 |
| The Art of Thinking Clearly by Rolf Dobelli. . |
Sound arguments for a more inclusive universe of fiction are legion. There exits, beyond the compelling arguments about diversity of subject, arguments to be made about diversity of authorship.
Obviously, a talented writer of any background, can tell a gripping story about a culture different for her own. However, is something lost in experiential translation when the rich and comfortable tells stories of the poor and oppressed? Should we assume that the meritocracy of talent operates with an invisible hand and just hope that the privileged operate in a world without blinders?
We could debate this topic for years and never get to a satisfactory resolution. Instead, the issue raises an interesting thought experiment about the usefulness of criticism. Specifically, what obligation does a critical consumer of fiction have as its creator? Do consumers of media featuring or authored by POCs have an obligation to view the work with a less critical eye, least they discourage the telling these stories? (This isn't necessarily a question grammar, structure and pacing, but one of reason, weight and intent.)
Or should those tales featuring the least represented carry the dual weight of being entertaining and profound? If they don't, have they failed in some respect. Is it not enough to tell a good, fun story? Does it need to shatter preconceptions, subvert tropes, and open minds? Can POC fiction ever exist outside of itself, telling tales of pulpy mages and wisecracking aliens, without the necessity to parse the hidden meaning, the social commentary of a people's agenda.
It is often true that POC are judged twice as harsh (illumination here) when it comes to critical analysis of their work, is this the same standard that must be applied to works that feature their likenesses?
Do reviewers have to look at a work and demand it be something that it isn't? Of course, the one argument is that there are so very few works that feature POCs, anyone who undertakes the effort should be given the benefit of the doubt. We shouldn't demand that works be complete realizations of social commentary mixed in with compelling narratives. Sometimes, it is okay to not require sub-text with our text. On the other, literary gatekeepers can and do demand certain shibboleths to be tackled when POCs feature heavily in the plot synopsis or author page. Recognition, even when bounded by expectations, can solve problems of access. Should a reviewer stand in the stead of the literary community and demand that every self-published vampire vs robot novel also speak to the eternal existential struggle for justice and equality?
Our thoughts are mixed. The role of criticism to should be to lift all boats; each review challenging the author to rise and make his colleagues rise. But criticism also should function as an iceberg to the hull of ego. Shouting that you are tackling hard issues does not give you a waiver to actually tackle them. Voices need to be heard, and be heard well.
Moorsgate Media
Do reviewers have to look at a work and demand it be something that it isn't? Of course, the one argument is that there are so very few works that feature POCs, anyone who undertakes the effort should be given the benefit of the doubt. We shouldn't demand that works be complete realizations of social commentary mixed in with compelling narratives. Sometimes, it is okay to not require sub-text with our text. On the other, literary gatekeepers can and do demand certain shibboleths to be tackled when POCs feature heavily in the plot synopsis or author page. Recognition, even when bounded by expectations, can solve problems of access. Should a reviewer stand in the stead of the literary community and demand that every self-published vampire vs robot novel also speak to the eternal existential struggle for justice and equality?
Our thoughts are mixed. The role of criticism to should be to lift all boats; each review challenging the author to rise and make his colleagues rise. But criticism also should function as an iceberg to the hull of ego. Shouting that you are tackling hard issues does not give you a waiver to actually tackle them. Voices need to be heard, and be heard well.
Moorsgate Media
Comments