Showing posts sorted by date for query birthday cake. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query birthday cake. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Friday, March 26, 2021

Why did Dav Pilkey and Scholastic decide they will no longer publish THE ADVENTURES OF OOK AND GLUK, KUNG FU CAVEMEN FROM THE FUTURE?

Note: These updates are based on information I received after I wrote the blog post. They are in reverse chronological order (newest one appears first):

Update from Debbie on Sunday, March 28 at 12:50 PM: I talked with Mr. Kim. In my conversation with him, it is clear to me that his conversations with Mr. Pilkey have been positive. I'm glad to know that is the case. Mr. Kim has inserted two edits to the third paragraph of the petition. They are in bold, italicized font and read as follows:

(Edit: 3.28.21 1:10pm EST - At the time I drafted this petition, I had emailed Scholastic with my requests and interpreted their delay in responding as a refusal to acknowledge same. I now believe this is inaccurate and misleading, as Mr. Pilkey made clear to me later on that he and Scholastics were in discussions behind-the-scenes to address these issues that I was not privy to).

(Edit: 3.28.21 1:10pm EST - Per my conversations with Dav Pilkey, he and his family made donations to an AAPI-affiliated organization prior to his public apology, and there was no refusal on Mr. Pilkey's end to donate). 

Here is a screen capture of that paragraph. It is an important update to the petition:


 Update from Debbie on Sunday, March 28 at 9:45 AM: I received an email from Mr. Kim and I hope he edits the petition. As Sayuri Pilkey said, it does not accurately reflect Mr. Pilkey's response. But I am not casting aspersions on Mr. Kim, either. Parents speaking up for our children and our peoples often do so from emotional and painful spaces. 


Update from Debbie on Sunday, March 28 2021 at 5:01 AM: I've reached out to Mr. Kim but he has not yet replied. I was able to see his posts to Facebook about these events. In reading them, I believe Sayuri Pilkey is correct: Dav Pilkey did not refuse to make a public statement. The refusals were coming from Scholastic and I believe Scholastic's wishes that this all happen quietly are why Mr. Kim posted his petition at the Change site. The writing in the petition still says "Scholastic and Mr. Pilkey" and I hope that Mr. Kim edits that as soon as possible. His "Update" does not constitute an edit to the original petition. 

Update from Debbie on Saturday, March 27 2021 at 11:00 AM: There is conflicting information regarding the sequence of events, and Dav Pilkey's response to Mr. Kim. Sayuri Pilkey submitted three comments on March 27 at 12:59 AM, 1:34 AM, and 2:49 AM. Comments to AICL are moderated (due to spam). Just now (11:00 AM), I opened the submitted comments page on my site and saw Sayuri Pilkey's comments. As soon as I can, I'll place the comments within the body of the post (lot of people don't read comments). 

Update from Debbie on Saturday, March 27, 2021 at 4:55 AM: I changed the original title of this post into a question ("Why did...") because the original title was misleading. While it is important that Pilkey and Scholastic made the decision to stop publishing the Ook and Gluk book, people are praising them in ways that I don't think are merited. A Korean American parent brought the stereotyping in the book to their attention. They agreed it was a problem but refused to say anything publicly. The public statements from Pilkey and Scholastic came about after the parent posted a petition at the Change site. I believe the parent was correct in asking for public statements and donations from sales of the book. The public is best-served by open discussions of problems in books like Ook and Gluk.  







On March 25, 2021 Dav Pilkey, best selling author and illustrator of children's books, issued this apology on his YouTube page:
Hi everyone, I’m Dav Pilkey. About ten years ago I created a book about a group of friends who save the world using Kung Fu and the principles found in Chinese philosophy. The Adventures of Ook and Gluk: Kung-Fu Cavemen from the Future was intended to showcase diversity, equality, and non-violent conflict resolution. But this week it was brought to my attention that this book also contains harmful racial stereotypes and passively racist imagery. I wanted to take this opportunity to publicly apologize for this. It was and is wrong and harmful to my Asian readers, friends, and family, and to all Asian people. My publisher, Scholastic, Inc., has stepped forward to share my responsibility, and together we are ceasing all further publication of The Adventures of Ook and Gluk: Kung-Fu Cavemen from the Future, and are actively working to remove existing copies from retail and library shelves. I hope that you, my readers, will forgive me, and learn from my mistake that even unintentional and passive stereotypes and racism are harmful to everyone. I apologize, and I pledge to do better. Sincerely, Dav Pilkey PS. My wife and I pledge to donate all of my advance and royalties from the sale of The Adventures of Ook and Gluk: Kung-Fu Cavemen from the Future to charities that provide free books, art supplies, and theater for children in underserved communities; organizations that promote diversity in children’s books and publishing; and organizations designed to stop hatred and violence against Asian. These non-profit charities include: We Need Diverse Books, The AAPI, and TheaterWorks USA, among others.

Events that led Pilkey and Scholastic to cease publication of The Adventures of Ook and Gluk are noted below.

