Save the whi...err, Save the Pearls: A Candid Look

Eden jumped at the sound of approaching steps.  They must not see.  Hide Beauty Map!

Her mental command caused the Life-Band she wore to send a tiny white spark into the air.  In a flash, the holographic images that appeared in front of her – a blond girl playing on a sunlit beach – disappeared.

"What's going on?" a woman asked.

Eden shot to her feet, her heart racing, as a plump, dark-skinned lab assistant appeared on the other side of the partition.  It was only Peach, who wasn't as cruel as the rest of them.

Eden's blank emotional mask slammed into place.  Never let them see how you feel.

Former actress Victoria Foyt's second novel (and first self-published by her Sand Dollar Press), Save the Pearls Part One:  Revealing Eden, has, for those of you who have been living under a rock these past few months, developed a rather unsavory reputation.  Its setting, a semi-post-apocalyptic world in which UV radiation has caused widespread melanoma among whites (the "Pearls" of this story), perhaps was intended to provoke audiences to think of a role reversal in which the darker-skinned ethnic groups (the African-derived "Coals," the Asian "Ambers" and the Latino "Tiger's Eye") now dominate the fair-skinned "Pearls," to the point where these "Pearls" have to don blackface in order not just to survive but also to be able to eke out a meager living at the sufferance of the "Coal" superiors.

The usage of blackface is a very controversial element even in works which clearly have a subversive bent to them.  The problem with Save the Pearls is that there is no apparent irony to the situation, nothing that after its nearly 300 e-book pages would indicate that the reading goes deeper than the surface.  Eden Newmann (one of the less subtle cognomens encountered in SF literature) is 17 years old at the story's beginning.  If she doesn't find a mate before she turns 18, she gets cast out, left to die in the parched and ravaged outdoors.  She hates that her natural fair-skinned, blond, blue-eyed self is considered low; after all, look at the very first thing we see from her point of view:  an old image of a white girl on a beach, with "beauty map" listed.  She defines others as "they" and a major component of her character, early on at least, is her alternating revulsion and envy of the "Coals" and their power in society.  It is hard not to make the connection between this and something that one might encounter on a white supremacist site.

It is easy to read the first couple of chapters (they are available as a free sample on Amazon) and conclude that at best Foyt just does not understand the dynamics involved in racial symbolism and viewpoint interaction.  In fact, it probably would be best to just drop reading this implausible, poor excuse for a story at that point, as it does not improve.  If anything, it gets much, much worse.

Save the Pearls is a mass of contradictions.  We learn early on that due to UV radiation spikes due to weakening of the Earth's atmospheric protection, most of humanity has been driven underground, with a condition called The Heat affecting not just melanoma rates but also fertility.  Yet there is so little about this that jibes with questions of "why didn't they just use parasols and better SPFs when outside?"; "if there is an advanced genetic institute, how come it's the brutal "expose the 'Cottons' (albinos)" instead of prenatal testing and alteration or abortion?"; "doesn't Foyt know that selecting specific chromosomes doesn't work very well in trying to create cross-species hybrids?" and so forth.  Any reader who is familiar at all with genetics (or evolution or just everyday life) is likely to just facepalm at all of these egregious errors of fact and plausibility in Foyt's story.  But no, the South Park Chewbacca Defense does not hold here:  It does not make any sense, you must not acquit.

Many of the other commentaries/reviews of Save the Pearls have focused on the underlying racist elements, many of which are noted above.  Yet there are other, equally disturbing elements that perhaps have been overlooked due perhaps to sensible readers not being able to stomach more than the opening chapters.  First among these is the prevalence of sexist rhetoric:  Almost every situation in which Eden thinks about another woman she has encounter, the pejorative "bitch" is used to describe that woman.  There are no good examples of women who think or act for themselves outside of the need to meet the sexual desires of a man.  Remember, Eden has to "be mated" in six months or else she is to be cast out to die.  There is no irony or hint of subversion in this mindset:  Eden's thoughts quite often deal with her looks and how (un)desirable she may be to a potential mate.

