Astonishing Essay on Prince of Thorns

[Cat's Cradle]

Sorry, I have nothing to add about the thread really...but I am so happy to see the Tom Lehrer reference...his songs are wonderful!

 

[Nerds_feather]

If you're a white man and you write a novel set in Africa - because you like the country and are genuinely interested in it - with three African characters... boy, you come in for some flack. Like - how dare you reach out, white man? I know this from personal experience.

For me it comes down to how someone does it. For some people, though, I guess the how isn't really as important as the if. But for me it's everything.

I mean, some treatments are just bad and clearly appropriative, stereotyping, insulting, etc. But others are sensitive, nuanced and well-researched. And I tend to think that it's important for writers to acknowledge that there is a world beyond "white Anglophonia," and to treat it with the respect it deserves.

I do, however, think that if a writer decides to write about people, places and cultures that are poorly represented in art and media, they have a special responsibility to do justice to those subjects. But I guess some people just assume that this hasn't or can't be done. I don't agree.

 

[vanye]

Very well put. I'm tempted to steal that line and put it in a novel

Be my guest - but let's talk royalties first.

 

[Mark_Lawrence]

The reviewer opens the review by falsely labelling Jorg an Avatar and mostly harps on the idea that Jorg is supposed to be a spokesman for Mark Lawrence for the rest of the novel. It's more of a hatchet job than a review.

Near the end the reviewer takes the time to mock Jorg's perspective using long quotes from the book with commentary along the lines of "Ok, Jorg, suuure LOL, loser!" Well, ok if you really found his perspective so appealing I guess this is psychologically necessarry for you but maybe talk it through with your friends instead of pretending it's a review?

Or just don't read books written from the point of view of a charismatic killer if you're likely to be swept off your feet by their charisma which seems to be the reviewers real problem with the book.

The subtext/motivation behind the 40,000 words spent on my books by Eric, and the reason I've not taken the time to read even one of them, is all here in the comments of this review:

Review of Prince of Thorns by Mark Lawrence - A Dribble of Ink

 

[Nerds_feather]

I think it's interesting that this thread has come back from the dead.

To underscore, I think Edwards presents an interesting set of opinions, but in the end that's all they are. Same with Aidan's, which are also quite good (while taking the opposite view). Glad that's been linked up too again--anyone who doesn't read A Dribble of Ink regularly really should. It's the best fantasy blog around, in my humble opinion.

 

[Kissmequick]

I do, however, think that if a writer decides to write about people, places and cultures that are poorly represented in art and media, they have a special responsibility to do justice to those subjects. But I guess some people just assume that this hasn't or can't be done. I don't agree.

I don't agree with that either. It can and has been done well. Whether I could do it well is another matter entirely!

But it's not a million miles from a guy writing a woman or vice versa. It may take some extra effort, maybe a lot of research, and you'd be wise to get some betas who know whereof they speak in case you've missed something obvious or accidentally stereotyped. But guys can and do write great female characters (Pratchett leaps to mind instantly), or write people different colours to themselves (Aaronovitch) without getting flack for it. Of course some do it badly, and yes they get flack.

I've never heard anyone worth listening to say a man shouldn't write women. So why should a writer not write about someone from a different culture? As long as s/he does it well.

There is ofc the problem white people writing POC getting published but not the actual POC themselves, which is obviously a thorny issue. But there is a need for POC characters in SFF. And no reason why you or I shouldn't include them -- and every reason we should.

ETA: Ofc there are always people who just like to complain too. But I wouldn't let them stop me.

 

[End of Time]

There is ofc the problem white people writing POC getting published but not the actual POC themselves, which is obviously a thorny issue. But there is a need for POC characters in SFF. And no reason why you or I shouldn't include them -- and every reason we should.

Except that writers are invisible... the only way the audience knows your ethnicity if your novel has a picture of you on the back. A manuscript doesn't get sent with a note attached "written by ethnicity X".

Especially when a nom de guerre is so common.

Women have more of a problem with this than racial minorities, though these days it might actually be men who might have a problem getting work published in certain genres...

