Novelist hopes militancy against "cultural appropriation" will pass

[Vertigo]

Me: I'm thinking of writing a book.
Political Correct Knight in Shining Armour: What sort of characters are you going to portray?
Me: Well I thought I might have black guy in it...
PCKiSA: You're not black how can you possibly understand black culture?
Me: Maybe a sombrero wearing Mexican...?
PCKiSA: Stereotyping and you're not a Latino!
Me: A Muslim?
PCKiSA: Get real.
Me: A woman?
PCKiSA: Impossible; you're a man!
Me: Who then?
PCKiSA: You're a Western White Male; write about what you know.



Sorry - that's what it's starting to feel like to me.

 

[Boneman]

And if you're a WASP, (somehting over which you have no say) you'll be criticised for NOT including all the other races/sexes/polyglots, because it's not a realistic portrayal of life. That's correct of course, but you can't write about them (and vice versa - could/should a poc write about white races?) because you haven't been them... fiction sanitised to an extreme point by the look of things.

 

[aThenian]

I'm always a bit on the fence on this. I mean, logically, she's right. As a writer you get it in the neck either way – either by writing about characters from cultures that aren't yours (appropriation) or lack of diversity (and navel-gazing) if you don't.

I don't think it's less prevalent in the world of fiction than fashion/music, either. Just look into the storm around this book – the Orenda – and there have been loads of others.

The problem (or one problem) with saying that people should only write from within their own direct experience is that lots of people then wouldn't be represented in fiction at all – e.g. historical novels, or most childrens' books. OK, so we've all been children, but no adult has been a child living now so any writer for children using a contemporary setting is making a big imaginative leap. Similarly, most writers are educated and almost by definition literate – so it's hard to write from direct experience about people who aren't. But should those people not be represented in fiction?

An example – I love Roddy Doyle's Barrytown novels, set on a deprived Dublin estate. My favourite is The Snapper – which is the story of how Sharon, the unmarried daughter of the family, gets pregnant/has a baby, a lot of it from her point of view. Roddy Doyle is surely doing a pretty brave thing there because as a middle class male some would argue it's not his story to tell on numerous counts...but it's a fantastic book, and how many other popular novels give a voice to a young, uneducated, unemployed girl who finds herself pregnant and at odds with her community? And makes the reader feel completely sympathetic, completely inside her head?

Having said all that...

I do think there is something about authenticity. You can smell it and recognise it, and I don't think just being an excellent writer who uses their imagination gives it to you. Take Roddy Doyle again. He was a teacher for years in communities like Barrytown, so even though he wasn't of that community, he had lots of opportunity to observe and listen. Would he have got that authentic feel just by using his imagination?

Or take The Wire – the best TV drama series I've seen, about drugs in Baltimore. The people who created it had worked in journalism, the police force and the schools system there for years (and some of the actors were “off the street”) and I just don't think a team of writers who had been to film school and then spent their working lives as writers in Hollywood would have been able to create it. (In fact maybe this is one of the reason that so much film and TV these days comes from books – because then they know there is already an authentic “core” to the project – they are not relying on screenwriters to somehow create that?)

So I do think writers have to be bold and ambitious and all of that, and think it's pretty astonishing that this writing festival disowned her for saying so...but there is another side to the argument.

 

[Extollager]

he more I think about this, the less sure I am that they actually know for sure what they want except to express a sense of righteousness.

Virtue signaling.

 

[Brian G Turner]

people should only write from within their own direct experience

I think the point is simply to write what you know - and if your writing takes you into areas you don't, then push yourself to learn it. Especially as speculative fiction will often take us far beyond our normal boundaries.

 

[Boneman]

Write what you know? In fantasy? Or science fiction? Surely there are no normal boundaries, there? It's made up, from the imagination of the author, and long may that live...

 

[J-Sun]

I heard this song on the radio today. An old favourite of mine, by John Prine.[...]Prine was 24 years old when he wrote it. How indecent of him to appropriate the voice and experiences of an old married couple three times his age. Clearly, this sort of thing has to be stopped.

Fellow Prine fan?

He did worse in Angel from Montgomery which begins, "I am an old woman..." I can't wait until more art like this is suppressed and the world becomes a better place.

Though there is a quandary. What happens when Bonnie Raitt does it? Does it then become more authentic? Some might think so but I think, for maximum outrage, we should say that she's appropriating his appropriation which is even worse!

