Class Discussion of Insider/Outsider Debate

Hello again.

The other week we had a class discussion about the insider/outsider debate. In my last entry, I couldn't exactly decide which was more important, or who should actually be writing the books. After the discussion, I still feel that both types of authors should write the books. Many people brought up some great points that I would like to address.

Some believed that because insiders are acculturated to that group, then they know more about it than an outsider would. I definitely agree with that. They also have the personal experience which many outsiders may never have. Experience something first-hand always seems more authentic because they were actually there. But then we brought up who exactly is an insider. Can a person live within a certain culture for about 20 years and know that culture as well as someone who's lived within it their whole lives? That was a tricky question to address because of course they weren't born or raised in that specific area, yet they have a much better understanding of that culture for being there that long. But someone who lives in an area for about 2 months and does research, I wouldn't necessarily consider them an insider, only because they don't completely understand the norms and customs of that culture since they aren't really "living" in it.

Next point brought up was if outsiders should write. Someone mentioned that it's better to have some cultures that aren't represented at all in writing by insiders, be at least represented by an outsider. I definitely agree. It's important that children of different ethnicities and cultures be able to see someone like themselves, as well as for others to learn about diverse backgrounds of people. It's better to have representation than no representation, but it's better to make sure that the portrayal of that group is accurate and isn't stereotyping.

Lastly, someone raised the point that authors should at least verify if they are an 'insider' or 'outsider' and if their story actually happened to them or made it up. Some people in class mentioned how the book Memoirs of a Geisha wasn't real, and the man who wrote it, actually used the story from someone else and portrayed it in a way that wasn't accurate. People said that they loved the book and after they found out the truth behind it, they didn't like it as much. The same was for another book about a man who was drug addict, but later told the press his story was fictional and didn't really happen to him.

After hearing these two comments about the books, my initial thought was that if the book made you feel a certain way and made you think about things you may never have thought of, and effected in, then it shouldn't matter the background behind it. Books are supposed to effect people in different ways and to move people, and make people feel something; at least, that's what I feel makes a book good. Yet, after thinking about it, I realized that if I found something to have touched me, and I looked to it for comfort, or for strength, and it turned out to be false or fake, then I, too, would be upset and have a different outlook on it. I suppose it comes down to if the author is being true to their readers, which someone had mentioned in the discussion. If the authors straight up and say that their story is fictional, then I would respect them more, and then take the book as it is; rather than getting upset and disappointed that what they wrote actually didn't happen when they said it did. Authors need to be true to their readers, as well.