If you haven’t read We Are Water Protectors by Carole Lindstrom, you might want to take a moment to watch my review. I’ll include it below.
This is Carole’s book about the Dakota Access Pipeline. But nowhere in the book does the call it by name. It is the black snake. It poisons the land and the water. The people stand against it because they are water protectors.
I haven’t discussed this with Carole but there are a variety of reasons that she might have avoided naming the pipeline.
Narrowing the audience
If Carole had named the pipeline, it could be argued that she had narrowed the audience for the book and the period of time during which it would be relevant. Yes, we who are into social justice are still discussing this but haven’t you noticed it in the media lately? No? That’s because it is no longer of interest. To name the pipeline ties the book securely to the pipeline. But not naming it, you broaden the topic from the pipeline to environmentalism by first nation peoples.
If you put the pipeline front and center, the readers have to have a solid understanding of the pipeline. Which means they have to understand the oil industry and the politics. That’s an awful lot for that audience. By not naming the pipeline, the focus remains on the water protectors. Clearly there is a serious girl-power vibe but what kid doesn’t love the idea of protecting something/someone?
Not naming the pipeline also made the story more literary. How? The black snake clearly represented the pipeline without calling it by name. You also had people acting as water protectors vs being simple protestors. This created a greater level of symbolism and the story became more abstract and literary.
A piece written about the pipeline and protestors may have sold but this? The audience has expanded beyond the original story borders.