No, the fact that you kept the slash content of your story firmly in the realm of subtext is not relevant to the issue of racism... but I never said it was. It's a simple fact that would be relevant to most people who might go look at your story based on what I say about it. The fact that your story is also otherwise well-written -- which I pointed out more than once -- isn't relevant to the racism in the story, either.
I can see that you have done some research into the Dutch colonial period of Indonesia's history, but frankly that makes some of the authorial choices in your story all the more perplexing. (For the record, I received a fine university-level grounding in Indonesian history when I lived in Holland; the texts were all in Dutch, and almost universally either written by Indonesians or at the very least heavily influenced by the post-independence Indonesian perspective. It's likely much of our difference of opinion derives from our working from different source materials.)
You're right, puputan was not intended to be taken as an act of passive resistance by the Balinese; but neither were they ignorant of the way certain segments of Dutch (and Western) society would interpret it. The instance you cite was, after all, one of the most significant factors in the development of the 'Ethical Policy' reform movement. But yes, it was much more about preserving honour by dying a warrior's death. Even in war, the Balinese were concerned with honourable behaviour; they fought quite seriously against the Dutch when they weren't going out to die. Blowing up an entire steamship, however, a vessel which doubtless would have carried innocent women and children, as well as (likely) complicitous Dutch men, and cargo related to Dutch subjugation of the 'East Indies,' would not have been an honourable act. And a Balinese conspiracy to blow up the ship makes even less sense if the intent is to assassinate the ambassador, since with Wayan in his household there would be a near-infinite number of opportunities to do so which would be either more certain of successfully killing him, more likely to sour Dutch-English relations, or both.
You describe your own invention of a successful Balinese spy as implausible (though on that point, ironically, I disagree). What I still can't figure out is why you chose to include (and malign) the Balinese in your story at all. Conan Doyle's, or Watson's, passing reference to 'the shocking affair of the Dutch steamship "Friesland", which so nearly cost us both our lives' in The Adventure of the Norwood Builder does not specifically suggest any Dutch East Indies connection. It would be pointless to complain that Conan Doyle should have known better than to have written stories that were racist, or sexist; he was a product of his times as much as Holmes and Watson were. This excuse does not work for modern writers, even when they choose to write in a late-nineteenth-century millieu.
I stand by everything I've said, though I never expected you to agree with all (or any) of it.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2004-01-02 05:27 pm (UTC)I can see that you have done some research into the Dutch colonial period of Indonesia's history, but frankly that makes some of the authorial choices in your story all the more perplexing. (For the record, I received a fine university-level grounding in Indonesian history when I lived in Holland; the texts were all in Dutch, and almost universally either written by Indonesians or at the very least heavily influenced by the post-independence Indonesian perspective. It's likely much of our difference of opinion derives from our working from different source materials.)
You're right, puputan was not intended to be taken as an act of passive resistance by the Balinese; but neither were they ignorant of the way certain segments of Dutch (and Western) society would interpret it. The instance you cite was, after all, one of the most significant factors in the development of the 'Ethical Policy' reform movement. But yes, it was much more about preserving honour by dying a warrior's death. Even in war, the Balinese were concerned with honourable behaviour; they fought quite seriously against the Dutch when they weren't going out to die. Blowing up an entire steamship, however, a vessel which doubtless would have carried innocent women and children, as well as (likely) complicitous Dutch men, and cargo related to Dutch subjugation of the 'East Indies,' would not have been an honourable act. And a Balinese conspiracy to blow up the ship makes even less sense if the intent is to assassinate the ambassador, since with Wayan in his household there would be a near-infinite number of opportunities to do so which would be either more certain of successfully killing him, more likely to sour Dutch-English relations, or both.
You describe your own invention of a successful Balinese spy as implausible (though on that point, ironically, I disagree). What I still can't figure out is why you chose to include (and malign) the Balinese in your story at all. Conan Doyle's, or Watson's, passing reference to 'the shocking affair of the Dutch steamship "Friesland", which so nearly cost us both our lives' in The Adventure of the Norwood Builder does not specifically suggest any Dutch East Indies connection. It would be pointless to complain that Conan Doyle should have known better than to have written stories that were racist, or sexist; he was a product of his times as much as Holmes and Watson were. This excuse does not work for modern writers, even when they choose to write in a late-nineteenth-century millieu.
I stand by everything I've said, though I never expected you to agree with all (or any) of it.