Voice. Social scientists I read in the 90’s were passionate about authenticity of authors–nobody can speak for anyone else. I recall one book (but not its title!) that claimed that one shouldn’t write for any voice that didn’t match one’s (socially constructed) demographics: only a Latin paraplegic lesbian could write about Latin paraplegic lesbians, for example. Taken this far, I concluded, the only thing anyone should be “allowed” to write is an autobiography. No room for imagination or research to fill in gaps in one’s knowledge of another’s experience. “If you were not born it, you should not perform it,” explained Menand. Taken to the extreme, this is absurd. So what does that mean for authenticity in fiction–I guess I’m comfortable with some murkiness in the realm of the authentic voice, at least enough to tolerate (and thoroughly enjoy) fiction. But I do want to read about another culture as it’s been written by an insider of that culture. And I trust my authors to be who they claim to be. There is another sociocultural issue going on: we are extra sensitive to exploitation of minority groups, appropriating cultural artifacts that we, in polite society, have no business taking advantage of.
I am reading a novel right now about Black culture in the 70’s, written by a Black author. The story, the social and family dynamics, the style, and the language ring true. And I wouldn’t feel right reading this novel if it were written by a White person–but… But I think that has more to do with current affairs and respect for underrepresented authors portraying underrepresented characters. Set in the 70’s, the book I’m reading is historical fiction. This author didn’t live in Harlem in the 70’s; he had to research the time and setting for the book in order for it to ring true. I guess I’m trusting that he did so and is giving me a realistic portrayal of a time and place that neither of us experienced, but only he has the cultural authority to bring to life on the page. I don’t hold all authors and novels to that strict adherence to appropriateness. Louis de Bernieres is an English author who has written historical fiction outside his own ancestors’ cultural maps (unidentified Latin American country, fictional Turkish/Ottoman village). I trust him, too, to have done his research. De Bernieres’ novels ring true. Of course, he is not claiming to represent a particular group or to tell a true story. Is that why I give him a pass?
Finally, I’d like to recommend a novel I read several years ago. What is the What, by Dave Eggers, is the true but fictionalized story of a Sudanese man. As I recall, Eggers’ introduction explained that it was the life story of a real Sudanese he interviewed several times, but that it would have been too difficult to pin down actual facts and produce a true biography, so he and the Sudanese subject agreed that Eggers would write a fictional story that instead rang true–the experiences, relationships, emotions were authentic even if dates were invented and characters were amalgamations. I trust this author and would feel very betrayed if I were to find out that the Sudanese man was also a figure of his imagination.
Reference
Menard, L. (2024, February 23). Literary hoaxes and the ethics of authorship. New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/magazien/2018/10/literary-hoaxes-and-the-ethics-of-authorship
Jenni, I totally agree with what you are saying! Maybe the point is that it's OK to write about a group you are not a part of as long as you're honest about who you are. I think it's that lie of who the author is that is the biggest problem. Fiction will always be untrue, by its nature. But I don't want to think I'm reading a book by say a Norwegian woman when it's really written by an Irish man.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, what do you think about the use of pseudonyms? I thought about that some in the reading and I think in general I feel like a person has to be willing to admit to the pseudonym and it shouldn't ruin the sense of who they were in the writing (doesn't claim a different culture). But I'm still working on what I think here!
Hi Janna. Yes, I don't want an impersonator to misrepresent themselves. Another thing I took away from 90's social science is the conviction that we all bring our subjective selves to the page, regardless of how hard we try to be objective or "other" in some way, so owning one's pseudonym would be important to me, too. Isn't there a senator who writes mysteries under a pseudonym but is now including her real name and the pseudonym? JK Rowling also writes mysteries under another name--is she just avoiding the reputation as a children's writer when writing for an adult audience, or is she pretending she's not anti-trans?
DeleteAnyway, I'm glad you agree with me, because I feel like I haven't come to any firm conclusions on some of these issues :-)
Jenni, I love the time and care you put into this response. When I read the articles about the controversy surrounding American Dirt, I felt really uncomfortable for many reasons. I think its almost a knee jerk in 2024 to say that only someone who has those experiences should write them, but is that realistic? If someone has done the research and put the time and care into it, does it matter? I feel like these are such interesting questions that we have to grapple with after so much upheaval over the past couple of years.
ReplyDeleteYour response is so wonderfully stated! I can tell that you took time and care to craft this response. Very well said. My feelings on a lot of this issues change depending on the circumstances. My opinions are fluid and always evolving. Like you I always want to believe!
ReplyDelete