Discussion of "Hammers and Canyons" by foxpamela

Very good writing skills. Not a story I could write the next chapter to. The old friend bringing gifts, I call him big Dick, brings great sex. But if you really admitted it so did you husband for a while. The succesful husband, but not as succesful as his dad, has become boring. You should have married his father. He might have had enough money to support your etravagant desires, physical and mental.

Dust won't fill your vast hole. Only you can do that with your kids and your husband.

You wrote a good chapter. Better than I thought. It takes something great to make me rant like this.

Keep up the good work.
Jack Edward

"At the top of a pyramid in a jungle somewhere south of here, he’d be the glory of his nation."

I am always reminded of how easy it is to alienate your readers with just a few short words.

Are you implying that I've alienated you? If so, how? If you want me to understand you're meaning, you need to be more direct. If you live at the top of a pyramid somewhere in a jungle somewhere south of here and are the glory of your nation and all of that is working for you, then kudos. I don't think you should take it personally that I don't want to be your wife. It just doesn't work for me.

I'm not implying that you've alienated me, I'm saying it. And, as a so-called writer, you should have no problem understanding how written stereotypes often have a negative impact on your readership.

"And brutal. Like the bludgeoning hammer used at sacrificial events. At the top of a pyramid in a jungle somewhere south of here, he’d be the glory of his nation." Really? It doesn't take a genius to pivot savagery with "Southern Jungles".

Hopefully I won't get any grudge wank from this post, but I think I already did.

Cheers, and here's to your next one. Who knows? I might just write it.

As a side note:

I didn't want to spell it out for you, but I actually liked your writing. If you look back in your profile, you'll see I left a very nice comment on your piece "Befores and Afters". But you ruined that sentiment by relying on stereotypes to convey a message that would be more powerful without them.

That's what I mean by "alienating" your readership.

It's not a stereotype. Mayans bashed heads in. On pyramids. In jungles. South of me.

If you still don't get why painting all people "south of you" as "brutes" is a broad stereotype, there doesn't seem to be much hope for you.

The Maya civilization does not exist today---so what nation are you talking about when you say "south of here"? Any Latin nation will do, eh?

And categorizing the Maya civilization as one where Maya simply "bashed peoples' heads in on tops of pyramids" is irresponsible. Archaeological and historical studies have been done on this very subject, and to suggest that you somehow know more than these professionals is laughable.

Even if it's true that the Maya routinely used human sacrifice (which even the historians who specialize in Maya civilization and culture highly doubt) the sacrificer wouldn't be the glory of his nation--the sacrificed would.

But why would I expect you to take this seriously? It seems to me like you're content making stories about housewives in fruitless and loveless marriages.

Good luck with that.

I think you've misunderstood the metaphor. I didn't paint all people south of the character as brutes. I said that the weapon used to brutally kill someone in one context would have been appreciated, even revered, and in another context it would not. I think that you would agree that murder, in any culture, is brutal. I'd like to see your source on the inaccuracy of Mayan sacrifices. I'm hard pressed to find one. If you want to talk about the validity of the metaphor, great. But throwing hostility and insults toward someone you perceive or misperceive disagrees with you, someone that you don't know, is not a constructive life strategy. You might want to reconsider that.

I did not misunderstand the metaphor. You said wrote

"At the top of a pyramid in a jungle somewhere south of here, he’d be the glory of his nation."

You're basically saying that, had your husband been in a "jungle South of the suburbs" he would have looked just like all the other people South of here who bashed people's heads in--you know, the people who lived in jungles and stood at the tops of pyramids.

You specified the place as the Mayan Empire, relying on false evidence to say that Mayans stood on pyramids and bashed people's heads in. What evidence did you look up to find this out? You say you're "hard-pressed" to find one? I doubt you even researched it in the first place.

Like I said before, you seem content on making stories about housewives and brutes. Good luck with that. Come back to the table when you actually have constructive things to say about my critiques, instead of the one liners you think suffice as answers.

Kabrams, how could you miss the point so entirely? The metaphor is excellent, and any historian will verify that Mayans, did in fact, ritualistically bludgeon people to death. For whatever reason, you have decided that foxpamela's work contains some kind of racial or ethnic slur, but you are wide of the mark. Foxpamela, I honestly believe you are way above storymash.com. If you are not currently submitting your work to legitimate literary magazines, I hope you begin to do so very soon. Storymash is full of bitter and myopic wannabe writers like myself and Kabrams. People like us are threatened by talented authors like you, and that's why we tend to lash out. You should forget about this site and showcase your work where objective, intelligent people go to read great literature.

I completely missed this 4 months ago, but I feel I need to respond to it.

1. Some historians agree that Mayans ritualistically bludgeoned people to death. Many other historians do not agree. The subject is highly debated and there is no one definitive answer one way or the other. Did you even read my comment or do you assume I just come to SM to hate on people? I actually enjoy foxpamela's work, but lines like this without any sort of (factual) interpretation can and often do alienate readers. That's not something you can dispute.

