I really love this book. The style is so refreshing and the characters each have their distinct ways of processing the world around them, which no doubt has to do with their politics of location. The characters that have the most interest for me are Emi, Buzzworm and Bobby. I'm feeling too frustrated with Rafaela to really get in her head. Why is she taking so long to reconcile with Bobby? I can understand that they got into this huge argument about the exploitation of immigrants in the U.S. and doesn't want to be a part of that, but she shouldn't be taking it out on Bobby. That doesn't solve anything. Bobby needs them to come back or he's going to work himself to death and no one's going to be around to care. I don't know, I really sympathize with this character because I see a lot of my father in him. Arcangel is interesting, but he's a very distant character, like Manzanar. They're both so metaphorical that it's difficult to connect with them on a human level. And Gabriel. I'm just not sure what to think of Gabriel. Despite the fact that he is the only one in the story that we get to hear through first person, I don't sympathize with him as much. I'm not sure if it's because his job and Emi overshadows him, but he just seems lost in what's going on around him. Emi on the other hand is obviously in control and is active, whereas Gabriel seems to be tugged along, either by Emi wanting him to live in the now by or tips from Buzzworm. I think there's going to come a point in the story, after he receives that ominous call from Rafaela, where he's going to be called upon to be active and the outcome of the situation is going to be determined by whether he can rise to the occasion or not.

Some of you have already pointed out how politics of location really comes through in the book. There was one passage in particular that really struck me. It's when Emi's at the sushi place with Gabriel and she says, "Cultural diversity is bullshit" (128), which ends up pissing off the person next to her, who I'm almost certain is white even though it's not explicitly stated. What Emi is saying is that multiculturalism is appropriation of other people's culture, rather than an exchange between cultures that leads to greater cultural understanding and equality. The other woman demonstrates this difference perfectly by feigning cultural understanding in addressing the sushi chef the Japanese way, but then being "patronizing" (128) in her interaction with him. Emi calls her out on it, saying "See what I mean, Hiro? You're invisible. I'm invisible. We're all invisible. It's just tea, ginger, raw fish, and a credit card" (128). The exchange of cultural materials (food) is just that: an exchange of materials. This exchange does not result in any change in the systems of privilege and dominance, but rather, reinforces them by reducing another culture to a mere commodity. This is only the case however, if one holds the same attitude as the woman who wrongly thinks that Emi is simply making "assumptions about people based on their color" (129). I love how Emi puts her in her place.