 Back to Patricia Wrede and the Thirteenth Child: You Haven't Read This Post!
|
May. 12th, 2009 @ 10:26 am 
|
|---|
Discussions following on from these posts have been interesting. In some cases, educational. A lot of it is really beside the point of what actually matters about the problems revealed regarding Wrede and Bujold, but that's also why I'm writing these. Derailment is endemic to these discussions - people try to redefine the terms of the discussion so the important points don't have to be answered, because people are talking about something else instead.
My answer to so what do we do about it, which I can't guarantee will work but it's worth a try, is this: writing posts which address the issues people are bringing up, in detail. Not necessarily 100% correctly. ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif) antarticlust brings up interesting points on megafauna extinction here, that shows I'm less right than I thought I was.
However, as antarcticlust points out, that doesn't mean the premise of The Thirteenth Child is not obscene.
On more than one occasion, already, I've been able to reply to attempts at derailment with a link to a post I've already made. This, for me, is handy. "This has already been covered. *link*" and I'm done. (I encourage others to do this, with my posts or those made by others: no need to engage with derailments over and over again. Toss them a link where it's covered, it's more than they deserve.)
But new derailments keep cropping up, so... my work is not yet completed. I'm waiting for my ADHD meds to kick in before I really get into it, because the alternative is made of fail.
... speaking of derailing comments, while I'm writing this (am currently reviewing stuff I want to cover, etc) on my TV an American baseball game is playing. It was what was on when I turned it on. Chicago Sox (I thought they were called the White Sox, but the dude whose socks were visible, they were BLACK) versus Cleveland Indians. I'm trying to learn more about baseball but every time I glance up I see their hats and seriously what the hell how are they allowed to have that logo. And they're playing at "Progressive Field". The irony, it burns.
Anyway, back to Wredefail 13: The 09th Race. Or, you know, however to identify this particular discussion without slamming one's head into a wall to dull the pain.
First: According to Lois Bujold, only since the Internet have non-white fans of genre fiction existed. I am not a non-white fan of genre fiction, so this isn't my territory to argue: to pick one link on this out of many, the wild unicorns are doing a herd check here.
Second. The argument that, so far, will not die: but you haven't read the book! So you can't judge it.
This? This is my territory. (Not just mine. But I have a share in it.)
See, here's the thing.
We're not really talking about the details of The Thirteenth Child. The plot, the characters - they're irrelevant to this discussion. Inasmuch as the subject is still The Thirteenth Child (as it has expanded somewhat, to include things like the existence of non-white genre fans) it's about the underlying premises and assumptions, and for that, you don't need to read the book. The points under discussion are not in question. It's not that we're all jumping in on the basis of hostile reviews - the positive reviews agree about these points. And in any case, you can get all you need from the author's description of the premise and her motivation for it.
Blatantly stealing from a comment I made elsewhere:
The *plan* is for it to be a "settling the frontier" book, only without Indians (because I really hate both the older Indians-as-savages viewpoint that was common in that sort of book, *and* the modern Indians-as-gentle-ecologists viewpoint that seems to be so popular lately, and this seems the best way of eliminating the problem, plus it'll let me play with all sorts of cool megafauna). I'm not looking for wildly divergent history, because if it goes too far afield I won't get the right feel. (emphasis added)
If - and I would argue that this is the case - the major problem is that Wrede felt:
a) writing an America "without Indians" was just the easiest way to go, rather than, say, writing them as a real, non-caricatured people (which makes her intellectually lazy)
b) that the extinction of the megafauna is entirely due to the native American population, and this not-actually-supported-by-evidence view was totally unproblematic
c) the possibility that real people would be upset to find their own history wiped away was unimportant
d) that doing this was "eliminating the problem", and it was totally okay to say that when there is a strong history of attempted genocide as a means of "eliminating the problem" when the "problem" was defined as "the existence of Native Americans"
and
e) that doing this would not be "wildly divergent" history, thereby displaying the assumption that the Native American contribution to American history is trivial at best
then as a matter of fact, stipulating that these points are in fact contained within the book (which is uncontested by anyone who's read it, whether they're in favour or opposed - and many people have read it), further verification isn't really needed, because you can get it from Wrede's own statement.