In a petition at Change, a Korean American father wrote that his two children are huge fans of Pilkey's books. They found Ook and Gluk at the library and brought it home. In his petition, he wrote:
Upon close inspection, I realized the book relied upon multiple instances of racist imagery and stereotypical tropes, including a "Kung Fu master" wearing what's purported to be a traditional-style Tang coat, dashes for eyes for the Asian characters, stereotypical Chinese proverbs, and a storyline that has the Kung Fu master rescued by the non-Asian protagonists using their Kung Fu skills (despite the fact that they were taught said skills from the supposed master). 
The father reached out to Scholastic and they had several conversations. Scholastic agreed to pull the book from retailers, but, Scholastic and Mr. Pilkey refused to publicly acknowledge and apologize for the book, and declined to donate proceeds from the book's run as a bestseller (it was on the NY Times bestseller lists for 33 weeks) to AAPI. 

Those refusals, I gather, are what led the Korean American father to launch a petition on the Change site. I cannot find date/time stamps on the petition at the Change site that would tell me when it was posted. In the update tab dated March 26, the Korean-American father reported that Pilkey had apologized and that Scholastic was going to do so, too.  Here, I am sharing that update in its entirety:

MAR 26, 2021 — 

UPDATE: My head is spinning. Thank you so much for sharing and spreading the word. Mr. Pilkey reached out to me via FaceTime to acknowledge that the images in “Ook and Gluk” were racist and offensive, and that it was unintentional and stemmed from his own ignorance. Mr. Pilkey was extremely apologetic and remorseful, felt terrible that he had put something into the world that could have such a negative effect on our children. He personally apologized to my son as well.

Mr. Pilkey also listened patiently while I explained to him why I thought it was so important to publicly acknowledge that these images were harmful, and that a donation should be made to an AAPI org as a form of reparation. He was hesitant about the apology and advised he’d need to discuss it with his family. He did point out that he had already donated to an organization days before.

Within an hour of ending our 40 minute conversation, Mr. Pilkey emailed to let me know he would be issuing a formal and public apology.

I can’t believe how quickly this happened and believe it speaks to the sincerity of the author and his willingness do the right thing. This is not about canceling people. It was a teachable moment and I’m grateful Mr. Pilkey listened.


Another update, also dated March 26, includes the screen capture of the apology on Pilkey's YouTube page (shared at the top of this post).

Earlier today (March 26), Scholastic issued a press release telling us they made their decision on Monday, March 22nd.  Here's the statement:

FROM SCHOLASTIC REGARDING THE ADVENTURES OF OOK AND GLUK

On Monday, March 22, 2021, with the full support of Dav Pilkey, Scholastic halted distribution of the 2011 book The Adventures of Ook and Gluk. Together, we recognize that this book perpetuates passive racism. We are deeply sorry for this serious mistake. Scholastic has removed the book from our websites, stopped fulfillment of any orders (domestically or abroad), contacted our retail partners to explain why this book is no longer available, and sought a return of all inventory. We will take steps to inform schools and libraries who may still have this title in circulation of our decision to withdraw it from publication.  

Throughout our 100 year history, we have learned that trust must be won every day by total vigilance. It is our duty and privilege to publish books with powerful and positive representations of our diverse society, and we will continue to strengthen our review processes as we seek to support all young readers.

We can all be glad and encouraged by Pilkey and Scholastic's decision. It is important to know, however, that Scholastic continues to publish many books with stereotypical and racist images. 

Five years ago, they withdrew A Birthday Cake for George Washington because of its smiling slaves content. If they had issued a directive, then, that every book they publish would be examined, Pilkey's book would have been pulled, but it wasn't. It was out there for another five years, shaping the way readers see Asian Americans, Asians, and specifically, Chinese people. That fact alone casts Scholastic's "total vigilance" into question. They made their decision on Monday, March 22nd, which is five days ago. Are they now reexamining all their books? I doubt it. 

__________
I keep a log of changes to books, and books that are withdrawn. It includes links to information. 

Friday, March 06, 2020

Not Recommended: JUST LUCKY by Melanie Florence

Note from Debbie: there is sexual abuse and self-harm in the book and in my review that you may have difficulty reading.  


Just Lucky
Written by Melanie Florence
Published in 2019
Publisher: Second Story Press
Reviewer: Debbie Reese
Review Status: Not Recommended


****

Just Lucky by Melanie Florence came out in 2019 from Second Story Press. I read the book a few days ago, tweeting thoughts/summary as I read it (scroll down; I pasted the entire thread, for your reference).

I do not recommend Just Lucky. I find it deeply troubling and wonder why Second Story accepted and published it. The entire story feels shallow as it skitters from one horrific episode to the next before an all-too-quick happy ending, and one harmful depiction after another.

There is absolutely nothing in the book to help readers understand anti-Native attitudes that pervade Canadian and American society. Instead, we are invited to gasp at and condemn, for example, Lucky's mother who is an addict.

