White Indiana Dude is Published under Chinese Pseudonym

[Batou667]

How deliciously twisted and thorny this topic is.

Hold on a sec, if he couldn't get published under a name denoting one ethnicity and could under another, how can you categorically state he wasn't using it to avoid systemic discrimination?

Good bloody point. How is it logically consistent to say that a woman or minority using a white-male-sounding pen name is "avoiding systemic discrimination" but a white guy using a different name to access the exact same benefit (namely: more exposure, getting published, selling more work) is a shitty or deceptive move, or even "cultural appropriation"? If positive discrimination is in play, then being a white male is clearly no longer the most advantageous state, at least not in all contexts.

Seems to me that there's a game being played here and the smart writers are the ones who play it best, i.e. adapt their image to what publishers want to see. The bias being exhibited by the publishers is the real issue that should be addressed.

While I don't agree with Victoria Chang that what he did was unethical...

No idea who Victoria Chang is, but let's pretend I think it's unethical for her use a Western forename. We should be enforcing strict, essentialist naming conventions here! Who is she trying to kid, making her name ethnically ambiguous?

 

[BytByte]

How deliciously twisted and thorny this topic is.

Hold on a sec, if he couldn't get published under a name denoting one ethnicity and could under another, how can you categorically state he wasn't using it to avoid systemic discrimination?

Good bloody point. How is it logically consistent to say that a woman or minority using a white-male-sounding pen name is "avoiding systemic discrimination" but a white guy using a different name to access the exact same benefit (namely: more exposure, getting published, selling more work) is a shitty or deceptive move, or even "cultural appropriation"? If positive discrimination is in play, then being a white male is clearly no longer the most advantageous state, at least not in all contexts.

Seems to me that there's a game being played here and the smart writers are the ones who play it best, i.e. adapt their image to what publishers want to see. The bias being exhibited by the publishers is the real issue that should be addressed.

While I don't agree with Victoria Chang that what he did was unethical...

No idea who Victoria Chang is, but let's pretend I think it's unethical for her use a Western forename. We should be enforcing strict, essentialist naming conventions here! Who is she trying to kid, making her name ethnically ambiguous?

That's part of the interesting thing of the story. Usually it's more disenfranchised people (women, minorities) using it to imitate a man, and this time it's the opposite.

Chang is the person they interviewed in the article who is a Chinese American poet and professor.

Just when you think people can't get upset over anymore stupid, pointless bullshit...you guys are always here to prove me wrong.

I'm sorry we upset you. Maybe if you joined in the conversation you'd see no on is upset, but everyone is just parsing the information in a different way.

 

[Something Amyss]

In this case it seemed to work.

Did it? According to Hudson, he's been published in BAP 5 times. 4 of them didn't rely on this controversy.

Hold on a sec, if he couldn't get published under a name denoting one ethnicity and could under another, how can you categorically state he wasn't using it to avoid systemic discrimination?

I know, right? Dude has only been published in BAP 5 times. He's a regarded and published poet that, while I can't speak to the quality of, has had no real systemic issue publishing in the past. Are you going to argue a single positive indicates there is a systematic persecution of white men?

Because if a single piece being published indicates systemic bias, I've got a lovely background in writing to talk about.

This happens all the time with female writers pretending to be male.

And you don't need to look very hard to see why.
http://jezebel.com/homme-de-plume-what-i-learned-sending-my-novel-out-und-1720637627

Now, that just hints at outright prejudice.

This, on the other hand, seems to happen a lot.

And on the note of personal anecdotes, one of my altar egos gets a lot more responses than the other. Of course, in my case, I border on a cartoon supervillain, so take that for what you will.

From what I understand he tried to get his poem published under his real name and was rejected 20 times, while under the pseudonym he was able to get published after 9 attempts.

Have you ever tried to get published? It took me more tries to even get a rejection letter than it too Stephanie Meyers to land a book deal, but that doesn't mean much. Some pretty notable authors have had trouble getting published while some hacks have had no issue falling into success. The relevant thing, I would think, is that the guy who accepted him admitted that the name biased him. This specific guy.

