The Power

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

Dear Naomi,

Thanks for getting back so quickly! So, in answer to your question: I don't know if I have to be suggesting that everyone lied.

For one thing, of course, we don't have original manuscripts dating back more than a thousand years. All the books we have from before the Cataclysm have been re-copied hundreds of times. That's a lot of occasions for errors to be introduced. And not just errors. All of the copyists would have had their own agendas. For more than two thousand years, the only people re-copying were nuns in convents. I don't think it's at all a stretch to suggest that they picked works to copy that supported their viewpoint and just let the rest moulder into flakes of parchment. I mean, why would they re-copy works that said that men used to be stronger and women weaker? That would be heresy, and they'd be damned for it.

This is the trouble with history. You can't see what's not there. You can look at an empty space and see that something's missing, but there's no way to know what it was. I'm just … drawing in the blank spaces. It's not an attack.

Love,

Neil

Dearest Neil,

I don't think it's an attack. It's hard for me to see women portrayed as they are at times in this book. We've talked about this often. How much “what it means to be a woman” is bound up with strength and not feeling fear or pain. I've been grateful for our honest conversations. I know you've sometimes found it difficult to form relationships with women; and I understand why. I'm so grateful that we've preserved a friendship out of what we had, though. It was so important to me that you listened when I said things that I'd never have been able to tell Selim or the children. The scene of the skein-removal was very hard to read.

Love,

Naomi

Dear Naomi,

Thank you for that. I know you're trying. You're one of the good ones.

I really want this book to make something better, N. I think we can be better than this. This thing isn't “natural” to us, you know? Some of the worst excesses against men were never — in my opinion anyway — perpetrated against women in the time before the Cataclysm. Three or four thousand years ago, it was considered normal to cull nine in ten boy babies. Fuck, there are still places today where boy babies are routinely aborted, or have their dicks “curbed”. This can't have happened to women in the time before the Cataclysm. We talked about evolutionary psychology before — it would have made no evolutionary sense for cultures to abort female babies on a large scale or to fuck about with their reproductive organs! So it's not “natural” to us to live like this. It can't be. I can't believe it is. We can choose differently.

The world is the way it is now because of five thousand years of ingrained structures of power based on darker times when things were much more violent and the only important thing was — could you and your kin jolt harder? But we don't have to act that way now. We can think and imagine ourselves differently once we understand what we've based our ideas on.

Gender is a shell game. What is a man? Whatever a woman isn't. What is a woman? Whatever a man is not. Tap on it and it's hollow. Look under the shells: it's not there.

xx

Neil

Dearest Neil,

Have been pondering this all weekend. There's a lot to think about and discuss, and I think it's best if we meet to talk it over. I worry that I might write something that you'll interpret in the wrong way, and I don't want that. I know it's a sensitive topic for you. I'll ask my assistant if he'll sort out some dates for us to have lunch.

This is not to say that I'm not behind the book. I really am. I want to make sure it reaches the widest possible audience.

I have one suggestion now. You've explained to me how anything you do is framed by your gender, that the frame is as inescapable as it is nonsensical. Every book you write is assessed as part of “men's literature”. So what I'm suggesting is just a response to that, really, nothing more. But there's a long tradition of men who've found a way out of that particular bind. You'd be in good company.

Neil, I know this might be very distasteful to you, but have you considered publishing this book under a woman's name?

Best love,

Naomi