Today (Friday, March 6) I read The Guardian article on Oprah Winfrey's response to writers who objected to her decision to feature American Dirt in her book club. The article includes a powerful passage from a letter to Winfrey, written by 142 writers, that applies to Just Lucky. The writers said that the novel's treatment of migration, and Mexican life and culture, is
...exploitative, oversimplified, and ill-informed, too often erring on the side of trauma fetishisation and sensationalism...
That is precisely what Just Lucky does. It is exploitative and oversimplified. And in some places, it is literally sadistic. I'm thinking in particular of the scene where a foster father climbs into bed with 15-year-old Lucky and when she jumps out of the bed, follows her, rubbing himself as he approaches her.

Given the realities of Native children in foster care, Just Lucky strikes me as cruel. Who did Florence imagine as her audience for this book?

Just Lucky is laced with stereotypes that affirm and ensure the further mistreatment of Native children, families, communities, and nations. Many Native children who read this book will feel assaulted over and over by the story Florence created. Again: who is this book for? And what will it do to shape how people think about Native children?

At the top of this review, you see a red X on the book cover. I use those for books that I find especially horrific. To read more on that red X, see The Red X on Book Covers.

Saying again, I do not recommend 
Melanie Florence's Just Lucky. 

I invite you to share your thoughts (you can write to me directly or submit a comment).

****


Twitter thread I created as I read Just Lucky the week of March 2, 2020.

Melanie Florence's JUST LUCKY. Florence's JUST LUCKY is from Second Story Press, and came out in 2019. Florence has many books out. I've read a few of them and found them terribly lacking. Details here: (…ansinchildrensliterature.blogspot.com/search?q=melan…)

But, her books keep getting published. Why? I think it is because they appeal to a white expectation of who Native people are. Many of those expectations are shaped by derogatory stereotypes. Florence seems to trade on that, which is very harmful. 

DANG.

That derogatory depiction is in the second paragraph of the first page of JUST LUCKY.

Lucky is the name of the main character. She lives with her grandparents because her mom left her (as a baby) in the casino by a slot machine when she went outside to smoke crack. 

When the story opens, Lucky has been living with her grandparents for 15 years. She tells us her grandparents were "long done with their own parenting" and didn't give a second thought to "care and feeding of another kid."

To me that sounds like a White voice. 

Lucky has only seen her mother a couple of times in those 15 years. Certainly, a girl would have strong emotions about all of this but "I'm not even sure I could pick her out of a police lineup at this point" and thinking she WILL do that someday... it feels off, too. 

It is extreme... It is .... melodramatic. Yeah! That's it. In tone, this first chapter echoes what I saw in Florence's other books. 

Florence's writings about Native people are not without consequence. Rather than push back on derogatory images, she's feeding them. If you're reading tweets or news articles about #wetsuwetan, you know Canadians are using derogatory language about Native peoples. 

Still in chapter one, Lucky is trying to write an essay that is supposed to be autobiographical. She thinks about how her family isn't "normal."

Where does Lucky's family live? As I read on, will I learn that they're part of a Native community? Right now it seems, not. Now in chapter 3. Lucky's grandfather brought some books home for her from a used bookstore. One of them is GONE WITH THE WIND.

Anytime I see someone referencing GONE WITH THE WIND in a kid or YA book, I wait to see if they push back on its racism. Will Florence do that? 

Why drop that title into a story, as if it is just fine? FFS. Imagine a Black child reading this book. What does that child do when they come to this page and see this loving grandfather giving his granddaughter GONE WITH THE WIND?! 

WHY is that title in there? What purpose does it serve? Was/is Florence oblivious to its harm? And her editors at @_secondstory, too? Did they not notice that? 

Now in chapter 20 (chapters are very short). In previous chapters, we learn that her best friend Ryan was punched in the face by his father when he came out, that her grandmother's forgetfulness is serious, then, her grandfather dies.

When her grandmother forgets she's put something on the stove, there's a fire. She's ok but children's services gets involved and asks Lucky to call her mother because Lucky can't make decisions (she's a minor) about her grandmother's needs. 

Lucky calls her mom, Christina. 15 years have passed. I am wondering about the back story for Christina and her parents. What did they do? Kick her out of their lives? No mention of her parents (Lucky's grandparents) wondering how she is...

When Christina arrives at the hospital, Lucky notices her physical appearance (stiletto heels; short skirt; bleached hair; lots of make-up; ragged fingernails). She wants money to take care of her mom and daughter. Children's Aid person and doc are shocked at her ask. 

This scene... again, full of melodrama. 

Lucky gets placed in a foster home with a white Christian family that homeschools their son (he's an only child). The father leers at Lucky's breasts. Lucky and the son (Bobby) share an interest in comic bks. The mother warns Lucky not to lead Bobby into sin. 

Ch 28 is titled "An Unwelcome Visitor." Lucky is dreaming and thinks a spider is in her hair but it is Robert (the father) with his fingers entwined in her hair. She moves away from him; he gets into bed with her.

That scene feels gratuitous. Lucky leaps out of the bed; Robert follows her, "rubbing himself through the thin material."

Of course, things like that happen but for a Native person who has gone thru or knows someone who has gone through something like this, it seems callous. After he leaves she can't sleep. She goes to the bathroom and using scissors, cuts her hair off. Then she goes to the kitchen and gets a sharp knife to keep under her pillow. Then she falls asleep. 

Next day, she shaves her head with an electric razor she borrows from Bobby.

