sometimes nothing can be a real cool hand
About

Zetta Elliott is the author of three books of plays, the picture book Bird, a memoir, and the YA novel A Wish After Midnight. Her poetry and essays have been widely published, and her plays have been staged all over the country. Oh, and she's awesome.

I first “met” The Rejectionist when she urged me not to lower my expectations of white female authors—solidarity is possible if we “aim high”! I love optimism, yet when The Rejectionist offered me the chance to write a guest post, this is what came to mind…

“Giving Up the Myth of Meritocracy”

If you’re invested in the diversity debate, you’ve probably read Peggy McIntosh’s article, “White Privilege and Male Privilege: A Personal Account of Coming to See Correspondences Through Work in Women’s Studies”. If you haven’t yet read this article, please do so now! McIntosh offers us one of the most accessible definitions of white privilege along with this useful metaphor:

I have come to see white privilege as an invisible package of unearned assets that I can count on cashing in each day, but about which I was “meant” to remain oblivious. White privilege is like an invisible weightless knapsack of special provisions, assurances, tools, maps, guides, code-books, passports, visas, clothes, compass, emergency gear, and blank checks.

In order to expose the invisibility of privilege (which is what makes it so easy to deny), McIntosh compiles a list of 46 advantages she can count on as a white woman here in the US. Though she acknowledges that her list is based on personal experience and therefore is not “generalizable,” many PoC (who live without such privilege) can vouch for her assertions. I went through McIntosh’s list recently and pulled out those advantages that I feel relate specifically to the publishing industry:

6. I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely and positively represented.

7. When I am told about our national heritage or about “civilization,” I am shown that people of my color made it what it is.

8. I can be sure that my children will be given curricular materials that testify to the existence of their race.

9. If I want to, I can be pretty sure of finding a publisher for this piece on white privilege.

10. I can be fairly sure of having my voice heard in a group in which I am the only member of my race.

12. I can go into a book shop and count on finding the writing of my race represented, into a supermarket and find the staple foods that fit with my cultural traditions, into a hairdresser’s shop and find someone who can deal with my hair.

22. I can remain oblivious to the language and customs of persons of color who constitute the world’s majority without feeling in my culture any penalty for such oblivion.

24. I can be reasonably sure that if I ask to talk to “the person in charge,” I will be facing a person of my race.

26. I can easily buy posters, postcards, picture books, greeting cards, dolls, toys, and children’s magazines featuring people of my race.

27. I can go home from most meetings of organizations I belong to feeling somewhat tied in, rather than isolated, out of place, outnumbered, unheard, held at a distance, or feared.

30. If I declare there is a racial issue at hand, or there isn’t a racial issue at hand, my race will lend me more credibility for either position than a person of color will have.

31. I can choose to ignore developments in minority writing and minority activist programs, or disparage them, or learn from them, but in any case, I can find ways to be more or less protected from negative consequences of any of these choices.

32. My culture gives me little fear about ignoring the perspectives and powers of people of other races.

34. I can worry about racism without being seen as self-interested or self-seeking.

37. I can be pretty sure of finding people who would be willing to talk with me and advise me about my next steps, professionally.

45. I can expect figurative language and imagery in all of the arts to testify to experiences of my race.

I have a sequel that’s waiting to be written, but I’m very creative when it comes to procrastination and so I found myself thinking of other advantages white writers might experience here in the US (though I suspect this also applies to Canada).* Like McIntosh, I do not mean to suggest that these advantages are “generalizable” (experienced equally by all writers who are white).**

1. You can submit a manuscript and it will likely be judged by someone of your race—even at a multicultural press.

2. You can query a number of agents who have extensive experience selling manuscripts by authors (and to editors) who share your race.

3. You can be pretty sure that the book buyer in a large chain or indie bookstore is someone of your race.

4. You can be pretty sure that your book—if it’s lucky enough to get reviewed by the major outlets—will be assessed by someone of your race who operates with an appreciation of your culture’s particular literary tradition(s).

5. You can attend numerous children’s literature conferences with programming that reflects your interests and/or your culture, you can network with industry professionals who share your race, and otherwise feel comfortable as a member of the majority.

6. You can write about anyone who lives anywhere and be accepted by many as an extraordinarily creative person and/or an expert on topics outside of your lived experience.

7. You can participate in a literary event and trust that your invitation was based on the merits of your book, not your race.

8. You can be pretty sure that the person responsible for acquisitions and programming at most schools and public libraries shares your race.

9. You can be pretty sure that most major award committees are composed primarily of people who look like you.

10. You can trust that disappointing sales for your book will not be attributed to your race (or to members of your race being unable/unwilling to read).

11. You can expect that your book will be displayed in stores and shelved in libraries according to its genre, and not according to your race.

12. You can be pretty sure that a (white) editor will not call your (white) characters’ language “too formal,” nor will you be expected to make hardship and racial conflict the central focus of your book.

