CCBC-Net Archives
Some thoughts
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Kay E. Vandergrift <kvander>
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 13:47:50 -0400
I've been lurking on this list while participating in the parallel discussion on childlit and have certainly learned a great deal from both. Before this discussion concludes, I'd like to check my own perceptions by trying to respond to Jeri Chase Ferris's questions about MHIOTG.
First, I can not imagine anyone condemning an author for using authentic sources, but there is such a thing as misuse. One of my students has my copy of the book; but, as I recall there are sources listed but not the ones from which the particular passages were noted. One hopes an author does consult more sources than might be included in the selected bibliography of a book of this nature and for this audience. And, yes, if the quotes were exact we have a right to expect quotation marks and citations. Of course, the fictional diary format of this series may preclude traditional quotes. It is also true that the assumption that Indian children in the Rinaldi and Turner books would have recorded their stories in the white world's diaries is an impediment to the willing suspension of disbelief necessary for informed reading.
As I read all of the discussions, however, neither of these is the primary locus of concern. As I understand what happened, Rinaldi took facts and authentic tribal stories, re-wrote them, losing the rhythms of native speech, and making them mean something very different from the original stories. In so doing, she violated basic Indian beliefs and values and presented her child characters in ways alien to their heritages.
Given the depth of my own ignorance on this topic prior to this discussion, I can even understand how some of this might creep into one's writing without real awareness or mal-intent. In MHIOTG, however, there are gross insensitivities such as the reference to a "happy hunting ground" in the author's note that should raise the antennae (and the hairs on the back of the neck) of most readers.
In addition, the fact that author, editor, and publisher ignored the advice of Genevieve Bell who had been hired to check for authenticity is incomprehensible and unforgivable.
In discussing this topic with a group of New Jersey youth librarians (all women in the audience) last week, I asked them to compare the damage of such misinformation and mischaracterization to that of the depiction of gender roles in early children's books. One woman said that comparison was
"a light bulb going on for her." Although she had grown up with the
"Cowboys and Indians" view of US history, she (and many others) had previously declared that she recognized it as fiction and harbored no lingering prejudices as a result. On the other hand, as a feminist, her concern with gender roles in fiction causes her to actively select informed fiction and weed out inappropriate titles. Thus, the analogy hit home for her. She has since emailed me for all of the discussions on ccbc and childlit.
It is clear to all who participated in this discussion that many issues, opinions, standpoints, and concerns have been shared. With Eliza leading, we have heard a multitude of voices and the sharing process has hopefully permitted each of us to grow in some measure. What is of greatest importance to all is the recognition that there are excellent and articulate voices to be heard as we move forward in understanding the nature of this body of literature. It is not easy because we are ignorant, it requires hard and committed work and a sense (at least in the beginning) of admitting we don't know it all. The journey has begun but the road is a steep one.
Kay Kay E. Vandergrift, Professor Associate Dean Director of Distance Education, SCILS Rutgers University New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901 732?2t19 kvander at scils.rutgers.edu
Received on Sat 30 Oct 1999 12:47:50 PM CDT
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 13:47:50 -0400
I've been lurking on this list while participating in the parallel discussion on childlit and have certainly learned a great deal from both. Before this discussion concludes, I'd like to check my own perceptions by trying to respond to Jeri Chase Ferris's questions about MHIOTG.
First, I can not imagine anyone condemning an author for using authentic sources, but there is such a thing as misuse. One of my students has my copy of the book; but, as I recall there are sources listed but not the ones from which the particular passages were noted. One hopes an author does consult more sources than might be included in the selected bibliography of a book of this nature and for this audience. And, yes, if the quotes were exact we have a right to expect quotation marks and citations. Of course, the fictional diary format of this series may preclude traditional quotes. It is also true that the assumption that Indian children in the Rinaldi and Turner books would have recorded their stories in the white world's diaries is an impediment to the willing suspension of disbelief necessary for informed reading.
As I read all of the discussions, however, neither of these is the primary locus of concern. As I understand what happened, Rinaldi took facts and authentic tribal stories, re-wrote them, losing the rhythms of native speech, and making them mean something very different from the original stories. In so doing, she violated basic Indian beliefs and values and presented her child characters in ways alien to their heritages.
Given the depth of my own ignorance on this topic prior to this discussion, I can even understand how some of this might creep into one's writing without real awareness or mal-intent. In MHIOTG, however, there are gross insensitivities such as the reference to a "happy hunting ground" in the author's note that should raise the antennae (and the hairs on the back of the neck) of most readers.
In addition, the fact that author, editor, and publisher ignored the advice of Genevieve Bell who had been hired to check for authenticity is incomprehensible and unforgivable.
In discussing this topic with a group of New Jersey youth librarians (all women in the audience) last week, I asked them to compare the damage of such misinformation and mischaracterization to that of the depiction of gender roles in early children's books. One woman said that comparison was
"a light bulb going on for her." Although she had grown up with the
"Cowboys and Indians" view of US history, she (and many others) had previously declared that she recognized it as fiction and harbored no lingering prejudices as a result. On the other hand, as a feminist, her concern with gender roles in fiction causes her to actively select informed fiction and weed out inappropriate titles. Thus, the analogy hit home for her. She has since emailed me for all of the discussions on ccbc and childlit.
It is clear to all who participated in this discussion that many issues, opinions, standpoints, and concerns have been shared. With Eliza leading, we have heard a multitude of voices and the sharing process has hopefully permitted each of us to grow in some measure. What is of greatest importance to all is the recognition that there are excellent and articulate voices to be heard as we move forward in understanding the nature of this body of literature. It is not easy because we are ignorant, it requires hard and committed work and a sense (at least in the beginning) of admitting we don't know it all. The journey has begun but the road is a steep one.
Kay Kay E. Vandergrift, Professor Associate Dean Director of Distance Education, SCILS Rutgers University New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901 732?2t19 kvander at scils.rutgers.edu
Received on Sat 30 Oct 1999 12:47:50 PM CDT
