renaissance poisson

I have to admit, I've got mixed feelings.

I don't mind people not reading the book - but I do mind people actively *misrepresenting* what's in the book when they haven't read it, in a purely factual basis.

For example, I've seen posts from people saying there are no people of color in the book - that's not true, and the POC play some significant roles in the outcome of the plot in various ways. (Main character? No. It's a first person narrative. But significant to the plot, as much as the main character's family are.)

And it means I have a really hard time taking those particular people's other complaints as seriously and as deeply as I have from people who've either read the book, or are taking care to make sure the basic details are being correctly shared.

I have not had the time to keep up with all of the discussion this week (need my brain working better - migraines are not my friend - and have had some other stuff to deal with, mostly), but I also note that there's a difference between two arguments.

I think the book (which I've read) argues for "The Bering land bridge never got crossed because there were even nastier animals here than in our world, and people who tried ended up dying in the attempt" This is bolstered by all sorts of white explorers and settlers in the time frame of the book getting killed, even with far more 'modern' equipment and resources

I think that's a different argument than "Not at all aware of the extinction theories not being caused by the people there". I think it's perfectly reasonable to have very deadly fauna, and for that to massively change migration patterns - just as very deadly environments have changed other migration and settlement patterns in our world's history. (Now, would it have changed things to the extent it is in the book is a reasonable argument - but I think what Pat lays out is at least plausible, given internal details in the book itself.)

(Though, as I said, I haven't been following Pat's direct commentary in the last four or five days: will be catching up later. Just pointing out that *author-speaking-on-Net* and *what book implies and says* are two different sources.)

Now the other arguments here are ones I think are definitely worth further discussion, debate, etc. But they're also ones that can be addressed at least partially without reading the book. (i.e the overall concept, and issues with it.)

The two I note above, however, mean that someone needs to have accurate info about what's in the book (some of which is more obvious than others - the dangerous fauna bit is spread out over a couple of sentences at a time in a bunch of different places, for example) and the best way to do that is to read the thing or to have a *very* accurate and detailed recounting.