Debbie Reese of American Indians in Children’s Literature recently called attention to a 2008 interview with Neil Gaiman where the Coraline author explained why his The Graveyard Book was set in an English not American cemetery:
“The great thing about having an English cemetery is I could go back a very, very, very long way. And in America, you go back 250 years (in a cemetery), and then suddenly you’ve got a few dead Indians, and then you don’t have anybody at all, unless you decide to set it up in Maine or somewhere and sneak in some Vikings.”
Reese rightly pointed out that Gaiman’s comment was problematic. It sounds to me both ahistorical and dismissive of Native peoples. Gaiman’s quote smells of dreaded hipster racism, where what could have been said simply and clearly (I wanted the graveyard in the book to have a longer European-centered history than could be found easily in an American cemetery.) is “jazzed up” and made edgy by some throwaway offensiveness directed at brown people a la “dead Indians.” And isn’t the subtext to Gaiman’s comment that the stories of American people pre-European invasion aren’t worth telling? That may not be what Gaiman meant, but his thoughtless quip made it seem that way.
The author took to the comments section of Reese’s blog to explain himself:
I was replying to a specific question about European-style graveyards in the US and who you’d find in them and why I didn’t set THE GRAVEYARD BOOK in America, which was that they didn’t go back far enough, and they didn’t give me the dead people I wanted for the story to work. Obviously (or obviously to me) I wasn’t saying or implying that the country was uninhabited prior to the arrival of Europeans, or trying to somehow render invisible hundreds of millions of people who had inhabited this content for tens of thousands of years — especially after having very specifically written about them, and about that timespan in American Gods.
(And, of course, European Graveyards in the US go back much further than 250 years.)
A more sensible answer to why I didn’t set The Graveyard Book in America was that I didn’t want to, but I had a microphone stuck in front of my face by the Hornbook in front of a crowd of people at Book Expo or ALA, and I babbled.
Also apologies to any Icelandic or Norwegian readers who are offended by my imprecision. Obviously none of the Newfoundland settlers were Vikings.
Based on his quip about Icelandic and Norwegian readers, I’m not so sure that Gaiman takes the critique of his comment so seriously. Certainly, a lot of his supporters in the comments section do not.
Read the dialog on American Indians in Children’s Literature. What do you think?
I think his explanation of the comment is fairly clear-cut. He wasn’t interested in setting the book, which I haven’t read, in America or focusing on non-European graveyards or writing about American Indians. It may have been a flippant and poorly chosen comment but I don’t know that it was worth all the sound and fury in the dialogue that followed.
Being quite familiar with Neil Gaiman’s writings up to and including “American Gods” and “Anasazi Boys”, I think this is much ado about nothing. It seemed like many of the people commenting had not read his books and were basing their remarks primarily on the quote discussed above. As for the sarcasm, again, anyone familiar with his writing is unsurprised by that comment.
For the record, my heritage is in part Native American through both sides of my family (Cherokee and Muskogee Creek).
I am reminded of this classic clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gE7r1CknQs
“There’s nobody here… who the F are these guys?”
I’m a fan of Gaiman’s work, generally. And no, I cannot take his asinine comment lightly. I’m a huge fan of sarcasm – but not at the expense of erasing groups of people who have already experienced or are under current threat of genocide.
The whole “there’s A FEW DEAD INDIANS” followed by “AND THEN YOU DON’T HAVE ANYBODY” effectively means that those Indians weren’tPEOPLE even when they were alive. Or at least, people that matter to Gaiman’s storytelling abilities. If he meant that there isn’t a historical record of graveyards, then SAY SO. The man crafts words for the living – he really needs to say there was nobody there? It’s lazy.
As for “oh but he includes lots of minorities in his works,” I call bullshit. Because aside from Anansi Boys, his main protagonists are white men, with the occasional white girl thrown in as love interest. He has his tokens, but he also knows his target audience … just like the rest of the speculative fiction genre. And those targets don’t look like me for the overwhelming majority of authors, writers, artists, and creators.
Which is why we need and are starting to make inclusive spaces of our own. Problem is, would Mr. Gaiman even give a crap about those? Or would we just not count?
I think it was a thoughtless response back in 2008, but Mr. Gaiman did not handle the critique of that response well at first. When you have the ability to reach over a million fans via Twitter, I think it behooves one to choose one’s words carefully. Too many of Gaiman’s online fans are quick to jump to his defense and muddy the waters interminably.
Seeing how his fiancee has handled herself similarly when pressed, I wonder if the two of them shouldn’t re-think their relationships with social media.
Having read his other stuff, I’m also inclined to give Neil Gaiman the benefit of the doubt, as opposed to, say, Rush Limbaugh.
If only he’d prepended his statement with “In most American cemeteries…” I guess it would have been fine.
Being a fan of Neil Gaiman, partly because I believe he does such a good job in his books of representing many people of man skin colors and cultures, I believe that although his comment seems thoughtless, he is not one to take any race or culture thoughtlessly. Specifically, where he says in American graveyards there are “a few dead Indians” and “then you don’t have anybody”, clearly he is not saying the Indians aren’t anybody. He’s saying that Indians weren’t buried in the graveyards of European settlers. Therefore when he says “you don’t have anybody”, that is what he means – there is nobody buried there before a certain date. If you read the book, you will discover that the plot depends upon having characters recently dead, buried ,with gravestones, alongside characters dead centuries past, also with gravestones – a practice not typically done by early (pre-European invasion) Native Americans.
