Also: is there, anywhere, some soft-spoken, friendly, yet firm explanation that calling a writer out on their skeevy issues is in no way equivalent to demanding that they be censored, blacklisted, shunned, or sent to a reeducation camp in Outer Mongolia run by that shouty guy from The Last Emperor?

Nonsense! Everyone knows I have elite shock-troop mounties at my command who, at the merest hint of censure, while creep ninja-like into the critiqued writer's house, abduct them from their bed, and install them in my "Lake Laogai" style re-education facility.

elite shock-troop mounties at my command who, ... [will] creep ninja-like into the critiqued writer's house, abduct them from their bed,

Dearheart, behaviour which is rewarded tends to be repeated. Perhaps it would be better to arrange for less fantasy-attracting shock troops. The QPP, perhaps?

Much is now explained!

Are they secret and crack, as well as being elite?

YES INDEEDY. They wear all black, except for their stetsons.

Dang, did you miss the memo?

I blacklist, censor, and burn people whose skeevy issues I dislike (most white male author) all the time!

Hey, I wasn't suggesting it wasn't on the table as an option, or anything. :)

I have been getting tips from kynn on even better ways to burn moar men!

Horde sharing tips! The wonders of the internetz will never cease!

And perhaps that is your responsibility as a writer, I don't know. It's an interesting question, and one that certainly could be explored.

But you have, actually, a higher responsibility than being a writer, and that is your responsibility as a human being.

I agree with this, and have even argued for it before. I'll note mildly that having tried to practice what I preach I find that getting the human being you are - or, rather, the one you have resolved to be, rather than the uneasy mix of old skankiness and new progress - to come through properly in your writing is bloody hard, by which I mean "technically more difficult than you think it's going to be, because it seems like it ought to be fairly automatic", not "being anti-oppression is haaaard!" hard.

Which is to say I both cringe at that and reluctantly sympathise with it, because the things I have found is that if I try to be extremely mindful of this stuff *while I am writing* the writing goes to shit on me, because the part of my brain that does fiction is not the most conscious part. One catches what one can in the editing, and tries to do better.

There must be a way to do it better, and I hope we can figure out that way, for something surely needs to be done.

Well, I don't claim “decent human being” is easy, or even, you know, achievable, depending on how you define it. I'm just saying, maybe don't make it a secondary goal.

Agreed, absolutely. I guess I am just saying ... one can go quite a way along the path towards decency and still make what seem like very babyish mistakes when it comes to creative stuff, and just trying to pay conscious attention doesn't help as much as it ought to, so I'm trying to think on how the nuts-and-bolts how-to conversations succeed, fail, and get derailed in various ways.

Because, you know, I'm still working on the first two Commandments, so great philosophical breakthroughs are not to be looked for from this direction, and I may as well slug away at the Practical Tips For Beginners. Someday I shall have the time and brains to try to write the Reappropriate Your Own Culture post I have cooking. And then it'll end up being the worst time ever to post it, but.

Which is to say I both cringe at that and reluctantly sympathise with it, because the things I have found is that if I try to be extremely mindful of this stuff *while I am writing* the writing goes to shit on me, because the part of my brain that does fiction is not the most conscious part. One catches what one can in the editing, and tries to do better.

This is something I've heard a lot from friends who write or have written professionally (especially those who write under the time constraints of TV writing).

All I can really hope is that the level of awareness we're striving towards and hoping for as writers and consumers is something that will come more naturally and easily to the next generation down the line, who've been (HOPEFULLY) raised with better assumptions than we were.

All I can really hope is that the level of awareness we're striving towards and hoping for as writers and consumers is something that will come more naturally and easily to the next generation down the line, who've been (HOPEFULLY) raised with better assumptions than we were.

Yeah. Because I suspect that quite a lot of the creative process comes out of parts of our brains that were sort of set really early.

That said, we also need to find ways to work around present damage and help each other do so, because a) we can't afford to wait and b) letting the people we're trying not to contribute to the oppression of trip over the stuff and alert us by yelling OUCH is unsatisfactory all round.

Oh, absolutely. And the glacial pace of progress can be so, so frustrating.

