David Anthony Durham on being a "color blind" reader

[The Iceman of the North]

I'm somewhere between HE and Durham in my outlook. The reason for picking up books by for instance Orhan Pamuk and Murakami Haruki is just as much the fact that they come from a different culture with a different outlook, as the fact that they were supposed to be good writers. (Of course, I wouldn't pick up their books if they weren't supposed to be good writers.)

Knowing that an author comes from a different cultural background than me might be a bonus, but I never searched out an author from a specific culture in order to learn more about that culture.

As an European, the cultural background, rather than the racial background seems more important. The idea that race plays a role in the cultural backgorund (beyond the coincidental Scottish writers tend to be white, while Nigerian authors tend to be black), seemed quite weird from my background. I know white people with quite different cultural background from me because they grew up in a differnt country than me, and I know PoC's (ot use this term) growing up in Norway that I would consider culturally Norwegian.

I have come to realise that this isn't the case in the US, where the colour of your skin does seem to influence your culture. Even knowing this, I often have the (irrational, knee-jerk reaction) of getting irritated at African Americans coming over here automatically assuming that any slight to their person is due to them being a PoC (rather than more likely being American).

[lessthanluke]

Most of the time I don't have a clue about the background of the author I'm reading and I couldn't care to be honest. For example I bought Acacia based on reccomendations I'd heard and I didn't know he was black until now.

[Galactus]

I remember seeing several discussions lastly about SF being written out of the classical SF genre by people who are Blacks or Gays (and women, even!) which end up in different shelves than the SF ones because they're not published by the classical SF field. I remember one where Mike Resnick dropped in the comments if that rings anyone's bell.

That one is a bit problematic because there are many authors of SF who do not WANT to be labelled as SF because of the stigma the genré has acquired over the years. (Didn't someone bring that up visavi Atwood?)

I mean, as we all know Tairy doesen't write fantasy....

[Erik of Hazelfield]

Wow. That essay opened my eyes quite a bit.

I've never heard of the notion of "color blind" before, but it's more or less the position I've taken. Or rather, I've not taken any position at all since I've never stopped to think about the writer's race.

I took his "test" though. I tried to come up with a book I've read by a black writer, but I couldn't. Then I realised Durham was right, in his saying that I would have known if I had.

So there we have it. I have most likely NEVER read ONE SINGLE BOOK by a black writer. How bad is that?

I should pick up this Acacia just to improve my record.

[Ran]

I should stress that I'm not necessarily advocating that people choose their literature specifically to read from other cultural/social/religious/etc. perspectives. I'm merely saying that once you've picked up a book, it's a good idea to learn a bit about the author you're reading to get a better sense of how they approach their work. They are not in a vacuum, and neither is their work.

In particular, there are so many literary works which approach "universal ideas" from a specifically cultural perspective (say, how Whedon's Buffy the Vampire Slayer expressed universal concepts with pop cultural phrasings) that saying, "Well, I don't pay attention to that," just seems ... well, strange to me. It's like trying to find universal truth in a single tile of a mosaic, after purposefully covering the whole mosaic up because you don't want to be influenced by the context.

It has nothing to do with my being an American (I think). There are schools of literary criticism which have (in some flavors) argued that you need to ignore everything but what's been set down in whatever text you're looking at (New Criticism, for example). I don't subscribe to them when it comes to literature or, indeed, any other art.

[Lawrence]

I'm not. It's part of my intellectual make-up to force myself to not consider who is making a statement. That's part of the modern project, part of the appeal to universal ideas.

I consider it a moral failure to let my evaluation of an idea be influenced by who is making it. Not a failure I can always avoid. But certainly not a failure I actively strive to cultivate.

This approach I apply to discussions, my work, music, and literature. In my book, it's part of the Enlightenment package. I understand that many decent people disagree, especially in the US. But also understand that I was brought up in an environment where the classification of music or science by race is something the Nazis did. And that was bad. And not only because the Nazis did it.

To denigrate this sentiment as absence of intellectual curiosity strikes me as the result of a misunderstanding. Finding out that an author is also an archaeologist is not even remotely comparable to actively seeking out fantasy books written by archaeologists, feeling guilty about not having done that, or having a section in the book store reserved for books written by archaeologists. Instead, there should be a section on Archaeology, and people should feel bad about never having read a book about it.