Added to this is the troubling main plot sequence focusing on an experiment to create a hybrid jaguar (and eagle and anaconda)/man.  The man involved, at least double Eden's age, is mutated into a somewhat brooding version of a Thundercat.  Rarely referred to by his first name of Ronson, this character, Bramford, is frequently cast as "other" because of his mutated state and his threatening aura.  Of course Eden is going to lust after/fear him and most of the second half of Save the Pearls revolves around this, related in language that easily could be taken from a putridly-written romance novel crossed with "white flight" symbolism:

He pounced toward the hut, and out of view.  Eden watched, breathless, as he sprinted back.  He lashed out but his punches only struck air.  Was this some sort of primal dance or demonstration?

***

Bramford immediately zeroed in on her.  She swore she could feel the heat coming off of him.  Her yearning became unbearable.  Was it for her sake or Rebecca's that she flew towards him?  She no longer cared why.  She simply knew she had to be with him, whatever that meant.

***

Eden twirled around and laughed lightly.  What would that callous beast think of her now?

 Added to this was a laborious plot twist in which Bramford decides he rather continue his mutation, with the later reasons being sketchy at best.  To this is added the use of a South American tribe, the Huaorani, to provide the "local color" for a legend of the jaguar-man (never mind that Foyt screws up by having them speak exclusively in Spanish and not using yaguar, but instead the incorrect el Tigre for Bramford).  As if the presence of an indigenous tribe, even though reduced to being the sort of wise "nature's child", after the earlier pretense of humanity barely being able to be outside during the day was not enough, Foyt compounds this by having references to present-day Aztecs.  One might wonder if Foyt needs to learn the difference between Central and South America, not to mention the connotations of the terms and physical symbols that she employs in this story.

These poorly-thought out and argued elements, however, do not detract from the story.  No, the story itself is horrendous, making works like The Dark God's Bride feel like an objet d'art.  There is little rhyme or reason to the premise, the characterizations are hollow shells when they aren't offensive, the story is hackneyed and the conclusion is ridiculous.  There is nothing redeeming about Save the Pearls, except perhaps as a cautionary tale of why people need to check with others to make sure that something "controversial" actually might just be a flat-out reinforcement of earlier societal racism.  Easily the worst POS that I have read in years; even worse than having to read Hitler's speeches and Mein Kampf for grad school.  At least he didn't try to claim that his works were not racist at all.

Interesting article on racism and sexism found in Tolkien's works

Generally I don't say much about the racist, sexist, and classist attitudes found in much of J.R.R. Tolkien's fictions, as I would think by now that it should be apparent to 21st century readers, but Requires Only That You Hate (one of my new favorites to read because her takes on social/cultural issues in genre fiction and video gaming often makes me reassess my own views) has written a piece on those odious elements in Tolkien's work that is well worth reading.  In particular, her comments on Tolkien's analogy of his dwarves having "Semitic" qualities to their language and their wanderings is very well-argued.

Although I don't mind people leaving comments here, I think it'd be best to leave comments at her blog.

"Now Blacker Than Ever"

Or so the tag translates for this Dutch radio station's video clips advertising its jazz lineup.  I saw this posted yesterday on this international SF site that I frequent and was struck by the discussion that broke out...or perhaps, "broken down" would be a more apt description.  Knowing the handles of most of the people there and their countries of origin, it is fascinating to see how shared (or not) historical and cultural values have shaped such a discourse.

