Cultural Opabinia

[dps]

I don't have many friends in general.

When garbon said that you have minority friends, I figured that he meant that only a minority of the people who know you well actually like you.

[Razgovory]

Cultural appropriation is bunk.

Yeah, well how would feel if I started cooking dogs?

[Jacob]

Yeah, well how would feel if I started cooking dogs?

How about you cut out the racism? You lack the panache to make it even remotely funny.

[Gups]

Lionel Shriver's speech in Australia. She nails it in my view. I don't have time to bold it.



I hate to disappoint you folks, but unless we stretch the topic to breaking point this address will not be about "community and belonging." In fact, you have to hand it to this festival's organizers: inviting a renowned iconoclast to speak about "community and belonging" is like expecting a great white shark to balance a beach ball on its nose.

The topic I had submitted instead was "Fiction and Identity Politics," which may sound on its face equally dreary. But I'm afraid the bramble of thorny issues that cluster around "Identity Politics" has got all too interesting, particularly for people pursuing the occupation I share with many gathered in this hall: fiction writing. Taken to their logical conclusion, ideologies recently come into vogue challenge our right to write fiction at all. Meanwhile, the kind of fiction we are "allowed" to write is in danger of becoming so hedged, so circumscribed, so tippy-toe, that we'd indeed be better off not writing the anodyne drivel to begin with.

Let's start with a tempest-in-a-teacup at Bowdoin College in Brunswick, Maine. Earlier this year, two students, both members of student government, threw a tequila-themed birthday party for a friend. The hosts provided attendees with miniature sombreros, which—the horror—numerous partygoers wore.

When photos of the party circulated on social media, campus-wide outrage ensued. Administrators sent multiple emails to the "culprits" threatening an investigation into an "act of ethnic stereotyping." Partygoers were placed on "social probation," while the two hosts were ejected from their dorm and later impeached. Bowdoin's student newspaper decried the attendees' lack of "basic empathy." The student government issued a "statement of solidarity" with "all the students who were injured and affected by the incident," and demanded that administrators "create a safe space for those students who have been or feel specifically targeted." The tequila party, the statement specified, was just the sort of occasion that "creates an environment where students of color, particularly Latino, and especially Mexican, feel unsafe." In sum, the party-favor hats constituted—wait for it—"cultural appropriation."

Curiously, across my country Mexican restaurants, often owned and run by Mexicans, are festooned with sombreros—if perhaps not for long. At the UK's University of East Anglia, the student union has banned a Mexican restaurant from giving out sombreros, deemed once more an act of "cultural appropriation" that was also racist.

Now, I am a little at a loss to explain what's so insulting about a sombrero—a practical piece of headgear for a hot climate that keeps out the sun with a wide brim. My parents went to Mexico when I was small, and brought a sombrero back from their travels, the better for my brothers and I to unashamedly appropriate the souvenir to play dress-up. For my part, as a German-American on both sides, I'm more than happy for anyone who doesn't share my genetic pedigree to don a Tyrolean hat, pull on some leiderhosen, pour themselves a weisbier, and belt out the Hoffbrauhaus Song.

But what does this have to do with writing fiction? The moral of the sombrero scandals is clear: you're not supposed to try on other people's hats. Yet that's what we're paid to do, isn't it? Step into other people's shoes, and try on their hats.

In the latest ethos, which has spun well beyond college campuses in short order, any tradition, any experience, any costume, any way of doing and saying things, that is associated with a minority or disadvantaged group is ring-fenced: look-but-don't-touch. Those who embrace a vast range of "identities"—ethnicities, nationalities, races, sexual and gender categories, classes of economic underprivilege and disability—are now encouraged to be possessive of their experience and to regard other peoples' attempts to participate in their lives and traditions, either actively or imaginatively, as a form of theft.

