Monthly Archives: January 2018

Reviewing Adventures in Odyssey as an Atheist: The One About Trust

Sorry this was posted late. I decided at the last minute that, although this was a two part episode, there was really only enough material for one post. It took a little extra time to put the merge the two drafts I had together.

This is the last episode of the political series, and of course it had to be one of the two election stories. The first election story they did was about Tom Reilly’s bid for mayor against corrupt businessman Bart Rathbone, and honestly, it did not have that much to say about politics. It was just a lot of silly goofs. This episode, well, in its own way it also has very little to say about politics. But it pretends it does, and that’s the problem.

It begins with Connie finding out she is not going to graduate high school on schedule. Somehow, she has neglected to take a required government class, and it won’t be offered until the semester after she is due to graduate. The counselor offers her an alternative. As the election is going on, Connie can volunteer for one of the candidates, write a report on what happened, and they’ll call it square.

Connie jumps on the offer, but finds out there are two candidates, neither of which are her ideal. First is, once again, the token villain of the entire town, Bart Rathbone. Second is Margaret Faye, feminist.

Okay, there’s a fair bit more to her objections than that. Margaret Faye and Whit kinda-sorta used to date. They respected each other’s intelligence, but disagreed on almost every issue. Margaret liked having someone around who challenged her, and wanted to get serious. Whit instead chose to break it off, and she was pretty petty about it. I’ll probably get into that episode during the romance theme. Anyway, despite the bad blood between Margaret Faye and Whit, Connie still considers her less objectionable than Bart, so she starts working.

When she brings this up to Whit, he is initially flabbergasted. He can’t believe she is working for Margaret, and only concedes the decision when Connie spells out how bad the situation is, and how much worse working for Bart be. Throughout this episode, he will emphasize that he is not going to vote, because an intelligent, experienced woman whom he disagrees with and dislikes is just as bad as a corrupt, inexperienced and frankly dangerously incompetent nincompoop.

In case you’re wondering, yes, this episode was made by people who endorsed Trump in 2016.

Whit backs off eventually. He gives Connie her paycheck, but accidentally hands over Eugene’s. She offers to take it to him, but he insists on taking it back. It’s awkward. Then Eugene comes in, hears about Connie’s decision, and begs Whit to make her reconsider. It’s even more awkward. Then Bart comes in, seeking Whit’s endorsement, but when he finds out that Connie is volunteering for Margaret, he too tells Whit to tell her not to do it. Connie asks why everyone is talking about her instead of to her. Whit says she can make up her own mind, but he says this to Bart and Eugene instead of telling them to talk to Connie. It’s really, really fucking awkward.

At Connie’s first campaign meeting, Margaret asks if Whit sent her. Connie is angry at the suspicion and responds that she’s here for school credit. Margaret doesn’t like that as much as “I actually care and believe in what you stand for,” but it’s better than, “I’m spying for Whit.” She still isn’t sure about Connie’s relationship with Whit, though.

She wants to “shake up the status quo,” which everyone takes to mean tearing down the patriarchy. Part of Bart’s pitch to Whit is that she wants to tear down the “old boys’ network,” which means Whit and Tom Reilly and a few other guys. Whit says there is no such thing as an old boy’s network, by which I assume he means nobody is meeting in a dimly lit room to hatch conspiracies. But Tom and Whit have considerable clout around town; that is not up for debate. Apart from wanting to shake up that unquestioned power, we don’t learn anything about Margaret Faye’s plans for Odyssey. She wants things to change, because it’s time for a change, a changey kind of change, and the way she’ll make that happen is by changing things.

What a monster.

Going back to Connie and Whit, Margaret worries that Whit tends to think for her, and is not always fair. Connie protests at this. Margaret counters by asking about her and Eugene. Connie has worked at Whit’s End longer. She does the cleaning up and supervising kids. Eugene works on the computers and inventions, and is in charge when Whit isn’t around. Connie initially answers that those are the things Eugene is good at, and that he was hired for. Still, when she goes back to work at Whit’s End, she is bothered by the conversation. This is made worse when she sees Eugene with a cash bag. He is being sent to do the deposits. Connie asks why she isn’t given the deposit, and Eugene replies, “because you’re a girl.”

You know, Eugene and Connie famously bicker, and it’s usually presented as both people’s fault. And sometimes that’s right, but in doing these reviews, I’m noticing that, quite frequently, they are arguing because Eugene is a sexist jerk.

When she and Whit talk it over, Whit concedes to some sexism on the point of the deposits. Honestly, his response is pretty classy. He says that he tends to think of a young woman with a lot of money as a larger target than a young man with a lot of money. When it comes to the other things, it’s a mixture of Connie showing less interest and Eugene coming in motivated and qualified to do these things. But, now that Connie is showing interest in all this, he is happy to change things around. He’s going to start teaching her to work with the computers, and take on more responsibility.

I say this is classy because, in the real world, sexism is often unconscious. Anybody can go along with the status quo unconsciously, especially when raised in a more traditionally gendered generation. It’s how people act when their behavior is called out that tells you something about their character. Whit did not intentionally limit Connie and he is willing to change. Good for him.

And here I want to circle back to Margaret Faye. Her nebulous desire to shake things up is generally framed as a problem. But what would have happened if she hadn’t made Connie question the way things are? Connie would have been limited. Connie is a smart, spirited young woman who is constantly frustrated by the way people underestimate and overlook her. You don’t even have to go to other episodes to see this; Bart and Eugene’s conversation with Whit is a perfect illustration of how people talk about how to handle her rather than talk to her about what she thinks. She deserves to have her potential nurtured, especially by Whit, who genuinely does have an incredible amount of influence in her life. So, good on Margaret for pushing her to have that long overdue conversation.

Before I return to the episode, I need to point out one more problem, because it is about to become important. The disparity in Connie and Eugene’s duties would be a problem if they were both hired out of high school, at the same pay grade, for the same reasons. But they are in completely different positions. Eugene is in grad school, and specializes in computer science. He’s an adult, while Connie is still a minor. Eugene has a specialized skill set. Connie… is still a minor. This isn’t a feminist issue. I’d say Margaret is being a straw feminist, but, uh, nobody else brings that point up later. They just talk about how Connie isn’t great at computer stuff.

Meanwhile, at the bank, Eugene runs into Bart Rathbone’s wife, and they have a classic spilled-paper-collision-mixup. She ends up with Eugene’s paycheck stub. She nearly throws it away, but Bart wants to hang onto it. He has a suspicion, based on what he saw at Whit’s End earlier. They go back and dig through the trash, and find the paycheck stub Connie threw away.

Meanwhile, at Margaret Faye’s campaign, she asks Connie to look up on some information. Margaret says she has been contacted by a woman named Roxie McCormick, who once worked at Whit’s publishing organization. She says she was fired by Whit after trying to point out some of his discriminatory practices towards women. Connie finds the idea ridiculous, and Margaret says she doesn’t want to act on this information until she has verified it. Connie’s relationship with Whit gives her an opportunity to get an inside scoop, which is why Margaret went straight to her. That said, Margaret emphasizes that this is Connie’s choice. If she is not comfortable, she can turn the job down, and Margaret will completely understand, no hard feelings. She ends by repeating her advice, to Connie, to think for herself.

