This is the final discussion thread for everyone reading along with The Farm. As a reminder, this book club is working alongside the One Community, One Book initiative.
For those of you who live in Iowa, Joanne Ramos will be giving a keynote lecture on October 8, 2023 from 1:30-2:30pm at the Pomerantz Center at the University of Iowa. It’s free and open to the public and is part of my favorite event of the fall, The Iowa City Book Festival.
For those of you who do not live locally, the UI Center for Human Rights is offering a series of webinars, all free, and all on Zoom. These webinars are focused on examining the “relationship between human rights and reproductive justice by interrogating the complexity of factors that impact the ability to parent, gain access to care, and achieve positive health outcomes.”
By now, if you haven’t finished the book, may god have mercy on you because I’m going to tell people to unleash the spoilers!
Part of the impulse in The Farm to outsource pregnancy comes from the very real-world problems women of all economic statuses face — which is that American culture is hostile to raising children. As I write this we are staring down a childcare cliff, and Fox News is telling women to quit their jobs to solve the problem. I think it’s telling that even in the pandemic very wealthy women with help were freaking out trying to work and homeschool. AND YET…AND YET…so often, the American solution is to corporatize, optimize, and make AI do it, rather than, you know, invest in a social freaking safety net. All that does is privilege the wealthy and make the less wealthy the ones who do the care work.
But I digress.
My final question is the one about video tape and expose. Twice in the book people filmed Jane in an attempt to show the story of her life. It struck me that these attempts were both well-meaning and exploitative. Is it possible to tell a story without being exploitative?
Also, do you have a favorite character? And does this book remind you of other movies or novels that we should read?
Also, one note: I normally close the comments and make them only for paid subscribers. This time, I kept the comments open to everyone for this book club, and I am so blown away by how amazing the comments are and how thoughtful you all are and were. And the next book club in November, where we will read Ex Wife by Ursula Parrott, I will keep the comments open to everyone. But, I will only do one discussion post. We are learning and growing over here.
Honestly, when Reagan was first introduced as a character, I thought maybe she would be an undercover storyteller who sought to expose the abuses of Golden Oaks. I suppose I shouldn't have been, but I was surprised when it ended up being Lisa. Also, I was frustrated that the novel never closed the loop on that story line!
As a journalist, I think often about your first question. In neither instance in the book, did Jane give consent to be part of the storytelling or even really understand what was happening. I think both instances were exploitative. As a journalist, I work hard to be super transparent with my sources about exactly how their story will be told. I do as much as I can to give them agency in that process. A few times, despite my very best efforts, I've failed vulnerable sources while telling their story. They either still felt exploited or were put in an even more precarious position by their decision to be part of my work. It guts me when that happens. I try to learn from it and improve for next time.
I'm currently feeling fury about a grant in my state to "find innovative ways to address the child care shortage crisis" as if they shouldn't take that $2 million and do their own "planning" that will tell them what is needed is more money for provider salaries and access to affordable benefits for workers that don't price families out of affording care. The tone is "let's be problem solvers, not complainers" and find ways to provide high-quality, safe, affordable care without more money.
I forgot about the filming! I'm not sure it is possible to tell any story without extracting something from the subjects and that probably will always be inherently exploitive, although I'm sure it's a spectrum with some projects doing much better than others. I'm curious what others think about it.
My favorite character was probably Jane, but I really liked Reagan and Lisa's characters. They were very well done, and I cringed but loved Lisa's bold recklessness. They all felt complex and true to humans to me.
I think the characters were well done - believable in their flaws, and I felt empathy enough with them to understand the actions they took. The ending was a little flat and short after such a breathless, intense climax to the book. I wanted to know more detail of how all these characters I was attached to felt about what had happned to them, and to Jane. That being said, I think the ending was... disappointingly realistic in the way Mae basically continues to get everything she wanted with no major repercussions for what I believe was unethical behavior and business practices.
Lisa was my favorite. It felt like the rest of the surrogates were without volition for much of the book. Even if they tried to get around the rules, the attempts didn't last very long. Jane never felt like any of this was really her idea; she just did what other people told her to do. Overall, I can see the idea of the Farm would appeal to certain groups, both for the profit motive and people who can afford a surrogate, but the harsh regimentation of the surrogates would be difficult to pull off, I would think. Even if you were pulling them from new immigrants or undocumented women.
I don't often (OK, ever) wish I were back in Iowa, but I wouldn't mind being there to see this author!