Seriously, thanks to Extollager for an interesting article/speech and to several folks for an interesting thread.

 

[Bick]

Lionel Shriver appears to not understand the argument, and instead seeks to demean it by redefining it as a petty concern.

I think that's nonsense tbh. I liked her speech very much, and agree with her entirely.

 

[Nerds_feather]

Lionel Shriver appears to not understand the argument, and instead seeks to demean it by redefining it as a petty concern.

Cultural appropriation - in writing at least - is better defined no more than this: writing badly and thoughtlessly about people and culture beyond the author's experience is no longer acceptable.

I'm not sure why that should be so contentious.

You are right--the fundamental element here is "badly" and "thoughtlessly." I'd add cheaply to that. This story (and court case) is a great example of what I consider to be genuine and genuinely harmful cultural appropriation.

I do agree with the author in a limited sense, which is that a militant subset of activists on the internet see *any* depiction of other cultures as cultural appropriation. But that's a fringe view, and it would be dead wrong to delegitimize the concept based on the extreme views of a militant fringe. (And no, they are not setting the agenda. They are just loud.)

 

[The Big Peat]

I have seen too many people take cultural appropriation in writing further than the idea of "don't be a lazy git about others' cultures" - and too few people define it as that - to accept the idea that is a fringe view.

 

[Ursa major]

As an aside....

This story (and court case) is a great example of what I consider to be genuine and genuinely harmful cultural appropriation.

In Europe -- well, the EU anyway -- that would probably be dealt with the European Union Protected Designations of Origin rules and appellation schemes (whatever they're termed in various EU countries and languages). It seems that there are some equivalents in the US but, obviously, its use isn't as widespread as it perhaps ought** to be.

Notes:

1. There people who see this as protectionism. However, restricting the name (in the EU) of Champagne to sparkling wine made in Champagne region using the Methode Champagnoise (not all of which is the really expensive stuff) has not stopped people selling sparkling wines made using the Methode Champagnoise under different names (and so building their own brand).
2. The production of some products has become so widespread (e.g. cheddar cheese) that applying a protected designation to them is not really possible (as people don't buy cheddar cheese because they think it comes from Cheddar, but because it's now seen by most people as a type of cheese).
3. These rules are all about place and method, not specifically human culture: there is no requirement, as far as I can tell, that those involved in the production of a product protected in this way have to have any cultural or ethnic qualifications, simply that they use the prescribed method and do it in the designated area. This has its benefits and, I would suppose, its downsides (and this may depend on the how the rules of production are drafted).

** - I'm guessing that many immigrants to the US from what are now designated places of origin considered themselves to have just as strong a right to the way they did things back home as those who had stayed there and that living on another continent made no practical difference (particularly if the product concerned wasn't traded much if at all across the Atlantic (in either direction).

 

[MWagner]

I do agree with the author in a limited sense, which is that a militant subset of activists on the internet see *any* depiction of other cultures as cultural appropriation. But that's a fringe view, and it would be dead wrong to delegitimize the concept based on the extreme views of a militant fringe. (And no, they are not setting the agenda. They are just loud.)

They're influential enough that the organizers of the Brisbane conference publicly disavowed Shriver's remarks and immediately programmed a session to counter her comments. That looks pretty agenda-setting to me.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/b...opriation-brisbane-writers-festival.html?_r=0

 

[The Big Peat]

Okay. Here's how I see this.

1) The biggest problem attached to Cultural Appropriation is the problem it is a reaction to, namely that the cultures of those outside the elite are more likely to be appreciated when presented by those who are in than by those who are out, and that this is one of many areas where those on the outside have less opportunity.

2) That Cultural Appropriation is increasingly seen as being about preventing people who are in the elite having anything to do with the cultural heritage of those outside, rather than it being a matter of ensuring respect is shown and that society offers opportunity to those outside the elite to tell their story, is another problem. Not as big a one, and one that shouldn't be linked (but inevitably will be and is), but definitely a problem.

3) It is probably not best practice to tackle this problem by grandstanding speeches heavily rooted in how it impacts the speaker. They might ignite debate on the problem, but won't solve it. I could be talking of my behind here, but it seems likely that the best way to tackle it is to simply go on using all parts of human culture and calling out the critics on their heavily illiberal ideas whenever they speak against it.

