Dear Neil, Well! I must say first of all that I like your contortionist Mother Eve! I’ve seen some of those things done at the Underground Circus and I’ve been very impressed – one of those women made my hand wave at everyone in the room, and even Selim could hardly believe afterwards that I hadn’t done it myself. I suppose lots of things in the ancient scriptures can be accounted for that way. And I see what you’ve done with Tunde – I’m sure something like that has happened to thousands of men down the generations. Misattributions, anonymous work assumed to be female, men helping their wives or sisters or mothers with their work and getting no credit, and yes, simple theft.
I have some questions. The male soldiers at the start of the book. I know you’re going to tell me that ancient excavations have found male warrior figures. But really, I suppose this is the crux of the matter for me. Are we sure those weren’t just isolated civilizations? One or two amongst millions? We were taught in school about women making men fight for entertainment – I think a lot of your readers will still have that in mind when you have those scenes where men are soldiers in India or Arabia. Or those feisty men trying to provoke a war! Or gangs of men locking up women for sex … some of us have had fantasies like that! (Can I confess, shall I confess, that while thinking about this I … no, no, I can’t confess it.) It’s not just me, though, my dear. A whole battalion of men in army fatigues or police uniforms really does make most people think of some kind of sexual fetish, I’m afraid!
I’m sure you learned the same thing as I did in school. The Cataclysm happened when several different factions in the old world were unable to reach an accord, and their leaders stupidly each thought they could win a global war. I see you have that here. And you mention nuclear and chemical weapons, and of course the effect of electromagnetic battles on their data-storage devices is understood.
But does the history really support the idea that women didn’t have skeins much before the Cataclysm? I know, I know about the occasional statues we find of women without skeins from before the Cataclysm, but that could just be artistic licence. Surely it makes more sense that it was women who provoked the war. I feel instinctively – and I hope you do, too – that a world run by men would be more kind, more gentle, more loving and naturally nurturing. Have you thought about the evolutionary psychology of it? Men have evolved to be strong worker homestead-keepers, while women – with babies to protect from harm – have had to become aggressive and violent. The few partial patriarchies that have ever existed in human society have been very peaceful places.
I know you’re going to tell me that soft tissue doesn’t preserve well, and we can’t look for evidence of skeins in cadavers that are five thousand years old. But shouldn’t that give you pause, too? Are there any problems that your interpretation solves that the standard model of world history leaves unsolved? I mean, it’s a clever idea, I’ll grant you. And maybe worth doing for that reason alone, just as a fun exercise. But I don’t know if it advances your cause to make an assertion that just can’t be backed up or proved. You might tell me that it’s not the job of a work of history or fiction to advance a cause. Now I’m having an argument with myself. I’ll wait for your reply. I just want to challenge your thinking here before the critics do!
Much love, Naomi
Dearest Naomi, Thank you, first of all, for taking the time and trouble to read the manuscript. I was afraid it was practically incoherent – I’m afraid I’ve lost all sense of it.
I have to say I … don’t think much of evolutionary psychology, at least as it relates to gender. As to whether men are naturally more peaceful and nurturing than women … that will be up to the reader to decide, I suppose. But consider this: are patriarchies peaceful because men are peaceful? Or do more peaceful societies tend to allow men to rise to the top because they place less value on the capacity for violence? Just asking the question.
Let’s see, what else did you ask? Oh, the male warriors. I mean, I can send you images of hundreds of partial or full statues of male soldiers – they’ve been unearthed around the world. And we know how many movements have been devoted to completely obliterating all traces of the time before – I mean, just the ones we know about number in the thousands. We find so many smashed statues and carvings, so many obliterated marking stones. If they hadn’t been destroyed, imagine how many male soldier statues there’d be. We can interpret them however we like, but it’s actually pretty clear that around five thousand years ago there were a lot of male warriors. People don’t believe it because it doesn’t fit with what they already think.
As to whether you find it believable that men could be soldiers, or what your sexual fantasies are about battalions of uniformed men … I can’t be held responsible for that, N! I mean, I take your point, some people will just treat it as cheap porn. That’s always the tawdry inevitability if you write a rape scene. But surely serious people will see through that.
Oh yes, OK, you ask, ‘Does the history really support the idea women didn’t have skeins much before the Cataclysm?’ The answer is: yes. It does. At least, you have to ignore a huge raft of archaeological evidence to believe otherwise. This is what I’ve tried to communicate in my previous history books but, as you know, I don’t think anyone wanted to hear it.
I know you probably didn’t mean it to come across as patronizing, but it’s not just ‘a fun idea’ to me. The way we think about our past informs what we think is possible today. If we keep on repeating the same old lines about the past when there’s clear evidence that not all civilizations had the same ideas as us … we’re denying that anything can change.
Oh God, I don’t know. Now I’ve written that, I feel more uncertain than I did before. Were there particular things that you’ve read elsewhere that made you feel uncertain about this book? I might be able to work them in somewhere.
Much love. And thanks again for reading it. I really do appreciate it. When yours is done – another masterpiece, I’m sure! – I owe you a practical criticism essay on every chapter!
Love,
Neil
Dear Neil, Yes, of course I didn’t mean ‘fun’ in the sense of ‘trivial’ or stupid. I hope you know I’d never think that about your work. I have a lot of respect for you. I always have had.
But all right, as you’ve asked … there’s an obvious question for me. What you’ve written here contradicts so many of the history books we all read as children; and they’re based on traditional accounts going back hundreds, if not thousands, of years. What is it that you think happened? Are you really suggesting that everyone lied on a monumental scale about the past?
All love, Naomi