Beartown: Book Review

I just finished reading Beartown, by Fredrik Backman. This story is a about a small town in decline that is obsessed with Hockey. This sport is not only engrained within the culture of this town, but the town's economic future largely depends on it. For the first time in what seems like forever, the town has a chance to win, which will bring new opportunities to the town including people, schools, stores, and attention for their hockey team. This all rides on Kevin Erdhal, the star player who is carrying the team into the semi-finals and then the finals. But when a serious offense happens off the rink, the town is thrown into turmoil, forced to deal with the consequences in the variety of ways that they do.

Overall, I'm not entirely sure how I feel about the book, though I think I am more positive than I am negative on it.

Overall (No Spoilers)

What I liked most about this story was the overall execution. In this case, what I am referring to is the portrayal of the town's reaction to the events that transpire. We do not see the best side of many of these characters, with some doing and saying things that are downright depraved and dishonest. Yet, Backman executes this all so well because you understand where this sentiment comes from. This is the best kind of story, to my mind, one where characters do horrific things to one another in ways that are completely natural and inevitable from who they are as people. In fact, this was done well enough that it helped buoy other aspects of the story, like the simplicity of the message on the topic at hand. (Obviously, I will talk of that more, later).

Another part of the execution that I liked was how the story was delivered to the reader. It made me think more on how execution is somewhat tied to the type of the story we are talking about. This story is written about a whole town, so Backman writes in the third person omniscient, jumping from head-to-head. I typically do not like this style of storytelling, preferring third person limited, but as I have suggested above, I think this mode of storytelling works well for the story that is being told.

Related to above, the story is also well paced. Basically, the story is written much like a movie, with constant scene jumps and perspective shifts. The story is constantly moving from one point to the next, as a result, but it also risks losing immersion (though, not necessarily).

I also loved the way Backman built up anticipation for what is to come. I am referring to multiple parts of the story, none I can specify without spoiling, so I will leave this vague: Backman not only gets you hyped for pivotal scenes, or makes you dread them, but also is an expert at making you wish for the futile. I loved this aspect.

Finally, for the positives, I loved the way the story ended. I don't want to give any aspect of the ending away, so I will leave it there.

As a neutral point, because this story is told in the third person omniscient, the author speaks to the audience directly quite a bit, and also tells the story instead of shows it. Generally, I don't like these kinds of stories. I don't think telling is always bad, but in terms of balance, this is not what I prefer. At the same time, I also found that I did not hate it either. So, I am neutral on this for Beartown.

I mentioned above that I thought the story was simplistic in its messaging. This lack of complexity can work, and it seems to have worked for most people, but I question the story's applicability to real life events. Basically, one key aspect of the issue is cut and is suddenly unable to represent the key point of contention in most real-world examples of this issue. This applicability seems to be the main selling point, so I think this matters. This criticism is rather complicated and hard to deliver, and so it will especially have to be unpacked in the spoiler section below. All I can say that is that this has the potential to be a fatal flaw.

Conclusion

Overall, the story was enjoyable, but also has a potentially fatal flaw in its messaging. I will give it a split score: an 8/10 for the story as it was, and a 2/10 for its applicability. That rounds out to a 5/10.

Strides (Spoilers)

There are many things that I loved about this story:

I mentioned the way that Backman built up anticipation in his stories. First, there is the build-up to the semi-final match, with all the pressure on the team to win and carry themselves on to the next round. But even better was the buildup to the final match. With Kevin gone and the team forced to compete anyway, it was almost certain that they would lose. But Backman shows them give a fighting chance. They give everything to the match and then they lose anyway. This was a brutal sequence, one that I knew had to happen for meta-story reasons, but I still desperately did not want to happen. Finally, there were the moments leading up to Kevin's rape of Maya, something that I knew was going to happen going into the novel. As all the antecedents to the scene fall into place, you know what it is leading up to and can only dread the horrible event.

Which leads me to the next point. I think the portrayal of the rape was well-executed. I don't think there is one way to write these kinds of scenes. This was nowhere near as graphic as some of the rape scenes that I have read (or even written), but it worked for this story. It focused on all the moments that mattered, including all the moments leading up to the act. Maya and Kevin were flirting and joking. She went up into the room. She even returned his kiss. But the rape still happened. Maya did not want to lose her virginity, but Kevin took it anyway. He choked her, smothered her, and fucked her—and utterly damaged her in the process. And I think this kind of development is important to understand. Rape situations grow out of interactions that are consensual up to a point. Then that continuity breaks and the rape occurs (or more broadly, sexual assault, depending on how far things progress). Backman portrayed the rape accurately and in a way that delivers the horror while avoiding gratuity that would not fit the story. (Again, I think a more graphic scene can work in another kind of story, namely horror or grimdark fantasy, but this book is neither of those things). In fact, I was surprised at how much was shown. Either way, I thought it was well done.

Finally, I want talk about the ending. The ending is bittersweet, and perhaps mostly bitter. Though maybe not. Kevin gets away with it due to lack of evidence. Beartown is almost assuredly in decline. The town also knows the truth and is reeling over it. But Maya is also on the path to healing. She scares the shit out of Kevin, and when she sees him ten years down the line, he is more affected by the interaction than she is.

