I read cesperanza's post as defining identification in opposition to objectification, so that "distance" in the quoted passage is the distance which objectifies.
But what I'm saying is that I don't think identification *is* a fair opposite to objectification, so when she says, "well, if those are the choices, here's what I pick!" my response is, "but you invented that dichotomy; those aren't The Choices." The opposite of an object is a subject; to avoid objectifying your characters, you have to treat them as *subjects* in their own right, not necessarily as subjects with whom you identify (except in the most cursory way, in that I could probably find points of commonality between myself and any sentient being in the world; there's bound to be *something* we have in common.)
writing Ronon Dex's point of view means asking "what if I were Ronon Dex?" I have to refuse the idea that all Ronon's differences from me make him incomprehensibly different, deny that his otherness makes him genuinely Other.
I don't think that's an unfair or incorrect way to write, but you have to understand, it isn't the way I write. I've never asked myself that. When I sit down to write a story, what I do is build a little backstory around the character so I have a sense of who he is, both in canon and within the confines of this story, and then what I ask is, "What does he want? If I put him in X situation, how would this person respond?" It's usually nothing at all like the way I would respond, which is the source of my interest in the character and the story. I like what you say about refusing the idea that the character is "incomprehensibly different," but what I think identification does is fix that by eliding the "different" (he's not so different from me after all! it just looked that way at first!), whereas I'm sticking up for the value of fixing that by eliding the "incomprehensible" (I can see his point of view even when it's not my own! I am up to this task!)
The problem, I guess, is taking the opposite approach - "what if Ronon Dex were me?" And then deciding - precisely because I believe that his differences make him alien, other - that that's too hard and I'm going to write from Rodney's point-of-view instead.
That's exactly the problem that concerns me, only unfortunately I don't find the line between "what if I were him?" and "what if he were me?" as clear as you do -- that one of them is safe and one is dangerous. I think they're pretty similar statements, and whatever temptations and dangers lurk in one, necessarily lurk in the other, too -- the temptation to begin dismissing or ignoring characters who seem too hard to do that for.
From some of the other comments in the main post, it seems like Ces is making a case that "identify" means exactly the same thing as "empathize" -- and if that's how we want to apply language, I agree with her. My thing is, those words really do have two separate meanings, and I think it's unfair, confusing, and unnecessary to crush them together so we can interchange them at will. My dictionary even has a little usage note that says "Identify is well established in the sense, popularized by psychology, of "to see oneself as one with." A majority of the Usage Panel accepts this example: He identified himself with the hero of a new novel." It's important to me to suggest that you really can empathize with someone you don't see yourself as one with -- because people really aren't all the same, and if we wait until we see ourselves mirrored in everyone around us, when will we ever start practicing empathy for others? Hence my strong feelings about not conflating those two words.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Correction to deleted post above
Date: 2007-06-22 05:10 pm (UTC)From:But what I'm saying is that I don't think identification *is* a fair opposite to objectification, so when she says, "well, if those are the choices, here's what I pick!" my response is, "but you invented that dichotomy; those aren't The Choices." The opposite of an object is a subject; to avoid objectifying your characters, you have to treat them as *subjects* in their own right, not necessarily as subjects with whom you identify (except in the most cursory way, in that I could probably find points of commonality between myself and any sentient being in the world; there's bound to be *something* we have in common.)
writing Ronon Dex's point of view means asking "what if I were Ronon Dex?" I have to refuse the idea that all Ronon's differences from me make him incomprehensibly different, deny that his otherness makes him genuinely Other.
I don't think that's an unfair or incorrect way to write, but you have to understand, it isn't the way I write. I've never asked myself that. When I sit down to write a story, what I do is build a little backstory around the character so I have a sense of who he is, both in canon and within the confines of this story, and then what I ask is, "What does he want? If I put him in X situation, how would this person respond?" It's usually nothing at all like the way I would respond, which is the source of my interest in the character and the story. I like what you say about refusing the idea that the character is "incomprehensibly different," but what I think identification does is fix that by eliding the "different" (he's not so different from me after all! it just looked that way at first!), whereas I'm sticking up for the value of fixing that by eliding the "incomprehensible" (I can see his point of view even when it's not my own! I am up to this task!)
The problem, I guess, is taking the opposite approach - "what if Ronon Dex were me?" And then deciding - precisely because I believe that his differences make him alien, other - that that's too hard and I'm going to write from Rodney's point-of-view instead.
That's exactly the problem that concerns me, only unfortunately I don't find the line between "what if I were him?" and "what if he were me?" as clear as you do -- that one of them is safe and one is dangerous. I think they're pretty similar statements, and whatever temptations and dangers lurk in one, necessarily lurk in the other, too -- the temptation to begin dismissing or ignoring characters who seem too hard to do that for.
From some of the other comments in the main post, it seems like Ces is making a case that "identify" means exactly the same thing as "empathize" -- and if that's how we want to apply language, I agree with her. My thing is, those words really do have two separate meanings, and I think it's unfair, confusing, and unnecessary to crush them together so we can interchange them at will. My dictionary even has a little usage note that says "Identify is well established in the sense, popularized by psychology, of "to see oneself as one with." A majority of the Usage Panel accepts this example: He identified himself with the hero of a new novel." It's important to me to suggest that you really can empathize with someone you don't see yourself as one with -- because people really aren't all the same, and if we wait until we see ourselves mirrored in everyone around us, when will we ever start practicing empathy for others? Hence my strong feelings about not conflating those two words.