It's still small steps, but I do think that commenting on, working on, asking for things to be better helps set the stage for eventual improvements on the professional scene (though I don't expect to actually see those for about a decade in, say TV, because I think social change filters up slowly and mainstream film and TV are the last areas it reaches).

I had the discussion with friends who were falling prey to the mental trap of "why spend the energy calling out fandom on X, Y, or Z instead of the creators?" where I explained as best I could "because fandom is where we can have the most immediate impact." I mean, I have seen a growth in awareness over the last five years, even though it can always, always be better.

It occurs to me that I take a very grassroots view of how to deal with racism, sexism, etc. Start with your community, spread awareness, talk. These are my responsibilities as a human to my fellow humans. And maybe it doesn't change what's being produced now, but it can maybe make people who may have felt like they were being ignored or made invisible or stripped of their humanity feel less so, when someone else stands up and points and says, "HEY! THERE ARE PEOPLE STANDING RIGHT THERE. WHERE YOU HAVE PUT YOUR FEET. PLEASE GET OFF THEIR FEET NOW!"

Start with your community, spread awareness, talk. These are my responsibilities as a human to my fellow humans.

Absolutely. I sort of refer to it as "wander, ponder and share".

it can maybe make people who may have felt like they were being ignored or made invisible or stripped of their humanity feel less so, when someone else stands up and points and says, "HEY! THERE ARE PEOPLE STANDING RIGHT THERE. WHERE YOU HAVE PUT YOUR FEET. PLEASE GET OFF THEIR FEET NOW!"

Oh yeah. And also, I guess, where possible, to say "hey, look, try standing THERE; I think you'll find you can still get your shit done and not be on other people's feet".

Because that was, sad but true, one of the really big stoppers for me in terms of dealing with my privilege for a long time: working out for myself on a deep level that nobody actually wanted or needed me off the lawn entirely. When one is, as most of us are, privileged in some ways but de-privileged in others, it's bloody SCARY to hear, or think you are hearing, "you have too much power, you need to get rid of some."

Because if you're heterosexual-but-not-male or male-but-not-white or white-but-not-male-or-straight-or-able-bodied, or whatever, it's human - wrong, but human - to have your first response be "Christ, I'm just about getting by NOW!".

So I guess for me right now I'm spending a lot of time thinking learning to distinguish between privilege, rights, and power. (Power as in pouvoir, not as in puissance, if that makes sense).


Edited at 2009-05-09 09:13 pm (UTC)

I sympathize with it, too, but, you know - you are taking responsibility for what you create. As you said "catch what you can in the editing, and try to do better". You don't disown what comes out of your head. That's different from being called on something, and pointing dramatically at the Muse and declaring "It wasn't me, Your Honour - she did it!"

Agreed.

Yes, this. Pursuing excellence is not a license to abdicate moral responsibility. Maybe you can't do both simultaneously, but surely that means build in time for ethics review?

Yeah. And, it occurs to me, pursuing the existence of *editors* with good anti-oppression skills and then trusting their interventions. Because it's hard to get a good clear view of one's own ass, so to speak.

Exactly - everyone makes mistakes and has blind spots and unconscious prejudices. The response and follow-up when someone points them out is very important.

Well and truly said. *makes a note of this*

"My responsibility as a writer is not to pleasing interest groups, but rather to produce the best, the truest writing that I can."

But this attitude puts "interest groups" in opposition to the best, truest writing, and the implication is that to "please" them the writer has to be false. That's just as offensive, if not more so, than the original failure.

As a writer, I think that the best, truest writing that I could produce would "please interest groups" by being free of things like sexism or racism. If it came under wide criticism, it would be because I'd failed to achieve that, not because "interest groups" are enemies of the truth in my craft.

(Can you tell by my use of quotation marks that I find characterizing people who object to unfair representation as special interest groups to be ridiculous and offensive?)

Yeah, speaking of snide quotation marks, glossing reported in this post's evil twin that she's seen "anti-racists" used as an insult, which, bizarro world much? Gah! I think it's a false premise on multiple levels, but this post is mostly about, like "But not poisoning people would require me to compromise my vision as a chef! (And obviously being the best chef I can is a value so important all others recede in comparison.)"

