This fictional story is crafted around a male high school student named Roylin. The first thing we learn about Roylin is that he is a young male who lives in poverty with his mother and four other siblings. His abusive father is mentioned, briefly, in the beginning of the story to make a couple of points about Roylin's negative behaviors. His father is physically abusive towards Roylin, his siblings and his mother. Roylin's mother divorces his father and Roylin, as the oldest son, takes on a more mature role in the family to support his mother. In the mornings, he drives his sister to her school, before he goes to his own school. After school, he goes to work. He also babysits his younger siblings while his mother is at work in the evenings and at nights.
We are also, briefly, introduced to gun violence in the first chapter. The author mentions that Roylin was shot by other students in the park. We are not provided any other details except the names of the shooters and what happened to them. Quickly, we realize this young adult of seventeen is a West African descendant with dark brown skin and lives in the project. We also learn that he is not and/or wasn't the nicest boy in the school thus doesn't have a trusted friend circle. He considers himself as a 'looser' and is isolated.
Story starts with Roylin laying his eyes on a pretty girl named Korie. Korie is a transfer student from another school and it is her first day in Roylin's school, Bluford high school. Roylin is the first person to speak to Korie, and during their first lunch together, Roylin tries to impress Korie by telling her that he works and earns a lot of money. Korie smells the blood and tells Roylin that she has her heart set on a beautiful gold necklace with diamonds which costs $300.00. In reality, the money, Roylin earns, goes to his mother's car and insurance payments and only $50.00 is left for Roylin to spend usually. Roylin starts to think of the options to get the remaining $250.00; maybe his mother, a friend and/or a neighbor? That is where the story plot becomes interesting for the readers, but complicated for Roylin. Roylin visits his neighbor and the neighbor is asleep. While the neighbor is asleep, Roylin takes money from his neighbor's wallet. The neighbor is Mr. Miller. He has been like a grandfather to Roylin. The next day, Roylin decides to speak to Mr. Miller about the money he took, as the guilt starts to set in. He is informed by the building manager, a lazy man, that Mr. Miller is dead due to Roylin's actions. The building manager blackmails Roylin and says either Roylin can help him fix the things in and around the building or he will report Roylin to the police.
Anne Schraff (1939- )
The story has the Crime and Punishment vibes. An adolescent, predominately West African descendant, is feeling guilty for what he did yet cannot go to the authorities to pay for his crime. He is a misfit in school and his relationship deteriorates with Korie as she has her own agenda. Roylin is a typical young male, predominately West African descendant, in the United States (U.S.), who tries to find his way in life, but does not always make the right decisions. The story does not get into the societal side of being predominately West African descendant in the U.S.. It is a story of an adolescent's actions with very little regard to the bigger societal rules, boundaries and opportunities. It is focused on the individual actions. Roylin has very little to no support system. His mother is a single mother of five children- oldest is seventeen and the youngest is younger than 5. She is employed but there isn't any other support, since it is clear, she mainly relies on Roylin. Roylin does not have friends either. He has almost no one to rely on.
I found the story plot very intriguing. I enjoyed reading it because it focuses on the adolescents' shallowness and how peer pressure, even without friends, can shape a young student's -male, or female - actions. The author was a high school teacher for years. Clearly, she wrote her stories based on her observations of her students thus it does reflect on most of the behaviors accurately. However, it probably still misses a lot of the genuine insider behaviors for west African descendants with dark brown skin.
It is a short story of less than 150 pages and it goes pretty fast. I read it twice and had both of my children read it as well. My son was not happy with Roylin's behaviors and references about Korie. He didn't like the fact Roylin referred to Korie as, 'she will be mine once I give her an expensive gift.' I thought that was interesting. Both my daughter and my son didn't like Korie using her sexuality to influence boys to get what she wants and her dishonesty. My children couldn't relate to the main characters.
Roylin's journey to correct his behavior to repair what he did to Mr. Miller takes a life of its own and we are drawn into the story. In the end of the story, there is a twist that is unexpected but delightful.
I did not purchase this book. I picked it up, on the free book shelf, in the public library. It is a contemporary story written by predominately a west European descendant about predominately a west African descendant. This can go two ways, one is the outsider observation can provide an insight into the life of another group of people; two it can be filled with bias, positive or negative and twist the reality. Although there is hint of violence at home, school and the community as well as the strong smell of poverty which to this day persists in communities where descendants of predominately West African people reside in the U.S., there is hope, love and brotherhood in this story. Therefore, I think this story was was filled with the right amount of balanced bias and was presented well.
Thumps Up - Recommended.
Schraff, A. (2001) Secrets in the Shadows. Townsend Press.
The Same Subject Continued: Concerning Dangers From Foreign Force and Influence
To the People of the State of New York:
IT IS not a new observation that the people of any country (if, like
the Americans, intelligent and wellinformed) seldom adopt and steadily
persevere for many years in an erroneous opinion respecting their
interests. That consideration naturally tends to create great respect
for the high opinion which the people of America have so long and
uniformly entertained of the importance of their continuing firmly
united under one federal government, vested with sufficient powers for
all general and national purposes.
The more attentively I consider and investigate the reasons which
appear to have given birth to this opinion, the more I become convinced
that they are cogent and conclusive.
John Jay (1745-1829)
Among the many objects to which a wise and free people find it
necessary to direct their attention, that of providing for their SAFETY
seems to be the first. The SAFETY of the people doubtless has relation
to a great variety of circumstances and considerations, and consequently
affords great latitude to those who wish to define it precisely and
comprehensively.