I think one way to tell a story without being exploitive is to have a person tell their own story. But unless you have a successful, ad-free newsletter or free rein in book publishing, that might be unlikely.
I can't help thinking about The Jungle by Upton Sinclair. "They use everything about the hog except the squeal." I'm sure they could find uses for even the squeal these days.
I know I made virtually the same comment last week or the week before on someone else's comment, but The Farm kept making me think of Natural Beauty by Ling Ling Huang. Two different stories, but both revolve around marginalized people trying to create a better life. The key plot points both have a lot of "ick" factor.
As I read "the Farm" , I reflected over the last 6 or 7 decades of reading books with similar themes. I'm saddened that the theme of women as producers of children continues. I can see this book as becoming reality. Prehaps, some forms does happen today. The second theme of women sacrificing for their children is primal to motherhood. The woman who stays in an abusive relationship. The woman who marries without love to provide for her children. The woman who works in sex trade... When we live in a patriarchal society when women's pay is lower than men, we make her a slave not a woman with a career. I wanted Jane to stand up for herself and her daughter. Yet she was so poor that she saw herself as someone with little choice. How could I judge her? They were all individuals struggling to survive.
I'm sitting here struggling with the question of being exploitative, and I think you are correct, Lyz, that writing about someone else has potential to always be exploitative. I can think of many, many, examples in my writing when I covered someone who was not happy with the end product. I'm sure they felt exploited. UGH. But, the point I'd like to address is your astute observation that American culture is hostile to raising children. The hoops mothers jump through every step of the way in this country is obscene. I was a "conscientious objector" to becoming a mother due to all of these obstacles in our country, until an overwhelming desire hit me when I met my husband to suddenly go down the path. I'm so glad I did, but the anger I hold because of our cruel system has had to have had an effect on me, my children, my marriage. My blood pressure is rising as I type! And to the last question, The NY Times podcast, The Retrieval, is another story of the pain women are willing to endure in the quest to become mothers that is a great example of using technology to solve a problem, in this case infertility, and it going awry.
I've been thinking a bit more of exploitation, who gets to tell the stories, etc. I think of my first experience with rape and "statistics." I was in college and working on a story about rape on campus and in the world in general. I worked nights and weekends at the city newspaper, so I would often float whatever I was working on by newspaper folks who'd been doing this for many more years than I had.
One night, I was sitting with several women (from the copy desk and paste-up room) and told them what I was working on. I asked, "Do you know anyone who's been raped?" They all went around the table, raising their hands. They each had their own story to tell. That's when I started realizing how prevalent it was. Did I tell any of their personal stories? No. But they informed my reporting.
(I now wish the question would be, "How many men do you know who have raped others?")
And then I also think about how if and when they tell their stories, the system we live in retraumatizes them.
And I also think about politicians who have gotten wise that people respond to personal stories, so they trot out folks with all manner of experiences to prove whatever point they're making -- whether it's on the House or Senate floor or for the State of the Union.
And I think about what's happening today online and in social media -- women talking about their experiences and how it resonates with others. It's so validating to hear someone else's story of abuse or shitty experience or whatever ... it means we are not alone. And, hell yeah, we were right to walk away from that.
I may have veered off the original theme, but I also think these are things that come up when we read stories -- even dystopian fiction -- and how they relate to us.
My late mother used to say "That's not my story to tell" and I try to keep that in mind when either I'm talking to someone about a mutual connection or writing about someone I know, whether on assignment or on my Substack. I think she used that phrase mostly when the story was traumatic or potentially scandalous--in the last month I learned two family stories she never told me that fell under these categories. When ego gets in the way, I think it's possible for the writing to turn more exploitative or sensationalistic. My personal guideline is asking "What do I want to happen for me if I write this? What do I want to happen for the people I write about?" Even then it's difficult to answer the question honestly--I blame that on having worked as a publicist/marketer in addition to being an editor/journalist/freelance writer.
No favorite character - they were all unreliable in one way or another, and all of them well crafted.
I commented a couple days ago on an older post the following: "Shades of "Orphan Black", The Handmaid's Tale (book), and The Stepford Wives (book). It seems to me that in all of these stories, men are the strategists and women are the tacticians."
