Astonishing Essay on Prince of Thorns

[Ursa major]

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.

I agree that they're widely used in a specific context. But when the words appear outside that context, they rarely help matters, but simply become part of the argument. (Believe me: as someone who reads the comments on the Grauniad, I've seen this happen numerous times. It's never pretty.) And that's because they're often seen by those who use them as trump cards. (That isn't happening here, obviously.) And even when they're not being used as such, those on the other side of an argument believe (or, at least, say they do) that they are being used as such. Both of these actions, together or individually, can derail a debate. Personally, I don't think their use helps here. Do you think they help the debate here?

Anyway, imagine you have written about any character who is not you in disguise. When has appropriation occurred and when hasn't it? How much more inaccurate can your non-appropriational representations be than your appropriational representations? Is there a sliding scale of appropriation? Does it depend on who you are, rather than what you have written? Frankly, the use of stereotypes is bad writing, whoever writes them.

Now I agree that where unfortunate (or worse) stereotypes are rife, more care is needed to make sure one doesn't bolster them when writing about one's characters. And that care is needed because of the way certain stereotypes are used in the real world. But I would argue that a stereotype written about a group by a member of that group is just as bad as that written by an outsider, because the problem lies in the use of a stereotype in real life. And those using them for dubious purposes don't care where they came from; they're just happy that another instance is out there to "prove" them right.

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.

Exactly. A writer should take this to heart instead of looking over their shoulder worrying what someone might say.

 

[Nerds_feather]

Personally, I don't think their use helps here. Do you think they help the debate here?

Anyway,

I don't think it matters, frankly. They're just words, and can be used interchangeably with other words or phrases. If someone is using them as code for something else, or as a substitute for thinking through the issue, then that will be abundantly clear from the context. But just because some people (arguably) misuse terms doesn't mean we have to abandon them when used in a perfectly reasonable manner.

If someone is going to dismiss an argument because the word "appropriation" is used, I'd suggest that is their problem, not mine.* And, I'd guess, such people would likely dismiss the argument based on whatever substitutes are employed anyways.

Plus it's much more cumbersome to keep writing "taking of things and making them your own without respect for or significant knowledge of the subject at hand" when I could just write "appropriation" instead

*I know you're not doing this--we actually agree on the substantive argument here, I think. But you suggested some people would do so, so I'm responding to whether it's my responsibility to take their "term-prejudices" into account.

 

[Toby Frost]

I have to admit that "hegemony" makes me feel much the same way as "blue sky thinking" - although they occur in different contexts, I always feel that it's going to be that sort of discussion, and since I'm not going to wholeheartedly agree with everything that will be said, I ought to get out while the going's good.

Generally, and not with reference to any of you guys, I think the problem with the discussion comes from a number of factors. Part of it is the need to divide people into goodies and baddies, and perhaps also to show that you are a goodie by denouncing some baddies. Then there's the refusal to accept that someone can disagree with you quite substantially and be neither evil or stupid, which seems to be quite common in political thinking. And then there's the use of racism and sexism as a trump card, not just to win an argument but to silence any discussion at all. ("I say that this thing is racist and anyone who disagrees is a racist and an evil person so shut up or condemn yourself.") Needless to say, this devalues the whole argument, let alone actually making anything better.

But yes, good writing is definitely the key. It's aware writing as much as writing that's technically skilled, that can see both sides of an argument but can also make a judgment at the end of it. I think that takes a sort of mental boldness, in that it's not about choosing a bandwagon, but deciding exactly what you think.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

The one thing I'd say is it's hard to write cultures with integrity. I've done some stuff based in Ulster, where I'm from. I found it hard to write the opposite culture/religion to my own. Not because I had any problem with it - a lot of my best friends and all that - but because, especially where divisions are king and rule, understanding is hard. If I got it wrong I'd look awful. Indeed, I found writing some aspects of my own culture hard. I don't know many paramilitaries, for instance, or understand the mindset. And I was brought up here through the Troubles....

So, sometimes, should we even try to do cultures we're not familiar with? Only I read a very worthy book written by an ex-pat Ulster person recently and their depiction of Ulster was the worst I've ever read.

Are there times when it's wrong to do diversity because, with the best will in the world, we will never get the nuances?

 

[Nerds_feather]

I have to admit that "hegemony" makes me feel much the same way as "blue sky thinking" - although they occur in different contexts, I always feel that it's going to be that sort of discussion, and since I'm not going to wholeheartedly agree with everything that will be said, I ought to get out while the going's good.

