herongale: Reality is reality and fiction is fiction

[mothwing]

That's part of what you said. It is not that simple. Fiction exists in the real world, and influences real-world people. This is not an issue of "some people" not being able to distinguish between fiction and reality. Even if everybody were able to do so, this would still be an issue. Language influences people. Fiction influences people - and not just those mythical creatures who can't distinguish between fiction and non-fiction accounts - and a strong version of my claim here is that no one can.

Your claim seems to be that since because fiction is fiction, it is somehow less harmful, because it can't be taken as seriously and it is not reality. But how much of what you write is fiction? What you write is informed by your real-world experiences, too. Are houses fictional? No. Is it fictional that people have heads and arms? No. Is it fictional that gay people exist? No. What else is fictional, what mirrors your own experience with gay characters? There is no way to draw the line, even for people who are very well capable of distinguishing fiction from reality.

The narratives you come across organise your thinking, and if you come across one particular narrative over and over again, it is difficult or even impossible not to have that part of your narrative enter your brain and become the definitive narrative. This is my problem with a majority writing a minority. M/M, as I am told, is a genre by and for straight women - it influences their narrative of what gay men are like.

It is common knowledge that advertising is fiction, and still it is as commonly known or suspected that advertising can have a very direct negative effect on the self-esteem of women. Fictional stories in which women are presented as flat characters only there for the gratification of men, like porn movies, are questionable, because they present men and women alike with scripts of sexuality that are unrealistic, but still change the narrative of what sex is "supposed to" work like. This is not conscious, no one sits down and goes, "Oh, I'd like to watch a movie in which women are objectified right now!". That, in parts, is the problem, and if this were what people are doing, this would be less problematic.

Now, with the stories written by straight women and informed by their experience as straight women which are about gay men, the problem I see is that they start replacing the narratives of and by gay men about gay men for the women who read these stories (simple because there are so many straight women who write these kinds of stories - from my experience, though this might be wrong, even more than queer women). There are, as it is, many negative stereotypes of gay men permeating the media which are influencing people's narratives of what a gay man is. This is another one that cannot ever be accurate. So yes, I believe that all stories written my people who are not a member of a minority about a minority are appropriative to some degree, and I believe that romance stories which strongly focus on an idealised version is especially appropriative.

What I want?
I want more self-reflection, self-awareness and critical thinking skills for both readers and writers.
I want people to examine their own reasons for writing what they are writing, and
I want readers to examine for what reason they are reading it.
I want genres about minorities to be dominated by those minorities instead of majorities - I want more original slash fiction about gay men to be written by gay men than by straight women.
I want the story of the minority people write about to be the definitive story.

I want you, herongale, to ask yourself, "why am I writing slash? What does it do for me that other genres don't? Why do I find the tales of two men together more interesting than others? Why is it ok for me to appropriate another person's experience for my own ends?"
And I want your readers to do the same.

I'm genuinely curious what people say here, by the way. I know that there are reasons that are therapeutic writing-related, but I am curious what other reasons there are.

And I am not saying to anyone that they are not allowed to write whatever they want, because of course they are, but I don't want them to get away with it easily if it seems that they are writing about an other without reflection of why they feel it is appropriate to do so.

Comments

[holyschist.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure about the focus on straight women writing m/m fiction--at least from where I'm looking a lot of readers and writers of m/m fiction and slash are queer. Some of them are lesbians.

Some food for thought:
http://maryaminx.livejournal.com/154286.html
http://jonquil.dreamwidth.org/918916.html

I've seen a bunch of other posts around from queer women and men about how when they were young, having representations of queer people in literature--even written by straight people, even not always done well--was vitally important to them because it told them people like them existed. maryaminx talks about that quite a bit in her post.

