# Right and wrong ways to write about other cultures/places



## Nerds_feather (Aug 7, 2012)

Another spinoff thread from the RH one. Though I would start by asking: when and how can you write about a place, culture or people other than "your own?" What constitutes "doing it right" and what counts as "appropriation?"


----------



## Ursa major (Aug 8, 2012)

Perhaps you ought to explain what you mean by appropriation in this particular context. Given the way you introduced it, you suggest that it counts as "doing it wrong". Is this always true, even in SFF**?





** - For instance, in a far future, might what we see as a mistake in describing a culture that exists in our own time merely be what that culture (or aspects of it) have become in that far future. (And if there is a "dark ages" problem in that future world - i.e. a lack of information about our time - wouldn't mistakes and misconceptions about all our current-day cultures be natural and, indeed, expected?)


----------



## Stephen Palmer (Aug 8, 2012)

One of the main reasons I wrote _Muezzinland_ was to write a novel about African cultures where the 'issue' of those cultures was so unimportant it was never even mentioned. You simply have to immerse yourself into these other cultures and forget about comparisons...


----------



## Toby Frost (Aug 8, 2012)

Incredibly hard to define, let alone answer. I think you can write about it whenever you like, but you have to do it right. To argue in effect that a white, middle-class writer from, say, the US cannot convincingly depict what it is like to be, say, Brazilian, or black, is to argue that different types of human are almost beyond one another's comprehension. It may be exceptionally difficult to do, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be attempted.

I also think that there is nothing wrong with writing a story in which the protagonist goes to another land and finds it strange. I think there are a few out there who confuse finding another place different with finding it inferior.


----------



## RJM Corbet (Aug 8, 2012)

Nerds_feather said:


> ... What constitutes "doing it right"...


 
Heavy, exhaustive research?

Which is why it's always easier to write from what you know.

But it's the same problem for a man writing women, or vv?


----------



## WmPreston (Aug 8, 2012)

A friend of mine said yesterday that problems often arise when writers approach a character with an agenda rather than trying to imagine a fully-formed human character within a particular place and time. 

I'd add to that that you could be naive instead of agenda-driven and make the same sorts of mistakes. And to write about anyone, you have to find where you can, as the writer, _connect_ with that character. To see any character as wholly "other" is as problematic as treating a character as if he or she were exactly like you.

As said above, research is necessary, especially if one lacks even second-hand knowledge. Always do more research than you think you need, since we are never quite aware of what all we don't know.


----------



## Nerds_feather (Aug 8, 2012)

Ursa major said:


> Perhaps you ought to explain what you mean by appropriation in this particular context. Given the way you introduced it, you suggest that it counts as "doing it wrong". Is this always true, even in SFF**?
> 
> ** - For instance, in a far future, might what we see as a mistake in describing a culture that exists in our own time merely be what that culture (or aspects of it) have become in that far future. (And if there is a "dark ages" problem in that future world - i.e. a lack of information about our time - wouldn't mistakes and misconceptions about all our current-day cultures be natural and, indeed, expected?)



"appropriation" is a word used in postcolonial theory (and often by feminists, critical race theorists and others as well) to mean the claiming ownership of "cultural stuff" that's "not your own." it's an incredibly vague term, open to a lot of interpretation. but i think it's useful as well if you are specific about what it means. for me cultural appropriation means taking something you don't have experience of, claiming it as your own and then misrepresenting it by dumbing it down. 

like, what if someone set a story in africa when that person has never been there and doesn't actually know any africans? problems are likely to arise. characters are likely to be inauthentic, and very possibly based on stereotypes; places are going to look, sound and smell wrong, so to speak. actual people from africa who read the story may be horrified to find an alien world, while a lot of the non-african readership may think it's "really real." a major criticism of bacigalupi's *the windup girl*, that has been articulated elsewhere, is that his thailand is inauthentic, but a lot of readers, critics and awards people lauded its "authenticity."

for some people, though, appropriation has a broader meaning: any instance where white people write about non-white people, or first worlders write about the developing world. i do not agree with these kinds of definitions, because the who concept of "ownership" is deeply problematic. i mean, should british writers avoid ancient greece because they are not greek, even though ancient greece is the root of ALL western civilization? should a british writer who lives in singapore and has for most of his or her adult life not write about singapore, even though he or she knows it much better than britain? no, of course not.

for me it's all about how you do it. i also think if you are writing about a place that's not commonly represented in SF/F, you also have a sort of special responsibility not to caricature it or end up just perpetuating/reinforcing stereotypes about it--something that can happen unconsciously.


----------



## allmywires (Aug 8, 2012)

Funnily enough, I was moved to ask RH pretty much this exact question on Twitter. This is what she says:

My question was 'in your opinion, what is the right way to discuss racism and sexism in fiction - or specifically in speculative fiction?'

RH said: 'by doing it from the POV of the oppressed, not Whitey Mighty saviors or similar and by being very very careful if you have never experienced racism/sexism/etc.'

Which is a fair point, but I don't think it's a universal rule. Just be aware when you're writing about unconscious descriptors that creep in - exotic, barbaric, hooked-nosed etc.  And also whether your POV character would notice these things.


----------



## Ursa major (Aug 8, 2012)

allmywires said:


> And also whether your POV character would notice these things.


 

This is very important, in my opinion, although it cuts both ways:

If a narrator (or a narrative that's so close to the PoV character (A) as makes no difference) steeped in <Culture X> "talks" about another character (B) also steeped in <Culture X>, the narrative shouldn't read as if A finds B somewhat exotic. So if someone from Japan wrote about me meeting someone else who's quite like me (such as a close relative), the cultural descriptions should be minimal. And it definitely shouldn't include phrases such as: "Like all Briton's, Stephanie didn't...."
If A "talks" about someone (C) from a culture with which A is mostly unfamiliar, A's narration might very well start from a position where certain stereotypes about C's culture appear. However, one would hope that as A finds out more about C and C's culture, C becomes a rounded individual in the narrative, and (where appropriate**) misconceptions about C's culture are overturned. To do otherwise (i.e. pretend that A never had those misconceptions) would seem to be dishonest. (There seems little point in restricting the narrative to what the PoV character knows and can sense (see, hear, etc.) while at the same time making them by far the best-informed cultural commentator on the planet.)
 
** - I think this is where problems might lie. One could, I suppose, make sure that all A's misconceptions are individually rebutted by events/insights later in the story. The trouble might come if one of those stereotype-based views turns out to be one of C's real characteristics. The red-headed C might indeed have a fiery temper, to use a blatant example (one that is known to be entirely untrue in real life). Personally, as long as C becomes that rounded individual, and A's stereotypical views of other cultures are seen to be (in general) just that, and not a reflection of reality, that should be enough. Probably.


----------



## Nerds_feather (Aug 8, 2012)

you both make very good points.

