spinofflive
(Image: Tina Tiller)
(Image: Tina Tiller)

OPINIONBooksSeptember 3, 2020

Aotearoa is not Middle-earth

(Image: Tina Tiller)
(Image: Tina Tiller)

One of our finest speculative fiction writers on how the Lord of the Rings fandom is damaging mana whenua. 

There are kākā on my porch. They are circling each other, fanning their beautiful green and red feathers. They’ve found the pāua shell my flatmate picked up on the beach last week. It is shiny, so they fight over it. Their fight ends in a draw so they drop the shell and take off, back over the bunkers on the hill – built to fend off a Japanese invasion, now a sanctuary for teenagers who need somewhere quiet to smoke weed – to the wildlife reserve in Kaharore. It’s the ridge of many bird snares, an old Māori hunting ground, better known as Karori, an upper-middle-class suburb with a nice library and a bird park. Kaharore is a strange place. There is a faultline that runs directly through it, and the land is broken, rising and falling without rhythm. It is a reminder that this land is young and seismic, ready to erupt, to shatter, to remake itself at any moment. And at no point, while I sit and watch the kākā, do I think “this sure reminds me of The Lord of the Rings”.

And yet, New Zealand lives under the shadow of three movies that are coming up on two decades old. They gave our tourism industry a boost that remained fairly reliable until, well… about six months ago. But they also reshaped our labour laws and turned a thriving film industry into a struggling gig economy. They brought tourists, but they also brought a wave of cultural imperialism that hides our history, our traditions, our people and our language underneath a fantastical blanket. It might be comforting for some, but it’s suffocating for us.

Not Hobbiton (Photo: Alex Braae)

For many tourists, New Zealand is Middle-earth. George R.R. Martin made that exact joke during his address at the 78th World Science Fiction and Fantasy Convention, ostensibly hosted (remotely) in Wellington. Considering the rest of his now-infamous speech, the line went mostly unnoticed, but I was at a watch party in the Wellington convention centre we were meant to be hosting the thing in (hey, if you’ve rented the space, you may as well use it), and a visible flinch went around the room.

It echoed an earlier conversation in mid-2018 when I asked: “Do we need a Tolkien panel?” The reply flew back like a gunshot: “Fuck off”. The Tolkien panels happened anyway. We all knew there would be a riot if we didn’t. The digital tourists loved it; the locals mostly stayed away.

There are three main strands of this endless garbage braid: the anti-worker laws passed to make the Hobbit movies happen, the fact that Americans and Brits have been bringing LOTR into every single conversation about us for nigh-on two decades now, and the erasure of Māori mana whenua in service of some books written by an Englishman about a fantastical England which to me, at least, is the worst one of all. It’s a cruel echo of colonialism, a sort of soft colonialism: by making Aotearoa a proxy for England, you say Aotearoa is England, and by saying that, you’re recreating the mindset of the people who stole our land, who beat our language and culture out of us, who signed a treaty swearing to keep our sovereignty intact then left it to rot in a cellar in Wellington after a judge decreed it null, and Māori “primitive and barbaric” savages with no legal rights. By imprinting Middle-earth – this Other-England – upon us and our whenua, you recreate a little of that violence over and over; it is an echo of a scream, carried along the Kaharore cliffsides.

Not a kākā (Image: Red Line Cinemas)

I’m not the first author to raise the issue, nor even the most prominent – Witi Ihimaera was talking about this years ago. This isn’t a new problem, but it is one that seems to be coming to a head, and one that needs proper address: the place where Middle-earth and Aotearoa collide is one fraught with pain.

But of course, there were Māori actors in The Lord of the Rings. They mostly played orcs. I’m not here to call out their performances (they often, quite literally, crushed it out there, and a man’s gotta make a dollar) but the colonial subtext of the books made it into the movies: the evil dark-skinned foreigners from the east and south banding together to destroy the pale-skinned lands of men. You know, real humans, as opposed to savages. If you’re rushing to the comments with that allegory quote, let me retort in advance: Tolkien himself said the orcs were stand-ins for tribal peoples, infamously referring to them as “squat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths and slant eyes”.

Which isn’t to impugn Tolkien personally. He wasn’t Lovecraft; it seems he was genuinely a man of his time trying his best. Still, he lived in a racist time and regardless of his intentions, he filled his books with racist images of savage foreign hordes baying for white blood. It no coincidence that so many orcs were played by Māori and Polynesian actors: the subtext was already there for Jackson and his crew to pull out. They didn’t have Mongols, so they went with the savages they had on hand. I doubt they even realised they were doing it. I think this is a good point to make an important distinction: overt racists are relatively rare, but racism is extremely common. For every Boogaloo Boy trying to kick off a race war, there are a thousand people who simply refuse to examine the culture around them, who can’t see the channels that centuries of colonial violence have blasted into the rock, but who travel them anyway and wear them deeper with their footfalls.

