In which she weighs in on Thirteenth Child

[zeborah]

A few years ago, Patricia Wrede talked a fair amount on rec.arts.sf.composition about a novel she was writing, "Thirteenth Child". It had megafauna and magic in pioneer America, and sounded very cool. Here's how she described it in one discussion:

"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)."

And not one of us said, because I think none of us realised or thought: You can't eliminate a problem by pretending that it doesn't exist. So we carried on talking about renaming Europe (and, sporadically, about tomatoes) as if Native Americans didn't exist.

Cut to 2009. RaceFail happened and I read a whole lot of links. One was about how "Little House on the Prairie" glosses over the terrible way Native Americans were treated by settlers like Laura's family. Another was about how Elizabeth Knox's "Dreamhunter", set in a recognisably New Zealand analogue, had no Mäori at all.

A couple of weeks, a month? ago "Thirteenth Child" popped into my mind again. Maybe I was looking at her website. And I thought, "Oh, wait a minute. She erased all the Native Americans. That's... not so good...."

And a few days ago Jo Walton reviewed it on Tor.com, and a bunch of other people said essentially, "She what?" Discussion has ensued there and on various LJs and other blogs [Edit 11/5: Updated link]; I really recommend reading at least the Tor.com thread if you don't understand what the problem is, because there are people there who have explained it way better than I can.

So why am I writing this if I'm not going to talk about it?

1) Because... Well, I've known Pat Wrede online for years. Dear friends-list: I'm totally not bashing on her; she's a great person. I like her tremendously, respect her a huge amount, and owe her a mountain for all her writing advice. I know she didn't mean to hurt people; it was out of ignorance and thoughtlessness. But she still wrote what she wrote.

And it wasn't only her ignorance and thoughtlessness. It was mine too: if I'd known or thought, I could have said something then when there was time to fix it. It was that of all of us on rasfc. I wonder if it was indirectly because even then rasfc wasn't really a comfortable place for people who might have been more clued up and likely to notice and speak out about the problem.

People are asking, in various LJs, "How could no-one in the writing and publishing process have noticed?" And... I don't know how to answer that. And I don't like having been a part of that not-noticing, of that failure. But I have to acknowledge that I was.

2) And because (though I haven't yet, I think, seen this being said in this context) sometimes I see people saying that people who notice this kind of thing are just being oversensitive, reading too much into it, imagining it, making it up, shifting the goalposts, etc. As if the complaints are completely arbitrary.

So I want to testify that they're not made up from whole cloth - otherwise it'd be really odd that I'd come up with the same objection to a book I was predisposed to think highly of independently to a bunch of other people who came up with the same objection. They're not arbitrary. It's even possible for white people to learn how to predict them. Now if white people could just learn how to predict them in time to not publish the mistake....

(Comments are screened due to me still not having time to create a comment policy. I'm going to be asleep, and then at work, but I'll unscreen stuff as I can.)

ETA 12/5: I'm not in future going to unscreen any comments that include a strawman. In particular, comments arguing against a position that no-one has in fact promoted. If you think that what you're arguing against isn't a strawman, then please include a cite for where you got it from. Thanks!

Comments

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

I don't think writing about an uninhabited continent (or set of islands) is inherently racist. A lot of irrational baggage rides along inside all of us. The definition of "race" itself gets irrational fast . . .

[zeborah]

Not per se exactly, but I think writing about an uninhabited America is very problematic because it reinforces the concept that the land was empty when the settlers arrived - and apparently many people even now think "Oh, that land's empty so we can do stuff there" when uh, no, people are living there."

Ugh, I shouldn't have started writing this without being able to quote/link to the people who pointed this thing out elsewhere, because they said it better. I'll dig up links and add them as soon as I can.

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

Well, it's plenty easy to take land from people who are manifestly *there*, like Ireland, by defining the residents as members of a subhuman race. Postulating that "America" never was populated, or that the indigenous People suffered a pre-European plague, ranks lower in my mind.

