CCBC-Net Archives
Historical Fiction: Criteria? -Reply
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Debbie Reese <d-reese>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 13:28:38 -0500 (CDT)
I have some comments about one of Anne Rinaldi's historical novels.
Second Bend in the River is causing me great concern. I think her work is well respected, so this book will probably be widely read.
The story Rinaldi tells is about a romance between the Shawnee leader, Tecumseh, and a white girl named Rebecca Galloway. Here is my first concern. Whether or not the romance ever took place is not known. Rinaldi acknowledges this in her authors note. It seems that more evidence says it didn't happen. Yet, this whole book is about that developing romance. The writing is full of factual events, so the parts about the romance take on a feel that it really happened.
I feel that Native people have so much "out there" already to contend with, that it is just plain wrong for Rinaldi to add to this body of misinformation with this romantic historical fiction piece. Even though her authors' note acknolwledges the controversy - it still seems wrong. Even though the book is historical fiction, it still seems wrong. Yes, the source note addresses this, but how often do children, on their own, read the source notes?
Second concern - a minor character (a woman) who figures throughout the story is also someone who actually existed. The woman hates Indians because she had to fight them off once. In Rinaldi's novel, she embellishes the woman's fight with the Indians. She adds that the Indians took the woman's baby and bashed it against a tree. Horrible image, yes? My concern - the baby bashing incident never happened. Rinaldi acknowledges this, too. Why, then, did she create it in her book? Isn't it dreadfully wrong for her to use this most horrible crime to advance the image of the savage Indian?
Historical documents record Tecumseh's prediction of an eclipse. Rinaldi weaves this into her story, by having Rebecca tell him it is coming. We do not know how he predicted it, but Rinaldi attributes his powers of prophecy to Rebecca's informing him about the eclipse. In the novel, Rebecca knew the eclipse was coming from the Farmer's Almanac.
Tecumseh was known as a powerful and persuasive orator. Rinaldi paints it as though he owes these skills to Rebecca, the white girl. In her story, she tells us that Rebecca taught Tecumseh to read and speak proper English. My research has not found an answer as to how he actually learned to read and speak English. But, Rinaldi's story strikes me as another case in which it has been suggested that any heros from within Native America are not heros on their own merits or lineage, but because they have white blood (a white father/mother/grandparent) or in this case, were taught by a white person.
There is also a problem with Rinaldi's characterization of Rebecca. She presents this young girl/woman as highly intelligent. At one point, there is someone who wants to start a school, which they think she should attend. But when the schoolmaster quizzes her, she blows him away with her knowledge! She has read in depth many books (I won't list them here) but the schoolmaster is astounded with her knowledge. Yet, in other parts of the book, she complains about her brother James not using "plain talk" when he says something like "Kenton has had reverses." It seems to me someone as smart as she is wouldn't have a problem with her brothers vocabulary. She also seems to master some writings about philosphy, government, John Locke, Newton... it goes on (page 139) and yet, later in the novel, she says she can't be bothered by talk of taxes and land. Wouldn't someone who read so deeply care about taxes and land?
In sum, Second Bend in the River is full of problems that may not be caught by an uninformed or undiscriminating reader who reads the novel for pleasure and does not look at the source notes. I think the novel is seriously marred when viewed from a culturally sensitive perspective. On literary merit alone, it is a well-written page turner. Yet, the inconsistencies in Rebecca's character are a problem.
In these days, when we are trying to evaluate books from a culturally sensitive perspective, this particular novel is a problem. Native people, and Native children hold Tecumseh in high esteem. With Rinaldi's novel, we learn that he got to be great because of Rebecca. Isn't that a problem, given that it is not based in fact, yet is placed in a historical fiction novel? What message does this send to all children? I realize authors of historical fiction are able to take some liberties, and in this case, Rinaldi didn't distort facts, she embellished them, or she used ambiguity in favor of Rebecca, at the expense of Tecumseh.
Has anyone else read this novel?
