David Anthony Durham on being a "color blind" reader

[mormont]

My question to you mormie is why the background of the author should matter for my appreciation of a fictional story?

Should it matter? That's not the question. Does it matter? Yes, I would say it often does. And I reiterate, the reader does not (IMO) ever approach the text devoid of authorial background, but instead bearing assumptions where they don't have knowledge.

As an example, I would refer you to the many, many posts you'll see on this board praising GRRM for his ability to write believable, interesting female characters, something the posters will usually say is rare amongst male authors of fantasy. To these readers, plainly, GRRM's sex matters in their appreciation of his talents. Would Cat be a less interesting character if GRRM was a woman? Possibly not. Would the perception of Cat as a character by readers be different if they thought GRRM was a woman? Almost certainly.

Put it another way: if an author's sex, for example, doesn't matter, why is JV Jones not Julie Jones on her book covers?

[MinDonner]

I've been having a think about this and I'm gradually coming to the conclusion that Mormont has a good point. In a scientific environment, you don't want to be looking at the author's background, but in a historical one you absolutely need to check the context, as it has huge implications for the reliability of the source. To appreciate War of the Worlds it really helps to know that Wells was writing from the heart of the British Empire at the peak of its powers; the hirearchical focus of Troilus and Cressida makes much more sense in the context of a disputed royal succession among Shakespeare's paymasters, and when reading Memoirs of a Geisha you want to check that Arthur Golden(?) has done his research properly and isn't just pulling it all out of his arse. On the other hand, using skin colour to judge a writer's background and ability is not something that I'd ever want to encourage, any more than I'd want to base my judgements on gender.

[Ran]

I stand by my view that there is a certain intellectual lack of curiousity involved in deliberately segregating yourself from knowledge. There is knowledge to be had about the creator of something you devote your efforts to, information which may help you to understand what the person was striving for, how they perceived what they were striving for, and basically turn them into a human being instead of a machine which spits out texts. If you are habitually uninterested in acquiring knowledge about people who entertain or provide edification, you are incurious. There's no other way to look at it. It's a perfectly apt word for the willful refusal to absorb knowledge.

Seeking and having knowledge is not immoral. Your reasons for _why_ you might want to know something could be immoral, just as what you do with a piece of knowledge might be immoral. Knowledge itself is without morality.

[Larry.]

Interesting how the "holier than thou" accusation managed to work its way into this. Speaking only for myself here, my own intent (and yes, authorial intent MUST be considered to an extent here, else you're going to delude yourself by applying only your own framework/yardsticks to everything - pet phrase of Scott Bakker's incidentally) was to merely challenge people to consider things from other angles. It's not that I'm any "better" or "more well-informed" or what-not on this, so drop that line of thought now, thank you very much.

I would kindly suggest in the future that in reading any work of fiction or non-fiction that one consider not just the text, but the author and the author's perspective. Doesn't mean accept those perspectives, but to consider them and to see where he/she is going with them. To read a text without considering the person who transmitted the text is just baffling to me - must be all those darn pesky historiographical courses I had to endure where we had to note why Author X argued this and why Author Y counters with this. But in such a context, an author's background, interests, biases are vital for a fuller understanding of a text. After all, I'd shudder to know if García Márquez's OHYS is being read as a "colorblind" bourgeois novel, as that would mean so many subtextual bits are being missed or misinterpreted.

But mormont and others have said it above: If you go in and approach things from a "default" position, you get only a certain amount out of a reading, with the great potential of missing so much more. If "colorblind" is merely approaching all texts and situations from a single angle, then it just seems to be a very poor approach to be taking. *shrug* But I suppose most of us are lucky to be able to talk like this, after all, the discourse here mostly reflects those of the more "privileged" status speaking. I wonder what those majority of people who don't have high-speed internet access and who aren't living in the G-8 nations would have to say on such issues...probably idle thoughts, trying to think of those, I suppose...

[Errant Bard]

I don't know if I'm colour-blind, but I find using that using "race" as a prime criteria to buy books is incredibly simplistic. Sure, it matters, since skin colour is probably something that played a key role in how the author's life shaped up, but from my point of view, it is not more important than, for example, the author's cultural background, education, political views, gender, personality, relationships, year he published his book, place he lived, or political context.

I will readily admit that my perception of a book is modified by what generated it, and I say what because the author is not the only thing to study if I wish to really understand what's said in the book. I cannot, for example, to stay in the fiction genre, understand how one would refuse to put something like Le comte de Monté Cristo in context, lose the flavour brought by the history ties, and never understand why the story is written the way it is. It is even more prevalent when I stumble upon genres that are heavily focused on the messages they try to carry across, like philosophy or poetry (though it might be argued that the message defines the genre), I feel I cannot truly understand what an author has to say if I don't understand what he's talking about, and through what filter he perceived it. I couldn't, for example, enjoy Voltaire or Baudelaire if I didn't know their circumstances.