@allmywires: 

I like that point a lot. I also don't think it's a universal rule, but we do get a lot of racism from the perspective of the conflicted member of the dominant group, and not enough from the perspective of the recipients. Doesn't have to switch 100% in the other direction, but it would be nice to have more of it. 

The "white savior" thing is really tired. see: Avatar. the POCs--or in that case, AOCs--end up being background to the story of redemption for the white--or in that case, human--protagonist.

A different take on the story would be to make the POC/AOC the protagonist, and the "redeemed white person/human" the sidekick who helps in some way but isn't the main event. 

@Ursa Major

Absolutely. This is something frequently cited as a problem with exoticized depictions of "foreign-ness." Take this Indonesian example: unless the protagonist is an outsider, he or she is simply not going to catalogue the tropical fruits at the night market in excessive detail. To him or her, they are just fruits at the night market, something they ostensibly see as often as someone in England or America sees different kinds of lettuce at the supermarket. Even if tropical fruit is awesome (and it is), for an Indonesian it's really not that extraordinary. Detail of place and culture are better internalized and discussed as someone in England or America would discuss the things we see and experience in our daily lives.


----------



## Anne Lyle (Aug 8, 2012)

WmPreston said:


> As said above, research is necessary, especially if one lacks even second-hand knowledge. Always do more research than you think you need, since we are never quite aware of what all we don't know.



This. I had a Muslim friend beta-read my second novel (set in the Mediterranean in the 16th century), and she pointed out a number of issues that I'd been blind to out of ignorance or insufficient research. I can't get around the reality that Christians and Muslims were mostly enemies during this period, or that xenophobia was commonplace, but I can make sure that I include sympathetic, realistic characters on both sides, and avoid blatant errors.

I'm also hoping that my hero doesn't fall into the "white saviour" stereotype! In some ways he's the total opposite, but it's hard to explain without major plot spoilers


----------



## RJM Corbet (Aug 9, 2012)

One of the advantages of reading certain authors is that they travel, and set their books in places they have been to. There's a John Grisham book set in the Amazon jungle, and it's evident that he's spent time there, researched the culture he's writing about, etc.

Other writers will set their novels in a city they themselves know well, and the reader gets to experience the place: Ian Rankin's Edinbrough or Michael Connely's LA.

The authentic armchair experience of different places/cultures/times is part of the value of reading -- say, Tolstoy's Russia -- along with the story, of course. As soon as the reader feels he's being short-changed he's likely not only to put the book down, but to cross that author off his list too. 

Of course ... with SFF it's going to be 'made up', with the reader prepared to temporarily suspend judgement/disbelief for a reading experience that _feels_ authentic. Lord of the Rings, for instance.

But Tolkien didn't just suck it out of his thumb. It's based on deep knowledge of Norse mythology, etc.

That may be one reason for SFF's niche status: it's purely imaginary and many readers like to feel they're learning something real, along with the story, for the time invested in reading, and SFF doesn't provide that.

I do think an authentic place/culture is probably essential, based on the writer's own experience or research, or the reader will sense that it's not?


----------



## WmPreston (Aug 10, 2012)

RJM Corbet said:


> I do think an authentic place/culture is probably essential, based on the writer's own experience or research, or the reader will sense that it's not?



As was mentioned above, _The Windup Girl_ lay in an odd zone with regards to "authenticity." For someone like me, knowing nothing about current Thai culture, I was willing to assume that what was being depicted was, while pushed into the future, "authentic." (Someone with more direct knowledge might not think that at all.) However, some elements of that culture seemed unconvincing. They might have been true, or not, but the writer's job is to make things believable—and sometimes readers need even more convincing about things that are actually "true." 

But, with that novel, issues of authenticity fell away in the face of all the other horrifying problems the story possessed (in addition to simple structural problems that should never have been allowed). That novel's success in the SF field told me a lot about the sad truths that still prevail in the genre.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Aug 10, 2012)

Nerds_feather said:


> What constitutes "doing it right"?



Research, research, research!!!


----------



## RJM Corbet (Aug 11, 2012)

WmPreston said:


> ... _The Windup Girl ... _That novel's success in the SF field told me a lot about the sad truths that still prevail in the genre.


 
I haven't read it.

Is it internet self-published? Or who is the publisher?


----------



## Nerds_feather (Aug 11, 2012)

RJM Corbet said:


> I haven't read it.
> 
> Is it internet self-published? Or who is the publisher?



It's published by NSB and won the 2009 nebula and 2010 Hugo for best novel. It has since been criticized by a bunch of people for being exoticizing, inauthentically Thai, perpetuating a bunch of damaging stereotypes about Thailand and not, apparently, based on any great experience with Thailand, or the input/advice of any Thai people. Yet most SF readers can't tell the difference, and take this undeniably well-written and evocative novel as "authentic." That's the set of problems WmPreston is referring to. 

That said, I don't think it's fair to pile on the author (WmPreston is not doing this, but other critics have). Ihe author--Paolo Bacigalupi--wrote another novel, *The Drowned Cities*, that I think is excellent. And it's particularly good on issues of race and such. Either he matured as a writer, or the problems inherent to *The Windup Girl* are really just very specific problems relate to that project. Either way, I think criticism of that book should really be focused on the book and not go ad hominem, as some critics have.

While I am increasingly troubled by problematic "othering" in SF/F, I am also increasingly troubled by a sort of "gotcha" style critique where one work--or worse yet, a troubled blog post or sentence--is isolated, jumped on and then used to dismiss anything else an author says or writes.  

I think if we, collectively, are going to be more critical of things like exoticization, appropriation and the such--and we really should be--then we also need to recognize that coming to terms with these things is a process.


----------



## WmPreston (Aug 12, 2012)

Nerds_feather said:


> It's published by NSB and won the 2009 nebula and 2010 Hugo for best novel. It has since been criticized by a bunch of people for being exoticizing, inauthentically Thai, perpetuating a bunch of damaging stereotypes about Thailand and not, apparently, based on any great experience with Thailand, or the input/advice of any Thai people. Yet most SF readers can't tell the difference, and take this undeniably well-written and evocative novel as "authentic." That's the set of problems WmPreston is referring to.



The "exoticizing" also led to some very disturbing sexual content. The "Windup Girl" is a female who's been designed to pleasure men but who also can kick the ass of everybody in the room (until she runs out of steam, as there's some kind of limit on she surge of power she gets). I, and others I talked with at the time on the _Asimov's_ forum, felt the writing itself gloried in the abuse the character took. (It's been a while since I read it, and my notes on the book went down with that forum's ship, so I'm vague on some aspects.) In fairness, quite a bit of the characterization was bad (or inconsistent, as the writer seemed to rethink some characters as he proceeded), so the problems with her character can't necessarily be singled out; still, when people online use the neologism "rapey" to describe a book, this novel comes to mind. (Since I read almost no fantasy or suspense, and have never touched what I call "vampire porn," I'm not exposed much to these problematic tropes.) There were other serious problems as well, such as some odd plot jumps that made the novel seem like a film that's lost some reels, and the writing felt forcedly literary—an element which I think played into its winning awards as those often have to do with the field's self-image.


