Victoria Foyt's novel coming under fire...

Continuing controversy is also probably a strong incentive not to change anything, if money and/or notoriety (and the money that notoriety can garner) is much of a motivator.

Finally finished the post comparing what Malorie Blackman did right with Noughts and Crosses to what Victoria Foyt did wrong with Revealing Eden.

http://www.lizzylessard.com/five-star-review-handling-controversial-topics/

Nice. Perhaps even softballing Foyt's book a bit. The difference between "insulting" someone by calling them a pearl versus insulting them by calling them a coal (those being the two supposedly derogatory terms in Foyt's book) seems to have been given short shrift. I guess I found it more important -- far from being an insult, calling someone a pearl strikes me as a compliment. And not matching that by choosing another gem-like term for blacks (onyx perhaps?) seems odd. Why the mismatch in tone? How does one do that by "accident"? Alternatively, terms for both races could have been derogatory -- whites could have been called "sandfaces" or "fades" in an allusion to their looking faded out and lifeless or some of the present-day terms like "cracker." At any rate, if one race is going to get a derogatory name, then both should; if one gets a wonderful name as a supposed insult, the other should too.

I hope someone one day insults me by calling me a pearl. Or maybe diamond. That would be all right. Anything marvelous. I'm sure I'd be crushed.

@meowzbark

This may be random, but Blackman is married to a white person, and has two children with him, which means at least in some effect she has experience with interracial relationships. She never mentions this outright as making her "more qualified", but it had to make a difference on some level. (Not to say her relationship was opposed as it is in the book, but to say her experience may have informed her.)

This is compared to why Foyt felt very much like she was "qualified" which was a light brush with racism because of her "tanned" skin and her now infamous housekeeper, who may or may not be black and wasn't given credit in the acknowledgments. (All the people I could track were white).

BTW, this is a critique of what was written individually in reaction to the criticism rather than attack on the person.

Might help to drive your point home better.

Blarg said:

Nice. Perhaps even softballing Foyt's book a bit. The difference between "insulting" someone by calling them a pearl versus insulting them by calling them a coal (those being the two supposedly derogatory terms in Foyt's book) seems to have been given short shrift. I guess I found it more important -- far from being an insult, calling someone a pearl strikes me as a compliment. And not matching that by choosing another gem-like term for blacks (onyx perhaps?) seems odd. Why the mismatch in tone? How does one do that by "accident"? Alternatively, terms for both races could have been derogatory -- whites could have been called "sandfaces" or "fades" in an allusion to their looking faded out and lifeless or some of the present-day terms like "cracker." At any rate, if one race is going to get a derogatory name, then both should; if one gets a wonderful name as a supposed insult, the other should too.

I hope someone one day insults me by calling me a pearl. Or maybe diamond. That would be all right. Anything marvelous. I'm sure I'd be crushed.

Click to expand...

Ghosts? It would have similar connotations to slavery. Though the book itself would need an overhaul on at least the world building.

I take ghosts because of "ghostly white" and also in certain Asian countries (Vaguely I remember some African nations too? Or am I remembering wrong?), the color for mourning/death is white, not black, which would play into that.

Also, you would be playing into the ORIGINAL zombie mythology, which stemmed from a fear of becoming slaves and becoming mindless. This would mean you'd have to do a little borrowing from other cultures where ghosts are considered mindless or have empty desires, but none of those as far as I know would be European countries.

This would quickly demonstrate psychological hold over the white population because in effect, they aren't there, they are now mindless, they are only there to serve, and you get a second psychological edge that if you don't mind them, they might turn out dangerous. (In terms of racism) which would at least match *some* of the things launched at the African slaves.

So it would be taking lore from the original mythology and making it dominant, which would be a real reversal.

Flour would be a good second alternative. It equals food and could be used to mock the European fascination with rising bread.

Obsidian or Onyx could be the names. Raisins would be golden (no sun, so how did they turn purple? Unless I misunderstand photosynthesis, ultraviolet light and the influence that has on changing color of things)... so can use that against white population.

*shrugs* I think it's clever, though I wouldn't touch writing a reverse racism book since I don't think I could do it well and there is no point in doing it for me.

Rachel Udin said:

Ghosts? It would have similar connotations to slavery. Though the book itself would need an overhaul on at least the world building.

I take ghosts because of "ghostly white" and also in certain Asian countries (Vaguely I remember some African nations too? Or am I remembering wrong?), the color for mourning/death is white, not black, which would play into that.

Also, you would be playing into the ORIGINAL zombie mythology, which stemmed from a fear of becoming slaves and becoming mindless. This would mean you'd have to do a little borrowing from other cultures where ghosts are considered mindless or have empty desires, but none of those as far as I know would be European countries.

Click to expand...

First thing that occured to me, if one used "ghosts," is the similarity to "spooks." http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=spook

Not sure if that would be good or bad, but it shows how many nuances are involved in choosing a name.

