![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
mbarker.livejournal.comoriginal posting: Fri, 17 Jun 1994 11:24:17 JST
Not to co-opt whatever it is you're into, but it does seem as though there is a thread of rejection of stereotypes as a valid method of labeling an individual somewhere in the muddle...
[by which rather clumsy device, pray allow me to reintroduce an elderly topic with some relationship to ... writing!]
It seems to me that most of the rejection of stereotypes (and other labels) runs on several legs.
Imprimus (that's a fancy first!), there is the problem that a label tends to "suck up" and "cover over" attributes and characteristics that identify individuals. E.g., having said someone is born in a certain time, one is likely to generalize some feature of some people also born in that era (what I have so elegantly called "sucking up") and then attempt to claim that all those born at that time somehow share that feature - simply due to their birthday (and the "cover up"). From here, one can easily move into astrology.
Secondus, while there may have been some kind of reasoning (or semi-reasoning) process involved in developing a label, in use one often skips re-introducing the reasoning. Perhaps the "shorthand" form is sufficient for ordinary miscommunication, but in the pursuit of better writing, one should take some care to reinforce the forgotten chains of stereotypical development. E.g., instead of simply saying "He was a WASP, and therefore had lots of money," take the time to introduce his family, allude to their humble abode on Fifth Avenue, perhaps even bring in the yacht and the "summer cottage" in New Hampshire - one need never mention the quantity of money carried in his paper bag as he shuffled around Central Park one step ahead of the police. Really. Just let people know that he was a "free-lance recycling agent, specializing in aluminum cans and beer bottles."
Tertius (we want a firm stand, so we need at least a tripod), so many labels, although perhaps convenient in some way, have no evident logic behind them. What difference does being born during the same period make? Granted, there was a statistical bulge related to a period of sexual irrelationships attributable to a war. How much convergence did social and cultural influence have during this period? Would the ex-farmer who went to college and then (horrors!) left Ohio after the war raise children in the same way that his closest friend who went back to the family farm after the war did? For that matter, did New York city and down-field Kansas (to take two examples) suddenly grow homogenized during this period?
Well, that's a three-legged push towards discussing stereotypes and individuals in writing. As I've stated once before, I find ordinary people, who often resemble the stereotypes, somewhat interesting as subjects of writing. Still, it seems to me, the more I think about this, that the focus on individuals in writing implies that even when describing a person who fits into a stereotypical mold quite well, it is extremely important to "break the person out of the mold" and make them a living, breathing individual...
Perhaps we might consider how to take a stereotype and characterize the character in sufficient depth to take the person out of the stereotype?
Or, of course, we can return to the exchange of generational myths. (does anyone have a list of heroes, villians, and archtypes by generation? when's the test on this, anyway?)
Not to co-opt whatever it is you're into, but it does seem as though there is a thread of rejection of stereotypes as a valid method of labeling an individual somewhere in the muddle...
[by which rather clumsy device, pray allow me to reintroduce an elderly topic with some relationship to ... writing!]
It seems to me that most of the rejection of stereotypes (and other labels) runs on several legs.
Imprimus (that's a fancy first!), there is the problem that a label tends to "suck up" and "cover over" attributes and characteristics that identify individuals. E.g., having said someone is born in a certain time, one is likely to generalize some feature of some people also born in that era (what I have so elegantly called "sucking up") and then attempt to claim that all those born at that time somehow share that feature - simply due to their birthday (and the "cover up"). From here, one can easily move into astrology.
Secondus, while there may have been some kind of reasoning (or semi-reasoning) process involved in developing a label, in use one often skips re-introducing the reasoning. Perhaps the "shorthand" form is sufficient for ordinary miscommunication, but in the pursuit of better writing, one should take some care to reinforce the forgotten chains of stereotypical development. E.g., instead of simply saying "He was a WASP, and therefore had lots of money," take the time to introduce his family, allude to their humble abode on Fifth Avenue, perhaps even bring in the yacht and the "summer cottage" in New Hampshire - one need never mention the quantity of money carried in his paper bag as he shuffled around Central Park one step ahead of the police. Really. Just let people know that he was a "free-lance recycling agent, specializing in aluminum cans and beer bottles."
Tertius (we want a firm stand, so we need at least a tripod), so many labels, although perhaps convenient in some way, have no evident logic behind them. What difference does being born during the same period make? Granted, there was a statistical bulge related to a period of sexual irrelationships attributable to a war. How much convergence did social and cultural influence have during this period? Would the ex-farmer who went to college and then (horrors!) left Ohio after the war raise children in the same way that his closest friend who went back to the family farm after the war did? For that matter, did New York city and down-field Kansas (to take two examples) suddenly grow homogenized during this period?
Well, that's a three-legged push towards discussing stereotypes and individuals in writing. As I've stated once before, I find ordinary people, who often resemble the stereotypes, somewhat interesting as subjects of writing. Still, it seems to me, the more I think about this, that the focus on individuals in writing implies that even when describing a person who fits into a stereotypical mold quite well, it is extremely important to "break the person out of the mold" and make them a living, breathing individual...
Perhaps we might consider how to take a stereotype and characterize the character in sufficient depth to take the person out of the stereotype?
Or, of course, we can return to the exchange of generational myths. (does anyone have a list of heroes, villians, and archtypes by generation? when's the test on this, anyway?)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}