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

Part four

[ataxi.livejournal.com]

Tom grumpy! Smash stuff! Sorry about the ranting.

[fallimar.livejournal.com]

Playing Devil's Advocate for the sake of poderousness:

How does one write perfect characterisations of people who aren't within your own circle of experience? Research does a lot, and any author who doesn't research the backgrounds of characters outside of their own... 'type' (can't think of a better word there) will almost certainly make some assumptions that are going to annoy people.

On the flipside though, are readers just asking too much of writers when all the writers are doing is attempting to create a character who's not from within their own cultural spectrum? I couldn't write a believable Balinese character, for instance. I could try, and I could go to Bali, talk to Balinese people and experience as much of the culture as I could. That'd improve the writing no end, but in the end the writing itself is still coming from a white middle class female me, and would be coloured by that. Such research is also costly and to expect everyone to do it is... frankly, ridiculous.

I guess what I'm getting at here is that it's a little presumptuous to expect that work coming from a particular cultural avenue is going to be able to represent culturally different characters as they should be represented.

Sheesh... my brain's a little mangled here. Also drawing a lot of parallels with artwork - I keep wanting to draw creatures from Asian mythologies, but I keep telling myself that if they're not 'authentic' somehow I'll post them and piss off everyone from those backgrounds who'll tell me I got them all wrong and call me a wannabe.
I still haven't tried drawing them.

[penchaft.livejournal.com]

(This is why I stick to fantasy. Less worry!)

[bunny-m.livejournal.com]

Huh. This is twice in the same day that the essay by deepad has come up. I suspect I should read it. The 400+ comment thread in the other mention is just a tad daunting, though.

[kadeton.livejournal.com]

I find your examples deeply flawed. Characterisation is based around background and motivation; a woman who 'gets angry about random things for no good reason' is an example of a terrible character, simply because her motivations are inexplicable beyond 'she's a woman'. Similarly, an Australian aboriginal who is a cannibal but has no particular reason to be so is a terrible character, in exactly the same way that a white character who was a cannibal 'just because' would be terrible. Neither of these is an example of 'good writing with racist/sexist misconceptions', they're just examples of bad writing that also happen to betray prejudiced views.

One thing a lot more stories need is contrast in their minority characters. Male fantasy authors in particular have a tendency to write all their female characters as indistinguishable clones. Other races and cultures are usually given even worse treatment in popular fiction. Again, this isn't good writing with flaws, it's just bad writing, and not because of any sexist or racist element. The writing is bad because having a group of characters that all think and act the same way because of a single shared characteristic is ridiculous, lazy and unconvincing.

[elaran.livejournal.com]

I quite like bits of that post.

[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.)

Part four

[ataxi.livejournal.com]

Tom grumpy! Smash stuff! Sorry about the ranting.

[fallimar.livejournal.com]

Playing Devil's Advocate for the sake of poderousness:

How does one write perfect characterisations of people who aren't within your own circle of experience? Research does a lot, and any author who doesn't research the backgrounds of characters outside of their own... 'type' (can't think of a better word there) will almost certainly make some assumptions that are going to annoy people.

On the flipside though, are readers just asking too much of writers when all the writers are doing is attempting to create a character who's not from within their own cultural spectrum? I couldn't write a believable Balinese character, for instance. I could try, and I could go to Bali, talk to Balinese people and experience as much of the culture as I could. That'd improve the writing no end, but in the end the writing itself is still coming from a white middle class female me, and would be coloured by that. Such research is also costly and to expect everyone to do it is... frankly, ridiculous.

I guess what I'm getting at here is that it's a little presumptuous to expect that work coming from a particular cultural avenue is going to be able to represent culturally different characters as they should be represented.

Sheesh... my brain's a little mangled here. Also drawing a lot of parallels with artwork - I keep wanting to draw creatures from Asian mythologies, but I keep telling myself that if they're not 'authentic' somehow I'll post them and piss off everyone from those backgrounds who'll tell me I got them all wrong and call me a wannabe.
I still haven't tried drawing them.

[penchaft.livejournal.com]

(This is why I stick to fantasy. Less worry!)

[bunny-m.livejournal.com]

Huh. This is twice in the same day that the essay by deepad has come up. I suspect I should read it. The 400+ comment thread in the other mention is just a tad daunting, though.

[kadeton.livejournal.com]

I find your examples deeply flawed. Characterisation is based around background and motivation; a woman who 'gets angry about random things for no good reason' is an example of a terrible character, simply because her motivations are inexplicable beyond 'she's a woman'. Similarly, an Australian aboriginal who is a cannibal but has no particular reason to be so is a terrible character, in exactly the same way that a white character who was a cannibal 'just because' would be terrible. Neither of these is an example of 'good writing with racist/sexist misconceptions', they're just examples of bad writing that also happen to betray prejudiced views.

One thing a lot more stories need is contrast in their minority characters. Male fantasy authors in particular have a tendency to write all their female characters as indistinguishable clones. Other races and cultures are usually given even worse treatment in popular fiction. Again, this isn't good writing with flaws, it's just bad writing, and not because of any sexist or racist element. The writing is bad because having a group of characters that all think and act the same way because of a single shared characteristic is ridiculous, lazy and unconvincing.

[elaran.livejournal.com]

I quite like bits of that post.

[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.)