RSS: RSS Feed Icon

As a bit of a corollary to my Friday post, I wanted to be specific about the issue of race in one particular book for kids: Rebecca Stead's When You Reach Me. My interest in this one was primarily for the Wrinkle in Time angle. Betsy really loved it and had a very thorough review posted last year. She talks about many aspects of the story, like the time travelish bits and the mystery bits and the bits about friendship and families and mostly how it serves as a very smart puzzle book. Here's some of her thoughts:

I’ve been calling it LOST the book, referencing the television show that leaves you with as many questions as this novel initially does. But unlike LOST, the answers are forthcoming. And the crazy thing is, it all fits together. Every little piece of the puzzle. You end up rereading the whole thing just to watch the puzzle pieces fall into place before your eyes.

What's interesting about Betsy's review (and others) is that they don't write about When You Reach Me as a book about ethnicity or race. Charlotte noted in her SFF round-up of Cybils noms that one secondary character in the book is "black or mixed race" but that was because she was actively looking for kids of color in the noms. My point is that When You Reach Me is a book about many things, but to the blogosphere race has not been one of them.

And yet in the Heavy Medal blog at SLJ the Newbery discussion about the book is headlined as "When You Reach Me: The Race Card". And Jonathan Hunt has some pretty specific things to say. To wit, here's his take on the character, Julia:

Julia's skin color is described, but she's never labeled racially or ethnically. She could be African American, but she could be Indian or Asian, too. Or biracial. As I mentioned earlier, it's a similar technique employed by Virginia Euwer Wolf in the MAKE LEMONADE trilogy. It allows the reader to impose an ethnicity or racial identity on the character. We would generally recognize this as a strength, but there's also a trade-off. Isn't there also a generic quality to the character? One writer told me that, for example, when you set a book in the South, everybody knows that it's hot and humid. What she looks for are the details in the setting that reveal a native understanding of the region. What are the details that would escape the notice of the casual visitor? Apply this to Julia's characterization. She's universal, but not very specific.

Hunt notes that this is not necessarily a weakness for the book but it is clearly something that stood out for him. What bothers me about this is the double standard at play here. A Caucasian character can be described as white with no one blinking an eye but Julia must be more than her skin color because it is not specific enough. As regular readers here know, I have a major beef with the uniformity of white characters (see my earlier post "White Girl") and how little skin color reveals about any character's ethnic background. In a book about race or ethnicity, you need to know where everyone is coming from but in a book not about those issues then why do you just have to know only where the dark skinned girl is coming from? Why is this double standard okay and why is it possibly any kind of an issue in this specific book?

Here's more on Julia from Hunt:

Julia's darker skin color is foreshadowed before the big reveal in the store as evidenced by her crayon complaint, but it also raises other questions. Did none of the other children of color complain about crayons? Or were there no other children of color? Or did Miranda simply not note them in her narrative? For whatever reason, Julia is set up to be the token black character, the one that is going give Miranda her big epiphany about racism. At least in the beginning. She does grow into much more than that in the latter part of the story.

We know from the text that Miranda is named after the Miranda Rights but then Julia is there to "give Miranda her big epiphany about racism? It seems like Miranda is doing just fine on that issue thanks to her mother. Simply because Julia reaches for a dark crayon or construction paper she is now responsible for her classmate's education on racism. This is not because the book is about racism, not because it is sold or advertised in any way about racism but simply because the children note their different skin colors in an unexpected way. So in a book about something else, the inclusion of a brief passage where the children note a physical difference immediately transforms the text into one about race. Is that fair? Isn't it putting a text under way too much of a microscope and one that a text with all Caucasian students or a historical text set comfortably during slavery would not have to undergo?

Why do this - and why make it the way way to discuss a book's award winning chances?

The post has a lot of comments (more than 50) and it quickly becomes specific to the point of page counts, direct quotes and intense analysis of just what certain words used by certain characters might mean. At one point Hunt chimes in with this:

Anyway, the color effectively depicts Julia's personality? It effectively depicts the fact that there is no way Julia is a flesh and blood second grader (when the incident is purported to have happened). She can have these words--"cafe au lait" and "sixty percent cacao chocolate" in her vocabulary, but what makes it depart the land of reality is that she is using these words figuratively to describe her skin color (simile and metaphor).