Virtually all of those who responded negatively so far to the question "Is this racist?" are Europeans (the original poster, from the Netherlands but with family in the US, being the one exception), while those who noted the possible racist interpretations (again, with one exception so far) are all from the United States.  Perhaps it's largely due to being made aware, via educational programs such as those devised for Black History Month (among quite a few possibilities), just how derogatory references to "black music" and especially to blackface (if you haven't clicked on the first link above to watch the clips, I highly suggest you do so) truly are for large segments of the American population.  Same reason why that racial slur, the now-infamous "N word," in spite of (or rather, in large part because of) its etymology referring to "blackness," is something that non-African American citizens of the United States more and more refrain from using; it's tacky at the very least and perceived as being deeply insulting at the worst, due to an increasing multi-cultural awareness and a shared understanding of the traumas of the American past.

But obviously the situation is much different in Europe.  I found the responses to be quite interesting, even if a couple came across as rather patronizing (but again, that could just be viewing things through different historical/cultural lens).  Just a little something for people to view and perhaps weigh in upon here.  What do you think?  How offensive (if it was offensive to you) was that radio ad?  How would it be viewed where you live?

A piece that will be hard for many to follow

Lo siento, pero quiero empezar mi ensayo en español. Aunque español es sólo mi lengua segunda, me gusta hablar y leerlo cuando a veces deseo alejarme de mi cultura nativa. Quizás no me entiendas. Quizás no quieras que escribo en español o en cualquier idioma. Quizás no te gusta leer mis pensamientos en español porque te amenazan...claro, si crees que quiero amenazarte porque escriba en español, tengas problemas...

But for the benefit of the well-meaning monolinguals, I'll switch back to English, although it would behoove those who can understand at least some of my Spanish to pay attention to what I said there, as it relates directly to my thoughts regarding this Tor.com piece by K. Tempest Bradford. Bradford continues the discussions that have been brewing in various parts over the past week (months? years?) regarding the selection of anthology pieces by discussing why she believes there should be a sort of mindset change on the part of the editors. She readily admits this is a difficult task, but me being me, I want to look at this from a different point of view.

The future of SF is made up of women and people of color, and people of various cultures and classes, and LGBT folks, and non-Americans and non-Western nationalities (China, India, the Philippines, to name just three).

This quote I think lies at the heart of not just Tempest's argument, but at those made by those who seem to have problems with imagining a world in which the currently non-privileged might come to have a much larger stake at the shape of a certain form of literature. What sort of mindset should an editor (or reader) have when confronted with people who may have different value systems and different ways of expressing themselves. For those who did understand what I said above in Spanish, how would you understand this, written in yet another language?

Rekla sam ti već. Vi što dolazite sa one strane Venecijankog zaliva, koji zovete Jadransko more, teški ste u svakom pogledu. Teško vas je naučiti radosti i ljubavi. Ali, zato i gospodin mora mene nečemu da nauči. Ja nisam do sada imala iskustva s muškarcima. Videla sam dečurliju kako iy čamca mokri u kanal Svetoga Luke, ali to nije to. Moraš i ti meni nešto svoje pokazati. Ali ne sada. Daj mi malo vremena. Žensko vreme ne teče na istu stranu kao muško. I nadam se da je gospodin shvatio da je ovde na nostu bolje proveo vreme no da je lupao glavu nad lošim stihovima koji nisu za pevanje...

Who knows what I said (beside myself and maybe a couple of readers)? After all, I could have quoted from a pornographic novel or that could be a discussion of the week's sporting action, for all many would know. But it (and no, I won't provide a translation or source for this either) perhaps is best that it serves to represent a basic stumbling block. If it is so difficult to understand what is being said when the communication is taking place in an unfamiliar idiom, is it really that much easier when the various participants who supposedly speak the same language have a cultural gap that leads to misunderstandings?

It is only natural for people in general to feel threatened at some time or another by the unfamiliar. Grasping things that lie beyond our ken can be terrifying; is this "good" or "bad?" What if the "good" or "bad" being perceived is something alien to both? How does a writer go about "translating" this into a medium that people of various cultures can grasp to some degree?