The thing that makes no sense is that it seems like all of the terms were supposedly defined by the ruling class -- why would they have made a "slur" for their own class?

I could buy the underclass calling the upper class coals and themselves pearls, but only in relation to a different set of terms. You have to construct a tiered society where that makes sense.

If the ruling class calls the underclass "sand," for instance, then the underclass might turn that on its head and say that sand leads to the creation pearls, so "pearl" becomes a revolutionary symbol.

Likewise, the underclass could believably call the ruling class "coal" out of spite, but the ruling class wouldn't use it themselves.

Plus it comes back to the part where the author says 'coal' is a good thing, yet in the book it's identified as a slur and people gasp at its use.

I'm mostly just impressed that the racial divides are so clear. Asian = this! Latino = that! Black = this other thing! White = this! Because race is obviously clear-cut, and there's clearly zero variation in Latinos ever, and there's also no such thing as people of mixed or Arab or Native descent or or or...

Well, if the pearls vote to secede, at least they won't be getting my federal tax dollars anymore.

Corinne Duyvis said:

I'm mostly just impressed that the racial divides are so clear. Asian = this! Latino = that! Black = this other thing! White = this! Because race is obviously clear-cut, and there's clearly zero variation in Latinos ever, and there's also no such thing as people of mixed or Arab or Native descent or or or...

Click to expand...

Native people exist. They live on the surface using their Holy Native Magic to keep them alive, in a generic Native way that makes all the groups interchangeable.

Though I'd put money on the Aztecs being Aztecs so there can be human sacrifice, with Eden as the target because she's blonde. The blurb and cover rather suggest it, and there's no reason to suppose the author has learnt anything.

Pup said:

First thing that occured to me, if one used "ghosts," is the similarity to "spooks." http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=spook

Not sure if that would be good or bad, but it shows how many nuances are involved in choosing a name.

Click to expand...

True, though one could throw it back to reclaiming a term. Which would mean hanging a lantern and getting back to it later, then address it with *tight* world building woven into the story. Humans do revenge terms as well. =P I have to wonder if that slur was a preventative measure, though it does show the rudimentary Genesis thought where black==dark==bad. (misuse thereof)

But even outside of the racefail issues of the book, it's clear the world building doesn't work either. The internal lack of understanding of basic science without a justification and simple economic issues makes the book suffer massive plot holes.

Polenth said:

Native people exist. They live on the surface using their Holy Native Magic to keep them alive, in a generic Native way that makes all the groups interchangeable.

Though I'd put money on the Aztecs being Aztecs so there can be human sacrifice, with Eden as the target because she's blonde. The blurb and cover rather suggest it, and there's no reason to suppose the author has learnt anything.

Click to expand...

And are going extinct... except the Aztecs (One of the last left). Yeah. I know, it trips every bad stereotype about Native Peoples you can get.

Coming late to this thread, but let me get this straight: has Foyt commented on choosing 'coal'? And does the ruling class call themselves 'coals' too? I understood according to this thread, in the novel's universe it's a slur too?

I kind of understand why she wrote this novel the way she did from what I've gathered... but I don't understand why she decided to publish it to start with since it's obvious it will gain negative responses. Why add even more insult to an already massive injury (in this clumsy metaphor injury being racial prejudice.)?

On another note, I'm super-paranoid about writing PoC characters even though I desperately want to include them into the stories I'm working on because in the setting it's not realistic every character is white, and I'm just so nitpicky about realism. So far I've received positive feedback of her; a French girl of North-African descent. But it's still risky business, especially because her godfather is something of a villain, and he just happens to be darker skinned as well, so even though there're white villains in the story as well, I'm still paranoid. Their skin-colors are unrelated to their villany though.

First of all, welcome to AW!

Second, I don't think Foyt thought there would be negative consequences. From the interviews I've read she genuinely doesn't see what she did wrong and thinks we're just all haters because she's got that one Black friend who liked it.

As far as writing POC? Think about if someone wrote a story about you but only focused on one thing. And every story you read with a character like you focused on that same thing. Over and over and over again. Or they picked another thing. And someone would beat that horse to death. The one thing you rarely saw was a story with you as the multi-layered person you are. A story where you get to be the hero, not the sidekick. You're the one the hot guy or girl desires above all others.

It's like when I tell people I live in NYC and they immediately ask if I've been mugged. Or if I carry a gun. Or they'll start doing really bad 'fugedaboudit' impressions. Yes people get mugged here. Yes, some people carry guns. Yes, some people talk like Soprano casting rejects. Most of the 8 million of us don't.

akaria said:

It's like when I tell people I live in NYC and they immediately ask if I've been mugged. Or if I carry a gun.

Click to expand...