This scene is played with sinister background music, but honestly, Margaret is being completely reasonable. She’s taking steps to get all the facts before she acts, she is giving Connie the choice of whether to be involved in the investigation or not, and she is also taking the risk that, with Connie’s relationship, she might choose to cover up information rather than expose it. I suspect part of why Margaret chose her was that, if Connie of all people can bring back confirmation, despite her attachment to Whit, you know the intel is good.

Back at Whit’s End, Eugene warns Whit that Connie is in a bad mood. He talks about how she has been in a bad mood off and on for a while, such as on the day of the bank deposit. He thinks Margaret Faye is at the back of it, as she had just come from the campaign. Whit and Eugene piece together that this is why Connie has suddenly been complaining about her jobs and asking for tutoring on the computer. Their tone suggests that this explains sudden, irrational behavior; it was all Margaret’s fault! It’s not like the way Connie generally thinks and acts would suggest that she has aspirations beyond wiping tables, and Margaret just gave her the impetus to actually voice those in more explicit terms, and that impetus made her life better. Plus, nothing says “sexism free workplace environment” like two men talking about the mood swings of a woman who is trying to expand her skill set.

Connie has told Eugene about the accusations of Roxie McCormick, and Eugene passes these on to Whit. Whit explains that Roxie was actually fired for embezzling funds and there is plenty of documentation to prove it, including a police investigation. So, okay. There’s that subplot over and done with.

Whit is upset that Margaret told Connie this information, and instead of going to Connie, he goes straight to Margaret. He asks her, accusingly, why she sent Connie. Margaret explains, very calmly, that she didn’t send Connie, Connie accepted a request. When I say calmly, I should add that the voice actress adds a slightly imperious edge to Margaret Faye’s voice. Margaret has not, so far, done anything especially sinister, but the voice actress makes her sound like, well, a conniving bitch. Someone wily and adept at causing chaos while having plausible deniability. There’s a dissonance between the text of the episode and the framing, and it’s important to note that, because very often, when this kind of dissonance exists, the impressions of the framing are what stand out.

While he’s here, Margaret asks Whit if the accusations are true. Whit’s response is, “Not that it’s any of your business, but no, it isn’t.”

Sidenote; I think it actually is her business. This isn’t a personal relationship she is investigating, but the business practices of a large company which Whit happened to oversee. If a politician was running on curbing environmentally destructive business practices, and found out a local business did something highly dangerous, they would probably want that information to be let out so their constituents would know the legislation is necessary. That’s why Margaret tells Connie she wants the information. A major part of her platform, in fact the only one we know for sure, is that she wants to combat sexism. Establishing sexist practices of a powerful local businessman would show Odyssey why this is necessary. You can do the math.

Margaret takes his word, but Whit isn’t done. He presses her on why Connie was chosen. He won’t take, “because she works for you dumbass,” for an answer, and they get into Margaret’s belief that Connie needs to learn to think for herself. Whit’s response is to scoff at the suggestion that she doesn’t. He even accuses her of influencing her. Margaret laughs at that, and tells him that he’s been influencing her since she arrived in Odyssey. She says that what this is really about is Whit’s fear that anyone but him might have an influence on what Connie thinks.

God, it’s almost like she listens to the show. 

Just outside of the campaign headquarters, Bart ambushes Whit. He presents Whit with two paycheck stubs; Eugene’s and Connie’s. Whit pays Eugene three times more. Bart threatens to go public with this information unless Whit endorses him. Whit openly laughs at this threat. Obviously such proof of systemic sexism will flood the polls with voters for Margaret, and Bart will lose. There’s no way in hell Bart would do that. After spelling this out, Whit walks off, leaving Bart dumbfounded.

But the very next morning, this story is in all the papers, and Connie has quit Whit’s End.

Margaret Faye personally calls Whit to deny that she is the source of the leak. She also apologizes for the harm done and avoids talking to the press about it… okay, that’s weird and out of character. I think this is their attempt to make her character complicated and not a total villain. That attempt is itself weirdly telling. It would make more sense to complicate her by showing how, from her point of view, a crusade for women’s rights makes, you know, sense? Like it’s a valid thing to seek? But instead she sabotages her own quest, as a favor to a man who she frankly has mixed feelings about. Uh, okay then.

Election day comes and goes, Margaret wins, and Connie still won’t talk to Whit.

She will, however, talk to Tom Reilly, who tells her the real reason behind the paycheck discrepancy. See, back when she came to Odyssey, Whit set up a secret surprise trust fund for her college. Tom Reilly says he knows about the trust fund because, during Whit’s mission trip to the Middle East, Tom did the payroll. He emphasizes that Eugene and Connie are paid equally, when you factor in the bonus that she never sees because it goes immediately to her trust fund.

So Whit’s a good guy after all, because he set up a trust fund. Which Connie pays for. With a bonus she doesn’t know she’s getting. So she’s being paid more, even though she’s being paid less.

Wait, what? What? What?????

Let me break down why this is so absurd.

First, Whit is fucking loaded. This was established in Tales of Moderation and referenced in several others. He could have set up the entire trust fund out of his own pocket if he wanted, and that’s what anyone who actually cared about Connie would have done.

Second, not knowing that Whit is doing this, Connie and her Mom are probably already doing something to prepare for college expenses. What sacrifices are they making now that they don’t realize they don’t have to? People on the edge of poverty have to budget their money tightly and make a lot of sacrifices. Heck, maybe Connie’s Mom wants to go back to college, or take some self-improvement courses, and she’s holding off because her daughter’s education comes first. Surprises are nice, but it’s also nice to know that you can dip into your savings to get your roof fixed.

Third, is Eugene actually supposed to Connie’s equal or not? Because it doesn’t make sense that he would be. He’s older, more educated, and has a profitable specialized skill set. Oh, and he’s supporting himself while Connie still lives with her Mom. You know, cause she’s a minor.

Do the writers of this show think pay equity means that all male and female employees should be paid the same regardless of what they do? ‘Cause that’s not the issue. The computer guy gets more money. It’s fine. What’s not fine is that a lifetime of gendered expectations means women get discouraged from becoming the computer guy in the first place.

Oh, and when they get that training, they often encounter demonstrably hostile work environments, directly tied to their gender.

And then there’s still the expectation that they will eventually quit and stay home with their babies, because stay at home dads are stigmatized. And people use that expectation to justify paying all women less just for being female, cause all women secretly want babies even if they say they don’t so we can pretty much assume there will be babies, hormones amirite?

And women are also socialized to be more accommodating so they are less likely to negotiate for a raise.

And on top of all that some bosses are just straight up sexist assholes who actually do give women a pay cut just for being women, so that’s not good.

In conclusion, this episode’s contrived solution to a contrived problem actually makes Whit look worse than if he just paid the high schooler minimum wage, you know, cause she’s a minor.

Anyway, the music tells us, along with Tom’s flowery speech about Whit’s compassion for a poor divorced single mother and her kid, that our heartstrings are supposed to be pulled. Connie is driven to tears and runs to Whit. She reveals that she is the one who leaked the story! Oh what a twist! Oh my goodness! She’s such a horrible person who has been proved so very wrong and she should have trusted Whit oh the humanity! And just to hammer the point home, when she gets an A on her final report, she says she doesn’t deserve it because she “failed trust.”

