(no subject)
I'm reading this book, a mystery that's set in a small town in Louisiana. This fictional town is in the process of recovering from the devastating fictional hurricane Bernardine. It is quite clear that Bernardine is a stand-in for Katrina.
For some inexplicable reason, this fictionalisation really bothers me. If there were any differences between the two that were important to the plot that would be one thing. But there aren't. So why doesn't the author just *say* Katrina? Katrina was real. Katrina was devastatingly real. I may not have been in New Orleans, but I was close enough, and I saw all the destruction and pain and loss and recovery first hand. Katrina *means* something to me, and to the people of this state. The very name itself is emotionally charged, so much so that I feel sorry for anyone living here actually named Katrina, because they'll never get past that. Taking that very real catastrophe and turning it into something fictional, with a meaningless fictional name, feels disrespectful. Turning something that was all too real into not-real, like a big game of 'let's pretend'. It feels to me that if you're going to set a story in post-Katrina Louisiana, you need to acknowledge that difference. And there *is* a difference. Something happened that changed the way the people in this state think and function on a very basic level, and that something was Katrina, not Bernardine, or Gretchen, or Falstaff, or any other imaginary name you want to come up with. Acknowledging that difference without acknowledging the real source feels as bad or worse as not acknowledging it at all.
Perhaps I'm overreacting. Perhaps I'm the only one that feels that way. You can say it's just a name, but to me it's *not* just a name. It's Katrina.
For some inexplicable reason, this fictionalisation really bothers me. If there were any differences between the two that were important to the plot that would be one thing. But there aren't. So why doesn't the author just *say* Katrina? Katrina was real. Katrina was devastatingly real. I may not have been in New Orleans, but I was close enough, and I saw all the destruction and pain and loss and recovery first hand. Katrina *means* something to me, and to the people of this state. The very name itself is emotionally charged, so much so that I feel sorry for anyone living here actually named Katrina, because they'll never get past that. Taking that very real catastrophe and turning it into something fictional, with a meaningless fictional name, feels disrespectful. Turning something that was all too real into not-real, like a big game of 'let's pretend'. It feels to me that if you're going to set a story in post-Katrina Louisiana, you need to acknowledge that difference. And there *is* a difference. Something happened that changed the way the people in this state think and function on a very basic level, and that something was Katrina, not Bernardine, or Gretchen, or Falstaff, or any other imaginary name you want to come up with. Acknowledging that difference without acknowledging the real source feels as bad or worse as not acknowledging it at all.
Perhaps I'm overreacting. Perhaps I'm the only one that feels that way. You can say it's just a name, but to me it's *not* just a name. It's Katrina.