I. D. Effin'. K.

[megwrites]

After reading Charles Tan's essay "No Foreigners Allowed", I'm left trying to figure out how anyone thinks it would be a positive if we were to encourage writers to pen more works like Heart of Darkness. In fact, I can't say how the world would be worse off without that particular book.

I have read it, as part of a literature class in high school with a teacher who, like many others, considered it to be great literature. The same as they taught Mark Twain's works without remark or comment upon the many problematic issues with those books, and not only that period in American history, but it's ongoing effects. The same as they taught me a lot of books and along with them, snuck in no small amount of lessons on how it was okay, indeed, praiseworthy to think and write about those Other people in such ways, without regard to whether it was accurate or compassionate or respectful or ethical to do.

Were these bad teachers? No, I don't think so, but these books and the attitude that the things in them were something worthy of being transmitted to a new generation of students was and is. The system was bad, and part of changing this system is with discussions like RaceFail, and making it clear that no, such works are not okay. No, it is not praiseworthy to write such things. Dehumanizing other people because they are not your people because you live in a system that allows you the privilege of doing so is NOT OKAY.

I don't think I'm saying this very well, but luckily, a far wiser soul than I, Deepa D., has said what I don't think I have quite the brainpower to express right now in An Open Letter to Charles Tan.

Also delux_vixens expresses a similar opinion with a very relevant quote, and lanning says oh charles tan no.

Charles Tan's response to Deepa D.,which can be found here, does not inspire any kind of hope in me that this will turn out to be anything productive - but check this comment from Jha, which beautifully and wonderful encapsulates, in amazing brevity, the fallacy in Charles Tan's approach and indeed the entire "damned if you do, damned if you don't" false dichotomy. Likewise this comment from N.K. Jemisin shows why it is particularly obnoxious to step into this discussion without having done any research and hold out one's hand or cry "educate me!".

Like many others, I am not swayed by any argument that places writers above readers - or in this case, the development of writers or potential writers coming from a place of privilege above the results their works will have on the readers and the world those readers inhabit.

If RaceFail09 makes a privileged writer that much more cautious before they say "good enough!" in regards to writing about marginalized people, before they decide that watching a special on the History Channel or just checking Wikipedia suffices when writing about such things, I cannot see how that is a bad thing. If it makes them wary of releasing their works into the world before thoroughly examining them, and perhaps examining themselves, all the better.

If RaceFail09 makes writers more aware of the consequences of their words on other human beings, of the consequences of privilege and oppression in relation to those words, this is not a detriment to writing or the SF/F genre. It would be rather the opposite, actually.

I'm not interested in encouraging writers to just write any old thing and let the chips fall where they may, let whoever is hurt be hurt. I'm not interested in a genre where we encourage writers to believe that because they make up stories, because they have the privileges that allow them to even get a piece of paper and pen in hand and have the time and space and physical safety to tell a story, that this is more valuable than the readers who will be hurt by those words, or those who will never read their works but will still feel the affects.

I'm not interested in more stories for the sake of more stories, I'm interested in better stories for the sake of a better world.

If Racefail09 keeps the careless, clueless, disrespectful, and willingly ignorant from adding to the veritable ocean of racist, misappropriated, colonialist, HURTFUL works that other careless, clueless, willfully ignorant writers have been creating for centuries, that's nothing to mourn. That's cause for celebration.

Comments

[handyhunter.livejournal.com]

Yeah. If someone is less inclined or afraid to write & publish faily works...I don't see how that is a *problem*. Or censorship for that matter (because that ALWAYS comes up, as if minority groups had the power to actually censor the privileged). Write something else then! I don't know why it's so necessary to hold on to problematic/privileged views (like nice white women writers who won't give up the use of the word 'exotic' to describe people because...they are being complimentary! and want to be exotic themselves! or something).

I saw a post on DW's network that said they had a completely different reading of HoD (than Deepa or Achebe), which is fair enough I guess, but then s/he linked to two critiques of Chinua Achebe's criticisms of HoD that were written by white people who didn't think the racism was as bad as Achebe wrote to back up his/her own argument (I only got through the opening arguments before trashing the PDF files). I didn't respond, but in my head I was wondering if the person didn't get the basic(?) concept of why Achebe might have a different reaction to HoD than two white people. (And why, regarding race/racism, I think I'd rather trust Achebe's words.)

[fiction-theory.livejournal.com]

(because that ALWAYS comes up, as if minority groups had the power to actually censor the privileged

But, but, making white writers feel uncomfortable is EXACTLY like oppression and censorship. Don't you know that reasonably, respectfully criticizing someone's works or views is exactly like banning books from libraries or burning them or *gasp* governments criminalizing certain works? They're the same thing! [/sarcasm]

I don't know why it's so necessary to hold on to problematic/privileged views

As one of those privileged people? The most terrifying thing, sometimes, is to imagine having to live/act the way your privilege makes other people live/act which is to say, as though you are not automatically more important. Because privilege teaches you that your very existence relies on being privileged and that if you don't have it, you won't exist anymore.