Uuuuggggghhhh.

Final Ratings

Best Part: During his concession speech, Bart starts talking about reports of ballot stuffing, which he intends to investigate. Then someone whispers that it was his son, Rodney, who did the stuffing. Bart promptly shifts to advertising upcoming sales at the Electric Palace.

Worst Part: “I’m not paying you less! I’m just subtracting two thirds of your paycheck without telling you about it.” God, at least when the government takes some of your paycheck, it tells you how much and where it’s going. But it’s fine when a small business owner does it…

Story Rating: Starts strong with some interesting conflicts, but fizzles into contrived resolutions. D –

Moral Rating: This is my final review in the politics theme, and despite being set around a mayoral election, it barely talks about politics. It alludes to them, then throws contrived monkey wrenches into the conversation to make you feel bad for distrusting the Designated Authority Figure. And that’s, well, that’s really destructive. It doesn’t educate. It just programs distrust. F

Final Ratings For Political Topic

Best Episode: Viva La Difference

Worst Episode: ….literally all of the others?

Okay, most of them at least had stories that were interesting apart from the political ignorance, while this one was bad from a story perspective alone. So, The One About Trust wins. Er, loses. Whatever, you get what I’m saying.

Good Things They Said: Women and Black people aren’t actively subhuman.

Bad Things They Said: It is, however, completely normal and natural that they have less power than white men. Anyone trying to shake up a Pleasantville-style set of norms is probably evil.

Things They Failed to Address: Liberals sometimes have good ideas. Gay people exist.

Overall Rating: I don’t think this show should have to give a comprehensive political education. The complexities of fiscal policy is a bit beyond the scope of your average kids show. I would not have faulted this show if it had opted to be as apolitical as possible. But it doesn’t. It does specifically argue against feminist, anti-imperialist and socially progressive ideas, and it does so by consistently misrepresenting the positions they are arguing against, and framing liberal characters with sinister music.

I disagree with the politics of Focus on the Family, which produces Adventures in Odyssey. But that disagreement isn’t the problem here. I dig intelligent disagreement. I still enjoy C. S. Lewis for that reason. What pisses me off is that they emotionally bully kids into being afraid of liberals, without properly understanding liberal positions.

F, for Fuck that Shit.

Advertisements

We Need New Names, by NoViolet Bulawayo

We Need New Names

What It’s About

The story of Darling, a mischievous Zimbabwean pre-teen in a shanty town where the adults no longer know what to do with themselves.

Why I Think You’d Like It

This is a beautiful, engaging, heartbreaking novel. It tells the Darling’s story in sporadic anecdotes of trials and misadventures. In a way, it reminded me of an Upside Down version of Tom Sawyer or Anne of Green Gables; it has the same episodic structure, the same cast of recurring friends and enemies, the same sense of childhood mischief. But of course the mischievous episodes involve stealing guavas to ward off starvation, seeing adults lose their grip on reality, parents dying of AIDS, and pregnant friends who are barely old enough to be called teens. In Darling’s life, the horrific and the diverting are all mixed up together. Innocence and corruption are experienced side by side.

Darling’s narrative voice is distinctive and fascinating. I love some of the metaphors she comes up with, and how her phrasing evolves through the story. I loved the way she never apologized for her perspective, or tried to make it more comfortable for a Western reader. She bluntly states her mind and takes it for granted that this is simply how things are.

That was especially interesting during her childhood stories. I often thought, “this is how kids think. They don’t censor. They don’t apologize. They just wonder why the rest of the world is doing such a bad job conforming to their expectations.”

It got a little more dissonant as we got into her adolescence, and she immigrates to America.  I did expect her to become a bit more empathetic more quickly. In retrospect, I like that she didn’t. To clarify, she is not a mean or heartless protagonist. She does care about the well being of others. It is more that, while she gets better at the adult hypocrisy of acting how she is expected to act, she has trouble grasping the shape of another person’s suffering. If someone endured something she could directly compare to her own struggles, she would care, and care deeply. But if someone’s pain had nothing to do with her own experiences, (a teenager with an eating disorder, for example) Darling’s reaction is usually anywhere from annoyance to scorn to anger. I don’t think that made her a bad character. It made her complex, realistic and interesting. If she was frustrating at times, she was always frustrating in thought provoking ways.

The only downside is that it did make the last third of the book a little less fun, but again, I think that was honest and smart. Part of the point is that immigration did not magically solve all of her problems, and we got to see her learn that. The only thing I wish is that we had seen her press on to a level

I thought it was among the most interesting and well crafted books I’ve read. It’s probably a love it or hate it book, and if you’re interested in immigration stories that are equally brilliant but a little less dark I’d recommend Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie. But if nothing I’ve said so far has put you off, you will probably love it.

Content Warnings

Violence, sex, profanity, references to bodily functions, physical emotional and sexual abuse… and of course all of that is witnessed by children, if it does not happen directly to them. It’s a book for those with strong stomachs.

Hannah Mary Tabbs and the Disembodied Torso, by Kali Nicole Gross

Hannah Mary Tabbs

What It’s About

The discovery of a headless, limbless corpse in 1887 Philadelphia sparks the arrest of two Black suspects, one a light skinned man and the other a dark skinned woman. Colorism, gender, stereotypes and politics all come into play as both fight for survival in a system rigged against them.

Why I Think You’d Like It

It’s a brilliant blend of true crime with history and sociology. The dissections of culture, identity and power dynamics are smart and fascinating, as well as extremely relevant to today. It breaks apart the myth of the post-war North as a racially integrated paradise and exposes the long history of racial bias in law enforcement. At the same time, the academia never gets in the way of the pace of the story. Kali Nicole Gross is a great writer, and this book, despite being meaty, will not take long to finish. I kept it on hand at all times and took every opportunity to read it, even if just a page at a time.

Hannah Mary Tabbs as a fascinating historical figure. She does things that most of us would consider unsavory, but considering the ways society was stacked against her, it is hard not to root for her regardless. I first learned about this book from the authors interview on Stuff You Missed in History Class, and she said one of her goals was to show that Black women did not have to be flawless champions of justice to be noteworthy or interesting. She definitely achieved that goal.

I also thought the author did a fantastic job drawing the line between evidence and speculation. I do love history with a narrative flair, but I can’t stand it when authors let that be license to state things that can’t possibly be known as fact. At the same time, I know too much hedging can result in dry prose. It’s a tricky balance to find, but this book absolutely found it.

In short, if you’re a fan of either gruesome crime or American history, this book will have something for you. If you like both, this book was made for you.

Content Warnings

Well, it explores a grisly murder and the impacts of racism on early criminal justice in America. So… there’s that.

Nothing beyond what you’d expect though. If you weren’t put off by the title, you probably won’t be put off by the content.

Reviewing Adventures in Odyssey as an Atheist: Subject Yourself

*Deep breathe*

Okay, I think the best way to handle this is to describing the episode without criticism, to capture how I perceived it as a kid. Then I’ll go into what stood out to me as an adult.

