[Linked]

Dear Mr. Korman (and the team at Scholastic),

I recently came across Linked, and I want to start by saying I understand and respect the importance of confronting antisemitism and hate directly — it's necessary and timely work, and I don't doubt the book handles that history with care.

As an Indian Hindu, though, I wanted to share a perspective that I think is often missing from these conversations. The swastika is one of the oldest and most sacred symbols in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism, representing well-being, auspiciousness, and the eternal cycle of life. It has been used this way for over 5,000 years — long before it was distorted and appropriated by the Nazi regime in the 20th century as a symbol of hate.

When books, media, and public discourse treat 'swastika' as synonymous only with Nazism, it can feel like our communities' sacred symbol has been permanently taken from us, and it makes it harder for young Hindu, Buddhist, and Jain readers to see their own heritage represented without shame or confusion.

I'm asking you to change mentions of "Swastika" to "Hakenkreuz", which is a real name of the symbol being referred here. The vandalism you depict is real and its harm is real. I'm simply asking that, where possible, authors and publishers acknowledge that the symbol being discussed is the Nazi-appropriated (mirrored, tilted) version, and that the original swastika remains a living, sacred symbol for over a billion people today. Even a brief author's note could go a long way.

Thank you for taking the time to read this. I'd welcome any response, and I hope this perspective is useful as you continue writing on these important topics.

Sincerely,
Shrujan

Sorry, Shrujan,

I have had facsimiles of your letter on previous occasions, and I understand your distress. But it is not my book that shanghaied the swastika. It was nazi German who did that, and I'm afraid it can't be changed. For one thing, the book has been in circulation for almost six years. 

If it's any consolation, I have no intention of expanding on the topic. I am sorry if this has caused you distress.

                                                                                                              -----Gordon Korman-----

[Shrujan]

Dear Mr. Korman,

Thank you for the reply — I appreciate you taking the time.

I want to clarify one thing, and then I'll leave the topic here. You're right that you didn't create the association. My point is actually about terminology, not content — and I want to raise it gently, not as a complaint, but simply to close a gap in understanding that seems to still be there.

The symbol the Nazis adopted has its own name in German: Hakenkreuz, meaning 'hooked cross.' It is a distinct symbol from the Swastika (originates from Sanskrit) — different orientation, different history, different meaning — and many languages, including German itself, still keep the two words separate for exactly that reason. The two aren't interchangeable.

For example, in Japan, the manji (卍) is used on official maps to this day to mark Buddhist temples, precisely because it's recognized internationally as a separate, non-hateful symbol from the Hakenkreuz, even though the shapes are visually related. That's the same distinction I'm asking you to recognize between the swastika and the symbol your book refers to.

It was English-language usage, not the Nazis themselves, that merged 'swastika' into meaning only the Hakenkreuz. That linguistic collapse is what erases the symbol's 5,000-year sacred history for Hindus, Buddhists, and Jains — not the historical fact of Nazi appropriation, which I know can't be undone.

I raise this because the book has been in print for six years now, across what I imagine are thousands if not millions of copies, and if this conflation hasn't been noticed or corrected in that time, it means the same inaccurate framing has been quietly reinforced at that same scale. That's really the only reason I wanted to follow up again — not to relitigate the book, but so that going forward, if this comes up in interviews, reprints, or future work, the distinction is understood correctly.

I appreciate your time on this, and I'll leave it here. Thank you again for responding.