Is writing a depopulated Europe (say, a more-effective Black Death) settled by Turks and Mongols a racist book?

[zeborah]

Well, it's plenty easy to take land from people who are manifestly *there*, like Ireland, by defining the residents as members of a subhuman race. Postulating that "America" never was populated, or that the indigenous People suffered a pre-European plague, ranks lower in my mind.

Why "like Ireland"? Precisely this is what happened in America; we don't need to bring any analogies into it.

Is writing a depopulated Europe (say, a more-effective Black Death) settled by Turks and Mongols a racist book?

The difference is that everybody knows that Europe and Europeans exist. They know it to the roots of their being.

But huge numbers of people don't know that Native Americans are still very much around. Kids get taught in school that they all got killed, after all:

"How come" asks one of my friends kids, "all the Indians died? Aren't we still alive?"

Also:

"Let's imagine a world without Jews" is a very different thesis than "Let's imagine a world without Englishmen" because nobody ever tried to create a world without Englishmen. (No. Hitler didn't. He wanted to conquer, not eradicate.) There's an emotional content to the first thesis that cannot be dissected out.

"Let's imagine a world without Native Americans" is exactly like that -- it is inherently a problematic thesis, because people did, in fact, in many places and at many times, try to create that world.

See also this post and Jo Walton's comment on it talking about how leaving out Native Americans is different from leaving out Ireland.

[caper-est.livejournal.com]

I found the discussion at Tor mostly... poor, especially inasfar as it came from people who proudly boasted they had not read before denouncing. Not having read Thirteenth Child myself, I shall grit my teeth and refrain from falling into their error. But since your initial post suggested a big point on which the worldbuilding would work or fail, I'll focus on that one here.

It's one of the best points that appeared in the discussion - the intractable alienness of a country which begins as real, non-fiat terra nullius, with no fellow-human who knows the land to crib from or steal from or trade with. That's hardly Little-Housing, or putting native people in as scenery or device and then shunting them aside. Surely, surely the whole device of their absence must act as one big reverse-ground highlighting: no resident cultures to befriend, fight, even see on the horizon; nothing, nothing but the endless plains and the howling winds and the monsters, and the baggage the settlers brought with them?

Does it show? Dunno. We'll see. But if Pat's world is not a real one, that is a fault irrespective of imputed social impact. Conversely, if it does carry the light of truth in it, with respect to its premise - then bad cess to any wish for its guttering for the public good.

There are numberless tales to be told. Anything against the truth of each tale is at worst a lie, at best a flaw that may break it. But the only worthwhile objection to a tale that does not tell a desired truth, is a better tale that does so. Let those who will, reply with the missing tales of Native Americans in America, or settling an empty Europe: they will stand out above less imaginative competition. I look forward to seeing them.

Pat has no hint of a duty to be amongst their authors.

[zeborah]

I found the discussion at Tor mostly... poor, especially inasfar as it came from people who proudly boasted they had not read before denouncing.

One needs to read the book to denounce the writing. If one is denouncing the premise, one needs only read the premise. The majority of people there were doing the latter; and there were plenty of people who had in fact read the book who agreed with them.

Surely, surely the whole device of their absence must act as one big reverse-ground highlighting: no resident cultures to befriend, fight, even see on the horizon; nothing, nothing but the endless plains and the howling winds and the monsters, and the baggage the settlers brought with them?

Does it show? Dunno. We'll see.

The people I've seen comment who've read the book seem more likely to say that there was in fact no 'reverse-ground highlighting': that the Native Americans' absence had no effect on the world. (This is highly problematic, not just from a plausibility point of view, but because it implies that the Native Americans in our timeline did nothing of value and so need not be valued by us; it's not a message Pat intended but that's what it says.) Other than those on the Tor.com thread who've read it, here's someone who's read it. Here's someone quoting an Amazon review by someone who's read it. In this thread below (which you wouldn't have seen before posting), piranha has read it. I can't currently find the comment by someone who'd read an ARC and not reviewed it because of the organisation-they-were-working-for's policy of mostly-positve reviews, so just trust me on that one.

