Novelists as Prophets: The Examples of Celeste Ng and Octavia Butler

Good, creative novels are beneficial for their readers not just for the enjoyment they induce but also for the ideas they produce. This post is about two dystopian novels, one published earlier this year and the other back in 1993.

Celeste Ng is an American novelist whose parents were born in mainland China and in Hong Kong. Ng (b. 1980) became widely known with the publication of Little Fires Everywhere in 2017 and the eight-episode 2020 streaming television series based on that book.

Although I found Ng’s 2017 novel a good read, I was more impressed with her 2022 novel Our Missing Hearts. The title of Steven King’s Sept. 22 review in The New York Times sums it up well: “Celeste Ng’s Dystopia Is Uncomfortably Close to Reality.” 

Following what is called the Crisis, the federal government seeks to make the U.S. great again. This is attempted partly by the passing of the Preserving American Culture and Traditions Act (PACT).

Under PACT, questionable books are not only banned, those found offensive are pulped and turned into toilet paper.

Further, because of what is believed to be a major economic/cultural threat by the Chinese, there is considerable opposition to anyone who looks Asian. The main characters of Ng’s novel are a Chinese American woman married to a White man and Bird, their 12-year-old son.

The children of parents considered by PACT to be culturally or politically subversive are “re-placed” in foster families. Consequently, Bird’s mother goes missing in order to spare him from being re-placed.

The impact of Ng’s novel was lessened somewhat by the midterm elections, which turned out to be a win for democracy and a loss for the MAGA voters and the authoritarianism they were (many perhaps unwittingly) supporting. Prejudice against Chinese/Asians, however, may continue to increase.

Perhaps to a small degree, the election turned out as it did because of what can be called self-negating prophecy. Sometimes things don’t happen as predicted because enough people take action to keep those dire predictions from being fulfilled.

In that way, novelists, and especially those who write creative dystopian novels, can be seen as prophets who declare what will happen if appropriate steps are not taken to prevent those dreadful situations from taking place.

Let’s hope that is also true with regard to a second novelist I am currently reading.

Octavia Butler is an engaging Black writer whom I was not aware of until recently. More than thirty years ago she planned to write a trilogy of dystopian novels. The first of those is Parable of the Sower (1993), and it was followed by Parable of the Talents (1998).**

Unfortunately, Butler died in 2006 at the youngish age of 58 before she finished the third volume. I have just finished reading Butler’s chilling first book and have started to read the sequel.

Beginning in 2024, when society in the United States has grown unstable due to climate change, growing wealth inequality, and corporate greed, Parable of the Sower takes the form of a journal kept by Lauren, a precocious African American teenager—and religious “philosopher.”

In that 1993 novel, climate change, economic recession, and extensive misuse of drugs lead to a total breakdown of society. Beginning in 2024, Lauren experiences horrific loss and suffering, which ends to an extent for her and her companions with the founding of a religious community in 2027.

(Early in the sequel, Butler has Lauren writing about one of the candidates for the 2032 presidential election in the nation still beset by ongoing societal problems. His appeal to the voters is, “Help us to make America great again.”)

Perhaps sometimes “the words of the prophets are written on the subway walls,” but they are more effectively written in books by novelists such as Celeste Ng and Octavia Butler.

May we be smart enough to understand what such novelists are saying and proactive enough to help their dystopian novels to become self-negating prophecies.

_____

** Here is the link to “Octavia Butler’s Prescient Vision of a Zealot Elected to ‘Make America Great Again’,” a long, July 2017 article in The New Yorker. June (my wife) doesn’t like to read dystopian novels, but she found this article about Butler to be quite interesting.

What about Book Banning?

Vital Conversations is a monthly discussion group for people in the Northland of Kansas City, and since February 2007 I have enjoyed being a regular part of that group. Last week the topic for discussion was the thorny issue of the banning of books in libraries and schools. 

What Books have been Banned?

Rather than discussing one book as usual, this time participants were asked to introduce and share comments about a banned book they had read.

There was quite a variety: “classics” such as Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World (1932) and George Orwell’s Animal Farm (1945) as well as more recent books such as And Tango Makes Three (by Justin Richardson, 2005) and All Boys are Not Blue (by George M Johnson, 2020).

Actually, I introduced two books: The Grapes of Wrath (1939), the classic novel by John Steinbeck (and the subject of my 5/10 blog post), and Me and Earl and the Dying Girl (by Jesse Andrews, 2012).

A May 5 article on Esquire.com is titled “The 10 Most-Banned Books in America.” Steinbeck’s 80+ years old book is not on the list, but Me and Earl . . . is.

Given the current culture wars raging in the U.S., it is not surprising that five of those ten books are directly related to LGBTQ issues and three are about aspects of racism.

Why are Some Books Banned?

Books are banned in general because of controversial ideas that are considered a danger to the general public—or a privileged segment of society. The Grapes of Wrath, for example, was banned in some places because of its implicit criticism of capitalism.

Other books are banned because of “moral” objections. My impression from reading Me and Earl . . . was that it normalizes and even glamorizes sexual promiscuity, excessive profanity, and the use of tobacco and alcohol by high school students.*

But a major problem now is disagreement over what is moral. Religious conservatives tend to consider all sexual activity by gays and lesbians to be immoral and even their existence, as well as that of transgender persons, to be an aberration that must not be afforded public acceptance.

And White supremacists, most of whom are perhaps only latently such, find references to systematic racism highly objectionable, if not immoral, and oppose students being taught or allowed to read books that have anything to do with “critical race theory.”

Without question, it is “conservatives” of whatever stripe who clamor most for the banning of books.

Should Any Book be Banned?

The prolific science fiction author Isaac Asimov (1920~92) is often quoted as saying, “Any book worth banning is a book worth reading.”

I agree with Asimov regarding books with controversial ideas being read by adults. But I couldn’t see any basis for thinking that Me and Earl . . . was worth reading—except perhaps to understand the nature of one of the most banned books in 2021 and the nature of some high schoolers now.

Perhaps some books just don’t belong in school libraries—any more than cigarette and beer vending machines don’t belong in school cafeterias.

Teenagers are legally “banned” from purchasing tobacco and alcohol. And they are “banned” from driving a car for most of their teen years. (In Missouri and many other states, a person can’t be fully licensed to drive until age 18.)

Thus, there are some generally accepted limitations on what teenagers can and can’t do, for their protection and for the good of society. Perhaps there are books that fit into the same category.

The problem, of course, is when books are banned because of prejudice against certain people who are demeaned because of their race or because of their sexual/gender orientation.

Given the absence of widespread agreement such as there is regarding laws regulating purchase/use of tobacco/alcohol as well as the age at which teenagers can legally drive, perhaps the best course of action is not to ban any books in schools/libraries.

Parents are responsible for teaching their own children what they think is good and appropriate, but they don’t have the right to regulate what other parents see as suitable or permissible for their children.**

_____

* I usually have high regard for articles published by The Guardian, but I was surprised (disappointed?) by a 2015 review of Me and Earl . . ., the last paragraph of which began, “Everyone should read this book.”

** Helpful treatment of this thorny topic is found in “Banned Books – Top 3 Pros and Cons,” updated in April 2022.