[CALIBK12] Response to Debbie Reese's comments, 3-31-08

[Debbie Reese]

>Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:58:11 -0700
>From: "ladewig" <shatz at verizon.net>
>Subject: [CALIBK12] Response to Debbie Reese's comments, 3-31-08
>To: "CALIB POST" <calibk12 at lists.sjsu.edu>
>Message-ID: <005001c8938b$13706790$0201a8c0 at shatz>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
>(RE: [CALIBK12] CALIBK12 Digest, Vol 12, Issue 36)
>
>I've been thinking about Debbie's reply (posted 3-21-08, enclosed below) and
>I haven't finalized my thoughts or comments about it, but I did get the copy
>of "Arrow to the Sun" from my school library and bring it home to look it
>over this weekend. (For those of you NOT interested in following this
>discussion/debate on Native American topics, please hit "Delete" now! From
>the responses I've received personally I know there are a number of CALIB
>folks who are - this is for them). Please note that I have used some words
>in capital font for emphasis as not all readers will receive email with
>Italics for emphasis in correct format.

I, too, have received a number of private emails. Hitting delete...  I hope
that people read the discussion (rather than delete it) because it is one of
import for your collections. California has a great many Native tribes, and
they are patrons of your libraries.

>I quote from Debbie here (from her original post included below): "McDermott
>wrote ARROW in the 70s. I can be kind and say that it was a period when we
>had less awareness and insight and understanding into the telling of Native
>story. I don't think he did this deliberately. But I'd guess he knows better
>now, and I think it would be awesome if he could revisit that book, making
>it absolutely clear that it is a work of fiction.
>That means taking out "Pueblo" in the subtitle, and, it means taking it out
>of the LOC info, too."
>
>(Debbie's post contains several points which could be addressed but I will
>limit my current response to her comments above.)
>
>I am completely baffled at Debbie's comment "making it absolutely clear that
>it is a work of fiction." Without even opening the book it is obvious to me
>that it is a work of fiction. The art on the cover is very - I would say
>"extremely" - stylized in a manner that no one would mistake for being other
>than a work of fiction. Or perhaps Debbie's definition of fiction is
>different? - perhaps her definition of fiction also means "not an
>accurate/authentic telling" - ?

Thanks, Joanne, for these questions. This book "adapted" from a Pueblo
story, has so many errors, that using the word "Pueblo" at all is an error.

To reiterate primary critiques of ARROW:

1) Pueblo communities are ones in which children are born into the community.
The idea of illegitimacy is not a Pueblo one. Children who don't know who
their father is don't have that sting of shame found in other cultural groups.
The entire premise for ARROW is the boy seeking his dad because he is
mocked by other kids. That wouldn't happen. So from the start, the book
is wrong.

2) McDermott's kivas are scary places. For us, kivas are places of learning,
not trial or fear or proving grounds. The 
protagonist in the kiva is a climactic
point of the story.

3) The dance at the end "Dance of Life" is made-up. It isn't an actual dance.

These are errors that make the book inaccurate and unauthentic. These aren't
tiny details. So I don't think the book merits its "Pueblo" tag, whether that
is in the subtitle or in the LOC pages, or anywhere else. It is not Puebloan.

I appreciate your questioning my suggestion it be 'fiction.'  What I mean,
I think, is that I would like to see the book re-done, with no references at
all to Pueblo people so that teachers wouldn't use it in a unit about Pueblo
Indians.

>For those of you without access to the book (mine is a recent reprinting but
>the copyright remains 1974, so I do not think any significant changes have
>been made. If you have an older copy and note differences, please advise
>me), on the cover is a "Kachina" like figure with rectangular eyes and an M
>shaped mouth - very artistically stylized. Yes, the figure represents a
>human, but I doubt that anyone would think this is a "real" person (and
>thus, a nonfiction or "true" story). Secondly, the title is "Arrow to the
>Sun" (followed by) "a Pueblo Indian tale adapted and illustrated by Gerald
>McDermott."
>
>The use of the word "tale" conveys the idea of fiction/legend/fantasy more
>distinctly than the word "story" would. A story could be true or not. The
>word ADAPTED indicates to us that the tale might NOT be a strictly
>accurate/authentic retelling. Inside the jacket flap it reads "With vibrant
>colors and bold geometric forms, Gerald McDermott brilliantly captures the
>stylized look of Pueblo Indian Art in this Caldecott Award-winning RETELLING
>(emphasis mine) of an ancient legend." (snip.) Again, a "retelling" is
>understood to be a changed-from-the-original version - in other words, the
>use of "artistic license" (a term which conveys the concept better (I think)
>than Debbie's phrase "Freedom of Expression" as used in her post below).
>Yes, you could apply her phrase to art or literature, but most people
>associate it first with free political expression, or secondly when they
>want to emphasis a difference of opinion, or different from the norm. I
>don't think it was McDermott's intention to CHANGE the story for political
>(or personal) reasons/viewpoints but rather to bring the essence of the
>story to life via dramatic art for an audience (the general population) that
>has little background of or exposure to Native American culture.