 

[Kissmequick]

True, writers are invisible. I doubt there is anyone saying "oh, his name sounds very ethnic, let's not publish him" in the same way most editors don't care about whether a writer is male or female, just whether the book is good and will sell, yet there is still that imbalance there.

The whys and wherefores of that is a massively complex thing and I don't think it's at all concious in the industry (whether regarding women or POC). But there IS a bias in the reading public (see Mark's poll on whether people would be less likely to read his book if his name was Mary) and ofc the sellability of a book is something editors have to take into account.

But there are a lot of POC writing fantasy ....and not many getting published. Why? Probably a combo of many factors, most of which I cannot change. But some things.... For instance I know one lady whose friends all want to know why she's writing fantasy cos that's "white" stuff and she feels some pressure that way, to write something else. But the problem is fantasy being seen as "white" stuff, not that she wants to write it. And why is it seen as white? Because all the characters are white. That is one thing I can do something about. We all can.

these days it might actually be men who might have a problem getting work published in certain genres...

You jest, I'm sure. Because that's ridiculous. (Even in romance there is a good showing of men)

 

[Jo Zebedee]

It's why (well, partly*) I chose to write under Jo rather than Joanne (the Chronners are the only people who know me primarily as Jo.) okay without the e it's obvious I'm a woman, but in conversation it's less obvious.

I do try to include POC but am aware I'm not there yet. Part of the difficulty with that is when I'm writing my Ulster stuff the society is so predominantly white it's hard not to end up with tokenism. (But I show both the majority religions.... )


* I, personally, prefer it.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

But it's not a million miles from a guy writing a woman or vice versa. It may take some extra effort, maybe a lot of research, and you'd be wise to get some betas who know whereof they speak in case you've missed something obvious or accidentally stereotyped. But guys can and do write great female characters (Pratchett leaps to mind instantly), or write people different colours to themselves (Aaronovitch) without getting flack for it. Of course some do it badly, and yes they get flack.

I got flack simply for doing it (Muezzinland). Not much, but it was a hell of a surprise. You're right though about writing women if you're a man - Irvine Welsh was on tv recently talking about his new book, he was asked about writing from a female perspective, and he said, 'all you have to do is imagine them as human beings, the differences are far less than the similarities.' Which, in human terms if not in cultural terms, applies to a white man writing black characters.

 

[Kissmequick]

You're always going to get someone complaining (else you're not doing it right imo I got a fair bit of flack for being a misogynist so....) but unless it's a tidal onslaught, or you think they have a point...Thing is, I can see the frustration -- why does a white guy writing about POC get pubbed, but not a black guy writing the same? Not your fault, but it does help understand it. Like I say, a massively complex issue. We can only do what we can. If, say, you or I wrote a fantasy which topped all the bestsellers charts and showed a POC main in fantasy can sell...(like Aaronovitch did) then maybe it'll open doors to other stories featuring POC

Which, in human terms if not in cultural terms, applies to a white man writing black characters.

Absolutely. Ofc it's the cultural things that'll get ya every time. But the same could be said for me writing a guy. There'll be things I miss, or get wrong purely because I am not a guy. The thing is, there are so many guys being written, one being a bit wrong doesn't add up to much in the great scheme of things. With so few POC characters in fantasy, one done badly could end up perpetuating stereotypes or otherwise end up being The One Representation of a whole swathe of people. (which is never good)

It needs careful thought, imo, but I see no reason why it shouldn't be done and lots of reasons it should.

 

[Nerds_feather]

You're always going to get someone complaining (else you're not doing it right imo I got a fair bit of flack for being a misogynist so....) but unless it's a tidal onslaught, or you think they have a point...Thing is, I can see the frustration -- why does a white guy writing about POC get pubbed, but not a black guy writing the same? Not your fault, but it does help understand it. Like I say, a massively complex issue. We can only do what we can. If, say, you or I wrote a fantasy which topped all the bestsellers charts and showed a POC main in fantasy can sell...(like Aaronovitch did) then maybe it'll open doors to other stories featuring POC

Yes, this is a serious issue. There can be the feeling that a place and its own authors are ignored until some white, Western author comes in and makes it theirs. On top of that, the white, Western author's version of the place is often accepted as "authentic" even though in many cases the author hasn't really produced a version of the place/culture that locals would recognize. I know in crime fiction there is some frustration with people like Alexander McCall Smith and John Burdett for doing this. I think these are valid concerns and legitimate sources of frustration.

