See, when an author declares something in life and then writes something completely different on the pages of their book - it irks me on a basis that has nothing to do with either the author or the book.
I think that'd been to be qualified: because sometimes, authors can be making statements even though -- on the surface -- it appears as though they're agreeing with the status quo. That way lies some brilliant satire -- Ray Bradbury, George Orwell, even Mark Twain. The point at which you're not sure whether the book is arguing this, or that, and what does the author believe?... that kind of ambiguity is hard on some readers, it seems, but that's no reason (IMO) to stop.
I would like to contradict in that it is the author's - and the reader's, of course! - right to uphold any position, regardless of whether it holds to the status quo or not.
Well, of course. The point here isn't that the 'status quo' is a position so much as an attitude: that to stereotype, misrepresent, and generally marginalize is an indication that one has adopted privilege -- but, in this context, privilege within writing fiction. Not necessarily anywhere else. Just to be clear.
That is, I can write about a multicultural city neighborhood, and so can you, and one of us may stereotype and the other of us may not. Same topic, same setting, maybe same premise in the story: are we arguing political points, or just storytelling? Does it matter? The issue isn't whether we're bucking the system in some greater theme but -- plain and simple -- whether we treat the non-dominant paradigm with the same respect that we grant The Guys On Top.
But if you accept (as not all do) that the vast majority of mainstream fiction (and, I would say, Hollywood/media as well) not just condones but actively encourages the stereotyping and marginalization of non-White, non-WASP cultures/peoples, then this is the status quo about which one is being asked to actively choose. If you play the game, don't do it ignorantly; allow yourself the active choice to walk away.
no subject
Date: 8 May 2009 08:46 pm (UTC)I think that'd been to be qualified: because sometimes, authors can be making statements even though -- on the surface -- it appears as though they're agreeing with the status quo. That way lies some brilliant satire -- Ray Bradbury, George Orwell, even Mark Twain. The point at which you're not sure whether the book is arguing this, or that, and what does the author believe?... that kind of ambiguity is hard on some readers, it seems, but that's no reason (IMO) to stop.
I would like to contradict in that it is the author's - and the reader's, of course! - right to uphold any position, regardless of whether it holds to the status quo or not.
Well, of course. The point here isn't that the 'status quo' is a position so much as an attitude: that to stereotype, misrepresent, and generally marginalize is an indication that one has adopted privilege -- but, in this context, privilege within writing fiction. Not necessarily anywhere else. Just to be clear.
That is, I can write about a multicultural city neighborhood, and so can you, and one of us may stereotype and the other of us may not. Same topic, same setting, maybe same premise in the story: are we arguing political points, or just storytelling? Does it matter? The issue isn't whether we're bucking the system in some greater theme but -- plain and simple -- whether we treat the non-dominant paradigm with the same respect that we grant The Guys On Top.
But if you accept (as not all do) that the vast majority of mainstream fiction (and, I would say, Hollywood/media as well) not just condones but actively encourages the stereotyping and marginalization of non-White, non-WASP cultures/peoples, then this is the status quo about which one is being asked to actively choose. If you play the game, don't do it ignorantly; allow yourself the active choice to walk away.