13. You can rest assured that your book will be considered “universal” and will therefore be promoted widely and not only to a “niche market.”

14. You can trust that your book will be for everyday use, and not for one particular “heritage month.”

15. You can expect to be invited to give school presentations all year round, and not only during a designated “heritage month.”

16. You can trust that your white protagonist will not be depicted as a person of color on your book’s cover.

Getting published is hard—I think all aspiring writers would agree with me on that point. And race isn’t the bottom line here, but it is a factor in one’s ability to navigate the incredibly homogeneous publishing industry. I don’t mean to suggest that whites are incapable of editing manuscripts by and about people of color; there are many wonderful books that are the product of such collaborations, including my own picture book, Bird (plus one of my closest friends is a white editor!). Really, I’m talking about cultural competence, and that can be demonstrated by anyone who has taken the time to learn about a culture not their own. But as Peggy McIntosh points out, there’s rarely any penalty for whites who choose to remain oblivious. Instead, PoC pay the price and we see that reflected in the dismal statistics compiled by the CCBC: in 2009, out of an estimated 5000 books published for children, less than 5% were authored by PoC. We could conclude that writers of color simply aren’t good enough to be published in greater numbers. Or we could reach a conclusion that’s closer to the one McIntosh reaches in her essay:

For me, white privilege has turned out to be an elusive and fugitive subject. The pressure to avoid it is great, for in facing it I must give up the myth of meritocracy. If these things are true, this is not such a free country; one’s life is not what one makes it; many doors open for certain people through no virtues of their own. These perceptions mean also that my moral condition is not what I had been led to believe. The appearance of being a good citizen rather than a troublemaker comes in large part from having all sorts of doors open automatically because of my color.

My father used to call me a troublemaker, and initially I rejected that label because it felt like a cruel mischaracterization—sure, I asked a lot of questions, but why should I accept the status quo if it served others’ needs and not my own? I now realize that as a black feminist writer, making trouble is what I do! I likely won’t be thanked for my complaints about the lack of diversity in children’s publishing, but that’s ok. Being unpopular just might mean that I’m doing something right…*** ["Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." -Ed.]

*Many thanks to Doret and Neesha for their suggestions as I compiled this list.

**McIntosh concludes that “since race and sex are not the only advantaging systems at work, we need to similarly examine the daily experience of having age advantage, or ethnic advantage, or physical ability, or advantage related to nationality, religion, or sexual orientation.”

***I think one way of solving the inequalities in publishing is to follow the Brits by adopting a Publishing Equalities Charter here in the US.You can learn more about the UK model here.

Ink said...

Okay, I love this post, and I think the "invisibility of privilege" is a perfect way to conceptualize the problem.

I don't want to give up on the meritocracy, though. We do have a meritocracy, but it's a faulty one. Yet it was not so long ago that we didn't have one at all, and people were simply shut out regardless of merit. Our faulty meriticracy is an advance, though an imperfect one, marred by additions and subtractions that are extraneous to the question of merit. A black writer with 100 pounds of awesome may only have the weight of a white writer with 70 pounds of awesome. But that's still a lot of awesome, and they can get published. A black writer with pounds of awesome, though, should get published, but they'll weigh only the same as a white writer with 20 pounds of awesome. will their undercut awesomeness be enough? And a black writer with 20 pounds of awesome will weigh less than a white writer with no awesome at all! Which is sad.

So the trick is continuing to look and press for change. We need a better meritocracy, where there are no additions or subtractions based on creed or colour and it is only the weight of your awesome that counts. And that, I think, starts with posts like this, with attempts to understand and engage the problem. So, baskets of awesome all around for everyone involved. There may even be some delectable chocolate awesome hidden in the bottom underneath all the healthy organic awesome. Dig a little. Swearsies.

May 3, 2010 11:06 AM
Joseph L. Selby said...

A friend of mine is a professor of philosophy and uses this essay as an introduction to white privilege in his business ethics class.

I find it a much more accurate depiction of racial privilege. The list you highlight here is better described as "the challenges of minority." Many of the points listed could be posited for any categorization (not just racial) that does not make up the majority of its society (allowing for the classic exceptions of Apartheid South Africa and the like).

May 3, 2010 11:07 AM
Bethany said...

Very much enjoyed this.

May 3, 2010 12:18 PM
Lucy Woodhull said...

Fan-freaking-tastic. Keep spreading the good word. If I never heard some white dude rant about pulling yourself up by the bootstraps again, I'd die a happy white lady.

May 3, 2010 1:03 PM
Laurel said...

Thoughtful essay and I agree with what Ink said. An attempt at a meritocracy is a step forward from wholesale exclusion based on race and culture. I don't want to see the baby go out with the bathwater on that notion.