Hmm, I feel you misunderstood me. What I meant with "intellectual interest in an author" was actually more of the reviewing point of view, in a way that IF I know some details of the background of the particular man or woman, I am better capable of understanding the points he's trying to make (and thus able to morally judge them, if I feel the need to) since I know where he is coming from. Writing is, after all, also a venue for an author to exposure of his ideas. This can lead to the reader sometimes re-evaluating his norms and principles he holds in high esteem. On the flipside, it can be horribly abused toobut if still have some background information you are able to discern the difference. Also, if I show some intellectual interest I can get a much better sense of the message the respective author is trying to make and get a better sense of his approach (since nobody ever approaches things the same way). This can lead to better understanding, and in case of (some) literature more enjoyment.

[Happy Ent]

[...] IF I know some details of the background of the particular man or woman, I am better capable of understanding the points he's trying to make (and thus able to morally judge them, if I feel the need to) since I know where he is coming from [...]

Therein lies the rub. Instantiating this claim into the current discussion, I get "if I know the race of the particular author, I am better capable of understanding the points he's trying to make..." This, at least implicitly, presupposes a "your race determines who you are", in however weak terms you want to frame it.

Now, I'm not saying that "your race determines who you are" is obviously incorrect. In fact, I know enough about both the genetics of human differences and about cultural effects to actually believe it's correct. But that doesn't mean I need to abide by it. I certainly wouldn't take any pride in it. The whole reasoning presupposes the axioms of racism, and while I regrettably think these axioms are correct on the average, I don't think they are useful guidelines for how to behave towards individuals.

The choice is between "treat people as individuals" and "treat people as representatives of the group they belong to". I abhor the second. Really. It's one of the few ethical positions that I am absolutely and utterly sure about.

[The Iceman of the North]

On this I agree with HE. Knowing the background of a person helps me understand where he/she is coming from (so to speak), but my moral judgement won't be swayed by it.

That is, to a certain degree, the 'forgive them because they don't know better' excuse might work for books written in the past, but not if they just happen to come from a different cultural background than me. To take the example of Darwin, much of his writing is clearly rascist, but I would not judge him as a person in the same way as a modern writer. I would consider the text itself just as appalling though.

[salinea]

That one is a bit problematic because there are many authors of SF who do not WANT to be labelled as SF because of the stigma the genré has acquired over the years. (Didn't someone bring that up visavi Atwood?)

I mean, as we all know Tairy doesen't write fantasy....

This is also true. There's always some factors in the way a "genre" is constructed that are the reflects of complex political (using the word in the widest meaning) dynamics. At my local 'American' bookstore, books like Cormac McCarthy's The road, the Time Traveller's Wife or any of Haruki Murakami's books are certainly not on the SF/F shielf. But Stephenson's Baroque cycle is.

While SF does bear a stigma compared to "mainstream" lit, I also think we must take into account that the genre is known for being a very specific and sometimes quite prejudicied field.

[Larry.]

It certainly is interesting to see just how differently Europeans view this "American problem." And to see so many differing ways of justifying various forms of "blindness." Sounds almost like some people I know who choose to "ignore" that a person is black/Latino/Asian/female/gay/lesbian/bisexual/transsexual and pretend that in the end, "they're just like us." I believe the point is that there's going to be a diversity of outlooks and poo-pahing that and claiming that skin tone/ethnicity/language/religion/gender/sexuality "doesn't/shouldn't matter" is pretty much a cop-out.

Nobody is forcing or coercing anyone to read X or Y-type authors, only suggesting that people consider those in order to gain different perspectives on some very real human issues and also to keep in mind that people are affected by their environments/cultures and that in some cases, you might mean to be nice and accepting, but that an implicit insistence that your (plural) value code ought to set the tone for how others ought to view things such as ethnic/etc. relations is being prejudicial in its most insidious form. And there will be people calling out others on this. Common response, at least here in the US? "Oh, that person always cries [fill-in-the-blank] because he/she is a/an [fill-in-blank]."

Such categories don't matter then? Something else to think about, I suppose...

[Patera Rayon]

Erik of Hazelfield squeaked:

"So there we have it. I have most likely NEVER read ONE SINGLE BOOK by a black writer. How bad is that?"

You're probably the next Hitler. You should kill yourself.

[Larry.]

I'd rather be more optimistic and say he'll be the next person to go out and read Durham, or Samuel Delany, Octavia Butler, Tobias Buckell, or any of the others I linked to in a post on the first page. Or is that too hippy-dippy of me?

[ThomasFoster]

I'm going to chuck in my two cents on the "European" side of the argument.

Some of the distinction is semantic. Skin colour does not necessarily equate to culture. A black child growing up in a working class community in England might have more in common with his white neighbour than with a rich man who shares skin colour but nothing else in his life.