NO! NO IT IS MORE IMPORTANT NOT TO BE A MURDERER, EVEN IF BEING A GREAT CHEF REQUIRES THAT OKAY.

Another thing that occurs to me, is that writers who are claiming allegiance to some sort of personal vision as an excuse, are probably employing a double-standard.

I find it hard to imagine that a story arrives fully-formed in their minds as a universally good story, especially since it seems to arise out of some sort of storytelling id. They must already be modifying it somewhat to avoid "bad writing" -- but they're failing to recognize that being prejudiced is also a type of bad writing.

I can respect writers who say that it's just harder to address race issues than it is things that are less sensitive, as long as they recognize that it's still important to do it.

Every once in a while, someone will get called on what seem to be some skeevy issues in their writing, whether racial, sexual, or whatever, and will respond with a variation on "My responsibility as a writer is not to pleasing interest groups, but rather to produce the best, the truest writing that I can."

This puzzles me because, IME, skeezy issues come from relying on stereotypes and tropes, and therefore Not Doing the Research. So, working to eliminate skeezy issues IS making better, truer writing, because you're trying to work with reality and not what the dominant culture tells you is reality.

So really, it's just an excuse to not do a lot of research.

This.

Writing that is not pleasing to "interest groups" is generally writing that is pleasing to people who refuse to acknowledge their own privileges, because acknowledgment is the first step in getting rid of them.

I can understand "this writing is supposed to hit some heavy buttons, and people who's buttons are hit may not like it." But that's different from "this writing doesn't hit my buttons, ergo anyone whose buttons are hit is reading it wrong and failed to grasp its Immense Truthiness."

This is saying what I tried to get across in much fewer words. I agree entirely. If different treatment of sexes or races or whatever is actually merited, then the writing will be better when they're taken care of. That's basically a tautology: fixing things that are wrong with a piece of writing improves the writing.

The question is in determining when something is wrong with a piece of writing. Which is what I was trying, probably unclearly, to get at in my first post below. I agree also with elfwreck there, saying 'I can understand "this writing is supposed to hit some heavy buttons, and people who's buttons are hit may not like it." But that's different from "this writing doesn't hit my buttons, ergo anyone whose buttons are hit is reading it wrong and failed to grasp its Immense Truthiness."' So, the thing to remember is that some people can have their buttons hit, and think it's not just their buttons, but rather, that the writer is clearly wrong or evil or racist or sexist. In other words, people can be in that first situation, and think they're in the second one. And my point is simply that there is not always a clear line there.

the thing to remember is that some people can have their buttons hit, and think it's not just their buttons, but rather, that the writer is clearly wrong or evil or racist or sexist.

I think you are very confused about what my point was if you think it at all relates to this strawman.

I'll reword:

You think we shouldn't be racist or sexist? Cool, me too! Also, everyone who's not a total rat bastard agrees with us!

Now, what does that mean, specifically, for our writing? Oh, now there are disagreements between reasonable people.

Well, for a start, familiarising oneself with the various tropes and stereotypes of one's culture.

Also, being willing to do some damn research rather than going, "Oh, it is too hard, I will just write an entire group of people out of existence because that is convenient for me."

I mean, it's not really a hard thing, especially if you're in a position to spend a little while on the internet.

Oh, and being willing to listen when people of the different race/sex/whatev you're writing say, "Hey, you are doing it wrong/badly, and here is why," since they tend to know more about their experience than you do.

Cripes, people act like this is some ineffable and unknowable high knowledge or something!

Excellent post!

now back to my bookburning

I see lots of stuff like this here and there, or in the whole racefail thing, etc. But I don't really know what you mean. I mean, for one thing, I don't think there's any such thing as a "responsibility as a writer." If you're on contract, you have a responsibility to your publisher, otherwise, you are simply writing with hopes for selling later, and your only responsibility is to write what you want to write. If you're a good writer, that will involve producing the best, truest writing you can, as said above.

