lirazel | (no subject)

Entry tags:

(no subject)

I am not pleased about the new film that's coming out soon that purports to be about Emily Bronte. I am not pleased about how it invents whole-cloth a romance that never happened. I am not pleased about how it implies that women's stories are not worth telling unless they contain a romance. [I've said it before and I'll say it again, the only romances the Bronte sisters needed was with writing. CHARLOTTE/WRITING OTP. EMILY/WRITING OTP. ANNE/WRITING OTP.] I am not pleased about how it seems to center men ~encouraging her~ to be a writer as though she needed men to nurture her genius. Above all, I am not pleased at the implication that she had to experience something in order to write about it.

I hate hate hate hate hate hate hate the cultural inability to understand that writing is a work of imagination and that it does not have to be built on experience. The idea that of course Jane Austen must have had some star-crossed romance or she wouldn't have been able to write her novels is just so stupid and insulting. It's so reductive that pretty much every story about a real writer becomes, "Here's how that writer lived the thing they wrote!"

NO! That's not how writing works! Not every work is a thinly veiled roman à clef! Some things are just made up! And that is a skill and it takes work! It is so lazy to just assume that anything some (especially historical) writer wrote about was a variation on something they experienced! It makes me so mad!

Maybe this pisses me off in particular as an asexual person who sometimes writes romance (and occasionally porn). I have zero experience with romance, but I don't need it. And frankly I'm offended that you think I and Emily Bronte and Jane Austen and whoever are not good enough writers to come up with that stuff all on our own.

I find myself quoting Terence over and over and over again: I am human and nothing human is alien to me.

I am also irked by the idea that only people of one demographic can write characters of that demographic. I realize that this tendency at the moment is a pendulum swing--for so long, writers of color were so marginalized that it was really necessary for people to say, "Uh, can you let us write about our experiences? And actually publish us?" I get that! That is a good thing! We need lots more writers from all kinds of diverse backgrounds and perspectives getting published!

But it does not therefore follow that people should only write about characters who are just like them. Anyone can write about anything! They just have a moral responsibility to do that as truthfully as they can and to do the research necessary not to perpetuate lies or hurt readers. And of course they have to be prepared for criticism if/when they get it wrong.

But just because publishing companies tend to let mediocre white writers who haven't done their research and have underdeveloped empathy publish nonsense that hurts people DOES NOT mean that white people should only write about white people or only queer people should be allowed to write about queer people. For god's sake, the entire point of the novel as an art form--regardless of whether you're the writer or the reader!--is to practice radical empathy and climb inside the head of someone who is not you.

NOT EVERYTHING THAT'S GOOD IS AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL. UGH!

In closing, the perfect Bronte biopic already exists and it's called To Walk Invisible thank you and good night

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Yepppppppp! :P I was originally excited about the idea of this movie because I love the actress from Sex Education and thought it was cool that Frances O'Connor is getting behind the camera, but PLEASE miss me with this Becoming Jane-style plot nonsense.

Yeah, it could have been great with a better screenplay!

Oh gosh, I agree. I was so excited about this movie for a whole ten seconds before I saw that they'd put in a romance plot! :( I'm not saying it's wrong to explore a romance that might have happened in reality (for example, like in the Emily Dickinson TV series), but in this case: whyyyyy? Like you said, all we need is Charlotte and Emily and Anne and writing (and the moors, the moors can stay!), because their stories are important and worth telling, romance or no romance!

I definitely agree with you in that writing is born from imagination, and many times, doesn't necessarily need a lived experience. Otherwise, we couldn't write fantasy or sci-fi or any kind of made-up worlds. It's true that sometimes it's easier to write what you know, but that alone is so broad: most people know so many things, and their own life experience could fill several novels, and that's lovely!

But also, there is a lot of worth in what we make up, in how we let our imaginations roam, and it definitely seems reductive to say that the only way someone can write about something well is because they've experienced it.

I think it becomes a bit more complex when someone writes about something in a way that feels wrong or insensitive. I've definitely read things that were so offensive and wrong that the author felt as if they were completely separated from whatever they were writing about--as if it was something alien they were dissecting, basically... but I blame that on poor research, or lack of respect towards the subject, or choosing a minority to fetishise, or just writing about them because it was politically correct, etc. I know it can be done well, and, for example, I definitely welcome white straight people writing minorities, but after getting burnt so many times, both with fic and with published stuff, I admit that I approach things with a lot of caution. And I definitely respect minorities who feel that no one else can write them and their experiences as well as they can, especially when those outside voices seem to be given more room than the minorities' own.

For god's sake, the entire point of the novel as an art form--regardless of whether you're the writer or the reader!--is to practice radical empathy and climb inside the head of someone who is not you.