Remember: Bobby is 15, too. Why does he have an electric razor?

That night, Robert is back in Lucky's room, drunk. She raises the knife under her pillow, to his Adam's apple. 

She tells Robert that her grandfather taught her how to use a knife and that she can gut a trout in 60 seconds, and "I doubt you'd take much longer." He leaves.

I don't know what to make of that scene. This feels, over and over, like an outline. No depth. Just high points. 

The next morning, the mother confronts Lucky, telling her that Robert told her that Lucky had threatened him with a knife and demanded money, that she's "evil" and that she "won't have evil in my house." Lucky replies that evil was in the house before she arrived. 

I am realizing at this point that in addition to the gratuitous melodramatic scenes all thru the bk, the way that Lucky speaks doesn't ring true. She sounds tough/hard but her 15 yrs w/ her grandparents weren't harsh ones. So, her words don't fit w/ the loving grandparents. 

Another realization is that I'm nearly halfway thru the book, and it doesn't FEEL like a Native character. Any markers or values that would be from a Native home/community... they're not evident in character/story development, words, action, etc. 

As such, it feels like a lot of books by Native writers who tack on a Native identity for a character but leave it at that. 

Lucky has to leave that foster home (the Wilson's). Bobby tells her he knows his mother is covering for his father but he can't speak up because nobody will believe him.

Cynthia (social worker) goes to get Lucky, rips into her, insisting that the Wilson's are a good family. Error in tweet 27!

I meant to say that non-Native writers tack on the name of a tribal nation for a characters identity, but then never do anything else with it. That's decoration, superficial, wrong. 

As the social worker drives, she starts to listen to Lucky and says she'll investigate, and that Lucky's grandmother is now in a facility for people with dementia and Alzheimer's. 

Lucky is furious that she wasn't told about the move. Social worker hands her a paper w/ name of the facility: "Sunset Seniors." Lucky replies w/ some snarky jokes about the name of the facility. 

That snark (again) is jarring and is another instance in which the ways that Lucky speaks doesn't fit with that happy go lucky, warm childhood she's had with her grandparents up till now. 

Lucky is placed in a new foster home; husband/wife are nice and have 2 boys near Lucky's age that they are also fostering. Interactions much warmer than the first home Lucky was in (fundamentalist Christian/pedophile). At her new school, she meets a bunch of kids at lunch. 

The two foster boys, Charlie & Jake, show her around. Kids are friendly but most girls, including a redhead named Elyse, are not. Elyse seems jealous that Jake sat with Lucky instead of her. When Jake and Lucky get up for next class, Lucky is sure Elyse calls her a whore. 

She thinks about responding but remembers her grandfather saying "Don't ever let anyone tell you you're not enough, Lucky. You come from a long line of strong Indigenous people. Do them proud."

That seems an odd thought for her to have, then. 

Even if Elyse said "Indian whore" it wouldn't make sense, because Lucky's thought is abt not being "enough." It would only make sense if Elyse had said "half-breed whore."

What I am getting at is that I don't know enough about Lucky to understand why she would feel "not enough." The author (Florence) hasn't given us enough for Lucky's thought/her grandfather's words, to make sense at this particular moment in the story. 

The theater dept is doing a play. Jake plans to try out; so does Elyse; Jake wants Lucky to try out, too. She doesn't want to but he pressures her into reading with him when he tries out. Everybody--except Elyse and her friends--are impressed by her reading. 

When she's at her locker, she's surrounded by Elyse & her group. Elyse tells Lucky to leave Jake alone and not to walk around in her underwear (she knows Lucky lives in the same foster home as Jake). Lucky tries to leave but Elyse stops her, calling her a "nasty little slut."

In reply to Lucky's 'what did you say' Elyse says "Are you going to go all 'war party' on us?" and starts to whoop and dance around Lucky. Elyse's friends do it, too.

Lucky punches Elyse in the face and then stomach, knocking her down. Lucky is the one in trouble. 

As Lucky is led away by a teacher, Elyse says "What do you expect from someone like her? She's trash." One of the others says "Indian trash."

Several times up to this pt, Lucky has characterized these girls as hostile. As noted in an earlier tweet in this thread, it doesn't feel like there's enough story IN the story so far for this "hostile" characterization or this stereotypical anti-Native scene to make sense. 

Sarah (the new foster mom) is called to school because the initial plan is to expel Lucky, but Sarah listens to Lucky's account, believes her, and persuades principal to give her another chance. 

In ch 43 Lucky talks abt how her grandparents would be ashamed that she got into this fight, but, that she "never had much patience for racist pieces of garbage like Elyse."

As noted before, I'm having a hard time reconciling the things Lucky says/does with the happy home she had with her grandparents for 15 yrs. Overnight (literally), she's got an intense attitude and ready to fight in an instant, several times. 

Jake is in the play; Charlie and Lucky make sets for it. One day as Charlie and Lucky are ready to leave, Elyse appears and implies they are involved. Her tone reminds Lucky of the Wicked Witch; Lucky thinks of her as the witch and her friends as flying monkeys. 

That reference--to the Wizard of Oz--strikes me as odd.

