Just in case it really is just me and my Facebook feed full of poets, but shit hit the fan over the past week or so when a white dude put on fake-Asian-fake-female-face because that was the only way he could figure out how to get published.
Maybe he just ain't that good of a writer, folx?
Ouch:
- In 2013, a Bay Area news report about an Asian Air crash listed the pilots’ names as Ho Lee Fuk, Wi Tu Lo, Sum Ting Wong, and Bang Ding Ow, presumably because these names appeared sufficiently believable.
As a poet who uses a pseudo-pseudonym I suppose I could take questions here. Or talk about it. I publish under a gender-neutral name because I prefer readers (and/or editors, I guess) not to know my gender identity off the bat when they are approaching my poems. However, if you get to my bio, it'll be clear to you what that gender identity is. I choose to obscure my identity in part to avoid readers observing that identity and assuming that that identity is the speaker behind my poems. I have written poems I view as being spoken by men, women, straight men, straight women, gay/bi women (sorry no gay males) and, sometimes, I do not have a gender in mind and don't think it's important to know about the speaker of a poem. I also in general prefer not to identify as a woman if I can help it. I will absolutely speak up and about my gender identity if it becomes relevant to the conversation, like if we're talking about sexism or gender issues, but besides that, I like it to be a non-issue. Why? Because my gender is none of your business, essentially. Because my gender doesn't limit my education, intelligence, charm, asshole-ry or anything else - though it does admittedly limit how much testosterone my body produces, for example.
How is my pseudonym different from White Dude's? A question that I think must be asked. Because White Dude is a member of the dominant white culture and as such enjoys all the privileges of being the dominant class thereof. The conquering class thereof, one might even say. Let's consider: he only puts out poems under an alternate, underprivileged identity when his own, that of an established writer and seemingly-white man, doesn't do it - when he can't get poems published under his real name and identity, when his existing advantages aren't enough, he assumes another identity and reaps what few 'advantages' it might have in the context of poetry, When he chooses to masquerade as an Asian woman, he is stepping into that identity when he chooses, and leaving that identity when it no longer becomes convenient. I am unable to leave the identity of being a woman, which means it gets used against me when I don't want it to. When I de-gender my publication name, I'm preventing things like what happened a month ago over at B O D Y - where editors thought it was cool to factor in their personal opinions of a poet's bio photo when it came to making their accept/decline decision. Read it and weep. I'm not taking advantage of whatever cultural and gendered options lie in front of me until one of them fools an editor into accepting my work. I'm literally hiding myself because I think that's favorable. Because I'd rather not think that editors are judging my photo instead of my poems.
blah, blah blah, blah blah blah blah.
White guy achieves success by pretending to be a minority: outrage at the white guy White woman achieves success by pretending to be a white guy: outrage at the system. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Art cannot be decontextualized. PERIOD. That's the discussion here. Poetry cannot be evaluated free of the author and context because poetry is reliant on metaphor. Urinal at the airport: a place to piss. Urinal at the Tate Modern: Marcel Duchamp. Movies are a little easier because they're supposed to be commercial. Same holds true there, though. I've got a short film. Me and my buddy spent about $30k and maybe 3 years on it. It played at a bunch of festivals and I'm proud of it. But I know a girl with a short film that played at more festivals than mine. She made it in a weekend using pipe cleaners. It's stop motion. It's 8 frames per second. It's 3 minutes long. But through graphic representation, it is made abundantly clear that the pipe cleaners (which aren't anthropomorphic, by the way) are lesbians. Which means her pipe cleaner movie played every gay festival there is, and there are a lot of gay festivals. Can I make a lesbian pipe cleaner movie? Sure, but nobody is going to feature it at a film festival. I'm not a lesbian. I'll say this: I've advocated casting Asians in a number of other short films because then you get to play the Asian film festivals and they are also numerous. I'll also say this: there have been more economic opportunities presented to two white guys with a $40k short film than there have been to a lesbian and her stop-motion pipe cleaners. In the context of "commercial Hollywood" there are more opportunities for me - by far - than for her. In the context of recognition of works by underrepresented minorities, I have zero goddamn business making lesbian pipe cleaner movies. The outrage at the pseudonym speaks to the stakes. A poetry anthology that celebrates "The Best American Poetry" should select the "best american poetry." A poetry anthology aimed at "promoting works by women and people of color whenever possible" should promote the works of women and people of color. Sherman Alexie got called on his bullshit for moving the goalposts. THERE's the outrage: minorities have a legitimate beef that the goalposts are almost always further away for them. Non-minorities have a legitimate beef that fringe publications often favor minorities and it's unfair to hide bias. I once submitted to a film festival (and paid $50, I might add) that decided after the fact that they were only going to show films about the suffering of Native Americans. Fine. I have no problems with a "Native American Suffering Film Festival." Just make it clear that you're going to hold one before asking me for $50 to consider my sci fi film about russian cosmonauts. I didn't get my money back, by the way. These problems always come up when we argue that there's no context to art. Michael Hudson changed the context of his art and it changed its reception. Sherman Alexie was evaluating art using one context and presenting it as another and he got caught. All of this happens in the context of the context-free nature of art and once again, art is revealed to be about provenance.
