Fuccboi pickaxes the conventional demarcations between the “literary” and the “layman”.

This excerpt from Sean Thor Conroe’s book explains where the main character falls within this empty binary:

“The ratchet Jordan-wearing talk tee-copping fitted cap-rocking vato wigger boy on the one and the cello-playing reader writer philosophy bro sensitive boy on the other … these sides kept discrete only performed when audience appropriate”

Or, more succinctly:

“I couldn’t ball tf out present how I did and also be valedictorian”

Prevailing stereotypes would have you believe that self-designated scholars present themselves using “elevated” markers of “high” distinction, lacking any relation whatsoever to the “street act” of Conroe’s words; I’m using scare quotes here to emphasize the speciousness of these external divisions.

And would you look at listen to that, the audiobook sounds designed to similarly fuck with our preconceived notions. 

Reading the excerpts above, you’d expect the orator’s voice to match the writing’s “slang”, straight dripping with “in-your-face” personality, ESPECIALLY because Conroe himself is behind the auto-fiction mic. 

Instead, he seems to deliberately don the most mechanical, mechanized, robotic, monotone performance, as if he’s satirizing academia’s aural cliches. 

To me, the following line makes clear that this dissonance in the “traditional” relationship between “content and form” is definitely intentional:

“All I’m saying is, I don’t appreciate — I think it’s unfair — for you to make character judgments about me based solely on my outwardly perceived, categorical identity. Without knowing a damn thing about me.

‘OK?’

O-fucking-K?!“

Reading Fuccboi sounds different than hearing Fuccboi; how does this difference in presentation affect our relationship to and perception of the book?

Our answers are proof of the novel’s point.