Where do you find out about Russian criminals?
October 13, 2015 8:55 AM Subscribe
Librarian Edith Edi Campbell posted to her Facebook page about “Large Fears,” a Kickstarter-funded children’s book for queer black boys, “I would say there are so few books for queer black boys, but there are too few books for all our marginalized young people.”
Children’s writer Meg Rosoff responded: “There are not too few books for marginalised young people. There are hundreds of them, thousands of them. You don’t have to read about a queer black boy to read a book about a marginalised child. The children’s book world is getting far too literal about what ‘needs’ to be represented. You don’t read Crime and Punishment to find out about Russian criminals. Or Alice and Wonderland to know about rabbits. Good literature expands your mind. It doesn’t have the ‘job’ of being a mirror.”
Campbell replied: “As Debbie Reese responded to Rosoff, ‘all books have agendas.’
“The only agenda queer black boys have is to breathe.
“Meg Rosoff’s agenda? To be white…
“Whiteness is the intersection of oblivion, power, oppression and advantage with a pin of privilege marking the meeting point. It’s denying queer black boys a space, a breath.”
From the Guardian: “’All I said, and I’m happy to repeat it, is that writers and books have one agenda and one agenda only, and that’s to reflect the concerns of the writer,’ wrote Rosoff. ‘In other words, we can’t all go out writing diverse books just because someone thinks there should be more of them. Diversity requires serious committed thinkers in the same way any other subject does.’”
Campbell replied: “As Debbie Reese responded to Rosoff, ‘all books have agendas.’
“The only agenda queer black boys have is to breathe.
“Meg Rosoff’s agenda? To be white…
“Whiteness is the intersection of oblivion, power, oppression and advantage with a pin of privilege marking the meeting point. It’s denying queer black boys a space, a breath.”
From the Guardian: “’All I said, and I’m happy to repeat it, is that writers and books have one agenda and one agenda only, and that’s to reflect the concerns of the writer,’ wrote Rosoff. ‘In other words, we can’t all go out writing diverse books just because someone thinks there should be more of them. Diversity requires serious committed thinkers in the same way any other subject does.’”
Sounds like what we need is diversity of authorship.
posted by grumpybear69 at 9:00 AM on October 13, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by grumpybear69 at 9:00 AM on October 13, 2015 [5 favorites]
Diversity in publishing.
posted by Oyéah at 9:01 AM on October 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Oyéah at 9:01 AM on October 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
There are not too few books for marginalised young people. There are hundreds of them, thousands of them.
In fact, Rosoff has entire binders of them!
/dated US-ian political reference.
posted by joyceanmachine at 9:01 AM on October 13, 2015 [22 favorites]
In fact, Rosoff has entire binders of them!
/dated US-ian political reference.
posted by joyceanmachine at 9:01 AM on October 13, 2015 [22 favorites]
I really wish whenever someone was going to dash off a dumb-ass comment on Facebook like "There are not too few books for marginalised young people" they would just think:
"Wait. What is MY stake here? Why am I writing this comment? Why am I getting into this argument?"
Or to paraphrase a comment (by Artw?) in an ultimately-deleted thread, "White people need to chill!" White people have the privilege of chilling and not getting in someone's face about a subject that is far closer to that person's heart. Try it, it really works!
posted by selfnoise at 9:02 AM on October 13, 2015 [42 favorites]
"Wait. What is MY stake here? Why am I writing this comment? Why am I getting into this argument?"
Or to paraphrase a comment (by Artw?) in an ultimately-deleted thread, "White people need to chill!" White people have the privilege of chilling and not getting in someone's face about a subject that is far closer to that person's heart. Try it, it really works!
posted by selfnoise at 9:02 AM on October 13, 2015 [42 favorites]
Rosoff told the Guardian that she felt the row had flared up over a misunderstanding: “Here’s what I thought I was saying: You can’t regulate authors to “do” diversity. It has to come from their own passionately held agenda. Books don’t have jobs, any more than symphonies or paintings have jobs. It seems a simple point to me but I believe I ended up in cross-purposes with the original poster, who wasn’t talking about an agenda for authors as much as an agenda for society. Which no sane person would argue with.”
posted by jayder at 9:03 AM on October 13, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by jayder at 9:03 AM on October 13, 2015 [3 favorites]
> "Wait. What is MY stake here? Why am I writing this comment? Why am I getting into this argument?"
Everyone who posts to a public forum should do this.
