Thanks much for these, all of which sound fascinating. I've generally heard Blonde Roots compared unfavorably with Lion's Blood, though it may be that they're trying to do different things--Barnes is very clearly setting up an actual alternative history, and playing with the real historical record.
Thus he makes his main character, a black slaveowner, ethnically Ethiopian (in other words, from the only nation in Africa that was never colonized), while the main slave character is Irish (from the only European nation that was colonized). His book is partly an argument for plausibility--it could have happened this way.
Whereas you describe Blonde Roots as deliberately disinterested in world-building, more satire and inversion. I also think Barnes cares more about his black slave-owning character, who have the privilege to have certain types of power and adventure, while Evaristo (correct me if I'm wrong) is focused more on the white slaves suffering oppression. Both approaches have their strengths and pitfalls.
no subject
Thus he makes his main character, a black slaveowner, ethnically Ethiopian (in other words, from the only nation in Africa that was never colonized), while the main slave character is Irish (from the only European nation that was colonized). His book is partly an argument for plausibility--it could have happened this way.
Whereas you describe Blonde Roots as deliberately disinterested in world-building, more satire and inversion. I also think Barnes cares more about his black slave-owning character, who have the privilege to have certain types of power and adventure, while Evaristo (correct me if I'm wrong) is focused more on the white slaves suffering oppression. Both approaches have their strengths and pitfalls.