Improving the meritocracy requires a few things, though. Not least of which is do not require PoC write in a genre or culture that "matches" their race. Nobody expects me to do that. If I want to write an Urban Fantasy set in India, where I have never been, I can. If the book turns out to be good, people will be amazed at my mad research skills.

That should apply across the board. And when a PoC writes a thriller about Wall Street shenanigans, please. For the love of all that is holy. Don't shelve it in African Studies.

May 3, 2010 1:58 PM
Tahereh said...

!!!!!!!

my brain has melted a little.

May 3, 2010 2:00 PM
Michelle H. said...

Incredible post.

May 3, 2010 2:29 PM
Keith Popely said...

Your theory seems to rely on simple numerical superiority. By your logic, a black person would have incredible advantages in Kenya and a Mexican would have no problems in Mexico. But my experiences are that a white person would be ushered to the front of the line in both of those places, even though we are by far in the numerical minority there. The complications of race relations or privilege go far deeper than simply being a member of the numerical majority or even a member of the power class.

May 3, 2010 2:43 PM
The Rejectionist said...

DON'T MAKE US SMACK YOU KEITH POPELY HA HA HA

Okay, seriously though: We think you are maybe misreading Zetta? She is talking specifically about the publishing industry in the US and Canada (and we would assume Europe/the UK/Australia, although we cannot say this for certain), as she says in her post. It's not just a simple numerical privilege, but more about who holds the power to make decisions. However, the USian (hee!) publishing industry is inarguably made of up of mostly white people at all levels, and also mostly upper-middle-class white people from fancy colleges (believe us, it is a sad state of affairs when WE qualify as "diversity"). So, although you are correct that privilege is complicated, Zetta is speaking to a very particular situation and experience here.

May 3, 2010 3:23 PM
Keith Popely said...

Dear Le R, I assume our future relationship will have many instances of me saying something dumb and you smacking back in line. I'm at Cistco writing this on my phone, so I'm limited in how brilliant, er, long-winded I can be. I agree with the advantages listed. I'm just saying racial priviledge may be more pervasive and have deeper causes than simple numerical majority. Being in the racial majority dies not necessarily gurantee advantage, nor dies being in the minority gurantee disadvantage.
P.S.
Can I pick anything up for you at Costco?

May 3, 2010 3:53 PM
The Rejectionist said...

YES ONE OF THOSE PLASTIC BEARS FULL OF ANIMAL CRACKERS PLEASE

May 3, 2010 3:59 PM
Kelly said...

Excellent and so thought provoking! Thank you.

May 3, 2010 4:12 PM
Karen L. Simpson said...

This is an incredible post and I will be spreading this kind of wonderful trouble around.

May 3, 2010 4:14 PM
Laurel said...

Sorry to double comment but I've been thinking about this a lot. Not just in publishing but even early on at the beta reader stage.

Take every other argument out of the equation. Let's pretend everyone really is colorblind and no one cares what flavor the author or the MC are.

You CANNOT have an industry so dominated by people from similar backgrounds and not have culture bias. We get the same jokes, watch the same movies, had the same required reading lists in school.

So basically, the people writing the books that get picked up and the people picking out the books they will sell are in the same club.

I don't know how to fix it, but it seems pretty obtuse to not even recognize it.

And then you get the whitewash cover scandals of 2009 and. Wow. It starts to seem like an actual deliberate conspiracy.

May 3, 2010 4:28 PM
manifesta said...

Excellent. I've signal-boosted this post.

May 3, 2010 4:54 PM
Sam Hranac said...

Reminds me of being in a technical college ages ago and arguing with the white suburban boys that the fact that their grandparents traveled to America with nearly nothing to their names did not put them on the same footing as the grandkids of people who were torn from their homeland by force and shipped over in chains, covered in the puke of the guy above them. They couldn't see that difference. There is no way they could see the invisible privileges they enjoy. They literally demand that these privileges are fictions.

Drove me bonkers.

May 3, 2010 7:48 PM
Lydia Sharp said...

Good post. Thanks, Zetta. :)

May 3, 2010 7:59 PM
Michelle H. said...

I wasn't going to make another comment about this. Really, I wasn't. I was just satisfied to read such an interesting post and the other comments it generated.

But...

Something Laurel said in her comments has made me relate this bit of story. During the beta reader/critique stage for my MS, several readers commented that I had created a strong black female MC and to use it to my advantage when catering to the African American genre during the query submission process.

Yet... I had written about a white MC. The readers had assumed, based on my blog avatar, what race the MC was. I never mentioned any particular race in the story or eluded to it within the writing.

Just thought it might be interesting to relate.

May 3, 2010 8:01 PM
Zetta said...

Thanks to everyone for the warm welcome, and thanks to le R. for being such a brave ally. Keith, it's certainly true that dominance is not always linked to being part of a statistical majority; here in the US, whites will be outnumbered by PoC by 2050, I believe--but we can expect similar stats in publishing unless the homogeneity of the gatekeepers starts to change. And I should note that adding one PoC here and there will not alter the course we're on---esp b/c quite often that one person shares the culture and values of the dominant group. A board of truly diverse white editors could easily produce a list full of diverse books...so it's not just whiteness that's the problem, but the dominance of a small group of similar people dedicated to upholding the status quo...

