I think the first question would be: is there really a way to appropriate correctly? (Or is it just a matter of bad appropriation and not-quite-so-bad appropriation?)
I didn't see that quote from him as an example of bad appropriation -- it's something else, just can't think of a good phrase. It's... hmm, it's a mangled argument for erasure, justifying a lack of appropriation (in re cemeteries) in the story. It's the same thing that author did who just wiped all Native peoples off the face of North America in her alternate-history fantasy-history book, whatever that disaster was called.
If that were the extent of it, then I'd be more worried that Gaiman would do something like, I don't know, decide that trying to figure out Buddhism is too much trouble or not worth it or whatever, and just avoiding it completely. (Which guts JttW, because if you're not going after the sutras, doesn't that kinda render the journey sort of, uhm, moot?) I guess erasure is the reverse of appropriation?
Anyway, plenty of other people have said all the arguments and critiques far better than I... I've just been twigging on the after-though last bit of his statement, and that I haven't really seen anyone calling out the notion that because the Chinese government must be involved in the script-review that if the Chinese govt is displeased that this must automatically be because they're totalitarian or censorship-happy or just don't, uhm, understand Monkey.
TL;DR -- it's not always censorship; sometimes it's a review board asking you to edit your script so it doesn't suck.
Although, if Gaiman could actually write something (on his own, not just treatments/translations) that didn't put me to sleep inside of a chapter, I might be in a better place to form an opinion on any other critiques of his work. But unfortunately... two or three paragraphs of his original/solo writing and I am BORED. Often, also ASLEEP.
ETA: When someone insists that appropriation is not harmful, or isn't an issue anymore... I always feel somewhat at a loss.
no subject
Date: 19 Mar 2011 08:16 pm (UTC)I didn't see that quote from him as an example of bad appropriation -- it's something else, just can't think of a good phrase. It's... hmm, it's a mangled argument for erasure, justifying a lack of appropriation (in re cemeteries) in the story. It's the same thing that author did who just wiped all Native peoples off the face of North America in her alternate-history fantasy-history book, whatever that disaster was called.
If that were the extent of it, then I'd be more worried that Gaiman would do something like, I don't know, decide that trying to figure out Buddhism is too much trouble or not worth it or whatever, and just avoiding it completely. (Which guts JttW, because if you're not going after the sutras, doesn't that kinda render the journey sort of, uhm, moot?) I guess erasure is the reverse of appropriation?
Anyway, plenty of other people have said all the arguments and critiques far better than I... I've just been twigging on the after-though last bit of his statement, and that I haven't really seen anyone calling out the notion that because the Chinese government must be involved in the script-review that if the Chinese govt is displeased that this must automatically be because they're totalitarian or censorship-happy or just don't, uhm, understand Monkey.
TL;DR -- it's not always censorship; sometimes it's a review board asking you to edit your script so it doesn't suck.
Although, if Gaiman could actually write something (on his own, not just treatments/translations) that didn't put me to sleep inside of a chapter, I might be in a better place to form an opinion on any other critiques of his work. But unfortunately... two or three paragraphs of his original/solo writing and I am BORED. Often, also ASLEEP.
ETA: When someone insists that appropriation is not harmful, or isn't an issue anymore... I always feel somewhat at a loss.