This being said, my approach when choosing books is somewhat opposite to Mr Durham's. I discriminate, consciously and willingly. My aim is not to get a wide, all encompassing culture of all viewpoints on everything. My aim is to get a good picture of a few specialized area I'm interested in, and to be entertained. I will never have the time to read about everything anyway so I choose to read a limited, selected part of the available book catalogs, and I'm afraid that my criteria never included "race" and never will.

For the areas I wish to explore, I will choose a wide panel of different viewpoints and voices, based on reviews, word of mouth or experience, eventually trying unknown books after I get an understanding of what anyone would consider the basics of the genre. If some black/asian/wookie author is among them, so be it, if not, I won't try to look for crap in the name of diversity.

For my entertainment, I don't frankly care if I have a wide panel of voices. All I care about is if I'm entertained, and I will choose recommended books, or books that are in line with other books I liked, without even thinking about who the author might be. I could not care less, for example, if the author is a live black teenager, a dying white adult, or a festering grey zombie when reading WoT or Eragon, as if I read them, I would for the story, not for its implications in reality.

Also, and it might seem unrelated, I won't feel guilt for not choosing to read something written by someone from a minority purely because of his minority. Minority may matter in the interpretation of the work, and in the way it opens you to another point of view, but if the whole (editorial) world actually considered race to be a flavour parameter, Mr Durham would not have had the problems he recounted in his essay.

In the end, I agree more with HE than with Dylan, but then again, I'm European too, Except for the bit about information that diminish reading pleasure. If it diminishes the pleasure so be it, it's part of the book, like understanding that Tairy really is not writing Fantasy is part of the Sword of Truth experience. If it must come to self-delusion through ignorance, it amounts to same as reading half the pages of a book and judging it by that.

[Altherion]

Should it matter? That's not the question. Does it matter?

Only when you want to know the motivation for the story and the author is writing directly about a subject that is a particular group has a vested interest in. In other words, I want to know whose propaganda I'm reading. For example, if I didn't know GRRM is white and male and somebody told me he is in fact black and female, it would not make any difference whatsoever in how I view ASOIAF.

I don't deliberately avoid learning things about the author, but I see no reason to go out of my way in order to do so unless there is something in the work that makes me curious who wrote it (e.g. something like Houston, Houston, Do You Read? may take on a different meaning if you think it was written by Alice Sheldon rather than James Tiptree Jr.). And I'm certainly not going to go looking for books by gender, race, ethnicity, class, etc. etc. unless I'm interested in researching a particular point of view (which I'm generally not).

[Happy Ent]

Speaking only for myself here, my own intent [...] was to merely challenge people to consider things from other angles.

But surely you understand that such an intention comes off as patronising? I am certain I am as open-minded as the next person, but I'd be very careful about actually asking people to behave like me. It's rude. You are asking me to see things from an American angle on diversity. I, on the other hand, believe I've done my share of American-angling. It's not exactly a perspective that is underrepresented in my intellectual toolbox.

It's not that I'm any "better" or "more well-informed" or what-not on this, so drop that line of thought now, thank you very much.

I'm sure you understand that I took up that line in reaction to Mormont's accusation. The whole debate is a reaction to Durham's implicit accusation of narrow-mindedness. I am not the one who is escalating the debate. Don't act conceited when somebody reacts strongly (yet, I hope, eloquently, friendly, and reasonably) to a suggestion that can be understood as an insult to their intellectual curiosity.

I would kindly suggest in the future that in reading any work of fiction or non-fiction that one consider not just the text, but the author and the author's perspective.

Now the debate has become ludicrous. We were talking about feeling bad about not having read a book from a single Black Epic Fantasy author. By now you, mormont and Ran have moved the goalposts to wilful ignorance about background of the author. C'mon. I call strawman.

The issue is if I should let the author's race influence my reading habits. I say no. Actually out of principle, but that's not the point. (The principle is colourblindness, I refuse to infer anything about a person's background from their race. That is not the same as not being interested in their background. Stop conflating those issues.)

Should I take an interest in his or her background? I do that a lot. Not necessarily to improve my enjoyment of the book (above I gave examples of actually reducing enjoyment). But I'm a pretty well-read person by most people's standards. It's not a prerequisite, but can be pretty interesting.

If "colorblind" is merely approaching all texts and situations from a single angle, [...]

