I've been thinking about writing and who I am and I've made a decision. I started this blog because of an ongoing internal argument. How do I see myself as a writer? With what do I identify? Then a short time ago I read posts from the blogs of Editorial Anonymous and Justine Larbalestier which gave rise to even greater struggle. It affirmed what I already believed.
My thought process went something like this. If I identify myself as a writer of color does that mean I only write for that group? That is not my intention. When I write, I envision every group enjoying my stories.
Will others think I only write for a particular group? I hope not. I would like to think the world is beyond that, but I fear it is not; as evidenced by some of the comments on the afore mentioned blogs.
Am I pigeonholing myself? That is a risk I will have to take, particularly if I would like more representation of my community in literature.
So here is my decision. I am a writer of color whose protagonists represent the community to which I belong. To further clarify, my intention is not only to represent those that look like me, but to place these characters in a world where others are also represented. Not so much like a melting pot, but more like a stew. Who ever heard of or enjoyed a stew with only one ingredient. That would be exceptionally bland and it wouldn't be considered stew.
I would like my grandchildren to be able to see themselves clearly in literature as strong characters, but also understand that strength includes participating in the world around them. This then precludes writing to the exclusion of characters of different communities or groups.
My desire is to be read far and wide. So that means more time spent on writing and improving my craft. Making sure that my writing transports the readers to the story setting, involving them personally in the plotlines. I will get there if I continue to work at it. I will succeed!
Friday, July 31, 2009
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Here We Go Again
In a blog I follow, Editorial Anonymous, the post for today commented on the odd cover Bloomsbury selected for a book for one of its authors. The problem is this. The protagonist in the book, Liar, is clearly described as an African American and the cover that was selected depicted a person that was NOT. Needless to say I had to comment.
There can be no mistaking the position that Editorial Anonymous is taking and I applaud him/her. While the choice of cover this house has made is quite an affront to me and those like me, it is refreshing to see that it offends more than people of color. One must ask, should an author of color create characters that represent themselves or are they better off (with respect to getting published) creating characters that represent the majority group? And, if things are to change, who are the ones responsible for that change?
I have always believed that if I want something to be different then I must do that something differently. Yet in doing this am I shooting myself in the foot with regards to my career as a writer? The risk is a large one, regardless of the beliefs of those around me.
In the blog by the author of Liar, Justine Larbalestier, she addresses this topic. What she says is that when authors of color write with characters that represent themselves (whether African American, Asian American, or Hispanic), many publishers respond: we already have 'a' book like that. Larbalestier says this is the reason her characters are always people of color, because of the paucity of representation in the publishing community. Further, when someone of the majority group writes with characters of color they are seen as enlightened and publishers almost rush to get it out there. Is that crazy or what?
There are those of you that would argue that these views are only the opinion of a prescious few. Well, here's the good news. When I read the comments on both of these blogs, the majority of responses were supportive of creating characters of color and offended by the American cover of Liar (the Australian publishers have a different cover). Not surprisingly there were those that believed the argument to be specious, using arguments such as business is busines or argued that this has nothing to do with racial issues. I guess it takes all kinds to make a world.
I would love to hear what you have to say on the subject, even if you disagree with me. But first I invite you to read the original posts.
Editoral Anonymous
http://www.editorialanonymous.blogspot.com/
Justine Larbalestier
www.justinelarbalestier.com/blog/
There can be no mistaking the position that Editorial Anonymous is taking and I applaud him/her. While the choice of cover this house has made is quite an affront to me and those like me, it is refreshing to see that it offends more than people of color. One must ask, should an author of color create characters that represent themselves or are they better off (with respect to getting published) creating characters that represent the majority group? And, if things are to change, who are the ones responsible for that change?
I have always believed that if I want something to be different then I must do that something differently. Yet in doing this am I shooting myself in the foot with regards to my career as a writer? The risk is a large one, regardless of the beliefs of those around me.
In the blog by the author of Liar, Justine Larbalestier, she addresses this topic. What she says is that when authors of color write with characters that represent themselves (whether African American, Asian American, or Hispanic), many publishers respond: we already have 'a' book like that. Larbalestier says this is the reason her characters are always people of color, because of the paucity of representation in the publishing community. Further, when someone of the majority group writes with characters of color they are seen as enlightened and publishers almost rush to get it out there. Is that crazy or what?
