I met Edward P. Jones at an academic event a few years ago, and it is an understatement to say he is man who does not suffer fools. He wasn't a popular speaker to some, in my mind because he didn't fall back on the usual patronizing spiel used by visiting writers, and was dismissive of obvious questions and deliberately insulting. Personally, I liked him and found his visit very refreshing. I asked him a deliberately suck-up question, "What's it like to win the Pulitzer Prize," for "Known World," and he answered with a personal anecdote that included him (if I recall) sleeping through the message, while he slept on the floor because he didn't have a bed. He said he had saved the answering machine message to this day.
Reading about his college history in "Fraternity" gave a much broader context to that brief presentation. Given his own youth and struggles, and the situation he and his classmates found themselves in during 1968-72, I can appreciate how little patience he probably has with college students of this era.
"Fraternity" is a valuable historical lesson and a reminder of things we now take for granted. The book's events take place in the wake of the death of Martin Luther King, and in 2011, it's easy to forget that King was not the revered figure he is now, with many whites - including a would-be priest at Clarence Thomas' seminary - openly happy that he had been killed.
The success of the five men examined in "Fraternity" was no guarantee, with a variety of obstacles placed against them. "Fraternity" does an excellent job at showing the human struggle these men dealt with at an unfamiliar but ultimately welcoming enviornment.
The book is not a recreation of scenes. There is very little dialogue, or 'action.' It's very much a reported account using interviews and research to tell the story, but not in a 'creative nonfiction' style. It's not a screenplay on the page, in other words. The 'characters' come alive through the description of events, but author Diane Brady tells the story with some distance.
That's a plus, because it avoids contrived melodrama. It's a minus, because it is a somewhat dry style. But, it keeps the focus on the reported, researched facts of the story, and that's a good thing.
I would have liked more after-the-fact reporting. There is an epilogue of course, and Clarence Thomas is obviously well known. But I would have liked more information about their immediate post-Holy Cross years. Edward P. Jones, for instance, ended up homeless for a time! So what happened? Thomas ended up at Yale - but apparently hated how, as a black man, he faced low expectations. Theodore Wells ended up a very successful lawyer, but again, how? I uderstand that's not the story that Brady approached, but without that additional information, it did leave me asking more questions. Those Holy Cross years were pivotal, obviously, but they were just the start.
Thomas is the most famous of the men, and while this is a sympathetic and human portrayal, I don't think it makes him look good in retrospect. I understand (as well as I can) his contempt for affirmative action and the low expectations placed on its recipients, but I don't understand why his years at Holy Cross didn't translate more into looking out for the "little guy" during his years on the Supreme Court. I'm sure he would argue that he is a strict Constitutionalist, but I don't really believe there is such a thing.
The book's narrow focus and occasional dry style are flaws to me. But - "Fraternity" is a great look at an important time, and a little-known example of one man - Father Brooks - actually standing up in an active way to make a difference, followed by five men who took their opportunity and made it into world-changing success.