Bad reasons include having women publish under a man's name in Cosmopolitan because it lends credulity to the "7 Things That Drive Him Crazy In Bed" articles.

*shudders*

How is it logically consistent to say that a woman or minority using a white-male-sounding pen name is "avoiding systemic discrimination" but a white guy using a different name to access the exact same benefit (namely: more exposure, getting published, selling more work)

Well, except we're not talking more work. We're talking to get your foot in the door at all. Which Hudson, an accomplished poet, has no need to do. Not even here, in this case. To equate the two is to already load the deck. Guy was upset because a specific poem didn't get the recohnition he felt it deserved (feelz before realz) and I'm guessing that has some credibility, if he had to rely on the charm of his false ethnicity to get it published.

When you're talking about doing the opposite, you're talking about trying to not stand out or get a leg up, but be judged on your own merits. That sort of shake is something a lot of minorities simply don't get.

No idea who Victoria Chang is

Personally, I find it better to at least read the article posted to start discussion. I find it better to do research on a subject before forming an opinion anyway, but at the very least, one can look at what one is provided.

I would say the person picking the poem is the one who made a mistake.

Well, yes, he's the one who made the mistake in that he's the only one who wasn't deliberate. But his selection process was no mistake, and this should indeed reflect upon his selection process, period.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

To everyone taking exception to his pseudonym, you're entitled to your opinion. But you'll have to know that he was right. It took less than a quarter of the time to get that poem published. The editor who picked it even said as such.

 

[Something Amyss]

It took less than a quarter of the time to get that poem published. The editor who picked it even said as such.

The editor said it would have taken four times longer with his real name? I'd like to see a source on that. Only thing I've seen is that this specific editor admitted that he selected the poem based (in part) on an assumption of ethnicity. Not quite the same, and I'm betting you know better.

 

[BytByte]

Did it? According to Hudson, he's been published in BAP 5 times. 4 of them didn't rely on this controversy.

Well according to Alexie himself, yes it did. "Bluntly stated, I was more amenable to the poem because I thought the author was Chinese American?

 

[crimson5pheonix]

It took less than a quarter of the time to get that poem published. The editor who picked it even said as such.

The editor said it would have taken four times longer with his real name? I'd like to see a source on that. Only thing I've seen is that this specific editor admitted that he selected the poem based (in part) on an assumption of ethnicity. Not quite the same, and I'm betting you know better.

He applied with that poem under his own name 40 times. It took 10 tries under the pseudonym. Probably different editors though. That's not what I meant, but that's ambiguous phrasing on my part.

 

[Sarge034]

To everyone taking exception to his pseudonym, you're entitled to your opinion. But you'll have to know that he was right. It took less than a quarter of the time to get that poem published. The editor who picked it even said as such.

And that's the real problem here. There are legit reasons to use a pseudonym, but this only proves... well... let's just say "other things".

 

[EyeReaper]

You guys disagreeing with Mr. Hudson here are a bunch of transraciphobes. This poor Asian man didn't choose to be born in the body of a white person. Race, like gender, is just a social construct by the patriarchy, and I applaud this brave TransChinese for taking the first step towards transracism awareness.

No, I wasn't really serious about that. It was a joke.

In all seriousness, this shouldn't be a controversy. If it was an Asian guy trying to pose as a white guy, no one would care. I think what we should look into is the connotations of automatically assuming an Asiany sounding name to be used by a chinese guy, as if parents can't name their kid of any race and gender whatever the hell they want anyways.

 

[kitsunefather]

...I do think that Hudson did trivialize the difficulties non-white people face in American Poetry. It's a yucky case where someone truly Chinese American or otherwise didn't get their work published to show they are just as good as the louder voices in the poetry world.

Did he? And didn't they? He got published because they believed he was non-white; does this really trivialize the difficulties non-whites face in American Poetry?

See, to me at least, it does the opposite. It sheds light on the idea that non-white people have an easier time getting published in American Poetry, to the point that a white author needed to write under an ethnic pen name in order to get his work read. As has been said, he's published elsewhere, so this isn't a "get his foot in the door scenario".