There are those of you that would argue that these views are only the opinion of a prescious few. Well, here's the good news. When I read the comments on both of these blogs, the majority of responses were supportive of creating characters of color and offended by the American cover of Liar (the Australian publishers have a different cover). Not surprisingly there were those that believed the argument to be specious, using arguments such as business is busines or argued that this has nothing to do with racial issues. I guess it takes all kinds to make a world.
I would love to hear what you have to say on the subject, even if you disagree with me. But first I invite you to read the original posts.
Editoral Anonymous
http://www.editorialanonymous.blogspot.com/
Justine Larbalestier
www.justinelarbalestier.com/blog/
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Culture and Me
Right now I'm wondering if I have anything of importance to share. It occurs to me that when I write I often censure myself and attempt to scub out things that might be culture specific. Why? I'm not really sure.
I know that some of my concern is that people are often lazy. I wonder what will happen if something in my writing causes the reader to sort through the meaning of what a character says. Will it motivate them to keep reading or will the bump be are reason to put the book down.
Here's the rub. If I don't take the risk, then the world at large will never be exposed to my culture. Lack of exposure creates more of what already is. If I throw caution to the wind and lace these things throughout the piece, will it be overload and put the reader off. Trying to find the right balance between the spice of difference and overwhelming suffocation can be difficult to discern. Writing and the reader's connection with the piece is so subjective.
My decision is to work for that balance. If I want to be represented in the world of literature, then it is my responsibility to make it a priority and be willing to take certain risks. That's a little scary since I'm a new writer trying to break into the industry.
There are those that would argue that I should go with the flow until I get published then make the change. That feels a bit deceitful to me on so many levels. Just thinking about it brings up feelings that I'm not writing with my true voice and changing that midstream would be offensive.
I think genuineness is important and produces longevity in the market. I know how I feel when I pick up a book from a particular author expecting a certain type of read and am sorely disapponted when that is not there.
So, like the song says, "I've gotta be me."
...oops, I've dated myself again.
I know that some of my concern is that people are often lazy. I wonder what will happen if something in my writing causes the reader to sort through the meaning of what a character says. Will it motivate them to keep reading or will the bump be are reason to put the book down.
Here's the rub. If I don't take the risk, then the world at large will never be exposed to my culture. Lack of exposure creates more of what already is. If I throw caution to the wind and lace these things throughout the piece, will it be overload and put the reader off. Trying to find the right balance between the spice of difference and overwhelming suffocation can be difficult to discern. Writing and the reader's connection with the piece is so subjective.
My decision is to work for that balance. If I want to be represented in the world of literature, then it is my responsibility to make it a priority and be willing to take certain risks. That's a little scary since I'm a new writer trying to break into the industry.
There are those that would argue that I should go with the flow until I get published then make the change. That feels a bit deceitful to me on so many levels. Just thinking about it brings up feelings that I'm not writing with my true voice and changing that midstream would be offensive.
I think genuineness is important and produces longevity in the market. I know how I feel when I pick up a book from a particular author expecting a certain type of read and am sorely disapponted when that is not there.
So, like the song says, "I've gotta be me."
...oops, I've dated myself again.
Friday, July 10, 2009
The Culture of Age
I've been thinking about all of the different ways culture affects our lives. I thought about the differences between generations and what that looks like. It brings me to a place which requires that I hold to a looser concept of culture.
Having crossed over the Mason-Dixon line of age changes how I see the world and everyone in it. And yes, I'm aware that the concept of Mason-Dixon could date me, but it's also possible that I'm just a really good student of American history. In either case, it's obvious that I'm no spring chicken.
Using these expressions belong to a particular time period and those who are cohorts of this era constitute another culture. Then there's the culture of the electronic age and technology. You know, the whole web-Facebook-My Space-Text-Twitter thing. It appears that those who indulge in these practices routinely have created yet another culture. It's one whose boundaries are much more fluid than the typical. All it requires is knowledge of technology. My participation is proof that the required knowledge is very minimal.
