I liked that part too. I also appreciated the complexities of power within Karzistan. There were ethnic differences with complicated power relationships rather than there just being a monoculture. There were differences within the village and between rural and mountain and city areas. So because the society was more complicated than there being, say, two social classes, it rang true for me.
Where I question the "realness" or my perception of it is in the ways that my visions of that kind of complexity come from (Western) travel journals, or anthropology, and I'm not sure how to even start talking about that, but I'd like to have a healthy skepticism of that realness. For example I've heard people gush about how real Bruce Chatwin's Patagonia book is and how complex and beautiful and how it gives them a realistic view of this other place, but then there is a whole other book (in Spanish) about how totally screwed up Chatwin was and what an insane representation his book was and exactly why.
So was the society and its power relations real - was the character of Mae real to people (to which people?) - that could all be food for discussion.
There is something going on in the examples I *like*, that is maybe a setup, an implication of a stereotype of other cultures it's debunking or narrating against. And I think that is going on with Ryman's book. Maybe sort of an "anti-National-Geographic" narrative of authenticity.
Against that I weigh things like... well, for example when Salam Pax was first blogging and half the blogosphere said he must be not real, because he was too Western-influenced! To that sort of audience, Karzistan would not seem "real", because they just don't believe in it; they believe in a different kind of cultural authenticity.
The other example I would love to pick on is Keladry's knowledge of the "vaguely Japanese, but not" culture in Tamora Pierce. There are things in that setup that made me cringe, but things that are kind of cool and where it seems clear Pierce is trying to push beyond stereotypes her U.S. YA readers might have.
They both also seem like good examples for cultural appropriation discussions because they aren't awful but also not perfect, at least I don't think so, and because points for criticism might actually be made and heard, i.e. there is space for criticism and analysis, and Ryman and Pierce are both cool enough not to freak out if they read it.
no subject
Where I question the "realness" or my perception of it is in the ways that my visions of that kind of complexity come from (Western) travel journals, or anthropology, and I'm not sure how to even start talking about that, but I'd like to have a healthy skepticism of that realness. For example I've heard people gush about how real Bruce Chatwin's Patagonia book is and how complex and beautiful and how it gives them a realistic view of this other place, but then there is a whole other book (in Spanish) about how totally screwed up Chatwin was and what an insane representation his book was and exactly why.
So was the society and its power relations real - was the character of Mae real to people (to which people?) - that could all be food for discussion.
There is something going on in the examples I *like*, that is maybe a setup, an implication of a stereotype of other cultures it's debunking or narrating against. And I think that is going on with Ryman's book. Maybe sort of an "anti-National-Geographic" narrative of authenticity.
Against that I weigh things like... well, for example when Salam Pax was first blogging and half the blogosphere said he must be not real, because he was too Western-influenced! To that sort of audience, Karzistan would not seem "real", because they just don't believe in it; they believe in a different kind of cultural authenticity.
The other example I would love to pick on is Keladry's knowledge of the "vaguely Japanese, but not" culture in Tamora Pierce. There are things in that setup that made me cringe, but things that are kind of cool and where it seems clear Pierce is trying to push beyond stereotypes her U.S. YA readers might have.
They both also seem like good examples for cultural appropriation discussions because they aren't awful but also not perfect, at least I don't think so, and because points for criticism might actually be made and heard, i.e. there is space for criticism and analysis, and Ryman and Pierce are both cool enough not to freak out if they read it.
Er, blah blah blah... I am going on and on....