----------



## WmPreston (Aug 12, 2012)

This Strange Horizons review provides a good overview of the novel and the ideas the novel's working with, and, _especially __along with the comments_, gives someone unfamiliar with the novel insight into the problems some readers have. (I happen to agree with every negative comment made, none of which is a personal attack, I think.) I am quite convinced—and this is a discussion for another thread—that many readers and reviewers want so much to find a "next great thing," they project better qualities onto some novels (and films) than they actually possess, thereby enjoying a sense of personal investment in the book's (desired) excellence.


----------



## RJM Corbet (Aug 13, 2012)

Way to go!

A best selling, controversy provoking work that is being minutely dissected and discussed on the internet forums.

_Paolo Bacigalupi _will probably be a bit more careful to research his settings accurately from now on: all part of the learning curve for him, I suppose. But doubt he's feeling much pain about it all?


----------



## Ursa major (Aug 13, 2012)

I'm getting quite depressed about _The Windup Girl_. I bought it thinking that a recent, award-winning novel was just the thing to keep up with modern SF, but during the last couple of weeks, it's been dropping away from the top of my TBR pile.

It's bad enough reading books  and finding oneself examining the style as much as the content. But having to worry about those aspects of the text (and my reactions to it)  that have made it the subject of so many posts in this thread (and elsewhere) is draining my will to ever open it.



(And it's written in the present tense, which is probably one reason why I hadn't yet read it. )


----------



## Nerds_feather (Aug 13, 2012)

WmPreston said:


> The "exoticizing" also led to some very disturbing sexual content. The "Windup Girl" is a female who's been designed to pleasure men but who also can kick the ass of everybody in the room (until she runs out of steam, as there's some kind of limit on she surge of power she gets). I, and others I talked with at the time on the _Asimov's_ forum, felt the writing itself gloried in the abuse the character took. (It's been a while since I read it, and my notes on the book went down with that forum's ship, so I'm vague on some aspects.) In fairness, quite a bit of the characterization was bad (or inconsistent, as the writer seemed to rethink some characters as he proceeded), so the problems with her character can't necessarily be singled out; still, when people online use the neologism "rapey" to describe a book, this novel comes to mind. (Since I read almost no fantasy or suspense, and have never touched what I call "vampire porn," I'm not exposed much to these problematic tropes.) There were other serious problems as well, such as some odd plot jumps that made the novel seem like a film that's lost some reels, and the writing felt forcedly literary—an element which I think played into its winning awards as those often have to do with the field's self-image.



Plus making the sex doll Japanese felt gratuitous.


----------



## Nerds_feather (Aug 13, 2012)

RJM Corbet said:


> _Paolo Bacigalupi _will probably be a bit more careful to research his settings accurately from now on: all part of the learning curve for him, I suppose. But doubt he's feeling much pain about it all?



I read a more recent novel of his, *The Drowned Cities*. There's basically nothing of the questionable stuff that was criticized in *The Windup Girl* in that book, and actually it tackles race, sexual violence and other hot button topics quite well. Plus the writing is excellent. 

This is why I really don't approve when people take criticisms of *The Windup Girl* and then turn it into an _ad hominem_ attack on the author (as some have done). He either did learn from earlier mistakes, or there were just specific problems inherent to that specific project, that don't reflect in his other work.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Aug 23, 2012)

Nerds_feather said:


> Another spinoff thread from the RH one. Though I would start by asking: when and how can you write about a place, culture or people other than "your own?" What constitutes "doing it right" and what counts as "appropriation?"



I finally want to pick up on this, because the whole argument RH makes is both elitist and racist. It's a argument borne of personal insecurity and arrogance, and has no grounds for acceptance.

The argument runs thus: _you may not write about a culture directly outside of your own direct culture. If you do, and you don't do a great job of it, you are simply racist._

The problem being that literature has long recognised the multi-cultural nature of the world, and has been more than happy to explore and reference this. _This is regardless of the writer's own immediate culture_.

Some of these efforts will be better than others, and no doubt many will be laughable.

But note "laughable" as opposed to "racist".

For example, RH's criticisms of the Windup Girl seem to focus on the fact that, um, you can't have a sex robot in Thailand, because, um, that's implying Thailand will never develop past it's sex tourism pseudo-image. 

She doesn't use her own words, but instead leads her charge based on another blog. For someone who claims to be living in Thailand, it is telling that at no point does she make a personal defence of the country or Thai culture. It's almost as if she has no interest in the Thai's at all - which would be hardly surprising for a rich upper-class Chinese expat.

A point I found really came to a head in underlying the elitist nature of this was in a review, which slated the writer for using a range of ancient mythical swords, including Exclaibur - and a Japanese one. Apparently, Westerners are not allowed to write about Japanese mythical objects. 

Despite the fact that RH is a Manga fan, and yet Manga never shies from using Western figures, imagery, and ideas. 

However, I don't read people accusing Japanese writers of "cultural misappropriation" over the issue - because there isn't that level of insecurity over the issue. 

Heck some countries make cultural appropriation a subject of national pride: Iran has long banned Disney, and instead created it's own analogues; Turkey has made a large number of films about Western superheroes; and India's Bollywood - well, 'nuff said. And China? Well, there's a complete English town outside of Shanghai. 

Ok, so Thames Town is not a novel, but I'll be very surprised if there aren't a range of Chinese-language stories based in Britain (especially Harry Potter fanfic) that are culturally incorrect, but aren't noticed because not many Brits read Mandarin or Cantonese. And even if they were read, you know, the British tend to have a sense of humour.

I think it would take some form of backwoods idiot supremacist to get angry about these examples of "cultural appropriation" of "Western culture". Either that or someone with such a degree of personal insecurity that holding onto some form of cultural identity becomes a means to an ends.

Despite the criticisms, RH does make some really good points about sloppy use of race, gender, and sexuality, and I find her blog seriously interesting. It's made me rethink a lot of ideas of how these are - and should be applied - in sff literature especially. Her literary criticisms are absolutely unique and interesting.

But as for claims of cultural inappropriation - the ultimate irony is that we have a commentator who reads as Western-educated, consumes Western culture, and writes in English. And is part of the economic Chinese elite expats that considers itself superior to the local population - in this instance, Thailand.

Racism and cultural appropriation are indeed very close to home with this one, so perhaps that explains the personal hypersensivity and cultural elitism.


----------



## Anne Lyle (Aug 24, 2012)

I said:


> However, I don't read people accusing Japanese writers of "cultural misappropriation" over the issue - because there isn't that level of insecurity over the issue.
> .
> .
> .
> And even if they were read, you know, the British tend to have a sense of humour.



To play devil's advocate for a moment - this is what's known as *white privilege*. We British (and Christian Europeans in general) have been the principle conquerors throughout the globe, imposing our culture on so many others, committing genocide... So yes, we have the security of being able to smile at cultural appropriation - because we were never the victims of cultural destruction (or at least, not recently enough for living people to care).