May 3, 2010 8:08 PM
Laurel said...

@ Zetta (I love that name, BTW):

so it's not just whiteness that's the problem, but the dominance of a small group of similar people dedicated to upholding the status quo...

I think that's the crux of the issue. You could end that sentence with "similar people" and probably be more accurate. I don't think they are sitting behind desks twiddling their thumbs thinking, "Hmm. What can I do to maintain status quo."

What's happening is more along the lines of, "Wow. This is really clever. I totally get these people. So will our readers." With no understanding of the people they don't get. People who aren't from the same background.

I'm not claiming I could do better. But if I ran a publishing house and I was serious about reaching readers that I didn't think fit the traditional "profile" I would look into finding editors who didn't fit the traditional profile, either.

You can't complain about status quo and keep doing the same things, expecting status quo to change. Which is what big publishing has been doing, pretending to be righteously indignant.

May 3, 2010 10:12 PM
Lyn Miller-Lachmann said...

Excellent post, Zetta. And I like your recommendation of specific action in the form of the Publishing Equalities Charter. Anything that raises awareness and establishes targets and goals is a step in the right direction.

I'm glad to see this initiative in the U.K. because 15 years ago, my research found their publishing industry lagging behind the U.S. and Canada.

May 3, 2010 11:15 PM
Zetta said...

Thanks, Lyn. I'll be watching the UK to see how it all plays out...most importantly, they want to TRACK progress annually--so publishers can't SAY they're committed to equality and then do nothing about it.

Laurel--here's where I differ with most people. I *do* think there's a deliberate effort to keep things as is--as you say at the end of your last comment, publishers can't claim to want greater diversity yet keep doing exactly what they've been doing all this time. When you ask editors how they go about finding writers of color, most admit they don't follow any particular strategy--they go to conferences, even though they know very few PoC attend such conferences, and they cross their fingers and hope something great will cross their desk. If they're so desperate to increase the # of writers of color, their actions would back that up. Are junior editors encouraged by senior editors to devote time and resources to such an endeavor? Has the publishing house set up a task force on diversity? have they set any concrete goals in terms of getting beyond that 5%? Not that I can see, which means they're acting in a way that's designed to maintain the status quo. It's no accident, it's deliberate. I'm not saying there's a conspiracy at work, but I do think there's an unspoken agreement that things are just fine the way they are--and there's no penalty for doing the same old same old.

May 3, 2010 11:39 PM
Biography said...

Your awesomeness abounds. I usually start my procrastination rounds on this blog and end at yours, Zetta! What a nice surprise and such a brilliant post! Love this blog even more now. Ok, onto more procrastination. -Joylynn

May 4, 2010 12:43 AM
eu said...

Oh no, and there I was thinking I had an advantage because Taiwan hasn't been written about too much (in fiction), yet! Maybe there's a reason it hasn't. Niche market T_T

May 4, 2010 1:23 AM
Tui said...

Re: a couple of the comments here about not wanting to give up on the meritocracy. This isn't really what McIntosh, or Zetta, are talking about. They're talking about giving up on the myth of meritocracy - the idea that, if you're just good at what you do, everything else will fall into place. The American Dream: if you just work hard good things will happen, with its secret, nasty corollary: if good things don't happen for you, it must be because you didn't work hard enough, aren't good enough, and don't deserve it. The myth of the meritocracy, the myth of the level playing field, looks at rates of publishing of people of colour and say 'people of colour don't get published because they're just not good enough.' That's not true, and that's the myth of meritocracy that McIntosh wants to give up on. The idea is not some publishing free-for-all (although, who knows, that could happen.) Giving up on the meritocracy entails the understanding that factors outside 'how good we are' (whether that refers to hard work or raw talent) affect how successful we are.

May 4, 2010 3:15 AM
Tui said...

Er, and I should qualify all that with the phrase 'My reading of Zetta here, and McIntosh last time I re-read that article (about 6mos ago), is that...' blah de blah.

May 4, 2010 3:20 AM
Victoria said...

I can't tell you how much I learned from this post. I think I previously unknowingly subscribed to the theory of meritocracy just because I didn't understand how deeply white privilege reaches. I feel all ashamed, and apologetic and wishful of change.

May 4, 2010 6:20 AM
Ink said...

Tui,

I agree with that to a certain extent, but I still don't think it follows through entirely. You're suggesting that giving up on the myth of meritocracy is different from giving up on a meritocracy. Which may be so. But if the meritocracy is a myth, it doesn't exist... and I think it does, though quite imperfectly.

