Legacy

by Kim O'Rourke

May 2022

Homegoing is a powerful novel written by Yaa Gyasi that conveys the impact of family and legacy, especially the way intergenerational trauma can be apparent throughout generations. However, there are many critics that have critiqued Gyasi’s novel stating her efforts to convey this subject were inaccurate. One article in particular, "Descendants", written for the New Yorker by Laura Miller, attempted to criticize the effect of race in the novel, but personally, I felt as if Miller did not understand the novel in context to have the authority to write this critique. There were many elements that were included in Gyasi’s novel that were misunderstood by the literary critic, including the extent to which this legacy of race and slavery was portrayed. 

Homegoing was written to demonstrate the effects of slavery on different generations and how intergenerational trauma can be passed down. Although it may occur indirectly, it still affects modern generations. It is important to note that Gyasi was influenced by her own treatment and included some of those experiences in her work. Those who have not been personally impacted by this intergenerational trauma due to slavery do not have the credibility to comment on the accuracy of Gyasi’s portrayal of racism. I believe that Laura Miller attempted to provide insight on this topic, but does not have the credibility to challenge Gyasi’s portrayal of these characters. 

 I felt as if the literary critic misinterpreted how and why Gyasi included specific elements in her novel that explained the intergenerational trauma being passed down. Specifically, Gyasi wrote characters in each generation to be impacted by different events due to the choices of their parents, situations they were born into, and due to the time periods. Miller stated, “These episodes feel less like the emanations of a coherent personality than like boxes that must be checked to make sure that Sonny represents a generation of black men.” Personally, I disagree with this statement. The reason Sonny was written this way was because of the situation his mother endured growing up and how she raised him in New York. Also, in historical context, there was a drug epidemic within New York that impacted thousands of individuals. Sonny was not written to fit a “generation of black men'' stereotype. He was written as a representation of thousands of men who were born into this exact situation and had no control of these circumstances, hence the reason Gyasi wrote this novel. The reason was to reference the impact of intergenerational trauma and how the choices of your ancestors can lead you to the exact place someone is in now. In addition, this character was written this way to emphasize the progression of slavery in the modern day. Due to slavery and migration, there was a drug epidemic that changed thousands of lives.  I felt as if Miller did not grasp the purpose of the novel and the effect of why characters were written the way they were, therefore I disagree with their argument. I felt as if they did not understand the historical context of the novel and therefore had no credibility writing this article.

In addition, Miller also stated “Gyasi has conscientiously assembled the furniture of each of these American historical periods, but she never seems quite at home in them. The farther back in time she goes, the more prone she is to jarring anachronisms.” Immediately reading this, I thought about the meaning of the work as a whole. The novel was not to be read chapter by chapter, but to see the overall bigger picture. It also was not to be seen as set generational periods, but how they connected overall. Similar to how Marcus felt writing his paper, how could he write about one event without explaining about his great-grandfather H or the drug epidemic. How could this novel be interpreted without seeing how the choices of Maame connected the following generations? The book was to be ingested as a whole, not picked apart by seeing the accuracy of the historical details. Yes, those are needed, however she does not use anachronisms to describe the lives of the generations. Each generation faces their own challenges, and yes there is overlap between parents and their children, but as the generations move to America, they do experience more modern events. There is nothing out of the ordinary in each chapter. Gyasi did extensive research into ensuring this novel was written to focus on the legacy of slavery and the influence it carries, not about the specific time periods. 

In addition, the quote “but she never seems quite at home in them” proves how I believe Miller misinterpreted Gyasi’s work about the meaning of Homegoing as a whole. One of the ideas was that the phrase “homegoing” is reuniting with a person or connecting with your past. The point was never for characters to be “at home” or for Gyasi to be “at home.” It was to explore how the legacies of generations lead you to your own “homegoing.” The end of the novel, where Marjorie and Marcus unite is the homegoing because the decisions of their ancestors and the impacts of slavery led them to be there. 

Overall, I disagreed with the literary criticism written by Laura Miller. I felt as if the meaning of the work was not fully understood and Miller emphasized the individual chapters instead of the novel as a whole. I believe it is necessary to have accurate information regarding the novel that is going to be critiqued, and it is important to have credibility to write that criticism as well.