February 9, 2007...11:41 am
“Almond eyes”
This description appears on pages 16 and 37 
of the new book I just started proofreading for a children’s publisher. The novel is written by a Chinese woman and focuses on a family bracing for the Cultural Revolution. Page 16’s almond eyes belong to the six- or seven-year-old nine-year-old narrator’s mother; the eyes on page 37 belong to the narrator herself: “I stretched wide my double-lidded almond eyes.”
I don’t know if the author’s editor insisted on this phrase or if it’s one that she herself had happily picked up while researching the book, but nobody in their right literary mind these days, especially an Asian or Asian American writer I should think, would describe a woman’s eyes like this, and especially not in the voice of a young mainland Chinese girl. Or am I completely out of touch and the phrase is in vogue right now? Had the Chinese used it back then as well? Because there is no irony behind the phrase’s usage, and there’s no other exotic imperialist description in the book (so far), I’m a little discombobulated.
Besides, the phrase is “almond-shaped eyes.” Shaped, man.
Here is my comment in the margin, which I’ll have to elaborate on eventually, at least before I turn in the job:
??????
12 Comments
February 9, 2007 at 3:02 pm
No, no, I’ve looked at that helpful illustration you provided and I insist that her eyes look like ripe almonds. Kind of brownish-orange right, appropriately flesh, yummy nuts inside?
February 9, 2007 at 9:18 pm
Even leaving aside the awfulness of the racial language issues, it’s a basic writing error to have a narrator describe herself as if viewed from across the room. If this were produced by a writing student, I would have written one of my habitual “WHOSE POV?” in the margins.
February 10, 2007 at 10:42 am
I think it’s really important to query that and suggest rewording—especially for a children’s book. Ugh.
February 11, 2007 at 5:02 pm
I’m curious about this and hope you’ll clarify for me what bothers you. Is it only that the term is a cliche? Or that it’s both racist and cliche?
Would it bother you to read of an African-American having kinky or nappy hair? Or of a white person’s complexion as pasty?
I don’t mean to be contentious. Although I’m fairly liberal and certainly not trying to offend, a young person recently out of college rebuked me for using the word “Oriental.” It surprised me. She said I was supposed to use “Asian” instead.
I know there are a lot of pejorative terms for different ethnic groups, and I may well be behind in realizing terms I thought were okay no longer are.
What descriptor would you have her use instead?
As a sidenote, fresh out of college myself a couple decades ago, an African-American coworker and a bit of a joker stopped at my desk once, leaned down and said in a low voice, “don’t you find it ironic that I can call you honky but you better never call me n—-r?” And walked away laughing.
Whatever. You know, really, I don’t want to add any more grief to the whole stereotyping business, rather just to scrape a bit off, if I could.
February 11, 2007 at 9:49 pm
I also feel like that when I am compared to Roman sculpture or someone praises my alabaster skin!
February 11, 2007 at 10:30 pm
JM, you are actually quite ruddy. Own your ruddiness, man!
OmbudsBen, JM is a joker! And your coworker is as well, but gee that is such a weird way to strike up racial politics in an office relationship. Anyway, seriously, yes it’s the fact that the phrase is both cliche and racist. Cliche in that such a description is too easy. Racist in that it’s an imperialist term, like “Oriental.” And, like Ms. Katharine says, it’s a basic writing error for the narrator to describe herself from a 3rd-person POV. Now, one of my weaknesses is figuring out POV, but this sentence, as well as a few others in the book (not many, but a few), describes the narrator for the benefit of the reader, not for herself or her own story. Hm… see, this is why I’m not a writing instructor, I can’t explain these things well. How about this: This is a young adult book written by a Chinese woman who as a child watched her parents suffer through the Cultural Revolution, and touches very intimately on the revolution’s rise as seen through the eyes of an idealistic, innocent young girl; so from what I understand, this book is meant to introduce the young reader to a harrowing piece of history in a country that’s growing as a superpower, whose language and culture are being taught in the States and generally becoming more popular. So I very much admire that this subject is being presented to a young audience. But as I’m unfamiliar with the young adult market, and therefore don’t know how such stories are discussed, written, or shaped for the market, I worry about the use of phrases that take the easy route, especially in a story that is not at all easy to take in. For me, any physical description of a person must be written as a sensitive observation first for the 1st-person narrator to behold and understand, and for the reader second. That might sound too strict of a distinction, but it’s running into descriptions like the above that makes it very clear for me. In other words, there was no reason for the eyes to be described this way—not unless another character had done so first and then the girl had picked up the phrase; or not unless she herself had noticed her eyes’ resemblance to almonds (or almond shapes), perhaps her favorite snack; or not unless the author is trying to make some subtle (or not-so-subtle) statement about an easy or common way of describing “the other,” i.e., the non-Western. I’m just asking that the author be a little more conscious about the usage of such a phrase. I’ve often queried authors about using repeated phrases or words in the same sentence or paragraph, which to me seems like a careless, and easily fixable, mistake, and to me that’s what a phrase like the above is, a mistake.
