Diversity in Literature & Media (WAS book differences)

[naamagatus]

No: HPFGUIDX 40589

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" <cindysphynx at c...> wrote:
> 
> OK, let me go at this a bit differently.  Let's put Dean Thomas 
> aside for just a minute and go with a hypothetical.  Let's say that 
> in the original PS, all students are able-bodied.  The sorting of 
> Hanah Abbott is in the original text as follows:
> 
> "A pink-faced girl with blonde pigtails stumbled out of line, put 
on the hat, which fell right down over her eyes, and sat down."
> 
> Let's then say that some publicist decides the book is not 
> sufficiently inclusive because there are no children using 
> wheelchairs, and the publicist doesn't want to receive a bunch of 
> letters complaining about this.  The text in SS is re-written as 
> follows:
> 
> "A pink-faced girl with blonde pigtails rolled her wheelchair out 
of 
> line, put on the hat, which fell right down over her eyes."
> 
> I suspect that members of this list would notice this clumsy 
change, 
> because we notice *everything.*  But I doubt anyone would resent it 
> or suggest that this is an example of the disabled lobby throwing 
> their weight around, that it is tokenism, that the author's intent 
> has been corrupted, that American literature and media are no good 
> because of this sort of thing, that it is annoying, that it is 
> toadying, that it is pushy, that it is reverse discrimination.  
> Perhaps some people *would* say exactly that, but I personally 
> wouldn't bat an eye at this change.  Maybe I'm wrong there and 
there 
> *would* be a chorus of outrage that an able-bodied character was 
> made to be disabled, but it's not a complaint I hear very often in 
> other contexts.

I would most definitely be one of the outraged - Poor Hannah! To 
suddenly transform from a healthy, able-bodied girl into paraplegic, 
all in order to illustrate a point! <g>. 

Seriously, however, I agree with those who view such changes with 
abhorrence. The problem (as has been said) is not with the change, 
but with the motives for the change. I've never liked the PC idea 
that if you change terminology, if you change the way reality is 
portrayed, you will change reality. If the author didn't conceive of 
Hannah Abbot as disabled, if she didn't conceive of ANY of the 
characters as disabled, then that's the world she has conceived. She 
is a person. Her mind reflects the reality in which she lives - which 
reality includes dismissal of the disabled as an integral and 
accepted part of society. That's an unpalatable fact, but it is a 
fact. Putting Hannah in a wheel chair is merely (IMO) sugaring over 
this fact. It's saccharine, it's insincere, it's strained, it's 
artificial. I would think less of JKR (in this hypothetical instance) 
if she had allowed such a change to be made. 

> 
> Similarly, if we imagine that the British version contained no 
> mention of Dean Thomas' height, but the American version described 
> him as "tall," no one would care.  

Again, the point is the *motive* of the change. I can think of no 
motive for this change other than an editorial mistake, so - no, I 
wouldn't mind it (in the same way).

<snip>

> 
> Two things here.  
> 
> Your friend should understand that referring to racial diversity 
> as "tokenism" will cause people like me to bristle every time, 
> because it really does trivialize our concerns.  

Tokenism is *not* a way to refer "racial diversity", IMO. It's the 
forced, artificial, self-righteous, hypocritical way of portraying 
racial diversity. It reminds me of the Numerus Clausus type of 
thinking - setting aside a set number of slots for the minority. I 
see it as dehumanizing. 

>I find it rather 
> inflammatory and insulting, to be honest with you.  I would say 
that 
> people who appreciate diversity in literature and media do *not* 
> want to see tokens; they want to see diversity -- a recognition 
that 
> people of all races can make a contribution to the work being 
> written or produced.

But it seems that a lot of what happens in American media (from my 
faraway observation post) *is* tokenism. That's my sense of it, at 
any rate. I'd love to see a true depiction of the racial diversity of 
the American nation - I just don't feel that I get it. What I do get 
are TV series which - if I believed them - would persuade me that 80% 
of all American judges and 60% of all American doctors are black. 

I suggest that those who fight for racial diversity to be portrayed 
on the screen, start directing their efforts in rectifying the 
inequalities that actually exist in *reality.* 

> 
> > And, I didn't say that a book had to be 100% homogenous.  It's
> > just that, sometimes, the mentions of aspects of racial/ethnic
> > diversity in publications appear to be "self-conscious"
> > insertions that don't appear to have an intrinsic purpose in the
> > story rather than a natural part of the work.  When I write,
> > there is racial diversity because it is MY intent, not the intent
> > of outsiders who think that they know better than I do what
> > people ought to be reading.
> 
> See, this is what is so odd to me.  If we say that Ron is pale and 
> has red hair and freckles, that's OK.  If we say Angelina is black, 
> that's "self-conscious;" that it has no "intrinsic purpose."  Why 
> should there be a different standard that requires a *purpose* for 
> the inclusion of Angelina's race but no purpose for the inclusion  
>of Ron's race?

<snip>

There shouldn't. Of course. But the question isn't about "should" but 
about "is." Did the author include the description because it is part 
of her intrinsic vision and in the flow of the writing process, or 
was it constrained upon her externally? No matter how right it is 
that it *shouldn't* be different, it still undermines the integrity 
of the work if it *is* different (in the author's mind), and a change 
is made according to that "shouldn't."

Just to make things clear, I personally don't feel constraint or 
artificiality in JKR's depiction of racial diversity in the Harry 
Potter books. I've actually always taken it for granted that Dean 
Thomas was originally black (in JKR's mind), and never understood why 
it was mentioned specifically in the US edition and not in the 
British one. It was made clear to me by what has been said here that 
for the British there are strong allusions that point to his race 
that would elude the American audience. In this case, it's merely 
another of those translations to American (e.g., Mum-Mom, etc.). 
Botched up, obviously, but in principle no more irritating than the 
other changes. 

I am however very much against the practice of changing a work of art 
to make it better fit a certain ideology or world view. I don't think 
this is what happened in this case, but since I understood that that 
was the main issue of debate, I had to throw in my two cents .. oops, 
I mean, of course, tuppence ;-).


Naama