![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I'm admittedly not sure whether my anxiety is getting the better of me, but I'm starting to get more and more anxious about labelling Project E #ownvoices, even though it is technically #ownvoices in regards to the ace and depression rep.
I'm starting to get the impression—and I don't know if this is accurate or not—that #ownvoices stories are about positive representation, "positive" in terms of tone (not quality). Which...makes it awkward for me when my ace character has gone through a lot of trauma and bad stuff. And it's difficult to explain, because part of why I write what I write is intensely personal—for those personal reasons, I'm usually drawn to writing characters who have suffered, who are struggling with a lot of darkness. But I worry that someone will see "ace character who's violent and traumatized = stay away from this book, it's bad rep" (especially since I'm not explicitly open about my sexual orientation on social media accounts that may eventually be traced to my real identity).
[By the way, "ace character who's violent" is a really shallow description of my protagonist, but I notice in online conversations that sometimes, if not often times, characters and books really do get boiled down to very superficial descriptions.]
This leads me to another topic I've been wrestling with: objectification in fiction, specifically objectification of suffering.
To put it another way: Sometimes I see people critique a book for "exploiting [marginalized group's] suffering." Because story comes from drama and conflict, and a lot of drama and conflict comes from making characters suffer; also, to a certain extent, writing is inherently objectifying.
I get that complaint, but what I struggle with is: Where is the line between something that's exploitative and non-exploitative? If, for example, a marginalized author and non-marginalized author both write the exact same story about a marginalized character's suffering, would it only be considered "okay" if the marginalized author did it, and if the two authors wrote the exact same story, why is it only okay based on the author's identity? Is it merely the assumption that a non-marginalized author would never write a marginalized experience with the same nuance as a marginalized writer—and are we really okay with making a blanket absolute statement like that?
What about the fact that, without a more nuanced discussion, this rhetoric often does discourage privileged (e.g. white) authors from writing marginalized characters (e.g. characters of color)?
Are the scores of female writers who write M/M romances in which the protagonists are deeply suffering exploiting the pain of (neurodivergent) gay men? Does it make a difference if those writers are themselves neurodivergent? What if they're actually nonbinary/genderqueer? If the answer would change, why would it change?
To bring it back to the personal question that's been bothering me: If I write an ace character who suffers from trauma and depression from the terrible things that have happened to him in the story, is that considered exploitative considering my identity doesn't completely match up with my character's? Does it make a difference if I say that writing about characters who suffer is the way I channel the pain in my own life, even though that pain gets translated in a different way when I type it out, or is it still exploitative?
My usual fallback for this type of question is, "It depends on the execution." But I can't get more precise than that, and that's a problem to me. How does it depend on the execution? Exactly what kind of execution works or doesn't work? "I'll know it when I see it" isn't a satisfying answer.
Basically, I don't have any answers for anything. Sigh.
(As a sidenote, I don't really use "non-marginalized author is exploiting marginalized group's pain" as a critique when I review books myself—(1) because I hate coercively labeling authors' identities if I don't know, (2) because of how vague it is, and (3) I don't like to guess authors' intentions for why they wrote a suffering character, because I don't like to assume that it's due to a fetishistic reason. I find "tragedy porn" or "this is unrealistic for x reason" or "this is harmful rep for y reason" better, more precise alternatives.)
I'm starting to get the impression—and I don't know if this is accurate or not—that #ownvoices stories are about positive representation, "positive" in terms of tone (not quality). Which...makes it awkward for me when my ace character has gone through a lot of trauma and bad stuff. And it's difficult to explain, because part of why I write what I write is intensely personal—for those personal reasons, I'm usually drawn to writing characters who have suffered, who are struggling with a lot of darkness. But I worry that someone will see "ace character who's violent and traumatized = stay away from this book, it's bad rep" (especially since I'm not explicitly open about my sexual orientation on social media accounts that may eventually be traced to my real identity).
[By the way, "ace character who's violent" is a really shallow description of my protagonist, but I notice in online conversations that sometimes, if not often times, characters and books really do get boiled down to very superficial descriptions.]
This leads me to another topic I've been wrestling with: objectification in fiction, specifically objectification of suffering.
To put it another way: Sometimes I see people critique a book for "exploiting [marginalized group's] suffering." Because story comes from drama and conflict, and a lot of drama and conflict comes from making characters suffer; also, to a certain extent, writing is inherently objectifying.
I get that complaint, but what I struggle with is: Where is the line between something that's exploitative and non-exploitative? If, for example, a marginalized author and non-marginalized author both write the exact same story about a marginalized character's suffering, would it only be considered "okay" if the marginalized author did it, and if the two authors wrote the exact same story, why is it only okay based on the author's identity? Is it merely the assumption that a non-marginalized author would never write a marginalized experience with the same nuance as a marginalized writer—and are we really okay with making a blanket absolute statement like that?
What about the fact that, without a more nuanced discussion, this rhetoric often does discourage privileged (e.g. white) authors from writing marginalized characters (e.g. characters of color)?
Are the scores of female writers who write M/M romances in which the protagonists are deeply suffering exploiting the pain of (neurodivergent) gay men? Does it make a difference if those writers are themselves neurodivergent? What if they're actually nonbinary/genderqueer? If the answer would change, why would it change?
To bring it back to the personal question that's been bothering me: If I write an ace character who suffers from trauma and depression from the terrible things that have happened to him in the story, is that considered exploitative considering my identity doesn't completely match up with my character's? Does it make a difference if I say that writing about characters who suffer is the way I channel the pain in my own life, even though that pain gets translated in a different way when I type it out, or is it still exploitative?
My usual fallback for this type of question is, "It depends on the execution." But I can't get more precise than that, and that's a problem to me. How does it depend on the execution? Exactly what kind of execution works or doesn't work? "I'll know it when I see it" isn't a satisfying answer.
Basically, I don't have any answers for anything. Sigh.
(As a sidenote, I don't really use "non-marginalized author is exploiting marginalized group's pain" as a critique when I review books myself—(1) because I hate coercively labeling authors' identities if I don't know, (2) because of how vague it is, and (3) I don't like to guess authors' intentions for why they wrote a suffering character, because I don't like to assume that it's due to a fetishistic reason. I find "tragedy porn" or "this is unrealistic for x reason" or "this is harmful rep for y reason" better, more precise alternatives.)