It opens with Lawrence Hodges, eternal troublemaker, waiting at Whit’s End for his mother to pick him up. He is chatting with Jack Allen about his new braces. Unsurprisingly, he hates them. They’re uncomfortable, they stop him from eating half the food he likes, and he has to wear them for two years. Jack Allen encourages him to be patient and follow his orthodontist’s directions, but Lawrence is still moody.

Mrs. Hodges shows up. She was delayed by a meeting to go over the new history curriculum for next year, and she is not happy with it. She isn’t very specific, but one thing that bothers her is the absence of religion, outside of descriptions of indigenous beliefs. Jack Allen says he heard something on the news about “revisionist history,” which he defines as textbooks that try to downplay the role of Christianity in American heritage. He thought that only big cities like New York or Chicago were doing that kind of thing, not places like Odyssey. But apparently he’s wrong, and he’s dismayed that Mrs. Hodges will have to teach it.

Later, Mrs. Hodges goes to the principal to talk about the new curriculum. She shows him a list of problems. The principal did not remember there being any issues, but she says there were events that were left out, and more importantly, no discussion of the Christianity that laid the foundation of those events. When he asks if she is religious, she says yes, but emphasizes that this is not relevant to her problem. She gives Washington and Lincoln as examples of figures who you can’t discuss without also discussing their faith. They go on talking, and I’ll skim over what was said because, as I said, as a kid the details went over my head. I’ll get back into them later. What did stuck was the sense that this textbook was clearly trying to brainwash kids into thinking all Christians and white people were evil.

Tension builds when the principal brings up the potential repercussions of fighting the curriculum. He thinks the government will slash their budget. He mentions an after-school program for special needs children that she works with. It’s an example of the kind of thing they could have to cut if they lose funding. He urges her to not rock the boat.

Meanwhile, Jack Allen catches Lawrence with a huge bag of snacks and candy from the “don’t eat” list. Lawrence tries to justify his shopping trip, but his arguments boil down to “but I really like sticky candy.” He’s also been having a miserable time at home. He and his mother fight every night over the headgear that comes with his braces. He hates sleeping with it, almost as much as he hates the nightly cleaning routines. Jack listens and encourages him to follow the orthodontists’ rules, but also use his imagination to make the experience more bearable.

This gives Lawrence an idea. He asks his Mom if he can get his braces colored. She doesn’t have time to talk through scheduling and costs, as she is distracted by the problems she has found in the textbook. She does like the idea of coloring Lawrence’s braces, and reassures him that she will get to it, but right now is not a good time. Lawrence is not happy to hear this. Patience isn’t a strength of his.

Mrs. Hodges goes back to the principal. Some other teachers have shared similar concerns, and she asks the principal to take them to talk this decision over with the school board. He is reluctant, but when she threatens to go to the press, he caves. He, and the board, would prefer a private discussion over a public fury. The principal does warn Mrs. Hodges that if this does not go her way, it could ruin her entire career. Mrs. Hodges is prepared to take that risk.

While his mom goes to the meeting, Lawrence waits at Whit’s End once again. He gleefully shows off his new, technicolored braces. Which he colored himself. Yeah, he got tired of waiting for the appointment, which is a whole week away, so he just helped himself to some paint leftover from his roller derby kit. Although he does now feel a little queasy…

Jack facepalms and rushes Lawrence to the emergency room.

Mrs. Hodges presents her case to the board. She is asked whether this is just discomfort over being confronted with a perspective that is different from hers, and she says she is positive that is not the issue. As she explains it, being a teacher she is used to dealing with other points of view. This book simply takes it too far.

They go over the potential consequences to her career and the school’s budget. She acknowledges those risks, but insists that an accurate, balanced look at events is crucial to education, and this textbook is simply indoctrinating students. It also opens the door to further strongarming of teachers and ideological issues. She says she would rather resign than teach the curriculum. The board thanks her for her time, and then adjourns to discuss the issue.

Mrs. Hodges then gets the message to meet Jack and Lawrence at the hospital.

Lawrence was made to throw up the paint, and is doing fine now. Jack shakes his head over Lawrence’s impatience, and Lawrence is now a little more ready to work on that character flaw. Jack impresses on him that, more than just being patient, he also needs to listen to those in authority. Lawrence then brings up his mother and her little rebellion against the school board. Jack talks about the difference between standing up as a kid to people who have expertise that you don’t (like medical knowledge about healthy teeth), and standing up as an adult who has a responsibility to protest when she sees something that is wrong. It’s a pretty good speech, honestly.

A week later, Lawrence gets his teeth colored the right way, and he loves them. Mrs. Hodges also gets news from the school board. They decided to hold off on any changes in the curriculum until they have time to take a more careful look at the material.

Cue the happy music!

Okay, so as a kid I thought this was a pretty solid episode. I didn’t really know anything about history other than what my parents taught me, and I pretty much took it for granted that AIO could teach me no wrong, so I assumed the textbook was exactly as bad as she said it was. Then I listened to it again, with more information under my belt.

Revisionist history is not just about erasing Christianity, whatever Jack Allen says. It is any approach to history that challenges a dominant narrative. It’s not inherently good or inherently bad. Like all academia, it’s only as good as the evidence that supports it.

History is, as the cliche goes, written by the victors. But perhaps it would be more accurate to say they get a crack at the first draft. Every historian writes with a perspective that will inevitably color their narrative. Sometimes they do their best to stick to the facts despite their own biases. Other times they cherry pick the facts that best fit their own biases. Sometimes they actively make shit up. Western academia is built around the idea that if you constantly question and challenge your own ideas, then the truth will eventually triumph over the lies. Revisionist history is simply a natural part of this process.

As a kid, though, Jack Allen’s skewed definition made perfect sense to me. I was being homeschooled in part because my parents didn’t trust the government to not brainwash me with secularism and liberalism. A big part of my education was learning how important religion was to everything, especially history and the founding ideals of America.

As it turned out, much of what I was taught was wrong. I didn’t learn how Thomas Jefferson cut out parts of the Bible that he disagreed with, or how Benjamin Franklin was a deist, which by 1770s standards was nearly atheism. I taught that Samuel Morse, Alexander Graham Bell and Thomas Edison were devout men. I was not taught that Samuel Morse wanted to use his telegraph machine to spread anti-Catholic propaganda, Alexander Graham Bell was a racist, ableist eugenicist, and Thomas Edison was an all-around dick. Oh, and of course it was not reasonable to suggest that people like Washington or Jefferson used the Bible to justify keeping slaves. Religion got credit for the good, never the bad.

When she gives her speech to the board, Mrs. Hodges claims to have a seven page single spaced list of errors, which she has provided to the board. Obviously a half hour episode was not going to have time to show all of them, so we have to judge it on the basis of the issues she does bring up. I already described her first issue. She thinks the Founding Fathers and other figures cannot be understood without a discussion of their faith. Obviously, for some historical figures, she is right. On the other hand, many others were passively religious, or actively critical of religion. And sometimes religion was used to justify atrocities, like how Manifest Destiny was used to justify genocide of the Native Americans. I do agree that balance is important to understanding history, but I think our ideas of balance are very different.

