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