But read the article; I'll fully quote the part you mention:

"I did exactly what that pseudonym-user feared other editors had done to him in the past: I paid more initial attention to his poem because of my perception and misperception of the poet's identity. Bluntly stated, I was more amenable to the poem because I thought the author was Chinese American," wrote Alexie.

He admits that he judged it more on the ethnicity of the writer than the content (though he did ultimately choose to keep it included in the anthology). Sherman Alexie seems to feel that this was wrong on his own part.

As to other non-whites or Chinese-Americans not getting published, this isn't an anthology of Chinese-American Poetry; it's an anthology called "Best American Poetry." There's no guarantee (if the names were not on the work while being judged, obviously) that a Chinese-American author would get in, though it's also not unlikely. What I'm saying is, he didn't go in (as far as I know) saying, "we need 5 Chinese, 2 Japanese, and three Mexicans." He was looking at work. So, because he selected one author he perceived to be Chinese-American, it does not mean that he specifically ignored the work of another.

I don't know, maybe I'm just getting old and curmudgeonly. To me, the work should be judged by the work, not by perceptions about the author in most cases. If it was "unethical" for the author to work under a pen name, then for me, it was just as "unethical" for the selecting editor to use ethnicity as a guideline in selections.

I'll close on Alexie's last words in the article:

Alexie wrote, "And I am pondering what all of this reveals about my identity ? perceived, actual, and imaginary. And I hope that you, as readers and writers, continue to debate The Yi-Fen Chou Problem and my decision to keep the poem in the anthology."

 

[Batou667]

Well, except we're not talking more work. We're talking to get your foot in the door at all.

More work, one bit of work as opposed to zero, a foot in the door; all equivalent as far as I'm concerned.

When you're talking about doing the opposite, you're talking about trying to not stand out or get a leg up, but be judged on your own merits. That sort of shake is something a lot of minorities simply don't get.

But he was given preferential treatment for having a minority-sounding pen name. Can't you see how that goes against the "minorities have it worse" angle you're coming from?

Personally, I find it better to at least read the article posted to start discussion. I find it better to do research on a subject before forming an opinion anyway, but at the very least, one can look at what one is provided.

Not really, I don't think it's particularly important to know who Victoria Chang is. Not to the degree of "researching" her, anyway. The salient facts here are that a) she disagrees with trans-ethnic pen names, b) she is Chinese-American (I googled that much) and c) she herself has a name usually associated with a different ethnicity, which I think is a hilarious irony.

 

[l33t.heathen]

If nothing else this just emphasizes the problem of identity politics. When someone's work is judged not on the work itself and instead by the person who made it we have a problem. Look at anita. Even though many disagree with her work its impossible to have a discussion because it immediately degrades into accusations of sexism and misogyny. How do we fix it? By putting on our big boy (or girl) pants (or other form of appropriate ethnic attire) and growing the hell up.

 

[Zykon TheLich_v1legacy]

Eh, that kinda shit's been happening for years. You've heard of Jane Austen? A huge Yorkshireman with a beard the size of a rhododendron bush.

 

[BytByte]

Did he? And didn't they? He got published because they believed he was non-white; does this really trivialize the difficulties non-whites face in American Poetry?

See, to me at least, it does the opposite. It sheds light on the idea that non-white people have an easier time getting published in American Poetry, to the point that a white author needed to write under an ethnic pen name in order to get his work read. As has been said, he's published elsewhere, so this isn't a "get his foot in the door scenario".

But read the article; I'll fully quote the part you mention:

"I did exactly what that pseudonym-user feared other editors had done to him in the past: I paid more initial attention to his poem because of my perception and misperception of the poet's identity. Bluntly stated, I was more amenable to the poem because I thought the author was Chinese American," wrote Alexie.

He admits that he judged it more on the ethnicity of the writer than the content (though he did ultimately choose to keep it included in the anthology). Sherman Alexie seems to feel that this was wrong on his own part.

As to other non-whites or Chinese-Americans not getting published, this isn't an anthology of Chinese-American Poetry; it's an anthology called "Best American Poetry." There's no guarantee (if the names were not on the work while being judged, obviously) that a Chinese-American author would get in, though it's also not unlikely. What I'm saying is, he didn't go in (as far as I know) saying, "we need 5 Chinese, 2 Japanese, and three Mexicans." He was looking at work. So, because he selected one author he perceived to be Chinese-American, it does not mean that he specifically ignored the work of another.