For example, Mrs. Hodes doesn’t think this textbook isn’t particularly fair to white settlers. She says that they talk about the settler’s slaughter of Indians but not vice versa. That’s not a fair comparison. At most, I’d acknowledge that there were inevitably cases where white non-combatants were killed by Natives, because Native Americans are human beings and any large group of human beings contains a few shitty ones. But in terms of the scale, context and stakes, there is no fair analysis that makes white settlers anything but invading imperialists. The indigenous peoples were there first; that’s why they’re called indigenous. We attacked without provocation, we broke our own treaties and we corralled the survivors into shithole reservations. And if you still think their slaughter of us and our slaughter of them is comparable, ask yourself, how many of us are left? How many of them? Entire tribes were wiped out, entire languages lost. We committed genocide, and it’s our moral imperative to admit that.

Similarly, she talks about how unfair it is that Christian missionaries are described torturing Indians. Well, tough. That happened. She complains that there’s no mention of Aztec human sacrifice. I’m pretty sure kids will find out about that one through cultural osmosis, so chill out. Plus, this sounds like a US history textbook, and that was more South and Central America, so that’s not especially relevant. She even complains that it doesn’t even mention the pilgrims at Thanksgiving, which… ugh.

Okay, for those who don’t already know, the history we are taught as kids is extremely skewed. There was one Thanksgiving that kind of resembles the kindergarten play version, and a ton of others that were held specifically to celebrate. If you want to know more, here’s some links. Besides, even if the sweet holiday version were completely true, would it really be historically relevant? If the best moment in European/Indian relations you can think of is one reasonably pleasant dinner party, that tells you something right there.

The last problem she describes is that the textbook “makes it sound like religious leaders were responsible for slavery.” That’s an ambiguous phrase. Do they specifically paint a picture of bishops sitting in a dark room hatching a plan to enslave Africans? ‘Cause yeah, that would not be correct. But “responsible” can also mean responsible for allowing it to happen, or justifying it. Christian preachers absolutely did that. She also says they aren’t credited with abolitionism and the Underground Railroad. That’s a fair point.  There were religious leaders both condemning and defending slavery.

A few paragraphs ago, I put a pin into the whole concept of whether or not the real complexities of religion in the US would be in line with AIO’s philosophy or not. Not every Christian in American history preached Christianity exactly the way AIO does. Quakers, for example, were probably the most famously anti-slavery denomination, and they were vocal activists. AIO is a fan of original sin. Quakers talk instead about the inner light of God which inhabits everyone, and many Quakers do not believe conversion is necessary for salvation. They also value the Bible but do not consider it infallible or the final word. Unitarians, who frequently reject even the divinity of Christ, were also typically abolitionists. As we know from episodes like Bad  Company, AIO does not look kindly on this kind of liberal Christianity. Meanwhile, Southern Baptists, whose doctrines align far more closely with AIO, literally became Southern Baptists because their leadership refused to condemn slavery.

I can headcanon Mrs. Hodges as a person who understood all this, and whose ideal textbook would not only celebrate Christian heritage, but also criticize Christianity’s failings and celebrate the diversity of religious beliefs among those who had, on the whole, an influence for good. But it does not change the fact that in their own writings on history, AIO certainly does not reach for this balance. Their definition of Christianity is narrow, to the point of cutting out many modern Christians, let alone earlier religious movements. I’m also not saying all the AIO-style Christians defended slavery and all the hippie Christians attacked it, but there’s a general trend here.

Mrs. Hodges says that this is “what we accused the Nazis of doing.” But the problem wasn’t the act of revising, just as Hitler’s problem wasn’t the gift of eloquence and Communism’s problem wasn’t the idea of regulating businesses… oh wait, AIO’s staff probably thinks the last one was the problem. Well, moving on. The problem happened when they lied, and cut out everyone who disagreed with the lie. And AIO is portraying the cutting out of Mrs. Hodges as an attack on people who disagree. That’s not what is really happening. In our society, there is still back and forth over education and textbooks. Sometimes I agree with what goes in and sometimes I don’t. And, most tellingly, I don’t think anything that Mrs. Hodges complains about is a serious inaccuracy. In some cases they are overcorrecting, but even there, society has so much of the opposite perspective… kids are going to hear your side too, Mrs. Hodges.

And here we get into my real problem. She makes an argument, a very good argument, that there’s something suspicious about a textbook that constantly picks and chooses what to include and what not to. Well, that can apply to the whole of AIO. They constantly pick and choose pro-Christian perspectives. They constantly pick and choose pro-traditional gender role perspectives. They constantly pick and choose pro-white perspectives. And when society presents them with alternate perspectives, they pick the most extreme example and cry foul.

Final Ratings

Best Part: This time my favorite part wasn’t a single scene, but an element of Mrs. Hodges’ character. She isn’t an aggressive person. On the contrary, she is very sweet and easygoing. This episode gradually revealed an inner strength to her that was both surprising and realistic. They say “beware the nice ones” for a good reason. Often the people who are softest on the surface have the most strength inside.

Worst Part: Jack’s skewed, scaremongering description of revisionist history.

Story Rating: Truth is, in terms of basic plot structures, this is one of the better ones. While it’s a bit obvious where it is going, it is tense, it engages the reader, and it uses Lawrence’s subplot as a good tension reliever. Hey, I split up the moral and story ratings for a reason! B+

Moral Rating: As with so many of these political themes, I have to split the difference between the ostensible moral message, and the underlying political ideas. The basic idea that authority should be respected in some cases and challenged in others is dead on, and they introduce some ways to tell the difference that are reasonable and accessible to kids. That’s an incredibly important set of ideas. But underneath it, they try to whitewash the racial and cultural imperialism that has marred our country’s history for so long. That’s incredibly damaging. So what the hell should I give this?

Well, if I’m analyzing this episode in isolation, halfway between an A+ and an F- is a C. If I’m analyzing it in the context of other themes, I’d have to weight the F side and give it a D-. Do with that what you will.

Midnight Robber, by Nalo Hopkinson

Midnight Robber

What It’s About

An epic bildungsroman about a young girl’s journey from fugitive to folk hero, set in a future where space is colonized by Caribbean peoples.

Why I Think You Will Like It

God, there are so many levels on which I want to recommend this, it is honestly hard to pick where to start.

First there’s the sci-fi coolness level. This is a fucking awesome world. You’ve got your androids, your nanotechnology, your pocket dimensions and your aliens, all well thought and neatly integrated into the coolest fucking neo-Caribbean culture. The dialect and carnivals and food and clothing all make for a spin on space opera that I desperately want to see more of. This was my first taste of Afrofuturism and I got hooked, in the best way.

Then there’s how it handles abuse and trauma. Tan-Tan is a fun protagonist, full of spark and wit and ferocity. She’s a perfect blend of larger-than-life enough to be thrilling, but flawed enough to be relatable. In her childhood you see the makings of a rogue on par with Han Solo or Jack Sparrow. At the same time, people don’t become that devilishly tough without surviving some absurdly scary shit first. This is a hard balance to portray; how to be honest about the pain of trauma survival without losing the fun of a thrilling adventure? Not only does Nalo Hopkinson pull this off, but she pulls it off with some subject matter that even very skilled Serious Literary Authors can fumble badly. (see content warnings for details, and some mid-book spoilers)

And then there’s just the story as a story. It starts out fascinating, takes several twists, builds to a point where you can’t see a way out and are internally bargaining for at least a bittersweet ending, and then explodes into a perfectly satisfying eucatastrophe. This book is not just science fiction at its best; it is storytelling at its best, period.