If you (and I direct this at everyone, not specifically I, Brian) can't understand this distinction, maybe you should think twice about writing a culture that used to be oppressed by your own?


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Aug 24, 2012)

It's a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't, though.  If we base all our fantasy around white western European mythologies and don't include people of color, we get called out for that.  But if we borrow from cultures not our own, then we're appropriating them.

And I think Brian's point that these borrowings go on everywhere and all the time is a good one.

When we do it, people see it as symptomatic of a long history of white privilege and the suppression of other peoples, the destruction of other cultures, but strip it of its historical baggage and it's just one of the ways that cultures naturally interact with each other.


----------



## Kylara (Aug 24, 2012)

I remember watching tv a while ago, and flicked onto a comedian...he was black, and got to a part of his set where he was making quite a few jokes about black people, many of which white comedians got slated for, and his comment after a few "black jokes" was something along the lines of "It's ok, I'm black, I am allowed to laugh at black jokes. Also because I'm black, I can make fun of everyone else. Except the Native Americans...but that's because they don't wear feathers" and it made me think about how ironic the whole race/culture thing is in some cases, with people being afraid to comment either way, because whatever they said would be racist/culturist and they would get told off, and in doing so, this made it even harder for people to talk about race and culture. 

I personally have a few friends who are from Nigeria (international boarding school - _thank you_) (and China, Hong Kong, South Korea, Japan, Russia, Italy, Jordan, Norway, Spain etc) and aside from an amusing debate over "Santa" coming down chimnies in England, when he uses the door over there, the biggest issue they had with people realising that not _only _were they black, they were also foreign, was that they were very careful about what they said - enquiring about home country, so as not to offend by saying "Africa" and things like that, when they would never have thought to do the same with someone with an 'American/Canadian' accent so as not to offend people from Alabama, or Toronto, Atlanta, NY, Iowa, Texas, (I can't spell many of the others with the dodgy keyboard I have at the moment sorry!) and how amusing they thought this was. One friend particularly enjoyed putting new aquaintances on the spot, by replying 'Africa, and my uncle owns a goat' (true, but he does _run_ the goat farm and does pretty well at it) just to see them squirm...


----------



## Brian G Turner (Aug 24, 2012)

Anne Lyle said:


> this is what's known as *white privilege*.



Yes, but this comes from critical race theory, which specifically identifies it as an issue of economics. Simply put, the rich oppress the poor, and this is translated in racial terms.

The irony being, that we have someone in the highest economic classes of a country foreign to them, that was never subject to colonialism, complaining about other foreigners and accusing them of cultural colonialism.

I would find that ironic, but am more inclined to see it as elitist.


----------



## Stephen Palmer (Aug 24, 2012)

Indeed - look at the relationship between China and Tibet...


----------



## Stephen Palmer (Aug 24, 2012)

True story, that I just remembered. When I worked many years ago at the University Of Luton there were quite a few Indian and Pakistani students, a lot of whom I worked closely with on creative support (arts type stuff). One day, one of them started going off about the Welsh, it seemed pretty harmless stuff and it was I think meant to be funny, but (as a partly Welsh person) I found myself a little irritated. So I told him I was Welsh. The look on his face when he realised what he'd done - on so many levels - was priceless.


----------



## Kylara (Aug 24, 2012)

Brilliant Stephen! A very close friend of mine is mistress of accents, and always pulls the "I'm Welsh/Scottish/Spanish/French/insert nationality here" line whenever someone does that, just for their face - it is possibly the greatest face ever, the not knowing whether to laugh, backtrack, apologise or ignore...it is most amusing


----------



## Ursa major (Aug 24, 2012)

Anne Lyle said:


> To play devil's advocate for a moment - this is what's known as *white privilege*. We British (and Christian Europeans in general) have been the principle conquerors throughout the globe, imposing our culture on so many others, committing genocide... So yes, we have the security of being able to smile at cultural appropriation - because we were never the victims of cultural destruction (or at least, not recently enough for living people to care).
> 
> If you (and I direct this at everyone, not specifically I, Brian) can't understand this distinction, maybe you should think twice about writing a culture that used to be oppressed by your own?


A singularly unfortunate choice of post to which to react, i.e. one talking about Japan and Thailand, the first of which has never been colonised (by anyone), and the latter which hasn't been colonised by a "Western" power. (I think either the Khmers or the Laotians were the last to incorporate Thailand in a non-Thai-run state. Or was it the Burmese...?)

Earlier, I also used Japan as an example precisely because it hasn't been a colony. True, it was conquered at the end of WWII (i.e. at the end of a period when it was actively engaged in conquering China and Korea, amongst other places), but the conquerors, the US**, left pretty fast***.  (So it was, in effect, colonised in the same way as the Ruhr was by France after WWI, i.e. not at all.)

As to conquering and committing genocide, I think you'll find that this is, sadly, a human trait, one that doesn't depend on skin tone, geographical location, or religion. It's just that, being slower developers than most cultures in Eurasia, we were unable to conquer anyone significant until the last handful or so of centuries; this means that "our" behaviour hasn't yet faded into history.



** - Whose military actions were the direct result of an attack by Japan, which was considered at the time to be a front-rank nation, not somewhere needing to be "civilised" buy direct Western intervention.

*** - The Japanese seemed to have been assiduous cultural appropriators whether they were occupied (1945-1952) or not.


----------



## Kissmequick (Aug 24, 2012)

Teresa Edgerton said:


> It's a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't, though.  If we base all our fantasy around white western European mythologies and don't include people of color, we get called out for that.  But if we borrow from cultures not our own, then we're appropriating them.



I think it's a question of not IF you borrow, but _how_. If you are just plonking stuff in because 'it sounds cool' or whatever, probably not going to go down well. Same with if you take a stereotype or two and perpetuate them. People will roll their eyes at the very least. 

If, however, you take the time to do your research, hopefully get betas who know teh culture/place you are trying to portray, it will show and you should (depending still on how you use that research) have a lot less problems. 

Thing is, say Britain has been so often and so positively portrayed in fiction, one book that cocks it up won't make much of a blip. But if you write a bout a culture that has been often badly/stereotypically represented in teh West (or not all) then the onus is more to get it right. 

You're probably going to have some people offended however well you handle it, because that's just the way it goes, but if you can satisfy your most rigorously critiqued self and the majority of people who are from the culture you are trying to portray, then you should be fine. 



NB: Re the Wind-up Girl; at least one of the problems I've seen bandied about that was, while the author did do some research it was mostly based on the experiences of expats living in Thailand, not Thai themselves. I'm not sure how true this is, but it would account for a thing or two.


----------



## Ursa major (Aug 24, 2012)

Regarding positive portrayals of Western societies.

As a Brit, I see the US as a foreign country. As I do France and Germany**. And the Republic of Ireland***. Some of the culture is shared across these places, but they really aren't the same. Listening to the same music (do we?) and seeing the same Hollywood blockbusters doesn't constitute sharing a complete culture.