I’m sorry, but I continue to be amused by the outcry, because, as a white, English, male, were he to write more often from the POV of a POC, he would be accused of coopting an experience he can’t possibly understand. Having written “American Gods” and “Anansi Boys”, he’s the author of two novels about certain aspects of certain NA mythos. That would be approximately two more than most white, English, male authors.
As for the sarcasm – this is a man who co-wrote a book making fun of the concept of the Anti-Christ and Armageddon (pace “Good Omens”). To expect anything else from him is a bit disingenuous.
I’m conflicted on this one. I *think* — or maybe I want to think — the problem is not in what he was trying to say but in the way he said it. (Which is still a problem, but to my mind a lesser one; but maybe that’s a bingo move.)
As Kristie says, I think he was trying to say that he wanted to set the story on land that had been set aside to hold marked graves continuously for 1,000 years or more. Graveyards that go back to Roman times do exist in England (and in the book), and they don’t exist in the United States; burial sites used by Indians before the arrival of Europeans weren’t recognized as sacred ground by Europeans, and burial sites consecrated by the European colonists only date back to 1600 or so. People were always here, and dying, but there’s a break in the continuous chronology of -graves- because a new group of people dismissed an existing group of people.
Taking note of that doesn’t dismiss the lives of the people who were here before Europeans arrived; it doesn’t say they weren’t here, it says their presence wasn’t recognized in the graveyards established by European settlers — which reflects racism on the part of the settlers, not Neil Gaiman.
I think Neil started out saying nobody was buried in American [read:European-American] graveyards before the 18th century, and then as he was speaking he realized that’s not right — of course there were centuries’ worth of Indians buried on this continent before any European set foot here.
But then instead of saying. “Of course, there were people here before the Europeans got here, they just didn’t share the same burial places,” he made the really horrible and disrespectful (not to mention not very accurate) “few dead Indians” comment.
And of course there are many Indians buried alongside whites (and blacks and people of other ethnicities) in European-style graveyards *now*, and while that doesn’t solve Gaiman’s narrative challenge (he wanted ancient graves alongside contemporary ones), by bringing up Indians in the context of people who were here before Europeans arrived, he contributes to the widely held and infuriating perception that Indians aren’t around anymore.
I also think the development of this dispute online has been interesting. I think Neil’s fans (and I am one, too) have felt compelled to defend what he said, because they feel as though if they admit it was problematic then they have to stop liking Neil and his writing
If you feel obliged to say, “His whole body of work is invalid and he does not exist to me because he said this offensive thing,” then I think it’s harder to admit it really was an offensive thing. I am -not- suggesting anyone is demanding fans of Neil Gaiman say that; I think that’s self-imposed by people who have a hard time when good things and bad things come in the same package.
Neil’s “The Day I Swapped My Dad for Two Goldfish” is a gorgeous and funny picture book that includes children of every ethnicity, and I love that about it. It also has a horrible line about adoption that really disappointed me, and I e-mailed him about that, and he e-mailed an apology within 24 hours. I’m still a fan of his books — even that one — but I won’t be reading it to my (adopted) daughter until she’s old enough for me to use it as a teachable moment.
I expected more nuanced responses from LIE readers. Other than Lyonside and Rachel, I think the “much ado about nothing” response is very disappointing. It doesn’t mean that Gaiman is a racist or that he hasn’t written some very good books. It’s about making a mistake, saying something insensitive and then handling it poorly when an “I’m sorry” would have been sufficient.
I was thinking about it this weekend and came here to post what Jae Ran has already said:
“It’s about making a mistake, saying something insensitive and then handling it poorly when an “I’m sorry” would have been sufficient.”
@Christina
“Having written “American Gods” and “Anansi Boys”, he’s the author of two novels about certain aspects of certain NA mythos. That would be approximately two more than most white, English, male authors. ”
This reminds me very much of the “but I have a black friend!” sort of protest. It doesn’t matter what his other books have done, etc. What matters is what he said, and then how he failed to acknowledge and apologize for what he said. End of story.
I feel the need to reiterate what I’ve said on this site before: Intention doesn’t count for much. Effect counts for a lot.
People are reacting negatively–not to his intention–but to the effect of his words. What he needs to acknowledge and apologize for is not his intention, but the effect of his words.
I also feel like this thread has been about that “it’s worse to be called a racist than to do something racist” phenomenon that Tami has discussed elsewhere. Urgh.
Jan Rae, I agree in that i’m also shocked by the “much ado about nothing response.” Makes me wonder how many LIE readers and commentors are also reading and commenting over at Racialicious. Because there seem to be a lot more comments on this blog that just would not fly– and rightly so– at Racialicious. Makes me want to avoid reading comments here.
Jae Ran, sorry for the transposition of calling you Jan Rae. My mistake.