With all that, I still have not mentioned how it handles imperialist colonization tropes, or how the aliens as individuals are some of the most relatable characters but as a group feel genuinely alien, or the beauty of the prose, or how the folk tales within the novel are beautifully atmospheric… gah, just go read this book! Read! This! Book!

Content Warnings

It’s definitely a grown-up book. There are fight scenes, alcoholism, nudity, and lots of swearing. Also, by way of a trigger warning, there is child abuse, including sexual. The actual scenes are brief, but realistic and scary.

I’m almost reluctant to admit to that last, because if I had known I might have been more shy about this book, given that I picked it up wanting a fun adventure (which I got!). Sexual abuse and fun adventure stories don’t usually go together, or if they do it’s because the victims were used as cheap props to artificially up the stakes.

One in three women and more men than you’d think survive some form of sexual assault, and in the real world that does not mean their lives have to be doom and gloom forever. The problem with addressing that in fiction is that it can too easily turn into dismissing or understating the pain. But it is equally a problem to build up the expectation that a survivor of sexual assault is Ruined Forever(TM)! It’s just another thing that makes coming out as a survivor more difficult. People are genuinely baffled to meet a survivor who is not Ruined Forever(TM)!

This is one of the few books I’ve read that actually has an honest, painful, doesn’t-happen-in-one-epiphany recovery for a survivor of abuse. It does this while also giving you a fantastic fantasy romp. If sexual assault is a major trigger for you, probably don’t read this book. But if it’s not, give it a try. Books like this need to exist.

Ugly, by Robert Hoge

Ugly

What It’s About

Robert Hoge was born with a facial tumor and deformed legs. This is his memoir of a childhood of surgeries and misadventures, bullying and friendships, growing up and ultimately learning to love his body and his face.

Why I Think You’d Like It

I’m probably supposed to write about how inspiring and moving and educational this is, but honestly, I want start off recommending it for its humor. It’s a book about surgeries and prejudice and kids being assholes, but it’s also about spitballs, sports, what happens when you cross clunky prosthetics with a bicycle and a beehive. It’s about getting stuck in the mud and rescued by a nun, and refusing to learn from that experience, because mud is fun.

And there’s sad stuff too. When he was born, his mother was terrified to look at him, overwhelmed by the prospect of raising him, and has to go through a journey before she decides to take him home. Too many stories either erase or excuse the ableist reactions of a parent who first has a disabled child. I love that this story is there, without sugar coating, and also that he can talk about his mother overcoming that reaction without excusing it. That story was part of his normal; and not, thankfully, something used to make him feel guilty or grateful. It was a story of how his mother almost made the biggest mistake of her life, and missed out on a beloved son. In that one story there’s so much to learn about ableism and societal pressures and family and how love isn’t just a feeling but also a choice. And it’s just one of many equally thought provoking stories in the book.

I think there’s a huge need for well-rounded books about disability. His story is full of sad parts and happy parts, but it’s neither a doom and gloom navel gazing memoir nor a sugary mess of Inspiration!(TM) It’s an honest book about an ordinary person being dealt a really crappy starting hand, making the best of it, and going on to have a life of his own.

Content Warnings

None; even the descriptions of the surgeries and bullying hit a good balance of honest, but not graphic or immersive. This is probably because the book is actually aimed at middle grade readers, though I recommend it for anyone of any age.

Reviewing Adventures in Odyssey as an Atheist: Arizona Sunrise

(apologies for posting this so late in the day. It’s been a helluva week)

I’ve described some problematic race portrayals on Adventures in Odyssey. People of color are inevitably either submissive to or violent enemies of heroic white people. This series also whitewashes historical people of color, even when all characters should be Middle-Eastern Semitic peoples.

Among white people, there’s a tendency to describe racism as something exhibited by swastika tattooed skinheads and absolutely nobody else. This is especially a problem in right-wing religious GOP-loyal communities, but white liberals are hardly exempt from it. And, god, the deeper I get into this topic the more I feel like I’m not the right person to describe it. The whole problem starts with white people talking to other white people, who haven’t experienced racism, about what racism really is. We tend to soften up our descriptions in order to make each other feel comfortable, and conversations about oppression and bigotry shouldn’t be soft and comfy.

So this episode isn’t going to explain everything about racism in all it’s forms and why they are bad. You should be looking for blogs written by POC for that. I’m just going to explain where, on the great wheel of all the diverse types of racism, AIO fits in, because that will be important context for the next video.

And to demonstrate what AIO’s race problem is, there is no better episode than Arizona Sunrise.

This episode opens with a chance meeting between Jack Allen, a friend of Whit’s who has recently opened an antique shop in town, and Cody, a small child plagued by homework. He’s supposed to do a report on a famous person from the Old West, a task which is unsurmountable because, as he says, he doesn’t know any famous people.

As luck would have it, Jack was just researching the history of an antique saddle he received. It was the property of Reverend James Klinger, a circuit preacher who preached in the Arizona territory. He even still has the page with Klinger’s biography open in his computer, and he invites Cody to look it over and see if this would be a good candidate for his report.

The article starts by talking about the Apache wars coming to an end, and “resentment between white and Indian alike.”

Well, that’s, um, a highly colored characterization. We’ll put a pin in that for now.

We open on James Klinger reading the Bible to a group of Apaches, and talking about sin, death and redemption. He asks them if they are following. They all say they don’t, so he prepares to break it down for them. He first asks if an Apache would ever die for his enemy. One of them immediately responds that no, an Apache would kill their enemy. Lol, what charming savages. But don’t worry, we’re dodging that bullet with Klinger’s jovial admission that many white people would as well. All Apaches, many but not all white people, gosh, we are being fair minded here, aren’t we?

Klinger goes on to explain that sin makes us like God’s enemy, yet he chose to forgive us and even die to pay the price for our sins. The Apache find this bewildering but interesting. They say they’ll think over these ideas, and Klinger says that is all that he asks. He says good-bye to them and sets off with his companion/bodyguard/heterosexual life partner, Reese. Reese asks if he expects these savages to ever turn around, and Klinger laughs and says he has to try.

A rider comes up to drag them back to the fort, because the captain is outraged about something or other. Said captain yells at Klinger for a while about how horrible and savage Apaches are, and when Klinger again says that we are all heathens under the eyes of God, at some point or another. The captain agrees but repeats that no Apache has “the ability or inclination to change.”

This back and forth goes on for a while, which Klinger not exactly denying that Apaches are heathens or savages, just asserting that he has a calling to try his best, whatever they do. Here’s where I want to make a distinction between Klinger the character and the overall message of the episode. There’s a possible argument to be made that Klinger disagrees seriously with the captain’s characterization, and is simply choosing his battles. Or maybe you don’t agree with that reading of the character at all, and that while his intentions are good he also takes an infantilizing, paternalistic attitude towards the Apaches. It’s a brief episode, so you can read a lot into his motivations from scene to scene, and what you project probably has more to do with you and your experiences than anything else. What we do know is that this episode, having limited time, has made multiple characters bring up the message that salvation is needed by some white people and all Apaches. It’s pretty safe to assume this is a perspective the writers want us to take.

