Skinwalkers

[psychotick]

Hi,

OK I saw the Stream on Al Jazeera just a few hours ago and the controversy over JK's new book, which up until just then I hadn't even heard of. But this isn't about her book. It's about the views of some of the guests on the Stream who were by and large native American artists and authors and who seemed to hold the view that JK should not have been allowed to write about skinwalkers at all.

In essence skinwalkers are part of various native American mythologies and they seemed to feel that as such non members of the tribes had no ownership of the concept.

Now without wanting to mention that the X Files and the Dresden Files and probably a great number of other works of fiction have used skinwalkers before JK, this strikes me as precious and wrong headed thinking, and they're just taking advantage of her celebrity to raise their own political concerns. If she was less famous they wouldn't have cared.

I don't hold the view that anyone or even any culture has ownership of ideas or cultural mythology. And I don't believe that there can or should be any limitation upon any author about what they can or can't write about. Nor do I hold the view that if they write fiction they have to get the details of the mythologies right. I live with sparkly vampires don't I? And lets be honest, if we were to follow the logic of these complaints that no one could write about the characters / creatures of other people's cultures / mythologies, we'd have a lot less books out there.

I do think writers have an obligation not to deliberately cause offence. But I don't think JK set out to do that.

Where do you guys stand on this?

Cheers, Greg.

 

[Mirannan]

Where do I stand? On the side of free speech. And against people who have chosen taking offence as a profession.

 

[Toby Frost]

Oh God, here we go again.

 

[allmywires]

As always cultural appropriation is a difficult line to tread, as I don't think it's up to us non-indigenous people to decide what these historically greatly persecuted and oppressed cultures are allowed to feel offended by; thus we should respect when they have issues with western fiction using their culture (particularly when poorly researched as I imagine JK's writing is - I love Harry Potter but think she's a lazy writer and her world building is quite poor, as well as relying on easy tropes far too much).

However I do also think that there are some people who are always looking for a reason to be offended and my response to that is that we all need to get a bit of perspective and know when to pick our battles

For this however I do get where the criticism is coming from, for me personally it's less about using the legend of the skin walkers and more of the implications of Native magic versus the colonial settlers/oppressors. If you want to read a discourse on it there's a post here ( Magic in North America Part 1: Ugh. ) which explains some of the reasons why people are annoyed at her but I felt this quote particularly summed it up:

"This whole wandless magic thing is bugging me. So Rowling has said multiple times that it takes a lot more skill to perform magic without a wand (Dumbledore does it at several points in the books), but points out that wands are what basically refines magic. Wands are a European invention, so basically she’s demonstrating Eurocentric superiority here–the introduction of European “technology” helps bring the Native wizards to a new level. AKA colonial narrative 101."

Which is, you have to admit, a pretty lazy approach to the whole thing and implies that the natives are the 'savages' who need to be refined by their European oppressors.

 

[Kith]

Loaded subject...

I don't think JK set out to cause offence either. But did she deal with the subject matter as sensitively as she could? Did she research as much as she could? She's treading on real world history and tradition and culture. Yes her work is fictional (obviously ) but her setting reflects our world. If she's using real world history, especially when dealing with marginalised peoples, to explain her wizarding world, then she needs to be researching the heck out of it and doing a good job, not what ultimately comes down to lazy writing.

I think writers, and perhaps particularly those firmly in the public eye, have a duty to be respectful and to consider the impact of their work. You are probably always going to offend someone, but it shouldn't be because you didn't do your homework.

As to whether there should be a limitation as to what writers can write about, I think the blog allmywires has linked to has valid points. People do have a right to privacy.

Anyway, I liked what N K Jemisin had to say about it: It could’ve been great | Epiphany 2.0

ETA: This. Absolutely this:

As always cultural appropriation is a difficult line to tread, as I don't think it's up to us non-indigenous people to decide what these historically greatly persecuted and oppressed cultures are allowed to feel offended by; thus we should respect when they have issues with western fiction using their culture

 

[Brian G Turner]

Cultural appropriation is a sensitive subject in America.

