Bonus #9 Who has the right? Kathleen Paxtor

This is really a profound question because of the multiple perspectives that can come from this. Personally, I believe that if a story is being told with a non-malicious intent and stems from wanting to spread awareness then it is fine. By writing about such heavy subject and getting different perspectives of it really helps understand the event. The biggest example I could think of was the Holocaust. For years people have been getting monetary gain from retelling stories based off of their experience or what they thought what happened. The positive aspect of someone telling their own personal account is that the information is probably more accurate because the lived it; but on the other hand, emotions and feelings can get in the way of telling the ‘true’ story. One take on telling a story that isn’t yours is to do it for educational purposes. For example, The Diary of Anne Frank is one of the biggest sellers and has a museum to remember her life. Personally, I believe that this is okay because people are trying to spread awareness of the Holocaust through the accounts of Anne herself. She might have not given consent to publish her life but by others doing so the Holocaust is a subject that a lot of people know about and can sympathize with. Now if someone were using Anne’s life and changing up certain things to make it more tragic to sell more then there would be a problem.

One big story that has recently popped up in the Latino community is the story of Selena. Selena Quintanilla is a huge Mexican American icon, for years people have sold product based on her life. MAC cosmetic company has made a cosmetic line using Selena to sell their products. Because she is so popular the products sold out immediately, but who gave MAC the consent to use Selena as an advertisement? After Selena’s death her family has really milked her fame and turned it into their own financial gain. There have been movies and documentaries of what happened in her life but no one can truly know what happened except Selena. Selena’s ex-boyfriend, Chris Perez, has on many accounts denounced the movie and has refused to watch the movie for almost 20 years. Apart from the movie, Selena’s murderer has also shown up in the spotlight making accusations against Selena and telling “her side of the story”. A very famous Latina news reporter, Maria Celeste, wrote a book about Selena’s life making her seem like a horrible person and writing things that could be considered false, negative accusations. Maria Celeste was recounting the story of Selena’s murderer not of the actual facts because she wasn’t there—she isn’t Selena. In this perspective Maria Celeste wanted to tell the story of Selena because she knew it would sell; her intent was financial gain. She had already signed a contract to make her book into a TV show (which was negatively received because of people’s outrage with her perspective on Selena’s life). Unfortunately, in a society where tragedy is such a big seller we the audience must come to our own terms of when something is okay and when something is not.

Bonus 9: Who has the right? By, Weini W.

I feel like everyone has the right to write about anything. But in my opinion when it comes on writing tragedy events, anyone who have a good intent and had made research thoroughly can write tragedy events. It is undeniable for us to want to hear the story from those who were actively involved or who saw the tragedy happening on firsthand in order to relate or to know what the tragedy feel likes. But the reality is, those people who were in the tragedy might not have the knowledge on how to write and the ability to put what they went through in words. This might result for the tragic events on remaining untold. Those people who go out on their way to meet up and learn what went on, might be able to hear the story from the people life experiences. Those life experiences are the fuel for authentic and powerful writing. Those people who put their self in new, even challenging situations absorb and understand different types of people and this may result in building the readers empathy muscle. Life may sometimes imitate art, but more often, life inspires what humanity and meaning of life is.

If we look at the discussion we had in class where the story provides the structure for narrative flashback and personal commentary “The Third winter”, the author Martha Gellhorn visits and interview a family in Barcelona. If we focus on whether she had the right to write the tragic event or not, I would argue that she does. At that specific period of time the people who were suffering from the war, their voice could only be heard through a third party who have been watching what they have been going through and that is what the reporter Gellhorn did at the time. Even though she wasn’t suffering as much those people did in first hand she was able to show the readers what their situation was and that they were living with hope and faith.  

In my opinion those people who  have the right to write are those people who read widely beyond the confines of their subject or genre, watch film and television in a variety of genres – fiction and non-fiction, listen to talks and podcasts on a wide range of topics and have a clear knowledge of the tragic events. Those unusual influences will make their writing stand out since they have a good intent and research it thoroughly. There might be times where those tragic events might not be acceptable by the readers due to the lack of putting all the detailed information. But the bottom line is those stories need to be told. If we have to wait for those people who were actively involved or who saw it first hand, the story will remain untold and people might end up not knowing what people had gone through. Those tragic events need to be told in a right way in order to get the justice and peace what any human being deserves.