2. Pivoting savagery, jungle images and a false interpretation of what Mayan rituals actually mean is irresponsible as a writer.

3. I've never considered myself bitter or myopic, but, like the rating system here at StoryMash, that's all open to interpretation.

Kabrams,
Listen to yourself ramble on about this, and maybe you will see it my way. Foxpamela wrote a work of fiction. In this work of fiction, she used some imagery that may or may not be historical fact. You agree that the subject of ritual killing in Mayan culture has no definitive answer. If foxpamela chooses to believe that Mayans did, in fact, ritualistically bludgeon people to death, is she not at liberty to express that belief in a work of fiction? For whatever reason, you are offended by her interpretation of history, and her choice of words in a work of fiction. This reminds me very much of the criticism that erupted after “The Passion of The Christ” came out in theaters. A bunch of overzealous people suddenly decided they were offended by Gibson's interpretation of history, and the way he expressed his subsequent work of fiction.
So what do we do about it? Do people have the right to shoot their mouth off every time they come across something that offends them? Yes, they have the right. But is it constructive or meaningful to chime in every time they are offended by another's interpretation or method of expression? I say no it is not. I say, save your protests for those that set out with the intention of offending. If you read foxpamela's work, and you genuinely believe she set out to offend the indigenous people of South America as well as the ancestors of those indigenous people, then by all means, continue your argument. Otherwise see it for what it really is—a few excerpts from a work of fiction that may or may not be historical fact.

Let me explain it to you like this.

No one really knows what Jesus looked like except for the people who knew him, but throughout Western cinematic history, there has been a tendency for directors to portray Jesus as a white man, often with light colored hair or blue eyes and long-flowing hair. Mel Gibson himself used a white man with brown contacts and long, flowing hair to portray Jesus. Now, are Arabs white? Some say yes. Do some Arabs have blue eyes? Some, yes. Could Jesus have been a white man with blue eyes? Perhaps. The more probable is that Jesus had short hair, tan to dark skin and brown eyes. Yet that image is RARELY used. The dominant, Western image of Jesus has been a white man, and that image continues to be used, despite its improbability. That irritates me--not because the artist uses his or her artistic expression to depict Jesus, but because the artist choses to stay within the boundaries of this twisted, biased version of what Jesus looked like.

..

Now take foxpamela's depiction of people "in jungles South of here" and then her use of the word "Mayan" to describe a group of people who, in today's world, do not stand on pyramids or bash people's heads in. This is perhaps the most widespread depiction of Maya, which may or may not even be true--and it is probably more false than it is true. Conjuring up this image of a jungle brute Mayan sacrificing people is easy, because this stereotype already exists and has been used and overused. Easy. That's what upset me. The ridiculous overuse of tired stereotypes of groups of people who have traditionally been seen as exotic, brutes and/or animals. For what? A split second depiction of a domestic abuser?

..

You say you should only be offended if the original author intended to offend. That's like saying women shouldn't be angry at misogynistic portrayals of women in the comics because the male writers don't mean to offend, or that black people shouldn't be offended by Sambo and Mammy caricatures because the artists didn't mean to offend. That's just plain ridiculous, and reminds me of the "blame the victim" mentality. "It wouldn't be a big deal if you didn't make it a big deal..."

Kabrams,
According to record, seventeen people have voted on the story, Hammers and Canyons. Nobody else felt compelled to object to the imagery. Have you considered the possibility that your opinion might be the anomaly here?
Also, I would like to know why you choose to dismiss the idea of human sacrifice in Mayan culture. You claim it is nothing more than a stereotype, but a widely accepted model of pre-Columbian Meso-America supports the theory with volumes of forensic data. To dismiss this theory you must first dismiss the research of archaeological, and anthropological juggernauts like Leonardo Lopez Lujan, Carmen Pijoan, and David Stuart.
While there are dissenting theories about the number of pre-Columbian human sacrifices in Meso-America, one cannot dispute that cleaved, crushed, and carbonized human remains have been discovered in burial pits on Aztec and Mayan sites. Forensic evidence shows that many of these remains are from children.
Furthermore, the wounds that are apparent on these human skeletal remains are consistent with Aztec and Mayan codices that depict various methods of human sacrifice including, burning, bludgeoning, and butchering.
Kabrams, you're a big boy now and you can believe in what ever you want. I choose to believe in Science. I also believe in the First Amendment, and I believe people who petition authors and artists to change their work for the sake of sensitivity are more dangerous than warlords and terrorists. They might even be as dangerous as a blue eyed Jesus.