However, JK Rowling is such a world-wide phenomenon that she always seems targeted by vocal opposition to whatever she does.

 

[Phyrebrat]

Cultural appropriation is an occurrence that the privileged really need to get their heads round.

Most of us are lucky enough to come from a place of privilege and with that comes attendant views of entitlement. I'm not saying she's doing wrong btw but that she was bound to attract negative press in this way.

The New Age movement has carelessly creolised a mass of sacred religious practices from the Kabbalah, Hinduism, Native American and Celtic traditions. When it's to do with spiritual foundation, it's far more loaded - and potentially more offensive - than say, for example a superficial appropriation of cultural clothing.

When rich mega corporations take over something and badge it, profit from it, and give no credit or acknowledgement to the cultural root of that thing, it's just unfair. Look at the amount of profit being made from hip hop culture, jazz, soul etc. Black culture has been plundered for new teenage cool for years now and no one should be under any confusion how African Americans, Anglo-Afro Caribbeans or Africans can feel about that.

It's not that it can't be done, but that it's advisable to do so sensitively.

When a minority are telling you they're offended and you're accusing them of being hyper sensitive, or professionally offended, it's wrong. It's not our place to tell people if they're offended or not, but to listen to grievances and act accordingly.

None of us know what Rowling did or didn't do in her research so we can't say one way or the other. But you can't simply write off someone's offence simply because you don't feel it.

pH

 

[Ogma]

I'm not saying JK Rowling shouldn't write about it, but if she was a less famous writer, this wouldn't be an issue because her depiction of skinwalkers would just a competing version. But many people reading this book will have never heard of skinwalkers before. (I hadn't, for example.) Her depiction becomes the definition in the minds of many readers. It becomes in effect the canon version. The liberties taken with the legend meld in people's minds with the authentic tradition, diluting it.

Sparkly vampires may not exactly be canon, but Stoker and the early films of his book introduced new elements to the original vampire myth which fo most people are indistinguishable from the original. Not really an issue if nobody believes in vampires. There's a difference to say European mythology where the legends have lost their cultural belief and the 'canon' versions are common knowledge.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

I'm not saying that people don't have a right and maybe even cause to be offended by the work. But they seem to be going beyond that. To this idea of entitlement, and even ownership of culture. You belong to and identify with a culture. You don't own it. And you certainly don't own a mythology that you didn't create.

Look I'm a Christian. I'm offended by Dan Brown's stuff. But so what? I don't have the right to say to Dan Brown you can't write this. I can't tell him you can only write this if it's sensitive to Catholic traditions and beliefs. It's a work of fiction. He can write what he damned well wants to write, and if it offends me, that's tough for me. And as far as I can tell Dan Brown deliberately intended to offend so his book would sell.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[Phyrebrat]

Hi, I hope you didn't think I was having a jab at you - I wasn't accusing you of anything, just that we have often have a privilege that prevents us from seeing other people's position.

Look I'm a Christian. I'm offended by Dan Brown's stuff. But so what? I don't have the right to say to Dan Brown you can't write this. I can't tell him you can only write this if it's sensitive to Catholic traditions and beliefs. It's a work of fiction. He can write what he damned well wants to write, and if it offends me, that's tough for me. And as far as I can tell Dan Brown deliberately intended to offend so his book would sell..

I understand, but being a Christian is not the same; you're not a minority. And Christianity is interpreted in different ways already anyway. The point is, the majority of (white) Christians haven't had their lands and heritage stolen and destroyed, and now live in a world where everyone denies it. I would imagine that most Christians do not define themselves purely as Christians, but also as Governors of Schools, parents, architects, car fanatics, or whatever, because they can define themselves in other ways. For minorities - especially plundered ones - sometimes all they have is their cultural heritage, so to see it casually appropriated causes them concern.