It should be noted that Julia's choice of words is further proof of her different social class from the others - she travels to Switzerland, has fancy clothes, etc. But honestly, as Hunt then goes on to mention the unbelievable smartness of several of the young characters I had to shake my head. If he's going there, then he has to drag along a lot of other books about wicked smart kids and although we all read them and shake our heads sometimes, they are popular books. Ironically, A Wrinkle in Time is pretty much the most well known of this subset with Charles Wallace Murray who most certainly would have described color the same way as Julia and he wasn't even in the 2nd grade when Madeleien Engle wrote about him!

The smart kid bit is really not the issue here however, it is that in the unwritten rules of how to write a multi ethnic cast, Stead has apparently messed up. Her character uses arts and crafts to explain her color, makes a comment about skin rooted in her personal experience, (which Stead does not think she needs to explain further) and then goes on NOT to specify why she ethnically is that color. No joy on Stead. Apparently, you just can't do any of this which beggars the question: what can a writer do when it comes to race and who gets to decide?

We have been discussing race in children and teen lit quite a bit in recent months because a lot of us are incredibly frustrated over how uncommon it is to find kids of color in books that are not implicitly about race. We don't need another book on slavery but we do need a book about kids from multiple races and/or ethnicities and/or sexual orientation who solve crimes, face down vampires, win the big game, run into some ghosts and generally, basically, do all the things that happen all the time with 100% Caucasian casts of characters in most of the books kids and teens read. Rebecca Stead put together a slightly multi ethnic cast. She didn't make a really big deal out of it because she has something else to do with her story; she just let her kids work their relationships out on their own. She wrote a good book and yet that small inclusion of race has become a far bigger point then she clearly wanted it to be. Why is that exactly - and what does it say about us that race could be a point of contention in her book?

[As a personal aside I should note that I have compared my father's and brother's skin color to various shades of wood my entire life. I said they were like walnut (most recently the African Walnut of my coffee table) most of the time so people could get an idea of just how different our skin colors are. The skin color is quite varied in my Caucasian family and it is a frequent point of conversation especially when people see my brother and I side by side for the first time. And yet if I wrote a story with a character who says her brother has skin like African Walnut I doubt some people would believe the sincerity of that statement. Which just goes to show that we don't know everything about a writer's inspiration and it is wrong to assume we do.]

comments

Love the LOST connection.

Another really thoughtful post. It actually gives me a lot more to think about for when I go back to revise THE LATTE REBELLION more (which I'll probably have to/get to do again before it's finalized). It (my ms.) addresses not just the description and perception of ethnicity but also the experience of being of ambiguous ethnicity...so this discussion is very interesting to me on that level!

It is frustrating that authors cannot seem to win no matter how ethnicity is dealt with, though...either it's not addressed explicitly enough, or it's dealt with the "wrong" way somehow, or only certain people are "allowed" to write certain characters.

Kim - Yes, Betsy nailed it with that one!

A.fortis: One of things that really bothered me about the SLJ post was that this is not a book that would seem a likely target for race analysis. Stead is so understated here (compared to so many other titles) that to make a big thing out of what she did - and to assign a negative connotation to it - just seems to be a huge and unreasonable reach to me. And it will affect other authors, I'm sure of it.

When I was doing my run-through of the Cybils books, I couldn't remember if WYRM had any kids of color or not--I vaugly thought it did, but it hadn't stuck in my head. An early commentor had to set me straight.

I rather like it that skin color was treated as so much a non-issue in the book that it didn't register with me...

I just took a look at my own review of this book; I didn't address race but I did address the socioeconomics, because that is what Miranda was reacting it.

It's troubling to think that the moral of the SLJ discussion is that a white author should always have an all white group of characters, because however they do it, someone is going to say "you're doing it wrong."

