Yay! More theory!
Nov. 15th, 2005 02:23 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
felis_ultharusWell, now we're wading into the "appropriation of voice debate" in Canadian Lit this evening. This is going to be very interesting.
The question is, "Should writers have the moral and legal right to write about members of a minority they don't belong to?"
The stuff we're reading is mostly focused on Native writers. A few years ago, a group of Native writers asked white writers to stop writing stories about Native writers -- even sympathetic ones -- and give Natives a chance to write their own stories.
The problem became more complicated when the Canada Council said it would take "the appropriation of voice" into consideration when giving out money to writers. This is, of course, de facto government censorship, because Canada Council grants determine a lot about who can afford to write and who can't.
It's an issue I've thought a lot about, since I'm gay, and you almost can't find a positive portrayal of a queer person written between AD 1300 and 1940 -- not unless you sift through unpublished magazines and dimestore paperbacks published in France -- and even after 1940 it's pretty spotty.
But I don't think I'd ever inflict censorship on a homophobic author. I really do believe that the best answer to bigoted speech is more speech, not a silencing.
And I can't think of a single time censorship has been used for progressive ends that didn't end up backfiring. Canada's obscenity laws were kept intact at the request of prominant feminists with the best of intentions, and now those laws are being used to kill bookstores like Little Sisters.
On another note, it's going to be very interesting to see how the followers of Roland Barthes deal with this debate. Most of our class falls into that category. But Barthes believes that authors don't matter at all -- this is his famous "Death of the Author" -- so it wouldn't matter if a white person wrote Native lit. I have a feeling though none of them will be gutsy enough to say that out loud. Likely, they'll avoid bringing it up.
If the author is dead, the Native author is dead and the queer author is dead -- their voices silenced. The followers of Barthes have to learn that whyen you kill the author, sometimes you're commiting a hate crime.
The question is, "Should writers have the moral and legal right to write about members of a minority they don't belong to?"
The stuff we're reading is mostly focused on Native writers. A few years ago, a group of Native writers asked white writers to stop writing stories about Native writers -- even sympathetic ones -- and give Natives a chance to write their own stories.
The problem became more complicated when the Canada Council said it would take "the appropriation of voice" into consideration when giving out money to writers. This is, of course, de facto government censorship, because Canada Council grants determine a lot about who can afford to write and who can't.
It's an issue I've thought a lot about, since I'm gay, and you almost can't find a positive portrayal of a queer person written between AD 1300 and 1940 -- not unless you sift through unpublished magazines and dimestore paperbacks published in France -- and even after 1940 it's pretty spotty.
But I don't think I'd ever inflict censorship on a homophobic author. I really do believe that the best answer to bigoted speech is more speech, not a silencing.
And I can't think of a single time censorship has been used for progressive ends that didn't end up backfiring. Canada's obscenity laws were kept intact at the request of prominant feminists with the best of intentions, and now those laws are being used to kill bookstores like Little Sisters.
On another note, it's going to be very interesting to see how the followers of Roland Barthes deal with this debate. Most of our class falls into that category. But Barthes believes that authors don't matter at all -- this is his famous "Death of the Author" -- so it wouldn't matter if a white person wrote Native lit. I have a feeling though none of them will be gutsy enough to say that out loud. Likely, they'll avoid bringing it up.
If the author is dead, the Native author is dead and the queer author is dead -- their voices silenced. The followers of Barthes have to learn that whyen you kill the author, sometimes you're commiting a hate crime.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2005-11-15 07:11 pm (UTC)Continuing debate indeed... But, frankly, I fail to see the point in censorship of any kind. I'd articulate more clearly, but I feel shitty and I'm going to bed. 'cause sleep is preferable to other options, really. Especially given the way I feel right now. You know how you have days where NOTHING goes right? Ooooh yeah. So there. So I'm going to bed before I fall or break something or just generally decide that my entire life sucks and that I should say 'Fuck School' and move to Mexico... Actually, that isn't a bad idea. What's airfair to Mexico right now? I'm sure Padre would put me up for a few weeks...
(no subject)
Date: 2005-11-16 09:57 am (UTC)When they do, though, I'm glad. Best among straight depictions of queer characters, I think, are Alice Munro's and Margaret Atwood's queer characters, I think. The better class of shounen ai -- the well-written stuff -- is by people who are, apparently at least, straight. So it can happen.
But it's still a rare thing. e're either monsters or (increasingly) two-dimensional paragons who always wear suits, never have sex or kiss, and always have a word of wise advice for the main character (because we're almost never that person).
It's like how Indians went from being portrayed as the violent, monstrous force of nature to the wise noble savage -- nicer, perhaps, but still not human :/
As for your life, I can understand the fury and the frustration, but if you went to Mexico, we'd all miss you sorely :/