February 12, 2007 at 12:18 pm
At the very least, she should be looking at herself in the mirror, consciously seeing herself as if through the eyes of a stranger. That would be the quick and dirty fix if the description is somehow vital.
February 12, 2007 at 6:49 pm
Was it Eddie Murphy who said that white people are actually the ones who look like monkeys? Along those lines - http://clairelight.typepad.com/seelight/2006/09/almond_eyes.html
February 12, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Katharine, I thank you for distilling the meaning behind my rambling into one concise sentence. I gotta learn to how to do that.
JM, is that Eddie Murphy quote from one of his, ah, stage performances? And the eyes on that site are really freaking me out. Rows and rows and rows of them… Plus, images that have one thing superimposed over another, especially if the latter is some kind of hole, make me squeamish. But thanks for pointing this post out to me… even if I can’t bear to look at it.
And a general update on the young adult book I’m proofreading: I’m about 200 pages in, and its voice has shaped up quite nicely and consistently. I shall query “almond eyes,” and maybe get an answer to why the phrase was used in the first place. The answer could be a simple “Oh, it’s not a big deal, that’s how my own Asian eyes are shaped!” but I need for the author to at least be aware that this is not the best-choice phrase.
February 13, 2007 at 9:00 am
Yes, I remembered the context from your post, that was clear. And JM, I’m aware that white people get called monkeys or primates in East Asia.
While traveling in Indonesia I met a couple from California who were on a crowded minibus. He had lots of red hair, and while they rode along an elderly Indonesian, without saying anything to him or even making eye contact, reached over and began plucking at the red hair on his arm as he discussed it with his friend. The Californian motioned to his wife and pointed: “check this out.”
I frequently had strangers reach out to grab or touch me. The people are generally friendly and will often ask to take your picture posing with their friends or family. It made me wonder about their photo albums. (”And here is a picture of us with a westerner at Borobodur.”
The only time it got bad was at New Years, at Merdeka Square which was packed with revelers with horns, many of whom decided it would be fun to blow a horn in the westerner’s face.
The other common occurrence is for a western woman to get on a bus, and sit next to an Indonesian man. Their definition of personal space is very different from ours, so when he crowds her, she goes ballistic and begins yelling perhaps calling him a perv, etc.
The Indonesians have lots of references to us as the white monkeys who get mad and holler — and that’s fine.
I guess I’m just noting how differently the sensitivity levels get set.
The link on almond eyes was very interesting for the comments. Sure ran the gamut; I hadn’t expected to read so many from people who were proud to describe their eyes as almond. W, I think your spot on with the query and possible reply. Only thing I might add, as a copyeditor, would be an alternative.
Katherine, I see the mechanical or technical problem you address; your fix is good, and seems distinct from that of a cliched or racist adjective.
Do you have a suggestion for a better adjective?
February 14, 2007 at 8:59 pm
Not really — it seems contrived to have the description of the eyes signify at all. Surely the writing conveys her almond-eyedness in more subtle ways?
(do note the second a in Katharine)
February 15, 2007 at 12:03 am
Oh yes, personal space stories are always interesting, aren’t they? Check out Claire Light’s interaction with Angry Black Woman regarding “hair petting.”
And yes, regarding Light’s almond eyes link, I found the comments interesting as well. The conversation about it sure produces some sparks, but I feel that when the phrase shows up in a work of literature, there shouldn’t be any question or need for such a discussion, not unless the author intended it that way; and in this book, the author didn’t intend it. The alternative would simply be to remove the phrase in question.
An addendum: There is a third and final reference to “almond eyes” much later in the book, after the narrator has gone through a bit of personal hell—and just as Ms. Katharine had suggested above, the narrator is looking at herself in the mirror and noting how her features have changed. Maybe the phrase still isn’t the best choice, but of all three spots in the book, it’s here that it actually has some meaning or import. So my query will be: if the author really wants to keep this phrase at all, please keep it for the third instance only.
Leave a Reply