Metafilter: Why am I getting into this argument?
posted by Sunburnt at 9:06 AM on October 13, 2015 [13 favorites]
Everyone who posts to a public forum should do this.
Metafilter: Why am I getting into this argument?
posted by Sunburnt at 9:06 AM on October 13, 2015 [13 favorites]
Good literature expands your mind. It doesn’t have the ‘job’ of being a mirror.”
Welcome to another episode of the internet's favorite game—Either/Or!
posted by octobersurprise at 9:08 AM on October 13, 2015 [16 favorites]
Welcome to another episode of the internet's favorite game—Either/Or!
posted by octobersurprise at 9:08 AM on October 13, 2015 [16 favorites]
Unfortunately, one of my favourite authors has been very verbal as of recent about her hatred of "SJW culture" (air quotes mine), asked-for diversity in terms of literature and viewpoints, trigger warnings, etc. The reason why it makes me sad is that she herself is a trans queer writer whose entire career has been based on marginalized characters.
posted by Kitteh at 9:18 AM on October 13, 2015
posted by Kitteh at 9:18 AM on October 13, 2015
Alice and Wonderland
Alice IN Wonderland, dammit! The title is "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland".
Grump. (Note: Meg Rosoff knew that. Error is in MeFi post.)
posted by cstross at 9:20 AM on October 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
Alice IN Wonderland, dammit! The title is "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland".
Grump. (Note: Meg Rosoff knew that. Error is in MeFi post.)
posted by cstross at 9:20 AM on October 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
Amazing how many white people get their knickers in such a twist the moment someone says "hey, perhaps we should try and include more non-white people in things". They always seem to find a way to explain how that's not necessary, or even a bad idea.
(also works for "white dudes", "straight dudes", "straight people", and so on...)
posted by evilangela at 9:21 AM on October 13, 2015 [13 favorites]
(also works for "white dudes", "straight dudes", "straight people", and so on...)
posted by evilangela at 9:21 AM on October 13, 2015 [13 favorites]
"There are not too few books for marginalised young people. There are hundreds of them, thousands of them. You don't have to read about a queer black boy to read a book about a marginalised child. The children's book world is getting far too literal about what 'needs' to be represented."
Wow, I just... Wow. At its most innocuous, Rosoff's viewpoint brings to mind a perpetual loop of Charlie Brown missing the football. More cynically, it brings to mind someone lucky enough to feel so secure in their own class' representation in mass media that someone else's utter lack of representation isn't just invisible, but unimaginable.
Especially when children are sheltered for one reason or another, whether it's because their adult guardians are deeply religious and purposely hiding information from them or because they're poor and always finding themselves at the library because it's air-conditioned in the summer and heated in the winter and free or or or... when escaping into a book is your only way out... the importance of observing a rough approximation of yourself in a piece of media can't be overstated. That this is so widely ignored by classes of people who are already readily able to 'see' themselves represented in books, movies, and television isn't exactly news, but that doesn't make it any less depressing.
"You can't regulate authors to "do" diversity. It has to come from their own passionately held agenda."
Yep, sure. That's why [anyone, but in this case, authors] who does hold passionate agendas about [anything, but in this case, diversifying media] is never painted as a shrill, humorless buzzkill whose stances are simply "too political," and why people who actively engage in advocacy for marginalized populations are rarely told to quiet down so that everyone else can go back to never being confronted with their own complacency in the face of the ongoing subjugation of those marginalized populations.
posted by divined by radio at 9:21 AM on October 13, 2015 [24 favorites]
Wow, I just... Wow. At its most innocuous, Rosoff's viewpoint brings to mind a perpetual loop of Charlie Brown missing the football. More cynically, it brings to mind someone lucky enough to feel so secure in their own class' representation in mass media that someone else's utter lack of representation isn't just invisible, but unimaginable.
Especially when children are sheltered for one reason or another, whether it's because their adult guardians are deeply religious and purposely hiding information from them or because they're poor and always finding themselves at the library because it's air-conditioned in the summer and heated in the winter and free or or or... when escaping into a book is your only way out... the importance of observing a rough approximation of yourself in a piece of media can't be overstated. That this is so widely ignored by classes of people who are already readily able to 'see' themselves represented in books, movies, and television isn't exactly news, but that doesn't make it any less depressing.
"You can't regulate authors to "do" diversity. It has to come from their own passionately held agenda."