 

[galanx]

Mixed feelings. My wife is a Taiwan aborigine, and we live in a part of Taiwan where the aboriginal population is about 30%, compared to about 3% for the island as a whole. I've seen the mood swing in most of the country from "dirty lazy drunken Aborigines" to "hey, cool- our very own native people!", though there's still a lot of prejudice in my town. That hasn't stopped the local Han Chinese majority (including otherwise hostile local government) from jumping in to exploit aboriginal culture- fake art, staged dances, bringing in tourists to gawk at local ceremonies etc.
(Largely parallel with what happened with Natives in the US, Canada,and Australia.)

OTOH, my wife incorporates western and Chinese art forms into her sculpture- she's a semi-professional woodcarver- among others, she did an Aboriginalised copy (in wood) of The Last Supper for the local Catholic Church (many Aborigines are Christian, unlike Han Chinese).

So, while it can go too far, I can certainly understand some people being angry at the exploitation of their native culture, especially when they are shut out.

(Like James Clavell- I don't know enough about Japan to comment on 'Shogun', but his works set in Chinese culture -'Taipan' etc- are stereotypical racist drivel.)

 

[Nerds_feather]

They're influential enough that the organizers of the Brisbane conference publicly disavowed Shriver's remarks and immediately programmed a session to counter her comments. That looks pretty agenda-setting to me.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/b...opriation-brisbane-writers-festival.html?_r=0

1. How important is that Brisbane conference in the grand scheme of things? I'd argue not very.

2. What's wrong with their response anyway? The speech was deliberately provocative and she wore a sombrero while giving it, which suggests baiting the audience rather than a serious attempt to convince. All that is her right, but similarly, it's the conference organizers' and presenters' right to respond. That's hardly a "chilling of speech" or whatever; it's more speech.

 

[Nerds_feather]

Bottom line: cultural appropriation is the lazy claiming of cultural things without according them due respect, and this is especially harmful if it's claimed from a group that is not well represented. Sacred Navajo underwear, for example. Or Tonto.

But if you are not lazy and are respectful, then it's not appropriation--it's depiction.

 

[aThenian]

Liked this comment from someone on the Comment is Free Guardian site - and it's about a fantasy book.

"Let's use a real life example. Ursula K. Le Guin wrote a story of a dark skinned male protagonist in A Wizard of Earthsea. It was the first time that I've read a book that featured a dark skinned male as its central lead character and that mattered to me because I'm a dark skinned male myself. Did it bothered me that the author was a white skinned female? Not at all. If anything, I was all the more impressed that she was so open minded to write a story of a dark skinned male in a literary genre dominated by white male characters.

I wouldn't want to live in a world where something like A Wizard of Earthsea would be considered impermissible to the cultural purity fascists."
​

(Hope it's OK to copy this verbatim - the article it's commenting on is here but I couldn't work out how to link to the comment itself)

 

[Ursa major]

1. How important is that Brisbane conference in the grand scheme of things? I'd argue not very.

Important enough for the (London, ex-Manchester) Guardian to publish an article by the person who walked out. It then, belatedly, printed the text of Shriver's speech, and another opinion piece about the incident. (There may have been more... and there will probably be more as the various, quick-to-have-an-opinion-but-slower-to-get-down-to-writing Grauniad columnists have their say on the matter. These sort of articles always generate follow ups in the Grauniad.) But when the post to which you were replying contains a link to an article in the New York Times about the incident, I feel that I should not have had to point out that this sort of news goes round the world.

Oh, and to grossly exaggerate to make a point: how any people had even heard of Sarajevo before 28 June 1914...?

​

 

[Stephen Palmer]

Bottom line: cultural appropriation is the lazy claiming of cultural things without according them due respect, and this is especially harmful if it's claimed from a group that is not well represented. Sacred Navajo underwear, for example. Or Tonto.

But if you are not lazy and are respectful, then it's not appropriation--it's depiction.

I think this sums up the situation just about right. Besides... in the end, can't we use a bit of human imagination to imagine what individuals unlike us are like? When I wrote Muezzinland I started from the assumption that my black, female characters were human. Nothing else was an issue in my mind.

 

[Ursa major]

Hope it's OK to copy this verbatim

You should be more worried about the reaction of the comment's author, who gives himself the name, crazyfatguy....