Yet were their authors honoring the new rules against helping yourself to what doesn't belong to you, we would not have Malcolm Lowry's Under the Volcano. We wouldn't have most of Graham Greene's novels, many of which are set in what for the author were foreign countries, and which therefore have Real Foreigners in them, who speak and act like foreigners, too. In his masterwork English Passengers, Matthew Kneale would have restrained himself from including chapters written in an aboriginal's voice—though these are some of the richest, most compelling passages in that novel. If Dalton Trumbo had been scared off of describing being trapped in a body with no arms, legs, or face because he was not personally disabled—because he had not been through a World War I maiming himself and therefore had no right to "appropriate" the isolation of a paraplegic—we wouldn't have the haunting 1938 classic, Johnny Got His Gun. We wouldn't have Maria McCann's erotic masterpiece, As Meat Loves Salt—in which a straight woman writes about gay men in the English Civil War. Though the book is nonfiction, it's worth noting that we also wouldn't have 1961's Black Like Me, for which John Howard Griffin committed the now unpardonable sin of "blackface." Having his skin darkened—Michael Jackson in reverse—Griffin found out what it was like to live as a black man in the segregated American South. He'd be excoriated today, yet that book made a powerful social impact at the time.

The author of Who Owns Culture? Appropriation and Authenticity in American Law, Susan Scafidi, a law professor at Fordham University who for the record is white, defines cultural appropriation as "Taking intellectual property, traditional knowledge, cultural expressions, or artifacts from someone else's culture without permission. This can include unauthorized use of another culture's dance, dress, music, language, folklore, cuisine, traditional medicine, religious symbols, etc." What strikes me about that definition is that "without permission" bit. However are we fiction writers to seek "permission" to use a character from another race or culture, or to employ the vernacular of a group to which we don't belong? Do we set up a stand on the corner and approach passers-by with a clipboard, getting signatures that grant limited rights to employ an Indonesian character in Chapter Twelve, the way political volunteers get a candidate on the ballot?

I am hopeful that the concept of "cultural appropriation" is a passing fad: people with different backgrounds rubbing up against each other and exchanging ideas and practices is self-evidently one of the most productive, fascinating aspects of modern urban life. But this latest and no little absurd no-no is part of a larger climate of super-sensitivity, giving rise to proliferating prohibitions supposedly in the interest of social justice that constrain fiction writers and prospectively makes our work impossible. So far, the majority of these farcical cases of "appropriation" have concentrated on fashion, dance, and music: At the American Music Awards 2013, Katy Perry got it in the neck for dressing like a geisha. According to the Arab-American writer Randa Jarrar, for someone like me to practice belly dancing is "white appropriation of Eastern dance," while according to the Daily Beast Iggy Azalea committed "cultural crimes" by imitating African rap and speaking in a "blaccent." The felony of cultural sticky fingers even extends to exercise: at the University of Ottawa in Canada, a yoga teacher was shamed into suspending her class, "because yoga originally comes from India." She offered to re-title the course, "Mindful Stretching." And get this: the purism has also reached the world of food. Supported by no less than Lena Dunham, students at Oberlin College in Ohio have protested "culturally appropriated food" like sushi in their dining hall (lucky cusses—in my day, we never had sushi in our dining hall), whose inauthenticity is "insensitive" to the Japanese. Seriously, we have people questioning whether it's appropriate for white people to eat pad Thai. Turnabout, then: I guess that means that as a native of North Carolina, I can ban the Thais from eating barbecue.

This same sensibility is coming to a bookstore near you. Because who is the appropriator par excellence, really? Who assumes other people's voices, accents, patois, and distinctive idioms? Who literally puts words into the mouths of people different from themselves? Who dares to get inside the very heads of strangers, who has the chutzpa to project thoughts and feelings into the minds of others, who steals their very souls? Who is a professional kidnapper? Who swipes every sight, smell, sensation, or overheard conversation like a kid in a candy store, and sometimes take notes the better to purloin whole worlds? Who is the premier pickpocket of the arts? The fiction writer, that's who.

This is a disrespectful vocation by its nature—prying, voyeuristic, kleptomaniacal, and presumptuous. And that is fiction writing at its best. When Truman Capote wrote from the perspective of condemned murderers from a lower economic class than his own, he had some gall. But writing fiction takes gall.

As for the culture police's obsession with "authenticity," fiction is inherently inauthentic. It's fake. It's self-confessedly fake; that is the nature of the form, which is about people who don't exist and events that didn't happen. The name of the game is not whether your novel honors reality; it's all about what you can get away with.

