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

I decided to re-express myself less vehemently

[ataxi.livejournal.com]

In retrospect, I was initially harsh.

My reaction to the linked article was decidedly unfavourable, because to my mind (and without having read any of the person's fiction), the gist of it was thus:

"My relative lack of success as a writer, and the difficulties I have faced producing economically viable work, are the result of systematic factors that tend to exonerate me personally, and simultaneously damn many other writers and more or less the entire publishing industry."

In short, it was a giant, self-absorbed whine that included such distasteful features as

• traducing the huge disadvantage faced by India's vast population relative to people in wealthier countries in terms of health, education and employment, into a whinge about the small size and influence of the Indian publishing industry and how beholden therefore, she must be to the norms of Anglosphere publishing
• marginalising the cultural difference of people from "hyphenated manifestations" of Indian culture
• completely ignoring cultural differences within "the West"

So, in short, reaction not good.

My reaction to your post was similarly unfavourable, because I'm really not keen on the idea that the possibility for fictional portrayals giving someone, or some group offence is a good, or complete grounds for canning entire works, or even necessarily worth thinking about beyond the requirement that an artist take some moral responsibility for the social impact of a work of art.

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.

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.

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 :))