Write who you know?

[Robinne Weiss]

I saw an interesting article in the NY Times today: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/o...ight-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region

This is an issue of huge importance here in NZ. In non-fiction, Pakeha (non-Maori) are pretty much no longer allowed to write anything about Maori unless they are gifted that right by the local iwi (tribe), and then whatever they right has to be approved by the local iwi. It spills over into fiction, too. My most recent novel is set in NZ, and I wanted to give the cast of characters the same cultural diversity as the country--1 in 5 New Zealanders was not born in New Zealand, after all. It would have been unfathomable to leave out the native Maori from my cast, and yet I was extremely wary about including Maori characters, knowing that no matter how careful I was, no matter how unimportant to the story their ancestry might be, I would be criticised for writing a Maori character as a Pakeha. But to leave them out seems, in my mind, a more egregious error.

What do you all feel about this? Where do you draw the line between fairly showing the cultural diversity of the world and inappropriately telling someone else's story?

 

[Matnov]

Out of interest, who stops you from writing about who you want? Are there laws about this sort of thing in New Zealand?

 

[Robinne Weiss]

My non-fiction work has largely been for clients--government agencies, regional councils, research institutes, and the like. Those organisations are required by law to consult the local iwi on a wide variety of matters related to land use, resource use, and communication with the public. The laws are part of the ongoing efforts of the Crown to make reparations for usurping this land and forcibly trying to stamp out the native Maori. It is part of the effort to honour the bi-cultural nature of the nation, and recognise the kaitiakitanga (caretaker responsibilities and rights) of the Maori people for the taonga (natural and cultural treasures) of Aotearoa/New Zealand.

 

[Marc Joan]

It's ridiculous. Authors are always telling other people's stories. If they don't do it right, criticise them by all means, but to stop them doing so is just politically correct censorship.

 

[KG Christopher]

It's ridiculous. Authors are always telling other people's stories. If they don't do it right, criticise them by all means, but to stop them doing so is just politically correct censorship.

I don't actually think its ridiculous at all. You should always try and respect the sensitivities of others. For instance, if you are an author writing about a 'dumb blonde' or a 'lazy African' or let's say... a 'Muslim terrorist'... I have some original - pre-censored Enid Blyton books, one is called '3 little golliwogs', I show it to my children as an example of how easy it is to enforce prejudice and stereotype through reference to casual racism.

I suppose Robinne could just ignore the requirement and shrugg her shoulders, but I don't think its the best way to go ahead. If its in good taste to consult the local iwi, or local witch doctor (see what I did there?), then you should, imagine the marketing potential.

I loved a New Zealand film 'once where warriors'.

 

[Paul Whybrow]

I understand the reasons for Maoris protecting their cultural heritage, in the same way that any subjugated race deserve their right to be heard. The problem is, that making regulations, to prevent those not a part of that group expressing their opinion about them, is divisive—it excludes, rather than includes—fences might make good neighbours, but they can be barriers to understanding.

Are the Maori allowed to portray Pakeha without censorship?

The expression 'it's political madness gone mad', is commonly heard; no one says the opposite.

Were we, as writers, prevented from portraying people who differed from us, then literature would be a sterile desert. In my three novels, I've written about a detective of Indian ethnicity, lesbians, Serbian freedom fighters, homosexual surfers, a devout Catholic priest and people suffering with mental ailments. It's fortunate that I don't have to provide my credentials to do this....

Surely, when we write, we write as human beings attempting to convey the experiences of other human beings—whatever their race, creed, religion, sexual orientation etc, etc.

This Quora thread discusses 'when is being politically correct wrong?'. It includes a humorous and astute skit by George Carlin:

https://www.quora.com/When-is-being-politically-correct-wrong

 

[KG Christopher]

I understand the reasons for Maoris protecting their cultural heritage, in the same way that any subjugated race deserve their right to be heard. The problem is, that making regulations, to prevent those not a part of that group expressing their opinion about them, is divisive—it excludes, rather than includes—fences might make good neighbours, but they can be barriers to understanding.

Are the Maori allowed to portray Pakeha without censorship?

The expression 'it's political madness gone mad', is commonly heard; no one says the opposite.