Matt

Hint's take on WYRM is pretty out-there, in my opinion. My read of the novel was (1) Miranda and her classmates are effectively colorblind (2) Julia makes a big deal about the crayons and the snooty chocolate references because that's just how she is. She likes to name drop and make a fss and talk about the exotic aspects of her life (or at least, Miranda perceives her that way).

Matt

...er, make that "Hunt." Darn typos...

hope

I think Hunt's questions are good ones. What makes a character a token? What makes the character a stereotype? What makes a character believable? Why is that so many times a character of color seems to be included in a story only to provide a moment of epiphany for a white character?

It's just that everything he says about Julia is wrong. That's she's the only character of color, that second grader's don't talk like that, and most especially that she is only there to provide epiphany. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. He really hates this book, I think, and is trying to come up with legitimate reasons why.

But that's okay, because what Jonathan really wants is to start a knock down drag out conversation, and I"m fine with that. The only person who bothered me in the entire exchange was the dimwit with the numbers.

It's troubling to think that the moral of the SLJ discussion is that a white author should always have an all white group of characters, because however they do it, someone is going to say "you're doing it wrong."

Yes, what Liz said. I think this is an example of why you might have a writer who doesn't mention skin color at all, out of extreme fear of then receiving this kind of analysis which may or may not be merited by the rest of the book.

Hope - I have to wonder why he hated this book so much though (when so many others really like it) and also pick on it from this inflammatory angle. This subject is so touchy for everyone why go after a book that tries to do it the right way without dipping into predictable slavery or Civil Rights settings?

What was served by asking these questions about this book and ignoring a completely bigger question like "Why are there so few kid books published by POC in comparison to Caucasian authors?"

hope

Colleen,
Context is important. This isn't a general discussion. It's a discussion of these books strictly through the lens of the Newbery criteria. What's it like to stick up for a book you like when no one else likes it and the Newbery is on the line? What is it like to be the one person in a room that hates the shoe-in for the prize? Because certain questions were asked about an earlier book, it seemed reasonable to pose those same questions for this book, even if they don't really seem to apply. I think Jonathan is stirring the shit to show that it is okay to say, I hate this book for reasons A,B and C and then have all those reasons shot down. Or to defend those reasons really hard. Or whatever. It's okay to have a position and then have a discussion and then come to appreciate other people's points even if you still don't like that stupid book or to decide you actually like it after all.

Hope, I would agree and noted that the questions were raised on other books except...well this is race. Right now we are having a huge national conversation about whether or not Harry Reid is racist and if so is he as racist as Trent Lott and is Trent Lott racist and should everyone be fired for saying something when they actually do other things. The head of the RNC says Reid should be fired for his comments but doesn't think he himself should be fired for comments last week that have drawn charges of racism from Native Americans.

It's just not a topic to poke with a stick simply because you can.

Race being a valid consideration in one book does not make it a valid point to ponder in another. And if Jonathan didn't like the book well, heck that is fine. But are these the reasons he didn't like it or just ones that he thought would sound better or make for better conversation? Can't you just say you're sick of the smart kid storyline, or the kids didn't seem sincere, or whatever?

Personally I am pulling for "Calpurnia"... but that's a whole other issue!

hope

Well, I'm kind of pleased with the conversation about Race because I quite liked the way Stead handled it. I really admired her creation of three dimensional characters with such minimalist brushstrokes.

I loved the way Stead handled her characters. There are characters of color but When You Reach Me has nothing to do about race or racism.

Kudos for Stead for creating a character of color that can be considered self centered because it doesn't happen that often.

And I never thought about it before but something like this could scare many White authors from having kids of color in their books.

Loved the Evolution of Calpurnia Tate as well.

I recently finished Love Aubrey. It was so good. How can you not love a book where the MC writes a letter to Baby Jesus.

I hope both of those books are in the running.

I have heard that "Calpurnia" has fallen out of favor although I have no idea why. I thought it was a sweetheart of a book but there has been some picking about the language? Huh.

I swear - if you're job is just to pick apart then I don't think anything can stand up to it. Although everyone does Claudette. (And man are there a couple of questions i have on that one but can't talk until after the Cybils!)

