DW: “I simply try to be respectful of all beings and neither romanticize nor judge anyone.” I wonder if this is really all authors need to do, as directly as possible. There are too many competing influences to keep sorted out; too many opportunities to make respectful choices that someone will still object to - so why not just be who we are in our writing, and respond kindly and intelligently to any objections we stir up? Assuming, of course, we’re not deliberately setting out to offend any subset along the way. Kindness toward the big picture always matters.
Interesting thoughts about what we’re “allowed” to write about. It sure would be boring if everyone had to write from and about their own lane. What music would we be listening to if that were the case? I bought your book, am enjoying it, and have talked to others about it. I would like to read the book you mentioned about land acknowledgements.
In the time I've know you (15 years), you have shown respect for the indigenous community. You have more experience within that community than most, and I understand your reticence because we try never to offend by overstepping. Your character Mel in What the Living Do (yes, I bought and read your book) is likeable because of how he treats Brett. It is plausible that he is indigenous, but you don't make that the main focus of his character, only a nod in that direction. And finally, I think writers write because they can't not write. We all know that reimbursement for the long hours of writing and submitting and publishing is mediocre at best. We fight penny-pinching modern publishing models, social media sound bites, and the advent of AI, and any number of disappointments. For your efforts, you gain friends and leave a lasting legacy. I'm delighted you are writing another novel to build your writer's reputation on the first. I admire your work, and I admire your stamina.
DW: “I simply try to be respectful of all beings and neither romanticize nor judge anyone.” I wonder if this is really all authors need to do, as directly as possible. There are too many competing influences to keep sorted out; too many opportunities to make respectful choices that someone will still object to - so why not just be who we are in our writing, and respond kindly and intelligently to any objections we stir up? Assuming, of course, we’re not deliberately setting out to offend any subset along the way. Kindness toward the big picture always matters.
Interesting thoughts about what we’re “allowed” to write about. It sure would be boring if everyone had to write from and about their own lane. What music would we be listening to if that were the case? I bought your book, am enjoying it, and have talked to others about it. I would like to read the book you mentioned about land acknowledgements.
It’s an intense read. I would love to see it performed.
In the time I've know you (15 years), you have shown respect for the indigenous community. You have more experience within that community than most, and I understand your reticence because we try never to offend by overstepping. Your character Mel in What the Living Do (yes, I bought and read your book) is likeable because of how he treats Brett. It is plausible that he is indigenous, but you don't make that the main focus of his character, only a nod in that direction. And finally, I think writers write because they can't not write. We all know that reimbursement for the long hours of writing and submitting and publishing is mediocre at best. We fight penny-pinching modern publishing models, social media sound bites, and the advent of AI, and any number of disappointments. For your efforts, you gain friends and leave a lasting legacy. I'm delighted you are writing another novel to build your writer's reputation on the first. I admire your work, and I admire your stamina.