I found that a really good read. This paragraph stood out to me and mostly summarizes how I felt reading the article. Perhaps there was no high road to be taken here, but as unsatisfying as it is to reward Hudson—a poet who, in the parlance of literary criticism, acted dickishly—Alexie did the right thing. His admiration for the poem didn’t change. What changed was that he was forced to detail and rationalize the way he reads and what he reads for. And it’s the way, frankly, that many of us read, regardless of background, identity, or politics: we bring our own dreams or baggage to bear upon whatever we have chosen to lay our eyes on. We might abide by different critical cues, but we are all looking for something. And when culture turns into an extended game of “gotcha,” it can be an act of self-preservation to assume that everyone is always acting in bad faith.
Honestly, I just thought it was great. People - editors and readers - have prejudices. If authors choose pen names and personas they'll think more favourably of, so be it. Male romance writers are forced to use female pen names to sell to the romance market. Female writers are often forced to go gender neutral, or use just the initials (JK Rowling, PD James) to attain credibility and male readers. So this guy had a "race change" to get published. Good for him. Ultimately this is about his poem, not about him, and if it was good enough to get published then his persona/pen name is irrelevant.
But - I don't know if it's mentioned in this article or not - he only chose to adopt a different identity after the poem was rejected 40 times under his real name. To me that says that his poem was not really good enough to get published on its own. It was rejected 9 times under the new name. I do hate using that as "evidence" because it's not really the best data - you wouldn't send the same poem to the same journal under a second name if it was rejected under the first. At worst you'd be accused of plagiarism. But Alexie did say that the poet's name was one reason he gave it more consideration. So to me, it does seem like it's about the assumed identity at least as much as the poem.
The question is which matters more: the poem or the ecosystem in which the poem exists? In my opinion, there are lots of bad poems that are revered as masterpieces. However, I'm just a guy that doesn't particularly like poetry and my opinion is thoroughly irrelevant. This discussion centers on the fact that some poems are only "the best American poems" if they're considered to be something they're not. It erodes the authority of the art because it reveals that the opinion of the people who should matter may not be relevant, either. in the end, what is "good?"
I first saw this in the Paris Review Daily, where they didn't mention Alexie's goal was to add more women and minorities to the mix. The result was a very different read, with Hudson being seen as a slightly idiot and jerk writer, who also managed to prove a point. But that little tidbit disproves that point completely. I'm slightly surprised by the Paris Review really. I like that Alexie isn't trying to avoid the controversy he knew would come from this though, discussion is necessary. _refugee_ (or anyone else): have you read Rexroth's 100 Poems from the Chinese or 100 Poems from the Japanese. The idea was practically the exact opposite of Hudson's in that Rexroth was using his own name to write poems lossely based on ("in the spirit of") older Asian poems. How would you compare that to this?