As I've only been to the US on a few business trips (most recently in '94), my main information about that culture is gained from news reports - today's is about the shooting in NY - and crime shows**** (Person of Interest, various CSIs, NCIS, Burn Notice, The Mentalist, etc., and dozens from previous years). While the latter do have positives - 100% clearance rates, and generally intelligent and incorruptible police/federal agents - if I were to take the picture of the US being shown at face value, I'd be in danger of seeing the US as some sort of nightmare state, as far as crime goes. (And all the shows I've listed are, I believe, US-produced and written.)

Oddly enough, I manage not to do so, and not only because of the pleasant and polite citizens of that country who post here. Perhaps it's because of the context: all crimes shows concentrate on crime.

This works with all sorts of shows. So if a novel describes going to the sleazier districts of a foreign country (Thailand, to choose a country at random), I'm never persuaded that I'm being given a picture of the whole country, if only because sleazy districts exist in all sorts of cultures and states.


Regarding SFF: Most SFF novels and short stories I've read do not focus on the nicer aspects of life. (Are there fantasy or SF versions of Ambridge, where not much happens at all, and there's little of a seedy nature?) If an SFF story involves visiting a non-Western country, the murder/mayhem/whatever previously seen on the streets of a fictional New York, or London, are not going to disappear for page after page until the protagonists reach, say, France.

If a critic pulls out the non-Western-set bits from a book, and notices the unpleasant behaviour of the characters from that location alone, they can, in their own eyes, prove that the book is racist or is "doing down" a culture.

None of which is to say that we shouldn't try to avoid using stereotypes. And some books do describe other cultures badly; but that isn't even necessarily because their authors are bad writers. They may have had an off day (or however long it took them to write the scenes in question). It certainly isn't proof that people of their culture or skin colour can't write other than racist/culturally insenstive scenes set countries/cultures other than their own.




** - I'm more of a federalist than a little Englander, by the way.

*** - Some of my ancestors came from there.

**** - Not exactly highbrow fare, I admit.


----------



## Kissmequick (Aug 24, 2012)

> This works with all sorts of shows. So if a novel describes going to the  sleazier districts of a foreign country (Thailand, to choose a country  at random), I'm never persuaded that I'm being given a picture of the  whole country, if only because sleazy districts exist in all sorts of  cultures and states.



Hmm...yes I see what you mean, however (you knew that was coming, right? ) for insatnce the US pervades our culture, consciously or unconsciously. We 'know*' not all the US is like that, from many different sources over a long, long period of time. 

If A Reader's only contact with, again say Thailand, is that sleazy underbelly and that is presented as 'This is how Thailand is' with nothing to show any other aspect(s) eitehr in culture or in non-stereotypical characters then it's a) pretty one dimensional and b) perpetuating a stereotype and negating/ignoring all the _other_ things that Thailand has within its culture. 

In the UK and the US we're lucky - our culture is, for various and not often palatable reasons, pervasive. People 'know' that the UK isn't just chavs and sink estates and hooligans, so a show or book that concentrates on that isn't harming us, as people. Many people in the West don't 'know' Thailand in anything _like _the same way - maybe they know the stereotypes - sex workers, pimps, lady boys, elephants, temples. So a book that deals only with those stereotypes and perpetuates them gives us a false lens to look through, and the Thai people (both in Thailand and elsewhere) another hurdle to jump. 

We're lucky

Other cultures are not, some more than others, so they need to be treated with a bit of respect. 



> It certainly isn't proof that people of their culture or skin colour can't write other than racist/culturally insenstive scenes set countries/cultures other than their own.


Absolutely - in the same way I don't mind if a guy writes a female character, as long as he _does it well_. If he doesn't, he can do real harm and/or piss off a lot of people. 

First, do no harm. 

*By know I mean that we have a broad range that we are exposed to. The US isn't 'just' people with guns and weird politicians. The UK isn't all butlers and thatched cottages. We're all over the media, in a multitude of ways so the breadth is there, outside our borders. Yes, people still make assumptions, but because there IS such a broad base, it matters much less.


----------



## Ursa major (Aug 25, 2012)

Kissmequick said:


> Hmm...yes I see what you mean, however (you knew that was coming, right? ) for insatnce the US pervades our culture, consciously or unconsciously. We 'know*' not all the US is like that, from many different sources over a long, long period of time.


A fictional view of the US pervades our culture, simply because so few of us have seen it at first hand. (A trip to Disney World in Florida doesn't count.) We only think we know the true US. (And unless one has lived there, how would one know what the place is truly like? Above, that is, assuming that US citizens are like us, in a way that, say, Thai people are assumed not to be.) Isn't it just guesswork? And aren't we ignoring the cultural impact of all the other places from where their population came?

In an example of the opposite happening, I tend to think, at the back of my mind, that Japanese culture is rather odd. I suspect this is because what little I have seen of that country and its culture (all in the media, and mostly documentaries: I'm not a big fan of anime or Manga, and Hiro in _Heroes_ doesn't count) has precisely sought out the different, possibly including a lot of things that the average Japanese person would also find very strange. 



Kissmequick said:


> If A Reader's only contact with, again say Thailand, is that sleazy underbelly and that is presented as 'This is how Thailand is' with nothing to show any other aspect(s) eitehr in culture or in non-stereotypical characters then it's a) pretty one dimensional and b) perpetuating a stereotype and negating/ignoring all the _other_ things that Thailand has within its culture.


Beyond choosing a Bangkok setting for a real purpose (not just for the stereotype, which is probably the major problem here: using Bangkok for what the reader expects it to be like), what would you have the writer do if only a chapter or two is set in that country? Send some of the characters on an otherwise pointless visit to the "authentic" Thailand to put the reader right?



Kissmequick said:


> In the UK and the US we're lucky - our culture is, for various and not often palatable reasons, pervasive. People 'know' that the UK isn't just chavs and sink estates and hooligans, so a show or book that concentrates on that isn't harming us, as people. Many people in the West don't 'know' Thailand in anything _like _the same way - maybe they know the stereotypes - sex workers, pimps, lady boys, elephants, temples. So a book that deals only with those stereotypes and perpetuates them gives us a false lens to look through, and the Thai people (both in Thailand and elsewhere) another hurdle to jump.


But if a Thai author who had never visited the UK wrote about us, their view of the UK would be skewed if they relied solely on films and novels (does anyone know of any Thai documentaries about the UK?) for their knowledge of us. (Even the dullest soaps are sensationalist, what with virtual polygamy - okay, I exaggerate - and murder and violence, so I can't think of anything that would portray us as we are.)



Kissmequick said:


> We're lucky
> 
> Other cultures are not, some more than others, so they need to be treated with a bit of respect.