In his 2009 novel Little Bee, Chris Cleave, who as it happens is participating in this festival, dared to write from the point of view of a 14-year-old Nigerian girl—though he is male, white, and British. I'll remain neutral on whether he "got away with it" in literary terms, because I haven't read the book yet. But in principle, I admire his courage—if only because he invited this kind of ethical forensics in a review out of San Francisco: "When a white male author writes as a young Nigerian girl, is it an act of empathy, or identity theft?" the reviewer asked. "When an author pretends to be someone he is not, he does it to tell a story outside of his own experiential range. But he has to in turn be careful that he is representing his characters, not using them for his plot."

Hold it. OK, he's necessarily 'representing' his characters, by portraying them on the page. But of course he's using them for his plot! How could he not? They are his characters, to be manipulated at his whim, to fulfill whatever purpose he cares to put them to.

This same reviewer recapitulated Cleave's obligation "to show that he's representing [the girl], rather than exploiting her." Again, a false dichotomy. Of course he's exploiting her. It's his book, and he made her up. The character is his creature, to be exploited up a storm. Yet the reviewer chides that "special care should be taken with a story that's not implicitly yours to tell" and worries that "Cleave pushes his own boundaries maybe further than they were meant to go."

What stories are "implicitly ours to tell," and what boundaries around our own lives are we mandated to remain within? I would argue that any story you can make yours is yours to tell, and trying to push the boundaries of the author's personal experience is part of a fiction writer's job. I'm hoping that crime writers, for example, don't all have personal experience of committing murder. Me, I've depicted a high school killing spree, and I hate to break it to you: I've never shot fatal arrows through seven kids, a teacher, and a cafeteria worker, either. We make things up, we chance our arms, sometimes we do a little research, but in the end it's still about we can get away with—what we can put over on our readers. Because the ultimate endpoint of keeping out mitts off experience that doesn't belong to us is that there is no fiction. Someone like me only permits herself to write from the perspective of a straight white female born in North Carolina, closing on sixty, able-bodied but with bad knees, skint for years but finally able to buy the odd new shirt. All that's left is memoir.

And here's the bugbear, here's where we really can't win. At the same time that we're to write about only the few toys that landed in our playpen, we're also upbraided for failing to portray in our fiction a population that is sufficiently various. My most recent novel The Mandibles was taken to task by one reviewer for addressing an America that is "straight and white." It happens that this is a multigenerational family saga—about a white family. I wasn't instinctively inclined to insert a transvestite or bisexual, with issues that might distract from my central subject matter of apocalyptic economics. Yet the implication of this criticism is that we novelists need to plug in representatives of a variety of groups in our cast of characters, as if filling out the entering class of freshmen at a university with strict diversity requirements.

You do indeed see just this brand of tokenism in television. There was a point in the latter 1990s at which suddenly every sit-com and drama in sight had to have a gay or lesbian character or couple. That was good news as a voucher of the success of the gay rights movement, but it still grew a bit tiresome: look at us, our show is so hip, one of the characters is homosexual! We're now going through the same fashionable exercise in relation to the transgender character in series like TransParent and Orange is the New Black.

Fine. But I still would like to reserve the right as a novelist to use only the characters that pertain to my story.

Besides: which is it to be? We have to tend our own gardens, and only write about ourselves or people just like us because we mustn't pilfer others' experience, or we have to people our cast like an I'd like to teach the world to sing Coca-Cola advert?

For it can be dangerous these days to go the diversity route. Especially since there seems to be a consensus on the notion that San Francisco reviewer put forward that "special care should be taken with a story that's not implicitly yours to tell."

In The Mandibles, I have one secondary character, Luella, who's black. She's married to a more central character, Douglas, the Mandible family's 97-year-old patriarch. I reasoned that Douglas, a liberal New Yorker, would credibly have left his wife for a beautiful, stately African-American because arm candy of color would reflect well on him in his circle, and keep his progressive kids' objections to a minimum. But in the end the joke is on Douglas, because Luella suffers from early onset dementia, while his ex-wife, staunchly of sound mind, ends up running a charity for dementia research. As the novel reaches its climax and the family is reduced to the street, they're obliged to put the addled, disoriented Luella on a leash, to keep her from wandering off.

Behold, the reviewer in the Washington Post, who groundlessly accused this book of being "racist" because it doesn't toe a strict Democratic Party line in its political outlook, described the scene thus: "The Mandibles are white. Luella, the single African American in the family, arrives in Brooklyn incontinent and demented. She needs to be physically restrained. As their fortunes become ever more dire and the family assembles for a perilous trek through the streets of lawless New York, she's held at the end of a leash. If 'The Mandibles' is ever made into a film, my suggestion is that this image not be employed for the movie poster." Your author, by implication, yearns to bring back slavery.

