Right and wrong ways to write about other cultures/places

[Nerds_feather]

Another spinoff thread from the RH one. Though I would start by asking: when and how can you write about a place, culture or people other than "your own?" What constitutes "doing it right" and what counts as "appropriation?"

 

[Ursa major]

Perhaps you ought to explain what you mean by appropriation in this particular context. Given the way you introduced it, you suggest that it counts as "doing it wrong". Is this always true, even in SFF**?





** - For instance, in a far future, might what we see as a mistake in describing a culture that exists in our own time merely be what that culture (or aspects of it) have become in that far future. (And if there is a "dark ages" problem in that future world - i.e. a lack of information about our time - wouldn't mistakes and misconceptions about all our current-day cultures be natural and, indeed, expected?)

 

[Stephen Palmer]

One of the main reasons I wrote Muezzinland was to write a novel about African cultures where the 'issue' of those cultures was so unimportant it was never even mentioned. You simply have to immerse yourself into these other cultures and forget about comparisons...

 

[Toby Frost]

Incredibly hard to define, let alone answer. I think you can write about it whenever you like, but you have to do it right. To argue in effect that a white, middle-class writer from, say, the US cannot convincingly depict what it is like to be, say, Brazilian, or black, is to argue that different types of human are almost beyond one another's comprehension. It may be exceptionally difficult to do, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be attempted.

I also think that there is nothing wrong with writing a story in which the protagonist goes to another land and finds it strange. I think there are a few out there who confuse finding another place different with finding it inferior.

 

[RJM Corbet]

... What constitutes "doing it right"...

Heavy, exhaustive research?

Which is why it's always easier to write from what you know.

But it's the same problem for a man writing women, or vv?

 

[WmPreston]

A friend of mine said yesterday that problems often arise when writers approach a character with an agenda rather than trying to imagine a fully-formed human character within a particular place and time.

I'd add to that that you could be naive instead of agenda-driven and make the same sorts of mistakes. And to write about anyone, you have to find where you can, as the writer, connect with that character. To see any character as wholly "other" is as problematic as treating a character as if he or she were exactly like you.

As said above, research is necessary, especially if one lacks even second-hand knowledge. Always do more research than you think you need, since we are never quite aware of what all we don't know.

 

[Nerds_feather]

Perhaps you ought to explain what you mean by appropriation in this particular context. Given the way you introduced it, you suggest that it counts as "doing it wrong". Is this always true, even in SFF**?

** - For instance, in a far future, might what we see as a mistake in describing a culture that exists in our own time merely be what that culture (or aspects of it) have become in that far future. (And if there is a "dark ages" problem in that future world - i.e. a lack of information about our time - wouldn't mistakes and misconceptions about all our current-day cultures be natural and, indeed, expected?)

"appropriation" is a word used in postcolonial theory (and often by feminists, critical race theorists and others as well) to mean the claiming ownership of "cultural stuff" that's "not your own." it's an incredibly vague term, open to a lot of interpretation. but i think it's useful as well if you are specific about what it means. for me cultural appropriation means taking something you don't have experience of, claiming it as your own and then misrepresenting it by dumbing it down.

like, what if someone set a story in africa when that person has never been there and doesn't actually know any africans? problems are likely to arise. characters are likely to be inauthentic, and very possibly based on stereotypes; places are going to look, sound and smell wrong, so to speak. actual people from africa who read the story may be horrified to find an alien world, while a lot of the non-african readership may think it's "really real." a major criticism of bacigalupi's the windup girl, that has been articulated elsewhere, is that his thailand is inauthentic, but a lot of readers, critics and awards people lauded its "authenticity."

for some people, though, appropriation has a broader meaning: any instance where white people write about non-white people, or first worlders write about the developing world. i do not agree with these kinds of definitions, because the who concept of "ownership" is deeply problematic. i mean, should british writers avoid ancient greece because they are not greek, even though ancient greece is the root of ALL western civilization? should a british writer who lives in singapore and has for most of his or her adult life not write about singapore, even though he or she knows it much better than britain? no, of course not.

for me it's all about how you do it. i also think if you are writing about a place that's not commonly represented in SF/F, you also have a sort of special responsibility not to caricature it or end up just perpetuating/reinforcing stereotypes about it--something that can happen unconsciously.

 

[allmywires]

Funnily enough, I was moved to ask RH pretty much this exact question on Twitter. This is what she says:

My question was 'in your opinion, what is the right way to discuss racism and sexism in fiction - or specifically in speculative fiction?'

RH said: 'by doing it from the POV of the oppressed, not Whitey Mighty saviors or similar and by being very very careful if you have never experienced racism/sexism/etc.'

Which is a fair point, but I don't think it's a universal rule. Just be aware when you're writing about unconscious descriptors that creep in - exotic, barbaric, hooked-nosed etc. And also whether your POV character would notice these things.

