Good writing doesn't solve all problems

[sqbr]

Off metafandom, a very good post : I Didn’t Dream of Dragons. An indian fan (and possibly writer?), deepad, talks about her experience reading sff in english about european people in an european world, and how a lot of the arguments white american etc authors make about "Writing the Other" are flawed. EDIT: She responds to some common criticisms here.

EDIT: Disclaimer 4a applies *sighs at self*

Something she said which touches on a topic I've been thinking about for a while is "I have spent a lifetime reading well-written books with nuanced characters that hurt me by erasing or misrepresenting me".

One of the axioms a lot of creative types seem to work from is that their only priority should be The Art. Great Art broadens the soul and civilises society etc, so an Artist should not let themselves be swayed by worries about social responsibility/hurting people's feelings etc. Any times questions like this come up they are either dismissed as making false assumptions (which is often true: playing violent video games does not in fact make you a murderer, and it is very hard to predict what effect if any a work will have on the population as a whole etc) or it's argued that these consequences only happen as a result of bad art, and the solution is to work even harder at making True Art. Which is what the artists were doing anyway, how convenient.

But this simply isn't true. For a start, no work is perfect, and unless you particularly concentrate on an individual flaw, making your work better may just result in improving other aspects. Something can be Fine Art while still being deeply flawed. As in the examples deepad gives, pretty much every single "Classic Novel" that mentions POC at all does so in a racist stereotyped way. Most Great Works don't do much better on class, gender, sexuality etc. And of course as any slasher will tell you a lot of the time these voices are erased completely.

Given that all works are flawed, not all flaws are equal. Plot holes may be annoying, but they are not equivalent to racism or other prejudice, and implying that they are, and that there's no reason to specifically try to avoid them beyond generally improving the quality of your work, is insulting to the people who suffer as a result.

You might argue "Ah but writers like Dickens were writing in an unenlightened time and laboured under all those racist/sexist etc misconceptions". Well guess what, so do we. And unless we make a concerted effort to rise above those misconceptions and prejudices it will be reflected in our writing.

You can write a genuinely complicated, subtle character who you see as a Real Person who is still offensive and reflective of prejudiced attitudes. The most obvious example is having them act just like "you" (white/male/american/christian etc) when in context they should have very different attitudes and behaviours. And if you're starting from flawed assumptions this can counteract your characterisation: if you were to write an australian Aboriginal character as a cannibal who rode around on the back of a kangaroo then no matter how well written they were it would still be hurtful to australian aboriginal readers.

Another obvious issue is that "good" is a relative term. If you deep down believe that women are irrational and get angry about random things for no good reason all the time then you won't have a problem with stories where this is the case. But I will find it unbelievably annoying.

EDIT: Since I don't think I made it clear: like I said, every story is flawed, and that's ok. And that means even if you specifically try not to use racist stereotypes or what-have-you you might (in fact probably will) end up doing it anyway. I'm not saying give up and don't write, or that perfection is required! Do your best and hope you're doing more good than harm, that's all we can ever do. I'm just saying that certain flaws are more important than other flaws, and should be focussed on in particular, and not just because they make the book less artistically valid. That's all.

Also: some sorts of stories actually rely on stereotypes etc. Traditional high fantasy, for example, is built on a lot of pretty sexist and classist tropes. Writing such stories "better" from an artistic POV may actually mean making them worse from a feminist etc POV.

That doesn't mean they shouldn't be written, though as I discuss here nor does it let the writers off the hook.

Comments

[elaran.livejournal.com]

I quite like bits of that post.

[callistra.livejournal.com]

You mean we weren't talking about fantasy?
:-)

[callistra.livejournal.com]

I did a lot of reading today about racism and gender in writing. I find it all fascinating, but I'm just reading. I don't have anything interesting to say about it all.
:-/
I am amused at how often cookies come up though.

[grahame.livejournal.com]

A week or two ago I was talking with someone, and somehow we got onto the PETA advertising campaign that used naked (or scantily clad) celebrity women as a way to get attention.

I didn't find the campaign offensive (nude women don't bother me, equally nude men don't bother me) and it seemed likely to be in some ways effective – attractive people get attention, it's pretty well always going to be true). The other person in the conversation seemed to suggest that the campaign was offensive to women, and that as a result I should be offended.

It's this kind of offence by proxy that I find hard to grasp. I don't find the PETA campaign objectionable. I'm a whole range of reasons other people might be offended, but I don't see why that should worry me. I'm not conveying my point well here – I'm coming across as a selfish git – but what I'm trying to say is that it's silly to be overly considerate. If enough people are offended and complain, the negative effect would likely cause the cancellation of the advertising campaign. I simply don't see that I need to get involved.