We, as individuals, are lucky. Not every person in our society is, just as not everyone living in a poor country is poor. As for respect, we have a duty not to stick to cultural stereotypes, if only because we shouldn't have any two-dimensional characters in our books. But if one wants to make the world a better place, with greater understanding between its varied peoples, writing a novel is probably not the best route to take. (On the plus side, I suspect the major causes of cultural misconceptions do not include badly written novels.)



Kissmequick said:


> First, do no harm.


True. 



Kissmequick said:


> *By know I mean that we have a broad range that we are exposed to. The US isn't 'just' people with guns and weird politicians. The UK isn't all butlers and thatched cottages. We're all over the media, in a multitude of ways so the breadth is there, outside our borders. Yes, people still make assumptions, but because there IS such a broad base, it matters much less.


I'm not sure I know how we are supposed to have been exposed to this broader range. I suspect that we assume we know what the US is like, because we think it's a louder, more technicolor, version of ourselves (i.e. another stereotype). It may or may not be, but we would have to experience it properly to know one way or the other.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Aug 25, 2012)

The US is a very big place, and you might say that it is made up of many different cultures.

Movies and television shows almost always originate (even if they are not filmed there) in Hollywood or New York City, which are hardly representative of the rest of the country.

When they base their stories in the south or in the midwest, there will always be things that give an inaccurate impression.  (As Parson, for instance, could tell you.)

So, yes, I am sure you know less about us than some people in the UK think.

As I am also sure there are many people in the US who don't begin to fathom the diversity in the UK.


----------



## Kissmequick (Aug 25, 2012)

I think you are missing the point - in the UK, US etc we have an advantage. A BIG one. Our culture is spread willy nilly everywhere. That doesn't mean we get to nick other people's and screw around with it (because, hey, the UK at least did that for years, right? Maybe we shoudl stop?) Yes, every culture has stereotypes attached (and in the UK/US at least we often perpetuate these stereotypes about ourselves - so we can;t really blame others for it!), but the point is the harm that they (can) do. I an American thinks I've got a butler, live in a thatched cottage and sing song around teh old joanna, that's not really harming me....Annoying yes, but not offensive. _I am in a position to laugh at it._ For someone from a culture that ISN'T all pervasive, it can make a hard thing much, much worse, and they _aren't_ in a position to laugh because _it affects them_

Aliette de Bodard says it better.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Aug 25, 2012)

As an American, I can say that there are many things said about Americans, sometimes right here on these boards, that I am not at all inclined to laugh off.


----------



## Hex (Aug 25, 2012)

Anne Lyle said:


> we were never the victims of cultural destruction (or at least, not recently enough for living people to care).



I don't often mention this because it makes me sound like a nutcase, but I was brought up by people who cared deeply about the destruction of highland culture after Culloden (1746). It's quite surprising what living people care about.

I would go on (except: what I said above about sounding like a nutcase).


----------



## Ursa major (Aug 25, 2012)

Kissmequick said:


> I think you are missing the point - in the UK, US etc we have an advantage. A BIG one. Our culture is spread willy nilly everywhere. That doesn't mean we get to nick other people's and screw around with it (because, hey, the UK at least did that for years, right? Maybe we shoudl stop?)


Isn't all this a bit of a canard (to appropriate a French word)?

I can't see how the spread (or pervasiveness) of one** culture or another is of relevance here, beyond the political. And even then this only seems to be mentioned to put some commentators on the back foot, because, as there's no point to it, it's hard to refute.

What is really happening is that some books written for a western audience contain gross inaccuracies about other cultures. That would be wrong even if no-one outside of the United States, say, had never heard of the US, and no-one from the US ever contacted those living elsewhere or traded with the rest of the world.

Imagine that Citizen X of country Z listens to US music and watches Hollywood films; however, Citizen Y of country Z does neither. How are they differently affected by the printing, in the US, of that grossly inaccurate book? (If the US invaded country Z, and many of its soldiers had read that book and believed it to be true, you might have a point.) Or are you bothered by what US tourists to country Z might think; or how US customers decide from which country they like their purchases to come? Where is the general relevance? It all seems very tenuous.




Kissmequick said:


> Yes, every culture has stereotypes attached (and in the UK/US at least we often perpetuate these stereotypes about ourselves - so we can;t really blame others for it!), but the point is the harm that they (can) do. I an American thinks I've got a butler, live in a thatched cottage and sing song around teh old joanna, that's not really harming me....Annoying yes, but not offensive. _I am in a position to laugh at it._ For someone from a culture that ISN'T all pervasive, it can make a hard thing much, much worse, and they _aren't_ in a position to laugh because _it affects them_


People are people. Some can laugh things off; others can't. Some are simply irritated, if at all; others may develop a grudge. This is how they, as individuals, are. Unless a whole culture is built on having grudges, this is a personal reaction, one to which a Briton is just as susceptible as someone from China, Chad or Chile.



Kissmequick said:


> Aliette de Bodard says it better.


She says there that there are a lot of awful books, in this particular case written by people who've done little or no research into the cultures they're writing about. She's right on that. But she'd be just as right criticising books where all English people have butlers. Or cars with internal combustion engines running solely on water.

The thing is, what's really bad about them is that they're factually wrong; the only difference is that with errors written*** about cultures, toes are being tread on. (Cars are not aware that they can't run on water.) The solution is to avoid being ignorant and to not write inaccurate books; the solution is not to equip oneself with either a sense of guilt about your country's past or its current success. (One could argue - I would - that because toes are being tread upon, greater care should be taken with cultural matters, but that's because one shouldn't go around upsetting people if one can avoid it.)



** - The "our culture" being called upon is at least two: US and British, the former of which probably has the greater influence outside the Commonwealth (and sometimes within it).

*** - I think we have to accept that some writing about cultures and societies is deliberately skewed to make what are, essentially, political points. This sort of thing, often published on a daily basis, is dangerous, because many of its readers don't realise that it's made up and is propaganda.


----------



## Stephen Palmer (Aug 26, 2012)

Hex said:


> I don't often mention this because it makes me sound like a nutcase, but I was brought up by people who cared deeply about the destruction of highland culture after Culloden (1746). It's quite surprising what living people care about.
> 
> I would go on (except: what I said above about sounding like a nutcase).



And let's not forget what the English did to the Welsh 700 years ago. I suppose that was quite a long time ago though...


----------



## Kissmequick (Aug 26, 2012)

Ursa major said:


> The solution is to avoid being ignorant and to not write inaccurate books; the solution is not to equip oneself with either a sense of guilt about your country's past or its current success. (One could argue - I would - that because toes are being tread upon, greater care should be taken with cultural matters, but that's because one shouldn't go around upsetting people if one can avoid it.)



Well, exactly. We may be coming from different angles, but I think we agree on the outcome....