Debbie Reese
Received on Wed 22 Oct 1997 01:28:38 PM CDT
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 13:28:38 -0500 (CDT)
I have some comments about one of Anne Rinaldi's historical novels.
Second Bend in the River is causing me great concern. I think her work is well respected, so this book will probably be widely read.
The story Rinaldi tells is about a romance between the Shawnee leader, Tecumseh, and a white girl named Rebecca Galloway. Here is my first concern. Whether or not the romance ever took place is not known. Rinaldi acknowledges this in her authors note. It seems that more evidence says it didn't happen. Yet, this whole book is about that developing romance. The writing is full of factual events, so the parts about the romance take on a feel that it really happened.
I feel that Native people have so much "out there" already to contend with, that it is just plain wrong for Rinaldi to add to this body of misinformation with this romantic historical fiction piece. Even though her authors' note acknolwledges the controversy - it still seems wrong. Even though the book is historical fiction, it still seems wrong. Yes, the source note addresses this, but how often do children, on their own, read the source notes?
Second concern - a minor character (a woman) who figures throughout the story is also someone who actually existed. The woman hates Indians because she had to fight them off once. In Rinaldi's novel, she embellishes the woman's fight with the Indians. She adds that the Indians took the woman's baby and bashed it against a tree. Horrible image, yes? My concern - the baby bashing incident never happened. Rinaldi acknowledges this, too. Why, then, did she create it in her book? Isn't it dreadfully wrong for her to use this most horrible crime to advance the image of the savage Indian?
Historical documents record Tecumseh's prediction of an eclipse. Rinaldi weaves this into her story, by having Rebecca tell him it is coming. We do not know how he predicted it, but Rinaldi attributes his powers of prophecy to Rebecca's informing him about the eclipse. In the novel, Rebecca knew the eclipse was coming from the Farmer's Almanac.
Tecumseh was known as a powerful and persuasive orator. Rinaldi paints it as though he owes these skills to Rebecca, the white girl. In her story, she tells us that Rebecca taught Tecumseh to read and speak proper English. My research has not found an answer as to how he actually learned to read and speak English. But, Rinaldi's story strikes me as another case in which it has been suggested that any heros from within Native America are not heros on their own merits or lineage, but because they have white blood (a white father/mother/grandparent) or in this case, were taught by a white person.
There is also a problem with Rinaldi's characterization of Rebecca. She presents this young girl/woman as highly intelligent. At one point, there is someone who wants to start a school, which they think she should attend. But when the schoolmaster quizzes her, she blows him away with her knowledge! She has read in depth many books (I won't list them here) but the schoolmaster is astounded with her knowledge. Yet, in other parts of the book, she complains about her brother James not using "plain talk" when he says something like "Kenton has had reverses." It seems to me someone as smart as she is wouldn't have a problem with her brothers vocabulary. She also seems to master some writings about philosphy, government, John Locke, Newton... it goes on (page 139) and yet, later in the novel, she says she can't be bothered by talk of taxes and land. Wouldn't someone who read so deeply care about taxes and land?
In sum, Second Bend in the River is full of problems that may not be caught by an uninformed or undiscriminating reader who reads the novel for pleasure and does not look at the source notes. I think the novel is seriously marred when viewed from a culturally sensitive perspective. On literary merit alone, it is a well-written page turner. Yet, the inconsistencies in Rebecca's character are a problem.
In these days, when we are trying to evaluate books from a culturally sensitive perspective, this particular novel is a problem. Native people, and Native children hold Tecumseh in high esteem. With Rinaldi's novel, we learn that he got to be great because of Rebecca. Isn't that a problem, given that it is not based in fact, yet is placed in a historical fiction novel? What message does this send to all children? I realize authors of historical fiction are able to take some liberties, and in this case, Rinaldi didn't distort facts, she embellished them, or she used ambiguity in favor of Rebecca, at the expense of Tecumseh.
Has anyone else read this novel?
Debbie Reese
Received on Wed 22 Oct 1997 01:28:38 PM CDT
