Perspective on writing about race

[Pamela Jo]

Rebecca F Kuang rejects idea authors should not write about other races. Her opinion seems sensible to me.

As a reader I respond to authenticity. I'd rather there were more writers telling their own historical stories. I just read Neil Jordan's novel on an Irish hero of the 1798 rebellion, Edward Fritzgerald. He fought in the Am Rev where he acquired not a slave-but a black servant. Jordan chose 1st person of the black servant to tell us the story. I wish he hadn't. There is no real life in it. Whether trying too hard or whatever the prob is-it doesnt work. Certainly hasn't sold many copies. Too removed and academic is my guess. He doesnt live in his characters skin. And how could he, really?

 

[Hannah F]

I have a different race in my present WIP. They are Fae. I do have fae sensitivity readers - I imagined them as well.

 

[James Charles]

I have a different race in my present WIP. They are Fae. I do have fae sensitivity readers - I imagined them as well.

Well aren't you part Fae, Hannah, so you have authority in the subject?

 

[CageSage]

There's another facet to the issue (btw, I'm with Rebecca, but see below for my 'why').

Percentages.
What percentage of the population can write with authenticity about their particular place in the world (whether race or gender or experiential or any other thing)?
More percentages.
What percentage of wanna-be writers finish a ms? It's worth looking up those numbers. There's not much change over 50 years or so (I didn't go back further - data can be tough to find before it was collected for a purpose).
Let's make it easy.
Take one thousand writers. One or two in a hundred will finish a first draft ms. That's right. 1 or 2% who start their novel will finish it. Let's be generous and say 100 people out of the thousand go on to complete a ms. Of those who finish that first one, how many go on to write another (or even complete the first one with edits)? Would you be shocked to see the same numbers - because it's about 1-2%. Again. Let's be generous and say that out of the 1000 at the start of the experiment, there were 100 who wrote both a first and second mss. I'm not even going to say published, because that's another number altogether (let's see; if the numbers continue their pattern, that would mean that 1% of writers who submit a mss to a trad publisher get a chance to publish their 'first' book - after usually about 10 years of 'practice' novels - this number comes from personal experience, but not world-wide experience, although I've seen enough to think it's a pattern).
The troublesome bit.
If we take the percentage of the population who fit the criteria for authenticity in what they write - race, gender, etc. - and lay it out against the 'generalised' population ...
Oh, I see. That 2% (if that, although LGBTQ might be up to 3.5%) of the non-generalised population ... and if 1000 of that set have the same percentages for completion of first, second, acceptances (it's often lower because of expectations) ... that means one or two in a million books published would be authentic. More trouble comes when readers/critics argue that the fiction comes from fact (yes, there are authors who wrote fiction but were condemned when critics exposed their story as 'non-facual/experiential').

Now think about what the Greeks and Romans did with their stories. They integrated them with the populations/communities they colonised. The stories eventually became more Greek and Roman than local. They overwrote the local stories. Incorporated them into their own stories. The Greek and Roman stories are still being told, rewritten, remembered. The local, indigenous, culturally-specific stories now belong elsewhere (this is more so for oral cultures).

If I want my culture to move forward into more memories, should I restrict who can write stories about my history, my country, my culture, my experiences? Should I allow only those who are part of it to share their words?
Or will I help people understand where those stories come from so the stories can retain their significance and connection, and gain a wider audience?
Will my stories about my culture/beliefs, etc. follow the pattern of the Greeks/Romans, or will it fall into disuse and lost memories as so many others have?

My view is that the more people who write of a culture/history/race/experience, the more the 'generalised' population will learn about it, too, and take it into the future (of course, written with the help of good research from appropriate sources - which doesn't include sensitivity readers, who have only one view of the issue, and may not have any provable evidence of their views).

Be mindful, yes, but don't control the power of stories by restriction of the content to only those with the 'right to speak' on the issue/matter.

 

[LJ Beck]

This is yet another reason I write spec fic stories. I can create characters willy nilly.

Seriously though, this is a very tricky topic, with home-run arguments on both sides. I just don't think it's a one-size-fits-all situation, which makes it difficult to be definitive about it. I can see how writing about cultures/races other than your own could work really well, or really badly, depending on the story/writer.

At the end of the day, I'd say write what you want and book sales will determine its success?

 

[Jonny]

I was not going to comment for fear of upsetting someone. That's no one specific by the way. Just someone. Then I thought... you're doing what these people (the new school of thought in the industry) want you to do. You're not going to say what you think.

Therefore. I think publishing, and indeed society too, is becoming more bizarre by the month. Are we really moving to a world were if I choose to write a story about 1950s rock 'n' roll culture, it should be regarded as a worthless and inaccurate piece of junk because, and yes this is hard to believe, I'm not American and perhaps even harder to believe, I wasn't born then anyway.