I was thinking a bit about this while at work (no point thinking about work, right?) and I was thinking....say I wrote a book set in the US. And I got Chicago mixed up with Toronto, and the US mixed up with Mexico, and all the people from LA had false boobs and a coke habit and said the main religion was Jedi and....(Note: And not on purpose, but in all seriousness)


I don't think I'd have my work held up and applauded as meticulously researched, or whatever. I'd get laughed at. I certainly wouldn't win any awards. And yet, when someone from the west cocks up China in such a way for instance, they get a round of applause for their 'authenticity'. Sometimes they win awards too...maybe_ that's _the rankle (or part of it)? That if it was perpetrated the other way around, no one would give it any credibility, because it isn;t credible, but if it's somewhere Other, no one seems to care about that. 

Because that would piss me off no end!


----------



## Ursa major (Aug 26, 2012)

I fully agree that critics' (and award givers') reactions (well, lack of pertinent reaction) to badly researched books is a big problem, as it not only suggests to those who don't know that the contents of those books are in some way accurate, but gives those inaccuracies a stamp of approval.

That isn't really the fault of the readers, who may be reading the books to better inform themselves (poor beggars). However, thinking that critics, and those on awards panels, know anything beyond the "literature" aspects of a book, as opposed to  what is underpinning the contents, is a big mistake.


Now that papers seem to be discarding their fact checkers - not that UK "newspapers" show evidence of ever having used them - perhaps the organisers of awards should employ one or two of them to check for inauthenticities in the candidate books.


----------



## Kissmequick (Aug 26, 2012)

It certainly isn't the reader's fault - I assume when reading (rightly or wrongly) that a writer has done their research unless I know otherwise. 

I think that's the real danger - people assume what you have written is correct*, and if it isn't, well that's when people who _do _know better get pee'd off, particularly if there isn't a broad range of books that cover that area. If there was, say, a big range of SFF books set in Thailand, including some that were very well researched etc, then maybe that one that isn't would rankle less, because readers then have that broad exposure to compare against (sort of what I was saying upthread The Uk has plenty of great books written about it that are true to it, so that one or two that aren't are less of a problem).

*For instance, when I read teh Wind up Girl, I assumed that this was an accurate portrayal, because I've never been to Thailand, or read much set there, so couldn't know otherwise. Then I found out it wasn't. If I hadn't found that out, I would still have thought it accurate.


----------



## HareBrain (Aug 26, 2012)

Since there's no point even trying to get away from the book, apparently 50 Sades of Grey fell foul of this, some American readers being rather unimpressed by the British author's clueless approach to her chosen setting.


----------



## Nerds_feather (Aug 31, 2012)

Kissmequick said:


> I think it's a question of not IF you borrow, but _how_. If you are just plonking stuff in because 'it sounds cool' or whatever, probably not going to go down well. Same with if you take a stereotype or two and perpetuate them. People will roll their eyes at the very least.
> 
> If, however, you take the time to do your research, hopefully get betas who know teh culture/place you are trying to portray, it will show and you should (depending still on how you use that research) have a lot less problems.
> 
> ...



Very well said.


----------



## Nerds_feather (Aug 31, 2012)

I think the thing is that the US and UK get depicted in all sorts of ways, positive and negative. All the time. Thailand or Indonesia, for example, only get portrayed negatively or in an exoticized way. Or almost only.

Working against that doesn't mean ignoring the bad, but rather striving for accuracy that shows the good alongside the bad, and achieves a realism that locals would recognize as realistic. I mean, Indonesia may have severe problems with poverty, social unrest, religious strife in specific times and places, environmental destruction and so on, but it also has vast and diverse cultures, strong family and communal values, a generally tolerant and inviting populace, wonderful mythic traditions and great natural beauty. I don't think it would be hard to show those side by side.


----------



## Ursa major (Aug 31, 2012)

Nerds_feather said:


> I think the thing is that the US and UK get depicted in all sorts of ways, positive and negative. All the time. Thailand or Indonesia, for example, only get portrayed negatively or in an exoticized way. Or almost only.


Perhaps; in the US and the UK. Not being able to speak or read any languages from south or east Asia, I have no idea how each of those countries' literature deals with either the "western" countries, their own country or the neighbouring countries; unless it's been translated into English. I expect that, depending on the book from that part of the world, I might be missing out on a good read (which would a pity), or missing an improbable portrayal of one or other "western" societies (for which I should be grateful).


Anyway, I must be off: I'll soon be heading north of Watford and so have to be fitted for my flat cap and whippet....



** - Literature written in (or translated into) one of the world languages - which are not all from the "West" - will be read all over the place, which does mean that poor (and even woeful) portrayals of other cultures by those writing in those languages,has a greater reach, and so will be read by those who are likely to know just how bad they are.


----------



## Connavar (Sep 6, 2012)

Research isnt all that is important, you have to be objective and remember we are very similar as humans no matter the culture, differences.   Im very sensitive and annoyed with novels that write about African peoples like its so different experience or something.

I liked for example River of Gods a SF set in India by Ian MacDonald.  He wrote the characters as people first and didnt define them by their different setting,background. 

Other than that if i want to experience read about different peoples,cultures i will read those peoples own books.  For us who live in West we should be very careful about letting only europeans,americans tell you stories about other peoples in other continents,part of the world.   Personal experience is very important and i mean all kinds of lit and not only SFF authors.

A western author could never ever have written *Things Fall Apart* like Chinua Achebe did for example.  He wrote about his own peoples and his own POV in a way that spoke to me who are from total different culture alot.

Its a balance that im very conscious about i have grown up in the west but belong to other part of the world as some of you know.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Apr 6, 2015)

Nerds_feather said:


> Another spinoff thread from the RH one. Though I would start by asking: when and how can you write about a place, culture or people other than "your own?" What constitutes "doing it right" and what counts as "appropriation?"



I'm going to return to this discussion because something that has been bugging me of late is when the English-speaking world writes about non-English speaking peoples.

In English, names usually don't mean anything - certainly not any more. However, in many other cultures, names can mean something. 

Yet many writers still instil that English-speaking mindset on the people's they write about.

This occurred to me when reading a piece of historical fiction based on Mongolians. In Mongolian culture, names have meaning. But Mongolian historical fiction and fantasy writings use the European view of names and titles. 

A simple example - a Mongolian character who refers to Ghengis Khan or the Khan of Khans is not thinking in a Mongolian way, but instead, using European appropriation of Mongolian words. Instead wouldn't they arguably need to refer to "Emperor" or "King of kings" to make it authentic to the original meanings?

The argument is perhaps more revealing when we speak about Native American peoples - if we had a Sioux Native American character who referred to their name as "White Bear" then wouldn't that be authentic to that character's cultural POV? However, if we read their name instead as Matoskah, would that not be a sign that the character has immediately been "othered"?

Isn't using non-English names to refer to meaningful names just another form of appropriation?


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Apr 6, 2015)

Brian Turner said:


> if we had a Sioux Native American character who referred to their name as "White Bear" then wouldn't that be authentic to that character's cultural POV? However, if we read their name instead as Matoskah,


I'd have to ask a Native American. Perhaps Matoskah (White Bear) on first usage and then Matoskah later, if Matoskah is a sensible transliteration. "Many Moons" should maybe be translated /written as Months. 