But unless someone is specifically being racist or sexist or something in their writing, I don't think there are any "being a good human" stakes involved. If you are being racist or sexist, then you're not producing the best, truest writing you can. Well, maybe you are, but that just means you can't produce very good writing.

But by specifically racist or sexist, I mean writing where a racist or sexist view point is being presented as "the correct view point". In other words, these view points can definitely be presented by characters as examples of what some people in the society in question think, even as what all people in that society think, and still be different from something where it is clear the author thinks these things.

Writing a story that doesn't happen to have women or minorities in it is not necessarily racist; not all stories are about women or minorities. Not all stories are about men or whites either. A story about a monastery or a team of soldiers in WWII may lack in female characters. There are any number of reasons. It's a real shade of gray, I think, trying to call out the ones where more women or minorities should have been included. Sometimes the lack is glaring and obvious, and in that case adding them would in fact make the writing better.

I guess I mean, I don't see any case where the trueness of the writing conflicts with realistic portrayal of the sexes and races involved. If there is a perceived conflict, I think one of two things is happening: the author is wrong (he is not writing the best thing he could), or the reader is wrong (more women or minorities, or different treatment of them, are not needed in the story).

If you don't think there's any such thing as a "responsibility as a writer" or a duty to one's writing, then you may as well skip this entire post; this post is addressed to that particular argument.

Please point out to me where I or anyone has said that "a story that doesn't happen to have women or minorities in it" is racist before you start arguing that it isn't, or I will think you are attempting to set up a straw man.

um, my post described what I thought about the 'responsibility as a writer' idea. After some sentences going through my thoughts on it, I concluded, as I think you do, that there should be no conflict between this idea of 'best, truest writing' and the goal of realistic portrayals of race and gender. So maybe it came off as a disagreement because of how I started, but I think if I'm understanding you correctly that we are in agreement on that.

As for the 'strawman', that was my casting about for possible examples of problem works. I never claimed you or anyone here has targeted any particular work. In fact part of what I wanted was some idea of the specific problems you're thinking of when you say these things should be fixed. If you're taking my use of that example as a strawman, then I think that means you agree that that kind of work is not necessarily racist/sexist/whatever, is that right? Correct me if I'm wrong but it sounds like we're pretty much in agreement here, and the question (for me anyway) then becomes, what kinds of things *are* the problem? I assume you're talking about things more subtle than simple blatant racism/sexism, which really has no fix other than avoiding that writer. I feel like you're probably talking primarily about writers who don't intend or realize they're being racist/sexist, and who would change if they knew what they were doing?

So my questions would be, what exactly are they doing? And, would they change if it were pointed out? Closely related, do they believe what they are doing is racist/sexist? I don't think a well intentioned writer would hesitate to edit if racism were pointed out to them, but if they disagree that it is racism, then they might use the "I'm not here to please everyone" defense. Then the question would be, who's right? Is there racism there or not? If it's a simple matter of incorrect facts about a culture or something, that's pretty straightforward. If it's like a tone or something that somebody takes offense to, that seems harder to pin down. I think writers would do well to consider every opinion they run into, but not to blindly agree with every opinion they run into. Just because someone somewhere takes offense to something, does not always mean it's racist and the writer needs to change it.

So I'm just sayin stuff's complex, and mainly I'm curious about the specific kinds of things you're talking about, so as to have a better idea of if I agree with you on the particulars as much as I do on the general sentiment

I came to this post late (a link from liviapenn in the comments of EBear's journal) - but I have to say that I find your theory of art to be much more true and wise than others I've seen.

In other words: I agree with you. And I think this is a very wise thing you've said, and I thank you for saying it. I'm glad that there are people like you who are willing to keep on posting things like this, even when it seems like the Tide of Cluelessness just won't turn.

Your argument is good for people who are humans first and writers second.

It warps into some very odd shapes when considered by one who is a writer first and a human second. That is, for me, being a wordsmith -- writer, editor, Bard, storyteller, etc. -- is fundamental to my nature and predates my current human life. That gives it more weight for me. I'm often deeply disappointed by humanity. That gives it less weight for me. So I tend to use my own moral compass when my principles come into conflict with each other, which they sometimes do. The example guidelines you gave are good ones. But sometimes it takes a very big hammer to beat a clue through a very thick skull.