If only more people thought this!

the perfect Bronte biopic already exists and it's called To Walk Invisible

Yesssssssssssss! <3

I agree with your big paragraph, but I think that's a systemic failure on the side of publishing. Their job is to weed out the bad stuff and only publish the good stuff. The fact that they keep failing at that doesn't to me mean that people in general shouldn't write about those who are different than them. Like, I definitely have sympathy for anyone who's wary about works by outsiders. As a reader, it makes perfect sense to be wary about it. But I definitely do hear the whole "stay in your lane" thing re: fiction, and I don't believe that as a principle that that is true.

I agree with you about this being a failure on the side of publishing, but I also feel that, ideally, anyone who chooses to write about a minority, or those who are different than them, should approach them with respect, so that there would be less bad stuff to weed out in the first place. But I also know that what counts as "bad stuff" is subjective. For example, as a reader *and* as a member of the Latino and LGBT+ communities, over the years I've read stuff with stereotypes, and that means I approach things carefully, but my experience isn't universal, because sometimes these things bother me, but don't offend others in the community, and sometimes the opposite thing happens, and all of these experiences are valid.

I hope I didn't come across as saying that I believe in the "stay in your lane" thing. I don't--not only as a reader, but also as a writer... although I'd definitely listen if someone told me that I'd got something wrong, because, like you wrote in your post, we need to hear criticism if we mess up, so we can do better! I really think it's important to be responsible and respectful, and use this approach to explore different lanes! :)

Oh, I absolutely believe that every writer has a profound moral responsibility to be as truthful as they can, and that definitely includes representing other people with dignity and respect. If you end up writing harmful stereotypes, that's a moral failure on your part. The right path forward is to take criticism with grace and improve. I've certainly been wrong about cultural stuff before, and I do think that was a failing, I just don't think that the response should be (as I have definitely seen some younger writers say), "Well, I'll only write about stuff that I know first-hand."

Which is not what I thought your position was! Like I said: this is a pendulum swing. For so long, white people (or straight people or men or whoever) were going around writing horribly insensitive or straight-up racist stuff with no filter whatsoever. The whole, "Oh my god, just let us [people of color] tell our own stories for once!" response was a good and necessary one!

I'm just seeing some people taking that to mean that they should only write about people just like them, and I think that's a betrayal of what art should be and also it's just boring.

I'm just seeing some people taking that to mean that they should only write about people just like them, and I think that's a betrayal of what art should be and also it's just boring.

On a somewhat related note, I was thinking about how sometimes it's really validating to write only about what you know, and about people who are just like you, and in these cases I wouldn't find it boring--I personally don't do it all the time, because it can be draining or too personal... and even when it's not, I think it makes sense to want to write something else! XD But as much as I love and admire writing that comes completely from the imagination and not from lived+personal experience, I also think that if someone chooses to write mostly (or only) what they know/people like them, then there is power in that too. Like Carson McCullers and her disabled characters, or Manuel Puig and his queer male characters. I thought of them specifically because of what you said above, about not everything that's good being necessarily autobiographical, which I agree with, so I admire them because they wrote about people like them, but didn't always make it autobiographical, which I think it's super interesting and awe-inspiring! <3 Thanks for a(nother) thought-provoking post!!

Oh definitely! I don't think that autobiographical writing is bad or less than in any way! I just think that Americans in particular (I don't know if this is true of other cultures) have this idea that stuff that "really" happened is so much more important and meaningful than stuff that someone made up. (Le Guin writes about this quite a bit--the American fear of dragons.) So I just feel like I'm swimming in a culture that doesn't value imagination at all.

(I don't know if this is true of other cultures)

Maybe in Latin America we want to have it both ways, and that's why magical realism is so popular? XD XD XD

Aww, I love that--it's charming!

XD Magical realism is basically writing what you know and then adding dragons. Or giant tortoises. Or talking dogs. Or wise axolotls...

Yes I love it!!!

Hi. I just want to say that I have always been in awe of the Bronte sisters' ability to write - very well - things that they hadn't experienced. I remember reading Agnes Grey for the first time and feeling just as moved by it as any other romance novel I'd read. It *is* a skill. I didn't know about the upcoming film. :(

Hi! My theory is that they read so widely and lived so much in the world of the mind that the kind of empathy it takes to write outside their experience arose naturally out of that. But it certainly is a skill!

I hadn't heard about it :( That really sucks... I won't watch it.

Me neither!

I didn't know about To Walk Invisible until you mentioned it here. I watched it today and loved it, it makes total sense, it's poignant, it's canon compliant, it's inspiring, it makes me itch to write a novel or few.

This new movie sounds unappetising and I agree with you; that's not how writing works. And this is only happening because she's a woman writer, which makes it more infuriating.

Oh fantastic! I'm so glad you enjoyed it! I thought it was really, really well done and frankly wish it had been longer.

And this is only happening because she's a woman writer, which makes it more infuriating.

Yeah, the romance angle is definitely sexism.