For me, m/m and f/f fiction on the internet was a) more accessible to me as a teenager than published queer fiction and b) more likely to show characters doing the types of things I like in media--having adventures, solving crimes, etc.--who also were queer. What little pro queer fiction I could find was frequently entirely about how queer the characters were, and the challenges they faced from being queer, and stressful coming-out processes. Which is an important genre of literature, absolutely, but I desperately wanted--and still want--stories about queer people doing other things, for whom queerness is a part rather than the center of their lives. I'm still not seeing it much in pro fiction, especially in genre fiction of the types I most enjoy--fantasy, SF, and historical fiction. There are a few exceptions, like Ellen Kushner and Delia Sherman's Riverside books (they're married, the two main male characters are bisexual and partnered, and the main female character is bisexual-tending and romantically ambiguous, but the books mostly focus on people having duels and political intrigue), where they posit a world where queerness is common and accepted (and it would be pretty weird if only female queerness were common, but all the men were straight, I think). But I don't really love the Riverside books, and three books don't make a genre trend.

So. Minority characters written by majority authors can be problematic, but they can also be valuable. And I would far, far prefer majority authors to try to write diverse casts with respect than to write homogeneous worlds full of straight white cis male characters (and possibly even more stories with aliens/elves/dragons as allegories for real minorities).

If majority writers don't write minorities, at all, that's what we'd get. The publishing industry being what it is, white men, followed by white women, are still the majority in most genres. And there's already quite enough books all about straight white cis men, and not even because those authors don't want to offend minorities but because they don't even realize there are other people out there.

I'm also not sure about assuming that people who write m/m fiction find it more interesting than other types of fiction rather than equally as interesting.

I suspect we will continue to disagree on this, though.

[mothwing.livejournal.com]

Thanks for your answer.

I've read both of these, and I think I still stand by my original assumption that there are still by and large simply so many more straight women writing m/m slash fiction than queer people that they dominate the genre. I might be entirely mistaken, because I don't have data on this at all.

Which is an important genre of literature, absolutely, but I desperately wanted--and still want--stories about queer people doing other things, for whom queerness is a part rather than the center of their lives. I'm still not seeing it much in pro fiction, especially in genre fiction of the types I most enjoy--fantasy, SF, and historical fiction.
Oh, me too. I don't like coming out stories and other literature for precisely this reason, because they make every aspect of the character in the story revolve around their being gay. There are so many other facets of experience, how come they're not addressed...?

And I would far, far prefer majority authors to try to write diverse casts with respect than to write homogeneous worlds full of straight white cis male characters (and possibly even more stories with aliens/elves/dragons as allegories for real minorities).
I'd love that, but what I still disagree with and am not particularly good at putting into words at all is majority authors exploring their own issues using a cast of minority sockpuppets. Because that is not really a diverse cast, that's majority-exploring psychodrama.

I'm also not sure about assuming that people who write m/m fiction find it more interesting than other types of fiction rather than equally as interesting.
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, that's the impression I got from reading people who write m/m and slash writers - that m/m stories are preferable for some reason. In fanfic, that could make sense due to the scarceness of believable female heroines in many cases, but I don't get why this should be the case in original fiction.

[holyschist.livejournal.com]

I've read both of these, and I think I still stand by my original assumption that there are still by and large simply so many more straight women writing m/m slash fiction than queer people that they dominate the genre. I might be entirely mistaken, because I don't have data on this at all.

I'm not sure data (at least not any meaningful data) exists.

I'd love that, but what I still disagree with and am not particularly good at putting into words at all is majority authors exploring their own issues using a cast of minority sockpuppets. Because that is not really a diverse cast, that's majority-exploring psychodrama.

Hmmm. I sort of agree, but at the same time I think that most writing that isn't completely formulaic does involve the writer exploring their own mind and issues, although not necessarily in an obvious way. For example, I think Terry Pratchett's last several books, including Nation and Wee Free Men, are a response to him being diagnosed with Alzheimer's and how he feels about that (mind, I read Nation right after my dad, who had Alzheimer's, died, so I read it through that reader filter). I don't think a writer can ever fully remove their own issues from their writing.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, that's the impression I got from reading people who write m/m and slash writers - that m/m stories are preferable for some reason. In fanfic, that could make sense due to the scarceness of believable female heroines in many cases, but I don't get why this should be the case in original fiction.

I think we hang out in different writing/reading circles, and of course demographics and interests vary by subgroup.

Here via linkspam - going off on a tangent

[senior-witch.livejournal.com]

I read all Terry Pratchett books the moment they are released as paperbacks - I have not discovered any traces of Terry Pratchett dealing with his diagnosis of Alzheimer, so I am curious where you have found them.