Look at the British Isles, we've been colonised, visited and invaded for so many thousands of years, we no longer have a indigenous 'religion.' Sheela na gig? Came to us from France or Spain, most likely. 3000BC we probably had a cult of ancestral worship - and certainly not the pagan druid stuff that everyone assumes is our heritage - that's far more modern - even Goddess pagan religions, though controversial, have more relevance to the British Isles than the Anglo Saxon stuff which gave us gods of the days of the week, and all the other stuff that happened before we became a Christian nation. There is no record - no reliable record of what our spiritual heritage is, here. Now extrapolate that to a Native American culture whose practices are often passed on orally. In a thousand years' time, what will be the world view of Native Americans? What will be lost, what will have been appropriated and diluted, and what will remain?

We, as westerners - largely white westerners - do not have to concern ourselves about our historical record as robustly (if at all) because we have appropriated so much, we wouldn't even know what is 'ours' and where it came from. More isolated communities do if they want to keep their identity.

Identity is really the only thing we have. If you dilute it, well... what is left? Get a load of brand new plasticine of all different colours and mix it up thoroughly. You get a grey blandness of uniformity: Borg.

pH

 

[Kith]

There's a world of difference between deliberately intending to offend and doing so through carelessness or ignorance, though.

I haven't read any Dan Brown so I can't comment on specifics, but it certainly wasn't a case of cultural appropriation (which is not to say it wasn't offensive, but that I don't think it's comparable to the JK controversy).

ETA: Phyrebrat beat me to it, and said it far more eloquently.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

The majority of Christians are not "White".
The majority of "White" Westerners are not Christians.
White Western "Liberal" Intellectuals ignore the fact the most persecuted group in the world today are Christians.

I think Christians can easily ignore Dan Brown. There are far more worrying things. He doesn't bother most Christians I know ("white" or ""coloured", what ever those might mean).

As for "Cultural Appropriation?" Read this
A Point of View: When does borrowing from other cultures become 'appropriation'? - BBC News

 

[WaylanderToo]

interestingly enough Kevin Hearne (Iron Druid series) has several native American mythological characters in his books - one novel in particular features skinwalkers (and right nasty things they were too!) but nothing seems to have been said about it... dare I say it that KH is unlikely to be native American but more crucially he's also not massively famous

 

[Toby Frost]

What increasingly strikes me about these sorts of outcries over "cultural appropriation" is the lack of any positive suggestion of how things could be changed or improved. What lesson is there to be taken from this? Are we to conclude that:

- Nobody should write about Native American legends
- Nobody should write about Native American legends who isn’t a Native American
- Nobody should write about legends belonging to a culture that is persecuted/a minority/not white/somehow an “underdog”
- Nobody should write about legends belonging to a culture that is persecuted/a minority/not white/somehow an “underdog” without taking an “approved” stance
- J.K. Rowling shouldn’t do any of the above?

It’s something that seems inevitable with this sort of thing: the accuser expresses their distaste and thus demonstrates their virtue (intentionally or otherwise), nothing changes (assuming that it ought to change) and the accuser is free to demonstrate their virtue the next time it happens. And the world doesn’t improve. This isn’t just right-wing carping, either. It’s useless to simply say “The patriarchal hegemony of King George over America is problematic” without a declaration of independence. I’m not suggesting boycotting and riots on the streets, but some sort of clear idea of what an author should do would be welcome. Because I know for certain what would happen if the “privileged” only wrote about their own sort.

 

[Nick B]

I think writers of fiction should be allowed to write fiction. Or where are we?

 

[Kith]

@Toby Frost - N K Jemisin's blog post (the one I linked to) offers some of her suggestions as to what might have improved JK's interpretation. Her stance (and it's one I would agree with personally) is that you don't have to be of X culture to write about X culture, but that when writing marginalised peoples you should do so with respect, empathy and skill (which applies to all writing, really) - and with the added caveat that you should also be mindful that any effect might be harmful to those people. I'm paraphrasing there, but that's the gist.

 

[Phyrebrat]

I think the simple solution is to treat it (the subject) with respect, empathy and authentic research.

I am a white westerner but my stories are littered with West African mythology. But then, I'd be happy to argue their inclusion based on my approach and dialogue with certain tribes.

I'm thinking of Neil Gaiman's American Gods - it contains everything from Gaia, ifrits to Anansi but I can't imagine he got much stick. As has been said UT, JK Rowling's high profile is likely more an issue in this matter than her handling of Native American folklore.