You suggest the myth is founded on the idea of certain values, of talent and hard work and perseverence, and the pernicious problem is that if you don't make it you feel like you're lacking in one of these areas - which simply may not be true. And I'd agree with this, but only in the sense that the flipside is true as well, that there are all sorts of great writers of colour, and they have succeeded for exactly these reasons: talent, hard work and perseverence. The problem is that the system doesn't work well enough, that PoC (and other minorities) often face further obstacles, face extra challenges unrelated to merit, which winnows their numbers in an unequal way.

But if you abandon the "myth" it's much harder to embrace these values. If it's a myth, what will these values get you? Nothing. Better to embrace your talent and persevere, while at the same time examining the system and working to improve it, to finally remove the obstacles that inhibit its proper functioning.

Just my take.

My best,
Ink

May 4, 2010 8:08 AM
The Rejectionist said...

Dearest Ink, what we think is dangerous about the idea that greatness triumphs (which, in fact, it sometimes does) is the concomitant assumption that if something doesn't triumph it's because it isn't great--when in fact that often doesn't follow ("Steve" just told us a story about trying to buy a first book by a writer of color who is now very, very famous and very, very critically acclaimed, back when "Steve" was an editor, and being told that the novel was "unsaleable" by the higher-ups). Unfortunately, as writers, there isn't much of anything you can do about this situation, except follow the advice you just gave (which we read as basically write the most amazing book you can and hope for the best). Oh, and RAISING HELL. We can all do that, too.

May 4, 2010 8:38 AM
The Rejectionist said...

Also, Victoria! There is no reason for any single one of us to feel ashamed, as no single one of us is responsible for this situation. However, to paraphrase the magnificent Tim Wise, that doesn't mean we can't TAKE responsibility for cleaning up the mess we got left. In our personal experience, feeling guilty serves as an impediment to action, because it means you focus inward rather than outward. Be not ashamed, dear Author-friend! You are taking the first step on an excellent path by opening yourself up to learning more!

May 4, 2010 8:43 AM
Ink said...

Le R,

I'd agree with that. RAISE HELL. Like I said, I think it's a very flawed meritocracy. Some great writers are frozen out for ridiculous reasons, and that's simply wrong. But that doesn't make the meritocracy a myth. If there is no meritocracy as opposed to a flawed meritocracy, we have just demeaned every great writer of colour out there. We have just denied their brilliance and hard work and all they have gone through and overcome. "Oh, the meritocracy is a myth. You just gamed yourself to publication better."

To me, these people succeeded because of their ability, succeeded despite steep odds. The trick is making those odds less steep for writers of colour (or, at least, equally steep for everyone). I mean, Colson Whitehead, Victor Lavalle... they made it because they were better than pretty much everyone else. I firmly believe that. Merit.

The problem is that there might be a few more Colson Whiteheads and Victor Lavalle's out there that aren't making it, and aren't making it for reasons that have nothing to do with merit.

The system is flawed. I don't think we can ignore it's there, though. That won't help us write well, to think that it doesn't matter how well we write or how hard we work. I think you have to believe your abilities will get you through, while at the same time facing the hard reality of the difficulties. And hopefully doing something about it.

Which is why I like posts like this. Problems need a voice if they are to be confronted, and the words of the answers will be derived from asking the right questions.

May 4, 2010 9:00 AM
Neesha Meminger said...

There is a reason we, in the US, only now have our first black president. Doesn't mean there have never been competent (hell, stellar) black (and female) candidates before this point in time, many of whom were far more qualified to be president than some of the past folks in office. But they never made it because of...what? Because they lacked merit? Hardly. They never made it because there are several systems in place that kept them out. Shirley Chisholm ran for president in 1972. She was outspoken, radical, black AND a woman. She didn't stand a chance. Obama made it because he was *strategic* AND he was eons more qualified than his opponent (I'm not going to argue that point - let's just say it's my opinion).

The point I'm trying to make is that saying there is a myth of meritocracy does not mean the writers of colour who've "made it" lack merit. Nor does it discount their success. There are many factors that account for success in our very lop-sided world. Some of those successful authors wrote about "acceptable" subject matter - stuff that didn't threaten those who uphold the status quo. Some were incredibly talented and hard-working, AND knew the right people. Some mimicked the style of the great white writers we've all read and studied ad nauseum in schools - so their writing was *familiar* and, therefore, well within the comfort zone of those who acquire and sell books. Some of those great writers of colour had wealthy white (and/or male) benefactors, something most of us do not. Some had well-positioned white friends or spouses who championed their work.

There are a zillion reasons *some* of us manage to move forward within a system designed to keep us all out. The point of this post is that there is, indeed, a system designed to keep us out. Some of us have carved inroads, but not without expense to ourselves. Sherman Alexie said in one interview that (I'm paraphrasing) any writer of colour who achieves any degree of mainstream success has had to compromise something.