Not not a racist moment (Image: Red Line Cinemas)

To me, te ao Māori is about relationships: relationships between people and the land, and people and each other. Te reo Māori has a wide array of pronouns that often baffle new learners, because when our ancestors first began to speak, they knew one of the most important things was to understand clearly who everybody was, and what they meant to each other. In great Māori art and song, the land itself comes alive, provides solace and imparts wisdom. I’m reminded of the Māori lover conjured by Tayi Tibble, who – in an act of resistance against her lazy white boyfriend – considers ramming clothes pegs into the ground, to “plunge them back into the earth’s dark wet cunt”. It is an electric line from a truly electric Māori poet, that speaks of the intimacy between our people and our land, of the way that intimacy can be power and comfort. It is a potent, elegant line, one that speaks of a people whose first language is song.

And yet, when I see depictions of Māori from the outside, I see only savages. I watch us exalted for our capacity to inflict violence; I see Māori men depicted as wordless hulking brutes; I hear Jason Momoa saying that our haka makes him want to rape. When I see my own people through an outsider’s lens, I don’t see tāngata, I see orcs. Often literally. When I hear people call Aotearoa “Middle-earth”, I see my people once again turned into monsters on their own land. I hear a judge declaim that we are too savage to understand the concept of a pact, and thus all pacts with us may be freely broken. I hear footsteps rushing through the wounds in the land carved by English bayonet and cannon, wearing them deeper.

The Lord of the Rings is a great trilogy. I’d be lying if I told you I didn’t cue up Theoden’s big speech from time to time when I needed a pick-me-up, or that I didn’t love every second of Christopher Lee’s performance as Saruman, or that I didn’t have the pile of tabletop wargame Uruk-hai sitting in a box in my garage. The books and films are gorgeous, and contain messages of hope, perseverance and the indomitable power of fellowship (forgive me, I had to get one in). It would be a shame to cast them aside entirely, and I’m not asking anybody to do that. You’re allowed to read, watch, and enjoy The Lord of the Rings! You’re allowed to look at the landscapes and find them beautiful! You’re allowed to come to New Zealand because you love The Lord of the Rings! You’re allowed to visit Hobbiton and the sets!

Mount Doom; not Mount Doom (Images: Red Line Cinemas; Wikicommons)

All I’m asking you to do is stop conflating Middle-earth with Aotearoa and understand that the fictional Middle-earth was shot in the real Aotearoa, which is a land with its own culture, history and people. I’m asking you for one tiny act of decolonisation: I’m asking you to understand our grief and take a small part of lifting it. If you’ve read this far, you probably love science fiction and fantasy, so think of it like this: my people are living in The Empire, and this is your chance to join the rebellion. All you need to do is change your mind. It’s just a little tremor, but it’s ready to tear the earth open and remake it anew.

And if you’ve got this far without charging to the comments section to scream about video game feminism for some reason, then I know you’ve got the courage and insight to make that start. I don’t think you came here from a place of malice, quite the opposite – I think you came here because you read a book or watched a film that made you feel something, and you wanted to celebrate that. I’m not asking you to give up your favourite stories, I’m simply asking you to see us as a people, to see us in the ridge of bird snares, in the rough earth we worked to build our pā, in the towns and cities we call home today.

Our songs are not the songs of dead Englishmen: our songs are honeyed and sweet, calls to our whānau returning home. Songs of new love, calm water and wet earth; songs of the tangata whenua. All I ask is that you hear them.

Writing as Sascha Stronach, the author has just been awarded the country’s biggest prize in science fiction and fantasy writing: the Sir Julius Vogel Award for Best Novel.

The Dawnhounds, by Sascha Stronach (Little Hook Press, $21.50) can be bought direct, or ordered from Unity Books Wellington or Auckland

Keep going!
Photo: Getty Images
Photo: Getty Images

OPINIONBooksSeptember 3, 2020

Staying silent on suicide didn’t help my daughter

Photo: Getty Images
Photo: Getty Images

A recent column by the director of New Zealand’s Suicide Prevention Office argued that ‘normalising talking about suicide’ doesn’t help. Linda Collins, the author of a forthcoming book about losing a child to suicide, wonders how silence can ever be a solution.

Just this week, a friend who helps maintain a suicide prevention website messaged me about a piece someone she suggested she put up. It was from a major international publishing house and titled “Empathy Reading: the Best Novels About Suicide”.

The piece said “the tremendous success of the book and Netflix series 13 Reasons Why has shown us that there’s a hunger for literary explorations of suicide … We’ve assembled a list that, while not explicitly healing, provide clarity and above all, solidarity”.

Perhaps this is what Carla na Nagara, the director of the Ministry of Health’s Suicide Prevention Office, was talking about when she wrote last month in The Spinoff, “international evidence tells us normalising talking about suicide is not helpful”.

The books on the reading list are fiction and, as I told my friend, it is a bad idea to have them on a suicide prevention site. This is because they follow the conventions of action, rising action, obstacle, overcoming it, and resolution. Impressionable young readers will not get clarity, let alone solidarity (what is even meant by that?) about the reality of suicide. In fact, they will get a very wrong idea about it. I know. I live that reality.