 

[Ursa major]

And also whether your POV character would notice these things.

This is very important, in my opinion, although it cuts both ways:

• If a narrator (or a narrative that's so close to the PoV character (A) as makes no difference) steeped in <Culture X> "talks" about another character (B) also steeped in <Culture X>, the narrative shouldn't read as if A finds B somewhat exotic. So if someone from Japan wrote about me meeting someone else who's quite like me (such as a close relative), the cultural descriptions should be minimal. And it definitely shouldn't include phrases such as: "Like all Briton's, Stephanie didn't...."
• If A "talks" about someone (C) from a culture with which A is mostly unfamiliar, A's narration might very well start from a position where certain stereotypes about C's culture appear. However, one would hope that as A finds out more about C and C's culture, C becomes a rounded individual in the narrative, and (where appropriate**) misconceptions about C's culture are overturned. To do otherwise (i.e. pretend that A never had those misconceptions) would seem to be dishonest. (There seems little point in restricting the narrative to what the PoV character knows and can sense (see, hear, etc.) while at the same time making them by far the best-informed cultural commentator on the planet.)

** - I think this is where problems might lie. One could, I suppose, make sure that all A's misconceptions are individually rebutted by events/insights later in the story. The trouble might come if one of those stereotype-based views turns out to be one of C's real characteristics. The red-headed C might indeed have a fiery temper, to use a blatant example (one that is known to be entirely untrue in real life). Personally, as long as C becomes that rounded individual, and A's stereotypical views of other cultures are seen to be (in general) just that, and not a reflection of reality, that should be enough. Probably.

 

[Nerds_feather]

you both make very good points.

@allmywires:

I like that point a lot. I also don't think it's a universal rule, but we do get a lot of racism from the perspective of the conflicted member of the dominant group, and not enough from the perspective of the recipients. Doesn't have to switch 100% in the other direction, but it would be nice to have more of it.

The "white savior" thing is really tired. see: Avatar. the POCs--or in that case, AOCs--end up being background to the story of redemption for the white--or in that case, human--protagonist.

A different take on the story would be to make the POC/AOC the protagonist, and the "redeemed white person/human" the sidekick who helps in some way but isn't the main event.

@Ursa Major

Absolutely. This is something frequently cited as a problem with exoticized depictions of "foreign-ness." Take this Indonesian example: unless the protagonist is an outsider, he or she is simply not going to catalogue the tropical fruits at the night market in excessive detail. To him or her, they are just fruits at the night market, something they ostensibly see as often as someone in England or America sees different kinds of lettuce at the supermarket. Even if tropical fruit is awesome (and it is), for an Indonesian it's really not that extraordinary. Detail of place and culture are better internalized and discussed as someone in England or America would discuss the things we see and experience in our daily lives.

 

[Anne Lyle]

As said above, research is necessary, especially if one lacks even second-hand knowledge. Always do more research than you think you need, since we are never quite aware of what all we don't know.

This. I had a Muslim friend beta-read my second novel (set in the Mediterranean in the 16th century), and she pointed out a number of issues that I'd been blind to out of ignorance or insufficient research. I can't get around the reality that Christians and Muslims were mostly enemies during this period, or that xenophobia was commonplace, but I can make sure that I include sympathetic, realistic characters on both sides, and avoid blatant errors.

I'm also hoping that my hero doesn't fall into the "white saviour" stereotype! In some ways he's the total opposite, but it's hard to explain without major plot spoilers

 

[RJM Corbet]

One of the advantages of reading certain authors is that they travel, and set their books in places they have been to. There's a John Grisham book set in the Amazon jungle, and it's evident that he's spent time there, researched the culture he's writing about, etc.

Other writers will set their novels in a city they themselves know well, and the reader gets to experience the place: Ian Rankin's Edinbrough or Michael Connely's LA.

The authentic armchair experience of different places/cultures/times is part of the value of reading -- say, Tolstoy's Russia -- along with the story, of course. As soon as the reader feels he's being short-changed he's likely not only to put the book down, but to cross that author off his list too.

Of course ... with SFF it's going to be 'made up', with the reader prepared to temporarily suspend judgement/disbelief for a reading experience that feels authentic. Lord of the Rings, for instance.

But Tolkien didn't just suck it out of his thumb. It's based on deep knowledge of Norse mythology, etc.

That may be one reason for SFF's niche status: it's purely imaginary and many readers like to feel they're learning something real, along with the story, for the time invested in reading, and SFF doesn't provide that.

I do think an authentic place/culture is probably essential, based on the writer's own experience or research, or the reader will sense that it's not?

 

[WmPreston]

I do think an authentic place/culture is probably essential, based on the writer's own experience or research, or the reader will sense that it's not?