I pretty much hated the idea of the Latin teacher that all our names had to be translated to Latin.  Here in Irish Language schools they use a Gaelic equivalent if it exists for a name, (first or surname) or else Gaelic spelling.  Irish for  meanings of names not used.

King of Kings, or High Chief  or High King for Ghengis Khan or Ard Rí, certainly might make sense, sometimes translating makes sense and sometimes it doesn't. I think it depends on context.

The British when taking over India called every Indian high Title "Prince" even though even the Chinese translated some as King or in one unusual case, Emperor (as by Chinese thinking the world could only have one Emperor originally).  This was cultural imperialism. So "translating" rather than transliteration of titles must be done with care and depending on context sometimes transliteration is better.
In Chinese "Wang" approximately King (or sometimes prince, or heir to Emperor depending on period). The Chinese "surname"  "Wang" is not the same thing and should be left as Wang.  Mostly there are reasonably equivalent European Ranks to Chinese ones, though some may be a little obscure. Some ranks perhaps should be transliterated with if context allows  perhaps (Governor) or (Baron) suffixed once. The Chinese and Indian (Hindi?) for  Emperor and King probably ought to be translated as such, most English Raj era deliberately mistranslates Indian titles.

Czar = Kaiser = Caesar. Might have meant "hairy" only from Augustus, I think, that it was a title.

Translation rather than Transliteration can be Cultural Imperialism.


----------



## The Judge (Apr 6, 2015)

I tossed and turned on this very issue when I was writing my SFs, as the non-Earth humans' naming traditions involved giving names with both literal and metaphorical meanings, so I was torn between giving them in the original, albeit transliterated, or to render them into English when the aliens are talking to each other, and therefore the whole passage is "translated" from their tongue.  In the end I translated, but I'm not sure I'd do it if I were writing Earth-based fantasy/historical fiction in which the traditions were the same, as I'd be concerned that translating the name gave out the vibe that we need to have it in English as we're unable to cope with the foreign name.

I think my rough rule of thumb would be whether in the foreign tongue the name's meaning is more prominent as the meaning or as the name.  Not sure how best to explain it (not sure I actually understand it myself!) but when people use the term, do they think of what it means or is it just treated as a name and no more?  After all, some English given names still do have meaning, eg Flora, Prudence, Patience, Ruby, but I imagine that few of us think first of the concept when we know the people -- the names have been de-meaningised, as it were, in the same way that the names Matthew and James have meanings which are effectively lost, so the name = the person, not the concept.  If we call someone White Bear in our fiction, which forces us to read the words white + bear, are we doing the reverse, and instead of seeing merely a name and therefore the person, are we seeing those concepts of white and bear?  If that is what those who give the names would do, ie see the concepts, then fair enough, but otherwise, might it perhaps be a little dehumanising?  

Not at all sure any of that makes sense!  Perhaps the easiest thing if we are writing of a real foreign culture is to ask people of that culture how they would give their names on being introduced to someone who speaks English ie whether a man would call himself  Matoskah or White Bear.


----------



## Toby Frost (Apr 6, 2015)

Funny you say that, Brian, because I would have assumed that a character referred to as White Bear was much more likely to be a stereotype Wild West "Indian" than someone called Matoskah. Frankly, I wouldn't worry overly about it, at least not in the context of writing a story. I think it's more important to treat the characters and story properly, and it will be clear whether they are being given the respect that they deserve. 

If I have learned anything about SF criticism over the last year, it's that crackpots shout loudly. One bunch of crackpots will think (and _want_ to think) that you are betraying the Christian heritage, encouraging homocommunism in their kids, teaching evolution and all the rest of it. Another group of crackpots will be delighted to have caught a rape-crazed member of the hegemony in plusbad otheringthink. To put it crudely, haters will hate, because that is what they've set out to do. Sensible people will probably read the story, think it was good, and realise that a novel is written at least in part for its audience, and that they will never learn the entirety of another culture from a short, made-up story.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Apr 6, 2015)

The Judge said:


> Flora, Prudence, Patience, Ruby


Less obvious ones: Margaret = Pearl, Sarah = Princess etc

Fletcher, Miller, Smith, Baker etc.
German, Dutch, French  
Fleischer (German) means Butcher.

Hebrew: You don't translate Dov even though it's Hebrew for Bear. Male names are often animals and Female names plants.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Apr 6, 2015)

Toby Frost said:


> Frankly, I wouldn't worry overly about it, at least not in the context of writing a story. I think it's more important to treat the characters and story properly, and it will be clear whether they are being given the respect that they deserve.



I don't worry about it - but when tagging threads this morning I came across Elizabeth Bear's _Range of Ghosts_, which IIRC has been cited as a good example of writing about other cultures.

And yet - she retains Mongolian names and titles so that English readers are clear that she is writing about an "other" culture. My suggestion is that an authentic Mongolian POV would do no such thing.


----------



## Dave (Apr 6, 2015)

I haven't read the Blog that began this discussion, or _Wind Up Girl_, either. However, I did read a Blog some time ago that was making a similar argument - not of racism though, but certainly of mis-"appropriation" (though it probably didn't use that word.) 

I don't know if you watch the TV series _Homeland_? If not, then you really should as it is very good TV, but the third series was set mostly in Pakistan, and as the Blogger pointed out, if your view of Pakistan was based solely upon watching _Homeland_ you would have a very poor view of the country. Islamabad is a modern, thriving city, but there it was depicted as being populated by violent terrorists, corrupt officials, poor, uneducated masses living in run down ramshackle houses built above filthy markets; underdevelopment and oppressive traditions_._ She said it bore no relation to the actual place that she knew well. However, while her criticism is probably, almost certainly, true, that depiction of the city made for very good TV.

Stories aren't tourist guides or holiday advertisements; someone else has that job. I'm also not certain they should be educational, or even totally accurate. Isn't a good story more important? Of course, if you stray too far from the truth then the reader/viewer will not follow with you.



Toby Frost said:


> Sensible people will probably read the story, think it was good, and realise that a novel is written at least in part for its audience, and that they will never learn the entirety of another culture from a short, made-up story.


Precisely!

Although, there is another completely different argument that we have all become so illiterate that the only place we are learning history, geography, arts and literature today is from TV, film and popular books. So, people actually do believe that Hollywood view of historical events, and maybe they do actually believe in that _Homeland_ view of Islamabad. Tom Stoppard has said that he has to dumb down jokes so the audience can understand them, and that there has been a progressive deterioration in this. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...own-jokes-so-the-audience-can-understand.html


----------



## galanx (Jan 10, 2016)

Speaking of Homeland, when filming in Cairo they asked some local artists to spray some graffitti on some streets for "authenticity" so they did- writing "Homeland is racist" in Arabic, which the TV show went on to air unaware.  
'Homeland is Racist':  Showtime hijacked by Egyptian graffiti artists:


----------