This is a bit OT but I'm curious: is it possible to get a concealed carry permit in NYC? I don't mean extreme situations (e.g. the police know some gang or some such has set a price on your head or whatever) but, rather, any ordinary Joe or Jane who just wants to carry a gun, well, just in case. I've been under the impression that NYC is may-issue in theory but no-issue in practice.

akaria said:

First of all, welcome to AW!

As far as writing POC? Think about if someone wrote a story about you but only focused on one thing. And every story you read with a character like you focused on that same thing. Over and over and over again. Or they picked another thing. And someone would beat that horse to death. The one thing you rarely saw was a story with you as the multi-layered person you are. A story where you get to be the hero, not the sidekick. You're the one the hot guy or girl desires above all others.

It's like when I tell people I live in NYC and they immediately ask if I've been mugged. Or if I carry a gun. Or they'll start doing really bad 'fugedaboudit' impressions. Yes people get mugged here. Yes, some people carry guns. Yes, some people talk like Soprano casting rejects. Most of the 8 million of us don't.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the tips The paranoia hasn't stopped me from writing these characters, but from time to time I do wonder what if I'm getting this all wrong, what if I'm not "in" the character as much as I thought. Oh well, the cure is to read and learn more, I suppose. And expose the work to critique. Sure, there are some clichés I guess. The one I'm working on now wears cornrows when boxing. To keep her hair off the eyes. So do the white chicks in the gym too. But still, at least where I live, cornrows is a hairdo people think when they think of people of African descend.

They're not as popular with white women as they used to be, but after Bo Derek wore them in the movie "10," they were all the rage with white women for years.

My husband watches MMA fights and cornrows seem to be popular for the women regardless of their ethnicity. As for everyday people? Around here I only see the style on Black or Latino people.

As for the gun thing? It's still rare to get a permit. In another life I worked for a law enforcement magazine. My boss had a permit but I have no idea how she got it.

I think the one place where micro-braids and cornrows are still popular for Caucasian women and girls is on vacation. It's pretty common to see braiding booths and braiding stands in places like Florida, if you stick to the states, and even more so once you get into areas like the Bahamas.

Little girls tend to like the way the beads clack when they move (I'm thinking of one child, in particular, for whom it was her favorite part of her trip), and for people with exceptionally long hair, they can be a matter of practicality. The weather in that part of the world is so humid and hot that having your hair braided off your face and out of the way is a plus.

I know that for a while, cornrows were an official suggestion for contestants on shows like Survivor due to the convenience issue.

And odd as it may sound, wearing braids and rows home from a vacation is a status symbol in some places. It's a passive-aggressive way of pointing out that you got to go somewhere "exotic" while everyone else stayed home.

Not that odd. We're a very show-offy culture. People do a lot more dangerous and goofy stuff to make their vacations feel and look more exotic.

akaria said:

My husband watches MMA fights and cornrows seem to be popular for the women regardless of their ethnicity. As for everyday people? Around here I only see the style on Black or Latino people.

Click to expand...

Makes sense. Keeps the hair out of the way and when wrestling, your ponytail or braid doesn't get stuck somewhere and distract your performance; as if it those bouts weren't hard enough already.

Around here... well, white girls with cornrows can often be perceived the same way as, say some white rapper ("rapper") like K-Fed unless you're an athlete.

akaria said:

My husband watches MMA fights and cornrows seem to be popular for the women regardless of their ethnicity. As for everyday people? Around here I only see the style on Black or Latino people.

As for the gun thing? It's still rare to get a permit. In another life I worked for a law enforcement magazine. My boss had a permit but I have no idea how she got it.

Click to expand...

Braids, especially those close to the head like cornrows, are common in various forms of judged or scored fighting because tightly controlled hair can help prevent scorecard influence. Getting punched or kicked when you've got a hanging ponytail (which will then probably whip or swing violently) can make it look like you got hit a lot harder than you actually did. Which makes an impression on the judges scoring your opponent.

That's interesting. Learn something new every day!

They always looked kinda painful to me, like if they got pushed against, all that hair and skin already pulled tight would finally give up the ghost and get torn off in bloody strips.

I've worn them quite a bit before and they aren't bad, though I have a tough scalp. It's a great way to keep your hair out of your face. (And your arms toned, if you're braiding your own, haha.) I used to be the go-to stylist for all my basketball teammates--a couple days before gameday I would braid til my fingers ached. Definitely some work up front, but easy to care for after that.

One of the nicest photos I have of myself is just after I got the news of my first publishing deal. I had my hair done in cornrows shortly afterwards, and loved it. My very first author photos are of me with cornrows. I'll see if I can guns any if them...

Found it! There's this one, taken on Tobago. Lots of tourists were having their hair done in cornrows on the island. http://www.hilaryjohnson.demon.co.uk/SharonMaas.htm

And this was the official author photo, shortly later: http://www.sharonmaas.co.uk/html/about_sharon_maas.html

Never had it done again, though. It's a pretty painful process! But it makes hairstyling easy for several months, so maybe it's worth it..