Your argument is good for people who are humans first and writers second.

Well, yes, I acknowledge this. If you consider yourself a writer first and a human second, (or third, or forth) I will admit our world-views are sufficiently orthogonal that I don't think my rant/advice would apply at all.

I too find humanity frequently disappointing, but I don't want to abdicate from the human race, not because they're so great I just want to be part of them but because I think the only hope for humanity ever cleaning up its act is to export more, not less.

>>If you consider yourself a writer first and a human second, (or third, or forth) I will admit our world-views are sufficiently orthogonal that I don't think my rant/advice would apply at all.<<

It's still an argument worth thinking about, which is an improvement over the people who take no responsibility for their art at all.

>>I too find humanity frequently disappointing, but I don't want to abdicate from the human race, not because they're so great I just want to be part of them but because I think the only hope for humanity ever cleaning up its act is to export more, not less.<<

I haven't entirely given up on humanity, partly because I am very attached to certain humans, and partly because I'm stuck here for a while. But it's like having a gorgeous cat that shits in the corner, claws up the couch, eats the houseplant and pukes in your shoe ... then purrs when you come home from work.

Late to the party also, here via a link in ithiliana's LJ, I think. -- IIRC it is Faulkner (ugh) who said something like, if it was a choice between rescuing 'Ode on a Grecian Urn' and your grandmother from a burning building, "Art is worth any number of little old ladies." I am always baffled by the people who seem to think that being a Great Artist is at all separate from being a decent human being, but anyway.

From George Orwell's essay on Dali: 'If Shakespeare returned to the earth to-morrow, and if it were found that his favourite recreation was raping little girls in railway carriages, we should not tell him to go ahead with it on the ground that he might write another King Lear.'

I love this post so much. Thank you. I'll be quoting it, since you nailed down a very important point in language I admire.

After much more chewing. 'Cause this argument always ties me in knots and you are kind and patient and generally let me ramble.

Yes, I think that a person ought to be the very best person that they can be, and that that is absolutely the ultimate goal before which everything has to fall away.

But it's a lifetime struggle, and so there is no point where you can say "ok, I am now a sufficiently good person; I can turn my attention to my job now", because ten minutes before you die is the best you'll ever get, and that's a bad time to start a book.

I am not attempting a straw person here; bear with me?

You have to find and learn and do your job while you're on the road.

And this is where the "the integrity of the writing comes first" thing resonates with me in ways that make me uncomfortable but that I also think are true: I think what at least some of the people who say this are saying is similar to how I feel, which makes me say that if the truth of the work and the values of the struggle conflict, I have to go with the work because that way there is at least some chance of a good result.

In most aspects of my life, I can fake it till I make it. In anti-oppression work, I absolutely fake it till I make it: I choose to allow the people over whom I have privilege to define my behaviour to me. I treat those definitions as truths given with wisdom and in good faith, and I try my best to act on those definitions, and if this goes well and I am lucky, sooner or later I will actually come to understand and agree.

And this works. In some ways, it's the only thing that works: if I waited until I truly accepted the truth of these definitions to act upon them, I would never get to understand them enough to accept them.

I have racist thoughts. I am committed to identifying them as such and once they are identified I am committed to behaving as if I were sure that they were completely without truth, which is to say to trusting POC and trusting what they say and show to me.

I don't mean that I set out to practice hypocrisy, though I am sure I do practice it; I mean conscious acts of faith.

Julian of Norwich says somewhere that the best time to pray is when you don't want to pray, don't really believe in God, doubt that he's even listening, and can't think of anything you care about enough to pray over it anyway. The best time to practice anti-racism, in my experience, is when you are really pissed off with every POC you know, are inclined to disbelieve in most important tenets of anti-racist analysis, and are too tired and busy to give a damn about anti-racism anyway.

And then there's art. Not that I necessarily produce art, that's not my call and not really relevant to this. What is relevant is that I periodically engage in genuine efforts to do so.