Erm... didn't there used to be this silly oldfangled thing called research?

And that's before we consider the thorny thicket of dense and becoming ever denser, undergrowth - misappropriation of culture and its good buddy, sensitivity reading. I'm Irish and I have and would continue to read works set in Ireland about the Irish irrespective of the authors nationality. I might add that I have yet even once to hear an Irish person say; "Begob, begorrah, top o' da mornin' to yah, sor and shure da resht o' da day to yerself," not to mention all those other stereotypical portrayals of Ireland so beloved of da fillums.

At the end of the day, I'd say write what you want and book sales will determine its success?

This to me sounds like an eminently sensible view to take and one that I subscribe to.

Personally, I would never write anything that is racist, homophobic, misogynistic, hurtful etc. etc.. This is because I was brought up with a sense of decency which instilled in me respect to all people, races, creeds and cultures. I don't need would-be worthies to check my work to make sure I am being good or inoffensive.

ROARRRRRRRRRRR!!! Yes, I know this makes me a dinosaur from another age in the eyes of some but I can live with that.

 

[James Charles]

I was not going to comment for fear of upsetting someone. That's no one specific by the way. Just someone. Then I thought... you're doing what these people (the new school of thought in the industry) want you to do. You're not going to say what you think.

Therefore. I think publishing, and indeed society too, is becoming more bizarre by the month. Are we really moving to a world were if I choose to write a story about 1950s rock 'n' roll culture, it should be regarded as a worthless and inaccurate piece of junk because, and yes this is hard to believe, I'm not American and perhaps even harder to believe, I wasn't born then anyway.

Erm... didn't there used to be this silly oldfangled thing called research?

And that's before we consider the thorny thicket of dense and becoming ever denser, undergrowth - misappropriation of culture and its good buddy, sensitivity reading. I'm Irish and I have and would continue to read works set in Ireland about the Irish irrespective of the authors nationality. I might add that I have yet even once to hear an Irish person say; "Begob, begorrah, top o' da mornin' to yah, sor and shure da resht o' da day to yerself," not to mention all those other stereotypical portrayals of Ireland so beloved of da fillums.


This to me sounds like an eminently sensible view to take and one that I subscribe to.

Personally, I would never write anything that is racist, homophobic, misogynistic, hurtful etc. etc.. This is because I was brought up with a sense of decency which instilled in me respect to all people, races, creeds and cultures. I don't need would-be worthies to check my work to make sure I am being good or inoffensive.

ROARRRRRRRRRRR!!! Yes, I know this makes me a dinosaur from another age in the eyes of some but I can live with that.

And, as you know, I am writing a story that opens in 1642 Tuscany.... I can say I lived in that time if anyone says I have no authroity...

 

[Brooke]

personally, i think there's absolutely no problem with writing a story from the perspective of someone who's part of a group you aren't in. it'd kind of be impossible not to, unless every character you write about is an exact copy of yourself.
the problem comes, i believe, when (1) the character's difference from you is extremely controversial (race, ethnicity, gender identity, sexuality, etc.), and (2) the character's difference from you is an integral part of the story.
as an example, it probably would not be a good idea for a cisgender+straight person to write a story from the POV of a trans+queer person that focuses on the character being trans/queer. this is probably because, as much as people argue otherwise, everyone is subject to stereotyping -- everyone has preconceived notions about every type of person, sometimes even if you are that type of person. so i'd recommend that if you really want to write a story about a character who's part of a group that you aren't part of (not necessarily a minority), you should probably get some sensitivity readers/beta readers who are part of that group, just to check you're not accidentally stereotyping or something without noticing. it's surprisingly easy to miss!

 

[CageSage]

get some sensitivity readers/beta readers who are part of that group

This is where I disagree. I was a foster carer to (mainly) teens, some straight, some not, some white, some not, some spoke one language, some spoke others. All came from a long line of foster-hopping (or institutionalised 'care'). The one thing that united them: all labelled incorrigible in some way by someone in the system. They came to me in pieces. No two the same, except they were young and in a difficult situation, abused in too many ways by too many people to trust anyone. This was my life for 30 years, until one of the 'parents' twice attempted to kill me.

