Own Voices v. Other Voices: Why Not Both?

Monday, August 13, 2018


The “Own Voices” movement started as a hashtag created by Corinne Duyvis to encourage authors from diverse/marginalized groups to write about the groups they belong to—whether that be a particular race, disability, or sexual orientation—and to promote those books. That’s an admirable goal, and I’m fully behind it.
In this “politically correct” atmosphere, however, many people go farther and condemn works by voices writing outside their culture. (This is not where Corinne Duyvis takes it, as you can see from the Q&As at www.corinneduyvis.net/ownvoices/.) The restrictive view of acceptable authorship is short-sighted and, I believe, counterproductive.

First, some background. I’m about as WASP as you can get, but the protagonist of my first middle-grade book, Desert Jewels, is not. Here’s the blurb.

Twelve-year-old Emi Katayama is half Japanese, but she is all American. Then Japan attacks Pearl Harbor, and she suddenly becomes the enemy.

I wrote Desert Jewels because the Japanese-American incarceration is a part of our history that often gets ignored, and I wanted to change that. I could have used a white protagonist who lives outside the camp, as Kirby Larson did very effectively in the Dear America book The Fences Between Us, but I wanted to get closer.

Research is key. Since I didn’t live through the experience, my research relied significantly on the voices of those who had. Memoirs have always been my favorite resources, and the Japanese-American incarceration generated a number of them.

No matter who writes the story, it is important to get the facts right. While the experience is primary, knowledgeable readers may stop reading if the details are wrong. And this is just as important for members of the in-group as it is for writers from outside the group. Unfortunately, I have read several books written by Japanese Americans that have gotten the facts wrong. As an example, many of these books merge the so-called “no no boys” with the draft dissenters and treat them as if they were the same group. The “no no boys” were Japanese men who answered “no” to two questions supposedly designed to test loyalty, while the draft dissenters answered yes to each question. (You can read more about the Heart Mountain dissenters in my June 2, 2014 blog post.)

The biggest problem with the restrictive view, though, is that it limits both the offerings and the audience.

First and most obvious, it limits the offerings by narrowing the number of people who write those books. I understand the very realistic concern about other voices getting it wrong, and this is where publishers can and should be gatekeepers. But some other voices get it right. And if you want people to read own voices, those must be quality works. So while I support publishers prioritizing for well-written own voices, they shouldn’t automatically discard other voices.

Second, restricting stories to own voices also limits the audience. Some people outside of a group feel that people within the group have a bone to pick, and these readers discount own voices books as biased. (It is the perception rather than the accuracy of the claim that is important here.) The best way to reach this audience is through white voices writing outside their culture and getting it as correct as possible.

So yes, publishers should be gatekeepers to ensure that all voices portray people accurately and with sensitivity. Sometimes that means giving priority to well-written and well-researched own voices.

But restricting it to those voices is short-sighted and counterproductive.

__________

Desert Jewels is available in paperback and Kindle versions from amazon.com and in paperback from Barnes and Noble.

No comments:

Post a Comment