Thus in the world of identity politics, fiction writers better be careful. If we do choose to import representatives of protected groups, special rules apply. If a character happens to be black, they have to be treated with kid gloves, and never be placed in scenes that, taken out of context, might seem disrespectful. But that's no way to write. The burden is too great, the self-examination paralyzing. The natural result of that kind of criticism in the Post is that next time I don't use any black characters, lest they do or say anything that is short of perfectly admirable and lovely.

In fact, I'm reminded of a letter I received in relation to my seventh novel from an Armenian-American—who objected, why did I have to make the narrator of We Need to Talk About Kevin Armenian? He didn't like my narrator, and felt that her ethnicity disparaged his community. I took pains to explain that I knew something about Armenian heritage, because my best friend in the States was Armenian, and I also thought there was something dark and aggrieved in the culture of the Armenian Diaspora that was atmospherically germane to that book. Besides, I despaired, everyone in the US has an ethnic background of some sort, and she had to be something!

Especially for writers from traditionally privileged demographics, the message seems to be that it's a whole lot safer just to make all your characters from that same demographic, so you can be as hard on them as you care to be, and do with them what you like. Availing yourself of a diverse cast, you are not free; you have inadvertently invited a host of regulations upon your head, as if just having joined the EU. Use different races, ethnicities, and minority gender identities, and you are being watched.

I confess that this climate of scrutiny has got under my skin. When I was first starting out as a novelist, I didn't hesitate to write black characters, for example, or to avail myself of black dialects, for which, having grown up in the American South, I had a pretty good ear. I am now much more anxious about depicting characters of different races, and accents make me nervous. In describing a second-generation Mexican American who's married to one of my main characters in The Mandibles, I took care to write his dialogue in standard American English, to specify that he spoke without an accent, and to explain that he only dropped Spanish expressions tongue-in-cheek. I would certainly think twice—more than twice—about ever writing a whole novel, or even a goodly chunk of one, from the perspective of a character whose race is different from my own—because I may sell myself as an iconoclast, but I'm as anxious as the next person about attracting vitriol. But I think that's a loss. I think that indicates a contraction of my fictional universe that is not good for the books, and not good for my soul.

Writing under the pseudonym Edward Schlosser on Vox, the author of the essay "I'm a Liberal Professor, and My Liberal Students Scare Me" describes higher education's "current climate of fear" and its "heavily policed discourse of semantic sensitivity"—and I am concerned that this touchy ethos, in which offendedness is used as a weapon, has spread far beyond academia, in part thanks to social media. Why, it's largely in order to keep from losing my fictional mojo that I stay off Facebook and Twitter, which could surely install an instinctive self-censorship out of fear of attack. Ten years ago, I gave the opening address of this same festival, in which I maintained that fiction writers have a vested interest in protecting everyone's right to offend others—because if hurting someone else's feelings even inadvertently is sufficient justification for muzzling, there will always be someone out there who is miffed by what you say, and freedom of speech is dead. With the rise of identity politics, which privileges a subjective sense of injury as actionable basis for prosecution, that is a battle that in the decade since I last spoke in Brisbane we've been losing.

Worse: the left's embrace of gotcha hypersensitivity inevitably invites backlash. Donald Trump appeals to people who have had it up to their eyeballs with being told what they can and cannot say. Pushing back against a mainstream culture of speak-no-evil suppression, they lash out in defiance, and then what they say is pretty appalling.

Regarding identity politics, what's especially saddened me in my recent career is a trend toward rejecting the advocacy of anyone who does not belong to the group. In 2013, I published Big Brother, a novel that grew out of my loss of my own older brother, who in 2009 died from the complications of morbid obesity. I was moved to write the book not only from grief, but also sympathy: in the years before his death, as my brother grew heavier, I saw how dreadfully other people treated him—how he would be seated off in a corner of a restaurant, how the staff would roll their eyes at each other after he'd ordered, though he hadn't requested more food than anyone else. I was wildly impatient with the way we assess people's characters these days in accordance with their weight, and tried to get on the page my dismay at how much energy people waste on this matter, sometimes anguishing for years over a few excess pounds. Both author and book were on the side of the angels, or so you would think.

