The Biggest Lie of the Election

This election has no shortage of lies and it’s not my job to dispel them, but I want to address one I think cuts to the very center of the election and the entire political enterprise. Donald Trump was accused of gaming the system to avoid taxes, and he said “that makes me smart,” a position he has since elaborated on, declaring himself a downright genius for avoiding taxes. No doubt lots of people believe him, and regard him with even more hero worship. Surely a genius who gets out of paying taxes (legally) is so super-smart on economics he’ll fix everything with genius magic, right?

Owl (Public Domain)

Wrong. Donald Trump didn’t use highly complicated tax trickery to get out of paying taxes. He simply took advantage of the system that is already built to help the rich and powerful. He played by the rules, but the rules are unfair in his favor.

Declaring himself “smart” is meant to reassure his voters that the rich and powerful deserve to be rich and powerful, and that this is a meritocracy; that those opportunities exist for everyone and the deserving smart discover them and take advantage.

Sorry, no. The loopholes he exploited aren’t available to you, only to the very rich. He didn’t cheat the system; the system is working exactly as it is supposed to and serving the people it was designed to serve.


One of 10,000 Takes

I started writing a longish blog entry about my son’s start at Kindergarten, but decided to send it to the Minneapolis Star Tribune for their 10,000 Takes series instead… and here it is.

About My Next Book and Cultural Appropriation

One of my first serious long literary endeavors was a novella, submitted as my undergraduate thesis in 1990. It was called Where the Buffalo Roamed and had intersecting stories of young adults in Grand Forks, North Dakota, including a young man named Delano who was half Native American and half African American. My thesis advisor was a writer named Annie Dawid, and she grilled me about this character. I don’t think she used the phrase “cultural appropriation,” but it was the first time I was exposed to the idea that white people ought not to write about other cultures, or that they at least better have a good reason for doing so.

I did not have a good reason, damned or otherwise, but I was defensive about it. I was pretty thin-skinned at the time. But over time I did understand where Dawid was coming from and, moreover, came to appreciate that the character’s racial identity wasn’t very well explained or described, just a passing description. I probably gave more narrative attention to the battered field jacket he wore, which was based on a jacket I wore myself at the time. It’s easier to write about a jacket you’ve lived in than a skin you have not.

I’m now grateful that Dawid mentored me that year on cultural sensitivity, because she pushed me in ways my advisor (who was on sabbatical), John Little, never would have. Creatively I had been doing a lot of that impulsively — writing inauthentic Chinese fairy tales, for example. And those stories tended to leave me the most satisfied at the time and earn the most praise. It was hard to let go but over time I was simply less moved to write in that vein and more aware of the issues behind mining other cultures for inspiration. By the time I was actually getting published my characters looked like me.

But a few years ago I became interested in the intense way kids play baseball in the Dominican Republic, the fervor that grips the country, and the sacrifices they make in pursuit of their dreams. I was casting about for a new story and since Mudville is my most successful book, thinking I really needed to get back to baseball. I imagined a boy who was ambitious even by D.R. standards, who made up for a lack of natural talent with sheer determination. I imagined a best friend who had a natural gift as a teammate and friend but not the same talent and ambition (in that regard, resurrecting a theme of Mudville). Usually the difference between an idea for a book and writing a book is the characters, and these kids stayed in my head.

So, I wrote that book.

Dominican boy with a baseball bat
Photo by Adam Jones via Wikimedia Commons.

By virtue of the fact that they are Dominican, these boys are Latino and of African descent. I’m obviously neither of those things, and in fact have never been to the Dominican Republic. I know it was audacious, but sometimes writers have to go where the heat is. Unlike Delano, their identity is essential to the story and to their characters. I did a lot of research, and found readers from the D.R., and tried to be accurate. I probably made mistakes (I make mistakes writing about my own life), but I dare say I did no harm, reinforced no stereotypes, and exploited no tragedy. But as I plugged along with the book I kept wondering if Rafael’s story was my story to tell, and if people would declare that it wasn’t. I wondered if insult and harm would necessarily be visible to the author. I knew eventually I would have to answer questions about it. Why this story, or, put another way, why this author?

This was a big week for discussions about cultural appropriation so it was more on my mind than usual, as I was finishing up copy edits and retooling the ending and getting excited for cover art. I’ve posted a couple of times about facebook, and one invited a thoughtful response from Michael Kleber-Diggs.

There are two general but tall hurdles to clear in order to do so. First… you actually have to love those characters. Your motivations in writing about them have to be scrutinized thoughtfully (ideally by zealous and ‘woke’ first readers). You have to inhabit that experience as fully as you can. You have to convey a high degree of care. The characters need to be essential to the story. They need to exist on the page like they are essential.

Second, the writer has to be able to clear that first hurdle. They need to be able to answer the question Bill Cheng isolated so well [in this article] – why does the writer want to tell these stories?

It’s a good set of criteria, but ultimately the readers will have to decide if I’ve written with care, or needed to write this book… which readers do for every book. If it isn’t self-evident, then my protests and explanations are irrelevant. If it is, they aren’t needed.



Tall Mouse & Short Mouse

3833115430_c4dae9baacTonight I was reading Arnold Lobel’s Mouse Tales to Byron. There’s a story about Tall Mouse and Short Mouse; they talk a walk together and see different things. Like a lot of Lobel, it seems light but it also kinda runs deep.

