So, upon
gaining more information on the situation at large, I have come up with a shiny new revision of my opinion on the rigamarole surrounding
The Thirteenth Child.
This book can, in fact, by virtue of the story context and quotes from the author, be considered viably racist. As such, it is no question that a good number of people will be offended by it.
I am not one of those people. Not because I am white, not because I'm racist or bigoted, but because, racist or not, offensive or not,
The Thirteenth Child is a piece of fiction. In fact, it is a piece of speculative fiction, and the point of speculative fiction is to explore what would happen if a significant event altered the course of history.
Speculative fiction can be pretty painful to read, at times. For example, Suzy Charnas'
Walk to the End of the World. Nuclear holocaust being blamed on women for the crime of being independent. That's a hard read. Or one of my personal favorites,
The Giver, by Lois Lowry. A world without color, where everyone is the same pigmentation, the same build, the same everything. Also very unsettling (especially considering it was required reading when I was a fifth grader.) And now, in
The Thirteenth Child, we have a story completely omitting an entire culture, enslaving another (that has already been enslaved in real-world history) and paving the way for a white-supremacist society.
Ouch. I get it. You clench when you read that description.
However, I've said this vaguely before and I'm saying this firmly now: This book will not change history as we know it.
It will not change what has happened. Likely, it won't have any significance ten, twenty, a hundred years from now. It is simply another Young Adult speculative fiction book. I see no evidence that the author is trying to sell the idea that the events in her book
should have happened. The story as I have gathered isn't even exploring any real consequences or questions. It is the product of what is most likely laziness on the part of the author, who just didn't want to go through all the trouble of worldbuilding.
I don't like that the author is lazy and is certainly guilty of being disrespectful. Like /b/tards posting 9-11 macro pics (or a recent tragedy of your choice) it seems like too much, too soon for the people who identify with the cultures erased and disrespected in the story. There are some bloggers who express disbelief that something like this was allowed to be published. My argument for that is,
Twilight was published as well. There are truly great injustices in the literary world, and all we can really do is put in our two cents and hope for the best. I'm hoping that
Twilight won't spawn a generation of girls looking for the
abusive husband Edward Cullen-type in favor of actual, real men or women they could be with.
But unlike
Twilight, where the potential for a legion of Bella Swans in the world is highly likely, fans of
The Thirteenth Child will not think, upon reading the book, "Hey, it's the Native American's fault there's no magic in America! We should hate them, because they made it so wooly mammoths and magical plants aren't around for us to enjoy." That is
far too great a leap. It is true that the book doesn't give any consideration to the Native American population, but it also - to my knowledge - does not actively demonize them. They are simply not there. And while intellectual genocide is a painful concept to endure, it is better, I think, than the dirty savage stereotype that may very well have been there in place of the magical plants.
That said, it is now open to debate whether it is better to continue to fall into racial stereotypes, or to ignore the race in question. Personally, I'd love to see a speculative fiction story in which the Native Americans were the highly advanced culture, and have the roles of the Natives and the Settlers be reversed. Bonus points if the Settlers are Nordic in origin, even
better if they come from anywhere not in Europe or the UK. That, of course, is but a pipe dream, and really not the issue at hand. Neither of the choices the author gave herself were good. Either the continued stereotyping of a culture already being constantly trodden upon and ridiculed (we all remember the crying Indian recycling commercial, I'm sure) when they aren't being outright ignored.
There is no question that
The Thirteenth Child will likely go in the 'trite, shallow' pile of books being released today. I said before, there are no deep nor meaningful questions being asked or concepts being explored. No-one here is asking the strength of love over death, whether robots dream of electric sheep, or how correct our perception of the world is. There are no new boundaries being pushed, only old ones being drawn in further. The small excerpt of the story I read
here more than cements that. It will not be a rollicking, or even interesting read. I will
try out of what little goodness is left in my withered, black heart, to read more and see - after all is said and done - if the book is worth the immense drama that has piled around it, and whether I believe Wrede is guilty of flagrant and willful disrespect, or if she is simply lazy.
I'm likely going to be sensing a communal pause here while some people wonder at how massively different this statement is from my earlier post. I ask, though, would any of you who were not already acquainted with me be here if I
didn't look like a jackass? Point of interest: those of you who've commented on the earlier post seem to be doing so because I looked like a stupid, bigoted, bitchy whiner. I pulled the 'racism racists' card and rolled my terrible eyes and gnashed my terrible teeth and achieved fantastic results. Wonderful, eloquent posts. Pouncing. "You are wrong and this is why" comments.
Beautiful. I am vindicated in knowing that there are people around now that I can debate with on these subjects who are, for the most part, intelligent and confident in their positions.
You'll notice this post is - like the other - open to anonymous commenting. I love Anons, but I'll say now I'd prefer to know who I'm talking to. Refering to someone as 'Anon A,' 'Anon B' seems so impersonal, and devalues - I think - the statements that anon posters are giving. Own up to what you're saying here. If you are afraid of being judged by your opinions on the matter, why comment at all?
Anyway, it's time for me to go to work. I hope to see comments here in the AM; I'm looking forward to seeing what you all think. Peace!