Re: Here via linkspam - going off on a tangent

[holyschist.livejournal.com]

It's not an explicitly textual thing, but several of his recent books, most notably Nation and Wee Free Men are largely about loss, at least the way I read them. Especially Nation. And the biggest effect Alzheimer's has is loss--of memory, of faculties, of control, of independence, of verbal filters, of personality, all depending on the person and how the disease progresses.

But as I said, I had personal reasons for connecting the two at the time I read them. Only Terry Pratchett knows for sure what he was thinking when he wrote them.

Re: Here via linkspam - going off on a tangent

[senior-witch.livejournal.com]

Ah, well, I see the loss in Nations where it is quite obvious, but I don't see it in Wee Free Men. For me, Wee Free Men is largely about keeping apart reality and wishful thinking.

Re: Here via linkspam - going off on a tangent

[holyschist.livejournal.com]

I thought the way he handled Tiffany's mourning for her grandmother was about dealing with loss and moving on.

Re: Here via linkspam - going off on a tangent

[senior-witch.livejournal.com]

Ah! Sure, I forgot! You are absolutely right.

[mothwing.livejournal.com]

Sorry about not getting back to you sooner.

I'm not sure data (at least not any meaningful data) exists.
At least I haven't found any digging through fanthropology, who are generally very good at that sort of thing. If it existed, I'm sure it'd be posted over there.

About P'Terry's dealing with Alzheimer's - you might be on to something. I did notice that after Jingo, I think, his novels started getting increasingly dark, especially with regards to his formerly so optimistic humanism. I think Night Watch is a very good example of that, and so is Monstrous Regiments. The Wee Free Men series I've always seen as a bit of an exception to that general trend because it's so sunny overall, but you are right about the way he deals with the death of Granny Aching, of course.

I think we hang out in different writing/reading circles, and of course demographics and interests vary by subgroup.
Yes, probably.

[holyschist.livejournal.com]

There's this:

[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<a [...] http://melannen.dreamwidth.org/77757.html">') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

There's this: <a href="http://melannen.dreamwidth.org/77558.html</a> and a <a href="http://melannen.dreamwidth.org/77757.html">follow-up</a>. It's true none of the polls have particularly good methodology (I suspect designing a pan-fandom poll would be basically impossible), but that many separate (flawed) polls giving similar results is interesting. There's also some discussion of where "slashers are mostly straight women" comes from (of course, all of these surveys and studies are fandom-focused, and may not apply to the readership of pro m/m fiction).

Re: Terry Pratchett, yes, he has had kind of an overall trend towards darker/more tragic themes. I haven't read <i>Unseen Academicals</i> yet, though. I think it would have had to start more recently than Jingo if it was related to Alzheimer's, though, since the diagnosis was only a few years ago.

[bronnyelsp.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure about the focus on straight women writing m/m fiction--at least from where I'm looking a lot of readers and writers of m/m fiction and slash are queer. Some of them are lesbians.

Well, though, apart from any who are themselves gay men, they are still writing An Other, so surely the self-reflection Moth advocates is still called for?

For me, m/m and f/f fiction on the internet was a) more accessible to me as a teenager than published queer fiction and b) more likely to show characters doing the types of things I like in media--having adventures, solving crimes, etc.--who also were queer. What little pro queer fiction I could find was frequently entirely about how queer the characters were, and the challenges they faced from being queer, and stressful coming-out processes. Which is an important genre of literature, absolutely, but I desperately wanted--and still want--stories about queer people doing other things, for whom queerness is a part rather than the center of their lives. I'm still not seeing it much in pro fiction, especially in genre fiction of the types I most enjoy--fantasy, SF, and historical fiction. There are a few exceptions, like Ellen Kushner and Delia Sherman's Riverside books (they're married, the two main male characters are bisexual and partnered, and the main female character is bisexual-tending and romantically ambiguous, but the books mostly focus on people having duels and political intrigue), where they posit a world where queerness is common and accepted (and it would be pretty weird if only female queerness were common, but all the men were straight, I think). But I don't really love the Riverside books, and three books don't make a genre trend.