And one thing I know is this: I cannot fake it. I cannot set out to write the story or make the image or take the picture that I think reflects the person I wish I was, or I am guaranteed a handful of total crap. Worse, it may in some ways end up doing MORE of a disservice to the very people whose needs I am trying to respect, because I am not respecting them, I'm pandering, which automatically means I am going to get it wrong. The Noble Savage and the Magical Negro were undoubtedly invented by panders, along with the Whore With A Heart Of Gold and the Tragic Sensitive Queer.

I have to go on what I genuinely believe to be true at the time of creation and hope and pray that I am a sufficiently decent human being that the results of telling that truth will be acceptable.

Which is why I said upthread that a person can be quite far along the road to Very Good Human Being in general and still make a piece of art that is in one way or another miserably full of stupid, silly, babyish mistakes about some aspect of oppression.

And this all sounds remarkably pompous even to me, but no amount of editing seems to improve that, so I shall let it stand. Please believe I don't take my own talents or myself incredibly seriously; I don't.

Edited at 2009-05-27 06:59 am (UTC)

//I have to go on what I genuinely believe to be true at the time of creation and hope and pray that I am a sufficiently decent human being that the results of telling that truth will be acceptable.//

I don't think I disagree with you, or perhaps I am not seeing where you disagree with me. I don't think it's always //possible// to choose the correct path, in trying to negotiate the different responsibilities we have, or at least not possible to //always// choose correctly.

But I think we ought to also recognize that sometimes we are not the person in the situation best able to see the truth, or with the deepest understanding of the truth, and that our telling of the truth may obscure a deeper telling of the truth. Sometimes the thing to do with the talking stick is pass it on.

But I think this paragraph sets up a false dichotomy;

"I cannot set out to write the story or make the image or take the picture that I think reflects the person I wish I was, or I am guaranteed a handful of total crap. Worse, it may in some ways end up doing MORE of a disservice to the very people whose needs I am trying to respect, because I am not respecting them, I'm pandering, which automatically means I am going to get it wrong. The Noble Savage and the Magical Negro were undoubtedly invented by panders, along with the Whore With A Heart Of Gold and the Tragic Sensitive Queer."

I think there is a difference between "respecting" and "trying not to offend." And while "trying not to offend" is good and necessary, 'respecting' goes further, and acknowledges personhood, and precludes pandering. I think it is possible to both offend and respect a person or persons simultaneously. (Not easy, nor always easy to recognize, but possible.)

I agree that all any of us can do is our best, but I think we also should recognize that on occasion, our best is not good enough, and perhaps we should not do. I don't leap into discussions of trans issues, because I know my best is not good enough. I will say something offensive. And I don't think Art needs to exist. I think humans need to create and have art, but I don't think we need to create every piece of art that flashes through our brain. (Am I advocating self-censorship? I think I am, although of course the problem will be that those least in need of it will be those most able to responsibly exercise it.) I'm not saying this or that piece of art should not have been created, but I think we ought to weigh all our actions, even our art, and be aware that sometimes the answer will be "no, the world does not need this so much that I may ignore the harm it will cause."

I don't claim to know where that line goes, how much harm for how much art. The Roman empire killed and enslaved millions, and produced the Coliseum. Was it worth it? I don't know, and I don't think it's really a fair question, but I'm glad we have the Coliseum. But I'm not willing to say that the pharaohs had a positive moral duty to work slaves to death so we could be awed by the pyramids.

And I know I'm using outsize examples, but that's because I don't think this is a case where the praxis is clear. In fact, I think we ought to be a little suspicious of those who claim that they can easily navigate their responsibilities to their soul or their god, or whatever, and to their art, and I know these things are intertwined. But I think to place the art above all other responsibilities is a way of simplifying what ought not to be simplified.

I don't think I disagree with you, or perhaps I am not seeing where you disagree with me.

I think it is a matter of nuances, very small ones. But possibly important, I don't know.

I shall go and be thinky now, and come back to this, if I may.

…I posted a comment here, and it doesn't seem to have shown up, but I saved it and am posting a note here to try again if it hasn't magically appeared in an hour or two, rather than risk spamming.