Because there’s a simple truth to this story that so few people understand, and I myself frequently forget. People have different truths because they have different experiences. They may walk the same path and yet take — in every measurable way — completely different walks. They might arrive with different truths. If you’ve only seen the birds and the flowers, you simply don’t know how other people walk among the roots and beetles.

Also, the story has a nice message about privilege.When there’s a view only Very Tall Mouse can enjoy, he doesn’t hesitate to lift his friend to share it. Not only does it bring equity to the relationship, it allows Tall Mouse to share the experience.

Somebody has probably written a 100,000 word novel to arrive at the same truth that Lobel nailed in a few sentences. Heck, people live their whole lives without attaining that truth that Lobel reveals to children in a few sentences.


Sky Blue Water

Sky Blue WaterI almost forgot that today is the launch day for this wonderful anthology of Minnesota writers. I’m excited to pick this up and read it, since a lot of my favorite people are in it. A story of my own is included, in which I advocate for both boys playing with dolls and fighting as a solution to bullying. I wrote it from the gut and it is what it is. I love the story, it has an authenticity I rarely get right. Ask for the book at your local independent bookseller.

Incidentally, “Sky Blue Water” is the meaning of “Minnesota” and has nothing to do with beer.

The Book Formerly Known As…

Rafael Rosales and the Infinitesimal Hope is now  entitled Rooting for Rafael Rosales. I like the new title because I had trouble pronouncing “infinitesimal” without slowing way down and concentrating. This appropriately echoes one of my favorite parts of the book, when the non-baseball-playing hero of the book is arguing for bees and against her father’s GMO-manufacturing business, and has to use the word “neonicotinoids” comfortably.

This is a strange, hard-to-describe books and like a lot of my books I find my honed elevator speech misses a huge chunk of the book. Maybe that’s because I write books intuitively (i.e., I make them up as I go) and they, like life, end up being about a lot of different things. This one has two point-of-view characters: Rafael and Maya. Rafael is a boy growing up in the Dominican Republic circa 2005-2010 and we see his rise from the streets to a baseball academy. Maya is a girl living in Minneapolis in the summer of 2015, when she has a chance meeting with Rafael that leads to her following his minor league career from afar. But she has her own story: she is deeply worried about the planet, and invests her energy in helping bee populations as one of the few things she can do anything about. But like a lot of people, she realizes her symbolic gestures are not only overwhelmed by greater forces, but that her very life is tied up with those forces.

Metallic_Green_Bee_(Augochloropsis_sp.)_on_Coreopsis_(7173773106)The original linchpin was a fantastical/superstitious belief that Rafael’s fate would would help the world, but that never quite fell into place as it should have. I like the idea of “Sabremancy,” as I called it, but it really never suited the science-driven Maya to have such magical beliefs. And yet Maya, like a lot of people, finds her own sense of hope about things rising and falling with the tides of her favorite player’s career.

So that’s the new title, and I think a release date and cover are coming soon. Stay tuned.

Black and Blue


Remember this ugly dress? I still say it’s white and gold. No matter how much I look at it, it’s white and gold. People I love and trust like my own wife tell me it’s black and blue, but I can’t see it through their eyes and my own eyes see white and gold.

One way to absorb this difference of opinion is to shrug it off. Another way is to declare the other person insane or deceitful. Yet another way is to try to come to a fact-based decision, as I did by using the eyedropper tool in Photoshop to tell me what color the actual pixels were. (Brown and gray, but that’s misleading.)

In the same way, I cannot look at Donald Trump and see a president, no matter how much I squint or tilt the image or use different lighting. For that matter, I can’t look at Hillary Clinton and feel the revulsion and loathing that others feel, even within the Democratic Party.

This is not a political post or even one about over-exposed photographs. I’ve just been thinking all day about how divided we seem to be. It’s true that we have different sets of facts, but that’s a symptom not the problem. Why do we seek out and believe different facts (or “facts”) in the first place?

I read this week that only 20% of Clinton voters have a close friend or family member voting for Trump, and only 17% of Trump supporters have a close friend or family member supporting Clinton. Somehow even as we shout at each other in all-caps across the Internet, we don’t actually talk to each other. And when we don’t talk to each other, when we don’t really know each other, it becomes easier to see one another as monsters. The people on the other side of the hill have always been monsters and cannibals, and now our neighbors are on the other side of a metaphorical hill.

Then there is a vicious cycle. When the people over the hill are monsters, we begin to define ourselves by their presence. Before the monsters came, we might have described ourselves as a peaceful hamlet of shepherds and farmers, but now we see ourselves as a citadel of warriors, tirelessly defending ourselves against the monsters: that becomes our identity. And as it becomes our identity, the shadows the strangers cast become longer, their deeds become more savage and terrible. We can’t build our reputations out of fighting worms; we must have dragons. So I think that’s what’s happening, and it concerns me even more than a Trump presidency. Even if he loses the rift remains, these two worlds, each believing their are Geats and their opponents are Grendels.

Beowulf and Grendel

Maybe that’s where stories can help. Of course stories can reinforce the citadel-monster mentality (indeed, a thousand-year old story is behind my metaphor), but stories can also reveal the humanity of others, expose our own frailties, and compel us to self-scrutinize.

So maybe we need to do is sit by the fire and trade stories. We tell our own truthfully and with soft voices, and listen to theirs attentively and empathetically. We’ll come to understand each other. We’ll stop seeing each others as monsters, and find out that all we ever wanted was to stop being seen that way ourselves.