Stumbles (Spoilers)

I don't know how much of a criticism this will end up being. The story was not executed horribly for what it was. But, as I mentioned above, I thought the story lacked complexity in its messaging, which prevented it from being applied to real world events. It's obvious how a rape accusation would relate to recent events, everything from Stubenville, to Brock Turner, to Brett Kavanaugh, and more (even as some of these came after the release of this book). But I got the sense that his messaging could not be extrapolated all that well to some of these circumstances.

I

Why? First, because of uncertainty. When an accuser comes forward, most people observing have no idea what happened or whether the accusation is true. It's rare to have a Stubenville situation where the rapists post their guilt all over social media. And this changes how one approaches things. In the book, however, the reader knows that Kevin did it. And because of this, the book is able to send messaging on that assumption. In one part, the Hockey team practices on the lake, because they know Kevin cannot play in the rink. This is presented as a bad thing. And it is hard to argue against that when we all know that Kevin is actually guilty. Yet, do the others? Maybe some. And it is easy to construct ways that they would know based on their relationship to him. But that kind of misses the point. For most cases in the real world, most people know nothing of either party. They would not know whether the accused is guilty. The question then becomes: should the accused be immediately ostracized and driven out before the trial comes to completion? That defeats the purpose of innocence until proven guilty.

Another related point is when the author comments on believing people's testimonies: "Perhaps one day the man in the black jacket will think about this too: why he only wondered if it was Kevin or Amat who was telling the truth. Why Maya's word wasn't enough." The implication is obvious: that Maya's word ought to be sufficient. And while Backman does not explicitly say this, the implication of this seems to be that Kevin should be convicted on Maya's word alone. Unless Backman has a more nuanced perspective that is not coming through. Backman gets away with this message because the reader knows that Kevin did it. Once we've already established that Kevin is guilty as sin, then believing Maya is rather straightforward. But how applicable is that to situations in real life? In real life, we don't actually know the truth. Amat's testimony taken in conjunction with Maya's is what brings weight to the accusation. Why would her accusation alone be enough, when the accusation is the thing needing verified? In no other crime is an accusation anything other than the thing being verified against the evidence.

This opens up the central point of contention in modern discussions of rape: innocent until proven guilty. One side argues that women should be believed when they come forward, while the other side says that this violates innocence until proven guilty. The debate can get into the weeds a bit, and I won't touch upon it more than I need to for this novel critique, so for our purposes I will simply point out that this debate is not represented in this story at all. The readers are invited to believe Maya and believe that Kevin is guilty through the story delivery, completely missing the uncertainty that this whole debate rests upon. And I can only wonder how far Backman wants readers to take this story's message. Does he think it is a good idea to convict based on the testimony of the accuser? Maya destroys all of the evidence, making it a he-said-she-said situation. Her motivations are understandable, but that doesn't make up for the lack of evidence.

My contention with this story is rather similar to my contention with the movie A Time to Kill (I haven't read the book). In that movie, a man murders two of his daughter's rapists in cold blood, and in public. The man is screwed. Further, the defense goes for the insanity plea, which is obviously not true. Even in the story, one of the disasters is the man making it obvious that he is motivated by revenge. Yet the movie still ends happily with the man getting off. I was young when I watched this, but I was still left bewildered by the events, and left to think over the long-term consequences of the precedent that had been set.

It's easy to understand why people would praise this result. The man had sympathetic motivations. But then I think about things more abstractly, and I am left to wonder what this might lead to. This ties back to a distinction proposed by Thomas Sowell, his distinction between process-based justice and outcome-based justice. (And I don't think this is exactly what he called them, but the content is what matters). Process-based justice claims that an act is just if it follows the correct process: namely, due process. Were they judged by a jury of their peers? Did they presume innocence? Etc. Outcome-based justice claims that an act is just if it attains the right outcome. Did the guilty person get punished? Did the innocent person get off?

From a young age, I understood the importance of process-based justice. Now I can articulate the reasoning more clearly. Upholding processes allows you think about the topics more abstractly, which allows you to make extrapolations. Chasing after outcomes on a case-by-case basis causes you to lose sight of the broader strokes. The problem is that precedent is a thing, formal or not, and there are downstream implications of attaining certain desired outcomes. Getting a man off for killing his daughter's rapists is a desirable outcome, but what kind of implications does it hold? Well, that a father can kill his daughter's abusers, instead of letting the state do it. And the father lacks the institutional constraints designed to uphold due process. He is his own judge, jury, and executioner. A story can be constructed so that he judges, convicts, and executes all in accordance with what actually happened, but reality is never that forgiving to our efforts. Outcome-based justice is used to justify vigilantism, while process-based justice proscribes it entirely.

