Debate over Touching Bear Spirit

A Review of Ben Mikaelsen's TOUCHING SPIRIT BEARTouching Spirit Bear is fatally flawed by Mikaelsen’s inexcusable playing around with Tlingit culture, cosmology and ritual; and his abysmal lack of understanding of traditional banishment. It is obvious that what he doesn’t know, he invents. Edwin, the Tlingit elder, instructs Cole to: jump into the icy cold water and stay there as long as possible; pick up a heavy rock (called the “ancestor rock”) and carry it to the top of a hill; push the rock (now called the “anger rock”) back down the hill; watch for animals and dance around the fire to impersonate the animal he sees (called the “bear dance,” “bird dance,” “mouse dance,” etc.); announce what he’s learned about the characteristics of that animal from his dance; and finally, carve that animal on his own personal “totem pole.”Response from Ben Mikaelson re TOUCHING SPIRIT BEARAs for my accuracy in Touching Spirit Bear, I stand by what I've written and can defend every word. The Tlingit culture was peripheral to my story so there was no need to go into cultural aspects in great depth. Anybody familiar with any of the First Nation Cultures knows that their cultures are very complex and a person can spend a lifetime learning all the nuances. This was not possible or necessary for my purposes. This said, all of the healing methods portrayed, carrying the ancestor rocks, dancing the dances, carving the totems, turning the clothes inside out, soaking the ponds, breaking the sticks of anger, etc., all were shared with me by a First Nation spiritual leader.(Excerpted from Debbie Reese's American Indians in Children's Literature, 5/10/08.)

Comment:  Here's how I responded to Mikaelson's defense of himself:Mikaelson writes, "All of the healing methods portrayed, carrying the ancestor rocks, dancing the dances, carving the totems, turning the clothes inside out, soaking the ponds, breaking the sticks of anger, etc., all were shared with me by a First Nation spiritual leader." Is that it? Was this spiritual leader a Tlingit? Did Mikaelson verify these methods in written sources or with Tlingit authorities?

Not that he indicates. If we take him at his word, he got the most questionable bits in his book from exactly one source who may not have been Tlingit. If that's supposed to be persuasive, it isn't.But more interesting is this exchange with Anonymous, one of the commenters:Why do fiction books have to be read by "experts" before being published? It's not claiming to teach about Native culture. Why does everything have to be analyzed to death?My response:  Why do fiction books have to be read by "experts"? Well, why do fiction authors have to research the history and culture they write about? Why not just make up everything?

For example, God created the earth in 4000 BC. Cavemen coexisted with dinosaurs. George Washington was a transvestite. Santa Claus is a pedophile. The pope is the anti-Christ. Americans long for another 9/11. Indians are merciless savages. Etc.

If accuracy in fiction doesn't matter, are all these things okay? In a grotesque parody or satire, perhaps, but not in a work based on reality. Reality demands a measure of accuracy.

So the answer to Anonymous's "why" is because accuracy is the right thing to do. And because parents, teachers, and librarians demand it. Publishers want to sell authentic books and readers want to buy them.