Again with the empty rhetoric. What does that even mean? "From a single angle..." It's either nonsense or an insult. I don't get it.

[mormont]

Only when you want to know the motivation for the story and the author is writing directly about a subject that is a particular group has a vested interest in. In other words, I want to know whose propaganda I'm reading.

So are you saying that the background of the author has no effect on his writing, or on our reading of it, unless he is deliberately writing about an aspect thereof?

Now the debate has become ludicrous. We were talking about feeling bad about not having read a book from a single Black Epic Fantasy author. By now you, mormont and Ran have moved the goalposts to wilful ignorance about background of the author. C'mon. I call strawman.

Were we?

As far as I can see, it's not that I or any of the others have 'moved the goalposts' but that you have a different idea from us on where they were to start with. I think I've been pretty clear from the point where I entered the debate what my reading of the article was.

[Happy Ent]

I think I've been pretty clear from the point where I entered the debate what my reading of the article was.

That's true. You are annoyingly consistent.

Actually, my message above is slightly harsher than it should be. I was in the middle of preparing dinner for the kids and was in a hurry. Apologies for the tone.

[mormont]

I was in the middle of preparing dinner for the kids and was in a hurry.

"Aw dad... mulch again?"

[Altherion]

So are you saying that the background of the author has no effect on his writing, or on our reading of it, unless he is deliberately writing about an aspect thereof?

No, the background of the author most definitely has an effect on the author regardless of what he or she is writing about, but most of the time, this process essentially happens in a black box as far as I'm concerned. If authors do not give themselves away, I cannot tell who wrote the story and most of the time I simply don't care. It can be fun to seek out possible causes for various writings, but I generally reserve this sort of activity for the very best and for those who have made me curious.

[ThomasFoster]

If knowing somebody's ethicity is important for fully appreciating their opinions, should we all want to list our ethnicity here on the board?

[salinea]

Again with the empty rhetoric. What does that even mean? "From a single angle..." It's either nonsense or an insult. I don't get it.

It means you're never as objective as you wish to be. And that if you don't make a special effort to understand your own biais then you just keep being prejudiced, even without being concious of it.

[Happy Ent]

It means you're never as objective as you wish to be.

But what has that to do with my refusal to act on racial stereotypes? That's why it's empty rhetoric and mildly insulting. Who says I make "no special effort to understand my own bias"? In what sense does that follow from my stubborn focus on ignoring somebody's biogeographic ancestry? I thought, if anything, the opposite was true. That DurhamDylan, who seems to be able to want to infer something from the author's race, acts on their own bias.

I don't understand the tacit syllogism. That my ideal for (impossible) objectivism makes me more biased.

[Rhaegon Targaryen]

If knowing somebody's ethicity is important for fully appreciating their opinions, should we all want to list our ethnicity here on the board?

Good point. If it's important to know the ethnicity of an author to appreciate and understand his/her book then perhaps we should all list our ethnicity here. Perhaps symbols that could attach to the sigs?

The idea is ridiculous of course, just like....

[Ran]

Random conversations with people on the Internet is hardly the stuff of art. If you like chatting here, that's terrific, but it's not comparable unless you feel that all the literature you read is solely for immediate gratification.

That said, many people here have revealed quite a lot about one another. If you've not been around to learn more about them, well, give it time -- it happens.

When you grab a book by an author, you're grabbing a not-insubstantial fraction of their life in your hands. Boiling their work down to being no different than the five minute jottings of someone like ... well, like me, right now, feels to me like a drive to not engage with the author as a person who's made an effort to produce something.

And again, this is larger than just ethnicity and race. It's about religion, upbringing, education, life experiences, etc. I find my understanding of Tolkien's work infinitely enriched by knowing about his devout Catholicism, and "Dulce Et Decorum Est" is much more poignant when you know a little bit about Wilfred Owen.

I stress, I'm not saying that people should spend their time reading only things that are "diverse". From my point of view, I think it's simply good practice for someone to learn something about the person whose fraction-of-a-life you're holding in your hands (even if what you learn is that, like J.D. Salinger, they prefer anonymity and privacy; now you know, and you can ponder whether that has implications for their writing).

[mormont]

If knowing somebody's ethicity is important for fully appreciating their opinions, should we all want to list our ethnicity here on the board?

Interesting example, since frequently on this board you'll run into examples of boarders who suddenly find they have harboured misapprehensions about anothers' gender, sexuality, ethnicity, age, education, etc. based on assumptions caused by usernames, avatars, or other factors.

It's very common for a revelation of that misapprehension to cause the mistaken person to review how they've interpreted the other person's posts, even where the issue isn't directly relevant to the content. Personal background seems to matter very much in the context of things written on the board.

