"American Dirt:" Cultural Appropriation, Polemical Fiction?

"In contemporary literary circles, there is a serious and legitimate sensitivity to people writing about heritages that are not their own because, at its worst, this practice perpetuates the evils of colonization, stealing the stories of oppressed people for the profit of the dominant."

That paragraph jumped out at me when it read Lauren Groff's review of the recent, rather controversial novel "American Dirt," by Jeanine Cummings, because it seemed to call into question the fundamental nature of fiction: it's invented so no holds barred.

Here's the very first thing the contemporary God of Knowledge, Wikipedia, has to say about it: "Fiction generally is a narrative form, in any medium, consisting of people, events, or places that are imaginary—in other words, not based strictly on history or fact."

Let's repeat that: not based strictly on history or fact.

So, whether "American Dirt" gets Mexican culture right or not doesn't matter. No one has to read -- or finish reading this book.  On the other hand, if you like the story whatever you think about the verisimilitude of the setting (how about any number of movies?), you can brush aside certain perceived shortcomings.  Groff said that despite her objections, weeks after reading "American Dirt," the story remained alive in her.

Novels are arguably mostly written to provide entertainment for readers and income for authors. But according to Groff, not all of them.  "American Dirt," she argues, falls into a category known as polemical fiction -- in effect, propaganda masquerading as literature. Polemical fiction, Groff says, is designed to make its readers act in a way that corresponds to the writer's vision and in her view, the purpose of "American Dirt" is "fiercely polemical."

If then, it is essentially propaganda, why was it  awarded a full-page review in the Jan. 26, 2020 New York Times Sunday "Book Review" section? Perhaps like the old comic strip "Pogo," which some newspapers eventually banished to the op-ed pages, Groff's review should have experienced a similar fate.

I wonder how she might characterize certain of Charles Dicken's novels, or Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness?"

But, then, when I first sent drafts my novella "Gina/Diane," which centers on a botched abortion, to female friends for comment, some were quick to see it as polemical, or to argue that if could be so interpreted even if I didn't intend it to be. But arguments could go either way, I pointed out. Because Gina's abortion had not gone well and had life-long consequences, it could be seen as a treatise against a woman's right to choose.  But it could also be seen as an argument in favor of safe, legal abortion procedures.

But what about perpetuating the evils of colonization by writing a story about a culture that is not one's own? I think I'll leave that one for another day -- and perhaps put on a CD of Puccini's opera "Madam Butterfly" to help me get through the pandemic.