But in my events to promote Big Brother, I started to notice a pattern. Most of the people buying the book in the signing queue were thin. Especially in the US, fat is now one of those issues where you either have to be one of us, or you're the enemy. I verified this when I had a long email correspondence with a "Healthy at Any Size" activist, who was incensed by the novel, which she hadn't even read. Which she refused to read. No amount of explaining that the novel was on her side, that it was a book that was terribly pained by the way heavy people are treated and how unfairly they are judged, could overcome the scrawny author's photo on the flap. She and her colleagues in the fat rights movement did not want my advocacy. I could not weigh in on this material because I did not belong to the club. I found this an artistic, political, and even commercial disappointment—because in the US and the UK, if only skinny-minnies will buy your book, you've evaporated the pool of prospective consumers to a puddle.

I worry that the clamorous world of identity politics is also undermining the very causes its activists claim to back. As a fiction writer, yeah, I do sometimes deem my narrator an Armenian. But that's only by way of a start. Merely being Armenian is not to have a character as I understand the word. Membership of a larger group is not an identity. Being Asian is not an identity. Being gay is not an identity. Being deaf, blind, or wheelchair-bound is not an identity, nor is being economically deprived. I reviewed a novel recently that I had regretfully to give a thumbs-down, though it was terribly well intended; its heart was in the right place. But in relating the Chinese immigrant experience in America, the author put forward characters that were mostly—Chinese. That is, that's sort all they were: Chinese. Which isn't enough.

I made this same point in relation to gender in Melbourne last week: both as writers and as people, we should be seeking to push beyond the constraining categories into which we have been arbitrarily dropped by birth. If we embrace narrow group-based identities too fiercely, we cling to the very cages in which others would seek to trap us. We pigeonhole ourselves. We limit our own notion of who we are, and in presenting ourselves as one of a membership, a representative of our type, an ambassador of an amalgam, we ask not to be seen.

The reading and writing of fiction is obviously driven in part by a desire to look inward, to be self-examining, reflective. But the form is also born of a desperation to break free of the claustrophobia of our own experience. The spirit of good fiction is one of exploration, generosity, curiosity, audacity, and compassion. Writing during the day and reading when I go to bed at night, I find it an enormous relief to escape the confines of my own head. Even if novels and short stories only do so by creating an illusion, fiction helps to fell the exasperating barriers between us, and for a short while allows us to behold the astonishing reality of other people. The last thing we fiction writers need is restrictions on what belongs to us. In a recent interview, our colleague Chris Cleave conceded, "Do I as an Englishman have any right to write a story of a Nigerian woman? ...I completely sympathize with the people who say I have no right to do this. My only excuse is that I do it well."

Which brings us to my final point. We do not all do it well. So it's more than possible that we write from the perspective of a one-legged lesbian from Afghanistan and fall flat on our arses. We don't get the dialogue right, and for insertions of expressions in Pashto we depend on Google Translate. Halfway through the novel, suddenly the protagonist has lost the right leg instead of the left one. Our idea of lesbian sex is drawn from wooden internet porn. Efforts to persuasively enter the lives of others very different from us may fail: that's a given. But maybe rather than having our heads taken off, we should get a few points for trying. After all, most fiction sucks. Most writing sucks. Most things that people make of any sort suck. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't make anything. The answer is that modern cliché: to keep trying to fail better. Anything but be obliged to designate my every character an aging five-foot-two smartass, and have to set every novel in North Carolina. We fiction writers have to preserve the right to wear many hats—including sombreros.

[Oexmelin]

I am not going to rewrite here what I wrote about cultural appropriation on the Facebook thread.  But this Guardian article summarizes well what the tenor of the discussion has been like, in my experience, far from the hysteria that the media describes, and lovingly nurtures...

That being said, and though I disagree on some points with Shriver (notably about "a few points for trying"), what I think is key, as I wrote on the other thread, is the desire to transform political discussion about cultural appropriation into sets of rules and regulation. That disciplinary impulse, which is very strong in colleges, and which is not, contrary to what is being reported, only the pressures of students, should be resisted.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/sep/15/we-need-to-talk-about-cultural-appropriation-why-lionel-shrivers-speech-touched-a-nerve

[Razgovory]

Yeah, well how would feel if I started cooking dogs?