Back to the point:
If I write a story about being a foster kid, do I go to the kid who's a different race, or a different face, or a different language? Do I ask the ones who had it bad, or find the rare few who had it good (I met one, once)?
Choosing one person from a group isn't representative, and there is strong bias, even abuse, within a group of people as to 'right' or 'might' when it comes to self- or group-perception.
My cousin (also my best friend from childhood to her recent death) started life with dangly bits. She changed as soon as she turned 16, despite the world turning against her. She went through many kinds of hell, including the abusive male psychiatrist who had to approve her state of mind, had to travel overseas to get the surgery (which was botched), and suffered many forms of abuse (including being put in a male prison for a traffic infringement). Included in that abuse were the people she once considered friends: members of the LGBTQI community, family, employers, teachers, etc. who had all at one time professed to have her back/best interests at heart.
People are fickle, regardless of which community they align themselves with, and any beta or sensitivity reader can only ever share their views as an individual, not as the spokesperson for the whole group. I will trust the view of one person on the day I trust that AI can accurately tell me my life story.
It's fine to do research and to get a wide spectrum view on the subject matter in order to avoid problems, but to trust one small sub-section? Not for me.

A paraphrased quote from Voltaire: Life is full of thorns; move quickly through or become entangled.
What that means to me is that getting entangled in the expectations/rules of others will lock you behind a thorny wall and put your mind to sleep for a hundred years.
I won't assume that all people within a group/community/label are the same, or share the same views. I won't assume anything. But I will write what I know through research, interviews, life experience, and any available primary sources.

-- I will delete this if people find it offensive. Even one objection. So don't ghost, speak up.

 

[izi 出久]

I’m kinda just posting so I can follow, but also would like to note extensive research and deep empathy go a long way in writing a realistic character. I method write, which has contributed to quite a few health issues and is why I will die younger than most…

 

[CageSage]

extensive research and deep empathy go a long way

Fully agree with this. And with the method writing.

 

[Brooke]

This is where I disagree. I was a foster carer to (mainly) teens, some straight, some not, some white, some not, some spoke one language, some spoke others. All came from a long line of foster-hopping (or institutionalised 'care'). The one thing that united them: all labelled incorrigible in some way by someone in the system. They came to me in pieces. No two the same, except they were young and in a difficult situation, abused in too many ways by too many people to trust anyone. This was my life for 30 years, until one of the 'parents' twice attempted to kill me.

Back to the point:
If I write a story about being a foster kid, do I go to the kid who's a different race, or a different face, or a different language? Do I ask the ones who had it bad, or find the rare few who had it good (I met one, once)?
Choosing one person from a group isn't representative, and there is strong bias, even abuse, within a group of people as to 'right' or 'might' when it comes to self- or group-perception.
My cousin (also my best friend from childhood to her recent death) started life with dangly bits. She changed as soon as she turned 16, despite the world turning against her. She went through many kinds of hell, including the abusive male psychiatrist who had to approve her state of mind, had to travel overseas to get the surgery (which was botched), and suffered many forms of abuse (including being put in a male prison for a traffic infringement). Included in that abuse were the people she once considered friends: members of the LGBTQI community, family, employers, teachers, etc. who had all at one time professed to have her back/best interests at heart.
People are fickle, regardless of which community they align themselves with, and any beta or sensitivity reader can only ever share their views as an individual, not as the spokesperson for the whole group. I will trust the view of one person on the day I trust that AI can accurately tell me my life story.
It's fine to do research and to get a wide spectrum view on the subject matter in order to avoid problems, but to trust one small sub-section? Not for me.

A paraphrased quote from Voltaire: Life is full of thorns; move quickly through or become entangled.
What that means to me is that getting entangled in the expectations/rules of others will lock you behind a thorny wall and put your mind to sleep for a hundred years.
I won't assume that all people within a group/community/label are the same, or share the same views. I won't assume anything. But I will write what I know through research, interviews, life experience, and any available primary sources.

-- I will delete this if people find it offensive. Even one objection. So don't ghost, speak up.

i definitely see where you're coming from and agree! i didn't mean to imply to only get ONE person to talk to-- the more the merrier! it's definitely kind of an area where nobody can be satisfied; if you want to write an authentic story about someone who's part of a minority, it's basically impossible to make it accurate to everyone's experience, since for some people it's barely affected their lives, and for others it's nearly controlled it. so there isn't any one 'right way', and i think it's better that there isn't-- every story can be 'authentic' if someone has experienced it. thank you for the long response :]

 

[Josephine]

I won't assume that all people within a group/community/label are the same, or share the same views. I won't assume anything.

i definitely see where you're coming from and agree! i didn't mean to imply to only get ONE person to talk to-- the more the merrier!

To me it feels like where we wouldn't get only one beta reader and expect them to be The Representative Reader -- we go for a cross section of opinions instead, only here it's specifically readers with a particular life experience in common which renders them 'sensitivity' rather than 'common or garden' beta readers, no?

I liked this from PJ's article above...

she did use four sensitivity readers when she was writing Babel ... She was not, however, treating them as people who would police her work but as collaborators “who could bring in an extra detail and depth and complexity to characters with a shared background”.
“It’s sort of like going to an academic colleague and showing them your research paper and asking them for their thoughts on the blind spots and recommendations for literature that you might consult,” she said.

