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.

Othering and "One Anothering"

This article is partly the lament of an old white guy. It was sparked by a Thinking Friend telling me in an email that she had been advised to "give up on old white guys."

The Problem: Othering

My thinking on this subject was also stirred by Cierra Lockett writing about how some African-Americans have a problem feeling bicultural because “though they're American citizens, it's hard to feel American because of how the country historically and currently oppresses and ‘others’ them.”

That, without a doubt, is far, far worse than the othering I have experienced. But it is a difference of degree, not of kind. While in the U.S. it is much worst for African-Americans and American Indians, every group—or individual—who suffers from prejudice is a victim of being “othered.”

It is not hard to see why old white guys are the target of criticism—and of being othered. Perhaps most of the problems of the world are the results of the “sins” of old white guys.

But prejudice is thinking that all the people of a group partake of the characteristics of the problematic people of that group. Thus, I am saddened when “written off” because of the mistakes of so many old white guys, past and present.

For example, I have been disappointed that few youngish people read and comment on my blog articles. I have tried to get people below 30 or even 40 to read and comment. Few have—for a variety of reasons, no doubt. Perhaps one main reason, though, is because most think that an old guy doesn’t have anything of value to say to them.

Last month I was criticized for suggesting that becoming/being bicultural might be something beneficial for African-Americans to consider. I was told by several people that whites shouldn’t make any suggestions to blacks.

There is also the problem of us guys saying anything substantial about matters relating to women: the charge of “mansplaining” has become rather common.

So, whether intended or not, “old white guys” are sometimes (often?) othered by those who are young, by people of color, and by women. Perhaps such othering serves us right—but, still, it is a cause of sadness. 

The Solution: One Anothering

Is there no way we all can relate to one another simply as human beings?

The Bible says “Love one another.” That surely doesn’t mean we are to love only people like us—for the old to love the elderly, whites to love whites, and males to love males. (And, of course, I am talking about agape-love here, not erotic love.)

To love one another surely means to accept/respect everyone without prejudice regardless of age, ethnic, or gender differences. Is that kind of mutual love/acceptance/respect too much to expect?

Back in 1990 Richard C. Meyer, a Presbyterian pastor in Florida, wrote a book titled One Anothering. The book was mainly written for small groups, but the title has an important broader meaning.  

Those of us in a position of privilege, though, have the main responsibility to take the initiative and to reach out in love to those who have been othered most severely.

South American liberation theology has often spoken about the “preferential option for the poor.” It is perhaps time for most of us, especially us old white guys, to promote a preferential option for those individuals/groups who are suffering most because of being othered.

That kind of one anothering means actively loving whether we are reciprocally loved or not. 

Combating Racism/Sexism

The Society of Christian Ethics (SCE) held its annual meeting in Washington, D.C., last week, and I was happy to be able to attend it again, as I did last year in New Orleans.

One of the enjoyable things about going to academic meetings such as the SCE is seeing old friends and acquaintances, even though since I spent most of my career in Japan I don’t know very many of the people at such gatherings here in the U.S.

Two of the people I did enjoy seeing again this year were graduate school friends and colleagues of my daughter Karen. Miguel De La Torre and Stacey Floyd-Thomas were in the Ph.D. program with her at Temple University, and both of them were speakers in the same session I attended last Friday.

Miguel De La Torre

Miguel is a Cuban-American, and he talked at some length about the prejudice and mistreatment of Cubans-Americans (and Latinos/as in general) in the U.S. Stacey is African-American, and she talked, also at some length, about the prejudice and mistreatment of African-Americans in general and especially of African-American women. But in spite of the odds against them, Miguel and Stacey have become two of the most prominent members of the SCE.

Those who attended the SCE meeting this year, as every year, were perhaps close to 80% white American males. But Miguel, who is a professor at Illif Theological Seminary, was elected president of the SCE for the coming year. And Stacey, a professor at Vanderbilt Divinity School, is currently serving as the Executive Director of the SCE.

In spite of their minority status Miguel and Stacey are in positions that by far most of the “privileged” white males will never find themselves in. And they are certainly deserving of the positions they hold in the SCE, for they are outstanding scholars—and outstanding human beings.

Thus, it is obvious that some people can and do rise above the discriminatory structures of society. Miguel and Stacey are prime examples of that. Miguel shared some about the struggles of his mother, an illiterate Cuban woman, in this country. But he has become a widely respected scholar and ethicist, attested to by the fact that he is now the SCE president.

I certainly agree, though, with Miguel and Stacey in what they say about the entrenched prejudice against people of color, against people of recent immigrant families, and against women. And I appreciate the work they are doing to combat that prejudice.

In spite of people such as Miguel and Stacey, why are there a disproportionate number of the homeless, unemployed, and financially struggling people in this country people who in race, gender, and ethnicity are the same as these outstanding scholars? The lingering deep-seated prejudice toward Blacks, Hispanics, and women is, no doubt, one of the foremost reasons.

Can only a very select few, people with outstanding intellect and character traits such as are evident in Miguel and Stacey, overcome the odds against them? Perhaps. That is why we need to join them and other like-minded people in continuing to work against the entrenched racism and sexism in a society that continues to be characterized by white (and male) privilege.