Now, what was my segue way..

Ah, right. It seems to me that you're asking authors to value one aspect of their work (how considerate it is to a other cultures, minorities, ..) over other aspects of their work. Specifically, you're asking them not to do something not because it offends them, but because it might offend others.

It seems a strange ask to me. If an author writes a story that is prejudiced, that still seems to me to be an entirely legitimate form of artistic expression. They're saying something by being prejudiced, and that's open to all sorts of readings. In the case of historical works, there's a lot conveyed about the world view and prejudice of a particular time through its texts.

To you a recently authored, racist book is flawed, and as a result you're pretty unlikely to read it (except perhaps as research into your topic of interest.) I might be taking you the wrong way, but what you're saying seems dangerously close to a call for censorship of works that are not considerate according to various guidelines you've laid down, and that (to use a cliché I've always loved) is the thin end of the wedge.

(I'm not trying to say that all consideration is unjustified, I just think a form of self-censorship of ones views out of consideration for absolutely everyone else is a bad thing.)

[grahame.livejournal.com]

.. I say seems rather too much!

[zvi-likes-tv.livejournal.com]

You seem to be operating under the assumption that the author wants to convey a prejudiced message. I always have the hope that they do not want to be racist, sexist, etc and simply don't realize the message they're sending. And, I have to admit, 95% of the time, when I call someone out on racist behavior, the first words out of their mouths are, "I'm not racist!" so it seems pretty clear that they weren't trying to extend racial hegemony with their behavior, they just were doing so.

Re: I decided to re-express myself less vehemently

[alias_sqbr]

I'm not sure she actually is a writer, I think her point is much less the problems she personally would face getting published and more the fact that these problems act to stop there being many indian writers in general, which means that as reader her options are incredibly limited.

I'm really not keen on the idea that the possibility for fictional portrayals giving someone, or some group offence...(is) necessarily worth thinking about beyond the requirement that an artist take some moral responsibility for the social impact of a work of art

I think I must be misunderstanding your point or you mine, because the moral responsibility for the social impact of a work of art is exactly why I think people should worry about this sort of thing.

[alias_sqbr]

So it's the addition of visible effort NOT to indulge in stereotypes, etc?

Yes. And realising that unless you make this effort specifically you're probably going to fail on this count even if you are otherwise a good author. (And that this is bad :))

It doesn't make it right, and it certainly has all right to be criticised, but it also shouldn't be quashed and left beuried in the ol' noggin, I think.

I think sometimes you do have to let it out, but if you show it to anyone you have to be ready for them to react to those elements.

[alias_sqbr]

Seconded :)

[alias_sqbr]

I've been reading a bunch of posts and comments around this stuff in the last day or so, and it's amazing how repetitive they get. (To the extent that deepad wrote a follow up post which covers pretty much all of them)

[alias_sqbr]

EVERYONE likes cookies!

I've been writing and then not posting posts about this stuff for several years, this was just the catalyst for me giving in and posting one :)

[alias_sqbr]

they're just examples of bad writing that also happen to betray prejudiced views

I guess this is in some ways true (depending on your definition), but if most readers don't notice because they are also prejudiced then I think it's useful to distinguish that from "most people would recognise it as such" bad writing.

I didn't make this at all clear but: to those authors, getting angry for no reason, or being a cannibal, are inherent to being female/aboriginal. Thus they don't need to be explained, and any reader who shares their prejudices will agree and not notice any flaws. I come across this a LOT with the motivations of female characters in stories written by and for men.

For a real life example I've noticed(*): french characters in english novels written before about 1940. They can be quite nuanced and varied and seen as Real People, but there was a general attitude back then that french people were more passionate and irrational etc and this definitely shows in the characters. See, for example, Villette by Charlotte Bronte where pretty much all the characters (including the romantic lead) other than the protagonist are french, and (as I remember from having read it YEARS ago) have a lot of variety and feel 3D but are still all Very French.

(*)Not that anti-french sentiment is a major injustice right now, but it is an example of "Well motivated characters who are still irritatingly stereotyped due to misconceptions of the author"

Re: I decided to re-express myself less vehemently

[ataxi.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I'm not sure she's a writer either. Well, actually, I'm quite sure she's someone who writes, and would like to earn a living that way. You can tell from the way she discusses that topic. How far it goes beyond that is unclear.

"I think I must be misunderstanding your point or mine" -- don't think so, it's more a question of priorities and gear ratios. I don't anticipate too many cases existing where an artistic production should be quashed because of its social impact.