Pat has no hint of a duty to be amongst their authors.

Duty can be taken in many ways, but all in all I don't think anyone has said that she has. However, Pat herself said that she wanted to avoid two problematic situations, and I don't believe it was her intent to replace them with a third problematic situation. So, whatever her duty is or is not, she failed in her intent.

[(Anonymous)]

One needs to read the book to denounce the writing. If one is denouncing the premise, one needs only read the premise.

This is true. The notion that there are premises which must not by any means be explored, their higher-order implications being politically objectionable, does not fill me with enthusiasm.

The agreement from readers is more interesting. I note the agreement on this seems to come with quite marked mutual political agreement in general, though, so it brings less information than I could have hoped. I'll have to read it myself - and wait for a broader spectrum of comments to roll in.

the Native Americans' absence had no effect on the world. (This is highly problematic, not just from a plausibility point of view, but because it implies that the Native Americans in our timeline did nothing of value and so need not be valued by us

Not to me, it doesn't. The intrinsic value of lives and actions has nothing to do with whether they benefited me, or left monuments behind. The alternative implication seems to be that their value was merely instrumental, which is clearly right out of court. I'll object to the plausibility of the scenario, if null-effect is what I draw from it - not to its notion that the alt-Native Americans have got along with their own agendas in North Asia, failing to consult the future Euro-settlers' interests at all.

Actually, the whole alt-history-with-familiarity trope seems susceptible to critiques such as yours, and I may take this idea and shake it about a bit on my own turf presently.

[zeborah]

This is true. The notion that there are premises which must not by any means be explored, their higher-order implications being politically objectionable, does not fill me with enthusiasm.

In discussions like this, it's very easy for conversations to get sidetracked, and for what people say to be forgotten while what other people think they have said lives on.

It is particularly hurtful for this to happen to people who are pointing out that the realities of their people and culture have been forgotten while stereotypes and prejudices live on.

If, then, you want to say that there's an idea you don't like, can you please make sure that someone has actually proposed that idea, and preferably link to it so we can see its original phrasing for ourselves, rather than risk turning the conversation into a game of Telephone?

Because, while someone may have proposed this notion towards which you are unenthusiastic, I haven't actually seen it myself until you phrased it above.

[caper-est.livejournal.com]

In discussions like this, it's very easy for conversations to get sidetracked, and for what people say to be forgotten while what other people think they have said lives on.

Agreed. Therefore let me specify immediately that my remark about premises that must not be explored related specifically to the quoted assertion:

If one is denouncing the premise, one needs only read the premise.

because, by my understanding, my conclusion follows necessarily from this one statement. Anybody who disagrees with this inference has fair grounds to conclude that I am blowing smoke, and I shall not defend it further.

[zeborah]

Right, got it.

I used the word "denounced" because you did, and should probably have checked how you were using it first. To me though it doesn't mean "deserving of censorship, oblivion, and/or the eternal fires of hell"; it's a lot... vaguer than that, less final? or something.

If it *does* mean that, then I'd have to go back to where you introduced the word and say that no-one really was denouncing that strongly.

Or, if they are denouncing "the premise" then we need to define what exactly we mean by that premise - as I suggested below, there's a difference between "America without Native Americans" and "Little House on the Prairie with no Native Americans"; the one makes sense and the other is really an oxymoron.

And the other angle on this is the word "explored" because a major complaint is that Pat *hasn't* explored the premise of "no Native Americans"; she just postulated it so she could explore other things without [how to write about] the Native Americans getting in the way.

These are four separate and possibly mutually incompatible points, which just goes to show that It's More Complicated Than That (which I must translate into Latin sometime for my motto).