That "translation" I think is part of the equation that Bradford dances around a bit but doesn't quite say as directly in this piece as I believe she has in other writings on similar topics. For so long, there has been a sort of cultural imperialism in which the dominant WASP male paradigm shoved aside other points of view (female, non-WASP, those of non-"white" color, LBGT, etc.) off into that "quaint" and sometimes "threatening" category of "Other." Stop and think about this for a bit before reading on: Despite my knowledge (at least on a rudimentary level) of multiple languages, what language is being used to read the majority of this post, regardless of the place of origin for the readers? What do you think might have been the fleeting (or not-so-fleeting) reaction of some who saw that my first paragraph was written in my second language?

How does one overcome these cultural/linguistic barriers (and I believe the two ought to be considered as being closely intertwined, as language use even within a supposedly uniform language can reflect cultural differences)? How should SF editors (and readers) go about correcting perceived injustices? That's the rub, and while Bradford acknowledges this, I am not certain that she couldn't have gone a bit further with her points. If I were offering merely prescriptions, I would suggest that editors (and readers) dare to explore things outside their comfort zones. To be bolder and not to shy away from things that are "different" and potentially "threatening" to their core cultural values. But if we are comprised of these core cultural values, then how do we go about changing undesirable facets without changing ourselves completely? That's the question that many wafflers and pessimists may have in regard to this topic. After all, why would those who have dominated the discourse for so long want to surrender their mantle willingly? "Isn't it good that everyone speaks English? Después de todo, si hablo en español y no me entiendas, sería una cosa buena? No? Then speak English, duh."

That mindset, related to "If only women would write 'relatable' characters with good plotting" or "Why should the people of Earthsea be dark-skinned? What's the big deal about Ged being portrayed as fair-skinned on the TV mini-series?," is a true mountain to overcome, in large part because for those near the summit, it seems like there's little impeding their path through life. Overcoming this is the crucial step, but outside of those in the industry living life for a time outside their cozy boxes, how can people go from viewing others as "different" and possibly "threatening" to viewing "different" as being "something that will educate me more about life's possibilities?"

How would you answer that last question?

International Blog Against Racism Week: July 27-August 2

This week is the annual International Blog Against Racism Week, where participants of all ethnic/racial backgrounds choose to share snippets from their experiences or their writing that deal with the pernicious issue of racism in global societies. During the course of this week, I hope to have at least a couple of posts that touch upon this issue, as it is one that affects me personally (being of mixed ethnic/racial descent, and having two cousins that are descendants of three ethnic/racial groups), professionally (the majority of the teens that I work with come from minority racial backgrounds), and which is touched upon in a great many of the readings I do for both pleasure and (mostly in the past) for research.

Sadly, the first issue that comes to mind is the recent blow-up involving K. Tempest Bradford and Harlan Ellison. The details of this may be found in this link, where the issue expanded from perceived sexism to ageism to racism at the argument's nadir. I was reminded yet once again how slippery of a slope jokes and mock-ups can be and how quickly one's heated outburst can lead to shameful comments, such as the one Ellison posted on his own messageboard last week.

The Carl Brandon Society this afternoon posted an open letter touching upon this spat before broadening it to an appeal for bloggers and others to refrain from using inflammatory words. Below are the main principles of the letter (for those who agree, I suggest clicking on the link above and signing your name to it):

These principles are as follows:

1) The use of racial slurs in public discourse is utterly unacceptable, whether as an insult, a provocation, or an attempt at humor. This includes both explicit use of slurs and referencing them via acronyms.

2) Any declaration of a marginalized identity in public is not a fit subject for mockery, contempt, or attack. Stating what, and who, you are is not “card playing.” It is a statement of pride. It is also a statement of fact that often must be made because it has bearing on discussions of race, gender, and social justice.

3) Expressing contempt for ongoing racial and gender discourse is unacceptable. Although particular discussions may become heated or unpleasant, discourse on racism and sexism is an essential part of antiracism and feminist activism and must be respected as such. There is no hard line between discourse and action in activism; contempt of the one too often leads to contempt of the whole.