Yep, sure. That's why [anyone, but in this case, authors] who does hold passionate agendas about [anything, but in this case, diversifying media] is never painted as a shrill, humorless buzzkill whose stances are simply "too political," and why people who actively engage in advocacy for marginalized populations are rarely told to quiet down so that everyone else can go back to never being confronted with their own complacency in the face of the ongoing subjugation of those marginalized populations.
posted by divined by radio at 9:21 AM on October 13, 2015 [24 favorites]
Books don’t have jobs, any more than symphonies or paintings have jobs.
Geniuses from Kurt Vonnegut to Pablo Picasso disagree. In fact, they think you're an absolute tool, Meg Rosoff.
posted by IAmBroom at 9:21 AM on October 13, 2015 [5 favorites]
Geniuses from Kurt Vonnegut to Pablo Picasso disagree. In fact, they think you're an absolute tool, Meg Rosoff.
posted by IAmBroom at 9:21 AM on October 13, 2015 [5 favorites]
Here’s what I thought I was saying: You can’t regulate authors to “do” diversity.
Yes, and that is exactly what came out, because the facebook post you responded to said "After 10 years in the gulag, author Myles E. Johnston finally gave in and wrote a book about a black gay boy, but there are still many authors being held captive until they write the required SJW story".
It was absolutely not a post saying "I like all the publicity this book is getting because it's about characters whose stories we don't hear very often."
posted by jeather at 9:29 AM on October 13, 2015 [8 favorites]
Yes, and that is exactly what came out, because the facebook post you responded to said "After 10 years in the gulag, author Myles E. Johnston finally gave in and wrote a book about a black gay boy, but there are still many authors being held captive until they write the required SJW story".
It was absolutely not a post saying "I like all the publicity this book is getting because it's about characters whose stories we don't hear very often."
posted by jeather at 9:29 AM on October 13, 2015 [8 favorites]
A bunch of links (some of which can be summarized as "Rosoff, are you fucking kidding me?") at http://americanindiansinchildrensliterature.blogspot.com/2015/10/about-meg-rosoffs-next-book.html
posted by rmd1023 at 9:29 AM on October 13, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by rmd1023 at 9:29 AM on October 13, 2015 [2 favorites]
Krebs On Security, same as everyone else.
posted by acb at 9:52 AM on October 13, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by acb at 9:52 AM on October 13, 2015 [4 favorites]
Meg Rosoff responded: “There are not too few books for marginalised young people. There are hundreds of them, thousands of them.
And there are hundreds of thousands of books about non-marginalized people. The word 'relative' is something that Rosoff needs to learn, perhaps. When I was younger and the first "oh hey you keep paying attention to the boys maybe there's something going on there" thoughts were tickling my brain, the merest whiff of an actual queer character was enough to make me read something.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:58 AM on October 13, 2015 [8 favorites]
And there are hundreds of thousands of books about non-marginalized people. The word 'relative' is something that Rosoff needs to learn, perhaps. When I was younger and the first "oh hey you keep paying attention to the boys maybe there's something going on there" thoughts were tickling my brain, the merest whiff of an actual queer character was enough to make me read something.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:58 AM on October 13, 2015 [8 favorites]
You don’t have to read about a queer black boy to read a book about a marginalised child. The children’s book world is getting far too literal about what ‘needs’ to be represented.
The Nickelodeon book guy had a similar line of argument, when he said '...there’s no reason for [Sanjay] to be Indian.'
This argument - that it doesn't matter if characters are straight/white/cis/males, but it is a problem when characters are anything else - seems self-rebutting to me. By their own argument, those types of identities are not important, so it shouldn't matter to them when the identities are something other than the historic default. The force with which people argue for the unimportance of a thing belies that very claim of unimportance. It's as though they realize that they are discomforted by the increased cultural presence of people unlike them, but are unwilling to take the next step and say, 'And that's what it must be like for the folks different from me, but like 100x worse.'
posted by palindromic at 9:59 AM on October 13, 2015 [15 favorites]
The Nickelodeon book guy had a similar line of argument, when he said '...there’s no reason for [Sanjay] to be Indian.'
This argument - that it doesn't matter if characters are straight/white/cis/males, but it is a problem when characters are anything else - seems self-rebutting to me. By their own argument, those types of identities are not important, so it shouldn't matter to them when the identities are something other than the historic default. The force with which people argue for the unimportance of a thing belies that very claim of unimportance. It's as though they realize that they are discomforted by the increased cultural presence of people unlike them, but are unwilling to take the next step and say, 'And that's what it must be like for the folks different from me, but like 100x worse.'
posted by palindromic at 9:59 AM on October 13, 2015 [15 favorites]
There's not enough vomit in the world for me to express my most sincere reaction to Rosoff's comments and her continual hole-digging, so I'm going to try to use my words instead.