How about you cut out the racism? You lack the panache to make it even remotely funny.

[Valmy]

I am not going to rewrite here what I wrote about cultural appropriation on the Facebook thread.

Well you can just copy  and paste it

But this Guardian article summarizes well what the tenor of the discussion has been like, in my experience, far from the hysteria that the media describes, and lovingly nurtures...

That is a pretty intense and emotionally charged tenor in that article.

That being said, and though I disagree on some points with Shriver (notably about "a few points for trying"), what I think is key, as I wrote on the other thread, is the desire to transform political discussion about cultural appropriation into sets of rules and regulation. That disciplinary impulse, which is very strong in colleges, and which is not, contrary to what is being reported, only the pressures of students, should be resisted.

Ok then this kind of thing has to have a much more subtle tone to it than what I have seen so far if it is not to have rules. After all the article has JK Rowling and Cold Play right up there with black face minstrelsy as 'symbols of cultural appropriation'. And if you are going to use that imagery you might as well have lynching up there as well. That Australian Sudanese woman after all wrote her article on 'exploitation of others' not 'hey everybody be cool and let's just talk this thing out'.

Now if the standard is simply consult and educate yourself and do it right and you are cool, well then that is reasonable. That is the need for rules and so forth. Nobody wants to exploit others and be equivalent of black face by accident.

But even so it makes me a bit uneasy. I am ceaselessly amused by the creative and bizarre way the Japanese represent western institutions and religions in their fiction. In a way I find it flattering. It would be kind of sad if they had to consult and create 'authentic' Catholicism. So I don't know. But then those Japanese things are hardly considered works of great literature.

This quote blew my mind though:

Booker Prize-winning author Marlon James said publishers too often "pander to the white woman" (the majority of the book-buying public)

WTF? Is that about Britain or something because that strikes me as impossible if we are just talking about the English reading public. But that might just be in certain genres. Certainly not in the ones I tend to read.

[garbon]

WTF? Is that about Britain or something because that strikes me as impossible if we are just talking about the English reading public. But that might just be in certain genres. Certainly not in the ones I tend to read.

Quick search reveals polls saying that women account for larger portion of book audiences than men.

[Oexmelin]

The reading public is very much female. Women read on average in the US nine books a year vs 5 for men. And they are majority readers in all categories of fiction and non fiction, except for history and biography.

[Valmy]

Quick search reveals polls saying that women account for larger portion of book audiences than men.

I was not disputing that. I was blown away that white women alone would be the majority. Hence me wondering if this was exclusive to Britain.

[garbon]

Quick search reveals polls saying that women account for larger portion of book audiences than men.

I was not disputing that. I was blown away that white women alone would be the majority.

Well majority of things like that are geared towards white audiences and if women happen to be main readers...white women seems like an easy enough thing to understand.

Oh the majority bit and not the pandering bit. I guess I would guess white women are the plurality.

[HVC]

WTF? Is that about Britain or something because that strikes me as impossible if we are just talking about the English reading public. But that might just be in certain genres. Certainly not in the ones I tend to read.

they publish a lot of girl porn (romance novels and the like). a lot. its a large chuck of the "trade" printing industry

[Valmy]

Well majority of things like that are geared towards white audiences and if women happen to be main readers...white women seems like an easy enough thing to understand.

Well now that is a circular argument. They are pandered to because they are the majority, and they are the majority because they are pandered to.

White women cannot be more than 1/3rd of the population of the US yet they buy more books than everybody else combined? Really? Alright.

[Malthus]

Lionel Shriver's speech in Australia. She nails it in my view. I don't have time to bold it.

I agree, good speech, and right on the money.

[garbon]

Well majority of things like that are geared towards white audiences and if women happen to be main readers...white women seems like an easy enough thing to understand.

Well now that is a circular argument. They are pandered to because they are the majority, and they are the majority because they are pandered to.

White women cannot be more than 1/3rd of the population of the US yet they buy more books than everybody else combined? Really? Alright.

I think you are probably missing at the historical component that white people were the ones who had money and thus the ones that could purchase things like books, as well as own the presses. Naturally then they created books with a slant to white people. If women form the majority of readers then it makes sense that books would be slanted to white women.

I already note that I think white women probably are more of a plurality of readers rather than a majority. Something that really isn't all that interesting to discuss anyway.