![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
caitriI've been thinking about writing this post for a while, I just wasn't sure how to because there's always the "stating the obvious" thing.
So to start with, a month or so ago I had a chat with another writer friend, who was angsting about "how" to write POC in her novel, because she has fears of being perceived as racist or accidentally racist. Which I guess happened because she read the new Donna Tartt book, and I guess Tartt was criticized for writing all POCs as servants and whatnot? Anyway, my (ever so deep) response was, "Dude, just do your research and write people AS PEOPLE."
which, you know, obvious, right? And yet.
So I just finished reading the new Diana Gabaldon book, Written in My Own Heart's Blood. Which, I largely love her because man she does historical research RIGHT. But she's one of those cases where she tries to write diversity and comes so CLOSE and yet SO FAR. Because she writes POC in broad strokes but doesn't seem to understand that she's doing so, or that, for instance, coming at historical stereotypes from the opposite end is problematic, ie. that writing Native Americans as nobly doomed and JUST AS PROBLEMATIC as writing them as scalping maniacs. And its one of those cases of, see, putting all that attention to detail and family trees and characterization that you put into the Scottish people? Doing THE SAME THING to the Mohawks and the Black freemen and slaves.
Like I said, should be EASY. AND YET.
Here's the other thing, particularly about historical fiction (And this needs to be its own post sometime): Historical fiction is ALWAYS just as much about the time in which it was written as about the time it depicts.
So, for instance, Downton Abbey. (I fucking hate Downton Abbey but damn is it a useful Cliffsnotes sometimes.) Thomas, Teh (sic) Gay Character, is largely treated sympathetically even as he is often a douche. But there's one episode where a character informs the police of his Gayness and Lord Grantham has to talk to the cops and be all "he's just as God made him" and there's a moment and Thomas is left alone. And some people were all "Ohmigod, that is so not historically accurate!!!!" Which, of course not, because in 20fucking14 you can't demonstrate that sort of intolerance without being *read* as intolerant yourself--it's a storytelling decision to maintain sympathy. BUT, when they *do* choose to demonstrate period-accurate intolerance to the Jewish characters? That TOO is a decision, and we HAVE to understand that by doing so the writers are trying to demonstrate that as an old intolerance that is dead and thus "safe"--and never mind how contemporary Jews are getting the same crap as always because it is "invisible" and "historically accurate." We're saying that anti-gay is not okay but that anti-Semitic is normal.
Now think about what that means.
Meanwhile, back to Gabaldon. She has a history of some deeply problematic things, but there were two in this book that REALLY stuck out at me. The first is there's a scene where Claire is doing surgery on a twelve year old slave girl who was raped and impregnated by her master, lost the baby, and now has internal damage she's correcting. And during this scene Claire offers to the girl's mistress to sterilize the girl, ostensibly to protect her from more rape!babies and whatnot. Meanwhile, said girl is, you know, unconscious on the table. When IN THE CONTEMPORARY US there are black women sterilized without their consent consistently, this is a HUGE FUCKING PROBLEM. Claire ends up not doing it, but the fact that Gabaldon had her seriously THINK about doing it WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE ETHICS OF THIS is just--AUGH! White privilege at its whitest and privileged-est.
The other scene that got me is a discussion of rape. Keep in mind at this point that BOTH of the POV women characters and one of the male POV characters have been raped at this point (that's a whole new level of WTFery/find a new way to inflict trauma, Jesus). Anyway, one female character tells raped!character that her daughter was raped by her brother-in-law, and came to tell her about it, and she said "Don't say anything" because Highland blood feuds and blah blah blah, and hey, brother-in-law, at least you don't have to explain this one kid to your husband, right? And right now in our culture when we have, well, Rape Culture, I found this to be the most insulting and fucked up thing! And because we ARE having discussions about it, daily, weekly, this scene plays its own part in our cultural dialogue in the topic because it's impossible for the author to not know what she's saying, white privilege and all. I still love the writing by itself but I really want to make Gabaldon take some consciousness-raising classes and whatnot.
Anyways, as a sort of conclusion: All writing is a deliberate choice on the part of the author. It may be an unexamined choice, but it is still a choice. When it comes to historical fiction, you can't really say "that's how it was back in those days" because that writing isn't coming from THEN, it's coming from NOW, and it's coming from YOU. And you have to be aware of that last bit before all others.