Expecting people to read the book before they can have an opinion on it is unreasonable. People do not have infinite time, certainly not infinite leisure, and expecting people to read a book they have substantial, credible reason to think will be hurtful to them is unsupportable.
This discussion is not about whether The Thirteenth Child is worth reading. Not really. Everyone already has enough information to make that call, and that one is subjective. It's about why the things that are wrong here are wrong, so that perhaps this crap won't keep happening, and so that this kind of offensive, hurtful material isn't being left unchallenged.
What's the quotation I'm thinking of? Something about how the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.
The Thirteenth Child has already failed, on ethical and moral grounds, on - by my subjective standards - literary grounds, and very much on historical grounds. However, in challenging that, the rest of us can try to contain that failure to just Wrede (and Bujold, sadly). The idiocy underlying this, the inconsiderate attitude towards real people, the unconscionable assumptions... Those don't get to stand.
It doesn't undo what Wrede did. She's wrong. She hurt people. Lois Bujold is hurting people. But they don't get a free pass on that.Current Mood: falling in love with Bo Jackson Current Music: 雅-miyavi- - 君に願いを
|
I am always disinclined to trust White Scientist theories, especially when it somehow involves the 'Whites are better' or 'those natives did it to themselves, natch'.
(and it includes the 90% lactose intolerance thing in Asians, because. Um. Bubble tea phenomen? loooooads of Ice-cream everywhere? Growing up in my OWN COUNTRY without anyone being damn lactose intolerant? Or do they just mean 'unable to drink a gallon of milk in one sitting'? I cannot find any stats, people, that does not just yank numbers out of the air. I've tried looking at my own country's research aaaand there's nothing. No research done, just quoting from US based papers. Which, again, lack methodology. Sorry, tangent over)
There is critiquing a text based on the entire PREMISE, such as 'What if the Indians never made it there and therefore let the mammoths survive so white people can come along and colonise it?' and the details such as 'this character walked down the river and met a highly intelligent mammoth which, apparently named itself Clever Fox.' or something. Both are relevant, but when someone is rejecting a text, or critiquing it based on the books ENTIRE premise, it is a damn valid thing and there is noneed to read the damn book. Unless someone comes along and says, "Hey, I read it, and she REALLY did some damn good things with the premise, which was dodgy, but it turned out she really made it less offensive!"
I think. Or. Um. This is me trying to say, "You're right".
![[User Picture Icon]](https://v2.dreamwidth.org/3974986/75896) |
| From: | ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png) sami |
|---|
| Date: |
May 12th, 2009 04:33 am (UTC) |
|---|
|
|
|
|
(Link) |
|
Indeed. I think my break point is when you're seeing generalised conclusions about ethnic or cultural groups based on data that isn't readily available - and by that I mean I want real data, because lying with statistics is trivially easy. (Statistics are valuable - you just need to look at them critically.) Or where the data is visible but the methodology is hidden. Jack that noise.
Obviously, as a Person of Pallor (well, I have a moderately ruddy complexion and a light tan, but you get the idea), it would be problematic for me to dismiss all things that are the product of White People - especially with that whole "historian" thing I have going. But critical thinking, I'm capable of it, you know?
Considering that numbers that just say, Asians are 90% intolerant!!! I don't think that even counts as statistics. Methodology, it's very important. Sampling populations even more so.
(This is totes relevant. really)
It's not so much that I think we should dismiss it all - but the ability to look critically? yes.
I know that my own country's history is problematic - a country with only j40+ years of history? It wasn't UNPOPULATED before the British decided Singapore would make a good port of call. But there's precious little out there about it, even Malaysia only has official history to about 1950s. Which plainly, leaves much to be desired.
