Interesting. It seems like they're (the people who compiled the original list) implying that people from outside a culture can write the inside perspective better, while someone from inside the culture writes a "common ground" (if that's what they meant by culturally neutral--I'm not sure about that) perspective better?
Huh?
The critique is just the opposite, actually.
Outsiders tend to hyper-focus on the "otherness" of cultures not their own, and don't always get it right (see
here for the problems with the one novel about Native Americans on the list, written by a white author).
Insiders tend to just write it like it is, because the "otherness" is perfectly familiar, but their culturally-specific experiences and ways of knowing aren't always readily recognizable to outsiders as such.
They're questioning what "common ground"
means.
Whose common ground?
Because as it turns out, a lot of the "culturally generic" novels listed are really
very culturally specific. Often moreso than the "culturally specific" novels listed. It's just that outsiders aren't equipped with the cultural knowledge to recognize it, because it doesn't fit their preconceived notions and stereotypes.
The outsider has a tendency to romanticize, which will appeal to other outsiders' notions of an ethnic culture.
The insider may tell a story that rings true to other insiders, but will leave outsiders' saying "this isn't very ethnic", even when it
is, just in ways that don't fit the outsiders' expectations.
(Not saying it's always that way or has to be that way; it
doesn't; but that's the trend.)
How do I add a comment?