The Carl Brandon Society assumes in this letter that everyone reading it shares the common goal of racial and gender equity, and general social justice, in all our communities. We hope for a quick end to arguments over whether or not unacceptable forms of debate should be allowable. These arguments obstruct the process of seeking justice for all.

Sincerely,

The Carl Brandon Society

Any thoughts regarding IBARW or the incident mentioned above?

Y.T.s, Beauty, and Covers

Interesting reaction at Neth Space to an article on Bookspot Central on the "best looking women" on SF/F book covers. While Ken's reaction is more to the presumption of sexism being involvement (all those cheesecake-type poses), my own reaction was to notice a uniformity there. All those skinny white gringas, with nary a cover devoted to a woman of another ethnic group.

The US (the world's largest English-language publishing market) has an ethnic breakdown of roughly 66% of the population being non-Latino Caucasians, 14.8% Latinos of any racial identification, 13.4% being African or African-American descent, and the rest being Asian, Native American, Pacific Islanders, and other racial/ethnic groups. Within each of those groups and between them as well, there are varying standards of what constitutes "beauty." While one shouldn't expect a 1:1 correlation between ethnic group preferences and mass cultural products (such as said SF/F book covers), the complete lack of coverage to these other beauty standards is "interesting," to say the least. Perhaps if one squints enough and imagines some of the darker-haired brunettes are Latina, there might be a representation of the country's second-largest socio-ethnic group, but unless one does that, it's pretty much a traditional country club setting - whites only.

I have received the majority of the books whose covers were depicted in that Bookspot Central link and while I tend to just roll my eyes at the poses depicted, it is again "interesting" that in the 200+ titles I received last year, that I cannot recall a single image containing a woman of a different ethnicity than Caucasian on the cover. Not a single one. Is the market that heavily skewed towards Caucasians that Y.T. is the default ethnicity? That certain Caucasian standards of beauty are so dominant in the SF/F readership/publishing that whenever any of the other 1/3 of the US's ethnic groups is portrayed on a SF/F cover (or perhaps on any color) that it is "exotic" in perhaps a kindred sense to how freak show performers were viewed?

Nice timing on this, as I had a student ask me today if I would be having the students doing anything for Black History Month next month. I told her that I'll have to work around the curriculum on that one, as there are certain "standards" I have to cover in rapid-fire fashion (I'm expected to cover the Harlem Renaissance, the Great Migration of the 1910s-1920s, the emergence of blues and jazz as musical forms in only a week, or else I'll be "behind" when it comes to covering the "important" material), but that I personally value discussions of the history of ethnicity and gender relations enough that I probably will develop an enrichment lesson that would include some presentations in February and March (time permitting, alas) for Black History and Women's History Months. For far too long, ethnic minorities and women were shunted aside in the history textbooks being utilized in elementary, middle, and high schools. I can't help but wonder if something similar is happening within the SF/F field, or if this cover art thing is an anomaly.

Update: The article linked to above has been pulled. I was going to comment over at the original article's site this morning, but since I cannot do that there, I'll just note that although the topic of that article didn't thrill or upset me (I got the humor behind it and understood it wasn't Damon's - the article writer - intent to write anything but a humorous post), my reaction was based almost solely on the covers themselves and not what he had written. It is something that had been percolating (like strong coffee, I guess!) in my mind for a while and that article just brought it to mind. I do have a post or two planned for this weekend to further explore this topic, but in the meantime, I would hope that none reading this would take my comments as a judgment on anyone involved in it. I prefer to see it as a discussion/learning opportunity and not as a cause to castigate anyone. So...who's up for a discussion of how beauty has evolved over time?

One final bit on the Sanders/Helix situation

Simon Owens of Bloggasm emailed me about an article he wrote that touches upon the issues involved, including an interview with Luke Jackson and Owens's attempt to get William Sanders, the Helix editor, to agree to an interview. For those who haven't seen the link yet, just click here.