But Mothy has never said that queer characters written by straight people are entirely without merit, nor ordered all the straight writers to stop writing them. She's asked for reflection, acknowledgment of the fact that there's appropriation going on, and an attempt to Do It Better. She's also said she would prefer it if the majority of queer narratives were written by queer people. You yourself seem implicitly to admit that queer narratives written by straight people can get it very very wrong, and while they may be helpful to some queer people, that doesn't change the fact that they are imperfect. You don't directly contradict Mothy's thesis that these narratives can negatively impact on the cultural perception of queerness due to the enforcement of negative stereotypes and I'd be interested in knowing if you accept it. I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to accept both: making queerness visible in fiction can, yes, be positive for individual queer people, especially youths; when it is done badly and clumsily by straight people, it can also be negative in its impact on the lives of queer people in general, simultaneously, yes. Why not?

If majority writers don't write minorities, at all, that's what we'd get. The publishing industry being what it is, white men, followed by white women, are still the majority in most genres. And there's already quite enough books all about straight white cis men, and not even because those authors don't want to offend minorities but because they don't even realize there are other people out there.

Well, to me, this, right here, is what we should be challenging. Why do we have to accept that the publishing industry is overwhelmingly white, male, straight, and cis? I don't think we should accept it.

[holyschist.livejournal.com]

Well, though, apart from any who are themselves gay men, they are still writing An Other, so surely the self-reflection Moth advocates is still called for?

I'm not arguing against self-reflection at all. I am entirely in favor of self-reflection (and research, and respect).

But Mothy has never said that queer characters written by straight people are entirely without merit, nor ordered all the straight writers to stop writing them.

Nor did I say she did.

She's also said she would prefer it if the majority of queer narratives were written by queer people.

I actually agree.

You yourself seem implicitly to admit that queer narratives written by straight people can get it very very wrong, and while they may be helpful to some queer people, that doesn't change the fact that they are imperfect.

I'll say it explicitly, too.

You don't directly contradict Mothy's thesis that these narratives can negatively impact on the cultural perception of queerness due to the enforcement of negative stereotypes and I'd be interested in knowing if you accept it.

Because I don't disagree with that thesis. I don't think this issue splits neatly into two sides or camps; I can agree with parts of what people with very different views are saying without agreeing with the totality.

I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to accept both: making queerness visible in fiction can, yes, be positive for individual queer people, especially youths; when it is done badly and clumsily by straight people, it can also be negative in its impact on the lives of queer people in general, simultaneously, yes. Why not?

Um, I do accept both. Evidently I didn't make that clear enough.

Well, to me, this, right here, is what we should be challenging. Why do we have to accept that the publishing industry is overwhelmingly white, male, straight, and cis? I don't think we should accept it.

I don't, either! But it's possible to advocate both white-etc. writers being self-reflective and striving to respectfully write more diverse casts AND advocate ground-up change in the publishing industry to accommodate more diverse voices. The latter's more important ideologically, certainly, but from a practical point of view, I think they're both important goals.

[bronnyelsp.livejournal.com]

So, based on everything you've said now, I don't understand why you finished by saying that you and Moth don't/probably won't agree?

[holyschist.livejournal.com]

Hmmmm, I don't know. I don't think we totally agree, but I'm pretty confused about this whole conversation now, so I'll leave it at "we at least mostly agree."

[bronnyelsp.livejournal.com]

This happens to me often in internetz conversations. :)

[bard-linn.livejournal.com]

Well, though, apart from any who are themselves gay men, they are still writing An Other, so surely the self-reflection Moth advocates is still called for?

Well, most people who write aren't teachers, mages, commanders, chess players, warriors, generals, space explorers or vets, either. They aren't geniuses, blind, or have multiple personalities. If a writer can only write what they know, you can't get very far. If you go by that, men can only write about men, and women can only write about women, and that would make for a very boring world.

I would advocate that it might be better to say "more research is appreciated" on the part of the writers (the way they should with anything that they really don't' have experience with) than self reflection. Books and stories primarily exist as an entertainment industry. Most people don't go to the store and say "I want to think about sexuality today, why don't I go over to this section." They pick up a book because of an interesting cover, or an interesting title, read a bit and say "hey, this looks neat."