It's easy to see how this applies to Beartown, and specifically the message that it was sending. Sure, Backman constructed his story such that Kevin actually did it, and we the readers all know that he did it from the moment that it happened. Yet, if Kevin had been convicted on Maya's testimony alone, without forensic evidence, or anything else, then what processes have been violated in order to do it? Due process. Presuming innocence until proven guilty. And what are the implications? Well, a change in the incentive structure. You make it easier to lie, now that an accusation is sufficient to convict, and now that the futility of lying is no longer a disincentive, false accusations will become more common. Some point to the current false accusation rate, but aside from obvious questions of accuracy, it also doesn't hold anymore when the incentive structure has changed. It is like pointing to the current murder rate to justify abolishing murder laws; as if banning the laws wouldn't change the murder rate.

Now, I bet the response to this would be to point out that it wasn't really Maya's testimony against Kevin's. It was also Amat's testimony, and also Maya had bruises on her from the assault. But the story also stated that it was just her testimony; it then discredited Amat's testimony and ignored the relevance of the bruises in the investigation, so I guess Backman was going for the corrupt angle. But that was wholly on the periphery. More importantly, I am going off the specific quote that I gave above and what it seems to suggest.

And these arguments are just making a point about the story construction. You can construct a story to say pretty much anything. What I am critiquing is the theme, and its applicability to real life situations. The unfortunate reality is that fiction is inherently biased toward outcome-based justice, as you can just create the desired outcomes without any consequences. Certain principles arise from unfortunate real-world circumstances, like innocence until proven guilty arising from uncertainty—and they become confused and baseless in an alternate reality where things simply develop according to an author's discretion.

The above discussion shows that this book misses the fundamental question at the heart of most rape accusation situations: We did not see Kavanaugh sexually assault Blasey-Ford at an author's discretion. We simply have a thirty-year old accusation, failed corroboration, and politicking on all sides. And that matters in these debates. By cutting this uncertainty, you make one side more obviously right, and, by extension, the opposing side more obviously wrong in a way that is fundamentally inapplicable to real world circumstances.

Perhaps I am making undue extrapolations from that one quote. The story does not end with Kevin miraculously being punished on Maya's testimony alone, much like A Time to Kill achieved its own miraculous outcome, so it's not like this criticism is all that scathing. Then again, this story validates the "believe women" side of the debate so neatly that it is hard to ignore. It reflects the utter confidence that some people have approaching a situation like this, and it validates that confidence in a way that is inapplicable to the real world.

Some people just need to accept that there are fundamental limitations to enforcement and that prevention is the fallback, using whatever practical methods are available. Other solutions are being adopted, as well: accusers' names are no longer being publicly released, which protects them from bad treatment. As should be the case for the accused, at least until a conviction is secured.

II

I mentioned that there are two reasons why this story lacks applicability. All the bloviations above had to do with uncertainty and innocence until proven guilty. This next section has to do with the simplistic portrayal of the sides in this debate.

Beartown never fully articulates all the possible positions one can hold. There are the largely good people who hold the correct position; there are the bad people who hold the wrong position, and willfully so; and there is some sparsely explored grey area in between.

Those on the bad side can get a little obnoxious at points. For example: "'How on earth could it have happened anyway? Has anyone asked themselves that? Have you seen the jeans those young women wear these days? Tight as snakeskin! They can hardly take them off themselves, so what chance would a teenage boy have if she didn't want him to? Eh?'” Yes, someone says that in the novel, maybe as a joke, maybe not. And people like that exist. More importantly, there are a lot more examples in the book that seemed so realistic and natural to the situation that they were uncomfortable. In particular, I think the reactions of the kids on the bus when they first hear the news were extremely realistic. No doubt that would happen.

At the same time, was there another position articulated in the middle of the road? Maybe. David, perhaps. But he was used to make other points, primarily. By the end, we had the people who believed Maya (the right position), some grey characters with scattered uncertain positions (mostly wrong), and then the obnoxious types (absolutely wrong). There was no mention of innocence until proven guilty to my knowledge, and it was not discussed to any degree. Instead, we only had people speculating about the Maya's motivations, or rationalizing why it never happened. And making presumptions about the accuser is not the point of innocence until proven guilty. The point is that we should not presume the guilt of the accused. That is all. Why the accusation happened is left pluggable, because it does not matter for the principle's purpose.

I thought Backman could have done more to bring other perspectives into the story to put the spotlight on this principle and give it a fair shake. Instead, we are treated to a variety of perspectives that barely even touch the idea.

III

I have no idea how fatal this flaw is. I used a lot of words to communicate this criticism, yet that might be due to my need to handle the topic with care. I cannot deny that the story is believable. A town obsessed with Hockey, with political and economic interests involved, would almost certainly be rife with people behaving as they did in this story. And if that is the point of the novel, then fair enough. But many reviewers hold this book up because of its relevance to real world events. And I don't think it is all that relevant, as it gutted the core problem at the heart of most of these debates.

Conclusion

Overall, the story was enjoyable, but also has a potentially fatal flaw in its messaging. I will give it a split score: an 8/10 for the story as it was, and a 2/10 for its applicability. That rounds out to a 5/10.

Video: https://youtu.be/MIZccCFcrKI