The captain seems to be trying to persuade Klinger that the Apache are not worth saving, and he even brings up the fact that Klinger’s mother was killed by Apaches. But when Klinger insists that this is his calling, and nothing will dissuade him, the captain suddenly tells him that Messia, an old chief, has gone out into the desert to die. It’s supposed to be an old custom of theirs.

I did try to find evidence for this ritual. I read through several online articles on Apache death rituals, and while there was certainly some variation between different tribes, I didn’t see anything like this described, especially in the sites curated by actual Native Americans.

Anyway, the captain’s information is out of character, because everything in the dialog up until now made it clear that he in no way wants Klinger to go preach to any Apaches. The captain thinks it’s a waste of time that aggravates tensions and makes it harder to keep the peace. But Klinger has only been more and more insistent that he will do anything he can to convert as many Apaches as he can. So the captain’s response is to tell him about someone who is A. about to die and B. clearly not into the Christian thing, as he’s still doing the “old Apache spiritual tradition” thing. Yeah, that’s real in character. This unnamed authority figure is definitely a fleshed out person, not a walking tool for exposition.

Anyway, Klinger announces that he’s going to go make conversion happen. Plus, if he can also save Messia’s life, bonus. But definitely the conversion thing, as the priority.

He and Reese first go to Messia’s old village, where most of the villagers want him to clear out and stop meddling. But Messia’s granddaughter, Nalicadaeh, comes up to ask about this whole Western medicine thing. Klinger has emphasized that his doctors may be able to save Messia’s life, and Nalicadaeh believes him. Messia’s her only family, so she can’t stand to lose him. The tribe threatens to cut her out if she helps Klinger, so she decides to convert on the spot.

If you listen to people who have had some experience being pressured to convert, or otherwise abandon their culture and home, it is always a painful experience, regardless of their reasons. But as Nalicadaeh talks to Klinger, she shows no sign of conflict or mourning over her decision. She talks excitedly about what her new God can help her do, and focuses on the search. You could, again, interpret her character many ways. This could be putting on a brave face or overcompensating so Klinger will believe in her conversion and help her. But either way, the episode is not giving any complexity to her situation. From Klinger’s perspective, she is both saved from eternal damnation, and might also get her grandfather back. The fact that she has also been separated from her home forever… we aren’t invited to think about that.

And there’s another character/story distinction of note. Klinger has no idea what is wrong with Messia. He probably doesn’t know how ignorant doctors of his era were, but he certainly does know that there are many diseases where the best they can do is make the patient comfortable, then wait and see. He also probably knows that most diseases of old age are in this category. The hope he offers Nalicadaeh is slim to illusory, and he knows it. But, again, from a character perspective, maybe it does come from genuine optimism.

The writers, on the other hand, know (or could easily find out) the state of medicine in 1887. It’s not good, especially when the patient was an elderly person. Antibiotics were a theoretical possibility discussed among the doctors who bought into this newfangled “germ theory of disease” notion. Surgeries were a last resort, because even if the infection didn’t get you, blood loss probably would. A few mad scientists were messing around, rather controversially, with transfusions, but they wouldn’t figure out how to do it safely until the early twentieth century. The point is, whatever Messia needs, from heart surgery, to a removed tumor, to a bacterial infection healed, even the most competent doctor of the era probably couldn’t pull it off.

Additionally, medicines weren’t regulated in 1887. You pretty much had two options; herbal remedies based on tradition and folklore, or “patent medicines,” which were cure-alls peddled by travelling con artists. Of the two, traditional herbal remedies were the better option, as they were given by someone who actually had to stick around and see what worked and what didn’t. Patent medicines were mostly just alcohol and promises.

This matters, because Klinger is about to be heroized for bringing an old man to Western medical doctors, when the reality is there was nothing Western doctors could do that couldn’t be done just as well by Apache healers. And the writers have no excuse not to know this.

Back to the episode. When they stop to rest, Klinger and Nalicadaeh share stories of families lost to the war. He lost his family to the Apache, she lost hers to white people. Oh, how tragic it is that both of these people came from warring sides, each of which were in a morally equivalent position.

Sigh.

Nalicadaeh does not want to stop. She wants to keep seeking Messia through the night, while Klinger and Reese insist that they make camp for the night. Their debate is interrupted by Pialsiney, an Apache scout from the fort who claims to have been sent by the captain. Apparently the Apaches are only keeping the peace while Messia lives, and so the captain has done an ideological about face, re: saving Indians. During this conversation, Nalicadaeh sneaks off, forcing them to continue the search for both her and her grandfather.

Nalicadaeh finds Messia and guides Reese, Klinger and Pialsiney to him. She says he is very sick and must be taken to a doctor quickly. Pialsiney immediately reveals that his story was a lie. Apparently Messia killed Pialsiney’s family, in revenge for their collaboration with the white men. Messia does not deny this, and even points out the war trophies he took from them. He wants to die, Pialsiney wants to kill him, this all works out. But this talk of war trophies draws Klinger’s eyes to a familiar necklace. Turns out, Messia is the one who killed Klinger’s mother. Dun dun duuuuuunnnnn!

Yeah, obviously this isn’t going to change Klinger’s mind. I should admit that the acting is good here. He really sells us on the difficulty behind Klinger’s decision to not take revenge, or allow Pialsiney to take it. But obviously this is the only way it was going to happen. There’s gotta be a message about God and forgiveness, and a dramatic display of self sacrifice that convinces Messia to convert. So Klinger physically shields Messia and gives a speech, and then Reese subdues Pialsiney and they all head back to the fort.

Also they see a sunrise, and that’s significant because Nalicadaeh had been afraid Messia would not live to see it, and there’s an episode title namedrop along with swelling dramatic music.

We cut back to Cody reading the article aloud, and he narrates that Messia survives for several more years and converts along with Nalicadaeh, and eventually many others in their village. Cody gets excited about this story and declares that he will definitely write it up for his history day project, because, as Jack Allen says, it’s so sad that we don’t hear more about how epic and wonderful missionaries were.

Now, I thought that this would be a hard episode, because I would have to do tons of research on the reality of James Klinger, and contrast the real person with the character. Uh… not so much.

Many listeners have written in to ask if the story of James Klinger in
Arizona Sunrise is a true one. In the episode, a circuit-riding minister
sets out to save the life and the soul of an old Apache warrior. Though the
characters in this episode were fictional, the story is based on an actual
historical event. Apaches did go out into the wilderness when they thought
it was their time to die. In 1905, a Lutheran pastor went searching for an
Apache chief who had done just that. He found the chief, brought him
back to civilization, and nursed him back to health.

Link here.

There is no information that would enable us to look the story up for ourselves. This, combined with the fact that I couldn’t find any reference to that as a custom, makes me distrust their source. There was a market for sensationalized stories about Native Americans for a very, very long time, a lot of nonsense got passed off as fact, and when it comes to indigenous cultures you have to trace your sources carefully.