Now, as a disclaimer, I will admit that I do not read much M/M published fiction or F/F published fiction. I can think of a total of three, and only in one of which was written by a Lesbian (about a F/F couple). Most of what I read in terms of published fiction is primarily straight, because the prominent authors in the fantasy/Sci-Fi genre whose style I enjoy write that. I read and write fanfiction. I enjoy all types of pairings - F/F, M/F and M/M, threesomes and moresomes. For me, it is about the characters. I see two (or more) characters who are very close and I want to see them happy together. Maybe that's as good friends, maybe something more. That's up to them, or the author in the specific case.

Now, in published fiction, I'd actually also prefer to see some more gay characters within settings with straight pairings. I have read books where two characters who are male or two characters who are female are very close - but then they go out of their way to say "we're not gay!" in the actual story. Or stories with "soul-bonds" where spirits are magically tied to others...but only straight pairings. I actually find eliminating gay characters entirely more insulting. Especially when it is made in a derogative sense (that isn't natural) or conspicuously absent, set in a world very like our own, only with magic involved, for example. The odds of encountering it at some point is very likely, especially if the series goes on for a long time.

Let's put the shoe on the other foot. If women shouldn't be writing M/M stories because it can be done poorly and thus could be damaging to the group indicated by overflowing the section (which can happen when anyone writes about a group they are not personally a part of, btw, not just M/M romances), then gays and lesbians shouldn't write any straight romances either. Now, what are the odds of a story having no straight romances, only gay ones? This also bothers me, because we live in a mixed world.

I will not say that fiction can't be damaging or promote damaging ideals. I've argued that often about a series I won't name but seems to think that stalking is hot as opposed to disturbing. I would however say that it isn't self reflection that is needed as much as more research.

[bronnyelsp.livejournal.com]

Well, most people who write aren't teachers, mages, commanders, chess players, warriors, generals, space explorers or vets, either.

This is so, so, so wrong, I am having extreme difficulty articulating what is wrong with comparing a non-teacher writing about a teacher to a straight person writing about a gay person. I could start by saying that, underpaid and undervalued though they may be, teachers are not oppressed social minorities, who are born into their minority status, do not choose it, cannot escape it, but have nonetheless to cope with the societal fallout of being oppressed for their entire lives. I could start there.

I would advocate that it might be better to say "more research is appreciated" on the part of the writers (the way they should with anything that they really don't' have experience with) than self reflection. Books and stories primarily exist as an entertainment industry. Most people don't go to the store and say "I want to think about sexuality today, why don't I go over to this section." They pick up a book because of an interesting cover, or an interesting title, read a bit and say "hey, this looks neat."

You're missing the point of the self-reflection. It isn't to make it more realistic. It's to examine whether and to what extent the author is exploiting the group s/he is writing about by working out hir own issues on, and through, stereotyped, distorted or otherwise damaging images of that group.

Let's put the shoe on the other foot. If women shouldn't be writing M/M stories because it can be done poorly and thus could be damaging to the group indicated by overflowing the section (which can happen when anyone writes about a group they are not personally a part of, btw, not just M/M romances), then gays and lesbians shouldn't write any straight romances either. Now, what are the odds of a story having no straight romances, only gay ones? This also bothers me, because we live in a mixed world.

The shoe can't go on the other foot. It doesn't fit. Why? Because straights are the majority. TheyWe* are the privileged ones. Gay men are, in this context, not. And Moth, again, is not objecting to straight people writing gay characters in general -- she is saying that it is problematic when it is done in order for the straight author (or any majority author writing about any minority character, cf RaceFail) to work out his or her own issues on and through those characters; and a situation in which the majority's published versions of the minority are so prolific as to swamp and erase the minority's own narratives about itself.

*as in "we straights," a phrase that includes me, not "we, me and you," as I don't know your sexual orientation, but as a straight person, I feel I ought to own this.

[bard-linn.livejournal.com]

You're missing the point of the self-reflection. It isn't to make it more realistic. It's to examine whether and to what extent the author is exploiting the group s/he is writing about by working out hir own issues on, and through, stereotyped, distorted or otherwise damaging images of that group.