So to start with, a month or so ago I had a chat with another writer friend, who was angsting about "how" to write POC in her novel, because she has fears of being perceived as racist or accidentally racist. Which I guess happened because she read the new Donna Tartt book, and I guess Tartt was criticized for writing all POCs as servants and whatnot? Anyway, my (ever so deep) response was, "Dude, just do your research and write people AS PEOPLE."
which, you know, obvious, right? And yet.
So I just finished reading the new Diana Gabaldon book, Written in My Own Heart's Blood. Which, I largely love her because man she does historical research RIGHT. But she's one of those cases where she tries to write diversity and comes so CLOSE and yet SO FAR. Because she writes POC in broad strokes but doesn't seem to understand that she's doing so, or that, for instance, coming at historical stereotypes from the opposite end is problematic, ie. that writing Native Americans as nobly doomed and JUST AS PROBLEMATIC as writing them as scalping maniacs. And its one of those cases of, see, putting all that attention to detail and family trees and characterization that you put into the Scottish people? Doing THE SAME THING to the Mohawks and the Black freemen and slaves.
Like I said, should be EASY. AND YET.
Here's the other thing, particularly about historical fiction (And this needs to be its own post sometime): Historical fiction is ALWAYS just as much about the time in which it was written as about the time it depicts.
So, for instance, Downton Abbey. (I fucking hate Downton Abbey but damn is it a useful Cliffsnotes sometimes.) Thomas, Teh (sic) Gay Character, is largely treated sympathetically even as he is often a douche. But there's one episode where a character informs the police of his Gayness and Lord Grantham has to talk to the cops and be all "he's just as God made him" and there's a moment and Thomas is left alone. And some people were all "Ohmigod, that is so not historically accurate!!!!" Which, of course not, because in 20fucking14 you can't demonstrate that sort of intolerance without being *read* as intolerant yourself--it's a storytelling decision to maintain sympathy. BUT, when they *do* choose to demonstrate period-accurate intolerance to the Jewish characters? That TOO is a decision, and we HAVE to understand that by doing so the writers are trying to demonstrate that as an old intolerance that is dead and thus "safe"--and never mind how contemporary Jews are getting the same crap as always because it is "invisible" and "historically accurate." We're saying that anti-gay is not okay but that anti-Semitic is normal.
Now think about what that means.
Meanwhile, back to Gabaldon. She has a history of some deeply problematic things, but there were two in this book that REALLY stuck out at me. The first is there's a scene where Claire is doing surgery on a twelve year old slave girl who was raped and impregnated by her master, lost the baby, and now has internal damage she's correcting. And during this scene Claire offers to the girl's mistress to sterilize the girl, ostensibly to protect her from more rape!babies and whatnot. Meanwhile, said girl is, you know, unconscious on the table. When IN THE CONTEMPORARY US there are black women sterilized without their consent consistently, this is a HUGE FUCKING PROBLEM. Claire ends up not doing it, but the fact that Gabaldon had her seriously THINK about doing it WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE ETHICS OF THIS is just--AUGH! White privilege at its whitest and privileged-est.
The other scene that got me is a discussion of rape. Keep in mind at this point that BOTH of the POV women characters and one of the male POV characters have been raped at this point (that's a whole new level of WTFery/find a new way to inflict trauma, Jesus). Anyway, one female character tells raped!character that her daughter was raped by her brother-in-law, and came to tell her about it, and she said "Don't say anything" because Highland blood feuds and blah blah blah, and hey, brother-in-law, at least you don't have to explain this one kid to your husband, right? And right now in our culture when we have, well, Rape Culture, I found this to be the most insulting and fucked up thing! And because we ARE having discussions about it, daily, weekly, this scene plays its own part in our cultural dialogue in the topic because it's impossible for the author to not know what she's saying, white privilege and all. I still love the writing by itself but I really want to make Gabaldon take some consciousness-raising classes and whatnot.
Anyways, as a sort of conclusion: All writing is a deliberate choice on the part of the author. It may be an unexamined choice, but it is still a choice. When it comes to historical fiction, you can't really say "that's how it was back in those days" because that writing isn't coming from THEN, it's coming from NOW, and it's coming from YOU. And you have to be aware of that last bit before all others.