Hegemony just means "dominion" with the added layer of "leadership." So I think it's quite a useful term, and appropriately used above.

I'm also not sure I understand why one should assuming it's a code word to the point where one ignores the context of how it's being used, or who is using it. Context is key, in my opinion.

 

[Ursa major]

Plus it's much more cumbersome to keep writing "taking of things and making them your own without respect for or significant knowledge of the subject at hand" when I could just write "appropriation" instead

But "writing badly" uses one less letter (though there is an extra space) and doesn't require one to know anything about the writer.

 

[Boneman]

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.

This...

So, if I'm correct, as a white person, it's incumbent upon me to portray any other ethnic minorities (or majorities in a fantasy book!) 'properly'. By that I mean not using steretypes that can be interpreted as racially offensive (and that interpretation is a massive minefield, with the writer in the middle of it) and trying to ensure the cultures depicted are accurate. As Ursa pointed out, I've never been the opposite sex, but I do write female characters, and I do my best to portray them as real/accurate as my experience and research can make them. Ditto with any POC. But if I do the absolute best I can and a ton of criticism falls on my head by others who perceive my effort to be poor/insulting/racist, then should I fall back on writing just what I do know? And a ton of criticism will fall on my head for portraying 'mighty-whitey', with no POC in my work, because that's racist too.

by NF
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.

Trying to do your best is the ultimate aim, but it doesn't help to have accusations levelled at you of racism, if you don't get it right for every person who reads it. That's an impossibility, isn't it?

 

[barrett1987]

I ignore race debates as much as possible. Write the characters however you want. If people have a problem with one of your characters because of his skin colour doesn't match their ideas of what a person of that colour should do...ignore them. They are your characters, you can do what you want with them.

Otherwise you'd go insane trying to please everyone. If a character is Asian when you think of him, have him be Asian. If that character then goes on to be a nasty piece of work who makes the readers skin crawl..that's not racist that's just good writing.

 

[Kissmequick]

Trying to do your best is the ultimate aim, but it doesn't help to have accusations levelled at you of racism, if you don't get it right for every person who reads it. That's an impossibility, isn't it?

Maybe not. But there's a few things to think about. If you are accused of racism (or portraying a POC in a problematic way) -- do you think they have a point? If you look at it from all angles and think, actually, no, I did XYZ to ensure that this character worked, then you ignore them. If you look at it, slap your forehead and think "You know what, they've got a point! That never occurred to me!" then you suck it up, apologise and do better next time. (See Joe Abercrombie's response to someone pointing out how problematic a certain lesbian character is. He held his hands up and said, yup, should have done better, my bad. It was classy.)

Same as you do with every critique, same as you'll do when someone points out you've had your horses galloping everywhere for 3 days straight without dying, or that the sun sets five minutes after you had it rising over the rooftops.

A problem with your work is not the same as a problem with you.

Someone saying "This is problematic" is not the same as someone saying "You are a racist". And who do you think is hurt more by bad portrayals of POC? A white author, or POC readers?

You can't get it right for all readers-- no book in the history of the world is loved by everyone who read it. Even if you have no problems with your POC characters, someone will HATE it. A LOT. And may call you names. You will have to deal with it at some point, for something. I guarantee it. There is no avoiding it (unless you write See Spot Run or something)

All we can do is our best -- and to do that we have to listen to what the problems are, rather than worry about ourselves. Portraying characters properly without offending huge chunks of people, researching, avoiding stereotypes, that's our job

 

[Nerds_feather]

But "writing badly" uses one less letter (though there is an extra space) and doesn't require one to know anything about the writer.

I don't see how using a general term that can refer to hundreds if not thousands of things is a useful substitute for a perfectly good word with the one specific meaning I'm trying to convey. If you prefer to do it that way, fine, but I'll stick with "appropriation" when it fits what I'm trying to convey.

Now perhaps it's time we put the semantics aside? We're in danger of going in circles.

 

[Nerds_feather]

Maybe not. But there's a few things to think about. If you are accused of racism (or portraying a POC in a problematic way) -- do you think they have a point? If you look at it from all angles and think, actually, no, I did XYZ to ensure that this character worked, then you ignore them. If you look at it, slap your forehead and think "You know what, they've got a point! That never occurred to me!" then you suck it up, apologise and do better next time. (See Joe Abercrombie's response to someone pointing out how problematic a certain lesbian character is. He held his hands up and said, yup, should have done better, my bad. It was classy.)