Bonus 9, Who Has The Right? by Jared Islas

This particular question is quite tricky. In fact, it is so much on my mind that there have been some instances that I personally feel uncomfortable responding to a prompt or even commenting on a subject because I don’t feel like I have any knowledge or connection to the issues being discussed. This probably has more to do with my personality but I think it is something that a lot of people might feel the same way about.

Looking at the concept outlined in the prompt for this bonus, I don’t think that it is or was okay for this woman to write a story about a child with physical deformities based off of her and her children’s brief experience with another child. However, I do wonder if the woman who wrote the story and ultimately sold the film rights to her story did so without ever talking to families, children or medical professionals that were directly affected by this disability or similar ones. I think that this is an extremely important question that would certainly make R.J. Palacio, the woman who wrote the book’s, story more credible and easier to accept her as an author of this story. 

I briefly searched the internet for any instance of Palacio mentioning if she had been in discussion with people directly associated with the disability and disappointingly couldn’t find any concrete answers. I want to believe she has because otherwise it would be a bit concerning considering this book is extremely popular and Palacio profited off of not only the original Wonder book, but also 3-4 more of her books which focus on the same characters and disabilities, AND the film based off of her book. In an interview with NPR, Palacio did say that after writing Wonder, she has become “an advocate for children born with craniofacial differences.”

Obviously not every single person who experiences something worth retelling in a book or movie is interested or “talented” enough to be able to write their story for a wider audience. Therefore, I see the necessity for proven authors and screenwriters to write these stories for these people. My only stipulation would be that these authors and screenwriters must have some connection to the story they wish to write about. I would hope that they would be able to speak to the person, people or people related to or close to the person whom the story is being based off of. This would give them not only a personal connection to the topic they’re writing about but also give them the opportunity to ask questions about the topic to a real living subject rather than information they found just from research.

In a piece for the New York Times, Anna Holmes discusses this topic by comparing empathy and exploitation but also says that, “Sometimes empathy and exploitation find expression in the same place.” I think that this perfectly sums up my views on this issue. Her books and movie may be telling an empathetic story but no matter what way you look at Palacio’s scenario, she has become who she is today, and profited, off of a child with disabilities.

Sources:

https://www.npr.org/2013/09/12/221005752/how-one-unkind-moment-gave-way-to-wonder

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/books/review/who-gets-to-tell-other-peoples-stories.html

Bonus 9 by Kyra Moore

The concept of “second hand” story telling has always been skeptical and an uneasy topic for me as well. I too battled with discerning with who was “able” to speak on certain topics and/or events that are transpiring or have transpired. For example, if there was a writing composed by a white man who spoke of the times of the Cherokee removal-is it his right? This is easily comparable to the example given in the prompt but also to work(s) that we have discussed in class- the poems of Sherman Alexie are a perfect example. He was an “outsider,” so to speak, but he was immersed in a marginalized culture.

This is something that I mentally battled with until I came to a concrete consensus on how I felt on the matter. Actually, the readings that we have read in class and the conversations about the matter actually helped me sort out of my feelings pertaining to the matter. I now have a consensus about how I feel about “outsiders” speaking on events that have not happened within their particular culture.

While I do feel like the perspective of the marginalized people should be most respected as it is the most authentic, I also feel as if every perspective or angle of an event or issue should also be respected. I feel that there is value in differing perspectives pertaining to a matter if it is conducted in a respectful manner. If everything is done with respect for the event and the people involved, I could definitely see there being a benefit. Using Sherman Alexie as a perfect example, his works are very respectful of the cultures that he worked with and almost look at those cultures in reverence, so to speak. One of the reasons why I praise Sherman Alexie and his work is because he intentionally chose to immerse himself in a number of cultures. I think that should be a requirement of those who choose to speak of specific events.

Using the example of the child with facial deformities in Wonder, I feel as if the author is justified in writing the work that she did. She was affected by something that she actually witnessed and saw the injustice and wrong behavior surrounding the event, so she felt so inclined to write about it. In reality that is what I think art and freedom of speech is, talking, writing or producing art that is meaningful to you- especially if it promotes actions meaningful to the greater good.

These examples are a testament to the current philosophy that I now have on the matter- respecting all perspectives that are made in respect to the event and people involved. I actually feel that there should be more works like Wonder and Sherman Alexie’s poems. This could potentially change the tone of literature and also change the tone of social interactions as a whole.

Overall, while the voice of the oppressed is very powerful, other voices that have good intentions but different perspectives should also be respected and appreciated.

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).