While some of us do squeak through, that doesn't mean the system overall is really benign, or that it is generally good, but "flawed". It is not. If it were simply flawed, it would be much easier to breach, or reshape. Writers far more talented than those of us "raising hell" now have been trying for many, many years to do just that.

May 4, 2010 10:38 AM
Christine Fletcher said...

White privilege is like the air we breathe--invisible and available without effort. Integral to our day-to-day lives, but something we rarely (if ever) think about.

One difference is that no one denies that air exists. But many whites deny that white privilege exists, because to acknowledge it is to admit that we benefit from it at the expense of others. It exposes the myth that we achieved what we have entirely due to our own fabulousness. It undermines what many people most want to believe about this country. It makes us uncomfortable.

Discomfort brings backlash. But I believe--I have to believe--it can also bring change, if enough people become aware of the rock digging into their heel. If enough people become aware that this isn't right.

Thanks for this post, Zetta.

May 4, 2010 11:26 AM
The Rejectionist said...

SO TRUE, Neesha, all of it. "Raise hell" (our words) is oversimplifying it, since people of color have been doing that work for decades, often at the expense of their careers and sometimes at the expense of their lives. We would argue that white writers have a far greater responsibility to be voices for change, since the system inherently privileges us.

No one is going to assume that we are speaking for an entire group of people--i.e., some people might read this blog, and think "Jesus, the rejectionist is nuts," but NO ONE is going to read this blog and think "Damn! Those white people! Always complaining! When will they get over it!" It's far less likely that white people will lose our jobs, or be shut out of the industry, or have our work passed over because we are "too political," or deal with any of the countless other barriers people of color face every day just trying to participate in this dialogue. In fact, (Tim Wise talks about this as well WE LOVE YOU, TIM WISE) we are probably going to be praised as "brave" and "forward-thinking," just for repeating the same things people of color have been saying for hundreds of years, often in much smarter ways, and other people are much more likely to listen to us. All the more reason why it is so important for us white folks (USian and non) to educate ourselves, to LISTEN, and to do everything in our power to make space for other people to be heard.

May 4, 2010 11:34 AM
The Rejectionist said...

Oops, that second-to-last last sentence was maybe not clear--we meant the people of color were saying things in smarter ways. Not the white people.

May 4, 2010 11:36 AM
Ink said...

Neesha,

I basically agree with what you said, and don't actually think we're saying anything all that different. To clarify my point, I wasn't saying the underlying system was "benign" or "basically good" with a couple of minor wrinkles. I wasn't placing a value on the nature of the system. My point is that the underlying system is designed as a meritocracy. I mean, Le R has a job for this very reason - she gets to shift the slush looking for the merit. At every level people are trying to sift for the best writing. That's its nature.

Now, it doesn't always work. And sometimes it works horribly. To me those are flaws, and sometimes grave flaws (the danger of using, say, saleability as an aspect of merit where the understanding of saleability is based on a number of unexamined assumptions... or outright biases). And perhaps there are people actively sabotaging the system. All that, I think, is possible, even likely. But the system itself is not designed to keep anyone out - that comes in the particulars of how it is employed (or through other systems operating on top of, and entangled with, that system - there are many reasons for successm, all of which come in riding shotgun with merit, from luck to privilege). Which, in the end, comes to the same thing - exclusionary practices.

How active and intentional is the misuse of this system for exclusionary reasons? I don't know. And I mean that literally. I simply don't know enough about the business to say. Is someone turning down a book by a writer of colour (because they don't see a market for that writer) a conscious act of exclusion or an unconscious response to assumptions about readership? A bit of both? A lot of A and some of B?

Maybe all of them, as publishing is a series of individual choices and the choices will likely be a little different for each member (though each will be influenced by the broader spectrum, the series of choices that have gone before). The question is, I guess, how to influece those choices? How to change the industry culture that (consciously or subconsciously) supports exclusionary practices?

I enjoyed the post and all the thoughtful discussion that's come after. A lot of food for thought, here. Maybe Neesha and Zetta want further guest blogs... (hint hint). I'd love to hear what they think are the best ways to start reshaping the underlying attitudes of the industry. Obviously, more diversity amidst writers and editors would be great. But since that would be a slow process at best (not a lot of great jobs opening up in the industry right now, it seems), what would be some interesting conceptual/philosophical/behavioural (etc.) approaches that might spur change?

Okay, that was a really big hint. I'll shut up now.

May 4, 2010 1:41 PM
Neesha Meminger said...

@ Ink - I see what you're saying. I think the charter is a step toward some change, as are discussions like these - they can be consciousness-raising, illuminating, and informative. Also important is to read posts, articles, and essays by people who write/blog about these issues regularly. I made a conscious effort to put forth suggestions for action in my recent bullying post and others have made lists of suggestions for other issues (see Justine Larbalestier's notes to men and white writers on her blog, for example).