I don't know, maybe I'm just getting old and curmudgeonly. To me, the work should be judged by the work, not by perceptions about the author in most cases. If it was "unethical" for the author to work under a pen name, then for me, it was just as "unethical" for the selecting editor to use ethnicity as a guideline in selections.

I'll close on Alexie's last words in the article:

Alexie wrote, "And I am pondering what all of this reveals about my identity ? perceived, actual, and imaginary. And I hope that you, as readers and writers, continue to debate The Yi-Fen Chou Problem and my decision to keep the poem in the anthology."

One part the article left out (it was also a radio interview for PRI's The World) is how Chang stated that in her experiences it is not the case for Chinese Americans to be included, but the opposite. I'm in agreement with you that in this instance diversity for diversity's sake prevailed, which I think should not be done.

The story highlights that it can happen, like the Sad Puppies but with an actual basis in fact. And worst of all it is inadvertently saying that Chinese American poetry is not on the same level as the rest of American poetry because it was chosen

Hudson's work being selected shows the inherent biases even people with good intentions have. It wasn't published when he was white, but was when he was Chinese. And that's unfortunate for every Chinese American poet.

And I did not say anything about Hudson being unethical, that was Chang, who I agree with on some points but not others. I think what he did was shitty, but I guess he also deserves some credit for bringing problems like this to light.

This issue is complicated.

 

[kitsunefather]

And that's unfortunate for every Chinese American poet.

Well, right now, we have anecdotal evidence (in the form of societal impressions and Chang's experience) of Asian-Americans being passed over for publication based on race.

On the other hand, we have a clear and specific case of a person who, when submitting the exact same work, is only published while it has a Chinese-American name on it.

I'm not saying there hasn't been racism in the past, and that there aren't racist publication choices being made in American Poetry. What I'm saying is, isn't this a sign that perhaps there isn't as much as we're being led to believe, or that it is in the decline? That perhaps there isn't as much of a bias towards the publication of white authors, given this white author had to use a Chinese pen name in order to have this piece of work included?

And in the end, I'm still confused as to how anything in this specific case (barring Chang's anecdotes) is "unfortunate for every Chinese American poet." If anything, it suggests that they are more likely to be published by virtue of their name. Is the argument that this will give incentive to more white authors to "steal" publication slots by using pen names? Is it that this will remove incentive for Chinese-American authors to improve, with the reveal that their names are potentially just as likely to get their work noticed as its quality?

Or is the suggestion that in this case, since the author will still be published, that he somehow stole a slot from a Chinese-American author? That because they liked his work when he was perceived to be non-white, it somehow (inexplicably) suggests that white authors are better than non-whites?

Was this a dick move on the part of Hudson? To an extent, yes. In the end however, it did show (and Alexie admits as much) that this work in particular was given a chance because of the perception of the author being Chinese-American. In that vein, was he wrong to do it? If I understood the article, Hudson outed himself after his work got chosen; he didn't try to conceal his identity until after publication, and they could have easily pulled the work if they chose.

Eh. I'm pretty sure it's clear where I stand for the most part. My main confusion is how this story in any way damages Chinese-American (or any non-white or white) Poets; for me it instead damages the perception I have of the publishing industry, and challenges the idea of how pervasive racial prejudice really is in publishing.

 

[Pirate Of PC Master race]

We live in the world where being(or known to be) in the certain ethnic, cultural or gender background definitely gives the more influence over the others who isn't.

In the case such as this, there will be a people who will take advantage over this. Not only this natural, but also inevitable; Some people will always abuse the environment for their own gain.
Who is to blame when we, the majority of the readers are the ones who apply such prejudice in action?

 

[Ihateregistering1]

This whole thing is friggin hysterical.

For starters, using a pseudonym is sort of irrelevant (except maybe as far as gender is concerned). Legally speaking, he could have gone to the courts and had his name changed to damn near whatever the hell he wanted, so if he was that determined he could have legally changed his Yi-Fen Chou and then published his work under his actual, legal name. And then we would have to listen to some people ***** about 'cultural appropriation".