Jonathan Hunt

I want to emphasize what Hope said about our particular discussions at Heavy Medal being different than general blogosphere discussions as we are looking at books through a very specific lens, oftentimes in very minute, exacting, and nitpicky detail. We've been this demanding on several books, not just WHEN YOU REACH ME. I'll also mention that our blog has functioned as a running discussion, that we had a series of posts in September and that it has been mentioned intermittently in various posts and comments. So I do think context is especially key.

But I'm also going to take issue with the assertion that I hate the book--or even that I dislike the book. What I have said repeatedly is that WHEN YOU REACH ME strikes me more as an Honor book than a Medal book. Indeed, I selected it as one of the top five youth books for NPR and I voted for it during our recent mock Newbery in Oakland. If we must rail against somebody for hating the book, let's focus on the bloggers that ommitted it from the Cybils.

Genevieve

I would dearly hope that the discussion at SLJ wouldn't scare off other writers from including kids of color in books that aren't historical / civil rights / nonfiction. I'd hope that an author would note that most of the commenters refuted Jonathan's points, noting how Stead included this multicultural cast (and the text showed that there were eleven other kids of color in the class, one of whom, Jay Stringer, comes into the story as a tertiary character several times).

In the comments, Jonathan retracted a number of his earlier assertions (that Julia was a token, a stereotype, and only there to provide Miranda with an epiphany about racism). I wish he had not used such an inflammatory title for the post, as I would hate for that to frighten authors off from including characters like Julia. I think it was clear from comments on the prior thread, "The Cream of the Crop," that Jonathan raised this issue about When You Reach Me because questions about racial sensitivity were raised about the book he was defending, and he felt sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander so he raised ithose questions about this book that others were praising and he did not feel was worthy of the Newbery Medal. But the strong defense of numerous commenters who did not see racial problems with how Stead drew Julia (and praised her characterization of this character) will hopefully hearten authors. One person raising a question, however provocatively and forcefully, shouldn't act as a deterrent, I would hope.

Quite frankly, characters that make reference to their race in an everyday manner without launching a race discussion is realistic. There are times for race discussions, very important times. In my life, my friends of color are trying to figure out life just like I am, their race may give them a different take, but every mention of their race doesn't veer into a teachable moment. I couldn't agree more that we need characters from a variety of races doing a variety of things, sometimes race will be a significant topic, sometimes not.

I think when you use the terms "race card" or "token" then you are looking at starting a fight and you know it at the time. If you want a discussion then I don't think you start there.

As to comparisons between the Cybils and Heavy Medal - I have no idea what went in the Cybils discussions as they take place offline. But the point is not whether or not a book is liked or disliked, but whether a race discussion was broached for frivolous reasons.

"Race being a valid consideration in one book does not make it a valid point to ponder in another." I agree, Colleen. Race, or culture, or ethnicity--these can all be present in a book without the story being "about" race. As an author, it's aggravating, and to me, a little off-putting to feel concerned that every time I include someone of color, or someone of another culture, I might be opening myself up to discussions of authenticity or questions about my motives for including that character. Of course, when a work is put in front of the eyes of the public, whoever that public may be, the creator really doesn't have control over interpretation or discussion. Maybe it sounds strange, but reminding myself of that makes me feel a little freer to write what I'm going to write and worry less about how it might be looked at later.

In any case, I'm sure as hell not going to be intimidated out of writing about characters of various races. If it's right for the story, it's right for the story, and all I can ever do is my best to remain authentic and true.

Doret, I love this point that you made: "Kudos for Stead for creating a character of color that can be considered self centered because it doesn't happen that often. "

I have to admit, when I first heard the crayon scene - and I was listening to the audio version, so I was probably noticing different things that I would have done reading - my initial reaction was "why did she have to make the mean girl her character of color?"

But Julia's much more than just a mean girl. And as Doret points out, part of having real representation of characters of color is having ones who are flawed, or even flat out unlikable, but add a dimension to the plot.