I was actually more just talking in that comment primarily about your remark about writing "An Other" , not mothwing's call for reflection, though that snuck its way in there to an extent. To write all of those experiences really is An Other. I actually find your comment helpful in terms of clarifying what she was trying to address, because I didn't get it when I read her posts/comments. Nice summary!

However, it is still true about people with different disabilities and different mental capabilities/view points, which is why I included them. If you're writing about that, you aren't necessarily 'one of them' either. And, in many cases, unless it was due to injury or illness, they were born that way. And they can't escape it in any sense.

I know the shoe doesn't fit, but they are writing something out side of their experience too, 'an other'. Once of these days I'd love to see a book of fairy tales filled with homosexual heroes and heroines. We live in a heterosexual culture.

I don't know how many people are to work out his or her own issues on and through those characters. Again, I don't read a lot of published fiction in this genre. Also, I don't think we should just say that well, because we don't have enough of X in a certain genre, everyone who isn't an X shouldn't be allowed to publish. Realistically speaking, what could we do to make this so it was not so? Separate the two sections? That seems damaging in and of it self. What about straight women who write F/F fiction? What do we do with them?

And I find I don't like the world "exploiting" for writing about a minority group. Most people write because they want to write a story. I am a member of a minority. I enjoy reading stories by people who share my minority status and those who don't, who address it. For me, I would prefer more stories, well written ones, that address my minority status. Yes, they make money on stories, but well, they have to live some how. I would rather they write tasteful, well researched stories including a minority angle than other methods. Everyone makes money on other people. Is that exploiting (in the negative sense, rather than the 'just making money using something' definition)? I wouldn't think so.

[bard-linn.livejournal.com]

However, it is still true about people with different disabilities and different mental capabilities/view points, which is why I included them. If you're writing about that, you aren't necessarily 'one of them' either. And, in many cases, unless it was due to injury or illness, they were born that way. And they can't escape it in any sense.

Obviously, should add that they still can't escape it after it happened, though the experience is different because of a difference in perspective, duh. *kicks self*

[mothwing.livejournal.com]

Well, most people who write aren't teachers, mages, commanders, chess players, warriors, generals, space explorers or vets, either. They aren't geniuses, blind, or have multiple personalities. If a writer can only write what they know, you can't get very far. If you go by that, men can only write about men, and women can only write about women, and that would make for a very boring world.
Wow. Did you think this through before writing it? Because it sounds horribly uninformed.

Books and stories primarily exist as an entertainment industry.
And entertainment at the cost of a minority is still wrong.

And I find I don't like the world "exploiting" for writing about a minority group. Most people write because they want to write a story.
And by doing so, they might still be exploiting. Intention is not the problem here - people don't set out to exploit. But that might still be what they end up doing.

I am a member of a minority. I enjoy reading stories by people who share my minority status and those who don't, who address it. For me, I would prefer more stories, well written ones, that address my minority status.
Well, for me, with my minority, that's different. I don't want to read even more accounts about my minority written by straight authors who will inevitably get things wrong. I don't want to see even more renditions of my minority that are only there for the benefits of a straight male audience. If it works for you, good - it's good to hear that treatments of minorities differ and they're not all used as a metaphor for mainstream experience.

[lordhellebore]

Wow. Did you think this through before writing it? Because it sounds horribly uninformed.

Mothy, I know it does sound like that, but...I don't want to sound condescending towards anyone btw. and I don't really know how to say this without doing so, but it seems what you sometimes forget in such discussions is that most people have never even heard of the process of othering, are not familiar with any linguistics, nor are they a member or a constantly active ally of the GLBTQ community and thus not necessarily as informed as you are.

That doesn't mean that one shouldn't strive to inform oneself, but if you're sincere and trying your best in a conversation, I've felt the answer of "Are you even thinking? You sound like you have no idea at all," to be the most unhelpful of all possible answers, because what it does with most people is alienating them, pissing them off, or both, and only in rare cases is the response, "I'm sorry, I'll inform myself better before I speak about this any further." I know this plays into the "minorities shouldn't have to educate majorities" problem, but I still see it as the opposite of constructive to a conversation.