Ideally, we'd want genuine commitment from those with decision-making power to implement policies and procedures that would change and restructure the landscape. Of course, not everyone is committed to, or invested in changing the way things are. The key is in convincing these folks that reshaping and re-envisioning current systems will help EVERYONE. Not just those making noise.

It would be like telling a major-player CEO that spending more time with his kids would not just help them, it would help him. He might just be happier. But, nine times out of ten, the CEO (1) wouldn't believe you; and (2) wouldn't give up his money.

Still...that's nine times out of ten. There is that one guy out there who would give it all up to live a simpler, more fulfilling life. Likewise, there's that one publisher/editor/agent/chain-store-book-buyer, etc. who wants a better world. And that's where we focus our energies. At least that's how I see it. Welcome to Neesha's
World *grin*.

I thank you for clarifying your earlier comment :).

May 4, 2010 5:09 PM
Becky said...

I have a basic and silly sounding question-how do rejectionists the editing world around know what race the author of a given MS is? I don't tend to include a picture with my submission.
I'm sure that stories with CoC are assumed to have been written by PoC, but with a follow-up how does a MS reader know?

May 4, 2010 5:38 PM
The Rejectionist said...

Dear Becky, that IS NOT A SILLY QUESTION. It is an EXCELLENT question. So! Sometimes it's obvious from a writer's name. But otherwise, there's no way of knowing, unless the writer identifies his or her race in the query. HOWEVER, what does seem to be true is that at the initial stages--i.e., when agents are requesting manuscripts--the issue can simply be the protagonist is a character of color, regardless of the race of the author. "Steve" doesn't have any clients who are white writers selling bestselling books with characters of color--we ourself would be super curious to see what happened with a book like The Help (which we haven't read) at the querying stage. Books by white writers with characters of color that sell well do seem, for the most part, to feature characters of color that fit into tropes white readers are comfortable with--i.e. Memoirs of a Geisha, The Help, Snow Falling on Cedars--even if people of color have ALREADY WRITTEN THOSE BOOKS in more complex and nuanced ways (see: Farewell to Manzanar, which is amazing, as opposed to Snow Falling, which we personally find execrable). M.T. Anderson is an exception we can think of off the top of our head, but he also had an established career before he decided to write a really complex and devastating book about slavery with a black mc (and again, he's still writing about slavery, which is in the past and so more comfortable for white readers to read about, since we can be like "how terrible! So glad we are post-racial now!" and not really have to deal with the present or racism that might be happening now). We could talk about this for a long time but we have to eat our dinner. Anyway, what we meant to say is, there is no simple answer to that question, and the barriers writers face may also have a lot to do with the kinds of stories they are telling, and how much those stories might challenge beliefs that dominant-culture readers are assumed to hold.

Also, everyone, we are kind of beside ourself with delight at the thoughtfulness of the discussion that is happening in the comments on this post. Thank you everyone for being so respectful and awesome and doing so much thinking, and thank you Zetta for starting this party!

May 4, 2010 8:06 PM
Ink said...

Ooh, can I add something more? This is a question for Le R. and Neesha and Zetta (and anyone else who wants to take a crack at it), and it MIGHT EVEN MAKE A GOOD GUEST POST. Just sayin'.

So, in my (subjective and limited) experience of profesionals in the industry, it seems they're mostly leftward leaning liberal folk. Could I be way wrong? Yes! But I'm going with this for a second. So... it seems a little odd that the industry would then, in practice, be rather conservative and exclusionary. Yet with so many cultural assumptions and influences working under the surface perhaps it's not surprising that certain actions do not match with, say, voting habits.

Yet I've been wondering how many of these decisions are influenced by the pervading culture, and how much from fear? And not fear of what's different, but fear for something old-fashioned and simple: their jobs. Fear of failure, fear of risk. It takes a certain chutzpah to go against the grain, to take a chance. And editors seem to think writers of colour are more of a chance. What happens if the book doesn't do well and there really isn't a market and the publisher loses money? Will they get fired? Does it seem safer to pick the novel about a white guy in New York (Plus! He set a bunch of scenes in that deli I always eat at! Huzzah!) rather than the novel about a black woman in St. Louis?

How much does that fear play into it?

I've been thinking about the story of the Seabiscuit book. The editor read this book and was blown away, and then shared it with everyone else in the publishing company. Everyone down through the ranks was blown away by it, too. They put the book out. Bestseller, movie, etc.

And a bunch of other editors at other companies started picking up racing books. Because, obviously, there was an untapped market there!

But there wasn't, really. The editor who picked it up knew there wasn't some great untapped horse-racing book market. It was simply a great book. The sort of book a ton of people would love.

So I keep wondering how much this plays into the scenario with writers of colour. How many editors are simply unwilling to publish a great book because it's great and instead follow what's been done before? Another novel in New York and oh so sorry, St. Louis.

Anyway, I'd love some thoughts on this from people on the inside.

May 4, 2010 9:01 PM
The Rejectionist said...