My daughter, Victoria McLeod, took her life six years ago. She was 17 years old. I have written a book about it, Loss Adjustment, to be published by Awa Press on October 20. My book is non-fiction and had to meet the social sciences requirements of the university ethics committee where I wrote it for my masters degree. Unlike the fiction on the reading list, this is not a coming-of-age story where a protagonist learns valuable life lessons from a friend’s suicide, and life continues with this new “normal”.

My life will never be normal. In my book, there is no “plot”. My daughter died. That happens pretty much straight away in the opening pages. Any action is the resulting wake and funeral. Then after that, confusion, blame and anguish circling on itself. As for resolution, there is no ending to the pain of loss. No daughter magically returns and we continue on, older but wiser, skipping into the sunset.

The author’s book about the death of her daughter, and its aftermath.

Where I disagree with na Nagara is her claim that talking about suicide will not help prevent suicide and could have the opposite effect, noting that “all this ‘talking about it’ has not led to a decrease in our suicide rate”. Firstly, the increase could be due to other factors ranging from societal pressures that have not been addressed, to prosaic aspects such as more deaths stated as suicide rather than the more vague “accidental death”.

Secondly, one of the reasons I wrote Loss Adjustment is to open up talk on suicide. This is because I had seen the effects of being silenced. My daughter, a New Zealander in a school in Singapore, became so stricken by social anxiety that she became incapable of answering questions in class. I was not informed about this by the school, but I now know that she turned to writing a diary to express her thoughts to try and make sense of them, though at her young age, she lacked the problem-solving skills that would have enabled this. That is what happens when conversations are stifled, or when there is no mature or trained person to externalise and guide. The thoughts don’t go away but are driven inward in a dysfunctional manner.

Victoria understood this, and wrote of wanting to help others like her. In an entry one month before her death she said that she wanted money to “be given to charity. One that raises awareness about social anxiety … So that teachers don’t always assume that the kid at the back of class who never raises their hand isn’t just ‘shy’, when they are really paralysed with fear and hopelessness that they believe no one could ever understand”.

Yet for whatever reason, not enough resources are given to facilitate mental-health counselling to enable necessary conversations. I wonder, Why are the needy, regardless of rich or poor, marginalised this way? Why is this a lesser priority in society?

As for na Nagara’s implicit worry about copycat suicides, shutting down talk about Victoria’s suicide did not prevent such a death. The school forbade students from talking about her. It refused an offer of an external specialist counselling team to help teens talk about Victoria and express their grief. Yet, 10 months after Vic’s death, a boy who had been in her class took his life the same way.

I agree with na Nagara that mental health services are just a part of the solution – I would say, an absolutely vital part – and that there are serious issues of inequity and human rights to address. But reducing suicide is much more than addressing systemic problems. There is much yet to explore in the areas of sociological, biological, neurological, biochemical and environmental causes of suicide, too.

Emphasising that the conversation on suicide needs to be more about societal and systemic issues is good, but it is not the full picture. It’s important to talk about it all, all the confusing nonfictional mess of its awful reality, and to not signal to the suicidal that if your problems are not to do with the latest emphasis, better shut up and harden up.

And what has been the effect of Loss Adjustment opening up the conversation on suicide? It was first published in Singapore in September last year. Mothers there who have lost kids this way then formed the PleaseStay movement to advocate for suicide prevention. We have been to institutions of power, from high-ups at the Ministry of Education and the National Council of Social Services, to the Institute of Mental Health, and shared our lived experiences. The result is that authorities there are looking at where the system is failing within their organisations, and making changes. They tell us they are doing this because our talks with them bring home the message in a way they just cannot ignore.

These organisations are now also more aware of the need to co-ordinate the various services and are working towards this. Other stuff: three months after Loss Adjustment was published, the act of taking your life was removed from the statute books as a crime. Nominated MP Anthea Ong read the book and it informed her when she spoke up in Singapore’s parliament for better mental health care.

And I receive many messages from readers who say the book prompted them to open up difficult but transformative conversations with their kids – talk they would have once avoided.

People come up to me after readings and signings and tell me things they anguished over in silence for years, such as being a closeted gay person, or feeling oppressed by racism, or worrying about being able to provide for their family. That’s the thing about talking about this taboo subject of suicide: the act of my giving testimony, allows them to bear witness too. And once the secret is spoken, it does not have so much power over a person. It is out in the open, to be examined, understood and acted upon.

Linda Collins is the author of Loss Adjustment, out with Awa Press on October 20. She has an MA in Creative Writing from the International Institute of Modern Letters at Victoria University.

Need to talk? Free call or text 1737 any time for support from a trained counsellor.

Lifeline – 0800 543 354 (0800 LIFELINE) or free text 4357 (HELP)

Youthline – 0800 376 633, free text 234, email talk@youthline.co.nz or online chat

Samaritans – 0800 726 666

Shine (domestic violence) – 0508 744 633

Women’s Refuge – 0800 733 843 (0800 REFUGE)

Alcohol and Drug Helpline – 0800 787 797 or online chat

Are You OK (family violence helpline) – 0800 456 450

Rape Crisis – 0800 883 300 (for support after rape or sexual assault)