![[User Picture Icon]](https://v2.dreamwidth.org/123214/150563) |
|
|
|
The "interrogating the text from the wrong perspective!" thing
|
(Link) |
|
Yeah, I think that RaceFail (the whole thing, not just the Wrede stuff) keeps bumping up against an idea that has not entirely caught on with writers: that there is more than one kind of conversation to have about a book. Some kinds of conversation require that some or all of the book has been read, but some kinds of conversation work equally well given some reasonable summaries and facts passed on from other readers. And that not all "criticism" of a book or its tropes/premise is "criticism" in the academic sense, but it is not automatically invalidated because of that.
![[User Picture Icon]](https://v2.dreamwidth.org/113609/167017) |
| From: | delfinnium |
|---|
| Date: |
May 12th, 2009 06:28 am (UTC) |
|---|
|
|
Re: The "interrogating the text from the wrong perspective!" thing
|
(Link) |
|
Exactly!
| From: | (Anonymous) |
|---|
| Date: |
May 12th, 2009 07:46 pm (UTC) |
|---|
|
|
|
|
(Link) |
|
Not looking for wildly divergent history? Well, I'm not going to say its automatically wrong to write a story where an entire race of people doesn't exist. I don't think it is, but if you are going to play that card you have to run with the consequences.
And for her story, history would have wildly diverged about 500 years before her story even leaves Europe.
The Vikings. Does she expect people to not think that the Viking expeditions would have had vastly different consequences to European history if they had unopposed access to North American resources centuries before anyone else even knew the place existed? Would they use those resources to support their aggressive actions in Europe? Would they have settled, and been more peaceful since they didn't have to steal resources anymore? How would this affect their conversion to Christianity, when their still Pagan leaders had lead them to such bounty? Or did someone note that this happened as many were beginning to accept Christianity? Would the Crusades have begun under Viking leadership as a result?
If she wants to play with writing out a race, fine. But her history becomes wildly divergent around 500 years before the voyage she depicts. She simply cannot write out the Native Americans and not have European history start to dramatically change starting around 1000AD.
If you want to go back further, there's a good chance that whatever blocked the migration to North America in prehistory could have rippled back and changed the foundations of civilization all the way back to the earliest cities in Mesopotamia. We don't know quite enough about these events to make any really educated guesses, more like wild speculation, but at the very least Northeastern Asia would probably have developed in a vastly different manner.
| From: | (Anonymous) |
|---|
| Date: |
May 12th, 2009 07:47 pm (UTC) |
|---|
|
|
|
|
(Link) |
|
sorry, the above is me, found via LJ. I'm lordindra there.
![[User Picture Icon]](https://v2.dreamwidth.org/15227121/46918) |
| From: | quiet1 |
|---|
| Date: |
May 13th, 2009 10:59 pm (UTC) |
|---|
|
|
|
|
(Link) |
|
The disappointing thing is that that could be a REALLY INTERESTING book, from someone who'd done the research to do it justice.
|
| From: | sami |
|---|
| Date: |
May 14th, 2009 12:47 am (UTC) |
|---|
|
|
|
|
(Link) |
|
This whole debacle has given me a few ideas for books I could write that would be awesome and I spend a lot of time reminding myself that I DO NOT HAVE TIME SERIOUSLY I DON'T STOP THINKING ABOUT THE HISTORY ASPECTS SAMI STOP IT NOW STOP IT.
It's the end of semester. I have assignments. And AFTER that I still have about fifteen writing projects already started to finish! Gah.
I'm trying to learn more about baseball but every time I glance up I see their hats and seriously what the hell how are they allowed to have that logo.Oh, don't get me started. I live just outside of D.C. -- capital of the nation, and home to a football team called the Redskins. Their stereotyped logo at least is more dignified-looking than Cleveland's grinning Chief Wahoo, but the name more than makes up for it. Team merchandise, of course, is EVERYWHERE.   That pretty much sums it up.
(Oh, bah, first one is barfing and there's no option I can see to delete or edit... try this link instead.)
|
| From: | sami |
|---|
| Date: |
May 16th, 2009 06:18 am (UTC) |
|---|
|
|
|
|
(Link) |
|
It worked for me.
I had been aware that there was controversy over the name, I think the reason I was so shocked was that I hadn't realised how the logo is *everywhere*. I thought it was, I don't know, less... blatant? that it could have lasted this long, etc.
|
|
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}