Sensitivity Writers. AKA: avoiding cultural appropriate in writing

[Bedrockgames]

This pretty much just tells me you are as bad with the nuance as the zealots who use it unwisely because you’re ascribing some kind of monolithic absolutism to it.

I am basing it off my experience with conversations around cultural appropriation. I realize there are more measured ways to talk about it. And I said earlier in the thread that I thought the arguments coming from proponents of the concept were challenging. I think there is nuance in my position. But what I am giving you is the conclusion I've reached after watching the debate unfold for several years (and also felt its impact on my own writing).

Are all people talking about cultural appropriation zealots? No absolutely not. I have a lot of people I respect who buy into the idea and do so because they are empathetic, caring people. But it is also this thing that tends to get twisted on people just like that (as you see in the YA Twitter article). I say it demands perfection because its a concept that, in order to avoid, you have to regularly police your own ideas, regularly check with others to see if you are crossing any lines, etc. That to me lends itself to seeking perfection. I think when you add the moral imperative that fuels it, it starts to feel a bit religious. And zealotry can naturally follow (and I see ample evidence for zealotry). Especially when it becomes clear there is emerging a class of educated people who understand how to navigate it, and people increasingly have to seek their input. I can tell you honestly, even if I 100% bought into the concept of Cultural Appropriation, I would have a very, very hard time adhering to its requirements without seeking the assistance of much more educated and worldly people. To me, having to do that, really runs counter to the creative process. Yes there should be a certain amount of research to any project. But this is more like the kind of research I used to do for my history classes. I loved history. But it is the opposite of creative writing. For every sentence you write in history, there is mounds of research supporting it. And that makes history writing very slow, very methodical, not very spontaneous. I don't know that we want that kind of rigor applied to all creative acts. Especially something like music that is supposed to connect people.

Also, I would add, there is more to me, or any poster here, than my responses to an intense online debate. Online debates, especially in forums, create a very limited view of a person. Often times you are painted into a corner, or you paint yourself into a corner, because you are dealing with the cold logic of text (and very little of your real personality is able to shine through your posts). So if I am failing to demonstrate that I handle nuance well here, please consider the possibility that I am a fully rounded human being and not a two-dimensional caricature of a position you disagree with. I don't consider myself a particularly adept debater. And I find it very difficult to discuss topics like this well. I am just trying to do my best. But I think if you encountered me in real life, or had extended discussions with me on other topics you would see your above post isn't true. And I extend this courtesy anyone I disagree with on the internet. I think it gets to the heart of the matter here to an extent. We are forming massive judgements about people, based on how they react to one thing. I think most people in this discussion are trying to come from a good place and just disagree on some of the key ideas. But we all get passionate about it because it deals with things we value.

 

[S'mon]

There was a time when I wanted to be a horror writer and this same advice was pretty common. I ended up building myself a syllabus and reading through key books in the genre that I hadn't read before. I think it is basically so you don't cover the same ground as other writers, so you can build on what came before, and kind of treat the genre as a living conversation. I am not sure how I feel about the advice. I sometimes thought this advice made the genre too self aware, and too meta. But I also think the better writers do tend to read a lot in their genre and in other genres.

As an academic, it feels like something an academic would say - "Include your Literature Review!"
It doesn't seem necessary or desirable to me, and is likely to create a self-aware and sterile material. I'd suggest reading related topics (eg science & futurism for SF, mythology for fantasy) for research, and read the genre for pleasure.

 

[Bedrockgames]

As an academic, it feels like something an academic would say - "Include your Literature Review!"
It doesn't seem necessary or desirable to me, and is likely to create a self-aware and sterile material. I'd suggest reading related topics (eg science & futurism for SF, mythology for fantasy) for research, and read the genre for pleasure.

I think you are right. I think it creates very self aware material. But the advice was pretty ubiquitous so it is something any aspiring writer is going to encounter and, if they disagree, need to contend with.

 

[Wiseblood]

Cultural appropriation does not exist. It is junk science adopted by people with an axe to grind. No proofs are required, people will just believe because it explains why they are unhappy. ( even if they weren’t ) They now have a bogeyman that they can persecute.

Write what you want, some will like it some will hate it. Write for you.

 

[Mercurius]

Why's that?

There was a time when I wanted to be a horror writer and this same advice was pretty common. I ended up building myself a syllabus and reading through key books in the genre that I hadn't read before. I think it is basically so you don't cover the same ground as other writers, so you can build on what came before, and kind of treat the genre as a living conversation. I am not sure how I feel about the advice. I sometimes thought this advice made the genre too self aware, and too meta. But I also think the better writers do tend to read a lot in their genre and in other genres.