"In other words, we can't all go out writing diverse books just because someone thinks there should be more of them. Diversity requires serious committed thinkers in the same way any other subject does. That's all I said and all I meant. The waves of hate I've received on this basis are a bit puzzling, frankly."
"Diversity" (which I'm assuming to mean "diverse representation in children's books") requires a commitment to empathy.
If you are able to empathize reflectively with people aside from yourself, then the people and situations in your imagination would reflect that empathy, wouldn't they?
If you are able to recognize common humanity with people unlike yourself, then the people and situations in your imagination would reflect that recognition and that diversity, wouldn't they?
I'm definitely not arguing against serious and committed thinking, because I'm all about writers of all backgrounds interrogating how they write marginalized people, especially whether they engage unknowingly in stereotypes that reflect prejudice and not reality. Yes! Be serious and committed in your thinking! Be thorough in your research, and be empathetic and brave in listening to feedback from people whose reality is different from yours! You are not an authority on their reality, despite what generations of the literary canon has made you think!
I hope Rosoff, and other authors and publishing industry dinosaurs, lose these small-minded fears. It's such a small-minded, superficial assumption that the reason why there is a movement calling for a more diversified publishing industry is "because someone thinks there should be more" diverse books. No, it's because the people whose lives get filed under "diversity" rather than "default reality" (hello, nice to meet you, we're here and we've always been here) are asking you to see us--read us--instead of talking and writing the fuck over us.
posted by mixedmetaphors at 10:20 AM on October 13, 2015 [3 favorites]
"In other words, we can't all go out writing diverse books just because someone thinks there should be more of them. Diversity requires serious committed thinkers in the same way any other subject does. That's all I said and all I meant. The waves of hate I've received on this basis are a bit puzzling, frankly."
"Diversity" (which I'm assuming to mean "diverse representation in children's books") requires a commitment to empathy.
If you are able to empathize reflectively with people aside from yourself, then the people and situations in your imagination would reflect that empathy, wouldn't they?
If you are able to recognize common humanity with people unlike yourself, then the people and situations in your imagination would reflect that recognition and that diversity, wouldn't they?
I'm definitely not arguing against serious and committed thinking, because I'm all about writers of all backgrounds interrogating how they write marginalized people, especially whether they engage unknowingly in stereotypes that reflect prejudice and not reality. Yes! Be serious and committed in your thinking! Be thorough in your research, and be empathetic and brave in listening to feedback from people whose reality is different from yours! You are not an authority on their reality, despite what generations of the literary canon has made you think!
I hope Rosoff, and other authors and publishing industry dinosaurs, lose these small-minded fears. It's such a small-minded, superficial assumption that the reason why there is a movement calling for a more diversified publishing industry is "because someone thinks there should be more" diverse books. No, it's because the people whose lives get filed under "diversity" rather than "default reality" (hello, nice to meet you, we're here and we've always been here) are asking you to see us--read us--instead of talking and writing the fuck over us.
posted by mixedmetaphors at 10:20 AM on October 13, 2015 [3 favorites]
Well as long as there can only be a fixed number of books at one time, we're going to have to ration them out by identity group. Exactly how is open to debate, of course, but I find the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 instructive as a model. Under this scheme, for every five books about white men, there would be five books about white women, three books about people of color regardless of gender, 1.75 books about LGBT and Trans people, and 1.75 books about teenagers who are destined to save the world.
If that means writers have to write things they don't want to write, that's too bad. Everyone's job is unfulfilling. That's why they pay you to do it. If you want to go to Disneyland, you have to pay them.
posted by Naberius at 10:21 AM on October 13, 2015 [8 favorites]
If that means writers have to write things they don't want to write, that's too bad. Everyone's job is unfulfilling. That's why they pay you to do it. If you want to go to Disneyland, you have to pay them.
posted by Naberius at 10:21 AM on October 13, 2015 [8 favorites]
I thought I would be able to see myself in Othello but I've never murdered my wife so I'm stuck, he was the only character I was allowed to identify with (well, there's Branagh's movie version of Much Ado I guess).
posted by Octaviuz at 10:41 AM on October 13, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by Octaviuz at 10:41 AM on October 13, 2015 [4 favorites]
the merest whiff of an actual queer character was enough to make me read something.