Good point. If it's important to know the ethnicity of an author to appreciate and understand his/her book then perhaps we should all list our ethnicity here. Perhaps symbols that could attach to the sigs?

The idea is ridiculous of course, just like....

Straw man. No-one's suggesting that authors should be tagged with their ethnicity, are they? Just that knowing their ethnicity is one of a number of contextual factors that can inform a reading of their work.

[Larry.]

But surely you understand that such an intention comes off as patronising? I am certain I am as open-minded as the next person, but I'd be very careful about actually asking people to behave like me. It's rude. You are asking me to see things from an American angle on diversity. I, on the other hand, believe I've done my share of American-angling. It's not exactly a perspective that is underrepresented in my intellectual toolbox.

Would it have been better if I had used the word "consider it from..."? As that would have made it clearer that I'm not demanding or forcing any to do anything, only to consider it. But I'm trying to consider things from your vantage point, but the only problem with that (and this is probably a failure of some part on my side) is that I'm getting this impression that it is an issue that is distant and not important and thus isn't worth much thought or discussion. Considering it is a very strong and important issue in the country where many of us are from, please understand that any apparently strident remarks would come from that point of view.

I'm sure you understand that I took up that line in reaction to Mormont's accusation. The whole debate is a reaction to Durham's implicit accusation of narrow-mindedness. I am not the one who is escalating the debate. Don't act conceited when somebody reacts strongly (yet, I hope, eloquently, friendly, and reasonably) to a suggestion that can be understood as an insult to their intellectual curiosity.

Conceited, no. I was in a rush before two appointments this afternoon and thus may have been more abrupt than my norm. But here's a question to consider: What if Durham is right in this, right to ask such a question for people to consider? Would it be the height of arrogance on a cultural level to tell another that they have to be like them? After all, that is how "color blind" is going to be interpreted by some outside of the WASPland. After all, it's what happened to one set of my ancestors - all I know is that I'm more than just one racial group, but that the Native American side was hushed up in favor of "assimilation." Or rather, becoming white, as I've been listed on my birth records. And while that was to some degree by choice (although coercion due to loss of prime land, social injustice, etc. played its role), what about those, who in the famous words of Malcolm X, "did not land on Plymouth Rock. Plymouth Rock landed on them"? Stripped of virtually all the cultural ties that bind, forced into mating pairs on occasion, children stripped away, a foreign religion, language, cultural practices imposed upon them - you think their descendents are going to meekly look at "color blind" as being a good thing, when it smells of "whiteness" to so many who've been conditioned over lifetimes of injustice to view such views with cynical skepticism?

No, not all African-Americans are cut from the same cloth, same for any ethnic/national/religious group. But when some from other perspectives look at things such as setting up "ethnic" divisions of literature (which I incidentally noticed today during a break in the appointments - A.A. Fiction had about 100-150 books total in a section that had tens of thousands of books. And within that section, L.A. Banks to Toni Morrison to erotica stories to Roots to...all sorts of things that are categorized differently for other sections. Very odd, of course, but what interested me more about Durham's observation regarding "color blindness" is that so much of it is out of sight, out of mind. It's not just merely "shove all the black authors into one little corner," but more along the lines of "why the hell should I consider another person's/culture's background? Why can't we all be the same?" - with the "same" equating with a dominant culture that has had a history of mistreating outsiders.

Now the debate has become ludicrous. We were talking about feeling bad about not having read a book from a single Black Epic Fantasy author. By now you, mormont and Ran have moved the goalposts to wilful ignorance about background of the author. C'mon. I call strawman.

The issue is if I should let the author's race influence my reading habits. I say no. Actually out of principle, but that's not the point. (The principle is colourblindness, I refuse to infer anything about a person's background from their race. That is not the same as not being interested in their background. Stop conflating those issues.)

Should I take an interest in his or her background? I do that a lot. Not necessarily to improve my enjoyment of the book (above I gave examples of actually reducing enjoyment). But I'm a pretty well-read person by most people's standards. It's not a prerequisite, but can be pretty interesting.

Again with the empty rhetoric. What does that even mean? "From a single angle..." It's either nonsense or an insult. I don't get it.

I've yet to change my stance or my "goalposts." After all, I was the one who was quoted at the very beginning of Durham's blog entry, because it's something that I've be concerned about for quite some time. This is changing the topic for a moment, however: Did you know that last week was IBARW? I have an entry there in my blog that I wrote and didn't advertise outside of my blog since it is so personal. Feel free to look it up and read, to understand the source of my frustration.