Writing any contemporary piece must incorporate at least one of these social networks if not all of them. I can't imagine anyone who has not at least heard of one of them, regardless of age.
How about a quick count. Is there anyone out there over the age of thirty who hasn't heard of one of either of these: email, website, blog, My Space, Facebook, texting, Twitter? I would love to hear about it. Drop me a comment.
Having crossed over the Mason-Dixon line of age changes how I see the world and everyone in it. And yes, I'm aware that the concept of Mason-Dixon could date me, but it's also possible that I'm just a really good student of American history. In either case, it's obvious that I'm no spring chicken.
Using these expressions belong to a particular time period and those who are cohorts of this era constitute another culture. Then there's the culture of the electronic age and technology. You know, the whole web-Facebook-My Space-Text-Twitter thing. It appears that those who indulge in these practices routinely have created yet another culture. It's one whose boundaries are much more fluid than the typical. All it requires is knowledge of technology. My participation is proof that the required knowledge is very minimal.
Writing any contemporary piece must incorporate at least one of these social networks if not all of them. I can't imagine anyone who has not at least heard of one of them, regardless of age.
How about a quick count. Is there anyone out there over the age of thirty who hasn't heard of one of either of these: email, website, blog, My Space, Facebook, texting, Twitter? I would love to hear about it. Drop me a comment.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Gender and Culture
Each culture has different rules and roles regarding male and female. Many cultures are male dominant, but it is important to know which cultures are not.
In research for an historical novel I found that particular culture was neither male nor female dominated. Both were expected to share leadership and neither was assigned to a particular role. How cool is that! It caused me to think about the cultures that are a part of my everyday life. I thought about the people I know from groups different than my own and how things work in their worlds.
The importance of this to a writer is huge. Imagine writing a story that is set in a distant land and the author of that story assumes that the roles in their own culture are global. Let's suppose the story has the male as the leader/family head and the writer attributes to him decision making power. But in the culture that is being portrayed the opposite is true. Suppose again, this error in the manuscript makes it past the agent and the editor and neither having caught the problem, the ms gets published.
Credibility of the author is destroyed and that of the agent's and publisher's is at risk. The trust of the reading audience has been lost and may never be able to be recaptured; all because of an assumption.
Even when you believe you are correct in the assignation of gender roles, check to be sure. Things are never as simple as they seem. An example is in western culture, specifically the United States. The male is assumed to be dominant and is designated family head/leader. Have you ever noticed that on Mother's Day there are more cards bought and sent than on Father's Day.
More and more families are becoming duel income households, partly due to economics or duel careers, the latter gaining more popularity. We are also experiencing more single parent homes, head by male or female. These examples do nothing to change the designation, yet they add a small twist to the thought of gender value that could have great ramifications on a story.
Bottom line, always do you research.
In research for an historical novel I found that particular culture was neither male nor female dominated. Both were expected to share leadership and neither was assigned to a particular role. How cool is that! It caused me to think about the cultures that are a part of my everyday life. I thought about the people I know from groups different than my own and how things work in their worlds.
The importance of this to a writer is huge. Imagine writing a story that is set in a distant land and the author of that story assumes that the roles in their own culture are global. Let's suppose the story has the male as the leader/family head and the writer attributes to him decision making power. But in the culture that is being portrayed the opposite is true. Suppose again, this error in the manuscript makes it past the agent and the editor and neither having caught the problem, the ms gets published.
Credibility of the author is destroyed and that of the agent's and publisher's is at risk. The trust of the reading audience has been lost and may never be able to be recaptured; all because of an assumption.
Even when you believe you are correct in the assignation of gender roles, check to be sure. Things are never as simple as they seem. An example is in western culture, specifically the United States. The male is assumed to be dominant and is designated family head/leader. Have you ever noticed that on Mother's Day there are more cards bought and sent than on Father's Day.
More and more families are becoming duel income households, partly due to economics or duel careers, the latter gaining more popularity. We are also experiencing more single parent homes, head by male or female. These examples do nothing to change the designation, yet they add a small twist to the thought of gender value that could have great ramifications on a story.
Bottom line, always do you research.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
