Fiction writing could be considered one of the cornerstones of culture in the modern world. In the past, fiction has defined culture as much as it has described it, with authors like Dostoyevsky and Camus, among many others, describing what they see through a lenses of what they want to see in culture. However, fiction is under threat. Not by external enemies (though there have been plenty of those), but from the inside. Not by fundamental conservatives, but by so called “progressives.” These people seek to limit what they call “cultural appropriation” in fiction writing. Ironically, doing so would strip away much of what gives fiction its particular freedom as a genre — the ability to examine any subject with any viewpoint, even one not your own.
Cultural appropriation is defined as "Taking intellectual property, traditional knowledge, cultural expressions, or artifacts from someone else's culture without permission." From the get-go, this entire concept, particularly in regards to “permission,” is ridiculous. Why is it wrong to celebrate and embrace other cultures, especially in a country such as ours that was built and shaped by immigrants? Furthermore, who does one turn to for “permission?” The NAACP? Your Afghani neighbor? Who decides what is and what isn’t OK? Apparently, there is no clear-cut definition, the determination is simply passed to whoever decides to be offended by your individual action.
Now certainly, there are things that are not acceptable behavior, such as blackface and other forms of deplorable stereotyping. Yet, we already have a word to describe such behavior: racism. The only thing cultural appropriation adds to the mix is defining a gray area, giving words to those who would be offended even if there was no intention to be offensive in the first place. Words are inherently powerful, and now such words are being used on the historical bastion of free speech — fiction.
The discussion of cultural appropriation in fiction has been a topic for several years, but last week’s Brisbane Writer’s Festival served as a good benchmark for how dangerously far we’ve come. Speeches over the topic were common, but the show was really stolen by Lionel Shriver. Shriver, the writer of the book turned film, “We Need to Talk About Kevin,” gave a rousing and divisive speech on the same topic. Instead of being in favor of it, however, Shriver spoke vehemently against it.
Shriver’s argument rested not on coddling feelings but on what makes fiction such a varied and powerful genre, an absolutist understanding of freedom. To her, if cultural appropriation is allowed to run to its “logical conclusion, ideologies recently come into vogue challenge our right to write fiction at all.” Furthermore, she believes that “the kind of fiction we are ‘allowed’ to write is in danger of becoming so hedged, so circumscribed, so tippy-toe, that we’d indeed be better off not writing the anodyne drivel to begin with.”
Frankly, I believe she’s right. Some of the greatest writers in history write from a perspective that is not their own. Fyodor Dostoyevsky, for instance did not have the mental illness his character, Raskolnikov, suffered from in “Crime and Punishment.” Two great feminist novels, “Madame Bovary” and “The Scarlet Letter,” were written by men, Gustave Flaubert and Nathaniel Hawthorne. Albert Camus was not a murderer, yet he wrote about one in “The Stranger.” Joseph Conrad brought attention to the atrocities of the Belgian Free State in the Congo and how the people of the land were just as human as anyone living in London, yet he himself was not a victim. Should their own perspective deduct from the merit of their writings and causes?
Such reflection was not to be had from two influential authors present, Yassmin Abdel-Magied and Suki Kim. Abdel-Magied, in a rebuttal, argued that “It’s not always OK if a white guy writes the story of a Nigerian woman because the actual Nigerian woman can’t get published or reviewed to begin with. It’s not always OK if a straight white woman writes the story of a queer Indigenous man, because when was the last time you heard a queer Indigenous man tell his own story?” I agree with in that diversity in writers and experiences in the genre is to be desired; after all, such experiences make for interesting perspectives. However, her argument is that such stories should not be told unless they come from the mouth of a person who has experienced them, a damning nail into the freedom inherent of fiction. Ironically, this argument was made at a convention designed to “challenge us to be more. To be uncomfortable. To progress." Abdel-Magied walked out on Shriver’s speech.
Suki Kim’s argument was not much better, with her asserting Shriver was claiming to be a “victim” of cultural appropriation despite her success as a writer. Perhaps, like Yassmin Abdel-Magied, Suki Kim should have listened to Shriver’s speech a little bit closer. Shriver was not belittling or “alienating” minorities, or even claiming to be a victim. Shriver was simply arguing that fiction is not the place for cultural appropriation. Kim poses no argument other than to take offense and attack Shriver for a very valid and, in my opinion, wholly correct argument. Apparently dissenting ideas in a genre often defined by such ideas is unacceptable, particularly if one offends an author whose fame is tied to reporting on how dangerous holding dissenting opinions in North Korea can be.
Fiction is an institution, held together by little else than freedom of language, words and ideas. Those seeking to limit cultural appropriation within fiction are attacking it in a way that banning and burning books could never manage. You can’t destroy an idea, but you can malign it to the point of nonexistence. In attempting to change the way people are offended at a systemic level, these so called activists are threatening opposing beliefs in fiction with baseless shaming and unfounded claims of racism. Yassmin Abdel-Magied, Suki Kim and many others found success in the very freedom they are now attacking. Fiction writing is not for the thin-skinned, as Abdel-Magied and Kim would be wise to learn.