On the other hand, I also believe that literature needs more quality representations of underrepresented people, cultures, places, etc. And I think if everyone is scared off of trying, you'll just end up getting more stories about white Westerners in the West being Western. Authors should be wary of appropriation and try really hard to get it right. (And definitely avoid the kind of problematic stories like where a white hero goes in and saves the natives, as well as problematic character tropes like the "magical negro.") But absolutely they should try--the more representations there are of non-white/non-Western subjects, the more our literature represents the world we live in.

 

[End of Time]

Of course the more socially aware authors aren't going to try, because there is a legion of people waiting for them to make the slightest mistake and attack over said mistake.

You cannot work against confirmation bias. People who want to see something negative, will see something negative.

Throwing terms around like 'appropiation' only makes it less interesting for authors to attempt something new. If you wanted to write a story about a character who doesn't share you ethnic background or gender, should you really be looking over your shoulder in fear of doing something wrong? If you have to approach such characters as if they are alien creatures with whom you don't even share your basic humanity, why not just write about an actual alien from a far flung galaxy, at least you won't offend someone and get called a bigot and a racist.

Half the people I hear make a case for more minority characters seem to emphasize the otherness of minorities in such a way that it makes me wonder if they're not the ones who are racist. Because obviously a character you write, can't just happen to be a minority... its minority-status is such an integral part that it sets them apart from any other non-minority character.

 

[Coolhand]

(And definitely avoid the kind of problematic stories like where a white hero goes in and saves the natives, as well as problematic character tropes like the "magical negro.")

I do understand the concern, but I'd argue that ultimatly an author should feel free to write whatever they want to write. If a writer wants to try writing a story that has a magical negro, or a white hero saving the natives then I think they should go right ahead and do that if they think they have a valid story to tell using that setting, theme or trope .

Then, as with all art, it will find a place or not, be positively received or not, and be dissected, discussed, hailed or condemned. It's better for the artist to try and fail than to be too scared to try.

Telling someone they cannot write a certain type of character, or story, or use a certain setting, or move their plot in a certain way simply because of their ethnicity, nationality, gender or sexuality seems odd to me.

 

[Toby Frost]

So, and we are moving away from the original review a bit here, can we draw any principles from all of this? I would say the following apply to authors (and not publishers). I use Denmark and Sweden purely as examples:

1) Authors can write about whatever they like, from the perspective of anyone. Nobody “owns” a particular place, person, group, and so on. A Dane who writes about Sweden is not insulting Swedes by doing so, nor is he/she patronising, insulting or stealing from them.

2) The Danish author should not be prevented from writing about Sweden because Swedish writers writing about Sweden are not getting published: that may be a concern, but it is one for publishers and critics in general rather than this particular writer.

3) As they get further they get from writing about themselves and their own environment, authors should be more wary and alert.

4) Authors should be wary of recycling stereotypes, stale plotlines, stock characters and so on.

5) Not all allegations of bad practice – essentially, sexism and racism – are correct or even worthy of serious consideration. Not all are made in good faith or for good reasons. The purpose of critique is not to win points for the critic, or to make the critic feel righteous, by “outing” villains. However, this is not to suggest that most such criticism is insincere or that such criticism is inherently bad.

6) There is a degree of leeway here, caused by irony, perspective of characters, double meanings, historical attitudes and so on. The views of characters are not those of the author, although critics are free to draw sensible, reasoned conclusions.

 

[Nerds_feather]

Of course the more socially aware authors aren't going to try, because there is a legion of people waiting for them to make the slightest mistake and attack over said mistake.

I don't think that's true. Look at Elizabeth Bear's magnificent Eternal Sky trilogy, for example. And, crucially, the reaction to it--which has not included a "legion of people waiting for her to make the slightest mistake and attack over said mistake."

(Some people, like yours truly, did rib her a little here and there, but in context of general praise for a job very, very well done.)

Sure there are some people who will criticize any attempt to write about non-Western subjects or cultures, but I think there are more who will appreciate a job well done (provided the job has, in fact, been done well).