[bard-linn.livejournal.com]

It appears what we have here is a difference of vocabulary. As lordhellebore said, I was not familiar with the term "othering" as it was intended in the comment above. Her links were very helpful, and I'm sorry that I offended you. I was reading an other essentially as any other person, because I am a firm believer that everyone's experience shapes them into a unique individual. So, having different experiences, talents and abilities make them something other than yourself. Now I know when I see it capitalized it means something different.

If it makes you feel any better, however, you weren't educating the majority; we actually share at least one minority. My girlfriend of almost four years explained Othering to me more fully.

In all honesty, I don't think about the writers too much when I'm reading a story. I mostly want to be hooked by the story.

Personally, I do not feel exploited because people write fictional novels about people who share my sexual orientation. Now, if people wrote stories about me as a person, published it and made money off of it then I'd certainly feel exploited! Some fiction written is purely for fetish material aimed at straight audiences. That I would agree is exploitation. But those that are true stories, as opposed to porn - I don't see that as being exploitive. Yes, they should research, and no, they'll never fully understand, but at least some are trying. I'd rather encourage them.

I don't know. Maybe it is just a philosophical difference. For me, I'm the sum of everything I am - including being a teacher, because that experience has changed the way I view the world. Being gay has contributed to that, but so does having a hearing discernment problem, and being a member of my race, and other such things. For me, when I write, I always have to try and put on a different view point, think about what the characters have experienced and what creates their world, their thought patterns, their motivations.

I'd like to see more gay/lesbian writers. I'd really like to see more stories about F/F relationships, since, from what I've seen, they're terribly underrepresented (especially in comparison to stories about m/m relationships), much less written by people who share the orientation. But I don't want people to stop writing what they write either. I want more and more stories to be written and to be shared. For me, writing has served its purpose when it brings joy.

[lordhellebore]

Well, most people who write aren't teachers, mages, commanders, chess players, warriors, generals, space explorers or vets, either. They aren't geniuses, blind, or have multiple personalities. If a writer can only write what they know, you can't get very far.

The point is that teachers, chess pelayers, etc. aren't in itself a minority that is othered and discriminated against by a majority. Maybe it would be a good idea to read a little about othering/otherness to better understand what mothwing means.

The Wiki article is not by any means all-encompassing, but it is a start and gives a first idea.

This short definition of othering is also helpful.

(The rest of my comment only makes sense if you read at least the second link, which won't take more than five minutes to do.)

This is the first sentence: Othering is a way of defining and securing one’s own positive identity through the stigmatization of an "other."

And it says a lot already. If you apply it to the straight-queer problematic, a simplified version would say, in a few words, that many people in the straight majority define and secure a part of their identity and morales by declaring queers "the Other", that which is different and unacceptable, or at least strange.

If you write about a pilot and focus on his work, or a chess player and focus on him playing chess, of course you can research and get most things right, but also get some things wrong. And of course, some pilots or chess players will get annoyed, and some people will get some false ideas about what it means to be a pilot or playing chess. But that is not as problematic as writing about being the Other, because it won't contribute to the process of othering this group of people.

But if members of that majority (even though they do mean well and don't consciously take part in that othering) go and write fiction with a focus on the very thing that makes the Other be the Other, that can be problematic, because if they get something wrong here - and I think we can agree that there do exist wrong stereotypes in m/m writing - that does contribute to the process of othering and therefore can be harmful. In two ways: one way is the majority feeling confirmed in their beliefs about the Other, the other way is members of the group that is defined as "the Other" having to read these things about themselves again and again and maybe starting to believe that there is something to it, and that the othering they experienced is based on valid reasons.

I hope this made sense to you in some way.

[lordhellebore]

Addition: disabled people, on the other hand, are a minority, and I'm sure there are the people who feel that people who are not disabled should be conscious of that fact when writing such characters, because there are similar traps opening up for autors and readers.

[bard-linn.livejournal.com]

That's very helpful! I had never heard that term used in that sense before, and it makes the difference much clearer. The only way I had seen "other" used in any similar fashion before was to refer to anyone's different experience - the unique combination of experiences and stimuli that makes them the person they are.

Thank you!