2nd, I think it's pretty ingenious of him to use an Asian name as his pseudonym. If he had picked a stereotypical 'black' or 'hispanic' name, the shouts of "RACIST!!" would have drowned out everything, but by picking an Asian name, he avoids much of that thanks to Asians having largely been very successful in the US, and thus are often left out of conversations of institutional racism.

3rd, it puts the ball in the racist's court. If an Asian author had chosen a 'white' pseudonym in order to get published, the complaints are simple: the Asian author couldn't get published with their traditional Asian name, thus they used a a white name because of racism. But now that the roles are largely reversed: white author used an Asian name to get published (or at least published more quickly) it throws a monkey wrench into the whole simplistic argument. I mean, if being white means being born on 3rd base already, why would you fake being anything else?

It's also worth noting that for all the people crying foul about women taking men's names to get published, it's actually quite common for men to take women's names to get romance novels published. And before you tut-tut this as being a small part of the pie, romance novels are actually a multi-billion dollar industry, and are bar-none the largest portion of the literary industry:
http://www.npr.org/2014/02/09/273148888/romance-novels-sweep-readers-off-their-feet-with-predictability
http://airshipdaily.com/blog/the-secret-lives-of-male-romance-novelists
http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/new-titles/adult-announcements/article/52473-yes-virgil-there-are-men-writing-romance-focus-on-romance-2012.html

 

[Sleepy Sol]

What difficulties have you researched for ethnic minorities in American literature and poetry? It's not an issue I can see being particularly prevalent, except for the fact that we have someone admitting that having a greater likelihood of being published depends on your assumed race and not the actual quality of your fucking work. But I admit I'm not well-researched on the subject and would appreciate some information about it if anyone's got it.

I'm inclined to agree somewhat about pseudonym use when it comes to gender, in any case. As said already, there are good and bad examples, and a lot of assumptions can and still will be made today when it comes to literature based on the gender of the author. Which is ridiculous, of course, but also seemingly a problem more worthy of addressing when it comes to inequality than this particular incident.

The shittiest thing about this guy was that he lied to get published, but I wouldn't even call it a particularly heinous lie at all. How does his use of the pseudonym lessen or demean other Asian-American authors' work? Is there any concrete evidence for it? Because I just can't see it.

 

[Buckets]

If it helped him get published in this overly PC world we now live in, then good for him. If the actual publisher had done some research into the person who wrote it they would have felt differently I guess. Doesn't mean the poem(s) were not well written, but I don't see why having a Chinese name attached would make it any better, except to tick the race box.

 

[BrokenTinker]

I actually applaud this guy, I am chinese and well aware of the double standards in place that was never there before. Before, anything non-generic sounding and default-ish have a hard time publishing. Going from the past to the present, the more complicated your name is, the less likely you will be published (outside education text).

All the people that seems to scream racist on our behalf don't understand how racist chinese are or how racist THEY are for presuming they can speak for us. What these self-righteous hypocrite don't seem to understand is that EVERYONE is bloody racist and it's how we address that bias and NOT letting it affect our decisions making and actions that is important. The so-called colourblind that has been the target of the PC/SJW crowd is the best way to address racism, as it judges something based on merit instead of origin.

1) Would you let a cis-white male doctor with credential, proper education, immaculate office to check your health?

2) Would you let a chinese-lesbian female doctor with no credential, learned medicine from dramas, working out of a randomly thrown together shack to check your health?

Now swap the cis-white male <=> chinese-lesbian female, does it change your option? Now remove those identifier all together, does it change your option? If you option stayed on 1 this entire time, this means you are colourblind. I don't give a damn if you are from some disadvantaged background or what not, I only care if you can take care of my health. My dwelling. My transportation My entertainment.

If your option changed, congratulation, you are enforcing racism! You care more about the identifier than the qualification.

Sadly, this case proves that the word is becoming MORE racist due to these affirmative action, cause it's implying the same work (quite literally in this case), that a chinese american's work is somehow more "special" than a white american's work, despite being the same work.

I certainly agree with Chang on quite a few points, but wow, how is this even a controversy.