I'm so late to this party, but my favorite character was the actress who played the mom of Reagen's baby. I don't have the text with me and I'm on my 20 minute lunch away from my HS english classes and I love it here in this book club space, so indulge me. :)
It was so juicy that play on Reagen's white savior complex - and that money wasn't her motivator. They twist that she actually was carrying one of the "golden" children. She was so angry she was manipulated, but what did she learn?? And I've read three books since this one, so if my details are shaky, I'm sorry. I am grateful for all of you and loved reading all of your thoughtful comments.
Regarding exploitation: I am an audiologist. Years ago, a newspaper journalist interviewed me about hearing loss. When we finished, I asked if I could review her article before publication mainly because I wanted to make sure there were no inaccuracies about the disability. She told me I could not. I was disappointed. I don’t in any way believe I was being exploited but it did open my eyes to the reality that THE NEWS can be in fact or in perception exploitative. I always appreciate that after introducing guests on her show, Rachel Maddow asks them if there are additions or corrections to anything she has said. Regarding favorite people, I honestly didn’t like any of them. The book amply demonstrated how immigrants are frequently exploited in all kinds of situations. The American ability to commodify and justify the most basic human needs was also well represented.
Honestly, when Reagan was first introduced as a character, I thought maybe she would be an undercover storyteller who sought to expose the abuses of Golden Oaks. I suppose I shouldn't have been, but I was surprised when it ended up being Lisa. Also, I was frustrated that the novel never closed the loop on that story line!
As a journalist, I think often about your first question. In neither instance in the book, did Jane give consent to be part of the storytelling or even really understand what was happening. I think both instances were exploitative. As a journalist, I work hard to be super transparent with my sources about exactly how their story will be told. I do as much as I can to give them agency in that process. A few times, despite my very best efforts, I've failed vulnerable sources while telling their story. They either still felt exploited or were put in an even more precarious position by their decision to be part of my work. It guts me when that happens. I try to learn from it and improve for next time.
I'm currently feeling fury about a grant in my state to "find innovative ways to address the child care shortage crisis" as if they shouldn't take that $2 million and do their own "planning" that will tell them what is needed is more money for provider salaries and access to affordable benefits for workers that don't price families out of affording care. The tone is "let's be problem solvers, not complainers" and find ways to provide high-quality, safe, affordable care without more money.
I forgot about the filming! I'm not sure it is possible to tell any story without extracting something from the subjects and that probably will always be inherently exploitive, although I'm sure it's a spectrum with some projects doing much better than others. I'm curious what others think about it.
My favorite character was probably Jane, but I really liked Reagan and Lisa's characters. They were very well done, and I cringed but loved Lisa's bold recklessness. They all felt complex and true to humans to me.
I think the characters were well done - believable in their flaws, and I felt empathy enough with them to understand the actions they took. The ending was a little flat and short after such a breathless, intense climax to the book. I wanted to know more detail of how all these characters I was attached to felt about what had happned to them, and to Jane. That being said, I think the ending was... disappointingly realistic in the way Mae basically continues to get everything she wanted with no major repercussions for what I believe was unethical behavior and business practices.
Lisa was my favorite. It felt like the rest of the surrogates were without volition for much of the book. Even if they tried to get around the rules, the attempts didn't last very long. Jane never felt like any of this was really her idea; she just did what other people told her to do. Overall, I can see the idea of the Farm would appeal to certain groups, both for the profit motive and people who can afford a surrogate, but the harsh regimentation of the surrogates would be difficult to pull off, I would think. Even if you were pulling them from new immigrants or undocumented women.
I don't often (OK, ever) wish I were back in Iowa, but I wouldn't mind being there to see this author!
I think one way to tell a story without being exploitive is to have a person tell their own story. But unless you have a successful, ad-free newsletter or free rein in book publishing, that might be unlikely.
I can't help thinking about The Jungle by Upton Sinclair. "They use everything about the hog except the squeal." I'm sure they could find uses for even the squeal these days.
I know I made virtually the same comment last week or the week before on someone else's comment, but The Farm kept making me think of Natural Beauty by Ling Ling Huang. Two different stories, but both revolve around marginalized people trying to create a better life. The key plot points both have a lot of "ick" factor.
As I read "the Farm" , I reflected over the last 6 or 7 decades of reading books with similar themes. I'm saddened that the theme of women as producers of children continues. I can see this book as becoming reality. Prehaps, some forms does happen today. The second theme of women sacrificing for their children is primal to motherhood. The woman who stays in an abusive relationship. The woman who marries without love to provide for her children. The woman who works in sex trade... When we live in a patriarchal society when women's pay is lower than men, we make her a slave not a woman with a career. I wanted Jane to stand up for herself and her daughter. Yet she was so poor that she saw herself as someone with little choice. How could I judge her? They were all individuals struggling to survive.