When that type of thing does happen, it's usually your Bill Henson or "Piss Christ" sort of deal where the very people whose views and privileges are the most protected get to do the quashing.

Now, on the other hand, I think perhaps your point goes more back to "thoughtless offence" where trashy lit. wheels out clichés and stereotypes for want of anything better thought out, and how it'd be better to avoid it. I agree. But I think the value of artistic productions will often still outweigh whatever thoughtless harm they do.

In short, I want art and artists to feel free to do whatever, whenever, paying as much attention as they like or can manage to these niceties -- after that history and markets can do the judging, and the artists can cop whatever flak or praise is appropriate.

[kadeton.livejournal.com]

If an author is unable to grasp the idea that women (and men) have both rational and emotional motivations, then they aren't really going to be able to consider the flaws in their writing. They're a lost cause, since they're never going to be able to relate to their female characters. On the other hand, any readers who are aware that women are actually people will find their characters unconvincing and flat - they will recognise the bad writing when they see it.

Those characters might be convincing to the group of people who share the author's delusion, but they will be seeking out fiction that plays to their prejudices anyway.

Basically, my position is that if an author lacks the ability to empathise with and understand his or her characters, those characters will be inherently unconvincing. This is bad writing. Characters that are unconvincing for one reader might be totally convincing for another, but the more people you can convince, the better your writing; hence, better understanding your characters makes you a better writer.

Sadly, bad writing will not stop a book from being resoundingly successful, particularly in the sci-fi and fantasy genres where the importance of character is vastly overshadowed by plot and setting.

[alias_sqbr]

The other person in the conversation seemed to suggest that the campaign was offensive to women, and that as a result I should be offended.

Personally I don't think you "should" be offended: offense is an unconscious emotional reaction beyond your control.

But in some cases I think you might be encouraged to complain, or empathise with another person's POV to see why they are offended. I think that they were hoping you would do is go "Ah! Now that you have explained your point of view to me, I agree that this poster is unjustifiably sexist, and the fact that PETA is willing to use this sort of imagery in their ads has lowered my opinion of them".

If nothing else, perhaps it makes those who hear th argument more aware of these issues and less likely to use such offensive imagery in their own marketing.

I make a very large distinction between "That which is ethical" and "that which makes money" :P

Also not being complicit in racism etc is not the same as being "considerate" or "nice". It's more like "basic human decency".

I might be taking you the wrong way, but what you're saying seems dangerously close to a call for censorship of works that are not considerate according to various guidelines you've laid down

No. I think all things being equal the world would be a better place if there were less of them. And I would achieve this by encouraging authors to try to write their works in a less offensive way. That's no more censorship than saying "I wish people wouldn't write in the first person". I think there are times when it's ok for an author to look at a work, recognise it has a dodgy subtext, and send it out into the world.

And if some wonderful works end up not being quite so wonderful because the author decided they didn't want to be racist or whatever, well to be honest I can live that, same way as I can live without art made from live tortured babies or something. I imagine you feel the same way about the fact that certain meals really are more delicious with meat.

[alias_sqbr]

I think "As long as your intentions are good noone can hold you at fault" is an unfortunately deep rooted meme, even more than "Racism means actively hating people who aren't white".

Re: I decided to re-express myself less vehemently

[alias_sqbr]

In short, I want art and artists to feel free to do whatever, whenever, paying as much attention as they like or can manage to these niceties -- after that history and markets can do the judging, and the artists can cop whatever flak or praise is appropriate.

I think I mostly covered this in my latest post (I wrote several replies to this comment before deleting it and deciding I was going to have to sit down and think about it :))

[alias_sqbr]

I guess..by your definition I think all writers are "bad" to some extent.

Basically: I agree that getting rid of stereotypical/limited thinking will improve ones writing, but not that merely aiming to improve ones writing will necessarily have that much of an effect on ones stereotypes etc unless you make a concerted effort to combat that problem in particular.

It's like: using less electricity saves you money, but trying to save money doesn't necessarily use less electricity :)

[kadeton.livejournal.com]

I guess..by your definition I think all writers are "bad" to some extent.

Um, isn't that a self-evident, objective truth? There is no such thing as a flawless piece of writing.

Regardless of how much you otherwise improve your writing, getting rid of stereotypes will allow you to improve it further. In much the same way, cutting back on electricity use will always allow you to save more money than not doing so. ;)

[alias_sqbr]

Absolutely. (I'm not sure, are we disagreeing any more? :))

[kadeton.livejournal.com]

Were we ever? :P

[alias_sqbr]

YES!!!!

Wait.

NO!!!

Um.

Nice weather isn't it?