Were we, as writers, prevented from portraying people who differed from us, then literature would be a sterile desert. In my three novels, I've written about a detective of Indian ethnicity, lesbians, Serbian freedom fighters, homosexual surfers, a devout Catholic priest and people suffering with mental ailments. It's fortunate that I don't have to provide my credentials to do this....

Surely, when we write, we write as human beings attempting to convey the experiences of other human beings—whatever their race, creed, religion, sexual orientation etc, etc.

This Quora thread discusses 'when is being politically correct wrong?'. It includes a humorous and astute skit by George Carlin:

https://www.quora.com/When-is-being-politically-correct-wrong

I think we have to be careful how we portray other people. It's similar to cliche. It's easy to fall into the trap of applying stereotypes to characters, not based on personal experience, or even experience based on second-hand knowledge but based on our perceived prejudices.

What label do you give yourself Paul? because a single label does not portray the true essence of a human being.

 

[Paul Whybrow]

I think we have to be careful how we portray other people. It's similar to cliche. It's easy to fall into the trap of applying stereotypes to characters, not based on personal experience, or even experience based on second-hand knowledge but based on our perceived prejudices.

What label do you give yourself Paul? because a single label does not portray the true essence of a human being.

Me? I'm a diamond geezer, of course....

 

[Matnov]

Personally I think that being a writer should come with a desire to be as offensive as you can be, obviously all in the best possible taste.

My own personal fictional hero is Sir Harry Flashman. And just a cursory glance through any of his various exploits and adventures would reveal a man who is probably, in terms of attitude, language and general all round being a scoundrel, the very antithesis of our current culture of 'safe spaces' and the like. And yet I would argue that by being free of restraint in terms of both language and attitude, the entire Flashman series offers us both enjoyable tales of a very unlovable rogue along with providing an interpretation of historical events which offer a whole new slant on issues such as slavery, colonialism and 19th century European history.

But these novels, in today's climate, would never even make it to a slush pile. And if they did, I am sure that any mainstream publisher worth their salt would be forwarding the manuscripts onto the CPS rather than looking to pile them high and sell them cheap in W.H.Smiths.

 

[Carol Rose]

I wouldn't dare try to tell someone else's story without first understanding as much as I could about it. Even then, some subjects are simply taboo, as far as I'm concerned. But that's me. Others may feel differently. I don't write to make waves. I write to entertain.

 

[Peggy Lou]

Given the history of colonialism, the fears of Maoris are understandable. But a culture is not a static thing, something that can be kept forever unchanging in a hermetically sealed box. The kind of restrictions Robinne is writing about sounds like extreme censorship. What if a Maori writer wants to criticise this or that aspect of Maori culture? Is that allowed?

Isn't this a version of the justification used to tolerate practices such as female genital mutilation?

In any case, writers mostly write about other people in other places and other times. If we limit ourselves to writing about our particular localities and our own times, there won't be many books worth reading.

 

[Robinne Weiss]

Ooo! I knew this would spark some good conversation!

I can totally see both sides of this issue. Writing for government agencies, there was often a desire to include the Maori story or Maori perspective of whatever it was we were writing about, but Maori aren't one people. They would often fight over how a story should be told, and in the end refuse to approve any version. The end result was that an important perspective was just left out; important stories weren't told at all. No one benefits in that case. One particular project I worked on for nine years was a joint project between Ngāi Tahu (our local rūnanga (a larger unit than iwi/tribe...there's not really an English equivalent), and the Department of Conservation. Twice, I wrote text for a dozen interpretation panels, in close consultation with Ngāi Tahu. Twice the text was ultimately rejected. The second time, it happened after the panels were officially approved, printed and ready to be installed. Two years later, the panels still sit in storage, and the stories remain untold.

In fiction, there is nothing saying a Pakeha can't write Maori into their stories, but anyone who does has to expect criticism, no matter how sensitively it's done, and even if it's done in consultation with Maori. I think part of the issue here is that Europeans didn't arrive in NZ until the 1800s. The terrible history of their conquest here is almost still within living memory. The wounds are still incredibly raw.

That said, I can guarantee that I don't speak for all white women from America. I have ideas and opinions that vary wildly from others who are "my kind". Even if I populated my books with only middle-aged American women, my characters would be "wrong" if I made them like me. I think fiction writers should be able to write whatever characters they want, but I also think they have a duty to do their research well, and portray all their characters with sensitivity.