Back in my day, we had Mary Renault and Harriet the Spy. It was that or the Sears catalog and we liked it that way!
posted by octobersurprise at 10:43 AM on October 13, 2015 [3 favorites]
Back in my day, we had Mary Renault and Harriet the Spy. It was that or the Sears catalog and we liked it that way!
posted by octobersurprise at 10:43 AM on October 13, 2015 [3 favorites]
Now I kind of want to create a line of children's books for Russian criminals.
Pyotr Has No Family
Uncle Nicolai's New Shoulder Tattoos
Georgy and Natalya Hide a Body
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 10:44 AM on October 13, 2015 [28 favorites]
Pyotr Has No Family
Uncle Nicolai's New Shoulder Tattoos
Georgy and Natalya Hide a Body
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 10:44 AM on October 13, 2015 [28 favorites]
My Uncle Printed this Pirated Children's Book
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 10:49 AM on October 13, 2015 [9 favorites]
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 10:49 AM on October 13, 2015 [9 favorites]
The idea that all novels have to be inspired art that comes from this deep place inside you is, even before you get within a five mile radius of considering the benefit of deliberately increasing representations of marginalized groups, precious horseshit.
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:50 AM on October 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:50 AM on October 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
The craziest thing about this for me is that Meg Rosoff is involved; this isn't a flash-in-the-pan unknown making random comments, but a highly awarded and well respected YA author who should know better.
posted by redsparkler at 10:51 AM on October 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by redsparkler at 10:51 AM on October 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
a line of children's books for Russian criminals.
Little Mob On The Steppe.
posted by octobersurprise at 11:12 AM on October 13, 2015 [2 favorites]
Little Mob On The Steppe.
posted by octobersurprise at 11:12 AM on October 13, 2015 [2 favorites]
I can't imagine how much differently my life would have gone if there had been trans boy characters in the children's/YA books I read.
posted by desjardins at 11:38 AM on October 13, 2015 [10 favorites]
posted by desjardins at 11:38 AM on October 13, 2015 [10 favorites]
that good literature does not have the “job of being a mirror”.Ah absolutes, always best way to frame a discussion about the meaning, purpuse, intention and value of art.
posted by edbles at 1:22 PM on October 13, 2015 [2 favorites]
Goodnight moon
Goodnight cow jumping over the moon
Goodnight picture of a cat
Smoking a pipe and wearing a top hat
Goodnight church with seven spires
Goodnight Moscow tram wires
Goodnight Baltika beer
Goodnight tattoo that reads "мир"
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 1:46 PM on October 13, 2015 [12 favorites]
Goodnight cow jumping over the moon
Goodnight picture of a cat
Smoking a pipe and wearing a top hat
Goodnight church with seven spires
Goodnight Moscow tram wires
Goodnight Baltika beer
Goodnight tattoo that reads "мир"
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 1:46 PM on October 13, 2015 [12 favorites]
I'm friends with/follow on Twitter a lot of YA writers and people committed to increasing diversity in publishing. There's been a great response to Rosoff using the hashtag #HowILiveNow, started (I believe) by @gildedspine, who wrote this open letter to Rosoff on Medium.
I'd also like to point out a couple of specific responses from people I know: this thread from Marieke Nijkamp, this one and this one from Kayla Whaley. See also: #iwritewithanagenda.
posted by daisyk at 2:00 PM on October 13, 2015 [3 favorites]
I'd also like to point out a couple of specific responses from people I know: this thread from Marieke Nijkamp, this one and this one from Kayla Whaley. See also: #iwritewithanagenda.
posted by daisyk at 2:00 PM on October 13, 2015 [3 favorites]
Also: I'm completely baffled by Rosoff's comment that, "You don’t have to read about a queer black boy to read a book about a marginalised child." What does that even mean? Are the readers of the world supposed to think to themselves, "I would like to read about a marginalised child today! It doesn't matter what sort of marginalised child: a queer black boy, a disabled girl living in the countryside, a group of Roma siblings in Italy, whatever!" I just ... eh?
posted by daisyk at 2:10 PM on October 13, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by daisyk at 2:10 PM on October 13, 2015 [8 favorites]
This is neither here nor there, but the first line of the book (shown on HuffPo) is a bit weird. It says "little Jeremiah was not a bullfrog but a wisher." I mean, I get it, because I know the old song, but if I read that to the average child in my library they would be pretty confused.
posted by Biblio at 3:17 PM on October 13, 2015
posted by Biblio at 3:17 PM on October 13, 2015
I've got almost four decades of reading under my belt. I've read a lot of books. I mean, A LOT. Many of them were read as a child, and still more were read as an adult but written for a child. With a few notable exceptions, most of the books that I've read describe the physical aspects of the characters. Most of these books tell me eye color, hair, and every now and then, skin tone.