Same as you do with every critique, same as you'll do when someone points out you've had your horses galloping everywhere for 3 days straight without dying, or that the sun sets five minutes after you had it rising over the rooftops.

A problem with your work is not the same as a problem with you.

Someone saying "This is problematic" is not the same as someone saying "You are a racist". And who do you think is hurt more by bad portrayals of POC? A white author, or POC readers?

You can't get it right for all readers-- no book in the history of the world is loved by everyone who read it. Even if you have no problems with your POC characters, someone will HATE it. A LOT. And may call you names. You will have to deal with it at some point, for something. I guarantee it. There is no avoiding it (unless you write See Spot Run or something)

All we can do is our best -- and to do that we have to listen to what the problems are, rather than worry about ourselves. Portraying characters properly without offending huge chunks of people, researching, avoiding stereotypes, that's our job

This. All of this.

..and Joe Abercrombie's response was the epitome of class. If there was a masterclass on how to respond to critics, this would have to be the basis of a full lesson.

On a side note, I do wish some critics didn't confuse "that is racist" with "s/he is racist," as can happen, but I don't think most do. In fact, I think most critics wouldn't even say the former, but rather something like "this is a problematic depiction of race," which is fair and depersonalized.

But the fact is that readers can see things authors can't sometimes, or just see them differently. This is part of the process. And I love the fact that someone like Joe Abercrombie said "you know what--I should listen to this," and then--if Best Served Cold and Red Country are anything to go by--really did take it to heart.

 

[Mark_Lawrence]

This. All of this.

..and Joe Abercrombie's response was the epitome of class. If there was a masterclass on how to respond to critics, this would have to be the basis of a full lesson.

Nonsense. Your whole take on this is predicated on the accusation being correct.

Damned if I'll pretend contrition just to keep people I don't agree with happy.

 

[Kissmequick]

I think the point was, not that Joe was pretending, but that he realised that yes, what he'd written was problematic from certain viewpoints, and owned it.

Obviously if you think someone is complaining for the sake of it, then it would be different. But listening to what someone is saying, and realising they might have a good point, then owning your mistakes? Classy.

 

[End of Time]

Maybe not. But there's a few things to think about. If you are accused of racism (or portraying a POC in a problematic way) -- do you think they have a point?

It all depends on the situation, but in general the answer would be a resounding: "no".

Because by accusing someone of being a racist, you ascribe malicious intent.

Same as you do with every critique, same as you'll do when someone points out you've had your horses galloping everywhere for 3 days straight without dying, or that the sun sets five minutes after you had it rising over the rooftops.

There is a monumental difference between the two. One is the type of criticism that deals with facts, the other is the type of criticism that attacks the moral integrity of an author.

Even when you criticize stylistic points, and you venture in the world of the subjective, even then you don't attack the integrity of an author. Saying that the dialogue between characters is stilted and the author states their intentions out loud rather than show them acting out those intentions, you are not attacking the author's personality. You're criticizing the author's use of style.

By saying that a novel is racist, you're passing moral judgement against which the author can never defend himself.

A problem with your work is not the same as a problem with you.

Except that it is.

 

[Coolhand]

I think the point was, not that Joe was pretending, but that he realised that yes, what he'd written was problematic from certain viewpoints, and owned it.

Obviously if you think someone is complaining for the sake of it, then it would be different. But listening to what someone is saying, and realising they might have a good point, then owning your mistakes? Classy.

The Joe Abercrobie example is a very interesting example to look at relating to the topic of this thread, and it relates very much to the concept of "no moral books or immoral books, just good writing and bad writing" argument. It relates to the way that events befall a certain female character in Last Argument of Kings.

After much google-fu I have at last found the thread in which Joe discusses the issue with some readers critical of that part of the book. Contains spoilers, obviously for Last Argument.
It's not so much a "I was wrong," more a "I should have written it better."

 

[vanye]

Hegemony just means "dominion" with the added layer of "leadership." So I think it's quite a useful term, and appropriately used above.

I'm also not sure I understand why one should assuming it's a code word to the point where one ignores the context of how it's being used, or who is using it. Context is key, in my opinion.

Sorry, but to my mind this is very tongue-in-cheek. From what you write it seems clear to me that you are at least passingly familiar with postcolonial theory. So I think you are well aware that the term carries much more meaning and connotations in this context than you admit to above. Not so?

