Book Review: Che: A Revolutionary Life (Graphic Biography)

Image: The cover of the book is a splotchy brown and tan background. "Che" is written accross the top in very large, red, capital letters that fade at the bottom. Che Guevara is drawn in black and white from the neck up and ears forward. He has a beard, a beret, and is taking a drag off of a cigar held in his hand while looking down. Under the title and across the top of his head says, "A Revolutionary Life" in white capital letters and under that, in front of his face on the left side of the cover, states (A Graphic Biography, Jon Lee Anderson & Jose Hernandez."

I won this via goodreads giveaways and it is labeled as an "advance uncorrected proof."

Let me begin by stating that the art in this book is fantastic across the board. José Hernández produced some of the best art I've seen in comics/graphic novels. This is what carried the book for the most part. Hernandez's name should be the first author.

I also want to start by saying my beliefs are anti-authoritarian and extremely left wing. So, please do not take my criticisms to be coming from a place of being anti-communism. Anti-authoritarian communism is pretty close to where I am at.

The main reason for my rating this book as mediocre is that Anderson's writing just wasn't there. I do want to give him credit- a graphic biography is a really cool idea and one difficult to execute. So, perhaps this just isn't his field. I have not read any other biographies of Che to compare, so I am unsure of how accurate this is. I can say that it seems like Anderson thought writing for comics or writing dialogue was just a shorter form version of writing an article for the New Yorker. It's common for comic writers not to be seen as legitimate. But, this book is an example of writing that is not good for comics. The dialogue is very bland outside direct quotes and the thing that carries us through the story is the artwork. I know that Anderson wrote a respected biography of Che and perhaps it just did not translate to this medium.

I also took issue with Anderson's introduction. It would be extremely important, if he is still able, to rewrite the introduction. If Anderson wants to appeal to a large audience, especially audiences that would be most interested in this kind of book, he needs to not alienate most of those younger than him. The introduction reads as if he no longer believes violent revolution exists because of iphones and the internet. The "kids these days" approach to dismissing the criticisms and concerns about Guevara's violence and oppressive ideals made him seem like a lousy historian. He brings up Guevara's homophobia in the introduction, then never touches on it in the text.

There are many issues with dismissing homophobia and complaining of identity politics. First off, gay people have been part of revolutions forever. They are often erased just like people of other oppressed groups. Secondly, this should be obvious, putting gay people into camps is egregiously disgusting. I assume that this is due to war and radical movements both being an extension of broader culture. The machismo and hatred of homosexuality, gender nonconformity, and the feminine existed before Guevara came to Cuba and before Castro. Nonetheless, oppressive, homophobic, misogynistic behavior that was part of Castro and Guevara's revolution. In the book, Castro states, "The revolution is not carried out with saints, Ernesto. It's made by real people." This is absolutely true and important to remember, especially in perfectionist call-out culture. But, it is also true that it took active, deliberate, planned efforts to round up gay people and put them into labor camps. That's a bit different than having some character flaws. I really looked forward to this being explored in the book but it was not even mentioned. The idea that kids these days put identity ahead of the revolution completely erases all of the people whose daily struggles with brocialists fit into how they were treated and heard during revolutions.

On to the content, I did enjoy the book while reading it and eventually settled into it well. It did teach me a little about Latin American leftist revolutions and gave me some history on the key players. I am unsurprised that Guevara was a brocialist. Pretty much all men who self appoint as leaders of "the revolution" are. I very much admire how Castro, Guevara, and co refused to submit to the United States. But, Guevara's behavior often seemed less idealistic and more self centered. His early journals (not included in the book) show racism against Black African people. His later trip to help "liberate" them is marred with criticisms of the people with little to no interest in learning from them. Ableism is part of every revolution, but if you want another example of self centeredness, it is "If I can climb the stairs, with asthma, why can't everyone else?" The book portrays his as a absent father and husband who blames "the revolution" for his mistreatment of his families and neglect of his responsibilities. He seemed to see women's only purpose as child creators and rearers. Many of these things are common, normal mistakes of young revolutionary men throughout history (and today.*) But, I would have appreciated if this book touched on the nuances more. I can tell it tried to, but it did not get there for me. I have asked myself if it was simply my dislike of the character they wrote about or if it was the writing. I believe it was a bit of both.


__________________________
*This is not to let them off the hook and there are plenty of exceptions.

Also posted to my goodreads.