And God, no. Please no exclusively-privileged-inspired stories

oH

 

[Toby Frost]

I think Jemsin's outlook is reasonable, although I disagree that religions should inherently be treated with respect. They, like fascism or communism, are just systems of belief, no matter how sincerely they may be held.

In fact, it occurs to me that what she’s proposing when the rhetoric is stripped away is really quite a low and sensible hurdle. It’s essentially “Do your research”: a book set in a hospital is going to require some knowledge of how hospitals work to convince, and it’s reasonable to suppose some doctors might be reading. I suspect that what an author has to do to produce a good book and what a citizen has to do to be a (trying to find a non-loaded term here) successful social justice activist are two very different things.

However, a commenter in the comments thread – why do I read comments threads?! – took offence that Rowling represented “Europe” as, effectively, Britain, France and Germany. I disagree with this. There is a level beyond which, I think, the writer can't reasonably be expected to go, and pointing out that there was a magic school in Romania for the sake of making Romanians happy is a step too far for me, especially given that this would involve writing a huge list of schools that would otherwise not appear, to the detriment of the novel.

 

[allmywires]

However, a commenter in the comments thread – why do I read comments threads?! – took offence that Rowling represented “Europe” as, effectively, Britain, France and Germany. I disagree with this. There is a level beyond which, I think, the writer can't reasonably be expected to go, and pointing out that there was a magic school in Romania for the sake of making Romanians happy is a step too far for me, especially given that this would involve writing a huge list of schools that would otherwise not appear, to the detriment of the novel.

For me that's a completely separate matter from that of the indigenous cultures, though - and an example of people going looking for something to take offence at, imo. The great unwashed of the comment threads are probably not the best place to look for social commentary And yes, I would say that it does essentially boil down to a) doing your research and b) being respectful of different cultures that you draw inspiration from, particularly if - as many of us on this forum have, I should imagine - you have grown up in an inherently privileged society where you may not have had full exposure to anything that might cause distress or offence to others. To me, that action is implied in any criticism that's made.

I understand the frustration that comes from the perception - vastly simplified - that 'no white person can write about native cultures' but also, is it really so onerous to think twice about whether your themes and inspiration might be problematic (I loathe the word but it's apt here) or disrespectful in some way?

 

[Dan Jones]

I understand the frustration that comes from the perception - vastly simplified - that 'no white person can write about native cultures' but also, is it really so onerous to think twice about whether your themes and inspiration might be problematic (I loathe the word but it's apt here) or disrespectful in some way?

This is fair enough. There's no reason why a white Euro/American should feel the need to start writing about native cultures. To be purely pragmatic about it, it runs the risk of causing distress, upset or offence (though I probably draw the line at actual damage or harm), it may be improperly researched, and blow up in the author's face. JKR is probably guilty of no more than being a bit ignorant and naive (astonishing to think that of someone who's sold millions upon millions of books and is worth over half a billion dollars, but there you go), but that doesn't make the effects of her work, from the perspective of the minority cultures involved, any less.

Besides, there shouldn't be any need for European writers in particular to look anywhere other than their (our) own fascinating history and culture for inspiration: there's no need to run the risk of causing upset when we are so lucky to have a vast, infinite goldmine of incredible richness of history and controversy and horror and adventure and romance in our own back yard: from ancient Greece through to Rome, the Catholic Church, Dark Ages, Arthurian Legend, Viking sagas, European monarchical dynasties, medieval society, witch-burnings, the Enlightenment, the Inquisition, Descartes, revolutions, reformation, schism, science, Shakespeare, Goethe, Da Vinci, the Renaissance, classicism, the Plague, wars spanning centuries, romances, the Knights Templar, Magna Carta, the Industrial Revolution, Empire, trade, the Regency, great Fires, rebellions, 20th century wars, fascism, etc etc etc, the list goes on and on and on - and that's just mainly the British stuff off the top of my head. There's so much there to get your teeth into which doesn't have to even run the risk of causing others upset. You wouldn't get Hilary Mantel or CJ Sansom writing about skinwalkers.