I heard about this guy yesterday on the radio. At first I thought he just saw an opportunity to be published more easily if he was an Asian, but then I thought about how worthless I would feel if that's how my work was published. For any amount of time, if his work is published in the future it will be based on this controversy and the fact that people will want to judge his work for themselves. Here's the poem by the way. It's pretty bad. No coherent message of any novel worth (the world is stupid and I'm wasting my time, thanks for the insight. No one gives a shit about you or your time in the first place so why would anyone care about your view on the world. That's blog level shit) and just contrived in general. The kind of poetry that makes kids hate poems because they look so easy to write and worthless to read. More than anything that's the important part. The poem wasn't very good, and it got published because it was written by a minority. That's bad for a lot of reasons. So if my work was published as his was, I would immediately question whether or not it was published because it was quality, or because I submitted it under an alternate identity. To me the question would be unanswerable and torturous. This on its face would be immediately worth not being published, or improving my work to the point that being a white man would not be an impediment to my publication.
I personally subscribe to the more mundane explanation that your gender-neutral pseudonym is a way for you to disassociate from your identity while some white dude pretending to be some Asian chick is someone masquerading as something that he is not. You are merely withholding information about yourself that you don't find relevant to the enjoyment of your poems while this dude is actively deceiving the audience by pretending to be something he is not. I don't find the fact that the white dude has white/male privilege particularly relevant as I would feel the same way if it were a black woman pretending to be a white man. I suppose it's understandable if a female poet lives in some backwards shithole country where only males can publish poems or something, but this obviously isn't the case. Why the lies and the deception? Why do they hide behind a fake identity? Can I trust what they say in their art is something they truly believe in and not something that just pander to my preconceived notions of the world? This deception renders their work inauthentic in my eyes.How is my pseudonym different from White Dude's? A question that I think must be asked. Because White Dude is a member of the dominant white culture and as such enjoys all the privileges of being the dominant class thereof. The conquering class thereof, one might even say. Let's consider: he only puts out poems under an alternate, underprivileged identity when his own, that of an established writer and seemingly-white man, doesn't do it - when he can't get poems published under his real name and identity, when his existing advantages aren't enough, he assumes another identity and reaps what few 'advantages' it might have in the context of poetry, When he chooses to masquerade as an Asian woman, he is stepping into that identity when he chooses, and leaving that identity when it no longer becomes convenient. I am unable to leave the identity of being a woman, which means it gets used against me when I don't want it to. When I de-gender my publication name, I'm preventing things like what happened a month ago over at B O D Y - where editors thought it was cool to factor in their personal opinions of a poet's bio photo when it came to making their accept/decline decision. Read it and weep. I'm not taking advantage of whatever cultural and gendered options lie in front of me until one of them fools an editor into accepting my work. I'm literally hiding myself because I think that's favorable. Because I'd rather not think that editors are judging my photo instead of my poems.
You had me until your last paragraph. You had an entirely valid point. Hell, I would have shared it if it wasn't for your last paragraph. You could have made this be about shameless self-promotion by any means. You could have made it about how offending it was. But no. You HAD to go to the "white cis male privilege" route. You have disappointed me.
Never called them racist/sexist. Simply misguided.
It's more like "don't make an issue about gender or race if it's not about gender or race" really.
Guys! Look! An article about a white cis male co-opting 2 minority identities in one of a very few scenarios in which that co-opting might bring him an advantage becomes a "disappointing discussion" if you talk about how the guy's a white cis male! In fact, it'd be better if I just used the article to drive "shameless self promotion" instead of discussing, you know, the whole reason why this co-opting is so problematic! But you know what's better than paying attention to any of that, dawg?