Maybe Florence (the author) is not aware that L. Frank Baum wrote editorials calling for the extermination of Native people. It reminds me of that earlier chapter when Lucky's grandfather gives her GONE WITH THE WIND. 

In neither instance do we see Florence pushing back on either writer or book. Does she not realize that they are problematic? Who was her editor? Did that person not know? Or ... did they discuss these? Will this get resolved in later chapters? 

Elyse starts in on Charlie's identity, telling Lucky "You got yourself a little Mexican boy to play with."

Charlie yells "I'm Dominican!"

Elyse replies "Dominican, Mexican. Who cares? They're both brown. Why don't you just go back to wherever it is that you came from?"

That scene is more of the melodrama I noted in earlier scenes. These scenes are needlessly full of hurtful content.

Things like that get said, today, in the US and Canada, but as written, they seem to revel in the hurt. There's little regard for readers. 

Charlie starts yelling at Elyse, in Spanish. Elyse tells him he can do better than an Indian whore, spits at Lucky and tells her nobody wants her "worthless ass" and that's why she's in foster care. And, she says...

"You're nothing. An Indian whore who has nothing to offer except what's between your legs."

Come on, @_secondstory... part of what you try to do is provide books for Native readers. This book assaults Native readers! 

We (readers) are supposed to know that Elyse is mean, racist, etc. but it is a failure of the writer to inflict hurt in the ways that Florence does. It does not feel to me like she cares about a Native reader. 

Furious, Lucky throws a punch at Elyse but just at the last second Charlie steps between the two girls. The punch knocks him to the pavement where he hits his head, hard. Elyse and friends saunter away, ambulance is called, Charlie has a concussion. 

Lucky imagines that she's killed him, that he'll have brain damage.

Doctors say he'll be ok.

School is expelling Lucky again, so she has to go to another foster home. 

That third foster home is good but the father is being transferred to another location, so, Lucky has to go to another home. This one has several girls near her age in it; Lucky is burned out from trying to make things work at the other foster homes. 

In the morning she puts on one of the sweaters her grandmother had knitted for her. When she initially packed clothes she packed the sweaters, even though they were small. This one is tight. Mia (one of the other girls) says it is a "slutty sweater."

The mom (Janine) works at the school. By the time they get to school and are by the school office, Lucky shoves Mia and gets ready to hit her but Janine stops her and then tells Lucky info from her file that is, to Lucky's surprise, accurate. 

All through her stays in these foster homes, Lucky has visited her grandmother in the senior facility she's in for Alzheimers. Sometimes she recognizes Lucky; sometimes not. To visit her this time, Lucky took $5 from Janine's purse, thinking she'll pay her back later. 

When Lucky gets back that night, Janine is waiting and Lucky expects her to accuse Lucky of stealing and that the social worker is coming to get her but instead, Janine hugs her, saying she was worried about her. Lucky tells her about taking the money. 

But Janine tells her she'll drive her next time. When she goes to her room she sees that Janine left a book for her on the nightstand. The book is Stephen King's THE SHINING.

Again... odd choice, given the Indians in it...

At breakfast next day Janine makes pancakes. The syrup reminds Lucky of maple butter, so she tells them about putting maple butter on bannock. Mia asks what bannock is and--finally! We read a specific tribal name! I'm rdg a Kindle copy and am at Location 2175 of 2367. 

Lucky tells them "It's a kind of bread... we're Cree. My grandparents and I."

Janine suggests Lucky teach them; Mia says she doesn't like Indian food. Lucky thinks Mia is racist. 

As days pass, Janine continues to make Lucky feel welcome. Lucky holds on to hope that her grandmother will get better and that they'll return to their home, but on one visit, her grandmother tells her that isn't going to happen and that she's put their house on the market. 

She gonna put the money from the sale into an account for Lucky to go to college and is updating her will so that Lucky's mother can't get at any of it. In the car, Lucky cries and Janine comforts her.

At Janine's, Mia continues to harass Lucky. 

One day Mia asks Lucky if she likes "showing off your tits" and Lucky ignores her. Mia asks "Are all Indians deaf or just you? Or maybe you're stupid? Is that it?" Lucky clenches her fists. Mia says "Give it your best shot. I've fought girls more savage than you, Pocahontas."

As I noted earlier in the thread, these conflict scenes feel gratuitous and Florence (the author) seems oblivious to how they might impact a Native reader. 

There's warmth in ch 66 when Janine brings Lucky's grandmother, Jake & Charlie and Lucy (from previous foster homes) over for Lucky's birthday. Mia had watched Lucky make bannock and has made some for the party. 

Ryan is there, too (Lucky has stayed in touch with him throughout the book). There are thoughtful gifts; Lucky feels that this is finally like home. The story ends with her blowing out the birthday cake candles.

Thursday, November 03, 2016

Debbie--have you seen CONTINENT by Kiera Drake?