I can think of two books off the top of my head that did not describe skin tone where I falsely presumed the character was white. In all other cases, if the author doesn't tell me about the characters' ethnicity, I assume they are white and I'm right. I don't make that assumption because I'm a racist jerk. I make that assumption because I've been taught over and over again that White is normal and all other things must be explained.
If we lived in a better world, I would not make this assumption as a reader. If we had a more diverse pool of literature to pull from, there would be books and characters to fit all children and kids would never be told "You can't be that person!"
By having a literary universe that is default white, you are telling every child that isn't white that she doesn't fit. When all the heroes are straight males, you tell children that the only way to be a hero is to be straight. The story of an outsider who wins his way into the group only works when you're allowed to play the game, otherwise it's just one more way that you are reminded that you don't fit.
How does it hurt you, as an artist, to include another viewpoint? Where does it break your story to talk to people who don't look like you and don't think like you and ask them about their world so you can include it in your story? Why must you assume that for every voice added to the chorus, one must be taken away?
posted by teleri025 at 4:01 PM on October 13, 2015 [6 favorites]
I can think of two books off the top of my head that did not describe skin tone where I falsely presumed the character was white. In all other cases, if the author doesn't tell me about the characters' ethnicity, I assume they are white and I'm right. I don't make that assumption because I'm a racist jerk. I make that assumption because I've been taught over and over again that White is normal and all other things must be explained.
If we lived in a better world, I would not make this assumption as a reader. If we had a more diverse pool of literature to pull from, there would be books and characters to fit all children and kids would never be told "You can't be that person!"
By having a literary universe that is default white, you are telling every child that isn't white that she doesn't fit. When all the heroes are straight males, you tell children that the only way to be a hero is to be straight. The story of an outsider who wins his way into the group only works when you're allowed to play the game, otherwise it's just one more way that you are reminded that you don't fit.
How does it hurt you, as an artist, to include another viewpoint? Where does it break your story to talk to people who don't look like you and don't think like you and ask them about their world so you can include it in your story? Why must you assume that for every voice added to the chorus, one must be taken away?
posted by teleri025 at 4:01 PM on October 13, 2015 [6 favorites]
For chrissakes, of course the job of a book is to be a mirror. If a book -- or any work of art -- isn't a depiction of humanity, then who the hell is it written for?
posted by webmutant at 4:36 PM on October 13, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by webmutant at 4:36 PM on October 13, 2015 [6 favorites]
I agree that a reader should eventually empathize with most well-written characters, but I don't believe that children learning to read can do all of that at once. We start with the familiar and sympathetic and work outwards.
posted by clew at 4:40 PM on October 13, 2015
posted by clew at 4:40 PM on October 13, 2015
I don't believe that children learning to read can do all of that at once. We start with the familiar and sympathetic and work outwards.
Kids books are filled with talking frogs and giraffes and donkeys -- not terribly familiar, but we expect (correctly) that they can empathise with them. Non-white children do just fine empathising with white protagonists; girls manage to empathise with boy protagonists. There's no reason that the reverse wouldn't happen.
posted by jeather at 4:58 PM on October 13, 2015 [5 favorites]
Kids books are filled with talking frogs and giraffes and donkeys -- not terribly familiar, but we expect (correctly) that they can empathise with them. Non-white children do just fine empathising with white protagonists; girls manage to empathise with boy protagonists. There's no reason that the reverse wouldn't happen.
posted by jeather at 4:58 PM on October 13, 2015 [5 favorites]
Now I kind of want to create a line of children's books for Russian criminals.