Fiction is an important form of expression, often for people who feel their interests and values are not represented in mainstream society. It can provide paragons and villains and emphasise communal values. Best of all good fiction can cross cultural boundaries. It can provide us with an insight into different ways of living, different circumstances. It places us inside the head of the characters, emphasising their emotions and the details of their lives in a natural, organic way that non-fiction can't. Fiction routed in a particular place and time, a particular culture, can become a great ambassador for its origins, as long as it is good fiction in it's own right and not merely a designer coat on a wire hanger.

But it is easy to over-emphasise this importance. All good books ultimately come together to talk about our shared human experience. This community should supercede the distinctions. A good book can come from any culture, from any background. I'm the first person to argue that a person's background can help you interpret their work.

I think, from the “European†perspective, problems start when race or skin colour is seen as being a crucial part of your background, superceding any other elements. Dostoevsky was white, but his books have little to nothing in common with Stephen King’s.

[All-for-Joffrey]

It certainly is interesting to see just how differently Europeans view this "American problem." And to see so many differing ways of justifying various forms of "blindness." Sounds almost like some people I know who choose to "ignore" that a person is black/Latino/Asian/female/gay/lesbian/bisexual/transsexual and pretend that in the end, "they're just like us." I believe the point is that there's going to be a diversity of outlooks and poo-pahing that and claiming that skin tone/ethnicity/language/religion/gender/sexuality "doesn't/shouldn't matter" is pretty much a cop-out.

Nobody is forcing or coercing anyone to read X or Y-type authors, only suggesting that people consider those in order to gain different perspectives on some very real human issues and also to keep in mind that people are affected by their environments/cultures and that in some cases, you might mean to be nice and accepting, but that an implicit insistence that your (plural) value code ought to set the tone for how others ought to view things such as ethnic/etc. relations is being prejudicial in its most insidious form. And there will be people calling out others on this. Common response, at least here in the US? "Oh, that person always cries [fill-in-the-blank] because he/she is a/an [fill-in-blank]."

Such categories don't matter then? Something else to think about, I suppose...

I disagree. I'm American and I definitley take the European stance on the issue, mainly with what Happy Ent was saying about considering invididuals rather than the collective group. I'm bi, and if I were to ever write a book, I wouldn't want someone to pick it up because I'm bisexual, I would want them to read it for the ideas contained within. Sure, I might be more inclined to include a character attracted to the same sex than other authors would but unless the book was meant to be a commentary on homophobia I wouldn't want people picking up my book solely for that reason. On the other hand, there are, of course, LGBT sections in bookstores just like there are African-American sections. This has always distrubed me (as has the whole notion of "gay culture") because it implies that our culture is seperate from mainstream culture just because of our orientation. Even though I'm white, I have this same feeling about the African-American sections in bookstores. In my mind this only accentuates the divide and encourages racist/homophobic undertones. If these books were integrated into their actual genre sections, I feel that people would be more likely to pick these books up without realizing who the author is, see the author's perspective portrayed in a positive light and probably come away a little more open minded than they would if they just picked up the book from a pre-perscribed section having preconcieved notions about what they expect to find. I've read Pride of Carthage and I didn't even realize the author was black until reading this article.

Look at GRRM, he's a white male author and he includes several gay/bi/bi-curious characters yet we don't pick up A Song of Ice and Fire for those reasons. I was ecstatic when I realized what was going on between Loras and Renly and that Martin was portraying a functional gay relationship. Sure, you could argue that like so many other authors, Martin didn't let them "be happy," but that's something I would attribute to the nature of the series itself. If Martin had let them be happy together, this would have been more offensive since it obviously signals them out among all the other couples in the series who suffer miserably. In my mind, this does more to advance LGBT causes than speciality sections in Barnes and Noble and Boarders. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that Americans become so obsessed with political correctness that it becomes condescending and harmful in and of itself. Yes, I am bi, but other than that minor detail I'm as much like you as anyone else is.

[Happy Ent]

That was a nice post. Just one point:

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that Americans become so obsessed with political correctness that it becomes condescending and harmful in and of itself.

I don't think Europeans are any less politically correct than Americans. But in Europe (at least were I've lived) many people would find it politically incorrect to even mention somebody's race in polite conversation, let alone actively encourage somebody to use it as a label. Were are no more and no less the victims of rules of comme il faut than our brothers on the other side of the pond.

ETA: These things differ across nations, cultures, and times. I'm pretty sure Martin Luther King would be pretty appalled at seeing an African–American section in the book store.