I received a question about The Continent by Kiera Drake. Due out in January from Harlequin Teen, here's the synopsis from Amazon:
"Have we really come so far, when a tour of the Continent is so desirable a thing? We've traded our swords for treaties, our daggers for promises—but our thirst for violence has never been quelled. And that's the crux of it: it can't be quelled. It's human nature." 
For her sixteenth birthday, Vaela Sun receives the most coveted gift in all the Spire—a trip to the Continent. It seems an unlikely destination for a holiday: a cold, desolate land where two "uncivilized" nations remain perpetually locked in combat. Most citizens lucky enough to tour the Continent do so to observe the spectacle and violence of war, a thing long banished in the Spire. For Vaela—a talented apprentice cartographer—the journey is a dream come true: a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to improve upon the maps she's drawn of this vast, frozen land. 
But Vaela's dream all too quickly turns to a nightmare as the journey brings her face-to-face with the brutal reality of a war she's only read about. Observing from the safety of a heli-plane, Vaela is forever changed by the bloody battle waging far beneath her. And when a tragic accident leaves her stranded on the Continent, Vaela finds herself much closer to danger than she'd ever imagined. Starving, alone and lost in the middle of a war zone, Vaela must try to find a way home—but first, she must survive.

Sounds awful, doesn't it? People who live in "the Spire" covet the opportunity to watch people on "the Continent" engage in bloody violence. Those two "uncivilized nations" on "the Continent" can't help it. It is their nature.

There's a lot of people tweeting about it. From what I glean, one of the "uncivilized nations" is described in ways that suggest it is Asian and that the other one is Native. If I get the book, I'll be back.

Updating on Nov 7, 2016 to add the Storify I did on the response to criticism of Drake's book:

A Native Perspective on Response to Kiera Drake's THE CONTINENT

Subtitle
  1. I started to see conversations about Kiera Drake's The Continent on Friday, Nov. 4, 2016. The next day, I started a thread about what I was seeing.
  2. My remarks, as the title for this Storify indicate, are from a Native perspective. For those who don't know who I am, I'm tribally enrolled at Nambe Pueblo. I'm a former schoolteacher and assistant professor in American Indian Studies. I've got a PhD in Education, and a Master's Degree in Library and Information Science. I have research and professional articles in a wide range of books, journals, and magazines. I bring all that to bear on the analyses I do of children's and young adult literature.
  3. If you follow YA twitter, you likely know that people are talking about Kiera Drake's THE CONTINENT. Some use the hashtag #TheContinent.
  4. By then, I'd gotten some questions about it from readers of my site. Based on those questions, I did one of the "Debbie--have you seen" posts about it:
  5. The ways Drake depicts Native and characters of color is why people are talking about her book. My copy of #TheContinent is in the mail.
  6. Based on what I've seen in screen caps and excerpts, I am likely to agree that the book is a wreck.
  7. What I saw, specifically, were Justina Ireland's photographs of passages in her ARC (advanced reader copy) of the book.
  8. ...I mean, this isn't a great leap of logic here... https://t.co/qJ0fsCaNqa
    ...I mean, this isn't a great leap of logic here... pic.twitter.com/qJ0fsCaNqa
  9. Justina's "great leap of logic" was about Drake using "Topi" as the name of the Indigenous nation. Change that letter T to an H an you've got Hopi. The Hopi Tribe is a federally recognized sovereign nation in Arizona.
  10. Feeling preeeety lucky the one black dude was the groundskeeper right about now. https://t.co/YmOiu06eey
    Feeling preeeety lucky the one black dude was the groundskeeper right about now. pic.twitter.com/YmOiu06eey
  11. Justina's critique drew a lot of attention, with a lot of people condemning The Continent based on her critique. There were, of course, a lot of responses from people who said those who hadn't read The Continent, or, who hadn't finished reading it, shouldn't say anything at all about it.
  12. That response reminded me of work I did on Martina Boone's Compulsion, so I shared links to my review of it and an especially powerful comment.
  13. This "read the whole book" request is one that is put forth a lot. In summer of 2015, I read Martina Boone's COMPULSION. Did you?
  14. COMPULSION is the 2nd in a 3 book series from Simon Pulse (Simon and Schuster). It has problems, too:  https://americanindiansinchildrensliterature.blogspot.com/2015/06/martina-boones-compulsion.html 
  15. In an interview, Boone said that all of this mess would be resolved in book 3.
  16. I received an anonymous comment to my review of COMPULSION that applies to Drake's #TheContinent: https://t.co/lLQb0Uzqnp
    I received an anonymous comment to my review of COMPULSION that applies to Drake's #TheContinentpic.twitter.com/lLQb0Uzqnp
  17. I hope writers reading this thread on #TheContinent will share that anonymous comment with fellow writers.
  18. The conversation about The Continent is taking place in November, which is designated--by Presidential Proclamation--as Native American Heritage Month. Overall, I think designated months (or days) for this or that are best used to share resources and SHOUT that books by Native writers should be used all year long. So, I shared some terrific books.
  19. I have a request. If you've been tweeting about #TheContinent, could you take time to also boost Native writers?
  20. Or, maybe you're not tweeting about #TheContinent, but are nodding in agreement with criticism of it... can you boost Native writers?
  21. The last two tweets are bks/stories in science fiction/fantasy, by @CynLeitichSmith@aaronpaquette@JosephBruchac@TheDHTaylor...
  22. ... @ShiningComic@DaveAlexRoberts, and so many others! Get the books! Know their names! They do write other books, too.
  23. It is crucial that people move away from thinking abt how they can "honor" Native ppl w a story they write abt us, to BUYING BOOKS WE WRITE!
  24. Instead of writing a Native character or Native content into your story so you can "help" or "honor" Native ppl, buy bks by Native writers.
  25. Instead of honoring us by writing Native characters/content in your stories, buy and read stories by Native writers.
  26. And get some for younger sibs or nieces/nephews! Here's 30:  http://www.firstnations.org/HeritageMonth2016  #NativeReads
  27. I'm picturing you all, driving to your local bookstore with the list in hand and not finding them on the shelves there...
  28. And given your reaction to #TheContinent, I'm picturing you walking to the order desk with the list in hand and asking for the books.
  29. My guess is you will probably get them online. If so, please consider getting them from @birchbarkbooks.
  30. If you DO go to your local store and look for them, could you please come back to Twitter and this thread and tell us abt your experience?
  31. Then, I asked people to go read Justina's thread. I'm asking you (who are reading this Storify) to go read her thread, too.
  32. In response to her critique, some childish and vicious things happened:
  33. These are not reviews. They are personal attacks driven by childish motives. Who are you, "Meg"? https://t.co/KrVgf4I9FE
    These are not reviews. They are personal attacks driven by childish motives. Who are you, "Meg"? pic.twitter.com/KrVgf4I9FE
  34. I asked if people had seen those attacks on Justina, and, if they'd read that someone wrote to her editor, Jordan Brown. I linked to his response. Click through and read what he said.
  35. And that someone wrote to Justina Ireland's editor, anonymously?  https://twitter.com/thisjordanbrown/status/794945632687587332 
  36. As I continued to follow all this, I remembered another book from Harlequin Teen:
  37. Lest anyone think these problems are rare, I took time to point to Raina Telgemeier's Ghosts, which is a best seller that misrepresents the missions in California and Dia de Los Muertos.
  38. I know people love Raina. With good reason. But... she messed up in GHOSTS. See @booktoss review  https://booktoss.wordpress.com/2016/09/18/ghosts-swing-and-a-hard-miss/  or, see...
  39. As far as I can tell, @farre is the first to write a critical rev of GHOSTS:  http://www.teenservicesunderground.com/a-look-at-ghosts/  That is 4 Native/WOC saying no to it.
  40. If you pay attn to graphic novels, you know Telgemeier is at the very top in terms of sales. GHOSTS first run was 500,000 copies.
  41. In the conversations about The Continent I began to read that Kiera Drake had sensitivity readers who'd read her manuscript.
  42. Author of Harlequin Teen's HOOKED had sensitivity readers too, but it was also a fail. White saviors.  https://twitter.com/youandyourego/status/795110029598724096 
  43. On Sunday morning, I picked up the thread again. Sometime on Saturday night, Drake posted a statement to her blog.
  44. 5:00 AM, 11/6/17: Adding to the thread I started yesterday, on #TheContinent by Kiera Drake, to add to what others said overnight.
  45. Drake posted a response to conversations about her book:  http://keiradrake.com/response/ . What she says in it make things worse, not better.