Pyotr Has No Family
Uncle Nicolai's New Shoulder Tattoos
Georgy and Natalya Hide a Body
thewhiteskull, perhaps you're unaware of the Golden Books classic, "Nobotty Sez Notink", or the (possibly plagiarized) overseas-only edition of the Lemony Snicket book series, "Moose and Skvirrel".
posted by IAmBroom at 5:07 PM on October 13, 2015 [2 favorites]
Pyotr Has No Family
Uncle Nicolai's New Shoulder Tattoos
Georgy and Natalya Hide a Body
thewhiteskull, perhaps you're unaware of the Golden Books classic, "Nobotty Sez Notink", or the (possibly plagiarized) overseas-only edition of the Lemony Snicket book series, "Moose and Skvirrel".
posted by IAmBroom at 5:07 PM on October 13, 2015 [2 favorites]
Kids books are filled with talking frogs and giraffes and donkeys -- not terribly familiar, but we expect (correctly) that they can empathise with them. Non-white children do just fine empathising with white protagonists; girls manage to empathise with boy protagonists. There's no reason that the reverse wouldn't happen.
Yeah it seems like she thought she was defending the idea that a good story is "for" everyone - but can't stories about queer black boys be for everyone too? I feel like a lot of books I read as a kid were explicitly meant to teach a little bit about a particular culture or background, and that seems like a damn good idea to me independent of the value of representation to the underrepresented.
posted by atoxyl at 5:23 PM on October 13, 2015 [6 favorites]
Yeah it seems like she thought she was defending the idea that a good story is "for" everyone - but can't stories about queer black boys be for everyone too? I feel like a lot of books I read as a kid were explicitly meant to teach a little bit about a particular culture or background, and that seems like a damn good idea to me independent of the value of representation to the underrepresented.
posted by atoxyl at 5:23 PM on October 13, 2015 [6 favorites]
Hello white structural supremacy, how you manifest again! I'm extremely sure there is someone out there who is a black or African diasporic boy, who is living in Russia, probably has heard of crime/been involved with it/survivor of it/best friend's neighbors/etc, and loves rabbits. Or, someone who is fitting into all of the different categories at different various intersections. But what do young adults keep getting to read again? Another white suburban sobstory with a heterosexual cis romance. And no, I don't learn anything about rabbits even if a rabbit is there for background description.
The original purpose of sharing stories is to be learn from eachother about experiences that one does not directly experience. I don't understand what Rosoff's argument is, other than that she is using her positionality to defend her arrogance and ignorance. It's attitudes like hers that are ultimate gatekeepers and shout down anyone who even dares to write fiction stories that are probably very close to some true, represented realities. Unfortunately, keeping that status quo means the eventual denial that these stories are even worth sharing, combined with a million other reasons that are used to keep all authors of color and marginalized groups out of the publishing industry.
posted by yueliang at 5:44 PM on October 13, 2015 [5 favorites]
The original purpose of sharing stories is to be learn from eachother about experiences that one does not directly experience. I don't understand what Rosoff's argument is, other than that she is using her positionality to defend her arrogance and ignorance. It's attitudes like hers that are ultimate gatekeepers and shout down anyone who even dares to write fiction stories that are probably very close to some true, represented realities. Unfortunately, keeping that status quo means the eventual denial that these stories are even worth sharing, combined with a million other reasons that are used to keep all authors of color and marginalized groups out of the publishing industry.
posted by yueliang at 5:44 PM on October 13, 2015 [5 favorites]
I think - it's not that books that happen to be about queer black boys can't be for everyone. It's that books that are deliberately, for diversity, about any specific diversity signifier are jarring as fucking hell. I personally find them impossible to read and get immersed in.
Most books do include a physical description of the protagonist and some background. But it's not front-and-center. If there is a blue eyed blond haired protagonist, you know if you look for it. But they don't focus on it - it's mentioned a couple times and then done. So if you are different, you can just ignore the difference and mentally envision them as like you. God knows I certainly did that with the blue eyed blonde/red haired protagonists of yore. (I'm looking at you, Nancy Drew)
But if the purpose in writing is specifically for diversity, authors don't want the point to be lost, so they often hit you over the head with it, hard. Sometimes it's in how they write the dialogue, other times in how they describe the physical aspects of the character all the freaking time - but either way, it's enough to take you out of the story. And so for me, if I see a book that looks to be Deliberately! About! Diversity! I avoid it like the fucking plague, even if I don't mind diverse books by authors from around the globe. I just hate reading books that are written like an Adterschool Special.
posted by corb at 7:01 AM on October 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
Most books do include a physical description of the protagonist and some background. But it's not front-and-center. If there is a blue eyed blond haired protagonist, you know if you look for it. But they don't focus on it - it's mentioned a couple times and then done. So if you are different, you can just ignore the difference and mentally envision them as like you. God knows I certainly did that with the blue eyed blonde/red haired protagonists of yore. (I'm looking at you, Nancy Drew)
But if the purpose in writing is specifically for diversity, authors don't want the point to be lost, so they often hit you over the head with it, hard. Sometimes it's in how they write the dialogue, other times in how they describe the physical aspects of the character all the freaking time - but either way, it's enough to take you out of the story. And so for me, if I see a book that looks to be Deliberately! About! Diversity! I avoid it like the fucking plague, even if I don't mind diverse books by authors from around the globe. I just hate reading books that are written like an Adterschool Special.
posted by corb at 7:01 AM on October 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
I personally find them impossible to read and get immersed in.
