Right and wrong ways to write about other cultures/places

[Nerds_feather]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Stephen Palmer]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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?

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.)

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.)

First, do no harm.

True.

*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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.