CCBC-Net Archives
Reviewing
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Debbie Reese <debreese_at_illinois.edu>
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 14:06:04 -0600
In his post a few days ago, Mark said that he was going to blog on his SLJ blog about reviewing, inspired by the discussion that took place here. On his page, he began by saying:
"The discussion over at the CCBC listserv was supposed to be about professional reviews -- which ones do people read, which are useful, how, why, how do reviewers review, etc. Before that thread ever began the discussion lurched to one side as Debbie Reese described her experience as a reviewer and her conviction that she needed to bring her Native American perspective to reviews -- which soon set sail into the wars over authenticity and who gets to speak for whom. All both fervent and familiar."
Mark's use of the word "lurched" suggests he doesn't like my conviction or perspective, or, my concern for accuracy or authenticity? Those of you who've been on child_lit or CCBC for a long time know that some of us go at it on this topic from time to time.
A couple of thoughts:
First, I get books in the same way that most people do. I buy them or check them out of the library. The books I write about on my site are ones that are old and have been out for a year or 100 years. I am not providing information in that same window of time that the review journals are in. Thus, my critiques are more of use to people who are weeding, or using the books in the classroom or library. And, I hope that they are useful to people who want to write books and include Native themes, characters, etc.
Second, I don't do 'balance' in my critiques. By the time I am writing about a book, it is one that the journals have reviewed, already noting what they think its strengths and weaknesses are... I'm looking at its Native content. I focus on that. Almost nobody else does. As I noted last week, reviews of Peter Pan in Scarlet did not note the Native stereotypes. My concern is not for the author but for the readers, Native and non-Native. What do they get about Indians when they read this or that book? Does it affirm stereotypes? Does it challenge them? Does it have factual errors? Bias? That's what people get when they read my writing. My posts vary. Sometimes I do a page-by-page be-with-me-as-I-read sort of post that lets the reader (I hope) feel what I feel as I read each page.
My contributions may feel like they're yanking discussions to a certain place, making them lurch this way or that, but I think that is necessary in a society that loves Indians. Or rather, loves its fictions about Indians. And loves retellings of Indian stories.... In one of his essays, Simon Ortiz writes about how Americans really want our traditional stories. They don't want us and our issues. Just our stories. The embrace and use of our stories (I mean goofy retellings of those stories) creates this idea that the reader/author likes Indians, and is an informed individual, embracing all peoples. It's a feel-good embrace with no grounding in the realities of Native life. I'm not talking plight or victim either. What do Native people care about? Do you know? If all you know is some retelling of some Native story, you don't know enough.
Debbie
Visit my Internet resource: American Indians in Children's Literature
Debbie A. Reese (Nambй O'-ween-ge') Assistant Professor, American Indian Studies University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Native American House, Room 2005 1204 West Nevada Street, MC-138 Urbana, Illinois 61801
Email: debreese_at_illinois.edu TEL 217-265-9885 FAX 217-265-9880
Received on Sun 15 Nov 2009 02:06:04 PM CST
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 14:06:04 -0600
In his post a few days ago, Mark said that he was going to blog on his SLJ blog about reviewing, inspired by the discussion that took place here. On his page, he began by saying:
"The discussion over at the CCBC listserv was supposed to be about professional reviews -- which ones do people read, which are useful, how, why, how do reviewers review, etc. Before that thread ever began the discussion lurched to one side as Debbie Reese described her experience as a reviewer and her conviction that she needed to bring her Native American perspective to reviews -- which soon set sail into the wars over authenticity and who gets to speak for whom. All both fervent and familiar."
Mark's use of the word "lurched" suggests he doesn't like my conviction or perspective, or, my concern for accuracy or authenticity? Those of you who've been on child_lit or CCBC for a long time know that some of us go at it on this topic from time to time.
A couple of thoughts:
First, I get books in the same way that most people do. I buy them or check them out of the library. The books I write about on my site are ones that are old and have been out for a year or 100 years. I am not providing information in that same window of time that the review journals are in. Thus, my critiques are more of use to people who are weeding, or using the books in the classroom or library. And, I hope that they are useful to people who want to write books and include Native themes, characters, etc.
Second, I don't do 'balance' in my critiques. By the time I am writing about a book, it is one that the journals have reviewed, already noting what they think its strengths and weaknesses are... I'm looking at its Native content. I focus on that. Almost nobody else does. As I noted last week, reviews of Peter Pan in Scarlet did not note the Native stereotypes. My concern is not for the author but for the readers, Native and non-Native. What do they get about Indians when they read this or that book? Does it affirm stereotypes? Does it challenge them? Does it have factual errors? Bias? That's what people get when they read my writing. My posts vary. Sometimes I do a page-by-page be-with-me-as-I-read sort of post that lets the reader (I hope) feel what I feel as I read each page.
My contributions may feel like they're yanking discussions to a certain place, making them lurch this way or that, but I think that is necessary in a society that loves Indians. Or rather, loves its fictions about Indians. And loves retellings of Indian stories.... In one of his essays, Simon Ortiz writes about how Americans really want our traditional stories. They don't want us and our issues. Just our stories. The embrace and use of our stories (I mean goofy retellings of those stories) creates this idea that the reader/author likes Indians, and is an informed individual, embracing all peoples. It's a feel-good embrace with no grounding in the realities of Native life. I'm not talking plight or victim either. What do Native people care about? Do you know? If all you know is some retelling of some Native story, you don't know enough.
Debbie
Visit my Internet resource: American Indians in Children's Literature
Debbie A. Reese (Nambй O'-ween-ge') Assistant Professor, American Indian Studies University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Native American House, Room 2005 1204 West Nevada Street, MC-138 Urbana, Illinois 61801
Email: debreese_at_illinois.edu TEL 217-265-9885 FAX 217-265-9880
Received on Sun 15 Nov 2009 02:06:04 PM CST