Which is not at all true, you'll actually be a LESS HARMFUL PERSON without privilege, but that's one of the other nifty tricks of privilege. Its logic is not everyone else's Earth logic.

like nice white women writers who won't give up the use of the word 'exotic' to describe people because...they are being complimentary! and want to be exotic themselves! or something

Spoken like people who have no idea what it actually feels like to be "exotic" or "Other" in reality and what that entails. If they gave it up? Then being white wouldn't be special, and thus, part of them wouldn't be special anymore, at least not more special than anyone else. I get beyond frustrated with my fellow white ladies doing that shit in books, describing anyone who is (or might even look a little) non-Causcasian as "exotic". Because it basically is a way to make sure that no matter how complimentary of that character or person they are, that they don't get uppity and forget the hierarchy. "Sure, you're good looking, but you're not white people good looking, not normal good looking" seems to be the message.


I didn't respond, but in my head I was wondering if the person didn't get the basic(?) concept of why Achebe might have a different reaction to HoD than two white people. (And why, regarding race/racism, I think I'd rather trust Achebe's words.)

I agree first off with not engaging there, doesn't sound like a place where productive conversation could happen or that would be worth the spoons that it would cost you.

I'm also with you in that I'd much rather trust and take Achebe's words as a more valid source than two white writers speaking about HoD. I think failing to understand (or acknowledge) why Achebe's response to HoD would be different and why it should be considered above certain others is more defensive flailing, if you ask me.

I really don't like the "I don't see anything wrong with it, thus nothing is wrong with it" fallacy that seems to crop up. It's bad, circular reasoning and it automatically centers the person arguing and derails the conversation so it's about them. And it's annoying as hell to deal with when you want to talk about something that's much larger than any one person.

[handyhunter.livejournal.com]

I suppose I'm being a little harsh on white writers when I know some writers of colour who hang on to 'exotic' & other problematic concepts/depictions too, but I give them a little more of a pass if they have actual characters of colour (with agency!) in their books that are not tokenized. That said, I have curtailed my romance reading A LOT because of stuff like this (not that it doesn't happen in other genres too, but romance especially seems to be greatly focused on appearance & manners).

[zahrawithaz.livejournal.com]

YES. This especially:

"I'm not interested in more stories for the sake of more stories, I'm interested in better stories for the sake of a better world."

As a writer, I can't understand how people could not want literature in general or your favorite reading genre to be better. Who is in favor of more bad books? Or otherwise good books maimed and made less effective by bias?

From what I can tell, Charles Tan and some others in this conversation are conflating the natural insecurities of any writer with white guilt. One of the problems is that it shifts the conversation back to white people's feelings; it also has the effect of conflating people with privilege, especially race privilege, with writers, a much larger group--because if that's who you mean when you talk about "writers," and those are the other writers you talk about, the unspoken implication--that other writers aren't out there or don't matter--grows and grows.

Thanks for posting about this, and bringing this argument to my attention; there are some brilliant responses amid all the fail, like deepad's and delux_vixens's Adonis quote.

[fiction-theory.livejournal.com]

it also has the effect of conflating people with privilege, especially race privilege, with writers, a much larger group--because if that's who you mean when you talk about "writers," and those are the other writers you talk about, the unspoken implication--that other writers aren't out there or don't matter--grows and grows.

Yes, this. That bothered me too but I hadn't quite put my finger on why until just now. It's the "who's this WE, you're talking about" kind of feeling. I think it may have escaped me because well, privilege. It sucks. There are a lot of writers who are NOT white at all, who do not come from a place of privilege and I don't like that this argument erases them or fails to acknowledge that they experience the reverse problem, only in a far more real and depressing way.

A lot of marginalized writers who want to talk about their OWN cultures are shut down, waved off, told to go away. They're not published, they're dogpiled under a lot of defensive cluelessness. I think Tan's argument neglects that and neglects that Racefail is part of a larger conversation that is moving us towards examining that and how it can and does need to be changed.

I'm glad you found my post useful. I agree that Deepa D.'s response was just incredible. She is definitely someone I wish more people would really, honestly listen to because she speaks a lot of truth and a lot of sense.

[handyhunter.livejournal.com]

This reminds me a little of some parts of the Mary Sue debate, when intersectionality was brought up (because, as you say, not all writers or fen are white), and how it seemed like criticism or asking people, even fragile newbie writers, to be more aware of certain issues = 'bullying' or a license to bash Mary Sues or people who write them, when no one was advocating that at all.

A lot of marginalized writers who want to talk about their OWN cultures are shut down, waved off, told to go away. They're not published, they're dogpiled under a lot of defensive cluelessness. I think Tan's argument neglects that and neglects that Racefail is part of a larger conversation that is moving us towards examining that and how it can and does need to be changed.

The ironic thing is that Tan is one of those marginalized writers/editors (I think he's talked about the lack of Filipino SFF or publishing opportunities before? during racefail09, no less, iirc) and yet seems to think defending privilege is going to lead to him gaining some.

[delux-vivens.livejournal.com]

conflating the natural insecurities of any writer with white guilt.

you know, i think this just about sums it up. because i keep seeing him and other people asking 'well arent you saying that white people cant write about this!!?!?!" no matter how many times people say 'um, no, no one said that,' they keep asking it. which has led me to the conclusion that the real question is 'are you saying you'll critique people's work instead of automatically praising them for bothering?'

[the-willow.insanejournal.com (from livejournal.com)]

They are amazed and disturbed that there are non-white people who aren't being 'Warm & Welcoming' at their very presence.