[zeborah]

(continued, after a pause to have dinner and read more related links)

In specific, what people have been saying includes things like:

I'm not saying it's impossible to write speculative fantasy on these premises - what I'm saying is that you can't do it as background. If you write a people out of existence as background, rather than as the setup for an exploration of how the world is different without their influence, then you're almost guaranteed to be doing it for reasons that are entirely offensive.

and:

Okay, I think an author should be able to tell the story they want to tell. I really do but, sheesh, why does it always have to make me either a magical creature, an exotic savage or erase me from history altogether?

and:

That's not to say that the idea "What if America had been empty when the Europeans got there?" isn't a legitimate one to write on--it is. Apparently, you can even write some damn good fiction on it. But then, you're not writing of America any more, are you? It's not the Matter of America any longer. You're writing something else. So, for the sake of common decency, have the respect to make it be some place else, too, would you? I mean, at least that way, your readers won't have to trip over the bones of all those erased Indians.

[caper-est.livejournal.com]

One last response, because the time is near when I ought to let the matter rest, at least in this locus. I do urge everyone who hasn't already done so to follow your suggestion of reading the entire Tor thread. I will not pretend I was a blithe and serene billy at the end of it.

The second quote expresses eloquent frustration with the totality of the genre, and compelling reason for the speaker to set I'm-going-to-read-this-why? filters to full. Considered as critique, it is a much stronger argument for the addition of the desired book(s) - authors yet unknown - to the field - than for the non- or alternate-writing of Pat's. I too am waiting for those other books, and Pat's doesn't sound apt to be in close competition with 'em, either.

The other two quotes seem, functionally, to grant the premise's legitimacy with one hand and take it away with the other. As to their substance, I can't express my disagreement concisely and clearly enough to attempt it in a comment.

I shall now let these points, amongst others, stew for a bit.

[zeborah]

"I'm waiting" sounds... Hmm.

Ah. The first thing that came to mind was that it ignores the fact that you too could add such books to the field.

But also, more importantly, it ignores the fact that there are already such books in the field! See especially the recommendations around the #200 mark of the Tor.com comment thread.

[aquaeri.livejournal.com]

The notion that there are premises which must not by any means be explored, their higher-order implications being politically objectionable, does not fill me with enthusiasm.

<headdesk, headdesk, headdesk>

It's not that the idea must by no means be explored, it's closer to the fact that the idea has already been explored to death, and we need some different ideas, dammit.

[caper-est.livejournal.com]

Not to extend the debate, but only to note that I will be just as happy to see the stories that spring from those different ideas as you will.

The people who are going to write them know, or will know, who they are - when the tale strikes them. In case there is any publisher or author out there who is hesitating for suspected lack of demand, I also will freely put my hand up and say, "Yes, please!"

[joycemocha.livejournal.com]

But huge numbers of people don't know that Native Americans are still very much around. Kids get taught in school that they all got killed, after all.

Maybe in places other than the American West. Occasionally I will be asked by a very urban visitor if we still have to fight off Indians in rural areas.

Srsly. I am NOT joking.

[zeborah]

I read in a comment thread somewhere that there differences in ...awareness? stereotypes? that kind of thing ... between West, East, and some other area I now forget.

So yeah. Um. Ow.

[joycemocha.livejournal.com]

Regional differences and awarenesses in the US can be stunningly weird, and you're right--stereotypes change drastically depending upon the point of origin of the person holding them.

Some of this also breaks down to urban vs rural.

As for the other area--Midwest?

[caper-est.livejournal.com]

Not only are both of these scary, the latter would still be kind of scary if the visitor were from Moscow or Darkest Shropshire.

This is... rather educational.

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

>But huge numbers of people don't know that Native Americans
>are still very much around. Kids get taught in school
>that they all got killed, after all:

Maybe where you live. For us, the nearest Native Americans live right across the street. The nearest tribal land and tribal government office is about ten miles away.

My wife is Jewish. She doesn't think it is Inherently Evil to imagine a world in which Goliath killed David and the Philistines weren't wiped out.