Whether my opinion is an "anomaly" or not is irrelevant. We're not talking about any other people who liked Hammers and Crayons. Have you ever thought that I might actually think she's a "good" writer? Unlike some, I find no problem with giving someone criticism while maintaining they are good writers. But that's not the issue, so let's not derail from the point.
..
You wrote, such "anthropological juggernauts" as Leonardo Lopez Lujan, Carmen Pijoan and David Stuart...Are you kiddng me? Pardon me, but I did a quick google search using their names and what do you know? The very first site to come up was an article titled "Evidence May Back Human Sacrifice Claims" Oh, boy. I also love how you throw in the "codices" bit. Tsk, tsk. You get an A+ for google research, but an F- for reading comprehension, Their research addresses the points I made against the use of a "brute" on top of a pyramid bashing people's heads in. If you go back and re-read what I wrote(which I strongly suggest you do) you'll notice I state that 1. Mayan sacrifice was not done routinely on top of pyramids and 2. the sacrificer would be the glory of his nation, the SACRIFICED would. Again, pivoting this image of a brute on top of a pyramid is an easy stereotype to write, because it's been around for ages and ages...and ages. Was the metaphor poorly written? No. Was the imagery stereotypical and annoying? To me, yes.
..
As a parting note, there is no first amendment issue here. Maybe you should use your google-fu and research what the first amendment does, who it protects and why. I never asked the author to change her work, and NEVER would, but then again, it's probably much easier for you to break out that useful strawman than actually consider the possibility that I have a legitimate concern. Anyway, this is probably my last comment on the subject. Judging from your "terrorist and warlords" comment this conversation is about to take a serious nosedive into Godwin's Law. And I never want to be part of such a stupid conversation. :D

Kabrams,

You posted six responses to “Hammers and Canyons” before I felt compelled to demonstrate my point of view. Your criticisms turned into full blown rants by your fourth post wherein you write, “But why would I expect you to take this seriously? It seems to me like you're content making stories about housewives in fruitless and loveless marriages. Good luck with that.” There is no scholarly or scientific merit to that statement. It is uncalled for and counter productive.
Likewise, your criticism of my Google search seems to be dangerously close to another rant. I Googled the names David Stuart and Leonardo Lopez Lujan because they are credited as contributing authors in two texts that I own. The books are titled, “The Memory of Bones,”
and “Tenochtitlan.” And yes, I did read the article titled, “Evidence May Back Human Sacrifice Claims.” I enjoyed the article, and a number of others on the same topic.
David Stuart and Leonardo Lopez Lujan are widely published and widely respected on all matters Meso-American. That's why I cited them and their research. Admittedly, I was not at all familiar with Carmen Pijoan when I came across the name, but I was fascinated by Pijoan's research and looked into it deeper. I came across another article. It is titled, “New Findings Change Thinking on Human Sacrifices.” The second paragraph begins, “In recent years, archaeologists have been uncovering mounting physical evidence that corroborates the Spanish accounts [of human sacrifices] in substance, if not number.” Kabrams, the article goes on to provide graphic accounts of brutality to humans in Meso-America, and it provides hard, scientific evidence to back it up.
Take a minute to read over your early comments on “Hammers and Canyons.” You write to foxpamela, “And as a so called writer, you should have no problem understanding how written stereotypes often have a negative impact on your readership.” You go on to say, “...I left you a very nice comment on your piece...but you ruined that sentiment by relying on stereotypes to convey a message that would be more powerful without them.” Kabrams, your insistence that Mayan brutality is a stereotype is what started this extended debate. You haven't even bothered to do a Google search to support your idea that this is a stereotype. Instead, you go on asserting your opinion like it's fact. If you want anybody to take you seriously, go ahead and cite a reputable source (Hint: the voices in your head don't count as a reputable source).
The only thing you have bothered to cite so far is an obscure reference to Mike Godwin, and you only used that to back out of the debate. Anyway, I never had you pegged as the Hitler type. You're more of a Kim Jong-il.

Well, then, Stav. I am working on revisions and I would be greatful for your critical opinion when that is finished, if you would offer it. Thanks.

I'll keep an eye out for the revisions, and I'll throw in my two cents. I'm looking forward to it...

Stavlocratz, I didn't expect that you would still be around. My email address is foxpamela@yahoo.com if you want chat off storymash.

Kabrams, this metaphor doesn't insult anybody. Mayans, pagans, high priestesses of soul or anybody else. Every culture has an outlet for the compulsion to kill and there is evidence that this culture, some jungle-dwelling, pyramid-climbing culture, did so with some intent of social and self-preservation which is what this character did, not an altogether bad reason to justify destruction. Nonetheless it's out of context in the suburbs and defeats its purpose. Furthermore, the metaphor might work but it doesn't fit in the piece. Not to mention the ending is weak and the title sucks. If you're going to bother responding, make it useful. And you know what else? You hurt my feelings with the remark that I seem to be "content making stories about housewives in fruitless and loveless marriages". First of all, it's not true. And second of all, **** you. Why would you attack or shame me based on the content of my writing, whether it's about disgruntled housewives or murder detectives or science fiction superheroes? You didn't have to make it personal. I think I deserve an apology.