 

[Nerds_feather]

So, and we are moving away from the original review a bit here, can we draw any principles from all of this? I would say the following apply to authors (and not publishers). I use Denmark and Sweden purely as examples:

1) Authors can write about whatever they like, from the perspective of anyone. Nobody “owns” a particular place, person, group, and so on. A Dane who writes about Sweden is not insulting Swedes by doing so, nor is he/she patronising, insulting or stealing from them.

2) The Danish author should not be prevented from writing about Sweden because Swedish writers writing about Sweden are not getting published: that may be a concern, but it is one for publishers and critics in general rather than this particular writer.

3) As they get further they get from writing about themselves and their own environment, authors should be more wary and alert.

4) Authors should be wary of recycling stereotypes, stale plotlines, stock characters and so on.

5) Not all allegations of bad practice – essentially, sexism and racism – are correct or even worthy of serious consideration. Not all are made in good faith or for good reasons. The purpose of critique is not to win points for the critic, or to make the critic feel righteous, by “outing” villains. However, this is not to suggest that most such criticism is insincere or that such criticism is inherently bad.

6) There is a degree of leeway here, caused by irony, perspective of characters, double meanings, historical attitudes and so on. The views of characters are not those of the author, although critics are free to draw sensible, reasoned conclusions.

Speaking as a Swede, I would rather that no Danes ever wrote about my country

Kidding...well, sort of. But seriously, I agree with most of what you are saying. But while the problem of appropriation is structural, you could argue that authors are playing into (and thus reinforcing) that structure. I don't feel that way, myself, though I do see the argument and think it's valid.

My own take is basically that any representations of non-hegemonic subjects, cultures or places increases interest and can lead to greater exposure--which is a good thing all around.

But again, as I've said and as you outline in your post, it really comes down to doing it right and avoiding the traps and pitfalls that can make an exploration feel "colonial" or just insensitive and ignorant.

 

[Ursa major]

I'm sorry, but words like 'appropriation' and 'non-hegemonic' are helping no-one except those who want extra leverage to spread their point of view, which possibly has little to do with writing.

Every character, even if it's a transparent portrait of one's identical twin, needs to be handled carefully. The common problem we have is ignorance. None of us has: been of every sex; been of every sexual orientation; had membership of all religions (and none); had membership of all cultures; had membership of every social class; had every possible occupation. But, unless we are writing about aliens, we share one thing will all those about: our humanity.

Unless we are producing screeds of solipsism, we are strangers to the reality behind most if not all of the characters in our books. By definition, we will make mistakes with our characters, whoever they are. Our job is to minimise all our mistakes, and not because someone we don't know wants to use them to create their own bandwagon.

 

[Nerds_feather]

I'm sorry, but words like 'appropriation' and 'non-hegemonic' are helping no-one except those who want extra leverage to spread their point of view, which possibly has little to do with writing.

Do you think that's what I'm doing in my last response? Or do you think I'm using these terms to convey specific meanings associated with them, i.e. the "taking of things and making them your own without respect for or significant knowledge of the subject at hand" and "non-dominant?"

Like it or not, these terms are widely used and widely understood. That doesn't mean everyone thinks of them in the same way, but I've been pretty clear that I see "appropriation" as an outcome of doing it badly, not just doing it.

 

[Kissmequick]

Like it or not, these terms are widely used and widely understood. That doesn't mean everyone thinks of them in the same way, but I've been pretty clear that I see "appropriation" as an outcome of doing it badly, not just doing it.

Exactly

There's a massive difference between respectfully using something as inspiration and appropriation for example. The first is a homage to the source perhaps, the second merely perpetuates harmful stereotypes etc.

Ofc the line can be blurred (one person's loving tribute is another's appropriating nightmare) but not *that* blurred.

And I think it has everything to do with good writing. Good writing uses subtly not stereotypes, has believable characters, not cardboard stand ins to represent a token whatever. Good writing doesn't make blanket statements about swathes of people, or equate say the use of certain cultural symbols with barbarism.

Good writing treats all characters as people, not ideas or a lazy vehicle.

ETA: (Late cos who broke the Chrons, huh?) It's like the difference between Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins and Del Boy