As was mentioned above, The Windup Girl lay in an odd zone with regards to "authenticity." For someone like me, knowing nothing about current Thai culture, I was willing to assume that what was being depicted was, while pushed into the future, "authentic." (Someone with more direct knowledge might not think that at all.) However, some elements of that culture seemed unconvincing. They might have been true, or not, but the writer's job is to make things believable—and sometimes readers need even more convincing about things that are actually "true."

But, with that novel, issues of authenticity fell away in the face of all the other horrifying problems the story possessed (in addition to simple structural problems that should never have been allowed). That novel's success in the SF field told me a lot about the sad truths that still prevail in the genre.

 

[Brian G Turner]

What constitutes "doing it right"?

Research, research, research!!!

 

[RJM Corbet]

... The Windup Girl ... That novel's success in the SF field told me a lot about the sad truths that still prevail in the genre.

I haven't read it.

Is it internet self-published? Or who is the publisher?

 

[Nerds_feather]

I haven't read it.

Is it internet self-published? Or who is the publisher?

It's published by NSB and won the 2009 nebula and 2010 Hugo for best novel. It has since been criticized by a bunch of people for being exoticizing, inauthentically Thai, perpetuating a bunch of damaging stereotypes about Thailand and not, apparently, based on any great experience with Thailand, or the input/advice of any Thai people. Yet most SF readers can't tell the difference, and take this undeniably well-written and evocative novel as "authentic." That's the set of problems WmPreston is referring to.

That said, I don't think it's fair to pile on the author (WmPreston is not doing this, but other critics have). Ihe author--Paolo Bacigalupi--wrote another novel, The Drowned Cities, that I think is excellent. And it's particularly good on issues of race and such. Either he matured as a writer, or the problems inherent to The Windup Girl are really just very specific problems relate to that project. Either way, I think criticism of that book should really be focused on the book and not go ad hominem, as some critics have.

While I am increasingly troubled by problematic "othering" in SF/F, I am also increasingly troubled by a sort of "gotcha" style critique where one work--or worse yet, a troubled blog post or sentence--is isolated, jumped on and then used to dismiss anything else an author says or writes.

I think if we, collectively, are going to be more critical of things like exoticization, appropriation and the such--and we really should be--then we also need to recognize that coming to terms with these things is a process.

 

[WmPreston]

It's published by NSB and won the 2009 nebula and 2010 Hugo for best novel. It has since been criticized by a bunch of people for being exoticizing, inauthentically Thai, perpetuating a bunch of damaging stereotypes about Thailand and not, apparently, based on any great experience with Thailand, or the input/advice of any Thai people. Yet most SF readers can't tell the difference, and take this undeniably well-written and evocative novel as "authentic." That's the set of problems WmPreston is referring to.

The "exoticizing" also led to some very disturbing sexual content. The "Windup Girl" is a female who's been designed to pleasure men but who also can kick the ass of everybody in the room (until she runs out of steam, as there's some kind of limit on she surge of power she gets). I, and others I talked with at the time on the Asimov's forum, felt the writing itself gloried in the abuse the character took. (It's been a while since I read it, and my notes on the book went down with that forum's ship, so I'm vague on some aspects.) In fairness, quite a bit of the characterization was bad (or inconsistent, as the writer seemed to rethink some characters as he proceeded), so the problems with her character can't necessarily be singled out; still, when people online use the neologism "rapey" to describe a book, this novel comes to mind. (Since I read almost no fantasy or suspense, and have never touched what I call "vampire porn," I'm not exposed much to these problematic tropes.) There were other serious problems as well, such as some odd plot jumps that made the novel seem like a film that's lost some reels, and the writing felt forcedly literary—an element which I think played into its winning awards as those often have to do with the field's self-image.

 

[WmPreston]

This Strange Horizons review provides a good overview of the novel and the ideas the novel's working with, and, especially along with the comments, gives someone unfamiliar with the novel insight into the problems some readers have. (I happen to agree with every negative comment made, none of which is a personal attack, I think.) I am quite convinced—and this is a discussion for another thread—that many readers and reviewers want so much to find a "next great thing," they project better qualities onto some novels (and films) than they actually possess, thereby enjoying a sense of personal investment in the book's (desired) excellence.

 

[RJM Corbet]

Way to go!

A best selling, controversy provoking work that is being minutely dissected and discussed on the internet forums.

Paolo Bacigalupi will probably be a bit more careful to research his settings accurately from now on: all part of the learning curve for him, I suppose. But doubt he's feeling much pain about it all?

 

[Ursa major]

I'm getting quite depressed about The Windup Girl. I bought it thinking that a recent, award-winning novel was just the thing to keep up with modern SF, but during the last couple of weeks, it's been dropping away from the top of my TBR pile.

It's bad enough reading books and finding oneself examining the style as much as the content. But having to worry about those aspects of the text (and my reactions to it) that have made it the subject of so many posts in this thread (and elsewhere) is draining my will to ever open it.



(And it's written in the present tense, which is probably one reason why I hadn't yet read it. )