At present I mean only to consider it as it respects security for the
preservation of peace and tranquillity, as well as against dangers from
FOREIGN ARMS AND INFLUENCE, as from dangers of the LIKE KIND arising
from domestic causes. As the former of these comes first in order, it is
proper it should be the first discussed. Let us therefore proceed to
examine whether the people are not right in their opinion that a cordial
Union, under an efficient national government, affords them the best
security that can be devised against HOSTILITIES from abroad.
The number of wars which have happened or will happen in the world
will always be found to be in proportion to the number and weight of the
causes, whether REAL or PRETENDED, which PROVOKE or INVITE them. If
this remark be just, it becomes useful to inquire whether so many JUST
causes of war are likely to be given by UNITED AMERICA as by DISUNITED
America; for if it should turn out that United America will probably
give the fewest, then it will follow that in this respect the Union
tends most to preserve the people in a state of peace with other
nations.
The JUST causes of war, for the most part, arise either from
violation of treaties or from direct violence. America has already
formed treaties with no less than six foreign nations, and all of them,
except Prussia, are maritime, and therefore able to annoy and injure us.
She has also extensive commerce with Portugal, Spain, and Britain, and,
with respect to the two latter, has, in addition, the circumstance of
neighborhood to attend to.
It is of high importance to the peace of America that she observe the
laws of nations towards all these powers, and to me it appears evident
that this will be more perfectly and punctually done by one national
government than it could be either by thirteen separate States or by
three or four distinct confederacies.
Because when once an efficient national government is established,
the best men in the country will not only consent to serve, but also
will generally be appointed to manage it; for, although town or country,
or other contracted influence, may place men in State assemblies, or
senates, or courts of justice, or executive departments, yet more
general and extensive reputation for talents and other qualifications
will be necessary to recommend men to offices under the national
government,--especially as it will have the widest field for choice, and
never experience that want of proper persons which is not uncommon in
some of the States. Hence, it will result that the administration, the
political counsels, and the judicial decisions of the national
government will be more wise, systematical, and judicious than those of
individual States, and consequently more satisfactory with respect to
other nations, as well as more SAFE with respect to us.
Because, under the national government, treaties and articles of
treaties, as well as the laws of nations, will always be expounded in
one sense and executed in the same manner,--whereas, adjudications on
the same points and questions, in thirteen States, or in three or four
confederacies, will not always accord or be consistent; and that, as
well from the variety of independent courts and judges appointed by
different and independent governments, as from the different local laws
and interests which may affect and influence them. The wisdom of the
convention, in committing such questions to the jurisdiction and
judgment of courts appointed by and responsible only to one national
government, cannot be too much commended.
Because the prospect of present loss or advantage may often tempt the
governing party in one or two States to swerve from good faith and
justice; but those temptations, not reaching the other States, and
consequently having little or no influence on the national government,
the temptation will be fruitless, and good faith and justice be
preserved. The case of the treaty of peace with Britain adds great
weight to this reasoning.
Because, even if the governing party in a State should be disposed to
resist such temptations, yet as such temptations may, and commonly do,
result from circumstances peculiar to the State, and may affect a great
number of the inhabitants, the governing party may not always be able,
if willing, to prevent the injustice meditated, or to punish the
aggressors. But the national government, not being affected by those
local circumstances, will neither be induced to commit the wrong
themselves, nor want power or inclination to prevent or punish its
commission by others.
So far, therefore, as either designed or accidental violations of
treaties and the laws of nations afford JUST causes of war, they are
less to be apprehended under one general government than under several
lesser ones, and in that respect the former most favors the SAFETY of
the people.
As to those just causes of war which proceed from direct and unlawful
violence, it appears equally clear to me that one good national
government affords vastly more security against dangers of that sort
than can be derived from any other quarter.
Because such violences are more frequently caused by the passions and
interests of a part than of the whole; of one or two States than of the
Union. Not a single Indian war has yet been occasioned by aggressions
of the present federal government, feeble as it is; but there are
several instances of Indian hostilities having been provoked by the
improper conduct of individual States, who, either unable or unwilling
to restrain or punish offenses, have given occasion to the slaughter of
many innocent inhabitants.
The neighborhood of Spanish and British territories, bordering on
some States and not on others, naturally confines the causes of quarrel
more immediately to the borderers. The bordering States, if any, will be
those who, under the impulse of sudden irritation, and a quick sense of
apparent interest or injury, will be most likely, by direct violence,
to excite war with these nations; and nothing can so effectually obviate
that danger as a national government, whose wisdom and prudence will
not be diminished by the passions which actuate the parties immediately
interested.
But not only fewer just causes of war will be given by the national
government, but it will also be more in their power to accommodate and
settle them amicably. They will be more temperate and cool, and in that
respect, as well as in others, will be more in capacity to act advisedly
than the offending State. The pride of states, as well as of men,
naturally disposes them to justify all their actions, and opposes their
acknowledging, correcting, or repairing their errors and offenses. The
national government, in such cases, will not be affected by this pride,
but will proceed with moderation and candor to consider and decide on
the means most proper to extricate them from the difficulties which
threaten them.
Besides, it is well known that acknowledgments, explanations, and
compensations are often accepted as satisfactory from a strong united
nation, which would be rejected as unsatisfactory if offered by a State
or confederacy of little consideration or power.
In the year 1685, the state of Genoa having offended Louis XIV.,
endeavored to appease him. He demanded that they should send their Doge,
or chief magistrate, accompanied by four of their senators, to FRANCE,
to ask his pardon and receive his terms. They were obliged to submit to
it for the sake of peace. Would he on any occasion either have demanded
or have received the like humiliation from Spain, or Britain, or any
other POWERFUL nation?
PUBLIUS.
Jay, J. (1787, November 3)Federalist 3. The Independent Journal.