This one deserves a thorough answer which we will mull over today, unless someone else feels like fielding it for us first. We DO have to WORK sometimes, you know.

May 5, 2010 9:35 AM
Ink said...

I think you should just immediately form reject everyone today and then you'll have time to answer my question. I label this PRIORITIZATION. How many stories named Giggles do you really want to read anyway?

(hee hee)

May 5, 2010 10:26 AM
Zetta said...

Well, Ink, I am *definitely* not on the inside of things, so I'll let someone else tackle that Seabiscuit question. If you can get actual editors to open up about their selection process, let me know! In the meantime, if you're looking for a guest post, why not try Shelina Permaloo at DIPNET? They've just extended the discussion period for the UK Equalities Charter, but perhaps she'd have some time to explain how they came up with these specific demands. I think change will only come with greater transparency...and asking publishers to "do better" is like asking Wall Street to regulate itself...there has to be some kind of oversight--maybe by the Children's Book Council--something public so that consumers, readers, and writers can know just what equality means to these corporations. The myth of meritocracy is so old and so tired...I'd suggest you read Sarah Schulman's latest book, Ties That Bind--she offers a strong critique of the myth and ways to right the wrongs (which would mean many unqualified folks giving up jobs they didn't earn to more qualified folks)...when the myth is so deeply embedded in US institutions and founding documents/narratives ("We hold these truths to be self-evident...") it's unlikely we can salvage anything of use UNLESS we go back and admit all the abuses and biases and wrongs...I think that would be called a truth & reconciliation commission, but it's not likely to happen here in the US. B/c admission of wrongdoing opens the wrongdoer up to suits for reparations...yet mention affirmative action and you'll hear cries of "quotas!" and claims that PoC are being hired for reasons other than MERIT...groan. That's it for me, folks. Thanks for the smart, engaging conversation!

May 5, 2010 10:32 AM
Ink said...

Thanks, Zetta!

And one of the problems, for me, is that it's difficult to change the constituency of the industry. It's a small industry, really, in terms of decision makers, and these days it seems more likely that the number of positions will be shrinking rather than expanding. So even if people were to push for a more aggressive policy of hiring for diversity... well, there simply might not be any positions anyway.

Especially when it seems so many people come up through unpaid internships. And working a full-time unpaid job tends to limit the applicants to a certain socioeconomic class (which may affect diversity as well). From a short term financial sense, this is prudent for the publishers. From a cultural sense, however, and perhaps from a long-term financial sense, it seems far less effective.

But, considering the limited opportunities in the field, how do you make changes? And I agree that many people aren't going to be giving up their jobs. :)

Thanks, Zetta!

May 5, 2010 11:30 AM
Becky said...

There are also fewer gateways-more and more publishing houses only look at MSs given to them by agents. So the agent and his/her minions get to read more and more slush in general, poor things!
If, as stated less than 5% of the 5000 children's books published were authored by PoC, where are the unpublished? How do the demographics of authorship stack up? Are more AoC rejected than white authors? Are the numbers of AoC proportionally equal to white populations? I can see where being poor could have a real impact on your ability to find the time and energy to write.
If a slush pile is x MSs big, and y% is crap, how can we tell if AoC are getting rejected more than white authors? It may be that agents and publishers like to play safe with new authors-just like Hollywood gives us more and more of the same old same old-and therefore books that seem other get rejected. But isn't it possible that there are just fewer submissions from AoC?

May 5, 2010 12:35 PM
Tameson said...

Becky's question is also interesting in looking at if there are fewer, why? Looking at the past, a lot of women author's submitted under pseudonyms because the field was not friendly to women, and a lot simply wrote for themselves and their family, never showing potential masterpieces to the world. Do AoC look at a system where they are constantly told no one wants to read about PoC, if we put a PoC on the cover, no one will buy it, and think maybe this isn't the world I want to be a part of? Are AoC more likely to try for alternative methods of publication, such as self publication and smaller press?

May 5, 2010 2:02 PM
Tameson said...

Not really related, but something I am now wondering about- my last name is Chinese, my current novel is based on a Chinese fairy tale and while I set it in a fantasy world, the characters are described as Asians and the culture has an Asian style. Would people reading it immediately know it was written by a white person (cause I am very, very white- I look like the poster child for the Aryan Race)? First novel I read by Pearl Buck (Pavilion of Woman) I thought no way this was written by an actual Chinese woman. I imagine in subtle ways, the race/cultural background shows up. Or like Mulan II, not so subtle ways. :)

May 5, 2010 2:19 PM
DPirate said...

Being white is totally awesome.

May 6, 2010 8:52 AM
The Rejectionist said...

Dear Tameson, most white people aren't that smart. HA HA HA HA

May 6, 2010 10:42 AM
Tameson said...

Well, we don't need to be smart. We got all the good stuff already. :)

May 10, 2010 10:00 AM
Post a Comment