That must be tough to not be able to get immersed in a book because it wasn't written for a person like you. It's a shame more books aren't written for the different kinds of people there are.
posted by griphus at 7:47 AM on October 14, 2015 [14 favorites]
That must be tough to not be able to get immersed in a book because it wasn't written for a person like you. It's a shame more books aren't written for the different kinds of people there are.
posted by griphus at 7:47 AM on October 14, 2015 [14 favorites]
But if the purpose in writing is specifically for diversity, authors don't want the point to be lost, so they often hit you over the head with it, hard. Sometimes it's in how they write the dialogue, other times in how they describe the physical aspects of the character all the freaking time - but either way, it's enough to take you out of the story.
Lookin at you, Huck Finn!
posted by shakespeherian at 7:53 AM on October 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
Lookin at you, Huck Finn!
posted by shakespeherian at 7:53 AM on October 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
corb, I think I know what you're talking about, because in my youth I remember reading some lousy books where white writers made halfhearted attempts to include characters of color, but I've got to say, I don't see that much anymore, and I read a metric crapton of kidlit. Maybe that's what Meg Rosoff thinks she's talking about too, but it's a strawman. When people say "we want diverse books," they mean exactly those words. Nobody's telling Meg Rosoff to write something different (although, having read her books, I have some opinions on this subject); all they want is for publishers to publish and promote the books by writers of marginalized identities-- especially writers of color-- who are already out there and doing good work.
posted by thetortoise at 8:13 AM on October 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by thetortoise at 8:13 AM on October 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
I just hate reading books that are written like an Adterschool Special.
Most people do but it's putting a remarkably small amount of trust in writers to assume that's all we're going to get.
It's also worth pointing out that "books about queer black boys" are probably targeted at younger teenagers, for whom it is quite valuable to have stories that address the particularities of their lives directly.
posted by atoxyl at 11:59 AM on October 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
Most people do but it's putting a remarkably small amount of trust in writers to assume that's all we're going to get.
It's also worth pointing out that "books about queer black boys" are probably targeted at younger teenagers, for whom it is quite valuable to have stories that address the particularities of their lives directly.
posted by atoxyl at 11:59 AM on October 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
It's also also worth pointing out that even when writers do beat you over the head with physical characteristics of characters, people freak the fuck out when a non-white actor is cast to represent them in a movie. It's almost like changing people's preconceptions of what kind of characters belong in what kind of story requires concerted effort, or something.
posted by Phire at 1:23 PM on October 14, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by Phire at 1:23 PM on October 14, 2015 [8 favorites]
talking frogs and giraffes and donkeys -- not terribly familiar, but we expect (correctly) that they can empathise with them.
These characters don't behave like frogs, donkeys, etc ; they behave like children in the dominant culture.
posted by clew at 7:07 PM on October 14, 2015 [4 favorites]
These characters don't behave like frogs, donkeys, etc ; they behave like children in the dominant culture.
posted by clew at 7:07 PM on October 14, 2015 [4 favorites]
But if the purpose in writing is specifically for diversity, authors don't want the point to be lost, so they often hit you over the head with it, hard. Sometimes it's in how they write the dialogue, other times in how they describe the physical aspects of the character all the freaking time - but either way, it's enough to take you out of the story. And so for me, if I see a book that looks to be Deliberately! About! Diversity!
Maybe they're beating you over the head with it or maybe the constant lived in feeling of otherness or a difference is part of minority experience in a way that it is not for white characters.
posted by edbles at 9:44 AM on October 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
Maybe they're beating you over the head with it or maybe the constant lived in feeling of otherness or a difference is part of minority experience in a way that it is not for white characters.
posted by edbles at 9:44 AM on October 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
« Older Cats of London | Obama and Marilynne Robinson Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:58 AM on October 13, 2015 [6 favorites]