 

[Bluma Bezbroda]

A bit late to the table, but this is the kind of topic I really like to give my opinion on so ekhem, ekhem...

I am not at all a fan of legally enforcing who should write about what, in fact, I find it damaging to the cause. Without an outsider's point of view there is no prompting of discussion, and there is a big risk of falling into stagnation and self-admiration. This said, I totally agree with the procedure of consulting the iwi's before publishing anything about them. Because a) history was written by white people for white people for too long already, b) who has more insights about any people than these people themselves and, perhaps most importantly, c) history/culture of indigenous peoples from around the world relies extremely often on oral traditions. That means you can't just read books about it to become an expert, because that knowledge was never written down. You have to go there and listen to them in order to compose anything informed and objective.

Of course, it would be better if governments of the world would not deprive indigenous people of the right to education, the best incentive to write their own history, than pass laws on who should write what. But I guess that's too demanding.

As for offence... I think it's great to be thought provoking. You can be provocative, if you can do that, but be prepared to bare with the consequences. But being offensive is a big no-no for me. Because I have better things to do than listen to (or read about) "All [insert racist slur] are thieves and all women are [insert sexist slur]", no matter in how sophisticated form it comes.

 

[Peggy Lou]

So there's no ban or taboo on including Maoris or their stories into works of fiction. But one does so at one's own risk and must be ready to be savaged by words of criticism.
Is that how it is?
If so I don't see a problem there. After all that is how it is supposed to work. Write and be criticised. We have the right to write and others have the right to tear us apart for what we write, verbally. So long as it doesn't get into the Salman Rushdie or even Wendy Dorniger territory, it is fine.

 

[Robinne Weiss]

I totally agree @Peggy Lou. The question is, when does it shift from criticising someone for not doing their research to criticising someone for writing while white? And how much should a writer self-censor. That was sort of the dilemma of the article.

 

[Peggy Lou]

The way I see it, there are no yardsticks which work everytime, everywhere and with everyone. This hasn't happened to me - yet - so I suppose it's easy for me to say. But when one writes, especially on controversial issues, one must be ready for every kind of criticism, including downright unjust and irrelevant name calling. The line I would draw, a sort of ne plus altra - is physical violence. Words yes, stones no.

Having had some experience of censorship, I'm scared of it, even the well meaning variety. Take the laws against denying the existence of Holocaust. I think they made sense once; they don't anymore. It is much better to take on Holocaust deniers and debunk their insane arguments instead of imposing fines on them or shutting them up.

Self censorship again depends on not just the person but also the time and the place, I think. A deeply personal decision.

 

[Bluma Bezbroda]

I think that the article that Robinne started with (an ecxelent one, btw) already gives a serious hint to this dilemma: “Why do they want our approval so badly?” That's basically what @Peggy Lou is saying as well- write about whoever you want, but don't expect that you will always get appraised. The more you f*ck up, the more criticized you'll get. If you don't want to misrepresent a group you are writing about, go to a person belonging to that group and talk to them. Ask them questions. Give them your manuscript to read and give their opinion. I do it all the time, for my writing and also just for broadening my own horizons. If something I've said or written is pointed out as racially/culturally insensitive, I take that in and apologize. That's how you learn.

I write a lot about gay men, the experiences of whom I will obviously never ever have. I get quite a lot of shit from both straight and gay males for that (girls tend to be more relaxed). If I see a vexed face and hear "How dare you say something about things you have no idea about!", I usually stop listening. But if someone points out specific things that they have a problem with I do give it a consideration. Very often I change them afterwards.

 

[Peggy Lou]

Agree with Bluma. And Robinne someone will always object. That you can take as a given. Even if you talk to many members of whatever the group you are writing about, do your research, edit and re-edit, be as thorough and as just as you can, you will ruffle someone's feathers. Just so long as you don't get ruffled by the screechings of the ruffled ones....

 

[Peggy Lou]

This is somewhat relevant to the issue Robinne raised.

Bill Maher “disgusted” by writers who denounced Charlie Hebdo: “You can’t be a prude at the nudist colony” - Salon.com