I get the sentiment. However, I don't want this conversation to become diffused via derailing. The point of my last comment is a point I would've made to whoever happened to weigh in on this next - which is that somehow in the discussion of a white man co-opting minority identities when his white identity didn't do, in order to get what his white male self wanted (no matter what), it's "disappointing" to bring up that white male identity. As far as opinions go, that one is richer and whiter than cheesecake, my favorite dessert. I also won't have users "would-have-shared-but" thrown out there like they aren't intended to impact what I write or how I write it - as if there isn't an implied, "Next time, keep the white comments out of it, and I'll help you be a little more popular." "Next time, keep the white comments out of it, and your post will deserve more attention." __ So sure. Share your pictures of puppies. That's fine. But puppies aren't going to make me forget or let go of the fact that some internet rando thought that his disappointment and his lost share were significant enough to me, should be significant enough to me, that I should know about them, so that next time, I would sit down and stop talking like that. Because those - the rando opinions of strangers - are things that should matter to me more than the issues I see in the article I posted . Clearly.
It goes both ways, buddy. You can't expect anyone to think you matter when you can't make other people matter. Also, funnily enough - how good is white privilege if he needed to use the visibility privilege of a minority to publish? Seriously - this is less of a race issue than it is an issue of terrible publishing practices. I'd be completely down with you if this were a post about how cultural differences negatively affected the african-american ghettos (even though I personally disagree with a lot of the ghetto culture). I'd be down with you if the post was about American consumerism being driven by sweatshops in oriental countries. Hell, I'd be right down there with you on the white privilege if this post was about American obesity. But no - this is just a single guy taking an identity that's not his to promote himself. As it stands, he's the one who ACTUALLY didn't have the privilege. Equality works both ways. Just like on the Internet some people pretend to be a white cis male to avoid unsavory discussions, he used an asian female persona to increase visibility because people like YOU want these people to have increased visibility. But if you're going to put under the "white cis patriarchy" umbrella everything that a white man does, I'm not going to promote your point of view. You're not entitled to anything. I find it especially sad considering how you could have made a point about how, as your first paragraph seemed to steer towards, how nationality, sexual identity and all of these traits shouldn't matter in publications unless relevant. And yet it does, simply because some groups have worked to increase the visibility of some other groups. You've made a weapon out of minorities' identities - don't complain when it's used against you, and instead fight for true equality for all. Everyone has their issues, no matter how privileged they may seem - and claiming anything else is completely blind - especially considering that, in all technicalities, the most privileged people in the world are not caucasian.
It's really amazing the number of people I've muted over the summer. I used to be so careful with it. Now it's me singing "fuck ooooooooff!" as soon as I get a whiff they're they're gonna go off about ghetto culture and "militative minorities" at some point in the future.
Yes, yes it is. And this man proves it - what if, instead of poems, it was a documentary about some point of view, or some other controversial work? Or even propaganda? He would get visibility while his "normal self" would not. Visibility is powerful and nothing you can say can change that. And if you honestly believe that having higher visibility is an insult... I have nothing to say to this much delusion. Especially considering it wasn't SPONTANEOUS attention - as I said, people like you WORKED, FOUGHT for this much visibility. So does that mean you fought to insult yourself?
Well, yes, and if you're a member of the Jersey Shore cast, then that'll be enough for you. Sure. But the visibility of a porn star is not the visibility of a politician? Would one want the other's? There's this thing called "reputational risk" that adults - I mean, sorry - business owners and people who work in businesses are aware of. It's the cost of lost business that negative publicivity can create. Are you saying visibility can't create negative publicity? All visibility is good? Tell that to Subway's Jared. No woman or minority fights for the 'privilege' that lesser quality work will be lauded over better product simply for the country of the issuer's origin. #fuckingrowupmangHe would get visibility while his "normal self" would not.
Visibility is powerful and nothing you can say can change that.
Pornhub and Brazzers disagree. Also, all visibility that's not critically bad is good. Jared cost Subway some reptutation. Rockstar paid money for GTA to have "bad visibility" and it increased sales. And no, they're not - at least most of them - but they ARE, however, try to pass off as incredibly discriminated against and victimized most of the time.Sure. But the visibility of a porn star is not the visibility of a politician?
You did nothing wrong. That puppy was adorable, AND you were trying to avoid a nasty thing. But it was inevitable - I'm a subborn argument-causing person, and they are a militative "minority" that feels wronged at every corner.