Hmmm....  You're really arguing for this book, working to refute my concerns.
You're centered on the intent of the author. I'm looking at the book itself and
its use.  Can you imagine a story "adapted" or a "retelling" of a story found
in the Bible, where the reteller calls the story 
"a tale" of "an ancient legend"
that would be used in the classroom to teach about Baptists? And, in that
story, the values that were in the story are 
radically altered so they no longer
reflect Baptists?

In some of the private emails I got, there were questions/comments that
such things do, in fact, happen for other peoples. That doesn't make it ok
for any of them. They're all wrong.

>On the verso (which is on dark brown and quite difficult to read): "Summary:
>An ADAPTATION (emphasis mine)of the Pueblo Indian myth . . ." [1. Pueblo
>Indians - Legends]. The terms myth and legends indicate fiction, not fact.
>The fact that it is an adaptation is clearly stated. On the back jacket flap
>there is additional information about McDermott (a graduate of Pratt
>Institute) "Early in his career, working with the renown mythologist Joseph
>Campbell, he produced and directed a series of animated films on mythology.
>These films became the basis for Mr. McDermott's first picture books." Note
>that he worked with a RENOWN MYTHOLOGIST (emphasis mine). "The New York
>Times has said of Gerald McDermott: '[He] is not only a picture-book artist
>of the first rank, but also one of our most gifted RETELLERS OF MYTH AND
>FOLKTALES.' (emphasis mine).

The fact that he worked with Campbell has no basis. Campbell is not Native.
There are hundreds of examples, if not thousands, of scholars whose
interpretations of Native peoples is now seen as deeply problematic. You
cite the NY Times, but again, that acclaim is from the outside. If the people
who the story is about reject it, then what? Are you suggesting that Campbell
and the NY Times are more important?

>I do not know if the original books (or Debbie's copy) have the book jacket,
>but I think it's clear that this book is a "tale", a "retelling", "an
>adaptation of" a legend of the Pueblo Indians, in other words, FICTION, no
>matter where is it shelved. I'm not sure how much more "absolutely clear"
>(to quote Debbie) the author or publisher could have been. Perhaps Debbie
>could persuade the publisher to include a disclaimer in future editions
>specifying that the story is not a strictly accurate telling of the original
>story, and include a bibliography of authentic sources.
>
>Debbie's objection to the use of "Pueblo" may be justified in her opinion,
>but suppose the subject term was simply "Indians - Legends" - then there
>would be no indication or identification of which specific culture was the
>originator of the tale. This seems counter-productive to much of Debbie's
>posted/blogged concerns about not stereotyping Native Americans.

I wouldn't want any reference to Native at all in its revised format. In my
search for the "Dance of Life" it was suggested that it was done at Acoma
Pueblo. I've been in email touch with librarians at Acoma Pueblo, and they
do not have the book on their shelves. Isn't that important information?
An award-winning Caldecott book is NOT on the shelves at a school
serving Pueblo children? And, Penny Pollock's book TURKEY GIRL: A
ZUNI CINDERELLA and Kristina Rodanas's book DRAGONFLY'S
TALE are not on the shelves at the elementary schools at Zuni.

Given that these three books are not considered acceptable for use by
Acoma or Zuni children, should they be used uncritically by anyone?

Debbie



Visit my Internet blog and resource: American 
Indians in Children's Literature.
To get to it, go to my faculty bio and click on 'Web Page'
http://www.nah.uiuc.edu/faculty-Reese.htm

Debbie A. Reese (Nanbé Ówîngeh)
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 uiuc.edu
TEL 217-265-9885
FAX 217-265-9880






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.sjsu.edu/pipermail/calibk12/attachments/20080401/b4e4b4e1/attachment.html