As an academic, it feels like something an academic would say - "Include your Literature Review!"
It doesn't seem necessary or desirable to me, and is likely to create a self-aware and sterile material. I'd suggest reading related topics (eg science & futurism for SF, mythology for fantasy) for research, and read the genre for pleasure.

That's a good point, S'mon, but by being educated in the genre, I'm not saying read everything. I'm saying have a sense of the lay of the land - what's been done, how its been done, etc. And yes, I agree on your advice--read related topics and read within the genre for pleasure--but I also think its a good idea to have a general sense of the scope of whatever genre you're writing in, especially the sub-genre (e.g. post-apocalyptic sf) and/or type of book you're writing.

For example, let's say you have an idea about a derelict alien space ship passing through the solar system, and the team of people who explore it. Its probably a good idea to at least know about the existence of Rendezvous with Rama.

Which is why I love Clute's SF Encyclopedia. You can look up a topic and get an overview of books, and find both books to read but also a sense of what has been done.

But your point about becoming overly self-aware and sterile is a good one, and I would add to the mix the problem of being derivative of later layers of the human literary endeavor, with no sense of the roots from which it all sprang - not only earlier literature, and not just myths, but the depths of imagination itself.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Cultural appropriation does not exist. It is junk science adopted by people with an axe to grind. No proofs are required, people will just believe because it explains why they are unhappy. ( even if they weren’t ) They now have a bogeyman that they can persecute.

Well, this is categorically untrue. I posted an article earlier that is a clear example of what it is, but it’s certainly not limited to Native Americans

 

[S'mon]

That's a good point, S'mon, but by being educated in the genre, I'm not saying read everything. I'm saying have a sense of the lay of the land - what's been done, how its been done, etc. And yes, I agree on your advice--read related topics and read within the genre for pleasure--but I also think its a good idea to have a general sense of the scope of whatever genre you're writing in, especially the sub-genre (e.g. post-apocalyptic sf) and/or type of book you're writing.

For example, let's say you have an idea about a derelict alien space ship passing through the solar system, and the team of people who explore it. Its probably a good idea to at least know about the existence of Rendezvous with Rama.

Which is why I love Clute's SF Encyclopedia. You can look up a topic and get an overview of books, and find both books to read but also a sense of what has been done.

But your point about becoming overly self-aware and sterile is a good one, and I would add to the mix the problem of being derivative of later layers of the human literary endeavor, with no sense of the roots from which it all sprang - not only earlier literature, and not just myths, but the depths of imagination itself.

I think if you are writing a 'serious' work it may be best to be like Margaret Attwood and not think of yourself as writing 'genre fiction' at all. If you are writing purely for entertainment I'm not sure it matters. But it seems to me that being consciously derivative is a risk, while repeating tropes while not knowing about them seems likely to give a fresh twist.

The academic approach seems to me to make more sense for literary criticism and for some other academic endeavours than for actual creation of literature.

 

[S'mon]

For example, let's say you have an idea about a derelict alien space ship passing through the solar system, and the team of people who explore it. Its probably a good idea to at least know about the existence of Rendezvous with Rama.

Just taking this example - I think reading (or even Youtubing) up on all the speculation around Oumuamua, which includes serious proposals that it might just maybe be an alien artifact (eg a light sail remnant), would be vastly more useful than reading RwR.

 

[S'mon]

I would add to the mix the problem of being derivative of later layers of the human literary endeavor, with no sense of the roots from which it all sprang - not only earlier literature, and not just myths, but the depths of imagination itself.

I was just thinking about how Michael Moorcock made conscious use of Freudian psychology in his Elric series (& other Eternal Champion stuff to a lesser extent) - I think for fantasy especially a lot of general reading, travelling and general experience is helpful. I know my D&D GMing benefits from some time out in the country, walking the forest trails!

 

[Wiseblood]

Well, this is categorically untrue. I posted an article earlier that is a clear example of what it is, but it’s certainly not limited to Native Americans

I tried to find the article you mentioned. Is it in this thread?

I still disagree about Cultural Appropriation. Here’s why. Culture is always changing. Traditions that define culture are abandoned. They are not static and they are discarded when their purpose is no longer relevant. Sometimes they are discarded because their cost is too high or outcome undesirable. In some groups it was the presence of one powerful individual within the group that sparked a change.

Deciding what is or is not Cultural appropriation then becomes the domain of individuals that believe it exists or believe they can benefit from leveraging it. Since few outsiders bothered to learn their culture and those that did would invariably contaminate it, their claims are allowed to stand. Unless all contact with other cultures stops there will be this same process and without contact the culture will still change over time. All that can be said in that case is that it was still purely their culture.