I'm sitting here struggling with the question of being exploitative, and I think you are correct, Lyz, that writing about someone else has potential to always be exploitative. I can think of many, many, examples in my writing when I covered someone who was not happy with the end product. I'm sure they felt exploited. UGH. But, the point I'd like to address is your astute observation that American culture is hostile to raising children. The hoops mothers jump through every step of the way in this country is obscene. I was a "conscientious objector" to becoming a mother due to all of these obstacles in our country, until an overwhelming desire hit me when I met my husband to suddenly go down the path. I'm so glad I did, but the anger I hold because of our cruel system has had to have had an effect on me, my children, my marriage. My blood pressure is rising as I type! And to the last question, The NY Times podcast, The Retrieval, is another story of the pain women are willing to endure in the quest to become mothers that is a great example of using technology to solve a problem, in this case infertility, and it going awry.
I've been thinking a bit more of exploitation, who gets to tell the stories, etc. I think of my first experience with rape and "statistics." I was in college and working on a story about rape on campus and in the world in general. I worked nights and weekends at the city newspaper, so I would often float whatever I was working on by newspaper folks who'd been doing this for many more years than I had.
One night, I was sitting with several women (from the copy desk and paste-up room) and told them what I was working on. I asked, "Do you know anyone who's been raped?" They all went around the table, raising their hands. They each had their own story to tell. That's when I started realizing how prevalent it was. Did I tell any of their personal stories? No. But they informed my reporting.
(I now wish the question would be, "How many men do you know who have raped others?")
And then I also think about how if and when they tell their stories, the system we live in retraumatizes them.
And I also think about politicians who have gotten wise that people respond to personal stories, so they trot out folks with all manner of experiences to prove whatever point they're making -- whether it's on the House or Senate floor or for the State of the Union.
And I think about what's happening today online and in social media -- women talking about their experiences and how it resonates with others. It's so validating to hear someone else's story of abuse or shitty experience or whatever ... it means we are not alone. And, hell yeah, we were right to walk away from that.
I may have veered off the original theme, but I also think these are things that come up when we read stories -- even dystopian fiction -- and how they relate to us.
My late mother used to say "That's not my story to tell" and I try to keep that in mind when either I'm talking to someone about a mutual connection or writing about someone I know, whether on assignment or on my Substack. I think she used that phrase mostly when the story was traumatic or potentially scandalous--in the last month I learned two family stories she never told me that fell under these categories. When ego gets in the way, I think it's possible for the writing to turn more exploitative or sensationalistic. My personal guideline is asking "What do I want to happen for me if I write this? What do I want to happen for the people I write about?" Even then it's difficult to answer the question honestly--I blame that on having worked as a publicist/marketer in addition to being an editor/journalist/freelance writer.
No favorite character - they were all unreliable in one way or another, and all of them well crafted.
I commented a couple days ago on an older post the following: "Shades of "Orphan Black", The Handmaid's Tale (book), and The Stepford Wives (book). It seems to me that in all of these stories, men are the strategists and women are the tacticians."
I'm so late to this party, but my favorite character was the actress who played the mom of Reagen's baby. I don't have the text with me and I'm on my 20 minute lunch away from my HS english classes and I love it here in this book club space, so indulge me. :)
It was so juicy that play on Reagen's white savior complex - and that money wasn't her motivator. They twist that she actually was carrying one of the "golden" children. She was so angry she was manipulated, but what did she learn?? And I've read three books since this one, so if my details are shaky, I'm sorry. I am grateful for all of you and loved reading all of your thoughtful comments.
Regarding exploitation: I am an audiologist. Years ago, a newspaper journalist interviewed me about hearing loss. When we finished, I asked if I could review her article before publication mainly because I wanted to make sure there were no inaccuracies about the disability. She told me I could not. I was disappointed. I don’t in any way believe I was being exploited but it did open my eyes to the reality that THE NEWS can be in fact or in perception exploitative. I always appreciate that after introducing guests on her show, Rachel Maddow asks them if there are additions or corrections to anything she has said. Regarding favorite people, I honestly didn’t like any of them. The book amply demonstrated how immigrants are frequently exploited in all kinds of situations. The American ability to commodify and justify the most basic human needs was also well represented.