One more look at looniness

Last week, I posted a link to a blog post by Tobias Buckell that discussed some rather uncouth things said in a rejection letter by Helix editor William Sanders. It seems many were so repelled by Sanders' bigotry that they requested their stories be removed from the e-mag. Early this morning, Sanders posted a statement:

By Christ, Melanie, you're right!  Why should you have to do all this extra
work for nothing, just so some silly people can make a big grandstand play to
impress their bloggy pals with the Correctness of their convictions?

I am hereby making a change to the aforestated offer.  Effective as of now,
any Helix contributor who wants his/her work deleted from the archives will
have to pay for the privilege.  Specifically, it'll cost you forty bucks, payable
to Melanie.

And that's IF Melanie figures it'll take her an hour or less to do the job.
If you've had a whole bunch of stories in the magazine, and/or a lot of other
related entries - award nominations etc. - to be taken out as well, then she's
at liberty to charge whatever she thinks is right.

But forty is the minimum.  This is not negotiable.

Come now - forty bucks, that's NOTHING, is it?  I mean compared to the inestimable
value of keeping your precious principles all shiny and pretty.  Not to mention
the basic principle involved at her end.  Call yourselves feminists, do you?
Then you ought to be ashamed of yourselves trying to exploit a woman's labor
like that.

I'm not just jiving around about this.  I'm serious as a rattlesnake bite.
You want your stuff deleted, you can pay for the privilege.  Not to the magazine
- none of the rest of us will touch a nickel.  (Though no doubt Lawrence will
have to handle the transaction, unless you happen to have Melanie's mailing
address.)  If you're not sure how to make the check out, email us, we'll forward
it to her.

But inquire first, because it's still going to be up to Melanie whether or not
she wants to fuck with it.  I'm done giving her orders on this shit that's not
part of her job.  (And if she doesn't want to do it, then you're shit out of
luck, little buddy.  Because contractually we're not under any obligation to
do it at all - as a couple of the earlier deserters have admitted.)

Hold on, now; two VERY IMPORTANT EXCEPTIONS:

(1)  This does not apply to those needing something deleted for professional
reasons.  I mean anyone who, for example, has a chance to sell a story again
or put it in a collection or something, and the publisher demands that it not
appear anywhere else.  If you've got a chance to make a little extra money,
why, that's an entirely different matter.  Just write me with the details, we'll
work something out.

(2)  This rule is not retroactive.  The three or four contributors who have
already had their work deleted will not be affected.  Just think, they not only
got to display the purity of their principles - or their solidarity with their
mates in Blogistan; the two concepts seem to be pretty much interchangeable
anyway - but also realized the true American Dream:  something for nothing.
Their reward for getting there first.

Now will everyone who posted or otherwise circulated the previous announcement
PLEASE follow up with this addendum, so that we don't have any unnecessary misunderstandings.


(But if anybody doesn't get the word, that's just what they get for not lurking
this newsgroup.  After all, all the best people do.  Don't you, sweeties?)

Needless to say, looking on from the sidelines, Sanders comes across as...let's see? Ass? Asswipe? Assclown? Something that most assholes would not admit to their society, as being beyond the bounds? Hrmm...no, that's not quite right. While it might appealing to many to call him even worse invectives (doubtless someone has wished he'd go felch a rotting corpse or that he'd sodomize himself with barbed wire on his mother's grave), that too wouldn't be the best thing to do (and no, the invectives above are just standard-issue for me when I think the person deserves them; Sanders does not...yet...in this case).

No, a better thing to do is to withhold any submissions (doubtless others have done this), discover what advertising revenues the e-mag might have (if any) and if possible, contact those revenue providers with statements from Sanders. Much more effective to hit someone monetarily than to just take down a story and see if he'll weather the storm and months later start adding new stories from people who would have forgotten/didn't know about the incident.

That I believe would be a better way of dealing with unsavory uncouths. Although I'll admit the invectives are fun to say from time to time.