The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian

In the last unit of my Humanities class Forbidden Books at GCE, we learned a lot about diversity. Our studies were mainly focused on a book we chose from a pre-selected variety. My choice of reading was The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian by Sherman Alexie. For our Action Project, we we’re asked to compose an essay based on 1 of 4 provided prompts. I chose the prompt that involved interpreting dangerous/controversial text literally, ethically, and symbolically. My biggest struggle of this project was creating a thesis that connected my interpretations and overall idea of the book. I tried my best to overcome this by exploring multiple theses and choosing the one I thought fit best.

LS. Sherman Alexie. (2016)

Have you ever read a part of a novel that made you put it down in shock from explicit language and ideas? While reading Sherman Alexie’s book The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian, this happened to me more than just once. Set on an Indian reservation in Wellpinit, Washington, this book follows the life of 14 year old Arnold Spirit and his transition into a predominantly white school. Arnold never quite fit in at his reservation. However, once he changed schools, “not quite fitting in” seemed like a clear understatement. As we follow Arnold through his journey, we can clearly see the change in not only himself, but of the people and places around him. This may seem like a completely innocent retelling of a child's story. But, this book has in fact been banned in multiple parts of the country. My views  of some controversial parts will be in the form of sections divided into literal, ethical, and symbolic interpretations. While I don’t believe the banning was completely justified, in certain situations, Alexie’s portrayal of teens and their behavior can get too stereotypical and explicit.

The primary focus of this particular part of the novel is race and how teens create jokes around the subject. It also touches on how they use explicit language to make the joke more humorous and how when a teen gets offended, they use violence and rash actions.

“Hey, Chief” Roger said. “You want to hear a joke?” “Sure,” I said. “Did you know that Indians are living proof that niggers fuck buffalo?” I felt like Roger had kicked me in the face. That was the most racist thing I’d ever heard in my life. Roger and his friends were laughing like crazy. I hated them. And I knew I had to do something big. I couldn’t let them get away with that shit. I wasn’t just defending myself. I was defending Indians, black people, and buffalo. So I punched Roger in the face (64-65).

In this passage, Roger tells Arnold a racist joke that offends him so he responds with a violent action. On an ethical level, Arnold sees the joke as not only an attack on himself, but as one on multiple cultural backgrounds and species. He feels the need to act to defend those being attacked and responds with the only way he sees fit: violence. Finally, symbolically the text means that this is a very good way to represent Arnold’s struggle throughout the book. There are multiple instances where he is feeling attacked and I felt this did one of the best jobs at providing a blunt and quick response that reflected on his feelings. While I understand Alexie’s message it seems his wording here is unrealistic from my experience as a teen.

The next quote from the book is about is teen relationships. Since this specific relationship was verbally mended by humor, I believe this is a good example of how Alexie wanted to portray teen communication. “‘I love that tree,’ I said. ‘That’s because you’re a tree fag,’ Rowdy said. ‘I’m not a tree fag,’ I said. ‘Then how come you like to stick your dick inside knotholes?’ ‘I stick my dick in the girl trees,’ I said. Rowdy laughed his ha-ha, hee-hee avalanche laugh” (Alexie 255). In the text, the two boys are joking about how Arnold is “in love” with a tree and because of that he places himself inside the tree. Arnold then says he only does that to girl trees to counter the fact that Rowdy called him a “fag”. In an ethical way, this could be seen as just teenage boys being normal and joking around about sexual things. In another, it could be interpreted as Rowdy and Arnold having a negative view on homosexuals because of their word choice and how Arnold doesn't want to be associated with that word. I feel this moment is symbolic for the relationship of Rowdy and Arnold towards the end of the book. Even though they we’re against each other, they can still come back together and joke around. Lastly, this explicit part of the book addresses a adult lesson in a way “changed for teens”. I feel this is one one the best ways to represent how Alexie feels that teens react to certain situations.

“Okay, so it’s like each of these books is a mystery. Every book is a mystery. And if you read all the books ever written, it’s like you’ve read one giant mystery. And no matter how much you learn, you just keep on learning there is so much more you need to learn.” “Yes, yes, yes, yes,” Gordy said. “Now doesn’t that give you a boner?” “I am rock hard,” I said. Gordy blushed. “Well, I don’t mean boner in the sexual sense,” Gordy said. “I don’t think you should run through life with a real erect penis. But you should approach each book— you should approach life— with the real possibility that you might get a metaphorical boner at any point.” “A metaphorical boner” I shouted.”What the heck is a metaphorical boner?” Gordy laughed. “When I say boner, I really mean joy,” he said. “Then why didn’t you say joy? You didn’t have to say boner. Whenever I think about boners, I get confused.” “Boner is funnier. And more joyful” (97-98).

Gordy and Arnold are talking about books and an important idea while then transitioning into an explicit comparison that turns into a conversation about how a sexual term and the word joy are related. In an ethical way, the boys are having a meaningful conversation about books and mysteries. To make this comedic and relatable, Gordy uses a sexual term for the reason of giving Arnold a better understanding of what he is talking about. I believe that this moment is symbolic for how the author believed the character and teens in the modern day deal with situations that don’t make sense to them or are hard to describe. It seems to he like he is inferring that teens use sexual language to both make light and sense of certain things.

The effect of many of these explicit passages through the book was many calls from around the country for the book to be banned. Parents in multiple states gathered and expressed their desires for the book to be removed from their community schools curriculum. In one particular case in Idaho, a local said that the book exposed students to words that they "we do not speak in our home". A student responded with a petition with over 350 signatures saying “our education is being censored”.

While it is usually easy to see Alexie’s purpose in expressing certain ideas, in my experience of being a person in the described age group, I don’t think the wording is realistic enough and seems stereotypical. I do not believe that this warrants the book to be banned. There is plenty of very positive things that can be taken away from this story. However, I feel Alexie would have had a much easier time getting this idea across to the people that want his book banned if he hadn’t hidden it behind a maze of explicit wording.

Works Cited

Alexie, Sherman. The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-time Indian. New York: Little, Brown,

2007. Print.

Flood, Alison. "Sherman Alexie Young-adult Book Banned in Idaho Schools." The Guardian.

Guardian News and Media, 08 Apr. 2014. Web. 17 Mar. 2016.