Write What You Know- Actually, Don't.
I remember an English teacher once told me that your narrator can only be different from yourself in one major way. For instance, I could write from the perspective of a black girl, or a white boy, but not a black boy because that's two huge changes and he would be too dissimilar for me to do him justice or make him believable.
Today in my American Short Story class, we had a similar discussion. The focus of our lessons is currently investigating these sub-population groups- Jewish Americans, black Americans, today women- and the distinct voices they bring to the genre of short fiction. The professor mentioned how a lot of authors- himself included- get criticized for writing about groups of which they are not a part. He had some examples which of course I can't remember at the moment... but that's basically the gist of it. So he posed the question to the class: are we to "write what we know," or are we to branch out and use those dissimilar narrators?
The concensus seemed to be that it is acceptable, maybe even encouraged, to write outside of yourself. There were several reasons suggested for this, like you get more variety of stories that way, or often the groups you're portraying are unwilling or unable to tell the story for themselves, but I think the most compelling one has to do with compassion.
When you write a story about somebody you are literally stepping into their shoes. You see things as they would see them, describe those sights as they describe them. You think with their mind, imbibe some of their values and traits and biases. And so you understand that person remarkably well. And by understanding them you begin to empathize.
This is what journalists do, especially in those long literary-journalism type pieces that, in my opinion, we don't get nearly enough of. The reporter shows his readers a day in the life of the subject, the trials and triumphs, so they can see where these people are coming from and often why something should be done to alleviate their suffering. It's there, so why is it so bad when fiction writers do it?
I've noticed that I've been writing a lot of male narrators lately (and not just because my fanfic characters are male; my recent short stories have male protagonists as well). It's kind of weird, if you think about, because I really don't understand guys at all. And then, I thought: maybe that's precisely why I write them. It's my subconscious attempt to understand them, connect with them, so that what I learn can be translated into real life.
My essay for English 101 was talking about the role of writing as a way to connect to the world around you. When I write something I am drawing not only from myself but also from the experiences of my friends and neighbors, my enemies and strangers too. Mixing it all up and forming it into something cohesive and, hopefully, beautiful.
This is why literature speaks to us. No matter what we read, we see a little bit of ourselves in it. We relate- "Oh, that's just like that time when I..." or "Why on earth would she do that? I certainly wouldn't." It is this act of connecting, of seeing ourselves in characters from different backgrounds and walks of life, that makes good literature universal. It is the macro level of the moral or guiding message- the part that applies in some way to all of mankind, not just the specific protagonist.
And so I think it's wonderful when writers step out of themselves to write in a voice entirely separate from their own. Because, at some point they'll discover it's actually not as different as it first appeared. There are commonalities among even the most diverse population groups. A writer picks up on this and can then translate that to his reader, who begins to empathize and understand.
After all,
"The two most engaging powers of an author are to make new things familiar and familiar things new." ~Samuel Johnson
Today in my American Short Story class, we had a similar discussion. The focus of our lessons is currently investigating these sub-population groups- Jewish Americans, black Americans, today women- and the distinct voices they bring to the genre of short fiction. The professor mentioned how a lot of authors- himself included- get criticized for writing about groups of which they are not a part. He had some examples which of course I can't remember at the moment... but that's basically the gist of it. So he posed the question to the class: are we to "write what we know," or are we to branch out and use those dissimilar narrators?
The concensus seemed to be that it is acceptable, maybe even encouraged, to write outside of yourself. There were several reasons suggested for this, like you get more variety of stories that way, or often the groups you're portraying are unwilling or unable to tell the story for themselves, but I think the most compelling one has to do with compassion.
When you write a story about somebody you are literally stepping into their shoes. You see things as they would see them, describe those sights as they describe them. You think with their mind, imbibe some of their values and traits and biases. And so you understand that person remarkably well. And by understanding them you begin to empathize.
This is what journalists do, especially in those long literary-journalism type pieces that, in my opinion, we don't get nearly enough of. The reporter shows his readers a day in the life of the subject, the trials and triumphs, so they can see where these people are coming from and often why something should be done to alleviate their suffering. It's there, so why is it so bad when fiction writers do it?
I've noticed that I've been writing a lot of male narrators lately (and not just because my fanfic characters are male; my recent short stories have male protagonists as well). It's kind of weird, if you think about, because I really don't understand guys at all. And then, I thought: maybe that's precisely why I write them. It's my subconscious attempt to understand them, connect with them, so that what I learn can be translated into real life.
My essay for English 101 was talking about the role of writing as a way to connect to the world around you. When I write something I am drawing not only from myself but also from the experiences of my friends and neighbors, my enemies and strangers too. Mixing it all up and forming it into something cohesive and, hopefully, beautiful.
This is why literature speaks to us. No matter what we read, we see a little bit of ourselves in it. We relate- "Oh, that's just like that time when I..." or "Why on earth would she do that? I certainly wouldn't." It is this act of connecting, of seeing ourselves in characters from different backgrounds and walks of life, that makes good literature universal. It is the macro level of the moral or guiding message- the part that applies in some way to all of mankind, not just the specific protagonist.
And so I think it's wonderful when writers step out of themselves to write in a voice entirely separate from their own. Because, at some point they'll discover it's actually not as different as it first appeared. There are commonalities among even the most diverse population groups. A writer picks up on this and can then translate that to his reader, who begins to empathize and understand.
After all,
"The two most engaging powers of an author are to make new things familiar and familiar things new." ~Samuel Johnson