Then again, I've not had anything out to sensitivity readers yet, so maybe I'll change my tune; watch this space...

 

[CarolMS]

A couple of thoughts -- admittedly, perhaps a bit "weird." Fits how my brain works: weirdly.

First . . . . In all my years--and there have been quite a few --I have never even imagined America would be dealing with the degree of book banning going on in schools, libraries and bookstores across this country today--in "Red states," needless to say--where, while good people "sleep" and are slow to be aware, bigotry and prejudice, often exhibited by so-called "Christians," is winning the day in state legislation, city laws and regulations, as well as other institutions. Certainly we want to refrain from grossly offending any persons of marginalized groups in our stories, but I have never thought novels or short stories should be "politically correct" to the extent that they dull down or entirely avoid grappling with "awkward" subjects, such as race, disability, mysogyny, etc., Aren't novels supposed to portray "sensitive" subjects, whether in the present or in a historical context, as accurately as possible (to the extent authors feel appropriate to their particular stories) so that readers might learn from them, perhaps bear witness? How such people and events are presented should stimulate reflection, questions, empathy, or emotional responses, negative as well as positive, all fodder for discussion and potential movement toward increased understanding. For me, this has sometimes raised the question: what is the real intention of a sensitivity read? What is the outcome that is sought? Our country has become so polarized in recent years, so perhaps we can no longer expect to have productive dialogue. I hope that's not true, and also hope good fiction can still generate serious and meaningful conversations about things that matter.

Second . . . . What is "authenticity" anyway? I suspect philosophers could debate the meaning of an "authentic self" endlessly without coming to a firm conclusion. I have a degree in Clinical Psychology and am educated in all the primary developmental and personality theories but still can only come close to defining it. We can strive for authenticity in our thoughts and behavior, but can we ever absolutely arrive at it? There is, in fact, no such thing as complete objectivity in the eyes of human beings, since people are inherently and inevitably subjective. We can learn from our own experience, and while it is just that, our own, it may lead us much closer to empathic understanding. The same is true of thoughtful research. And careful research, since we always run the risk of drawing from erronious or overly biased sources. Because there is no "one size fits all," we need to be careful and as informed as possible when choosing sensitivity readers and should remember they only offer opinions informed by their own personal knowledge and experience. Ask questions; get a sense of their attitudes and beliefs. And consider carefully if their views "fit" with your values and your writing project.

 

[LJ Beck]

Some questions I ponder...

Are any of our discussion participants from a diverse, marginalized, or historically repressed culture/background? If so, does that translate to how someone in another such culture feels? I appreciate everyone has a diversity of rich experiences, but is it the same? Does it have to be? How much research would give you a perspective as much as living it? Does it have to? I wonder if the answers differ depending on perspective? I wonder if I have read enough stories from the perspective of a culture other than my own to be informed enough to even talk about this? I wonder about a lot of shit on this, because I find it really confusing.

Another question... Is it similar (in a way) to writing about any experience that you have not personally experienced? Take having ovarian cancer, being in a terrible car accident, being on the front lines in a war, anything really traumatic. Would writing about that, without experiencing it, be as informed as writing about it from living that experience? The nuance, the crippling emotions, the little things you notice, aren't there to help fill in the imagination. (Perhaps depends on the writer?) Now, we all write about stuff we don't experience. Obviously. But I do think some things are more easily imagined than others, and different for everyone because of our experiences and research. It's deciding where that lines is for yourself, I guess?

I don't know how I'd feel if I were not a privileged white person. I can empathize, for sure, and imagine, and research a bunch. I have my own "me too" stories of discrimination, but I don't really know what it's like to be from another culture. You know? I guess I've decided that, for me, I am in no position to write a present day story that focuses on another currently existing culture different to my own. That's me.

That said, I would never, ever, tell someone else what not to write. That includes someone from a different culture than my own, writing about mine. I might be a little skeptical if I read it, and if it was very far from how I see my culture, I might let that opinion be known, but I believe firmly in write and let write.

 

[Brooke]

I can empathize, for sure, and imagine, and research a bunch. I have my own "me too" stories of discrimination, but I don't really know what it's like to be from another culture. You know?

i agree completely. i think i would recommend just identifying what you do experience and twisting some of those things into an interesting story. i'm black, biologically female, LGBTQ, and suffer from a few different mental disorders, so that's what i write about. i wouldn't write about something controversial that i don't have experience with.
this is where i think the amount of privilege someone has might disadvantage them, story-wise, but the best stories are ones that are authentic; it's one of those things you just can't fake.