Bonus 9- Who Has the Right ~~ Dianesa Sanon

Biographies and memoirs always have some sort of fictitious aspect to it. No story is written exactly how it was experienced the first time and if you really want to get technical, the human memory makes errors all the time. Someone will always dull or excite certain aspects of someone's life. Especially when the story is written by the author themselves details that are less than are left out or added regardless of how "honest" the author was trying to be while writing it. Cases like that are, to be considered as whatever. the authour who experienced the trauma/joy/comedy/whathaveyou can write it however they choose because that is their experience to tell. How they remember and retell it is as authentic as it will get. No one would tell Elie Wiesel or Erin Gruwell and her students that they have no right to retell their experiences and publish it.
On the other hand, cases where an author is writing on behalf of someone else walks along a very thin line. On one end, the retelling can be done correctly- being mindful of the person, group, tragedy, or whatever it is that they're representing. Research is usually done, outside resources used, interviews conducted. The piece is put out only after an amount of careful consideration. It's like a vegan burger that tastes like meat; it's not the original but its pretty damn close to the real thing. The woman who wrote Wonder definitely toed past the line that puts you in the wrong when it comes to story retelling. Although she probably meant well the book she wrote was based on assumptions. In an interview, she says that she researches for a couple of weeks but never did she actually take the chance to talk to someone who lives with the condition. Her intent was to make the boy in the story "a strong little fighter" but people mostly pity him. after that book became a hit movie a kid in my school with the same facial deformity was overtly pitied and people treated him like a child, calling him "strong" and impressed that he could be so "positive despite his face." Another example is both the book and the Netflix series 13 Reasons Why. The author is a man who was accused of sexual harassment. What gives him the right to them to write about a girl who commits suicide due to rumors that fly around that make her look like a slore? What does he know about what goes on inside the head of a teenage girl when teenage girls don't even know what the hell is going on their own heads. To make matters worse, Selena Gomez, who probably had her share of mean comments hurled at her, adopted the book into a Netflix series and the severity of suicide fell tragically. In a short time memes popped up and Hannah Baker was no longer the girl who was so distressed that she took her life she was #hellasavage for leaving tapes behind to burn the people who made her feel like shit. Although she probably had good intentions she majorly fucked up, excuse my Chinese. As someone who has and still is fighting to want to keep living the entire show is a slap in the face. To watch people cackle and giggle and pantomiming slitting their wrists is embarrassing because without knowing it, they're mocking me. I can't even bring myself to watch the series.
I guess the person who has the right to tell a story that isn't originally theirs depends on their intention. If they mean well, truly mean well, and are putting conscious effort into trying to produce something that is honest to goodness"helpful not hurtful" (Brendel, Liberty North Sculpture 2014).