Q & A: Is Octavia Butler Wrong?

Is Octavia Butler correct in her interpretation of Bloodchild as a coming-of-age story about love between two very different beings? If not, what is Bloodchild truly about?

Octavia Butler opens her afterword with the bold and decisive statement “It amazes me that some people have seen “Bloodchild” as a story of slavery. It isn’t”. She then goes on to claim it is simply a story about love between two very different beings and Gan’s coming-of-age. But just because this was the author’s intention when writing “Bloodchild”, it doesn’t necessarily mean that is the right way to interpret the story. If a story is written with one intention, but everyone takes away something completely different from that story it ultimately doesn’t matter what the author meant the book to be about. “The Death of the Author” is a famous essay that states the original intentions of an author should have no weight in the interpretation or criticism of a text. In this case I am analyzing “Bloodchild” as it exists, and looking at the words on the page, they don’t match Butler’s interpretation of the text. 

To start with, the only love that could possibly exist between Gan and T’Gatoi is one based on all the wrong things. T’Gatoi may love Gan, but that love is solely based on his ability to bear her child and his lack of power in their relationship. Gan shows positive feelings for T’Gatoi at the beginning of the text but he is in a situation where he is forced to have those feelings. He has no control over his own part in their relationship and T’Gatoi has all the power and isn’t afraid of using it. So if “Bloodchild” is depicting a love story, it is not one depicting an even remotely healthy relationship. It doesn’t even matter that they are different beings, all that matters is that one has complete and utter control in their relationship. In some ways I agree with Butler’s categorization of “Bloodchild” as a coming-of-age story but it is not one of clear resolution or positivity. Gan is visually presented with the information of what he and his fellow Terrans have to go through and is utterly horrified. He does eventually come to terms with the information but it is not for his own betterment. Once presented with the information, Gan has an epiphany about the society he lives in and begins to realize the true oppression he endures just by existing. By the end of the story he has accepted this, but he only does so under the threat of T’Gatoi. He would still rather be dead than live under her control, but he knows that if he were to kill himself the burden of his life would fall onto his sister or someone else he loves. 

Even more contrary to Butler’s afterword, my interpretation of “Bloodchild” is a metaphor for slavery, or at least the general and sexual exploitation of minorities in oppressive societies. As previously described, the relationship between Gan and T'Gatoi is manipulative, one-sided, and has a completely skewed power dynamic. And the obvious pregnancy metaphor gender reversal makes it harder for misogynists and other dumbasses to make excuses for the situation Gan is in. The thought of “Bloodchild” being a story about love is pretty repulsive when you take into account all the fucked up relationship power dynamics that are much closer to those existing during slavery than our modern society.