Yay! More theory!

[felis_ultharus]

Well, 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can't find a positive portrayal of a queer person written between AD 1300 and 1940 -- not unless you sift through unpublished magazines and dimestore paperbacks published in France -- and even after 1940 it's pretty spotty.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.

Comments

[foi-nefaste.livejournal.com]

I agree with you. And you've basically outlined my objections, really. ... it somehow strikes me that saying 'stop writing about us so that we can write our own stories' is flawed on more than one level, too. First of all, because it assumes that the reason the minority isn't being heard is because they're being crowded out by members of the 'majority' (however you want to define THAT one), and I find that premise to be inherently flawed. For example, this would assume that the reason 'queer' books aren't widely read is that they're being pushed out by straight writers writing about the community - which is something I think is inherently false. If we want to talk reasons for readership or lack thereof, that's a whole separate discussion, but this isn't the cause. Furthermore, assuming that a writer that isn't part of the minority s/he is writing about is telling that community's story isn't necessarily the path to take. If I write a story that's set in a native community, I'm telling A story - the story of a few characters, in a given setting. I'm giving a setting with some basic facts, with some details that are open to interpretation when viewed from an outsider's perspective. I'm not telling THEIR story - that is, the community's history and experiences. If they want to tell that, it's up to them (with interpretation biased from the INSIDER'S perspective, I suppose). *shrugs* Honestly, I'd need more time to articulate this properly - I have very defined feelings about the matter, but I'm not entirely sure how to formulate them. I'd be interested in hearing what conclusions you guys come up with, if any. Because the entire situation just gives me a feeling of 'what the...?', so another, more articulate perspective might be interesting. If I'm making any sense at all (if I'm not, just ignore me).

[foi-nefaste.livejournal.com]

... and when I typed this in, there were paragraphs. Really. Ick. Big block of text isn't cool. Sorry!

[felis-ultharus.livejournal.com]

No problem. I understood ^_^

I sympathize with the problem. I just don't think that government bodies like the Canada Council should be doling out cash based on it -- it should be something writers think about when they write.

There are straight people writing from queer perspectives, of course. Every time a straight author writes a gay man, a lesbian, or a bisexual, she or he has appropriated a voice. Sometimes it's sympathetic, but over the last 700 years that's rarely been true.

But I think the answer is for more queer people to write -- not to shut up the homophobic voices, but to speak from another point of view.

And of course no one queer person can speak for the community, but I think there is an authentic voice that emerges from the different voices combined. And I don't think I've seen that quality of authenticity in the work of a straight novelist -- though Margaret Atwood and Alice Munro both come extremely close.

We didn't really reach any conclusions -- most of us fell on the "it-makes-sense-for-authors-to-think-about-it-but-not-if-involves-government-censorship" side, or on the "non-Natives-should-never-write-Native-stories" side. In other words, the same two sides that have defined the debate for the last 15 years :/

[ubergreenkat.livejournal.com]

the real problem that i have with the idea of appropriation of voice is that at its extreme, it pigeon holes authors in what stories they can and cannot tell - as in, a black woman could never write about a white male. i know that that is not the intention of the consideration, but the idea still makes me uncomfortable

[felis-ultharus.livejournal.com]

I have the same concern -- taken to its logical concern, it's a little frightening.

I think authors are morally responsible for what they write -- I think they should be taken to task for unfair portrayals, and even sympathetic-but-clueless portrayals.

But I don't think it should ever transfer into outright censorship.

I described the scenario you mentioned in our class discussion tonight, using Being John Malkovich -- the scene where Malkovich enters his own head -- as an metaphor for the kind of writing we'd eventually wind up if we're all barred from trying to imagine each other's experiences.

I've often felt portrayals of gay men written by straights are pretty awful -- ranging from out-and-out hate literature to just run-of-the-mill clueless. But I feel the solution is more dialogue.

As for the reverse situation -- the one you describe, where I've felt a portrayal of me as a member of a dominant group by a minority writer didn't work -- there's an example of that at the beginning of Giovanni's Room. James Baldwin puts thoughts into the head of his white character that just don't work. But without the history of prejudice (as in the portrayals of gay men) the sting was gone -- it was just amusing, not irritating.

[foi-nefaste.livejournal.com]

...no one queer person can speak for the community... For? No. About? I'd argue yes. I'd also argue that straight people can speak about the community, and that it opens dialogue. Of course, in a self-interested manner, I'd rather those portrayals be positive and realistic, but if we compare that to some queer lit (descriptions of 'gritty realism' make me shudder, in this context - it pretty much guarantees emotion-less sex, drama, aids, and drugs)... well... it's hard to argue that positive portrayals always come out of even the community concerned. *shrugs* Realistic or not. So, yeah, while I'd generally prefer that the community be written about by someone IN it, I honestly don't much care as long as it's well-done.

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...

[felis-ultharus.livejournal.com]

I don't think we're arguing against each other. By "sympathetic" I mean "compassionate" not "suitable for ABC's Friday-night lineup." Many portraits of queer characters by straight authors don't include a shred of empathy for their subjects, and no attempt to render us as three-dimensional human beings.

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 :/