[zeborah]

Maybe where you live. For us, the nearest Native Americans live right across the street. The nearest tribal land and tribal government office is about ten miles away.

I live in New Zealand, where "huge numbers" doesn't mean "everyone". That your experience is different from the experience of huge numbers of other Americans doesn't make their experience less relevant.

My wife is Jewish. She doesn't think it is Inherently Evil to imagine world in which Goliath killed David and the Philistines weren't wiped out.

Unless you can cite someone saying "Inherently Evil" I'm going to consider it a strawman. I'm not going to unscreen future comments that include strawmen.

Would your wife be comfortable with reading a book set among the glorious appurtenances of medieval Catholic cathedrals, because it's fun to write about gilt and robes and sung Mass, but the author didn't want to have to deal with how Jews were treated at the time so decided that Isaac never had kids and thus the Jews never existed?

Even if she would, people aren't algebra; just because she'd feel comfortable in that situation doesn't mean that the situation is the same for Native Americans (because that analogy is imperfect in many ways) or, even if the situation were the same, that everyone should share her feelings about it (because people are different).

[elf]

Is writing a depopulated Europe (say, a more-effective Black Death) settled by Turks and Mongols a racist book?

Does it presume that complex clocks were invented in mosques in the 14th century, that printed books showed up at around ~1600, that the American Revolutionary War kicked off on schedule, just with darker-skinned people all around? How does it deal with the American Civil War, if North America wasn't colonized by the English & French? Did the US cotton industry and industrial revolution happen the same way?

I dunno about "racist," but a book that casually wipes out a continent's population, and then jumps hundreds of years into that future, is going to be facing big changes. NOT dealing with those changes, is racist--is claiming that group of people were irrelevant to the history of the world we live in today.

[green-knight.livejournal.com]

a book that casually wipes out a continent's population, and then jumps hundreds of years into that future, is going to be facing big changes. NOT dealing with those changes, is racist--is claiming that group of people were irrelevant to the history of the world we live in today.

For me, _that_ is the crux of the matter. I can see the narrative reasoning behind not-settling the Americas before the start of the book (Australia would have been another candidate for a relatively easily isolated continent). It's not my history that is being eradicated (and I had no such reaction to Darwinia, which eliminates Europe - I know it's not the same) - but the lack of consequences, *that* is disturbing. On the other hand, I'd a) have to reread the book since it's been a while, and we've b) only seen a very narrow segment of the world, related by someone who isn't very clued up, so I don't feel I can make an ultimate statement about the underlying worldbuilding.Europeans have been colonising since, well, forever, so it was only a matter of time when they would get to the Americas - but I want a world that diverged so much from ours to be radically different in oh-so-many ways.

[elf]

I gather, from her quote above, that she thought she was "simplifying" things for her book. That she wanted to add megafauna & magic, and those were certainly enough themes to throw into a YA book; she didn't also want to deal with race politics & stereotypes & the avoidance thereof.

Instead of "two interesting themes, combined," she got three major themes: megafauna, magic, and removal of the mentors who taught white people how to survive on this continent. And she just ignored that last one, and assumed that of course white people would discover tobacco and corn on their own. They would figure out which snakes and spiders were poisonous without losing too many of their children, learn which plants had medicinal qualities, and survive enough of the weather shifts to grow into a happy industrial society. And they'd do all this without slavery, without grabbing developed agricultural land from people who'd already cultivated it, without trading for furs of creatures they didn't know existed.

Shit, I know this, and I measure my knowledge of history in thimbles. On a good day, I can put Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan in chronological order. I wouldn't dream of trying to write USA without the Native American parts of its history.

What kind of clueless idiot thinks US development would be about the same if you removed them? (I suppose we have the answer to that question.)

[zeborah]

I think that's a good analysis. (I think rasfc pointed out the tobacco and corn and other foodstuffs, so I'd be surprised to hear if she included those; but in the main, yeah.)

It just took me a ridiculously long time to stare and figure out how to put Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan in chronological order. :-)