I thought it was really, really well done and frankly wish it had been longer.

I would have loved it to be several episodes, like a limited series.

Yesss! Three episodes would have been perfect!

Came back here for a reply and I have to say: I ADORE YOUR ICON!!!

Thank you! :D It's by

sallymn if you'd like to grab it!

So many great Miss Piggy icons!

I know, right! All the Muppet ones are so much fun :D

Hear, hear! I have been grumpily avoiding anything more about this Emily Brontë biopic since I heard they were adding a romance, and I completely agree about how much of a disservice it does to her. Interesting to relate that to the 'only people from demographic X should write about demographic X' thing (which I also disagree with), too. They're not coming from the same place, I think—the 'own voices' thing did begin as a well-intentioned effort to promote stories by marginalised writers, very worthy in itself, whereas the 'oh, she must have experienced romance to write about it!' thing is just plain hetero-/amatonormativity, plus sexist doubting of women's creative abilities—but you're quite right that they end up at similarly wrong and offensive conclusions about writing and writers.

(Aww, and I remember loving To Walk Invisible when I watched it a few years ago—perhaps I should watch it again...)

he 'own voices' thing did begin as a well-intentioned effort to promote stories by marginalised writers, very worthy in itself, whereas the 'oh, she must have experienced romance to write about it!' thing is just plain hetero-/amatonormativity, plus sexist doubting of women's creative abilities—but you're quite right that they end up at similarly wrong and offensive conclusions about writing and writers.

100% agreed about the great original motivation of the own voices movement and also that there's till a core of genuinely good stuff in there. It's not their fault that a lot of people are taking it too far!

And yeah, the motivation behind the screenplay does seem inherently coming from a sexist place of assuming that women's stories aren't interesting unless they're romances or that female audiences won't watch something without a romance or whatever. It's super frustrating.

Well, I had not heard of this movie, but I will NOT be watching it.

SAME.

I am also irked by the idea that only people of one demographic can write characters of that demographic.

I've been thinking about this a lot because I'm working on a story that is set in a place I "know" and I'm discovering how little I even know about places I've lived (especially before I was an adult), and double for the experiences of people around me. I couldn't write a story "about my life" without including people who are very different from me, because I live in communities with and am with friends with and interact with those people. Maybe I'm understanding the question too narrowly, though.

Ha, that's a great point! Everyone's experience is so incredibly subjective that the idea of anyone representing an entire community well is really suspect to begin with.

I couldn't write a story "about my life" without including people who are very different from me, because I live in communities with and am with friends with and interact with those people.

I think it's just degrees of different. Obviously every single person is different from everyone else. But some people live in very insular, homogenous communities and actually could write books where pretty much everyone has their own worldview. Whereas if I were writing a book about my life now, like you I would have to include lots of different kinds of people with different kinds of backgrounds.

But it does not therefore follow that people should only write about characters who are just like them. Anyone can write about anything! They just have a moral responsibility to do that as truthfully as they can and to do the research necessary not to perpetuate lies or hurt readers.

The other very real danger in insisting that only people of a certain demographic can faithfully write characters of that demographic is that it leads to a policing of identity, and an obsession with the One True Authenticity — and these things can get weaponised by writers attempting to sabotage perceived competition. There's no one single experience of being a woman, or an Asian American person, or a lesbian in 1990s Amsterdam, or whatever — but there are some authors (and reviewers and critics) who seem fixated on asserting that there is, and guarding the boundaries of acceptable representation of their identities.

As to the wider point of your post, I agree emphatically!

Oh gosh, yes. The people who have had to out themselves because people attack the way they write a queer character...it's horrifying.

Is it a male director (I ask, obviously).

I am not pleased about how it invents whole-cloth a romance that never happened. I am not pleased about how it implies that women's stories are not worth telling unless they contain a romance.

Sounds like Becoming Jane, tbh.

IT IS SHOCKINGLY NOT! It's a woman! Which makes it more offensive to me!!!! She wrote it too!!!!

Yeah, there is a reason I will never, ever watch that film and it's not just because Anne Hathaway irritates me.

IT IS SHOCKINGLY NOT! It's a woman! Which makes it more offensive to me!!!! She wrote it too!!!!

....>_<

Why does Anne Hathaway irritate you? I don't think I ever knew this.

I do not know! It is totally irrational and for that reason I don't advertise it--there's just something about her manner which I find off-putting in pretty much any role (except, oddly enough, Princess Diaries).

I was like "did I miss something about her?" but I totally get that. I find Emma Watson off-putting onscreen which I think is probably just latent frustration and irritation at the HP movies and how Kloves put Hermione on a pedestal (doubly frustrating because it seems like she's a very nice person IRL and very charitable with good causes).

With Watson, I think she seems like a lovely person, but I really truly think she's just a bad actress. But maybe I'm mean.

Unfortunately, I also agree with that :/

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only