There is this story in Fantasy Magazine (The Stolen Word by lisamantchev  ).  It was posted on Monday and caused a great deal of consternation (as witness by the 125+ comments at the time of this post).  For those of you who did not read the story, I highly recommend it.  No, really, go read it.  I'll wait here.  If you haven't read it and would like to, I recommend that you follow the link before I issue my spoilers.

The controversy was sparked by the opening lines, and the ensuing commentary often did not address what I saw written in the text of the story itself.   I saw a lot of people using the story as a platform for their particular biases, for example:  1) the right of the "haves" to diss the "have nots" out of hand and 2) the right of the "have nots" to scream foul because they didn't agree with something hinted at in the text. I saw very little of the actual commentary (in all those comments) that actually addressed the text--which is a silly way to conduct any kind of literary commentary or criticism. 



---------------------------------Now for deconstruction of the Story, which will include SPOILERS!--------------------------


 
I saw in this story a grandmother telling her granddaughter a tale of hope and warning–as only a grandmother could. Was she telling her to assert herself regardless of what everyone else in her life might tell her? Or was she telling her to behave? I happen to believe it was the former, and if the child ever quoted her, well, Grandma could deny it.

Given that perspective, I think the stereotypes expressed (and yes, they were there–and I think had to be there for the warning to ring true) are meant to rattle a bit. The thing was, the tone (especially in the beginning) is one of a story-teller, one of a broad yarn in bold dialect. By that treatment, as a reader, I can’t take the words/plot at face value. (That may just be me, but I often stand alone in opinions.) To me, it reads like a great lie, and the only truth is the fact that a young woman shouldn’t be so damned concerned with obeying everyone’s expectations of her.

The presence of the “child buyers” was a stereo type, but it was not a prejudicial one, IMO. The poor unfortunates who take the girl in are not portrayed as wicked or evil. In fact, I rather liked them and felt sorry for them when the child turned them into victims rather than stereotypical abusers or slavers. I found myself cheering their attempt to tame the girl and loathing her mother--who sold her.  (Granny must be dad's mom...)  So, although I can see the stereotype and _fully_ understand how it would hurt some, I think a closer read of the text might be warranted here before weighing in on either side. Just a suggestion. No, I’m not excusing the use of prejudices and stereotypes because they are fiction, but trying to point out that the mere presence of “the Irish” (let’s say) in Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” does not prevent a text from being useful or enlightening.

I can go further into specifics from the text:  why I recognized the stereotype but did not read it as offensive.  

Storytelling in any form requires the use of stereotypes, otherwise it would take too long to set up the plot. They are actually very useful things, which stem from very basic needs in our psychology.  Stereotypes are the shorthand our psyches use so that our big, beautiful brains can think about other things.  Things like:  did that shadow under that bush just move?  am I about to be eaten?  or what is the square-root of 946,299 (it all depends on your view of survival, and the use of automatic processing such as stereotypes makes us faster decision makers...and also sometimes very WRONG).  The danger of stereotypes comes from using them inappropriately or relying on them as crutch. Personally, I don't think that the author (Ms. Mantchev) did either with the current version of the story. (Although there was an earlier version which, I believe, innocently--and therefore ignorantly--described the child buyer as a gypsy). 

OK, so back to the reasons I think the text does not indicate prejudice, just a stereotype.

First of all,  the "child buyer" is never identified as a member of any group (social, tribe, ethnicity) and any assumption of such is purely at the reader's discretion. Yes, child buying does seem to carry an implication of certain groups (Romani, travelers and peddlars were all mentioned in the comments), but such assumptions are not evidenced in the text.  

Also, the "child buyer" is identified by name as an individual--and the character of his name seems to indicate that he doesn't really exist, rather like the bogeyman.  The name also does not seem to indicate membership in any group, but a description of his job or what he sells:  Pins-n-Needles Man.  His actions are not associated with any larger group and his actions are not portrayed as those that could be expected of other peddlars, travelers or the assumed "Rom." In addition, when we actually meet the man as readers, his behavior is not one of an oppressive monster, which would re-inforce the nasty prejudice inherent in the stereotype. Instead, he actually becomes a sort of tragic hero in the tale, turning the stereotype inside out. I read that he may be misguided and human, but not evil. 

However, it has to be said, that the weight of these shorthand stereo types are felt very deeply because folks who are saddled with them usually have their voices taken from them. So, not only is it hurtful to have them forced upon you from people who don't understand, when you find the strength to communicate your historical trauma, there are plenty of people willing to belittle your point of view. I don't think Ms. Mantchev intended to hurt anyone, and I don't think the hurt is in her story.  However, historical trauma is out there, for so many groups, and that is what caused this crossfire. 

Therefore, all my defense of her story does not mean it wasn’t offensive to those who expressed offense.  Further, it should be discussed (at length), so we can learn from each other and move on together with the benefit of our collective experience.

While I read the story, I did wonder why the well-born didn’t show a little nasty underbelly. Everyone else who tried to help (or benefit from) the child seemed to have some self-motivated advantage to glean from “saving” or “buying” or “marrying” the child.  It seemed like a tiff between the ladies about whose house the urchin was to stay at (thereby making the hostess the belle of the upcoming parties...) would have been an appropriate bit of satire.

I think the overall lesson was:  regardless of who you run into, whatever their background or cultural group or ethnicity they will all seek advantage of you (young lady…) if you let them. Especially if you behave. 

That doesn't seem to me to be a message of stereotype or racism. I also don’t think the stereotype is the crux of the story. It’s bigger than that.  I hope Ms. Mantchev, and her readers on both sides of the controversy, can understand that the heat she drew is not necessarily from her actions, but the result of some very nasty history that could use healing. That doesn't mean any of us should dismiss the pain out of hand, but find some ways to help heal each other--black, white, red, yellow--Jew, Rom, Slav, Polish, Kurd, East Timorese, Tutsi, Zaghawa...and any other way we in the human family have divided our self.  (Yes, I do really mean self.)