[mormont]

Wow. That essay opened my eyes quite a bit.

I've never heard of the notion of "color blind" before, but it's more or less the position I've taken. Or rather, I've not taken any position at all since I've never stopped to think about the writer's race.

And I think this is the author's point, and I further think that a lot of people on the thread have missed it. That so many readers don't stop to think about the writer's race, or anything about them.

It's not that you ought to be reading literature by black people in order to be a good person. It's more that what the 'colour-blind' reader is really saying is, 'I am not interested in anything about this story that doesn't relate to me'. They are experiencing the book only from their own perspective, and refusing to engage with it beyond that.

I think Durham's point is that saying that the author's race 'doesn't matter to you' has another side, in addition to a lack of prejudice: it also means that the author's perspective doesn't matter to you. That, in the end, you are refusing to engage with the author, or limiting that interaction to being on your own terms. That's a shame, and a loss to the reader as well as the author. It's like having a conversation and refusing to talk about anything but what you want to discuss.

[MinDonner]

If it was a conversation, then yeah, maybe. But we've had the discussion many times about how the author ought to be getting any and all of that message across within the text itself, and then the interpretation is up to the reader. Maybe JK Rowling intended Umbridge to be the heroine and is shocked that everyone else sees her as the villain - but the author's intentions do not matter when it comes to readers' views.

[Lawrence]

Therein lies the rub. Instantiating this claim into the current discussion, I get "if I know the race of the particular author, I am better capable of understanding the points he's trying to make..." This, at least implicitly, presupposes a "your race determines who you are", in however weak terms you want to frame it.

Now, I'm not saying that "your race determines who you are" is obviously incorrect. In fact, I know enough about both the genetics of human differences and about cultural effects to actually believe it's correct. But that doesn't mean I need to abide by it. I certainly wouldn't take any pride in it. The whole reasoning presupposes the axioms of racism, and while I regrettably think these axioms are correct on the average, I don't think they are useful guidelines for how to behave towards individuals.

The choice is between "treat people as individuals" and "treat people as representatives of the group they belong to". I abhor the second. Really. It's one of the few ethical positions that I am absolutely and utterly sure about.

Look, I too think they are not useful guidelines how to behave towards individuals. The background I referred to is actually way more than just the colour of skin. It might be a bit confusing considering you could indeed easily instantiate it into the race of the particular author. I was actually more thinking of the social background and how that would have shaped a man/woman to whoever he or she has become today. It is like when you pick up a Charles Dickens novel, you can better understand the message he's try to tell you, when you know a bit of his social background. Then you realise what drove him to write about the social struggles in the lower classes, and why he chose that particular approach. So it is all about understanding the message the author is trying to make, not so much as judge it by own standards.

And it is indeed so like you said in the above post, Europeans, hell certainly people here in the Netherlands do not mention the fact is there are racial differences. They pretend to not see it.

[Happy Ent]

It's more that what the 'colour-blind' reader is really saying is, 'I am not interested in anything about this story that doesn't relate to me'. They are experiencing the book only from their own perspective, and refusing to engage with it beyond that.

Please don't tell me what I'm really saying. I don't use that kind of rhetoric either: "What you're really saying is that somebody's race is the most important aspect of who they are."

And "Experiencing the book only from their own perspective" What does that even mean? I fricking read the book to get somebody else's perspective. But not "the perspective of a random black guy". That doesn't exist. (Or, that's a stereotype.)

I think Durham's point is that saying that the author's race 'doesn't matter to you' has another side, in addition to a lack of prejudice.

Gaaah. That's the stupidest post I've ever seen you write, Mormont. I hope I can get drunk with you in Copenhagen to wash the memory it away.

Take physical attractiveness. You and I agree that that a pretty important factor for how an individual is shaped. Does it matter? Very much. Should it matter? No. Should I, as a reader, want to find out whether the book is written by somebody who is ugly? And should there be a section in the bookstore called "Books by ugly people"? Fat people? Germans? People with cancer?

I truly, deeply, and actively try to approach other people individuals. Not as representatives of some group, and certainly note one of ten-or-so groups, and certainly not by their race. I would completely betray that principle by listening to Durham's advice. Does that mean the author's perspective doesn't matter to me? C'mon. I choose the book because of the authors perspective. I assume that's what the book is about.

[Lady Blackfish]

There must be a medium between eliminating all the interesting differences that make us each unique, and token appearances that single out people merely as "specialty groups" whose individual worths are reduced to their ability to represent said group.

It's not either this extreme or that, is it?