  46. My guess is she had friends look it over, which tells us there's a lot of ignorance out there. Course, some of us know that ignorance.
  47. I shared examples of things that I think a lot of people never see, because they're living in bubbles of Whiteness that blind them to what I and a lot of other people see all the time.
  48. Some of us see it ever time we turn to a sports channel (think: Cleveland mascot), or, walk by dairy case (think: Land of Lakes maiden).
  49. Or, when we walked into a Halloween costume store (think: "Indian" costumes). And now, everywhere (think: Pilgrims/Indians narrative).
  50. My guess is that Drake and those defending her, and those at Harlequin who had eyes on her manuscript, don't see any of that.
  51. My social media feeds are full of updates from #NoDAPL. I wonder if Drake, her friends, and ppl at Harlequin know what is going on there?
  52. On Friday, I'd wondered if Little House on the Prairie was one of Drake's favorites. In her statement, Drake told us that Lord of the Rings is a favorite and that it influenced her work on The Continent:
  53. Anyway, in her response to criticism of #TheContinent, Drake said one of her favorite books is Lord of the Rings. The "Topi" are savage...
  54. ... like the Uruk-Hai. On Nov 4, I wondered if LITTLE HOUSE ON THE PRAIRIE might be one of her favorite books:  https://twitter.com/debreese/status/794591755760963584 
  55. You could read through that thread. I think LITTLE HOUSE is one of the worst books ever, because it is so widely & uncritically, embraced.
  56. With Drake's disclosure that LORD OF THE RINGS is a fav that she reads once/yr, I think it is the same thing, causing same problems.
  57. Native writer @CyborgN8VMari used Justina's photo and two others to create a powerful image that challenges Drake's claim that she wasn't thinking of Native peoples when she created the Indigenous people in The Continent:
  58. When you read this passage ask yourself which one you really imagine. pic.twitter.com/2qkPrLeBqi
  59. Here's a screen capture of Drake's post:
  60. In her statement, Drake says she and her editors are revisiting the manuscript. https://t.co/BfsSfdZlmb https://t.co/neVtY6l58G
    In her statement, Drake says she and her editors are revisiting the manuscript.  http://keiradrake.com/response/  pic.twitter.com/neVtY6l58G
  61. That suggests to me she thinks they can take out phrases like "painted face" and "reddish-brown" skin and it will all be ok.
  62. I do not think it will be ok. Changing phrases will not change the underlying premise of the book.
  63. If @HarlequinTEEN decides to hold off on their planned Jan release of #TheContinent, it will join @Candlewick re WHEN WE WAS FIERCE.
  64. #TheContinent is due out on Jan 3, 2016. If Harlequin releases it & pulls it later, it'll be like A BIRTHDAY CAKE FOR GEORGE WASHINGTON.
  65. Here's another part of Drake's post about her book:
  66. Setting #TheContinent itself aside, I join others who noted that Drake's response included a claim to having Native American heritage. https://t.co/qbZvNc0oo6
    Setting #TheContinent itself aside, I join others who noted that Drake's response included a claim to having Native American heritage. pic.twitter.com/qbZvNc0oo6
  67. She said "nationality and race." Is "race" in there because of the Native American part of who she is? If so, I wonder if she knows that...
  68. ... we're nations of people.
  69. And of course, claiming "Native American" rather than a specific nation tells us a lot, too. Does she not know, specifically?
  70. Drake offers up pride in her "Native American" ancestry in the same paragraph where she said the savage Topi in #TheContinent aren't Native.
  71. I guess she's telling us she wouldn't create savage Natives because she's Native herself.
  72. That's a fail, too. Read @Kate_Hart's thread on that. She wrote it some time ago and shared it again last night.  https://twitter.com/Kate_Hart/status/795099994260967425 
  73. And, another screen capture. This part is about sensitivity readers:
  74. Drake's statement about #TheContinent also says she had sensitivity readers on the manuscript: https://t.co/dNv92rgWoP
    Drake's statement about #TheContinent also says she had sensitivity readers on the manuscript: pic.twitter.com/dNv92rgWoP
  75. I pointed to a post I wrote about who you (writers/editors) hire to do vetting, or, sensitivity reads. In short: readers take your work seriously. Don't shoot yourself in the foot by getting sensitivity readers who can't, or won't, give you the critical feedback you need.
  76. Who you have, writers/editors, as sensitivity readers, is important. I wrote about that in 2015:  https://americanindiansinchildrensliterature.blogspot.com/2015/02/dear-writers-and-editors-some-cautions.html 
  77. I did vetting for awhile and then quit. It was too exhausting to have the same conversations over and over with writers.
  78. Two years ago, I asked an editor at a major house if the editors of that house ever sit down together & talk abt all this. The answer? No.
  79. I think the many levels of fail of #TheContinent can be attributed to lack of diverse staff AND ignorance of staff, at Harlequin.
  80. To Kiera Drake, I'd say, your educational system failed you. From early childhood to university, people failed to educate you.
  81. My saying that is not an effort to hold you blameless. Anyone writing a bk like yours MUST read critical writings abt privilege/race/nation.
  82. So should your editors and all those who gave and are giving your manuscript rave reviews at Goodreads.
  83. From another of Justina's tweets (this was a photo of the acknowledgements), I read that Natashya Wilson was Drake's editor.
  84. Curious, I looked back at Hooked to see if, by any chance, Wilson had been the editor of it, too. Fichera acknowledged Wilson but didn't say she was the editor. Re-reading Fichera's note, however, I decided to share this screen cap of it.
  85. I see that Wilson was editor of HOOKED, which had problems. Oh, and this in acknowledgements from its author (Fichera): https://t.co/FfdsctF3Ik
    I see that Wilson was editor of HOOKED, which had problems. Oh, and this in acknowledgements from its author (Fichera): pic.twitter.com/FfdsctF3Ik
  86. Which prompts me to ask Native friends/colleagues: just how do YOU share your "enduring spirit" with white people?
  87. And of course, dear Native friends, how do you share your "beautiful cultures and lands" with white people?
  88. Fichera's thank you is sick. It reminds me of picture bks abt Thanksgiving where Pilgrims thank Indians for sharing land, resources, etc.
  89. I'm pretty sure Natashya Wilson at @HarlequinTEEN is following all this abt #TheContinent. I want to hear from her abt it, and HOOKED, too.
  90. Later on Sunday, I saw that a petition was circulating:
  91. I also saw tweets from another person who was reading The Continent:
  92. Tell me again how this isn't a White  Savior narrative https://t.co/azfzqkl2m0
    Tell me again how this isn't a White Savior narrative pic.twitter.com/azfzqkl2m0
  93. This morning (Monday, Nov 7), I see that @amzngbookshelf has posted a review:
  94. When I get my copy, I'll read and review it. As usual, I will focus on the Native content. If the publisher and Drake decide to withdraw the book, my review will still be useful to writers who are doing similar stories--or contemplating doing one.