 

[Mark_Lawrence]

I think the point was, not that Joe was pretending, but that he realised that yes, what he'd written was problematic from certain viewpoints, and owned it.

Obviously if you think someone is complaining for the sake of it, then it would be different. But listening to what someone is saying, and realising they might have a good point, then owning your mistakes? Classy.

I think the point was Joe agreed with something Nerd believed and thus Nerd cites him as the model for classy responses to criticism.

Which is nonsense. The model for classy response to criticism cannot be 'to agree with it'.

The model for classy response to criticism you agree with is ... to agree with it ... yes. Did Joe agree with it in a particularly classy way ... don't know. I don't feel I need a model for how to agree with stuff.

 

[Nerds_feather]

Nonsense. Your whole take on this is predicated on the accusation being correct.

Damned if I'll pretend contrition just to keep people I don't agree with happy.

If you don't think a charge is fair, then you are not under any obligation to accept it. It may be worth trying to grapple with, however, and just difficult to see that in the moment or when the author (but not the critic) is aware of what was intended. I don't know, since we're speaking in abstracts. I can think of many examples of each.

For example, I have an on-going argument with Ian S. and a few others about whether Scalzi's Old Man's War books are militaristic Heinlein homages (their view) or satires/subversions of Heinlein's militarism (my view). I know for a fact that Scalzi agrees with me, and he doesn't seem to think the charge of being a war-lovin' militarist is worth responding to. Personally, I think their view is valid but wrong

However, in this specific case, I defer to Francis:

I think the point was, not that Joe was pretending, but that he realised that yes, what he'd written was problematic from certain viewpoints, and owned it.

Obviously if you think someone is complaining for the sake of it, then it would be different. But listening to what someone is saying, and realising they might have a good point, then owning your mistakes? Classy.

I'm going to assume Joe has faced criticism in the past that he felt was unwarranted, and probably just did what most do and ignored it.

Regardless, Joe's response is wonderful--as is the fact that he took the time to consider the charge leveled at his book, rather than just get defensive.I can't remember a moment in author-reader interaction quite like this, and I think it speaks very highly of Joe.

I do wonder if this had anything to do with the shift evident in his later books, where I think female characters are much well-developed than in The First Law Trilogy. Maybe it's just coincidence, or maybe it's something he was already thinking about. But it's interesting nonetheless.

 

[Mark_Lawrence]

Regardless, Joe's response is wonderful--as is the fact that he took the time to consider the charge leveled at his book, rather than just get defensive.I can't remember a moment in author-reader interaction quite like this, and I think it speaks very highly of Joe.

Again, this is just self-affirmation. You're assuming that authors who disagree with 'charges leveled' at their books 'just get defensive' and don't consider the case put forward.

You assume this possibly because you have difficultly accepting that anyone can consider charges that are close to your interests/agenda and, having considered them, disagree.

So you label anyone who doesn't fold and say, you're right, sorry, I'll change my writing, as defensive.

Which is nonsense. And worse than that, it's blinkered nonsense.

And as for Joe just 'classily' ignoring criticism that he doesn't agree with ... tosh.

Firstly there's nothing classy about not responding to criticism and secondly he does respond. What was "The Value of Grit" if not a lengthy response to criticism of his work for being too gritty.

This is just cherry-picking.

 

[Kissmequick]

I'm certainly not labelling anyone that, Mark. which is you assuming intentions that just are not there.

There's a world of difference between "How very dare you suggest my work might be problematic! You're not reading it right, you poopyhead*" and "While I hear what you're saying, I tried to use X, Y and Z to avoid that very problem. Ofc not everyone will see the same things..." or whatever


What makes Joe's response classy is that he listened to what the objection was rather than dismissing it out of hand, considered it and, even if he didn't 100% agree with it, saw that it was a genuine reaction to his words. Then he broke down where he thought he'd failed and how he'd do better next time.

*And yes I have seen several authors do just that. And I get it (and yes sometimes people just complain for complaining). It's tempting, and I've wavered that way once or twice myself, and got a bit sorry for myself. Then I gave myself a kick in the pants and realised that my butthurt is not the issue. Who has it worse? White author who is surprised when his stereotypes don't go down well, or POC readers who have to read that all the damn time, who actually subject to bigotry in their daily lives? A little bit of butthurt of my end is nothing in comparison.