John McFetridge, writing
in the Do Some Damage blog last week, raised the issue of “appropriation of
voice.” I agree with John’s position—mostly—but the post got me to thinking,
and my thoughts grew into more than what would fit into a comment.
The core question: can a white man (anyone, for that
matter), write as someone of a different gender or race, without improperly
“appropriating the voice” of the group the character belongs to? John linked to
an article by Kenneth
Williams in Windspeaker Magazine, which takes an even-handed approach,
citing both those who see no real issue (aside from the author’s need to be
sensitive to the group represented), and those who take major issue, such as Lenore Keeshig-Tobias, an Anishinabe author
and story-teller:
"I think the most
important thing for a non-Native writer to do when they write about Native
issues is to have respect - respect means research and talking to the people. I
can see non-Native writers doing that in the field of journalism, but when it
comes to literature it's a dicey situation because we all grow up with certain
biases, and if we accept or reject those biases, it always shows up in our
writing."
And:
"I appreciate the
work of Rudy Weibe and M.T. Kelly because they were very, very respectful and
they were the only things going. But they must realize there comes a time for
them to step back. I believe that the reason that they're doing this is to
foster and promote a greater understanding of Aboriginal people and their
histories. They can't do that forever and ever because it [becomes] the same
old missionary situation."
I’m not going to argue that white men have not dominated the
lists of books published and reviewed for years, and still do; any moron can
see they have. Whether the underrepresentation of women and minorities is due
to publishers’ bias, or because their books may be perceived to occupy too much
of a niche to suit the suits, is not today’s discussion. (That women still have
this problem is confounding, as a substantial majority of novels are bought and
read by women. The market should be there, which could be prima facie evidence for
the bias argument, but, as I said, that’s for another day.) What I will argue
is, who gets to decide who can write what?
I’m not familiar with the work of Wiebe and Kelly, but I am
with Tony Hillerman, who won universal acclaim for his portrayals of life on a
Navajo reservation. Joe Leaphorn and Jim Chee, along with many others, are
fully formed characters the reader can appreciate as people, with many of the
concerns all of us have, formed by their unique Navajo culture, toward which
Hillerman is never patronizing. Keeshig-Tobias didn’t mention Hillerman by name—maybe
because he was not Canadian—but one must wonder if he was among the white
authors she wanted to “step back.”
Whatever the causes for the underrepresentation of woman and
minorities in publishing, individual writers are not to blame; larger forces
are at work. Some are likely benign. Others, not so much. All the writer can be
held responsible for is his or her effort; all they can do is the best they
can. If all of my black characters are either fiends or hard core bangers, by
all means hold me accountable. If all my female characters talk about is
shopping and men, let me have it. If I make a genuine effort to avoid those
pitfalls and fail, that’s due to a shortage of talent—which I also have to
answer for—but it’s no justification to preclude me, or anyone else, from
making the effort. If I, or any other writer, regardless of background, make
the effort and it creates believable characters that read like real people with
real problems, well, then give credit where it’s due.
John notes in his essay that he has problems reading books
where middle-aged men write from the perspective of young women. I hadn’t
thought about it much, but, since he put it in my head, I can’t remember liking
anything of that ilk myself. Not that it made me uncomfortable: the books just
didn’t work. The same can be said of some books by women with male leads. There
are also plenty of books—too many—where the minority characters aren’t well
realized. That doesn’t mean the effort should not be made. One never knows when
an author—of whatever background, color, or plumbing—may have something to say
about a group he or she is not part of, and it will resonate. The more often
that happens, the better off everyone is, and I don’t mean just the writers.
2 comments:
Interesting. Sometimes I am not sure whose voice I am writing in. I write a lot from the male POV, which I am sure I don't always get right. But that voice is unstoppable once it is in my head.
I know what you mean. The book I completed last month and the WIP both have more female characters than my usual efforts. I'm aware I need to be careful, but that's more because I want to make them believable characters than anything else. What some forget is, they're people who happen to be women, and a lot of"people" things apply to everyone, regardless of gender, nationality, sexual orientation, religion, whatever.
Care must also be exercised when commenting on a writer's work not to read too much into a single character. To have a female character who uses sex as a way to get what she wants should not be extrapolated into the idea the author believes that of all women, any more than writing a male rapist implies all men are rapists. Now, if a disproportionate number of characters of a different background from the author have characteristics that are too similar, then it's cause for concern.
Post a Comment