Friction in Fiction

Is it ok for Fiction Authors to write from the point of view of characteristics they don’t identify with? Can a white author write black characters? Can an able bodied/neurotypical person write from the POV of someone with a physical or mental disability? Can a woman write from the perspective of a man? The truth is, no one knows. In 2012, author Michael Chabon wrote a book called Telegraph Avenue. It dealt with ideas of race and life in the hood but was somewhat under fire due to Chabon being white. Michiko Kakutani, a Japanese American writer for the New York Times, criticized him for “trying very hard to sound like he was from the ‘hood’” while Troy Patterson, an African American writer for Slate, claimed he was simplifying race because of his naïve outlook stemming from his background. Still, others, like author Tanner Colby, spoke out that white people writing about race shouldn’t be such a big deal. Chabon, as reported by Slate, spoke out on this controversy as well, saying,

“That’s where I learned it was an issue and that it was something that some people considered problematic,” he says today. “If a white member of the workshop wrote something from the point of view of an illegal Guatemalan immigrant—as I recall someone did—there were some people who said there were issues of cultural imperialism involved in doing that, that you shouldn’t do that. I understand it politically. I understand the historical context, completely. Artistically, I don’t understand it at all. Because if I can’t write from the point of view of a black woman nurse-midwife, then I can’t write from anybody’s point of view. That’s why I do this. I use my imagination to imagine myself living lives I don’t live and being people who I’m not.”

This is something to be said for the root of the fiction genre being imagination. If we can write from the perspectives of knights and queens, should we not be able to write from the perspectives of the people we encounter in everyday life? This is where it gets tricky. J. R Jackson, a writer for The Handy, Uncapped Pen¸ wrote a piece about how ableist and neurotypical authors should/could write disabled and neurodivergent characters. She stressed the idea of research. She said,

“Writers tend to cling onto stereotypes, write about real people without getting permission from the people they're writing about, don't interview people with the actual disability/neurodivergence, and on and on. The writers who aren't willing to do what it takes shouldn't write our stories.”

So, if an author wants to write from any perspective other than their own, they should need to do the research to back up. That seems to make sense. However, some argue still that authors from the majority/privileged side of society should not be profiting off of the stories of those that are oppressed. Some say that those stories should be reserved for the authors that identify with them. Yet, this is disputed as well, as representation should be important in all works and, the unfortunate truth is, as J. R. Jackson says,

“able-bodied/neurotypical authors who write disabled/neurodivergent characters often make it bigger (obtain higher advances, get more movie options, etc.) than disabled/neurodivergent authors writing our own stories”

She goes on to say that as long as a writer does their research and shows passion and compassion for the issue at hand, she is more than happy to support their writing. But this controversy cannot be solved by one or two people giving the go ahead. Nor is this a problem that I seek to solve today. But it seems to be an important and extensive conversation that warrants further discussion. What is required from authors in order to write about things like culture, race, ability, gender, or sexual orientation? Is research enough? Where is the line between representative fiction and appropriation and how do we, as writers, keep from crossing it?