This is also as good a time as any to mention that I could not even find evidence that Messia, Nalicadaeh or Pialsiney are actually names in any Native American language. Searching for either Nalicadaeh or Pialsiney just gave me two pages of Google results, all of which were references to this episode on AIO fan sites. Messia brought a lot of sites where somebody had misspelled Messiah.

So we see a fake story, framed as real to an impressionable audience, which misrepresents Western medicine as superior at a time when it really wasn’t. The hero is a man whose life mission is to convince Native Americans to abandon their beliefs and culture for his, while the writers have seemingly not bothered to do even the slightest research on what those beliefs actually were.

When I was growing up, I knew a lot of adults who agreed with a lot of racist stereotypes, from savage Indians to lazy Latinos to ignorant Black people, and they were always quick to clarify that it wasn’t the people, not the skin color or genetics, no, it was just the culture. Brown people could be just as good as white people, so long as they took on white culture. But people of color who acted, you know, non-white, those people were a problem.

And I’m upset to admit it, but as a little kid, I bought it, until I started reading books that actually celebrated non-white cultures. Not all of those books were good quality, and many came from the weirdly fetishistic liberal culture that put every non-European culture onto a pedestal of enlightenment. But they lead me to an important realization; I was being taught to judge other cultures without even being taught what those cultures were. Cultures are complicated as hell. There is no such thing as a “good” or “bad” culture; all cultures have good and bad aspects, because they are made up of complicated humans who themselves have good and bad aspects. And nobody is either free from or completely controlled by their culture. Offloading old stereotypes onto “cultural differences” isn’t an evolution beyond racism. It’s the same old bigotry, with a new hat on.

In my next episode, I’ll talk more about how this fits into the overall philosophy of Adventures in Odyssey.

Final Ratings

Best Moment: I kinda liked Nalicadaeh running off to make the guys follow her. Way to game the system, kiddo!

Worst Moment: Any of the bits where they go on about savage Apache ways could count, but Pialsiney has a bit where he specifies that he wants to kill Messia slowly with a knife, because that’s “the Apache way.” I really hate that the line that most condemns Apache culture comes from an actual Apache… it’s like they are trying to lend an extra veneer of authenticity.

Story Rating: I mean, it was entertaining, in a mindless, inaccurate, white man’s burden King Solomon’s Mines kind of way. Oh, and in an era where there weren’t nearly as many excuses for not doing your research. Plus you’ve got to make sure you don’t notice any of the plot holes, like the captain’s lack of a character, or the clumsy frame device. So, you know, C-

Moral Rating: So, with many of these political posts, I have to make a distinction between the implicit social message and the explicitly stated moral. Obviously the explicit message is about forgiveness and how it’s awesome, and I don’t want people to think I don’t approve of that part. I’m generally pro-forgiving, although when I get to the forgiveness section I’ll be pointing out some episodes where I think their ideas about forgiveness are weirdly skewed. But you know, when it comes to the decision to kill or not kill someone who once wronged you but is now a sickly old man who can no longer hurt you and who you think deserves a second chance, I’m all for it.

But there also is some proselytizing, from Jack and Chris, about how missionaries were awesome and epic and important to history and whatnot. I… well could say a lot. For now I’ll just say that I think, if they were so awesome and important, why the fuck didn’t you write an episode around a missionary who actually existed?

So, an A for “forgiveness is good,” a D for “missionaries are so epic and historically important that I can completely make up a story about a fake missionary doing fake epic things,” and an F for “brown people are okay, they just need to be saved.”

We’ll call that a D+, I guess.

Nexus, by Ramez Naam

Nexus

What It’s About

In the near future, humans have found myriad ways to augment themselves. These new developments are both feared and anticipated, used and abused. A fragile balance of power lies between those who would explore the limits of transhumanist technologies and those who would limit and regulate it. When a new street drug gives people the ability to connect empathically and telepathically, however, the two forces are forced to come to a head.

Why I Think You’d Like It

As far as my personal tastes go, this is the gold standard for hard sci-fi. As much as I enjoy SF elements justified with “because it’s cool,” there is something special about intensely researched, maximally plausible science fiction. The only reason I don’t read more of it is that, too often, the characters aren’t people. For me personally, that’s an absolute dealbreaker.

Ramez Naam was a computer programmer and posthumanist philosopher long before he started writing fiction. He knows his stuff. But what I love most is how alive his characters are. He has an enormous cast to juggle; not quite to the George R. R. Martin level, but to the level of someone who has his picture on their vision board. Despite that, every one has their own distinct voice. He shows you who looks for the exits first when they enter a room, and who wanders over to the paintings on the wall, who defines themselves in relation to their past and who obsessively imagines the future, who spends most of their time admiring others and who calculates the best way to use others, and who barely thinks of other people at all. All of that happens so naturally that it took me a while to realize just why I had such an easy time keeping track of whose head I was in. This book gave me revelations on how to write characters.

I also love that, although he has his own thoughts on whether or not transhumanist evolution would be a good thing, he avoids simply dividing his cast into heroes and villains. There are characters who horrifically abuse technology that he clearly loves, and there are characters who have painfully sympathetic reasons for opposing it. While he successfully brings you around to his side, he does so without resorting to strawmen or other cheap narrative tricks. Or at least, he did with me; I think even if you’re not totally convinced, you’ll still enjoy the book, which is a testament to how well he explores the idea.

He also does representation exactly the way I think all authors should. The women all have goals that don’t revolve around men and relationships, and Bechdel’s Test is passed every few pages, with the natural ease that should be normal. Some people are randomly queer because the real world has random queer people. It starts out on the West Coast, and the characters come from an accurate variety of backgrounds. When they travel to Thailand, most of the new characters are Thai. That shouldn’t be remarkable, but you know what you mean. We’ve all seen the story set in a foreign country yet no important person is actually from there. I don’t know how accurate, say, the Thai culture is, but I can say that everybody was a person first, with gender/sexuality/ethnicity being just one among many pieces making up who they are.

All of this plays beautifully into the plot. He is telling a story about a fundamental reshaping of humanity, and to tell that story right, capturing humanity itself is essential. He absolutely nails it.

Content Warnings

It is a fairly intense book. Many factions are violent, and there are plenty of character deaths. Even when there is no actual fight scene, the threat of violence usually present.

He also explores the emotional and psychological abuses of this technology. This includes personality rewriting and taking over other people’s body. There are references to the technology being used for sexual abuses. It’s one case where I actually thought it was justified by the story. I hate it when rape is just treated as a requirement to make a story Gritty And Realistic(TM). But when violations of bodily autonomy and consent are an issue intregal your story, not acknowledging sexual violence would be a problematic oversight. One thing I appreciated was that these uses mostly happen offscreen. It mentioned as a reality and recalled as part of a few character’s backstories, but he never sucks you into a graphic scene.

There are also explicit sex scenes, but the only thing that’s portrayed as sexy is enthusiastic consent. There is one scene that might be triggering; a man is trying to hook up with a woman, and he has used a behavior modifying program to get over his awkwardness in flirting. A bug in the program causes him to lose control of his body. This is not portrayed as sexy, but equal parts scary and embarrassing. Neither of them suffer any long term harm, and if you want you can skip to the next line break without missing anything important.

Also there’s swearing, drugs and alcohol. Yeah, it’s definitely a grown-up book.