(That said, I'm still not a huge fan of the book. But that's mainly because I don't like the time travel logic/metaphysics.)

When a fellow librarian asked me about race in When You Reach Me - I didn't know what she was talking about. I thought Stead did a great job of including a variety of characters without making it a big deal. I went to a truly multicultural grade and high school and it was just a fact. Sometimes we encountered racists comments. Some of us (many of us) were smart.

I don't know why Hunt felt it necessary to play his race card - which by definition he does not have - because, like Kim mentions, we can mention race without have some sort of crazy discussion about it. I cant fathom why he brought it up at all.

Now, if he wanted to discuss the Claudette Colvin cover...

Jonathan Hunt

Okay, first of all, can we be on a first name basis here? You can call me Jonathan.

Many people have said that race and racism are not issues in WHEN YOU REACH ME. What I think they really mean is that the portrayal of Julia's race is not an issue. Jimmy's racism and Miranda's reaction to it are pivotal points in the story.

So I do think these issues are germane to the book, and are fair game for discussion. Now you may disagree with my tone, my arguments, my frivolous, unsubstantiated, unjustified line of thinking, but if we have such a discussion about A SEASON OF GIFTS and YEARS OF DUST (and Debbie Reese has just asked us to also consider CALPURNIA) than shouldn't we ought to have the same discourse about other books where these issues appear--and if you think they are larger issues in Peck, Marrin, and Kelly than they are in Stead, you're mistaken.

If we're going to criticize Trent Lott, then shouldn't we also take a look at Harry Reid? I mean, it's okay if we find there are circumstances that make the two situations vastly different than they appear on the surface, but shouldn't we at least ask the questions? Maybe not ask them in such a contentious fashion as I have, but ask them nevertheless?

Do you really think that WHEN YOU REACH ME discussion will discourage authors from writing about people of color any more than Debbie Reese's discussion of YEARS OF DUST will discourage people from including Native viewpoints in subjects that we don't typically think of as Native (such as the Dust Bowl)? Why the double standard?

Jonathan:

I did not criticize Trent Lott nor Harry Reid. I merely mentioned that the country was in the midst of a national discussion on race which included both of them and used that as an example to prove a point.

It was never about one or the other of them being right or wrong (or more right or more wrong).

You seem to be more preoccupied with Debbie Reeses's discussion of another book then you are with your own. I do not think one justifies the other and I do not think Stead's book justified the use of the words "token" and "race card".

But then again, I also do not think, "One of the rites of passage for growing up white in America are those moments when you begin to realize that there is social injustice in the world, that various people are treated poorly for all the wrong reasons." We have different thoughts on class, race and social distinctions and simply put must agree to disagree. Especially as they apply to "When You Reach Me".

I've just come across this conversation (above). I don't know if prior commenters get a notice when a new comment is added, but I hope so. I've got a question for Jonathan.

What "Native viewpoints" are there in YEARS OF DUST?

Or, what do you define as a "Native viewpoint"?

--Debbie

It would be interesting to see if he responds that Debbie - although honestly I think much of the discussion on both these books seems to be as much about you and Jonathan as the books themselves.

Just my perspective from how I've seen this all play out - but I wasn't alone on making this conclusion.

I don't think it is possible to view books in a vacuum. They are written by individuals who are born into specific moments and places, who grow up in specific moments and places, and are read by people who were born and grew up in specific moments and places. All of that is in that gray matter behind our eyeballs, and all of it informs how we write, read, respond.

I hear you Debbie - and I agree! (And sometimes it's a good thing and something...well...it's not. :)

Can you provide examples? Of when it is good, and when it is not?

What I meant - in the most general of terms - is that sometimes when you bring something to table it can color your view in a positive or negative fashion and the others at the table who are not privy to your personal experiences would not realize how much is about what's on the table and how much is about you personally. (Speaking of the global "you" and not you - Debbie Reese.)

I'm slammed right now trying to do a book revision so really can't get into specifics. I'm sorry. I've just got a deadline I'm working on and must stick primarily to this.

Ok. Thanks.

Post a comment