A Different Review
So, I was morbidly curious to read this article in Vulture on Kirkus Reviews and their policies. Basically, Kirkus assigns reviewers based on if said reviewer is from the same race/religion/nationality/ethnicity as the author and/or major characters in the book.
The goal is to see if these books "resonate most with cultural insiders." The argument is that there "is no substitute for lived experience."
I love Kirkus and regularly read their reviews. They positively reviewed Night of the Virgin, after all (gulp).
I also understand the practice, in the early and middle stages of creation, for authors to rely on beta readers to make sure your characters in a story are fully fleshed out and not two-dimensional (and stereotypical). Some authors/editors wisely seek out "cultural insiders" to get their two cents.
This can and does lead to awkward conversations. As a journalist, I have been pitched to do reports and features on Mexican soccer because, drum roll, I am Chicanx and follow the national team and league, but the phone chats can feel strained. "So, Elliott, we'd love to have your writing at the site." (Endorphin overload; I remain silent) "We were thinking maybe....maybe you could do some stuff on...LigaMX?" (Scratches chin; thinks to self...I wonder why).
Awkward!
In the world of fiction, I think that a good, sharp reader can spot stereotypes in a book, and, in Kirkus' case, then a cultural insider should be consulted. The fine line between accurately and vividly describing customs associated with a group of persons like, say, Mexicans from Tamaulipas/Nuevo Leon, versus relying on rote stereotypes, can be tricky at times.
This especially gets thorny with humor and attempts at satire.
I honestly am still thinking through this stuff. I love "Own Voices Narratives" and respect the general critique against cultural appropriation, but am also terrified by the pigeon-holing that can happen. "Hey, ethnic dude! Write ethnic content for my vertical/publisher! But there's one catch - gotta be ethnic enough."
Also, on a positive note, you have cases like Lucky Boy by Shanthi Sekaran, who is an Indian American that grew up in California. Lucky Boy has a major character that is an undocumented Mexican woman. Shanthi is a woman, but a US citizen with no ties to Mexico.
And she did a helluva good job writing the character. She even did an interview about the book at Latino USA. She described the process as "daunting" because "I'm neither of those things" (when referring to Mexican heritage and undocumented immigration).
As an author, you write the world you live in, and you probably are not surrounded exclusively by affluent straight WASP males. Hopefully, you are not surrounded with carbon copies of you. And this shows up in your imaginary world's characters.
Still, when writing a character different from you in a major way - gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, race, age - you have to take extra steps to make sure you give them their humanity. They don't have to be perfect, but the best authors carefully craft the imperfections of each character.
The goal is to see if these books "resonate most with cultural insiders." The argument is that there "is no substitute for lived experience."
I love Kirkus and regularly read their reviews. They positively reviewed Night of the Virgin, after all (gulp).
I also understand the practice, in the early and middle stages of creation, for authors to rely on beta readers to make sure your characters in a story are fully fleshed out and not two-dimensional (and stereotypical). Some authors/editors wisely seek out "cultural insiders" to get their two cents.
This can and does lead to awkward conversations. As a journalist, I have been pitched to do reports and features on Mexican soccer because, drum roll, I am Chicanx and follow the national team and league, but the phone chats can feel strained. "So, Elliott, we'd love to have your writing at the site." (Endorphin overload; I remain silent) "We were thinking maybe....maybe you could do some stuff on...LigaMX?" (Scratches chin; thinks to self...I wonder why).
Awkward!
In the world of fiction, I think that a good, sharp reader can spot stereotypes in a book, and, in Kirkus' case, then a cultural insider should be consulted. The fine line between accurately and vividly describing customs associated with a group of persons like, say, Mexicans from Tamaulipas/Nuevo Leon, versus relying on rote stereotypes, can be tricky at times.
This especially gets thorny with humor and attempts at satire.
I honestly am still thinking through this stuff. I love "Own Voices Narratives" and respect the general critique against cultural appropriation, but am also terrified by the pigeon-holing that can happen. "Hey, ethnic dude! Write ethnic content for my vertical/publisher! But there's one catch - gotta be ethnic enough."
Also, on a positive note, you have cases like Lucky Boy by Shanthi Sekaran, who is an Indian American that grew up in California. Lucky Boy has a major character that is an undocumented Mexican woman. Shanthi is a woman, but a US citizen with no ties to Mexico.
And she did a helluva good job writing the character. She even did an interview about the book at Latino USA. She described the process as "daunting" because "I'm neither of those things" (when referring to Mexican heritage and undocumented immigration).
As an author, you write the world you live in, and you probably are not surrounded exclusively by affluent straight WASP males. Hopefully, you are not surrounded with carbon copies of you. And this shows up in your imaginary world's characters.
Still, when writing a character different from you in a major way - gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, race, age - you have to take extra steps to make sure you give them their humanity. They don't have to be perfect, but the best authors carefully craft the imperfections of each character.
No comments have been added yet.
