IN AN APPENDIX to Paisley Rekdal's Appropriate, she provides a ten-point self-assessment for writers thinking of representing the perspective of a character whose identity the writer does not share. It is more elaborate than but essentially similar to Alexander Chee's three questions from "How to Unlearn Everything":
Why do you want to write from this character's point of view?
Do you read writers from this community currently?
Why do you want to tell this story?
The novel has a five-page afterword that answers a lot of questions about Brooks's research into 19th century American horse-racing (her late husband, Tony Horwitz, was a specialist in the period), but does not discuss whatever self-examination she may have done about writing from the point of view of 19th or 21st century Black men.
Given the contemporary climate, though, she must have done some thinking about it, though, wouldn't you think? Especially given the circumstance that Theo is particularly interested in white artists' representations of Black personhood. Is that Brooks trying to disarm criticism? Or some kind of ironic joke?
I have no answers to these questions. They did make it hard to relax and enjoy the book, though. Still, Brooks's representation of Jarret's bond with Lexington has to be counted a success.
No comments:
Post a Comment