Because to understand where I'm coming from, you're going to have to consider how I got to the point of writing those words there and the ones within this thread and over at Durham's blog. My experiences with racism to myself and my family influence a helluva lot of my attitudes on things such as social justice, capital punishment (totally against), amnesty, social services, education, etc. Considering the influences upon a person's life is key to understand how he/she came to write what has been written.

But in order to consider it, one has to step away from one's personal frame of reference for a moment if possible to weigh all this. Looking at it solely from a single point of view does a disservice to the writers who write the stories or to the various readers who will gleam different things from this. There is no condemnation intended in saying this, only a request to think about why others would be so passionate about this, why such a term could be viewed as insulting, etc.

Since I'm the person who used the term "color blind" in quotes that got this discussion started days ago, I'm going to give you a related quote. It is from Stephen Colbert, formerly of The Daily Show and now host of the political parody show The Colbert Report. Keeping in mind this is a political satire show in which he plays a pompous "conversative", how do you think his audience received this:

I don't see color. People tell me I'm white and I believe them, because police officers call me sir.

That is at the crux of what started this. It's easy to claim such things when you know your skin tone will be the least important matter in everyday conversation, but very difficult to do when in so many ways in one's own life or in friends'/families' lives that skin tone does come into play. When viewed in that light, a blithe dismissal of concern over race might very well be viewed as one not caring enough about the plight of those "others," or being viewed as being a silent and complicent partner in this unequal system, or being viewed as being an unknowing "racist" for apparently condoning a system in which one's background, beliefs, etc. somehow "doesn't matter" when one is purveying what he/she has written or said. Many might use the word "insensitive" to describe this perceived callousness, but that's not what I'm saying or thinking. Rather, since I personally view racism as a pervasive and insidious thing that I have to work hard to root out of my own thought processes, I am going to work my hardest whenever possible to combat anything that might contain the whiff of racism or callous dismissal of other viewpoints. So yeah, I suppose at times my comments will come across as curt or harsh or even rude, but it's not done from a personal level, but rather an institutional one - I want consideration, not forced concessions or coerced cooperation. Doesn't mean accepting everything (just like I consider the PoV of a conservative Protestant doesn't mean I'm going to stop being a left-leaning Catholic, only that I can recognize those other PoVs as having some merit, even if I'll disagree), only that one just recognize that there are some important things that helped shape that person that ought to be recognized and perhaps with an attempt to understand those things.

So, nothing personal behind any of this - just a firm statement that I see such things as "color blindness" as being something that the dominant culture/ethnic group is "privileged" to do, often at the expense of those who are as "invisible" as Ralph Ellison's Invisible Man (great book, highly recommend it, by the way). I just don't accept it and never shall.

[salinea]

But what has that to do with my refusal to act on racial stereotypes? That's why it's empty rhetoric and mildly insulting. Who says I make "no special effort to understand my own bias"?

I'm sorry, I hadn't realized that it was all about you. I was simply reframing the whole issue of colour blindness.

In what sense does that follow from my stubborn focus on ignoring somebody's biogeographic ancestry? I thought, if anything, the opposite was true.

I don't understand the tacit syllogism. That my ideal for (impossible) objectivism makes me more biased.

Err, because when you stubbornly focus on ignoring someone's biogeographic ancestry (very lovely expression that is, thank you for that) you don't end up being as colour blind as you wish you were. This is as much something inferred from society that it is from you. Society is racist. The "neutral" set of society, regarding colour of skin, is "white". So when we don't pay attention we do end up being biaised in favour of white.

That DurhamDylan, who seems to be able to want to infer something from the author's race, acts on their own bias.

It's pretty offensive to call someone who mentions anti-racism of being racist. Please, try to avoid that kind of argument.

[Rhaegon Targaryen]

Straw man. No-one's suggesting that authors should be tagged with their ethnicity, are they? Just that knowing their ethnicity is one of a number of contextual factors that can inform a reading of their work.

I was being fascetious on boarders revealing their ethnicity. That may not have come over but my point is I would have found that objectionable just as I find the idea you should choose what to read based on an author's skin tone. Maybe if it's a book on the experience of being of a particular skin tone, it could be useful to show the authenticity of the story, but otherwise I don't want to know. Does he want people to choose books according to the colour of the author? Here's a quote from Mr. Durham's piece.

"I think that's the only way we can know that we're doing the best we can to be racially sensitive and aware and informed. We have to act - and buy and read - consciously. And it's worth it. It really is."

Further sometimes knowing the cultural or racial or gender background of the author is not ideal, particularly when an author is writing from a POV outside what you might imagine would be in the experience of someone from that background, the "how the hell would he know" reaction from the reader. One of the reasons for a nom de plume, no?