I know I know, I just don't have any better term for them. They fight for minorities' visibility and... "privilege". Militative minority. Any better ideas?
I know, but I figured that since you were on Hubski you had something relevant to contribute.
Nope. Been here for almost 900 days (2.5 years) and I've never once contributed anything. I get daily messages asking me please for the love of God just submit something of value and I send them cat memes in response. All ribbing aside, I have nothing to say to someone who puts privilege in scare quotes and tries to dogwhistle his way out of a hole he made trying to sidestep fundamental issues of racial and gender inequality.
Alright, enjoy your echo chamber then. (Maybe you'd like Tumblr better though)
lol dude are you even real Who are you to tell somebody to leave the site that's been here almost 10 times as long? Is that smug-ass bullshit the best you can come up with to end an argument?
I'm not TELLING them to leave. I'm saying that for the type of content they're consuming and posting, Tumblr is more tailored towards that.
"Human being." A person who fights for the visibility of minorities and their "privilege." By God when a group of twenty-something-year-old boys got together and decided their best insult for me was my "man eyebrows" I thought 'this is it, this is the least insulting insult I'll have levied at me' and man I had not lived long enough at that point clearly because now, ladies and gentlepugs, we are at it. I believe we have hit the wall.
Except human beings is too wide. Reminder, it's also human beings who you claim have the privilege. It's human beings who are "putting you down". It's human beings that are insulting you. We ALL are human beings. From assholes to saints, from the whitest white man to the darkest person of color. To the most masculine man to the most feminine woman, and from the most feminine man to the most masculine woman. We all bleed the same blood, breathe the same air, bask in the warmth of the same sun. "A person who fights for the visibility of minorities and their "privilege"" is too much of a handful. It's a good way to stop being talked about if people have to remember that much. Name another group that has done any form of change with a name that long. And as for that quote? I used privilege in that way because guess what? It's a privilege that you have an internet connection to complain about your status. It's a privilege to be even ABLE to worry about such thing instead of worrying about food. What you're looking for is not privilege. Privilege is a word tumblrites and other socially inept people use to describe how "unfair" everything is. The word you are looking for is "advantages", "rights", "recognition". Most white people are actually on YOUR side. Hell - most white men are. That is until you demonize them. No positive change has occurred by shunning people and painting them as devils. Assholes comes in all shapes, colors, genders and identities. So do allies - try to find them. IT IS a very important fight you're fighting - so fight it right, and fight it for everyone. I don't mean to patronize or insult you. However, Hubski is a place of discussion - I disagree with your methods, at the moment, and so I seek to either make you understand my point of view or make you understand mine. Though I will be the first to admit I do not filter anything at all - I feel it is against the concept of discussion, because it prevents the hard questions from being asked.
So, I've got a question on your semantics, and I really don't want you to take this the wrong way. It's not saying you're wrong, I just want to know about the word "minority" in this context. Is it considered synonymous with underprivileged, or should it be reserved for physical minorities. For example, I often see women refered to as a minority (as you did in this case), but as a whole across the US, there is a practically equal number of males and females. Also, when you, and others in the US use the word minority, does it mean only in the US? Western World? First World? Developed nations? Again, don't take this the wrong way, just looking for an education.
So honestly, I could have used better words than "minority" there, for instance "disadvantaged/historically disadvantaged," "underprivileged," etc. Minority isn't technically wrong perse, but it feels less accurate than I'd like. I'd typically use minority to refer to people of non-white skin tone/culture (for instance immigrant Russians or Slavs might be white but contextually in the US culture I think could be considered a minority). It's not really about a physical minority vs majority share, for instance there are some cities in the US that comprise a majority population of minority classes (so white people are technically a minority, but would probably never be referred to as such). It can generally be taken as synonymous with underprivileged. I mean, generally as a US speaker I speak from a US paradigm. However I would still use the word "minority" to express "underprivileged class" or whatever if I was speaking about stuff going on in the UK, Europe, etc because that's the verbiage I'm used to.