I
only occasionally visit ‘The National Organisation For Marriage’ (or ‘NOM’ as
they un-ironically call themselves) the same way I occasionally follow ‘The UK
Independence Party’ – because it’s a scavenger-hunt for hypocrisy. There is no
such thing as a wrong opinion, yet there are bizarre opinions suspended only by
flawed logic. And the only way to rid society of said opinions is by exposing
the flaws in this logic through critical discourse.
Normally
I wouldn’t foul my blog with this nonsense, but NOM has recently penned aliterary work that they’ve shared with the world. Since my blog is supposed to
be about art, I may as well review this piece.
‘Ten
Years From Now’ is a dystopian flash-fiction told from the first-person
perspective of a concerned parent (read: author surrogate) whose sixteen year
old daughter has been suspended from school for apparently bullying a
transgender student. This could be an interesting tale about how a parent has
to explain that the mind is a separate entity from the body, yet the parent
does not want to jeopardise his relationship with his daughter. Instead, it’s a
context-less spiel about “kids these days.”
The
opening shows signs of promise, yet throws its cards on the table by using
air-quotes in the sentence “he has chosen to "identify" as a
"she"” meaning that the protagonist is transphobic and believes his
daughter to be right in her protests, thus making her suspension unlawful.
This would make sense if there was some sort of
fictional law introduced, decreeing that those who self-identify as female are
immediately permitted to use the female facilities on-campus. Instead, the
story draws to current events by saying that “the school district adopted the
Ontario, Canada construct.” Said construct only decrees that there are five
genders. It does not decree that males are allowed to use female toilets. The
logic behind trans pupils being allowed to use facilities assigned to the
gender they identify as is that these trans pupils have appealed to an authority
to receive explicit permission. Again, if there was a fictional law introduced
that changed this, then fine. But there isn’t one.
The
story also suggests that this trans pupil is only pretending to identify as a
female so he can spy on the women changing without repercussions. This would make the daughter justified
in her protest – but the story is not explicit. It needs to either refute or
embrace this possibility, as it’s too strong to leave open.
It’s
not even said what stage of the transitional process the pupil is in. Does this
pupil still dress like a man? Has this pupil applied to have her passport
changed? Has this pupil had any surgery or hormone-treatment? Has the protagonist’s
daughter protested against a boy in lipstick, or a woman without breasts?
In
fact, if gender “is no longer particularly relevant in the public
schools” then that means toilets would be different. If gender is now a binary
construct, then toilers surely would not be split into ‘boy’ and ‘girl’ –
particularly if, according to the story, the government has now eliminated the
expressions ‘boy’ and ‘girl.’ This means toilets would no longer be assigned to
a gender, and thus would have to be re-built. I guess every toilet would be
contained within some sort of cubicle, as would the showers and changing-rooms.
Thus, the
trans pupil would not have been using the wrong toilet and therefore the
daughter would have no reason whatsoever to protest. The conflict this whole
story is based around is null and void.
Need I go
on? The story’s logic has collapsed in on itself within the first four paragraphs.
For
a story set ten years in the future, not a single ‘futuristic vibe’ is present.
The only hint that we’re in the future is the vagueness of the statement “I
read an article on my device.” This probably just refers to a phone or tablet,
but there’s the possibility he’s reading on a holographic projection or perhaps
cyber-vision goggles. Aside from this, the piece doesn’t feel even vaguely
futuristic. The story even says that the school has adopted “the Facebook model,”
meaning the world hasn’t moved onto a new plain of communication. The world
depicted here is a vacuum where only marriage appears to have significantly
changed anything – where if we look to the past ten years, our society has been
radically changed by technology, the economy, conflict, and transitions in
political parties. These are extremely large constructs. At the start of the
story, it appears that changes in marriage laws have only had a partial impact
on this teenager’s first-world existence. It’s only when the story draws back
at the conclusion to reveal that the world is a barren wasteland of poverty and
drugs because the definition of marriage has changed.
Which
leads me neatly to the ending. At the last moment, the story forgoes the basic ‘show
don’t tell’ rule to dump a vast amount of exposition without any explanation.
The
story boldly claims with no justification that “Teenage drug use, criminality,
truancy and suicide were on the rise, while educational attainment is declining.”
How? “More people are living in poverty than any other time in my life.” How?
How is a change in marriage laws more damaging to the economy than the stock
market crash of 2008? It’s possible that this law has created a domino-effect,
but that effect needs to be explained within the story. And it needs to be
explained in a way that doesn’t have our protagonist quote a Fox News article.
The line: “I read an article on my device” suggests that the protagonist merely
read a random article, rather than “I read an official report” or “I read a
government study.” And it’s because of this random article that apparently the
world is falling apart. The protagonist has read the article, so therefore the
article is true. I read, therefore I am.
This
summarises the whole problem with the piece. We read what the protagonist is
thinking, and therefore it’s supposed to be true within the world created. He
says that Christian Unions are being disbanded all over the country, therefore
it must be so. The possibility that the protagonist could be mistaken, jaded,
or a bigot is never bought into question – which is a huge flaw considering
that, like it or not, this protagonist is expressing a view only present in a
minority. An average reader will be quick to dismiss his views because they are
not the norm. In order to make us sympathise with this characters unorthodox
views, he must be presented with more distance and more characterisation.
We don’t
know the person speaking. How old is he? Where does he live? What’s his job? Does
he have a wife? Because the story is so short, and the story attempts to cram
so many ideas without explaining them, we have no sense of character. There is
no room for character. I can only assume he’s an author surrogate because there
is so little characterisation. There is absolutely no context here, and as such
I’m inclined to immediately disagree with the person speaking because I have no
clear mental picture and no sense of time or place.
Finally,
the story goes as far to say that the President him/herself is planning enormous
changes, and as a result taxes would be raised. Never in the history of
politics has a president outright said that taxes are being raised – and this
will never happen because it would be career-suicide. Never, ever will the
president step out in front of the nation and say: “Hey, there’s a huge reform
in healthcare, education, and law-enforcement coming up…and guess that’s paying
for it? IT’S YOU!!” This is the sort of vision only conjured up by a writer
with no idea about politics or even reality.
So,
in conclusion: I wouldn’t try to submit this for publication, guys. Regardless
of the extremely flawed views presented, this is just a really bad piece of
prose – failing on every single level possible. Stick to the political rhetoric…
