There was a cool panel at the HNS conference last week about whether and how authors should go about writing characters of a different gender/race/creed than their own. One person decried the "political correctness" of insisting that authors keep within their own gender/ethnic boundaries - a phrase I'm always suspicious of, since it never seems to mean exactly the same thing to any two people anywhere. Someone else suggested it was more of a marketing issue - editors want to make sure their target demographics are reached, and not "offended."
As an atheist (arguably a minority in the U.S.), I've read some atheist characters in fiction who were clearly NOT created by authors who shared these views, and who were reduced to shallow stereotypes that reflected the prejudices and misperceptions of the person typing. Personally offensive, sure - but far more important than that, it contributes to an overall climate of intolerance and misunderstanding. That's far more dangerous than just hurting my little old feelings.
Many of the analogies being tossed around at the panel were theater-based, about actors playing characters that transgress the physical boundaries of the actor, etc. Yet when I ask the question "So how do you feel about a white actor playing Othello?" I often am met with a long pause, followed by the ubiquitous, "Well, it would depend on the actor."
It certainly would. And in fiction, it depends on the author. When the intent is to seriously get inside the mind of an "Other" character and render him/her sympathetic (as in "believable," not nececssarily "nice"), that I can respect. If the intent is darker, however subconsciously, then you have problems.
Some case studies (and, incidentally, the first two are books I wish I'd written):
--Gone With the Wind - Good book? Certainly. Racist? Absolutely; the slaves enjoyed their slavery so much that they were very sad
when the mean Yankees came and forced freedom on them, etc.
So sayeth the white southern lady.
--Memoirs of a Geisha (double-winner that bends both race and gender)
- Western Cinderella story that did not play well at all in Japan (the
movie resoundingly flopped there as well).
--A nameless book that I am embarrassed to admit that I read in high
school (not histfic), in which a 50something white male convinces a
young African-American woman that she really does have a big chip on
her shoulder and this whole "racism" thing is really pretty much all in
her mind. Yeeerrrgghh. And then they have sex.
For better or for worse, we KNOW that histfic readers often take imaginative recreations as gospel truth. I can't feel that asking authors to think more carefully and explicitly about the ideology of their work doesn't seem like such a horrendous thing. For me there's a huge difference between a serious, sympathetic white Othello and a minstrel show.
But then, as my friends like to point out, I'm a godless heathen bleeding heart atheist liberal who hates all things good and righteous. And I'll be on a panel with you if you want to address this at the HNS conference in 2011. Takers?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hello fellow atheist! It feels good to not be alone.
ReplyDeleteI have no problem with authors writing about something they're not as long they do the research and are sensitive to the "otherness". I think one way to overcome some of the difficulties is to belong to a sufficiently large community where there are people who are that "other".
For example, I am a member of Critique Circle, and online writing workshop where I can reach an international, multi-ethnic and racial community of writers. They keep me honest and on track.
This is not the only way to do it, but I think it's important for writers to stay connected, solicit feedback, and not let their egos get in the way.
Joan
---
This Time, ISBN-13: 978-0-9824493-0-1
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
"Otherness" is kind of tricky. To many Americans(though not necessarily Europeans), "atheist" = "bad"; they don't know anything else. But then, until fairly recently, few (white) Americans had any idea, or cared, that blacks were real human beings. Some were and are decent people, some were,and are, not. It is for this reason that Gone With the Wind was popular for years and years and years: it "fitted" with what a lot of people thought they "knew" about that era of American history. Now we know better. And some of us have "gone the other way". But it's unfortunately still not that easy for many of us to display the necessary sensitivity to the ways of an "other" to get into their heads. That's why some writers treat all Muslims(a modern example of the same phenomenon) as all "evil". But then, they don't know, or care about anything or anyone in the Muslim world, so they don't understand.
ReplyDeleteAnne G
I too immediately thought of "Memoirs of a Geisha" as a successful example of gender/racial bender. Then I realized that in the second book of my Rashi's Daughters medieval trilogy, Miriam, the "hero" is a man who struggles with his attraction to other men. Fans tell me I did a good job of capturing his inner conflict, so it seems that a straight woman of the 21st century can indeed write from the point of view of a "gay" man of the 11th century.
ReplyDeleteMaggie Anton
www.rashisdaughters.com
Wow, there are comments! I've been away in the wilds of Minnesota for a couple of weeks, without Internet access.
ReplyDeleteThanks for all your insightful replies; this is very good food for thought. I don't think that people *shouldn't* venture out of what they know - and as another author has pointed out to me, Sir Laurence Olivier played an excellent Othello. I wish more authors strived (strove?) to be Oliviers, and were more careful about being like...well, you know Mickey Rooney's character in Breakfast at Tiffany's? Mr. Yunioshi, the Japanese landlord with buck teeth and thick glasses and squinty eyes? "Miss Gorightry!" Ugh. It can be that bad sometimes.