each character had to face something different, yet each situation was connected. The stories of each character are personal and detailed, which made it nearly impossible for them to feel ordered and staged. Gyasi’s attention to detail, for example in the complexity of James’ character, desiring to appease his family yet longing to make decisions for himself, help readers feel connected to the characters rather than feeling as though they are produced solely for the purpose of a history lesson. Gyasi’s use of real examples of history makes the book have more of an effect on readers, making it applicable to the real world.

The effect and meaning of Homegoing would be disturbed by many of the changes that Miller suggests in her article. While I may agree with some of the arguments that she makes, I think that Gyasi did what she needed to get her message across. The little bits of confusion are completely overridden by the impact and impression that the novel has on its readers.